9o9£oz.oo
-------
Table of Contents
Executive summary 1
1. Introduction 3
2 Results 5
3 Conclusions 15
4 Recommendations 19
Appendices
A. Interview questionnaire 23
B Statistical data 27
C Narrative data 33
Contents i
-------
ii Contents
-------
Executive Summary
Supervisors' Perceptions of the Effects
of the 1996 1:11 Organizational Restructuring in US EPA Region 9
Government
Reinvention
Reduces Number
of Region 9
Supervisors to
Achieve 1:11
Supervisor to Staff
Ratio
Evaluation
Conducted to
Determine if
Region 9 Has
Achieved the
Goals of
Organizational
"Flattening"
Findings and
Conclusions
EPA Region 9 was reorganized in 1996 in response to President Clinton's
mandate to "reinvent" the federal bureaucracy in order to streamline
operations, cut management control, and empower workers The Region
was required to "flatten" the organization and achieve a supervisor to staff
ratio of 1:11. The goals, as described in "Reinventing EPA-Steps Toward
a Stronger Workforce- Guidance for Implementation Plans," were:
/ Enhancing decision-making through de-layenng and organizational
flexibility
/ Greater customer satisfaction, with the customer as focus
/ Improving employee commitment and satisfaction through
empowerment
/ Valuing and improving diversity
/ Encouraging collaboration through vertical and horizontal integration
/ Creating a shared vision
This evaluation is based on personal and confidential interviews with
supervisors With a goal of comparing the pre- and post-organizational
flattening experience, we interviewed only supervisors who held a
supervisory position m EPA Region 9 both before and after the
reorganization. The 37 supervisors held first-line through Division Director
positions. We conducted interviews from June to November 2001 In
analyzing the results, we tried to answer the question "did Region 9 achieve
EPA's reorganization goals7" The authors conducted the evaluation and
prepared this report as participants in Region 9's Leadership Development
Program (LDP)
The 1996 reorganization and organizational flattening left lasting
impressions on supervisors Staff and supervisors are more empowered,
decisions are being made faster, and productivity has increased. However,
while the reorganization and organizational flattening to implement the
1 11 ratio has had some success, it has been at a cost The "costs" include
/ less quality, day-to-day feedback and guidance provided to staff,
/ higher stress levels among supervisors,
/ a perceived reduction in product quality,
/ confusion concerning the roles and functions of supervisors, and
/ reduced accountability
Executive Summary 1
-------
Eff9Ctsof1.11
Recommendations These recommendations are intended to help Region 9 more fully achieve
the goals that were established for the reorganization and flattening We
believe that more complete achievement of these goals will benefit the
Region's most vital resource, its employees, and thereby enhance our
efforts to restore and protect the environment. As resources continue to
decline, it becomes ever more important to be able to make the most of the
resources we do have, and to learn how to do more, or do more of what is
most important, with less. To better meet these challenges we recommend:
1. Clarify the role of Section Chief. The role of Section Chief as coach
and mentor, versus technical and policy expert, remains unclear. The
Region would benefit by clarifying this role and ensuring that the
agreed-upon role is included in supervisor performance standards.
2. Implement an accountability system consistent with our "flattened"
organization. The Region should increase accountability through
implementing a system that includes periodic activity planning and
review for all staff and management. Such a process must be based on
the principles of empowerment and flexibility, consistent with our
"flattened" organization.
3. Clarify and strengthen reliance or teams and tegis 'sSaers Teams
in "flattened" organizations s*v **"; ..-itdi then ever. The Region
shou'H He c evsfcume institutional barriers that are limiting the
contributions and successes of teams This should include giving teams
(and team leaders) more recognition, flexibility, autonomy,
accountability, and decision-making authority.
4. Improve product quality through peer review of key work
products To ensure that Region 9 continues to produce high quality
products, the Region should establish standards and procedures to foster
peer review of key products prior to public release, particularly for those
products not reviewed by a supervisor
5. Provide training for staff and supervisors on empowerment The
Region should offer training for all staff and managers to clarify the
concept and associated responsibilities for creating an empowered
workforce
6. Conduct 360-degree feedback that includes external customers.
Staff and managers should have annual 360-degree feedback that
includes external customers Including outside customers can help
ensure that we remain focused on "real world" successes.
7. Organize and name sections and staff positions based on functions.
This would improve transparency and better leverage staff resources.
8. Obtain additional feedback from employees not targeted in this
study.
2 Executive Summary
-------
1. Introduction
The purpose of this project was to conduct an internal evaluation of the effects of the
implementation of the 1:11 supervisor to staff ratio in EPA Region 9. Region 9's reorganization and
organizational flattening in 1996 was a result of President Clinton's mandate to "reinvent" the
federal bureaucracy. As a result of the National Performance Review, agencies were required to: (1)
streamline operations, (2) reduce levels of management, and (3) empower staff.
EPA embraced these goals and developed an agency-wide reinvention plan, entitled "Reinventing
EPA-Steps Toward a Stronger Workforce: Guidance for Implementation Plans," whose specific
goals included:
1 Enhancing decision-making through de-layering and organizational flexibility,
2. Greater customer satisfaction, with the customer as focus,
3 Improving employee commitment and satisfaction through empowerment,
4 Valuing and improving diversity,
5 Encouraging collaboration through vertical and horizontal integration, and
6 Creating a shared vision
Evaluation Goals
The goals of our evaluation were to:
1 Learn about the challenges of management and staff relationships,
2 Document the effects of organizational "streamlining" or "flattening,"
3 Test the ability of EPA to learn from its past actions,
4 Ascertain themes and determine whether the 1:11 ratio has met our needs, and
5 Recommend improvements.
Methodology
The evaluation is based on personal and confidential interviews with supervisors. We interviewed
supervisors both about their job satisfaction before and after the restructuring, and also about
whether or not the stated goals of the reorganization were met To ensure consistency among
interviews, we developed an interview questionnaire that included both open-ended questions and
questions on whether specific parameters improved, stayed the same or got worse since the
reorganization. (See Appendix A. Interview Questionnaire) Open-ended questions were intended to
encourage interviewees to expound on their ideas, as their responses were not limited to a given
choice or parameter. Questions concerning whether a specific parameter had improved, stayed the
same, or got worse were designed to collect quantitative data that could be considered along with the
narrative results
Introduction 3
-------
We selected interviewees using a list of supervisors provided by the Human Resources Office and
cross-checked with Division records We limited our scope to supervisors who served in that
capacity (although not necessarily within the same division or job) before the reorganization and
after the reorganization. (We excluded the Office of Regional Counsel because, while they are
located in the region, they do not have the same reporting relationship to the RA as the other
divisions and offices.) The main reason for limiting our scope to just these supervisors, rather than
to include the many others affected by organizational flattening, was because of the limited time and
resources available to conduct the evaluation. We acknowledge that by interviewing only
supervisors, we focused on only one part of the picture The Region might benefit from a future
evaluation with a wider scope
We conducted interviews in pairs so that one team member could concentrate on recording responses
while the other conducted the interview. During the interviews, the interviewer provided some
introductory information and asked the questions, trying to both draw out the interviewee and cover
all the specific parameters. The recorder noted responses on an interview recording instrument and,
occasionally, added a question to clarify or fill in a missing piece.
To analyze the results of our interviews, we tallied all the demographic data and the responses on
whether specific parameters improved, stayed the same or got worse since the reorganization.
Appendix B provides these results We reviewed all narrative responses and grouped the comments
by subject area in order to help us draw general trends or findings from the wide variety of
comments. Appendix C presents the comments by subject. We drew our conclusions and
recommendations from these findings.
About the Authors
The authors conducted the evaluation and prepared this report as participants m Region 9's
Leadership Development Program (LDP). LDP is a year-long program for non-supervisory
employees who have demonstrated leadership potential. The program offers a variety of training and
developmental opportunities through formal training sessions and implementation of a personal
development plan Program requirements include formal training, a development assignment,
executive shadowing/interviews, and completion of a "focus group project" This study satisfies the
"focus group project" requirement
4 Introduction
-------
2. Results
This section summarizes the results of 37 interviews with supervisors who were supervisors before
and after the Region 9 reorganization in 1996. The results are organized by the following categories
that correspond to our interview questionnaire:
• Was the Flattening and Reorganization Successful?
• Career Satisfaction
• Communication
• Organizational Responsiveness
• Additional Concerns
• Teams, Training and Rotations
The full results are contained in Appendix B Statistical data and Appendix C: Narrative data.
Was the Flattening and Reorganization Successful?
Twenty four of the 37 respondents believe implementation of the 1:11 ratio, combined with the
reorganization, was not successful They felt that the process and goals were not well thought
through and implementation had lasting, adverse impacts. Low morale was cited as one lasting
result
Supervisors disapprove moving to even higher staff to supervisor ratios. Several supervisors
mentioned that higher ratios would work only if the functions of the staff were similar.
Many supervisors mentioned the disruptive effects of change, both the reorganization and the
flattening, but at the same time expressed hope that any future flattening or reorganization would be
well thought out and better planned
Career Satisfaction
In addition to asking supervisors directly whether they are more satisfied as a result of the
reorganization, we also asked about other factors that we feel are directly related to job satisfaction.
These included satisfaction with the balance of supervisor's time spent on various activities
(including administrative/paperwork, program techmcal work, and staff development); perceived
levels of stress since the reorganization, autonomy now afforded, specifically empowerment of
themselves and their staffs; perceived career mobility since the reorganization, resources they have at
their disposal; and feedback they give and receive in the PERFORMS evaluation process We
obtained the following results
Results 5
-------
Efhcts of 1:11
~ Balance of Time Spent Since the Reorganization
• Admin/Paperwork. Supervisors felt that they had more or the same administrative/paperwork as
a result of the reorganization. Sheer increases in numbers of supervised staff, program work, and
limited success in meeting paper reduction goals were sited as causes. Also frequently
mentioned, was the recent added burden of distributing awards as a process separate from
performance appraisals.
• Program/Technical. There were mixed results. A slight majority felt that there was an increase
or the same time spent on program/technical work. Supervisors noted that other areas of their
work have suffered as a result of both an increase in supervised staff and a continued, similar
level of program responsibility.
• Staff Development. Of those
who responded, seventeen
supervisors indicated they spend
less time mentoring/coaching
staff since the reorganization and
organizational flattening. Citing
increased numbers of staff and
continued high programmatic
responsibilities, day-to-day
individual contact has suffered.
Further, "good quality thinking"
and "problem solving" with
individuals has also declined.
Supervisors are relying more on
team structures and group settings to provide input and coaching.
%/ Job Satisfaction
There were mixed results. Some supervisors found it hard to compare their current job satisfaction
since the reorganization because their job has changed so significantly. Others felt their job
satisfaction had nothing to do with the reorganization at all. One satisfied supervisor, reflecting
comments similar to other satisfied supervisors, stated they had good autonomy and independence,
and a good group of staff. They were "personally very happy even with 12 reports and no branch
chief " Still others are unsatisfied with their jobs, noting the disparity in pay and workload with non-
supervisory managers (NSMs) and Associate Directors, overwhelming numbers of staff and
administrative tasks, and job stagnation.
* * 'Career Satisfaction* * *
How your time is spent?
Staff Development
—i '— 1 — 1 — r -LJ
MORE SAME LESS No Response
6 Results
-------
Efforts of 1:11
~ Stress Levels
Only one of the supervisors
indicated they are less stressed since
the reorganization. Higher stress
levels for some are not a factor of
the reorganization, but of technology
(e-mail, cell phones), an increased
"need it now" mentality, and the
number of "hot issues." For many
others, higher stress levels are a
result of increased staff, increased
administrative and programmatic
responsibilities. As one respondent
noted, "we're running around with
our hair on fire." Supervisors noted
that it is "harder to balance personal life and work." Several indicate they now take work home.
~ Empowerment
Of those who responded, sixteen
supervisors feel both they and their
staff are more empowered or are as
empowered since the reorganization.
The remaining supervisors suggested
that, despite a commitment to the
concept, senior managers are not
really empowering first-line
supervisors, but that, on the contrary,
decisions formerly made at the
branch chief level are now made
even higher up the organization
chain.
For many, empowerment has come with a catch. Supervisors indicate that some people should not
be empowered as they need more oversight and assistance to successfully complete their
assignments. Others note frustration at being expected to empower an increased number of staff
while at the same time know all the details of each program. Empowerment has meant greater
numbers of decisions being made by supervisors (and staff), which some note has meant limited time
for making well thought out decisions.
* * *Career Satisfaction* * *
Stress Level?
Y'/'/'/'/'/'/'A'/'/'/'A
'///.'/.'/A.'/A'/.'/
MlttMttttf
WVY'/'/iWW'A
ill
&ttuv
W'/'A/i'A
''A
Wm%flftW
WtWnW'M
MORE
SAME
LESS No Response
* * "Career Satisfaction* * *
Empowerment?
20-T
TTTT
'SAV'/'/'A
'/'/'/'/'/'/'A
Ww'/V'-'A
S'/'/'/.Y'/ft?''.'.
'/'/'s I y, £ 0 '/ 4
Y(
-------
Effects of 1:11
~ Resources
Supervisors feel there are fewer resources today This may not be a factor of the reorganization or
flattening to a 1:11 ratio.
~ Evaluation
Most supervisors have found ways to make the current PERFORMS system work for them, by
utilizing the evaluation time set aside to discuss their staffs longer term goals, program
performance, and job satisfaction. Virtually all supervisors note, however, serious problems with the
current evaluation process, specifically, lengthy and meamngless performance standards, a pass/fail
score which does not provide performance incentive, and the bifurcated awards system with some
supervisors uneasy about disparate staff treatment. Virtually all supervisors felt their own
evaluations were lacking, either not helpful and, in some cases, non-existent.
Supervisors felt that we are not measuring the "right things " Supervisors claimed that working with
tough personnel issues isn't given enough credit and that "prevention" at the staff level should be the
focus rather then "putting out personnel fires " Supervisors feel strongly that they are not rewarded
or acknowledged for developing a "humming organization" or dealing with personnel issues
effectively
~ Career Mobility
Supervisors note they have some improved career mobility, particularly if they chose to move out of
supervision to a NSM or Associate Director position For those who like supervising, they see this
as a problem Further, lateral moves to a new section, for some, are less appealing due to the strain
of learning a new program and high staff numbers Several note career mobility for them at this
stage in their career may mean going outside the agency.
Communication
Improved communication within and outside of the Region was one aspect of the organization that
agency planners cited to justify restructuring We asked supervisors about communication within
their unit (horizontally), up the management chain (vertically), and outside their division or office
(cross-program) We also asked about key organizational functions where communication is of the
essence- giving and receiving guidance and feedback and making decisions, again both within a unit,
among units within a division or section, and outside of the division or section
~ Communication
There were mixed results regarding whether communication, both vertical and horizontal, is better or
worse However, the responses do indicate that many communication challenges still exist within a
large organization such as EPA Region 9 The larger size of many sections has made
8 Results
-------
Effects of 1.11
communication more difficult In addition, the increased demands on supervisors associated with
having more direct reports, limits the breadth and depth of communication Some supervisors
recognize improvement vertically because there are fewer "layers" to communicate with, and also
express satisfaction with having more direct access to Division Directors Several respondents
indicated that, with the advent of e-mail and voice mail, they often experience information overload
while still finding it difficult to access needed information.
~ Guidance/Feedback/Support
Almost all supervisors indicated that
they provide either the same or less
guidance, support, and feedback to
staff. Some supervisors also indicate
that they now receive the same or
less guidance from their immediate
supervisor There was general
recognition that more experienced
staff and supervisors may be fine
with less guidance, but that it is
particularly challenging to provide
sufficient guidance to new staff
Many supervisors indicate that they
have too many demands and are spread too thin Some indicate that the role of the supervisor
remains unclear in regard to programmatic responsibilities versus staff development
~ Decision-making
Most supervisors indicated that
decision-making, both vertical and
horizontal, has improved in terms of
having more authority to make
decisions. Some supervisors
indicated that staff also have more
authority to make decisions Some
attributed this to less oversight and
guidance, as opposed to specific
decisions to decentralize decision-
making Supervisors also raised
concern regarding the centralization
of some critical decisions (e g
hiring) within the Regional
Administrator's Office It is not clear that there are any improvements concerning cross-division
decision-making.
* * "Communication* * *
Guidance/Feedback/Support
30-i
{£} To Staff
| From Sup.
MORE LESS
SAME No Response
* * 'Communication* * *
Decison-Making
MORE
LESS
SAME
l/it] Vertical
| Horizontal
~ Cross-Division
No Response
Results 9
-------
Effects of 1:11
~ Communication to Headquarters
The results were mixed regarding whether communication to Headquarters is better or worse since
the reorganization. The comments indicated that some supervisors find having different
organizational structures creates communication difficulties.
~ Communication to External Stakeholders
There is some indication that communication to external stakeholders has improved. However,
many of the comments attributed this improvement more to the former Regional Administrator,
Felicia Marcus, making this a priority, rather than as a result of any structural changes to the
organization.
Organizational Responsiveness
^ Productivity
Most managers expressed the
opinion that productivity was the
same or slightly better than before
the reorganization. Some areas have
improved (e.g creation of the Cross
Media Division), while in other
areas things continue to fall through
the cracks Non-supervisory
managers (NSMs) are often seen as
not being effectively utilized,
resulting in a lack of productivity
Some noted that we are busier than
before, but questioned whether we
are getting more done Delayenng
has contributed to some efficiencies, but there remains a lack of strategic thinking which has also
lessened productivity.
* * 'Responsiveness* * *
Productivity
15-i
! — , ——1—i" * —u i -LJ
MORE SAME LESS No Response
10 Results
-------
Effects of 1:11
~ Quality of Product
Almost half thought that quality has
declined, while just over a third
thought it had stayed the same. 20
Issues included less accountability,
review, and time spent developing 15
products and decreases in staffing.
Some viewed more sophisticated 10
technology as having improved
product quality. 5
~ Environmental Results o
Over half of the supervisors thought
environmental results had improved or remained the same since the reorganization, while a third
found we had not improved our environmental results. Most supervisors found it difficult to
attribute improvements in environmental results to the 1 11 flattening. A number of respondents
noted that we are just "bad at telling our story." Some expressed the opinion that the Region is less
efficient since the reorganization, leading to eroded environmental results. Over a third of the
managers did not have an opinion in this area
~ External Stakeholder Satisfaction
Over half of the supervisors that answered this question thought that external stakeholder satisfaction
had stayed the same. Some saw positive changes, though they did not attribute these necessarily to
the 1 11 ratio. On the other hand, some perceived that the reorganization resulted m a lack of
continuity in contacts with the public in the Regional Office, leading to frustration for the public.
One respondent noted greater participation from stakeholder groups, but noted that this may have
been a result of the culture that former Regional Administrator, Felicia Marcus, brought to the job
~ Faster Decision-making
Almost half the supervisors saw an improvement in this area, due to direct access to the Regional
Administrator and Division Directors They noted that decision-making required fewer layers of
review since the reorganization. On the other hand, some expressed an opinion that the "consensus
decision-making culture" in the Region can take a long time. Others wondered whether faster
decision-making was necessarily better, as staff development may be curtailed at times when
decisions need to be expedited
~ Organizational Flexibility
Most respondents thought the Region had stayed the same or improved in terms of organizational
flexibility Many felt that we have had to respond to developing information technology, which has
* * 'Responsiveness*
Quality of Product
% "i 'SO
-------
Effects of 1:11
necessitated flexibility. These managers see that we have also become more creative in responding
to external change, particularly with larger office units. Others gave the opinion that, while we are
changing constantly in many areas, we may not be targeting the top emerging issues Rather, they
argue the Region has a strong tie to "the way things have always been done." Branch chiefs used to
play the role of integrating the sections within a given division (which is still the case in Superfiind)
This role has not been assumed since the removal of the Branch chief level. Now, in the Region,
every program is "its own island."
~ Innovation Rewarded
Almost half the respondents that
answered this question saw
improvement and almost as many 1g
saw it as the same as before. A
third of the respondents did not
have an opinion Those that felt 10
innovation was more rewarded did
not think it had to do with
movement to a Ml ratio. Others 5
thought that innovation was hard
to accomplish in a regulatory
agency Some saw innovation
occurring that was not rewarded,
and others saw high-profile projects getting most of the attention. Most saw the act of rewarding
staff as extremely important.
* * *Responsivenss* * *
Innovation Rewarded
ftilfllffifflf
/'/tY'/'/S'/'A'Y'/'/'A
V'/'/'/'/'sY'/'/'/'/'/it
nTlW!W#W
V'/'A'/'/'/'A t'A','/
Ififtfffltiftf
I t' '/''/'/'/', ¦
1 1 1 1
MORE SAME LESS No Response
~ Accountability
Over half the respondents felt that
there is less accountability now than
before the movement to a 1:11 ratio.
A common perspective is that with
more staff to supervise, managers
cannot oversee as much as before,
and that branch chiefs typically
added a layer of accountability that
is now lacking. With a broader span
of control, accountability depends
more on how much initiative staff
chooses to take, with less
consistency across the Region
Many managers see this loss of
accountability as a big problem.
* * "Responsiveness* * *
Accountability
,Villi%WuW
fVftWIIVuWl'
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ *'
'r/ \
'/'<> '4 3
//'/i'/iV'/'/'/'/'/",'',
-V'H
More Same Less No Response
12 Results
-------
Effects of 1:11
Additional Concerns
Although not specifically part of the survey instrument, supervisors did raise five additional concerns
they feel Region 9 needs to address A summary of their comments is below.
~ Vision/Senior Leadership
Several respondents indicated there is a need for senior management to establish a broad vision,
organizational values, and overarching regional priorities and leave the responsibility to section
chiefs for monitoring the details and making day-to-day decisions.
~ Goals and Accountability
Several respondents called for development of a better tracking system to assess organizational
achievements and program results against a shared vision and shared priorities. They felt such a
tracking system would aid them in assessing where they stand in achieving Regional goals.
~ NSMs/Associates/Deputies/Workload Equity
Many respondents discussed the perceived inequity in responsibility between first-line supervisors
and non-supervisory managers who have the same or a higher GS level Some suggested a career
track be created at a GS-15 level for first-line supervisors The GS-15 management level would be
based on the number of staff reports and program expertise required in the position. Other
supervisors suggested NSMs take on more management responsibilities, shanng the burden with
first line supervisors Still others recommended clarifying the role of associate and deputy directors
so they better "fit into the scheme "
~ First-line Supervisor Support
Many supervisors suggested that first-line supervisors need much more support than they currently
receive, including private places to discuss personnel matters with staff, mentoring and coaching
from expenenced managers, and a second level or "backstop" for staff to go to with problems.
~ Administrative Support
Several supervisors suggested hiring high-level administrative assistants who could help relieve the
administrative burden on first-line supervisors Others suggested that better technology, for example
EZ-Hire, and better standards for managing e-mail could help
Results 13
-------
Effects of 1:11
Training, Teams & Rotations
At the end of each interview, we asked the interviewee to provide any recommendations they had,
both in general and to comment specifically on the three approaches most often recommended in
dealing with organizational change- training, teams, and management rotations.
~ Training
Opinions on training were varied. Some criticized quality, while some wanted more training, others
lamented the lack of time they have to devote to training, even though they see it as essential. Some
didn't think training would help, while others saw it as necessary in managing change.
t/ Teams
Some supervisors noted that teams require team-oriented individuals m order to work. Many
supported integrating teams back into the organizational hierarchy, giving team leaders supervisor
status, and concomitant grade increases. Many supervisors indicated that teams were already part of
the hierarchy in all but name and the status accorded the team leader. Some indicated that teams did
not work due to unclear authority or lack of authority of team leaders (e.g., personnel matters)
~ Management Rotation
Supervisors supported the idea that they need experience and expertise in their program areas to be
effective, but also supported voluntary rotation as a means of broadening experience. Some
expressed the need for meeting a balance between depth and breadth. Comments indicated some
support for selective involuntary rotation as a means of moving "bad" supervisors out and "good"
non-supervisory managers back into supervisory roles
14 Results
-------
3. Conclusions
In reaching these conclusions, we have tned to answer the question "did Region 9 achieve EPA's
reorganization goals?" Based on our analysis of the 37 interviews we conducted with supervisors
who were supervisors before and after Region 9 was reorganized in 1996, we believe that Region 9
did achieve some of the stated goals, but at a cost.
Below are our conclusions of how well Region 9 has done in meeting five out of the six reinvention
goals as identified in "Reinventing EPA-Steps Toward a Stronger Workforce: Guidance for
Implementation Plans." We did not tackle the goal of valuing and improving diversity, as a previous
LDP group focused on those issues. It must also be noted that in responding to our interview
questions, supervisors often could not separate their reactions to the 1:11 ratio from other factors
such as the overall region-wide reorganization, personal characteristics of senior management, and
increasing budget constraints. Therefore, this evaluation of the 1:11 organizational flattening has to
be considered in light of the region-wide reorganization in general, as well as other significant factors
that affect work at Region 9.
GOAL #1: Enhancing Decision-making Through Deiayering and
Organizational Flexibility
A majority of supervisors indicate that decisions are being made faster and at lower levels in the
management chain. "Faster" decision-making is attributed to fewer layers of review (i.e., removal of
the Branch Chief layer, with the exception of Superfund Division). Many supervisors appreciate the
expansion of autonomy, delegation of authority, and having more direct access to the Regional
Adrrunistraror and Division Directors. Supervisors indicate the staff also seem to appreciate an
increased sense of empowerment. However, it appears that some of this is the result of supervisors
having less time for oversight, guidance, and review, and, therefore, not necessarily a result of specific
delegation of authority.
Some supervisors cite a reduction in quality as decisions are made under pressure, not well thought
through, and with limited oversight. There are fewer opportunities to "bounce ideas off of each
other." Exacerbating this problem is the perceived lack of accountability as a result of the
reorganization. With a broader span of control, accountability depends more on how much initiative
staff chooses to take, with less consistency across the Region As one supervisor put it, "the system
has run amok...[there are] no consequences for performing either good or bad." Staff and managers
are no longer taking a long view of twelve months or more, identifying milestones, and holding staff
accountable for missed deadlines. "Accountability." in the words of one supervisor, "requires
structure...we let go of that [as a result of the reorganization]."
It appears that organizational flexibility has stayed the same or improved. Supervisors indicate that
we have had to be flexible to respond to developing information technology and we have also been
more creative in responding to external change. However, there is still a sense among some that we
have difficulty targeting emerging issues. This is true in part because we are overwhelmed by existing
unsolved issues, little or no effort has been made to prioritize and reduce existing workloads to
Conclusions IS
-------
Effects of 1:11
accommodate new challenges, and we remain, to some degree, tied to doing things the way they have
always been done.
GOAL #2: Greater Customer Satisfaction, with the Customer as Focus
Most supervisors indicate that external stakeholder satisfaction remained the same. There is some
recognition of an increased focus on communicating and working with stakeholders. However,
increased stakeholder communication is more likely the result of it being a priority of former Regional
Administrator, Felicia Marcus, than with reorganization and flattening. A noted adverse impact (not
attributed directly to the organizational 1:11 flattening, but to the reorganization in general), is that
shifting personnel and programs since 1996 resulted in decreased continuity in contacts and difficulty
in maintaining relationships. Further, the pre-reorganization hierarchy may have made it easier for
external stakeholders to identify the appropriate points of contacts within the organization, as roles
and lines of authority were clearer. It was noted that the increased contact and communication with
stakeholders, via the external role played by Associate Directors, has helped buffer some of this
adverse impact.
GOAL #3: Improving Employee Commitment and Satisfaction Through
Empowerment
V irtually all supervisors feel more empowered or empowered the same since the reorganization.
There are a number of supervisors who have thrived under a reorganized and flattened region. Some
are self-described "hands-off managers," who are comfortable setting broad policy and letting their
staff run with the ball. Others have relied upon a team structure to share in the administrative and
programmatic responsibilities Still others, who stayed in the same division and general program area
and were feeling stagnant, welcomed the change and found the added program responsibilities a
positive challenge. Success for some can also be attributed to few, if any, personnel problems in their
section anchor a mature (i.e., not new to EPA), experienced staff that need little guidance. Finally,
those supervisors who could strategically organize their sections into compatible program clusters of
staff were better able to take advantage of program synergy, thus lessening the management burden.
However, while supervisors are pleased with the increase in span of control, autonomy, and decision-
making authority, they indicate that they experience more stress now than before the reorganization
and organizational flattening. This stress may be due to the fact that the structure changed, but
expectations did not. The train of thought underpinning EPA's reinvention was as follows: (1)
empower staff, (2) increase the staff-to-supervisor ratio, and (3) change the supervisor's role from
program management to that of coach/mentor. Supervisors' roles were to shift, with them taking on
the broader perspective, outlining policy objectives, and providing guidance to an empowered staff
who would then be making more decisions In implementing the reinvention plan, however, Region
9 changed the structure without also changing the roles/expectations of the front-line supervisors.
16 Conclusions
-------
Effects of 1:11
Supervisors are still expected to know intimate program details, while also required to mentor and
guide an increased number of staff (in some cases well over 11 in total).
Of the 37 supervisors we interviewed, the average supervisor to staff ratio was 1:14. If NOWSEEs
and interns were included —these groups are currently not "counted" as part of the 1:11 ratio- some
sections would be as large as 27 supervised FTE. The supervisor management burden is further
exacerbated by the qumber of distinct programs each staff member represents. As EPA is a technical
and policy organization that doesn't, for the most part, "make widgets," each additional
programmatic area can potentially require an additional complement of contacts, technical expertise,
policies, and training. Without the Branch Chief layer (except, in Superfiind where branch chiefs do
exist) and with overburdened Division Directors, first-line supervisors are unable to share the
administrative and programmatic burden Many are frustrated and stressed, finding it hard to balance
competing demands.
Among one of the most alarming conclusions of this survey was that, for the most part, supervisors
feel that their staff have received the short end of the stick as a result of the reorganization and
organizational flattening. Virtually all of the supervisors indicate that they spend less time
mentoring/coaching staff since the reorganization and flattening. Twenty-three of the 37 interviewed
feel they aie providing less guidance, and eighteen feel they have less time for staff development than
before the reorganization. Day-to-day contact has declined. Supervisors have moved from regular
one-on-one meetings to quarterly or bimonthly meetings with entire teams. Not only is this counter
to the original reinvention goal, but is more troubling in light of the anticipated high rate of managers
retiring before too long, leading to the need for developing/mentoring younger staff to assume
leadership positions in the next few years This may be even further exacerbated with additional
agency-wide pressures to flatten, once again, assuming a 1:15 staff to management ratio as was
recently proposed by OMB
Other challenges confronting supervisors include-
(1) limited or unhelpful evaluations, feedback, or guidance provided by their own supervisor,
typically the Division Director who, post reorganization, also has a greater span of control and
less time for day-to-day contact,
(2) fewer opportunities for cross-program peer support in a flattened organization that has more
compartments and fewer opportunities to discuss particularly personnel issues that have not yet
risen to crisis status;
(3) less career mobility, particularly if management/supervision positions are desired; and finally,
(4) an issue that we anticipated, although was not directly part of our interview instrument, but
inevitably came up: the perceived inequity supervisors felt of workload and pay scale between
first-line supervisors (GS-13 & 14) and non-supervisory managers (NSMs) or Associate
Directors (GS-14 & 15).
Conclusions 17
-------
Effects of 1:11
GOAL #4: Encouraging Collaboration Through Vertical and Horizontal
Integration
Virtually no strong positive change in internal communication and integration has occurred as a result
of the reorganization Cross-division communication is down or the same since the reorganization.
Communication to headquarters is the same or less. Horizontal (between sections) has declined or is
the same Even vertical communication (up the chain of command) seems to have erratically
improved, with just as many saying it is worse as say that it is better.
GOAL #5: Creating a Shared Vision
Although our interviews did not include a specific question on the goal of creating a shared vision, we
did hear that, not only do we not have a shared vision, but we also seem not to value or have time to
create one. Supervisors feel that the tune they have to take a breath and reflect is severely limited.
With technological "improvements" (e.g., e-mail, cell phones), the constant bombardment of
information and demand for immediate response, fewer resources, and the increased staff-to-
supervisor ratio, most supervisors find it impossible to find the time to develop a strategic vision or
plan for their multiple programs. Issues and actions are constantly added to an already overflowing
plate, with few being removed.
This leads, in many cases, to increasingly reactive responses, and an organization that is less nimble or
flexible as a result. We did ask specific questions about quality of work product and accountability,
and some of the comments did make a connection between the decline in these factors and the lack of
planning and priority-setting Further, without the prioritized goals that result from strategic
planning, supervisors lack an important tool for communicating priorities and expectations and for
assessing the productivity and accountability of their unit.
Summary
It is clear that the 1996 reorganization and organizational flattening have made lasting impressions on
supervisors Staff and supervisors are more empowered, decisions are being made faster, and
productivity has increased. However, while the reorganization and organizational flattening to a 1:11
ratio has had some success, it has been at a cost The "costs" have been a perceived reduction in
product quality, confusion concerning the roles and functions of supervisors, reduced accountability,
less day-to-day feedback and guidance provided to staff, and higher stress levels among supervisors.
Further, we have not improved our ability to develop a common vision that would help us think and
act more strategically. Without the ability to plan more systematically, based on a shared vision and
combined with an accountability system appropriate for a flattened organization, we will continue to
be reactive, to make less than optimal use of our existing resources, and to be unable to move toward
a more comprehensive, cohesive, and proactive approach to environmental protection.
18 Conclusions
-------
4. Recommendations
These recommendations are intended to help Region 9 more fully achieve the goals of the
reorganization and organizational flattening. We believe that more complete achievement of these
goals will benefit the Region's most vital resource, its employees. By improving some of our
organizational functions, even more Region 9 employees will flourish, thereby enhancing our efforts
to preserve and improve the environment. As resources continue to decline, it becomes ever more
important to be able to make the most of the resources we do have, and to leam how to do more of
what is most important with less
Of the 37 supervisors we interviewed, the average supervisor to staff ratio was 1:14. Currently the
Region considers only EPA "full-time equivalents (FTEs)" in the supervisor-to-staff ratio, thus
under-representing the administrative/supervisory burden. If the Region included in the ratio all
supervised individuals on site, including program and administrative staff and NOWSEEs, the ratio
would be much higher, in some cases as high as 1:27.
Our findings indicate that supervisors, particularly Section Chiefs, are stretched to their limits, and
that staff guidance and support is suffering. The Region cannot realistically expect to increase the
scope of supervisors' responsibilities and their span of control, as suggested in one memo from the
Office of Management and Budget, without exacerbating the negative effects that supervisors
describe as already affecting their performance. Rather, the Region should attempt to ease the
demands on supervisors, thereby enhancing supervisors' ability to support their staff.
A number of options exist, including reducing the total persons supervised (even meeting the 1:11
requirement would help), clarifying or reducing supervisor workload and scope, and providing them
with additional support We recommend the following actions to Senior Management as a result of
our findings and conclusions-
1. Clarify the role of Section Chiefs
The role of Section Chief as coach and mentor, versus technical and policy expert, remains unclear
Even though the reorganization was intended to shift the role to the former, almost all supervisors
indicate that they are now spending less time mentoring staff. Furthermore, this "conflict" of roles
appears to increase the stress and demands on first-line supervisors The Region would greatly
benefit by clarifying this role and ensuring that the agreed-upon role is clearly and consistently
included in supervisor performance standards If the Region determines that the role of supervisor is
not mentoring and coaching, then the Region must direct significant attention to providing this
function to staff through some other mechanism
In addition, first-line supervisors need more support than they currently receive, including providing
private places to discuss personnel matters with staff, mentoring and coaching from experienced
managers, and creation of a second level or ombudsman-type support network for supervisors to
"bounce ideas off." This ombudsman could also act as a go between for staff, providing informal
Recommendations 19
-------
Effects of 1:11
guidance to staff on problems with their managers before they escalate to personnel actions
Supervisors also need easy and centralized access to policy and management information.
Finally, the Region should evaluate the potential for non-supervisory managers (NSMs) and
Associate Directors to assume additional supervisory responsibilities. As noted in our study,
supervisors feel there is a workload and salary disparity between themselves and the various NSMs
in the Region. Associate Directors and NSMs might play a greater role in assuming management
responsibilities, including mentoring, administrative/paperwork, evaluation, program guidance, etc.
One model may be to have Associate Directors assume responsibility for administration and
mentoring of entire teams. Waste Division and Cross Media Division are moving in this direction
Superfund already uses this model to some extent.
2. Implement an accountability system consistent with our "flattened" organization
For the most part, supervisors are now providing less support and guidance to staff, and
accountability throughout the Region has declined. The Region should address this by implementing
an accountability system that includes periodic activity planning and review for all staff and
management. This system must be designed to be consistent with Region 9's flattened organization,
and must be based on the principles of empowerment and flexibility. The Region needs to undertake
this effort carefully to ensure that planning does not further increase workload and administrative
procedures. Improved organizational and individual planning should be based on a region-wide
vision to ensure that we are addressing priority issues, we are utilizing our limited resources
effectively, and staff and supervisors are working together for common goals.
3. Clarify reliance on teams and strengthen recognition of team leaders
Teams m this new organizational matrix are more critical then ever The Region has used teams as a
primary means of reaching the mandated supervisor-to-staff ratio and expects non-supervisory team
leaders to assume many functions of Section Chiefs A cookie-cutter approach will not work, nor a
specified structure The Region should allow teams to grow organically with supervisors developing
their own teams as they see fit. In addition, the Region should recognize teams organizationally and
give them more flexibility, autonomy, and decision-making authority Team leaders should be
allowed to assume supervisory responsibilities, when appropriate, to the fullest extent possible and
should recognize team leaders' quasi-supervisory role, including a grade/step and title commensurate
with their responsibilities. Team leadership would then provide career growth opportunities for
staff.
4. Increase product quality through reliance on peer review
Organizational flattening has reduced the level of supervisory oversight and may be affecting the
quality of work products. To ensure that Region 9 continues to produce high quality products in a
flattened organization, the Region should establish standards for peer-review of key products prior to
public release, particularly for those products for external distribution not reviewed by supervisors.
The Region should establish a general standard to ensure that, prior to release, two or three peers
20 Recommendations
-------
Effects of 111
review written materials In addition to ensuring high quality products, this will foster
communication and team work.
5. Provide training for staff and supervisors on empowerment and communication
In a flattened organization, staff empowerment is critical to the success of the Region 9 workforce
However, many still are confused about the concept of empowerment and concerned about how it is
implemented. The Region should offer training for all staff, team leaders, and supervisors to clarify
the concept of empowerment and the responsibilities associated with creating an empowered
workforce
6. Conduct 360-degree feedback that includes external customers
Feedback is a key requirement for enhancing productivity and career development. The Region
should require annual 360-degree feedback for staff and managers as part of evaluations. We also
recommend that these 360-degree reviews include external customers. Including outside customers
can help ensure that we remain focused on "real-world" successes.
7. Organize and name organizational units and staff positions by function
The Region can make the functions of staff and organizational units more transparent by providing
names that are descriptive of corresponding functions Further, when combining units within a
division the Region should leverage program synergy by combining those programs that have
overlapping components or similar activities This would help reduce the stress current supervisors
feel managing multiple programs and many staff
8. Obtain additional feedback from employees not targeted in this study
We strategically selected for interviews only those managers in the position of supervisor both before
and after the reorganization We did not interview program and administrative staff, non-supervisory
managers, Associate Directors, contractors, NOWSEEs, or those supervisors appointed to that
position after the reorganization. Therefore, we recommend that the Region consider pursuing
actions to further our understanding of how the reorganization affected all the Region's employees.
One or a combination of the following efforts would extend this evaluation to include those beyond
the supervisors we interviewed for this study (l) hold several small (no more than 15 people) focus
groups utilizing a modified version of our survey instrument, (2) administer our survey (slightly
revised) to a select number of individuals, (3) send our report out via an "all hands" message and
facilitate a dialogue ("chat room"), with feedback and response through e-mail and tabulate
responses to guide further action or discussion by Senior Management.
Recommendations 21
-------
Effects of 1:11
22 Recommendations
-------
Appendix A: Interview Questionnaire
To be filled in by interview team:
Date:
INTERVIEW#
Recorder:
Interviewer:
Male/Female
Division
Number of Direct Reports
Background
No. years with EPA -Region 9
Years as manager/supervisor In same position after reorg'' Y or N
I. SUCCESS: In your opinion, has the reorganization, organizational restructuring, and 1:11
been successful [] or unsuccessful [ ]? Why?
II. CAREER SATISFACTION: How has reorganization (1:11) affected your job
satisfaction?
• How time spent (right mix ?)
Admin/paperwork
More
Same
Less
Program/technical
More
Same
Less
Staff Development
More
Same
Less
• Satisfaction
More
Same
Less
• Stress level
More
Same
Less
• Empowerment (increase?)
More
Same
Less
• Sufficient Resources
More
Same
Less
• Evaluation
Useful?
Measuring right things 7
Questionnaire 23
-------
Effects of 1:11
making, and organizational flexibility?
• Communication (improved?)
Vertical
More
Same
Less
Horizontal
More
Same
Less
Cross-divisions
More
Same
Less
• Guidance/feedback/support
TO staff
More
Same
Less
FROM your supervisor
More
Same
Less
• Decision-making authority (increased?)
Vertical
More
Same
Less
Horizontal
More
Same
Less
Across-divisions
More
Same
Less
• Communication to HQ (improved?)
More
Same
Less
How?
• Communication to External stakeholders (improved?)
More
Same
Less
TV. RESPONSIVENESS: How has reorganization (1:11) affected our effectiveness and
responsiveness to stakeholders?
Productivity
Quality of product (improved9)
Environmental results
External stakeholder satisfaction
Decision-making speed (faster?)
More
Same
Less
More
Same
Less
More
Same
Less
More
Same
Less
More
Same
Less
Organizational flexibility (i e ability to rapidly change direction & respond to external
change)
More
Same
Less
• Innovation rewarded
More
Same
Less
• Accountability
More
Same
Less
24 Questionnaire
-------
Effects of 1:11
V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT: What suggestions do you have to
improve the implementation of the 1:11 ratio?
• What's working... and should continue?
• What's NOT working... and should be discontinued?
• Previously suggested solutions (are these working?):
Training
Teams
Management rotations
VI. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS?
Questionnaire 25
-------
Effects of 1:11
26 Questionnaire
-------
Appendix B: Statistical data
Supervisors' Perceptions of the Effects of 1996 1:11 Organizational Restructuring in U.S.
EPA Region 9
Total respondents
37
Demographics
Avg. Years
Same Position
Avg
Avg
No. of
dir rpts
at EPA
as sup.
Yes
No
NO. OT
pgms
18.6
13.2
17
20
4.8
14
Successful?
Yes
%
No
%
NR
%
8
22%
24
65%
5
14%
Career satisfaction
More
%
Same
%
Less
%
NR
%
1
How your time is spent
Admin/paperwork
14
38%
16
43%
4
11%
3
8%
Program/technical
9
24%
9
24%
9
24%
10
27%
Staff development
2
5%
7
19%
17
46%
11
30%
2
Satisfaction
10
27%
8
22%
11
30%
8
22%
3
Stress level
13
35%
12
32%
1
3%
11
30%
4
Empowerment
16
43%
9
24%
3
8%
9
24%
5
Resources
1
3%
5
14%
15
41%
16
43%
6
Evaluation useful
0
0%
0
0%
4
11%
33
89%
7
Career mobility
1
3%
0
0%
5
14%
31
84%
Communication
More
%
Same
%
Less
%
NR
8
Communication
Vertical
14
38%
9
24%
12
32%
2
5%
Horizontal
9
24%
13
35%
11
30%
4
11%
Cross-division
6
16%
9
24%
5
14%
17
46%
9
Guidance/feedback/sup
Dort
To staff
1
3%
8
22%
26
70%
2
5%
From supervisor
3
27%
10
27%
13
35%
11
30%
10
Decision-making
Vertical
25
68%
6
16%
4
11%
2
5%
Horizontal
19
51%
7
19%
3
8%
8
22%
Cross-division
6
16%
9
24%
5
14%
17
46%
11
Communication to HQ
9
24%
11
30%
11
30%
6
16%
Statistical data 27
-------
Effects of 1:11
12
Communication to
external stakeholders
12
32%
12
32%
5
14%
8
22%
Responsiveness
More
%
Same
%
Less
%
NR
13
Productivity
13
35%
13
35%
5
14%
6
16%
14
Quality of product
9
24%
12
32%
15
41%
1
3%
15
Environmental results
9
24%
13
35%
4
11%
11
30%
16
External stakeholder
satisfaction
6
16%
11
30%
7
19%
13
35%
17
Faster
decision-making
13
35%
10
27%
5
14%
9
24%
18
Organizational
flexibility
11
30%
12
32%
5
14%
9
24%
19
Innovation rewarded
13
35%
9
24%
5
14%
10
27%
20.
Accountability
3
8%
10
27%
22
59%
2
5%
Has the reorganization, restructuring
and 1:11 been successful or unsuccessful?
5--
Successful Unsuccessful No response
12
* * 'Career Satisfaction*
How your time is spent?
Program/Technical
M
to
V'AY
-------
Effects of 1:11
'Career Satisfaction* * *
Satisfaction?
HW
MORE
SAME
LESS No Response
* * 'Career Satisfaction* * *
Stress Level?
MORE
SAME
LESS No Response
* 'Career Satisfaction*
Empowerment?
20'
-m
-'IIS-
111 ' '
-¦
it
11 ¦ T11 11
* * *Career Satisfaction* * *
Resources
MORE
SAME
LESS No Response
35-
* * *Career Satisfaction* * *
Evbaluation Useful?
MORE
SAME
LESS No Response
35
* * 'Career Satisfaction* *
Career Mobility?
m
mm
MORE
SAME
LESS No Response
* 'Communication*
Communication?
E
> i
M
¦ mi
Fl Vertical
| Horizontal
Q Cross-Dlvlslor
MORE LESS
SAME No Response
* * 'Communication* * *
Guidance/Feedback/Support
[7] To Statt
| From Sup.
MORE LESS
SAME No Response
Statistical data 29
-------
Effects of 1:11
* * 'Communication* * *
Decison-Maklng
20-
15-
10-
MORE
LESS
SAME No Response
[T] Vertical
| Horizontal
Cross-Dlvlslon
* * 'Communication* * *
Communication to HQ?
12-,
r < r 'r { ' t 'i«i i 1 i »
MORE SAME LESS No Response
* * 'Communication* * *
Communication to External Stakeholders?
MORE
SAME
LESS No Response
* * 'Responsiveness*
Productivity
«
MORE
SAME
LESS No Response
* * 'Responsiveness* * *
Quality of Product
1
' * 'Responsivenss* * *
Environemtnal Results
LESS No Response
* * 'Responsiveness* * *
External Stakeholder Satisfaction
s~\wm
SB
* * 'Responsiveness* *'
Faster Decision-Making
MORE SAME LESS No Response
MORE SAME LESS No Response
30 Statistical data
-------
Effects of 1:11
" * 'Responsiveness* * *
Organizational Flexibility
ri 11 i '• i i
MORE SAME LESS No Response
* * 'Responsiveness* * *
Accountability
* * 'Responsivenss* * *
Innovation Rewarded
'Ill"
is
in
mm
AWAY
MORE SAME LESS No Response
Less
No R6Spon$6
Statistical data 31
-------
Effects of 1:11
32 Statistical data
-------
APPENDIX C: Narrative data
In Your Opinion, Has the Reorganization, Organizational Restructuring, and 1:11
Been Successful or Unsuccessful and Why7
Can see direct results from perspective of helping
with the reorg. and as a manager with added
responsibility of supervising more people
1 11 opened up opportunities to do things differently
(tool kit, team leader guidance, organizational
development like team building, conflict resolution)
Employee/team leader/supervisor change delegated
down and gave staff more opportunity to be
promoted
Some success with 1 11, for example, first-line
supervisors are given a broader range of
responsibilities, management of resources and direct
access to DD
Successful to some extent - R9 needs to be better at
doing it Staff might feel differently - are the
majority dissatisfied7
Structural changes put into place after the reorg in
his group - 2 teams begun, with authority delegated
to team leaders He got the support he reeded to do
teams
Has been successful for the unit and the division,
can't speak for the Region. For the Division, it was
good to eliminate Branch Chiefs - didn't lose
anything She has more direct contact with upper
management, loss of layer has meant less
interference
Huge success because it was healthy for the
organization to reduce managers, cull those not
doing well, cultivating GS12-13 to take more
responsibility
Before theie were 6 layers for staff to deal with and
reducing layers gives more people responsibility
Smaller, but productive
De-layering enhances communication
Not well thought-out / numbers driven
EPA didn't fit intent of de-layermg (it worked better for
organizations that produce widgets) because we were
already fairly streamlined
The one size fits all approach to flattening the government
was short sighted It would fit an agency such as SSA
better, not EPA
Private sector downsizing included letting people go, but
here we just put people elsewhere and that caused morale
problems
Reorg was not well thought out and caused problems that
we're sull dealing with today For example NSMs aren't
being utilized to their fullest and we're basically waiting for
them to retire.
Unsuccessful and devastating to the Agency The
reorg anization wasn't well thought out with respect to the
actual work we were doing This led us to put people in
places that don't make sense, especially the small programs
People put too much weight into reorg amzing and
delayenng with emphasis on numbers in boxes and no
consideration to where and why
Along with flattening the organization, we should have
done something else (to change the culture, not be so
number driven) instead of just putting people in boxes and
assume that that would take care of the changes that needed
to happen
Reorg unsuccessful, redundant, didn't line up well, got rid
of unit chief involvement and DD, one manager/staff
The shift to 1 to 11 wasn't our idea It was mandated in
order to reduce the number of layers and/or supervision
We may have implemented it in a fashion which would
meet our needs, but it was never designed to meet our
needs, in my opinion It was mandated by OMB, Congress,
and/or some Administration to reduce the FTE devoted to
managing/supervising
Narrative data 33
-------
Effects of 1:11
1:11 works
One small success - is creation of true self directed
teams in her division with clear mission, self
motivated, didn't need supervisor to refer job
assignments or delegate work
1 11 forces managers to empower staff and forces
staff to be empowered.
It hasn't worked. Didn't change expectations for
supervisors Nothing said this is how you will operate
differently. Still expected to know the same amount of
information
A disaster. He was very involved with the reorganization
process. Recommendations were made that were blown off
Poorly implemented Driven by numbers and senior
management not taking on supervision. Number driven
means for example that a branch chief had to be lost Need
more analysis of context of jobs and demands and what is
appropriate span of control He has a very independent
staff making own decisions in a unit that is very large
Since every region was free to organize however, we have
10 different organizations - HQ is more stove-pipe like
Will the new administration try to organize us more
uniformly''
It did things that Felicia thought were important - but she
may not have had a full picture
The reorg. was designed around meeting specific people's
needs/desires, not around functions It was about making
people happy After regional reorg morale was low
Changes in this division should have been made
immediately Only now happening
The region rolled out reorg. & 1.11, but expectations/values
were never changed "How business was done" didn't
match the changes
Each staff person getting less, just sheer numbers game
Even chief does more
1 11 was modeled after Japanese management, but that
included the notion of TEAMS, which EPA reorg. &
regional reorg didn't Peer review with Japanese model is
norm, not so at region. Work in Japanese model is rotated
through team before elevating, not so at the region So, the
model was embraced, but not the work style or flow The
Japan model envisions empowerment through teams.
We shouldn't have expected to change the number and not
have an adverse impact, unless we change the way we
34 Narrators data
-------
Effects of 1:11
operate
Process, didn't like the process - had already competed and
then had to come back and recompete with a different
selection panel Might have been the fairest way to do it -
choose you three favorite positions
Late 1995 delayering workgroup (Kemmerer facilitated),
conclusion was that it made sense to keep branch-level
chiefs for NPL work, now may be going back to branch for
part of the division where it was eliminated
When we flattened and got rid of branch chiefs, we added
the associates, but that added to the workload of front-line
supervisors, since associates don't do direct management,
because 1 11 was an average and some supervisors got more
people, and before reorg we got much more support from
branch chiefs which the associates don't provide-
associates have been helpful in workload planning, but not
in direct supervision
Not approached comprehensively; problem since such a
major initiative He recognizes why it was done for other
agencies who do "widget" making, but EPA was working
effectively before and they tried to fix something that wasn't
broken Management should have pushed back and fought
reorg There are no compelling reasons given for going to
1.11, and once decided to do it, didn't provide any prep for
managers and staff
The ratio isn't the important factor. If we were all doing
the same thing - it's not so much the number of people, but
the number of distinct program responsibilities, the number
of varying programs It would not be as difficult if we were
all writing the same kind of permit, for example
Reorg and reinvention collided
Even the smaller span was difficult for some managers,
especially when their staff was too diverse in function, one
manager even left the agency because of that
Decision-making / Authority Centralized
Left enough authority w/one person; e.g states
Nanative data 35
-------
Effects of 1:11
Focus and authority was clearer
Constraints were at the division director level because of
decision-making (briefings, etc)
Done implicitly, forced grouping of authority in one
position, e g enforcement.
Recommendation. Division Directors need to give up
decision-making, that's when 1 11 doesn't work (when
Division Directors make all the decisions)
Communication Suffers
Overall it has not worked - not working A lot of people at
all levels are overloaded - people are struggling so hard so
the first thing that falls out is communication On making
decisions, not involving higher ups because they don't have
the time - maybe this was the intention9 It is empowering
No one ever said what the role of the supervisor is or how it
has changed Expectations have not be stated for example
regarding programmatic vs. staff development focus Felt
like she was just put in there and will figure it out so it feels
like we are all doing it differently
We are losing productivity from information overload, poor
communication training; lack of review and quality
assurance Roll of branch chief was essential for QA, they
also were critical in deciding what was elevated
Now everything is elevated and section chiefs become bottle
necks due to sheer numbers'
Coordinationycommunication among SCS and staff is not as
good as before
Flattening and having fewer managers resulted in less
communication
Staff Development Suffers
Division Director was overloaded with direct reports and
issues were unmanageable
Division Director has too many direct reports, lack of
36 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
associate directors, totally unworkable
Meeting with staff on a regular basis takes time and can't
do a quality job with that many people
Downside* Division Director span of control ballooned and
as a result they cannot provide the kind of assistance the
branch chiefs did (coaching, mentoring, etc )
No real change, no worse or no better Probably worse for
the organization - hard to point to any enhancements For
some people it is much harder because some have too many
people to help and respond to - there isn't enough time in
the day - especially if there is one person who takes up al!
your time.
Based upon personal example, effective and persistent staff
development is not possible
Feels like people aren't developing as fast Maybe because
supervisor doesn't have enough time - not sure why, maybe
it's the people - perception/reality9
The reorg. was successful only in so far as the staff is
professional, seasoned, knows the work, and has writing
and communication skills If not, we are sunk, as has been
the case
Managers are overwhelmed, no time to be strategic or deal
with personnel development Cannot provide day-to-day
guidance However, staff perspective might be different -
some liked being on their own, others weren't prepared and
didn't get enough management time
A royal failure on the personnel side, but with benefits for
some individuals especially associates
Not just blurred but broken lines of authority, making
coaching and transfer of skills difficult and really hard on
first-line supervisors
Regionally the quality of work has dropped Section chief
is now a bottle neck with too many reports, unmanaged
staff, little time for Quality Assurance
1 11 if not working need to make it work by providing
training and attention to staff (if necessary)
Narrative data 37
-------
Down side being a first-line manager is a killer job and
they bear the brunt of it
Has mix of new and senior staff - different needs Spends
more time with new staff, but hard to give as much as they
need, or career development time Very variable.
As is now it is hard to find people - more convoluted - takes
more time.
Used to be very diligent in tracking (PATS); can't really
expect that from Section Chiefs under 1 11 conditions
Big problem is decrease in number of project managers and
inability to fill positions, SCs must handle project
management work as well as supervision
1 11 is demanding on supervisors and staff. Under large
supervisory ratio some doing better.
Teams
A regional issue is what GS level to make team leaders - he
thinks it should be GS-14
Can set up team leaders, but difficult when multiple teams
are dealing with multiple themes
Successful in reaching 111, but the method we used -
making section chiefs into team leaders - was a sham and a
disservice to the team leaders
NSMs
Wasted human capital in Region Some people have not
been given appropriate (i e meaningful and appropriate to
grade level) assignments (e g NSMs)
Successful, in so far that things are still humming along,
but NSMs didn't rotate as they were promised, but didn't
pan out They are wondering where they will be in future
Mixed Results
-------
Effects of 1:11
1) Success was Associate Director positions with different
responsibilities as branch chiefs, to geographic focus, thus
able respond quicker with greater external role, rather than
branch chief where it was second level of supervision. 2)
Failure was that lost Div. Dir and lack the benefits of
second line supervision); 3) Communication depends upon
particular supervisor and staff ability to take on
responsibility If manager can't delegate or is
uncomfortable delegating he no longer has time to coach or
mentor The job suffers, the staff person is lost in shuffle
Some staff shine, others haven't since they need day-to-day
coaching Problems exist now with morale, 4) He as
manager could take on more, but there are trade offs His
style is hands off, not technically adept, so questions role of
first-line supervisor If his style were different, for example
more authority rested in him, he couldn't do his job well
Not successful for this division
Other divisions have associates, can manage issues better
but they are like branch chiefs
All anecdotal evidence suggests it's not working
He didn't give an overall comment on this, although his
experience as a manager in R9 has been of taking on large
groups to supervise, and even advocating for flattening and
combining units, so he is comfortable with supervising
large groups
He's OK with larger staff group - used to manage staff
scattered in different geographic areas
There isn't any branch chief to take decisions to - leads to
different choices than before
Staff has more autonomy now, as she gets busier
Difference is that program vision is now created at the first-
line supervisor level, rather than at the branch chief level
She is not in a flattened organization because she has a
branch chief and division director
Further, external titles are required EPA needs the
hierarchy"'
The positive thing about the reorg was that it weeded out
the "crappy" supervisors
Narrative data 39
-------
Effects of 1:11
Overall too many staff to manage before Delayenng in
region, but this did not happen in this division
This Division doesn't have Assoc Dir per se In this
Division the ratio issue - they moved to 1 7, before reorg ,
so already prepared for 1 11 shift
This Division is now seeking to reinstate Branch Chief
positions
1:11 worked very well, span of control is manageable; also.
I'm still needed to do programmatic work and represent the
agency - I'm still called on to do that - and I'm the only
one who could do that, so a greater span of control of 15 or
18.1 would have been very hard
It's been fine, because I had the same number of people
before, even though their functions are fairly distinct
Not successful overall
Reorg and 1:11 are not exactly the same
Reorg within Superfiind did the best it could to facilitate
communication within Superfund, given the constraints of
flattened organization
This Division in better shape that other divisions because
we did keep the branch manager level in place, other
divisions reportedly have harder time with cross-program
communication without branch chiefs
I'll means the size of a supervisor's group, flattening
means no branch chief
Career Satisfaction: time spent since the reorganization on administrative tasks and
paperwork?
Administration/paperwork is directly related to how
many people manage, so has increases as there are more
individuals now then before Particularly with Non-
supervisory team leaders who are unable to sign
paperwork
Paperwork is heavy, streamlining hasn't changed the
40 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
heavy load.
Most managers feel like they're spending more time on
administrative duties and less on strategy or developing
a vision
As 1 mentioned during the interview, our workload has
increased (856 actions in FY96,1200 actions in
FY2000, only one index of our growth) so it is difficult
to answer this question in your context If anything, I
think I mentioned that the time I spend on
administrative/supervisory responsibilities has grown
Since I don't have a Branch Chief, I now perform some
administrative functions previously handled by the
Branch Chief Additionally, the time spent on
administration has increased due to our grant workload
increase, the fact that we have more individuals in the
unit, etc
The administrative burden has gone up exponentially,
for example the awards process Have to do it with more
hoops, open to staff yet not one staff awarded, another
staff for awards; requires three levels
Branch chief used to do some of the adminypaperwork,
so she has more now
He doesn't have enough good admin staff, so things fall
to the bottom
More administration because of larger unit Big demand
on time because if certain admin isn't done staff don't
get money and travel Maybe if she stayed in other job
she would have had more program/technical experience
as opposed to now learning 5 new programs — but no
time to learn, learns from staff Awards take more lime
— more paperwork Self nominations aren't working for
awards - not doing it but wish they were
Paperwork is more difficult Separating performance
reviews and awards has created more work People have
to do there own position descriptions and promotion
Needs more help on administrative tasks
Paperwork reduction didn't come to be - the grant
system for example seems a lot worse
Narrative data 41
-------
Effects of 1:11
The pure administrative part isn't too bad but the
supervisory part, the staff development part is harder
with more people, all her supervisors have too few staff
to do everything
Less due to more electronic forms and change in
evaluation format; but office chiefs would say that they
spend too much time on personnel issues and resulting
administrative work.
Has more paperwork/administration, but relies on
administrative officer and staff to manage NOWSEEs
Performance evaluation is less, awards is more; but none
of the promises of streamlined paperwork have come
through.
Half of it is useless and doesn't have to be done.
Career Satisfaction: time spent since the reorganization on programmatic and
echnical work?
Has the ability to get involved in more sites and provide
better input due to broader knowledge
Traded some programmatic responsibilities for others,
but didn't get any less programmatic work
To detriment of unit - supervisors not engaged
Don't have a developed Senior Staff to give complex
issues to
Reality is that program takes the same amount of time
I have 15 areas of focus that are specialized so cannot
spend enough time learning specific program areas 1
rely on staff Fortunately, they are professional
Career Satisfaction: time spent since reorganization on staff development?
K Si!' '¦ i- ;.'fi
-------
Effects of 1:11
He is discretionary re: time spent in staff development
Has had a large group to supervise most of his career
Under the reorg , has been kept busy (which he likes),
but higher burnout than before
Team structure has helped to take on staff development
Since 2000 has made a commitment to do more staff
development, fairly successfully, and delegating more
responsibility to staff.
Has received more training, and is encouraging staff to
develop
Works at home more — uses time at home to prepare
staff evaluations.
vVliOx-
about staff development
More paperwork.
Supervisors have to be more documentation conscious
There is a morale problem among the staff
There is no support for front line supervisors. Staff also
has no one to go to (now it is direct to Div. Dir)
Less good quality thinking time (helping to problem
solve)
I am spread too thin, would like to do a better job at staff
development
Staff development work is not rewarded
Before could meet once/wk with staff., now meet with
entire team with only quarterly meetings with
individuals, and therefore a reduction in coaching
Taking a lot of training for it, but first-line managers
can't keep up with the administrative deadlines, we're
constantly doing rewards, etc , it has overwhelmed us
Less time 1-to-l with staff
We don't have a good plan for where we are going
Since reorg has been on the road doing program
development (national rule and policy work) at the
expense of staff development, and this worked because
of experienced staff
Didn't have time for serious personnel problems or to
mentor
Would like to spend more time with staff
Staff not getting what they need; he's got too many to
oversee
Not doing staff development - they have to do it
themselves - not working on IDPs — training seems to
be suffering for staff because of lack of funds Big loss
Narrative data 43
-------
Effects of 1:11
of staff Staff is discouraged about lack of training
resources Will spend time with junior level staff
Didn't know anyone who bought into the rhetoric of
managers as coaches, etc
Career Satisfaction: job satisfaction?
Feels he has the best job in the Region'
Due to his personal style, he likes overall direction, he's
not a detail type guy
Good autonomy and independence, good group -
Personally very happy even with twelve reports and no
branch chief
Is work interesting9 Will it sustain me7 Growth are
there things I can be more skilled at?
Increased because more empowered
Satisfaction is greater due to change of personalities in
unit
He has two "hot" programs now, which are demanding,
and issues are always coming up — FUN'
Work is 100% different, more positive, since losing
Branch Chief, but this is largely due to removal of
personality conflict
Good but frustrating, our division got short end of stick
with respect to management issues, reorg and 1:11 was
a shell game; other divisions just created ADs
More satisfied, but doesn't get compensated for more
responsibility and work
More satisfied due to time in the job, but seems like
higher-level staff with "plum" assignments might be the
way to go, because you don't get rewards for
supervision.
On one level feel fortunate/lucky to have achieved
Senior Management Team level/created opportunity; on
another it's the toughest job he's ever had
Likes managing people, dissatisfied when supervising
lots of people; have to find other ways to review things
like inspection reports for example and use peer review
to divide up work, felt bad because people who deserved
attention didn't get a lot of time/attention
Has always tried lo enjoy what she is doing -
Clinton/Gore concept that the bureaucracy would get
better never happened but created expectations that were
never realized
Main reason satisfaction has gone down is more and
more admin To attend to which is okay until there is a
problem then it takes a lot of time to deal with The
more routine stuff there is, the more chance you have to
spend time on trivial problems He gets out of the office
much less, even though this is where you can learn how
the program works in the real world
Cannot escape his responsibilities would like to
develop national work/expertise, but cannot because of
44 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
his workload
Impact of reorg on region is different from impact
personally, stagnation in the present job is more of an
impact
Having a staff job with fewer responsibilities but same
grade seems preferable to supervision
Feels like we're not meeting the needs of our staff and
managers, not clear what the expectations are
His work is not satisfying if you want to contribute to the
subject matter, managing vs leading vs. tasks - task
orientation came m with industrial revolution and is still
the norm in the western world, including here at EPA
Hard to compare due to different positions before and after, but pretty satisfied now
1 11 has not been a critical factor, satisfaction has changed but not due to 1 11
Changes all the time, sometimes I could walk away from it, but 1 11 hasn't changed that, my supervisors would say
I travel too much, but it can help when 1 need to get something from someone in HQ where I've established a
personal relationship
Some events have made for less satisfaction Program had been on the downslide for years HQ decided to move
programs to HQ or fade way despite input/work to the contrary from the region Bad morale Not 1.11. but overall
agency reorg. & shrinking that has caused this
Career Satisfaction: stress level since the reorganization?
Too much, harried
Very high - is the nature of the work
More stress but I don't let it bother me; do what you can
and what you think is important and then let go
Reorganization & budget issues have created stresses
that people haven't seen in a long time, we're running
around with our hair on fire
Narrative data 45
-------
Effects ot 1:11
Challenges and stress are up Harder to balance
personal life and work Takes work home more than
before.
Stress has increased - world is becoming ever more
complicated Weren't really doing anything to simplify
and streamline
Much more stress - working at home in terms of
checking voice mail and e-mail. Carries stress from
what she isn't doing No one has told her expectations
for this job. Tends to do what she wants More the fun
stuff and leave the other parts.
Workload too big
His boss didn't treat him differently after reorg - they
still expect the same amount, so the squeeze comes into
it.
Same amount of work and fewer people to do it with
Same because been in the job for 5 years, good boss, good external relations
Stress level the same, but different sources.
Everything need to get done NOW, increases stress levels Not sure this pressure is factor of reorg
Would be much more stressful if still a section chief, current role is satisfying but can't compare to prior to
flattening
Stress level due to hot issues, not reorg
Changing technology, not 1 11 (for example e-mail) changes nature of work.
CAREER SATISFACTION: has empowerment changed since the reorg.anization?
He had to delegate through self directed teams who
manage program on their own with him as coach/mentor
& program reviewer He wrote up in strategic plan
Empowered staff, yet expectations didn't change, still
require supervisors to know every detail and take care of
staff too
46 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
Meet every other week with each team, usually someone
will become unnamed leader of the team, although not
always
There is more without branch chief
I only empower staff to represent me at a high-level
meeting if they are ready, but the culture of
empowerment has improved overall
Empowerment much greater, due to removal of Branch
Chief level
Empowerment so can make most of the decisions
Much more empowered then before.
Managers are still expected to know their programs in
detail, that hasn't changed with the reorg
Probably more empowered because upper management
is spread thinner But this results in more ignorance by
upper management so when you need them it is a
problem
Dropped dramatically, more personality driven and
power is consolidated in the Regional Administrator
Felt empowered as a staff person and Section Chief
before reorg ; felt less empowered after reorg but
probably due to his supervisor's style, not to the reorg
There are people we should not empower, those who need to be micro-managed, who create political problems, etc
You can't use span-of-control and empowerment to justify poor staff work
Empowerment means that you're supposed to coach staff so that they do good work.
Have always been empowered, branch chief left him alone since his office ran well
Has never ielt unempowered Throughout her career has seen problems, gone at it and tried to solve - has never
waited for permission Doesn't know what reorg has done for anyone
Questions whether an artificial thing pulled out of hat can to provide all these things - empowerment, etc
Career Satisfaction: how have resources changed since the reorganization?
We have enough people to do the job, everyone is very
busy, but given the shape everyone else is in, doing OK.
Less resources but increased demands
Less, because Division Director doesn't know enough
about base programs and what they need
Travel funding not affected, but training funding is now
so low that people don't even think about it any longer,
which should try to change, staffing we're always
behind on and the uncertainty of DOD resources makes
it harder to fill positions and plan staffing and work
levels
Narrative data 47
-------
Effects of 1:11
\v^)a§i7
Travel/FTE remains the same and find that the resources
for administrative is dropping
Not enough resources, not enough staff Half a person
and SEE is not enough
Resources have gotten worse Decline in support from
the agency support infrastructure. All the nuts and bolts
are worse. Not sure why The quality of service is not as
good
Never enough resources — need to establish priorities -
we don't do a very good job at this - everything is
priority.
He controls more of his own resources, over all there are
less, and less flexibility at organizational level
This is more important issue then 1:11. Nationally,
people + resources go to biggest issues.
Nothing to do with reorg , we could be smarter about
using resources, absolutely
The lab is definitely insufficient in terms of FTE-very
dependent on contractors—the lab is consistently
underfunded
Some resentment of number of FTE in IRM, but our
LAN stays up better than other regions
Any supervisor would say they need more resources but
our facilities group is really small for what they are
doing this year
Regionally, the TMDL program is understaffed
Career Satisfaction: is the PERFORMS evaluation useful?
If:.;?*!.;.''."!
, t ;;*¦
Eval of her staff, yes it is helpful Do talk about all
standards, discuss career obj, how they are doing She
balances report card discussion with future outlook
Yes, gives real-time feedback at mid and final He
requires EDP
Never do a good job, though are improving the process.
Supervisor doesn't have time to mentor and develop
with so many staff
He passes everyone
48 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
Yes, I have to give staff feedback and it's a good tool for
staff development, but maybe we don't do it enough;
staff have said they'd like to hear from me more
Yes I don't do formal PATS, but I'm constantly
checking in with staff
For her staff it is good
Good to have a framework Good to not be so prescribed
with limited categories
He thinks his process is measuring right things
Going to pass-fail allows productive dialogue
Process is simpler, less tension Not sure if it serves as
well
Depends on manager - Division Director asks for
greatest success, greatest failure
Likes P/F better as can have a better discussion
Staff self-evaluations work well
1 prefer pass/fail because people got hung up on
justifying a numeric rating when they should have been
concentrating on how well they were doing their jobs
and what they needed to do to move on in their careers
Evaluation has improved over the years - used to be
nothing, then went to a simple form, then to an
evaluation.
Done the same More to get through it
Not used well for constructive feedback
Has limited time to do
Standards are fine, but not actually tracking
performance though. She focuses on programmatic
Has not saved time, but increased more time spent on
awards package, no rating categories: before it created
incentives whereas now they don't take it as seriously -
-just not a powerful tool
Staff evaluations only work if you have time, some staff
didn't get attention, likes 360 review.
Doesn't like being the only person evaluating staff,
would prefer 360 review
Because she isn't involved day-to-day with staff she
can't give as good of feedback and teams have a hard
time providing that to each other
Quality of guidance/feedback he gets is much less.
His has not been done for a long time. Feedback not
given for a long time This has effected his morale
Division Director doesn't give much criticism or places
to improve Up to each manager to discuss
Is useful, although Div Dir too busy to perform review
Not very useful, not sure why. but got a lot more detailed
feedback from his branch chief before the reorg when
he was a less experience section chief
My performance agreement doesn't reflect what my
supervisor thinks is important about my job, so it's hard
to make the evaluation useful, You also have to have the
time to put the effort into follow-up and development to
make it worth while
Haven't noticed that big a change, depends on
personality of who is giving feedback; concerned that
staff/management aren't going to take it seriously over
time
Nanatnedata 49
-------
Effects of 1:11
' ¦ !*;¦ * "" " "• ¦ • r
=:•¦.! v!j:1
Big waste of time at least for her. Not an extraordinary
level of feedback The bosses are stressed and busy, etc
We're all on pretty standard performance standards, but
we don't stick to that, we discuss career development
support; touches on personnel issues but not really on
how I'm trying to develop staff, more on staff problems:
iterative process of meetings with supervisor but not
directly part of performance review
Formal system is artificial - he gives real, more useful
feedback daily, all year long.
He uses eval productively, but PERFORMS is not
conducive to good eval Rewards are too subjective so
they've become mute There is no incentive as he
awards everyone same amount.
Can make any evaluation useful, but if you were to make
it useless, this is it Taking away money was not a good
thing because it takes away incentive to improve Less
time and structure to give feedback It's unclear what
managers are being asked to do, expectations are so
unclear
No, would be more useful if tiered
Don't know if working, does P/F influence change9
Talking that time of year is helpful, but whole system is
not accountable
NOT' Current system on its own is silly, we don't
spend enough time teaching sups skills analysis
(confrontation)
Slightly worse at staff evaluation (P/F dumb)
Not very good tool for evaluation
No way to discipline
Would go back to non-graded worksheet from the 80s,
but a lot of resistance from its subjective nature, this
manager doesn't use performs per se to provide feedback
but uses that time to provide feedback, the two-tiered
system is not motivating, also, I can't give feedback if I
don't see the work, which is what we're here to do and
SO Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
which should be the basis for satisfaction and resolution
of work-life issues
Not really, at least not the official Performs standards,
which are vague and don't really get at performance
highlights or problems; too general and generic
Going to two levels P/F doesn't make sense, no
structure.
NO'
New Pass/Fail system not as effective as a tool
Don't have economic bottom line/incentive to perform,
have to be careful about not hurting feelings, doesn't
work for people just hanging out; no time to deal with
real issues, need to have strategies instead
Continues to be useless, overly processed-designed
system that does nothing In 1970s we had a matrix that
worked, one piece of paper that was very well done,
forced to explain why you were in a box Going wrong
direction, doesn't motivate managers — pages and
pages Day-to-day discussions are all about widgets,
performance appraisals are 20 minutes one time a year,
no self scrutiny Awards doesn't correspond with
performance
Awards has created more paperwork
Evaluation is just a piece of paper for her — she gets
feedback but not as a result of the paper — for staff
standards don't really work, but moves beyond that and
has a good discussion
Pays a lot of attention to staff by appraisal and standards
are a joke People are interested in real time feedback or
what is working or not and how they can do it better
He has very senior staff so they don't need to be
motivated, rather they need specific assistance
Thinks P/F is more honest, but a joke Not being
measured for the right things There is no measurement
- function of personality Awards process is time
consuming to split up the end of the year bonus $$ The
previous evaluation process could cause much work if
you give someone a "S" and then they are torching you
Narrative data 51
-------
Effects of 1:11
Performance eval are not useful. Would prefer a three
tiered scale Can't envision giving a fail under current
system Would be good to have a category to indicate
some level of concern P/F has taken her tools away for
dealing with non-performers
Career Satisfaction: is the PERFORMS evaluation measuring the right things?
- Vt \ ' C
: .1
He does get good feedback on staff development, but
program out put is where emphasis is Easier to
measure as has results.
Glad I'm not evaluated on staff development because I
can't get to it
For self evaluation on both program/staff its hard to
separate out. tension there
The key is to be prepared when you go into the
evaluation
Working with tough personnel issues isn't given enough
credit.
He is recognized for fixing fires, should be focused on
"prevention" at staff level
Div Dir should be rewarded for a humming
organization, which is not the case now
Push is on product There is no where for staff to go
with grievance There are a lot of mediocre people and
there are some exceptional people
Being evaluated managers only reward what they see
and reward the people they like more than others,
rewards are not given out objectively, all actings got
salary increases and maximum reward amount while the
rest got reduced rewards, which was not commensurate
with the increased responsibilities.
Still working on respect/values/ recognition issues
surfaced in Keyes survey, but programmatic-oriented
chiefs don't participate in the [division workgroup on
communication issues] and don't value it, dominant
managers don't really value those things
Management performance standards do not measure
things well, but new self-assessment guidelines from
Personnel has resulted in better feedback and
discussions, which although also generic can be useful if
you put the time into thinking about it, last review did
focus on personnel management and recent management
training has been useful in that area (e g , recent
mediation of personality conflict)
For self evaluation on both program/staff its hard to
52 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
separate out; tension there.
The best one is 360 review P/F is not measuring the
right things The value is in the discussion The work
we're doing should be rewarding, but the lack of
structure makes it worse Before staff development was
important and of more interest, now there isn't time for
that
Program knowledge is evaluated more then staff
development with fewer program areas or fewer staff
would feel better about evaluation and work
Mentoring/coaching are not valued enough
Career Satisfaction: how has career mobility changed since the reorg.anization?
Less now, topped out at Senior Management Team
No place to go, done it all, limited from my point of
view but this isn't due to reorg
Not as much possible now, need to look outside the
agency to advance career
Mobility for his profession would be outside R9 in the
national private sector less since the reorg., but not sure
where she wants to go at this point, current job is
satisfying because she's managing a good group, so
wouldn't change just to supervise a different group
Hasn't tried to move, so don't know Staff have more
limited options More constrained, less resources
Been doing the same thing and ready for a change now
Doing this for so many years Everything is based now
on quotas, so limited opportunity
Fewer management positions now, so if you wanted to
have around, it would be harder
No upward mobility, deputy jobs are considered bad and
there are only 5 division directors; branch chief jobs
created the prospect for mobility Made worse by
moving 15s out of management, so they are available
Yes, people have all kinds of opportunities
Can make a lot out of a given job and be creative.
Flexibility in role definition, because direct supervisor is
Division Director
Not looking to change, so not answered
Hated previous job, but current position has worked with
him to create a better position
Biggest motivating factor was being able to move into
new areas of interest
Yes. if I step out of management, can I get into a NSM
14 or 15 job. which are fewer in number now9
Yes, the associate positions provide some mobility.
There are tremendous opportunities for everyone'
There are opportunities for staff who have career goals
and network
Career mobility is not an issue for him because he likes
his program But there is a double standard because of
different approach to either staying in your program or
Nmtivedata 53
-------
Effects of 1:11
moving around
Career development for her is not a problem but for staff
it is very hard to stay on top of
We are very mobile - musical chairs — good but how
much can we move around without losing some critical
mass— need more management oversight — personally
there are lots of opportunities
whenever a branch-level job comes up, plus these people
have received special treatment so there's a management
credibility problem
So where are you going to go if you're a first-line GS-14
supervisor - agency lost credibility when it moved GS-
15s out without downgrading them
Hampered at Senior level; growing move to eliminate
GS-15; no movement to grow SES, notion of
management rotations are a dismal failure, it makes
people reluctant to rotate out of current position because
they have no position to come back to.
Not as much opportunity to move around; management
rotation program didn't work because they were asking
managers to move out of management and not back into
an equivalent position
Not much at her level.
He sees limits, has topped out where he is now, so
lateral is the only option.
Feels like less not because of reorg , but because we are
not growing — competition seems great
Hasn't changed that much, but obviously less
opportunity for mobility depending on what you're
looking for, will be only two or three branch chief
positions in the regions and not that interested in
associate positions
I'm at the top of my game and have been in most other
major divisions and at HQ, so there isn't anywhere I
want to go, I'm lucky because I've had program
experience and administrative experience - you need
that in my position
For others, if you want out of supervision, you have to
take a downgrade unless you're a regional or national
expert; if you want a 14, you have to supervise
1 11 has adversely affected mobility for lower levels
because there are fewer supervisory positions to move to
54 Namtvedata
-------
Effects of 1:11
Could move if she wanted, but not many opportunities
for training because of time
Communication: has communication changed vertically (up and down the
management chain)?
l^piipE IS® 3-?.::
?:V. WWQv
Extremely flat now with enhanced communication, but
so many direct report stress of dealing with challenges
Better as flatter
Is better with Division Director
Used to have to write a paper and brief section chief,
then branch chief, then higher up - extremely
hierarchical, now much more informal vertically and
getting rid of branch chiefs helped; no down-side for me
and my group, also due to Felicia and office director's
styles
Vertical communication works like a charm, horizontal
is harder - at supervisor level (Up=good. down=bad)
Losing branch chiefs takes a layer away - staff has more
exposure to Division Director His large group needs a
team leader (has one, needs another)
Has improved communication up and across but at a
great cost Staff has suffered considerably Formed
workgroup to identify what they needed from her She
was so drawn outside the unit that staff hardly saw her
Trying to improve communication across divisions but it
takes a great effort Taking great effort to provide
guidance to staff Before reorganization it was easier
because there were fewer direct reports
Took out the branch chief filter - good - but everyone is
suffering from information overload Working
supervisors would say they don't have time to keep up to
date through weeklies, many would say there's too many
meetings So we use our Administrative Officer to keep
track of administrative tasks The upcoming green
pages should really help - a newsletter that appears
when you log on with the day's events and noteworthy
news items, technology helping to control information
Staff must be very competent, .difficult when personnel
issues or hot topics, especially when not producing same
product or following same process
Unmanageable if staff needs management time1
Bad with office chiefs & deputies & Associate Directors
Unclear roles? Contentious issue Associate Directors
just do "fun stuff', not work of managing staff
Associate Directors have no accountability
Did not improve communications, former division
director tried to meet with staff after Keyes survey,
unions interfered in the process he set up
Don't think it's improved communication
Division Director overloaded; no time for quality time
Much worse, not enough time to communicate with my
staff, over 8 or 10 people isn't workable: I never have a
section meeting where everyone is there, so 1 have to
communicate many things twice, used to have time to do
monthly accountability checks with each staff member,
now I don't do them regularly Now 1 have an open door
policy and people come to me with fresher issues
without waiting for the monthly session, which I like
better.
Managers feel isolated, like they're on the sidelines and
the last to know about decisions that have been made
Due to rise and emphasis on partnerships with the
unions.
Bad communication all around, across lines, it's difficult
in all areas Managers are not helping staff make
connections for decisions. Haven't seen Cross Media
Division improvements
Narrative data 55
-------
Effects of 1:11
overload
Losing sense of "check-in" both horizontally and
vertically
No ability to drop in on supervisor now as they have no
time.
Not much difference between vertical and horizontal but
vertical is worse and horizontal maybe better.
With my supervisor, it's basically the same, especially since we kept our branch chiefs in Superfund
Communication has stayed the same People have become more entrenched
Has always had good communication with supervisor and good communication with people she supervised. Sees no
difference in communication
Not much of a difference - thought communication was happening before
Challenge is for Senior Management Team to get information downward
Communication: how has communication changed horizontally (within your unit)?
Is more, but worse with staff on front lines and less one
on one support by managers
Improved as managers are less compartmentalized
across division .
[More] especially for staff; also it's easier for managers
because you don't have to do briefing after briefing, can
go directly to division director
Pretty good job could be better
Peer manager responsibility, little hierarchies going on
that were ridiculous; we've broken down internal
conflicts and fiefdoms. Managers are more cognizant of
big picture and sharing of resources
Group too big
Less horizontal because of total number of people and
workload
Communication with staff is pretty good but staff may
say something different Communications is probably
much less and harder since the reorganization because
there are more people and they are so busy. Now there
is less time to share and discuss ideas
Water Management Team stays in their little boxes -
need to talk more
56 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
Some staff feel that they have more access, some staff don't feel that way at all
Same but not very much
Communication: how has communication changed cross-divisions?
Is more cross divisionally due to changes like creating Not enough people, too much work
Cross Media Division and Office of Public Affairs
Creation of Associate Director as free lancers that Wasn't good before, isn't good now
interact more cross divisionally also helped.
Very poor, due to super stressed-out managers, partly
due to the total reorganization and less than cohesive
Senior Management Team with resource competition
dominating
His role as section chief is cross communication to other divisions, which is at the same level
Doesn't happen that much; we pretty much stay within our division
Same but everyone is busier
Cross-divisional communication is really a function of people, my situation is unique, regardless of 1:11, the other
Division Directors want information only if they are going to need it but if you work with the deputy the Division
Director says why didn't you tell me My Division is trying to do more one-on-one with the other Division
Directors, trying to be more customer oriented and doing more outreach .
Communication: how has guidance/feedback/support to staff changed?
Can provide adequate time on career coaching since we
went to pass/fail
Been positive challenge I welcomed change Best part
about the reorganization
Guidance to staff is pretty good Meets with teams on a
monthly basis rather than individual as before
Areas of responsibility have increased and have less time
to provide this to staff
Has to make decisions re who to spend time with
Much less" Which is okay for some, but those who need
more attention suffer
Branch chief added ability to delegate management resp
that now falls on chiefs (both internal & external)
Managers have too many demands More people and
less time to spend with staff in supporting them
Spread thinner, no time to mentor regarding project or
Narratm data 57
-------
Effects of 1:11
>S. c jjS'-i;- :i-
career, so they don't get same amount of time He
involuntarily has constant aura of being too busy Staff
are afraid to raise issues to him They are not sure issue
is important enough.
Before the reorganization, knew his program better than
anyone in the region and as well as anyone in the
country; after the reorganization in his new division he
couldn't provide as much guidance because he no longer
knew as much about the program
This is where numbers [of direct reports] do matter,
plays a big diminishing role in providing support and
career development
This manager has nine direct reports, mostly admin
staff and stay-in-schoolers, programmatic staff are senior
and don't need a lot of guidance; but many staff need
more coaching than any manager has time for
Staff is getting less useful guidance/feedback/bouncing
ideas of? supervisor that makes for good technical
decisions This creates situations where things have to
get to crises category to get that kind of attention
Don't have time to do coaching and mentoring, too
much time spent on programmatic
I didn't think I was responsible for mentoring, but it is
now an expectation.
She used to give more guidance This has decreased
Same amount from her supervisor
Uses mentors for all new people, common purpose,
common function - managing grants to tribes - means
that they can ask each other, staff people as experts in
different areas
Guidance more people, less time Workforce has
changed with more expectations and staff more
demanding (example, space wars encouraged people to
express themselves).
Roles of managers are less clearly defined and it has
made communication much more difficult Not time to
58 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
talk to staff and staff is feeling abandoned
Guidance feedback to staff, supervisors are
overwhelmed. Not enough time to give guidance
feedback to excel, no time to spend with those that need
it to rise to the next level
Doesn't have as much opportunity to check in with staff
as before, or to go into depth on an issue This impacts
morale. Staff feels supervisor doesn' t have all the info ,
or enough time to listen, which is true
Before reorg.anization. had two support team leaders
under her, now they are not there - harder to get the
work done without that support
Without Branch Chief has more to do, therefore less
time with staff Have senior people, who are more
independent and need less of her time
Guidance to staff is suffering as a result of limited time
Huge brain drain from the original program, no private
company would ever have done what we did to that
division, in our grand scheme of thinking we could just
shuffle people anywhere: the Division Director should
have had a better deputy than he was, he was probably a
drain on the staff, who were always having to brief him
Guidance/feedback/support -new performs systems has forced people to use verbal feedback: number of people
supervised has increased, meets with managers twice/week, person to person contact, upper manager is a task
manager and micro manager
Guidance from supervisor is person-specific
Supervisors feel thai it's tough to do everything, but n was before restructuring also
Communication: how has guidance/feedback/support from your supervisor
changed?
Appreciates the quality of time he has with the Division I Branch chief was mentor, support, tech assistance... now
Narrative data 59
-------
Effects of 1:11
Director now there is no branch chief - needs more1
these functions are non-existent There is no support for
first-lines Division Director is so over booked cannot
really help with supervisor/mentoring Associate
Director meets external and Division Director needs .so,
not coaches or mentors to 1" lines This is a problem for
newer supervisors particularly Day to day contact is
missing more so then involvement in major personnel
actions
He doesn't get much.
Didn't have direct relationship with division director,
more time with Division Director but less than with
former branch chief
At her level - deputy - no need for that much feedback - makes decisions and keeps Director advised.
Depends on how much she pushes
1 don't look for it, but he doesn't have time for it anyway, with 23 direct reports (and I've been in the program
longer than he has)
Doesn't need much from direct supervisor, gets adequate attention
Gets what she needs from her supervisor but not much time to sit back and discussion vision
Changed with the people, but it's just a personality issue
Communication: how has decision-making changed vertically (up and down the
management chain)?
Id IN MSI
Maybe for wrong reasons, lack of time by managers and
therefore becomes defacto
He makes decisions because Division Director is busy
Previous branch chief was one extra layer and road
block
She makes more decisions now Has to or else there
would be a standstill. Sense staff is more empowered
too Key question for management is it okay to make
v'i:61 fta
Better quality control in decision-making before
reorg anization
Staff is empowered by default because managers are too
busy, is that a way to empower9 No
Partnership focus- things are being agreed to that don't
seem to be inclusive of the management team
Feels delegation hasn't gone down to staff as much as
expected
60 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
mistakes because staff is empowered7 Unclear answer.
Both for her and for her staff.
Spreading out to geographically oriented Associates
helped
From a manager's position, feels with layer of branch
chief gone he is more empowered - staff doesn't see this
Benefit for staff is quicker decision-making in some
areas (e g P.O.s for promotions)
Minimal feedback from the supervisor. Authority to
make decisions has improved Seldom have to go up the
line With breakdown of communication less info going
up the line - staff like this
More decisions are made at the staff level. Function of
size of group - technical decisions at the staff level -
Staff can't get to sup as much More power, as has been
brought to her level
More now. but factor of whether you feel you can make
decisions Empowerment works only if staff can/feels
comfortable making decisions Pressure is on first-lines
to guide staff
More autonomy to make decisions as Division Director
has more direct report Changed process means going
for approval rather than seeking advice
She is making more decisions
In one case decision-making got lowered - but
empowerment has never been fully defined - it means
different things to everyone - Gore tool box has never
been defined - staff has one view point and management
means another
Can get speedy direction on urgent matters, but no day
to day
Decision-making (increased authority''), 90% decision
are made by managers, more things that can be signed
and are delegated to managers
\Vr
Bottleneck of one decision maker after reorganization
Not made at lower level
Going up it has gotten worse - hard to get on calenders
Division handling 5 different programs Decisions
happened more quickly before
Region has become more centralized with decisions only
being made at the top (e g., hiring needing RA
approval) Trying to work together as managers, but it
is amazing how often we are working on similar issues
and don't talk to each other
Narrative data 61
-------
Effects of 1:11
Decisions go to Senior Associate/work like branch chiefs
Very little pre-briefing before briefing the RA, unlike past years when staff would brief all the way up the
management chain before reaching the RA, it can be fun (empowering) but we're not training staff adequately in
presentation skills, staff-level briefing could be partly due to Felicia's non-linear style and strong personality and the
culture she brought, could be different in the future
Decrease in communication affects decision-making abilities, but much is delegated to division director; some
delegations below division director before reorganization, more requirements for HQ concurrence now, reducing
local DM authority but not radically
Has enough autonomy so not a problem
No middle level. Senior Management Team talks to Laura and Laura makes the final decision (hiring mentioned)
Mixed results in some cases people have been able to make some decisions on their own, quicker decisions haven't
worked because upper Senior Management Team haven't relinquished control and haven't backed up their talk with
how things operate, culture hasn't changed, when things get controversial we go back to the same old thing/ways
Some staff have taken advantage of flattening, been promoted
Decision-making is manager-specific - whether feels able to empower, depends on how experienced your staff are
For him, it is a matter of survival' HQ definitely gets less now
Decision-making- changed to lower level making decisions (minus the supervisor) creating a situation where the
decision is made twice Staff develops the ability to guess right (what boss thinks or how she/he would characterizes
issue)
Communication: how has decision-making changed horizontally (within your
division)?
Bp
111111
IS
11
Rl^K
1
'.'-lull's;
3 •
A lot more at staff level Depending on who. He is
delegating responsibilities to reduce his paperwork
requirements
Leads held accountable (wants to formalize that role)
Too many programs so must let staff run with things
He is ultimate decision maker
Larger unit forces supervisor to delegate
Same for her but her supervisors say they have more
autonomy and feel more ownership over their programs,
and more liability without having a branch chief
Staff is not more empowered
There are issues where the bigger programs will
dominate a smaller program because there just isn't
enough time
62 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
Staff may be empowered if they are capable of making the decisions, otherwise, staff develops options and we meet
to make the decision
Superfund has always empowered Remedial Project Manager to send out letters, etc It's up to Remedial Project
Managers to decide what issues to elevate or what policy decisions require guidance
Could have more horizontal decision-making, but staff rely on him for knowledge
She has to be creative in how to get staff to interact - is more formal with newer staff
Communication: how has decision-making changed across divisions?
"I:-
Vim
¦ - • : ¦
Better communication across divisions, because of loss
of branch chief
Dealing with more people cross-divisionally, as number
of grants have increased dramatically
Losing branch chiefs has hampered cross program
fertilization Lack of communication cross divisions not
good
Communication between divisions and other programs is
worse Example of mercury and TMDL - was probably
like this before but this is a function of a manager to
help tie things together
Institutional inertia that no one has overcome, our
restructuring has reinforced the stove pipe/different
media
The agency is still defined by laws and it is still a top-down organization established by legislation that creates units
reporting to an RA; the country and the region depends on the managers being experts in their fields, cross-
divisional communication has to come from staff people, division directors don't talk that much, but in parts of the
programs people have always done that - environmental justice. Tribal, Border -just creating those programs
fostered cross-divisional communication, but had nothing to do with reorganization, those programs would have
looked the same without reorganization because the agency was moving in that direction anyway, e g , it wasn't
creating Cross Media Division that made the Tribal team what it is, but simply putting those people together in one
unit, similarly for the people working on mining, who put their own group together, agricultural initiative is similar
Acting RA has centralized decision-making for hiring and promotions
Difficult thing for this office/not good at it, 2 big issues that make it difficult, budget structure and jurisdictional
mandates (stove pipes with Headquarters)
Not working well across divisions, but not only because of 1:11, but competition among divisions is making it worse
Giant pain in the butt (cross-media)
Cross-divisional tough, depends on work, stated objective rather than true
Narrative data 63
-------
Effects of 1:11
Friction over enforcement and tribal office
Acting RA has emphasized the divisions need to communicate more, result of change in management culture rather
than l 11, more a factor of personalities and what the DRA is interested in for making decisions.
Communication: how has communication to Head
uarters chan
Deal directly. Before reorganization went through
branch chiefs. Now have HQ direct counterpart
Communication to HQ improved because he put staff on
national calls that he couldn't do - empowered
Worse overall; we restructured in a way that we lost
sight of who we are and were our counterparts in HQ
and other Regions are.
Communication with HQ is interesting. They refuse to
acknowledge that we don't have the same degree of
hierarchy - they require that a higher up call. External
stakeholder communication seems to be working since
they know that she is making the decisions - her boss
doesn't have the time - before they always wanted to talk
to higher ups
More hit-and-miss, some good relationships and some
bad, national branch chiefs meetings on specific
programs replaced by Air Program Managers meetings
that are huge, less focused, may take longer to get things
done
Our organizational changes don't reflect Headquarters
structure
How11 Certain people won't speak to you - hierarchy,
only talk to RA, R9 is not hierarchical and it's hard for
people to know how to engage with us.
Communication is suffering a lot from day to day tasks
over HQ workgroup responsibilities
Very hard to understand communication from HQ Not
reorg.anization but because of change in people The
change of guard Change in how things are happening
With HQ - accountability systems aren't there and they
reorg anized and the systems don't match - before there
was an organization to go to
64 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
HQ is a shambles as a result of their reorganization
Depends on HQ office
We've always paid attention to HQ because we have to
Has been a long-standing issue, but doesn't have anything to do with 1 11
HQ's reorganization has affected negatively our ability to communicate with them; their spoke-and-wheel
organization has resulted in some reinventing the wheel and poorer communication with them
Nature of info, management work leads to tight working relationship w/HQ and other Regions.
HQ communication has changed - very poor - but not because of 1-11 Changed programs and this program has bad
HQ communication
Communication: how has communication to external stakeholders changed?
We've always paid attention to HQ because we have to States sometimes look more at the title and wants to hear
but we are better at paying attention to people outside, from supervisor rather than who we want doing the
part of Felicia's legacy, but also because of the work
movement or potential movement of programs to the
state
Now we pay attention to the outside communication
whenever we do something, even Superfund CI got
better at really listening to the public and even changing
its mind
Senior Management Team level of communication is good, but not connected to staff and work
Due to Felicia Marcus's leadership to think outside the box and community involvement
Dependent upon Senior level staff 13/14 staff responds well - not because of 1-11
Hard to tell - her program has changed since reorganization
Although more external contact (Associate Directors fill these roles), work load is unbalanced Key is good
communication Disconnect as now external contact is not with first-lines, but that is where the work is being done
We as agency are not out building constituencies as we should be Failing to get our message out Felicia got that
part right
Narrative data 65
-------
Effects of 1:11
Section chiefs have less time as have more people to manage, but each project manager is communicating more to
externals
Not cover issues as thoroughly now. Not strategically thinking of what we should be doing No methodic review of
issues
Associate Directors took on geographic focus, prior was state/tribal/local. Reduction of role as Associates do most
state contact now This is less satisfying
Difficult when you deal with a very hierarchical organization like Army Corp of Engineers, where they want to
speak only to people at their level.
States think we take a long time to make a decision, but they would say that we're more accessible
Not as good at sharing lessons learned among staff, which affects how well we can communicate with stakeholders,
who expect us to have our act together
Now we get a lot more input from stakeholders, in fact can get inundated with it, because they are never happy with
what DOD is doing, volume has definitely increased.
No opinion re communication to external stakeholders
Communication with External stakeholders at least as good as it was before
Has very little communication with external stakeholders
But emphasis is on tribes, stemming from Regional Administrator's recognition that they're a large constituency
that had been ignored
Communication: other comments
Empowerment comes as staff mature, not as a result of reorganization
Under delayered structure, staff is closer to problems - empowered
Opinion - empowerment is a case-by-case call of supervisor
Non-supervisory managers- it is unclear and there is confusion about what they're doing (are they staff, what is their
role), it caused confusion to take them out of the mix Non-supervisory managers are not effective and region is in
denial about how well reorganize worked (with respect to taking them out of management)
Less time to resolve conflict, some non-supervisory managers have stepped up but some haven't, some conflicts
aren't dealt with
During the reorganization we had to remove 25 supervisors to get to the 1:11 ratio
66 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
All mid-level managers were taken out of positions and all supervisors report to Division Director
We're not competitive and federal salary structure does not take into consideration the high cost of living in the Bay
Area Federal salary does not keep up with local economy; employees have no hope that they can buy a house here
It has become a morale issue for employees How do we address that, it's outside of our control, how do we give a
living wage to workers9 Feel for employees
Don't think there is an agreement on a vision for environmental protection a vision that would allow us to get
environmental results
Senior Management Team - day to day issues are being managed by them and in the RA office
Look at the delegations manuals pre and post-flattening, and see what happened where there was delegation at the
Branch level - did it go up or down the chain of command9
Balancing time and demands very important.
Hard to compare to the way it was with former Branch Chief
Communication has improved through electronic methods m the past years
Differences in Division were some advantages to having a Branch Chief (acted as a broker in decision-making
between Section Chiefs), now these situations often go unresolved (Div Dir only gets involved in extreme cases)
More time with Division Director than before, but need to be concise
Physical confines of building (e g separate elevator banks) affects how much interaction there is between
programs/offices
Agency is badly managed Worse than 10 years ago Less accountability Systems are in decline Work is falling
on the managers to pick-up Communication has suffered.
Communication is key element in our work If not there a serious problem
Managers are more affected as there are fewer of them and issues are raised quicker.
A mistake of bureaucracies is to think that you have to reorganization to get people together
Some self-starters have been able to run with it but over 50% haven't
We're still balkanized organizationally, although Felicia tried to break down barriers, partly because we're always
working as fast as possible, getting sued, reacting
Senior Management Team is not a team, but maybe that's not a problem, there's a common vision for
environmental protection and some cross-division efforts like the Border Team have worked out but takes a lot of
energy, not the result of 1 11 but rather the result of reorganization
Superfund has many experienced staff, which is the only reason we've survived the flattening
Narrative data 67
-------
Effects of 1:11
Responsiveness: how has productivity changed?
';-y. ;J
Doing more with less.
Reorganization was just shuffling the deck: but it created
CMD, OSPEI, OPA, Tribal team, out of media FTE, so
something must have been affected.
We're producing at the same rate but we're not
constantly briefing, so we're producing more useful
products
Some economies due to reduction from two to one
branch chief for private NPL sites, e g , in making
budget decisions
Root cause is decreased communication/coordination
among staff
It's a chicken-egg question, cultural shift toward
customer service means we're doing more of what our
customers want, whether we're more productive or not
although we have lost several SIS and FTE, so we are
more productive and supervisors have a greater
ownership
Demands have accelerated.
Things fall through cracks now!
All cannot be priority, but seems to be
Need to be more strategic, have lost that ability since
reorganization
Less productive as fewer people responsible for high
profile projects NSMs aren't taking on projects are
not being used effectively.
A lot of the busy-ness is communication - e-mail, etc
the amount of work has increased while the resources
have stayed the same, but not sure we've figured out
how to do our jobs more efficiently
In some areas we've gotten better and in some we've gotten worse
Some better, others bottle-necked
Don't have a gauge, don't know how to measure what we do - no widgets
Hard to tell if more now as a result of reorganization
Need to pick & choose, with lack of clear lines of authority & faulty communication this is exacerbated
We are busier but are we getting more done9
68 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
Responsiveness: how has the quality of product changed?
Better and more efficient
Mostly through use of Internet has improved
Technology has changed communication level,
increasing it
Still doing the big stuff the same
[Improved] because of increased skills, training, and
empowerment, not due to the reorganization per se,
however, politics has impeded our abilities, so it's a
mixed bag
Due to maturing and increased experience of staff,
but would have been even better without the
flattening
Because we have experienced people, but 1 can no
longer review every document, so I have to trust
staff and every once in a while I'll get burned
Some products that have gone out wouldn't have gone out
before, no pressure for review of letters
Not doing as thorough a job since reorganization
Quality suffers and no time for regular questioning of how
we are doing and what we are doing Strategically doing
things that are unimportant"
Very little review between Div. Dir and staff for Q&A/QC
Declined as reviewers (delayermg) decreased, yet authority
increased
GPRA does track well except for performance measures, not
good at strategic view for outlying years GPRA will not be
good in long run
We don't have time to plan so we are just putting out fires
now
Depends on supervisor Overburdened already, so quality
has reduced
I've signed stuff that in past years I would have sent right
back, partly because our staffing has decreased 25% over six
years
SAME OR OTHER COMMENTS
No good way to measure, writing, communication hasn't improved, correspondence limited
Two camps in the group - some more, others do less when he's gone
Depends on individual staff - willing to accept less, due to lack of time
Quality is same if staff rises to the occasion, but problematic when staff don't and manager is too overwhelmed to
back-stop as before reorganization
Narrative data 69
-------
Effects of 1:11
Responsiveness: how has achieving environmental results changed?
Resources providing talent so program can do the job
Some of the initiative programs are getting good
environmental results
Setting goals and strategic planning has gotten us there,
not reorganization
Staff have developed.
Her unit now trying to be more strategic
The products that we produce make more sense, we still
operate under mandates which control what we do
We're bad about telling our story, we're too activity
oriented.
Loss of wetlands
Since reorganization we are just keeping up, but we
should be IMPROVING
Are less efficient now then before reorganization
It's a mixed bag, some good, some bad
Can't judge
Hard to say - was in different program before
Just now beginning to measure, so may appear there are, but question long run
We've accomplished a lot in spite of cuts and litigation, too many other factors to ascribe this to 1:11 and also hard
to compare since this manager was in a different division before the reorganization
Same phenomenon as above [due to maturing and increased experience of staff, but would have been even better
without the flattening].
We support the other divisions primarily and hope we help them focus on results
Responsiveness: how has external stakeholder satisfaction changed?
Work of a determined few and stakeholders are more
engaged - they want to talk with "the Boss"
Could do a lot more outreach, communication
With fewer layers, it's harder for public to find who to talk
70 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
If public do get the right person, they get an answer
faster
Has seen greater participation in stakeholder groups,
but that may have been the result of the culture that
Felicia instituted
[More] because the reorganization brought this group
together, but not because of flattening.
External stakeholders live in a fishbowl, but hope
people would say that they are better now than 5 yrs
ago.
to.
"Squeaky wheel" communication is not happening as
smoothly, as project managers and on up the chain are so
busy
May not be a 1 11 issue, but constant reorganization and
organizational flexibility means there is little continuity in
contacts and hard to maintain relationships
supervisors no longer have time to deal with all the
stakeholders even for the ten out of fifty sites that the RPMs
don't manage independently
Wouldn't necessarily be aware, limits due to resources, if asked we'd get mixed response
Would hope that external stakeholders would notice our increased attention, would be good to ask them
Responsiveness: how has speed of decision-making changed?
Because of direct access to Acting RA and DD
She has control
Has same pre-reorganization layers in my division
with Associate as supervisor, so agree is faster
Probably faster, but is it better - that may falter at
times, but staff needs to learn from mistakes as long
as it doesn't jeopardize our relationships with
stakeholders like States and industry
Has never been a problem in Superfund, we were and
still are decisive and don't let things sit around
Tortuous consensus-building process in Region -eg
recarpeting process1
More problematic now if need decision quickly as Div Dir
is overworked
Faster for section chiefs because no branch chief,
region has two different cultures - one is the DD just
tell me the bottom line, others I want to understand
Narrative data 71
-------
Effects of 1:11
the big picture - so sometimes decisions come faster
and sometimes not, but implementation can be faster
without layers
Judicial referrals are big time hogs, answer should be yes because fewer layers needed.
Some yes, some same
Responsiveness: how has organizational flexibility changed?
Hard to measure
Hasn't altered in last few years; part of reorganization is where you put people/figure out what to do with people
Core program v innovative fluff
I don't have so much flexibility because many of my people are in specific classifications and I can't move them
around like a Division Director could move an EPS with some training
Responsiveness: how has rewarding innovation changed?
People get recognized for activity
We're a little bit better, but we are more entrenched
We could do better, trying, people are more
receptive
Larger awards now
Creating opportunity for innovation, but rewarding
them less
Lots of lip service paid to it
It's done accidentally
He has less time to apply for awards for his staff, though
tries hard, gives on-the-spots quickly - recognition is
important
Not good in R9 - hard to do, when we're set in our
procedures
EPA is not an innovative organization, so hard to reward
something that isn't there
72 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
Some people are rewarded for innovation (the
visible people who do the high-profile projects)
Same obstacles that were present are still present, but a
really good idea would get a hearing in the past as well as
currently.
Some people are innovative and not rewarded
Not a structural issue - R9 moving ahead on TMDL implementation, HQ reining in
He has to consider rewarding 20 people Timeliness is challenge He likes the fact that first-line supervisors are
responsible for rewarding But it is worse since not part of Performs. More of a burden on supervisors
Calculated risk taking is good versus running around empowered and sloppy. Semantics and judgement in risk
taking
Not rewarding per se, just as a result of innovation
Not related to 1 11
Can be harder to recognize innovation if communication is impeded.
More likely to be program-centric
We aren't doing a lot of innovation because we're just trying to get the job done, although periodically we step back
Mostly we try to get managers to make change in little steps rather than changing the world; for instance we're
moving to 1GMS but in little steps, we're the only region that does grant PO training; in contracts we're moving
slowly toward direct ordering, but carefully
Generally 1 11 isn't leading to innovation although change is happening in response to outside pressures
Responsiveness: how has accountability changed?
8851
1
B!ir1 #1. ISill
3
Management tracking tools are helping us to get
there
Staff are empowered to make decisions She will
take ultimate responsibility, and staff respond by
giving her good quality.
We could be better.
Accountability requires structure and we've gotten away from
it
Continues to waive reporting with no consequences for non-
performance, in this organization you can perform quite well
and nothing will happen to you and you can perform quite
poorly and nothing will happen to you System has run amok.
Narrative data 73
-------
Effects of 1:11
there are no consequences for performance, good or bad
We're not very accountable - big problem area for
organization
First-line managers are more accountable, but it is difficult to
hold staff accountable There are more people and more to
oversee now
Impossible to keep track of it all. A lot going on out there he
doesn't know about A new RA could change that.
Letting loose of GS13, Felicia's informal style, and there is no
accountability, fewer expectations on 13s now than years ago
High expectations now of managers who are not good at
setting priorities Setting consequences or clear objectives,
defeats morale as work inequities exist.
R9 poor at this compared to other regions Yes, it's a problem
as there are fewer checks and balances
Clearly less accountable now; we've gotten sloppy with our
own accountability, we no longer do monthly PATS focusing
on due dates, even though we are a scientific organization, this
was important because it made people think strategically,
looking out one. three, and twelve months, now staffs jobs just
go on forever without true milestones, HQ doesn't hold
programs nearly as accountable - no longer does annual
regional program reviews
We twisted GPRA to justify our hit, so it doesn't provide the
accountability you might expect
If your staff is not self-motivated, could be more of an
oversight burden, even the self-motivated staff don't
necessarily set milestones for themselves, it's certainly easier
to check when you have fewer staff (and fewer program areas)
to monitor, our deadlines are self-imposed, "soft" deadlines,
but we often miss them
Branch-level checks are no longer in place, our writing is no
longer as good, our technical justifications seem to be just as
good in Air as in Water, although we could be more persuasive
perhaps with more levels of review
74 Narrative data
-------
Effects oH:11
Branch chiefs added a layer of accountability that we don't
have now
With a matrix organization, I don't always get feedback on
what my people are doing
As a branch chief, I was held more accountable, but now
there's more space between me and the second line and I'm
not held as accountable
Harder to have systematic accountability with such a broad
span of control
Agency lost its standards and culture on accountability, since
No branch chief is there to monitor section chiefs targets and
output, less uniformity in our ability to respond.
Two camps in his group, as with Quality (above) - some take more initiative, some not. 1:11 affected this - he
doesn't have time to work in detail with all staff
He tries to pass to staff, and to deal with hot issues without them going to Division Director
The division has been having discussions about things being a little looser then before reorganization With Division
Director span of control and now second line supervisors for entire division difficult to manage and see all that is
going on So, managers taking on more quality control Focus then on higher priority items There is more
opportunity for reduction in accountability.
I have the same level of accountability and my supervisors feel more accountable
The span of control is more of a problem in the areas of mentoring/coaching, employees don't get a much
encouragement
Some people thrive under the new organization and some don't
Reorganization didn't work as intended, you really have to support the teams - two official teams in HR and
managers have to support the team leaders.
The AO keeps track of the beans and most of my units get audited at least once or twice a year, so accountability is
imposed
Narrative data 75
-------
Effects of 1:11
Responsiveness: other comments
We need to be better at looking strategically at who it is we want (to hire) and who is out there.
Less accountability under the last administration
Have empowered people, given them more freedom with less accountability.
Credit for environmental results goes more to the state agencies and to business community due to environmental
ethics - polluters are smarter and more aware
Innovation cynicism so high that we're unable to be innovative - we lack the fervor of Silicon Valley for example
Would like to see more honesty about what is/isn't working at the Senior Management Team level
Feeling like GS15's are an endangered species, no peer group for them to talk to; go to
Staff is being asked to do more without any review They are often turned away because mangers are too busy with
increased burdens
Systems are broken down, eg who looks at work products7 Things go out without review and consultation among
staff/managers There is no meaningful dialogue about what staff is putting together, problem solving, insight into
what they are doing, what they are responsible for and she believes staff wants that support from managers
76 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
Major decisions are being made by Regional Administrator, e.g. hiring, programmatic Decisions are consolidated
in the RA's office and she is already so backed up and hasn't delegated authority. Regional Administrator has taken
on the authority to make all decisions
Rewarded for talking about innovation and thinking outside of the box, but we're not holding people accountable for
putting that into action
Environmental results GPRA - don't pay a lot of attention to it; still going to do what we're going to do; have more
outcomes, don't know if environmental results have changed
Looking at level of activity for enforcement, it is the same
Don't think Felicia's vision was implemented because some Division Directors didn't agree with it Tools of choice
remain, e g enforcement action, want people to think about what works
GPRA touts flexibility, but it's not
Need to look at Senior Management Team dichotomies see where there is mmbleness
Don't see a lot of innovation, control, how to cover our butts
We're productive because we've lost the ability to track/plan resources and to have good indicators with outputs and
report on them (other regions have less of one than we do)
It is hard to come up with good indicators
Productivity people are motivated by putting in more time than they are compensated for
Widget factory looks the same but level of difficulty increases.
Quality of product: literacy, dramatic decline in written communication, issues are not characterized in lucid fashion
so people can figure out what to do. no tight, efficient characterization of matters
Enduring resistance to how we approach things (older workforce)
Using accountability for goal oriented purposes instead to inspire - something we don't understand how to do, don't
use accounting systems in as way to focus energy
Fewer layers has increased productivity HQ sees same quality of product, though routines stuff may suffer
1 11 doesn't allow him to coach staff to be more responsive (e.g. not holding onto documents for too long, holding
up process)
Due to ratio, he has to rely on staff to be self-directive, some can do better than others Stakeholders may not feel
EPA is being responsive enough
Staff forced to grow/develop under new system - some respond, others need direction from supervisor, and he
doesn't have enough time to meet their needs
Narrative data 77
-------
Effects of 1:11
Recommendations and Final Thoughts
1:11/flattening/delayering
II K'V:;
Result of 1:11 has been a change of culture in R9 -
he thinks it's good, but we need to debate the pros
and cons
Loss of Branch Chief is working Choose your staff
carefully1 1:11 gets people more empowered, has
helped give job satisfaction to staff There is a fragile
balance of what's working and what's not
Current ratio is OK - it's appropriate Supervisors
need to adapt. He'd deal with any further increase in
staff ratio
Division Director's span of control is out of control.
Flattening even more would be a mistake; management
would be in a bottle-neck to staff and various review layers,
quality suffers - no adequate review of documents.
Disadvantage, takes more time, Division Director would
have to do more work of branch chiefs
1-11 is the wrong solution to the problem.
Bigger units are not practical - 7 is the optimal size to
supervise Effectiveness depends on the mix of people in
the unit
1 11 is demanding on supervisors and staff.
Staff getting short-changed by 1 11.
Official R9 ratio of 1 10 7 is a lie - unfair. We need to be
honest with the reality
Would be shortsighted to continue to increase staff to
management ratio; won't increase communication,
empowerment, and organizational ability by forcing the
agency to increase spans of control - too simplistic an
approach
Managers should have fewer distinct, varied programmatic
responsibilities, we can't continue to flatten if we're still
expected to know all of our staffs technical subject matter.
Concerned about what might happen if they further flatten
the organization, I would have to think about looking at
other positions
Real 1-11 would be wonderful. Some groups are just too
large 1 -11 is not such a bad number But the formula
drives it past 1-11
78 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
Commonality of Function
1 11 works when people are functionally similar but perhaps not when a section has multiple functions organized
geographically
Can have more reports when you have a common purpose - same mission, same procedures if no performance
problems - one or two performance problems can take up most of your time avoided that by hiring the entire group
Need to pay attention to the homogeneity of the groups in terms of function, can't just jam people together to meet
the numbers, but if they all do the same thing, they count as one
1 11 works well when people are doing a lot of the same thing with same procedure manual, shoving squares pegs
into round holes with EPA regulatory agency which is not sending out welfare checks... with current situation we
cannot tend the store!
Can't just jump more people together in a section, need to think of function, overlap, commonality so can create
teams
Works best if each office is only responsible for 1 program or 1 geographic area
Ideal ratio might be 1*10 but depends on similarity of function
Reorganization/change
Stop reorganizing and provide some organizational stability
Total disaster for this region because of the way it was done - not allowing staff to compete for management jobs,
created morale issues that we're still living with, created union/management problems
Ill-conceived by Browner to reorg across the country, no analysis beforehand as to why we were doing it, the NPR
made wild decisions without justification
The cost of reorg was enormous
Just hopes that someone has the sense not to reorganize us again (both reorganize and flatten), massive movement
of staff and supervisors was a bad idea
I don't want any change because I've been here a long time and I know how to work with the current structure, I
don't want to have to adjust to a new organization
Things are definitely better now than they were in 1997, but there are still scars from it - distrust between staff and
management as a result, Laura is working hard with the unions but still "us against them" feeling
Narrative data 79
-------
Effects of 1:11
Reorganization/change
The unions will exert their power this time and not let the same thing happen; Felicia required managers to apply
for one management and two non-management jobs, used this to get rid of some managers, who were told that they
got one of the non-management jobs they applied for (but didn't want), then there were hundreds of staff people who
applied for GS-14 jobs and no one got one; so when the rotation policy came out, managers saw it as another way to
eliminate them, still feelings of distrust among both staff and managers
Give more weight to those who were in the same job before and after reorg.
Structural changes after the new RA comes; without a huge analysis, but internally for each division
There could be a model for limiting the amount of change
One division tries to incorporate positive role of former Branch Chief while remaining with the 111, teams are
essential part, further, will utilize the benefits of NSMs with Div. Dir. and Associates responsible for programmatic
line while working with Div Dir as team and responding externally, enhancing division's visibility to public Note
also that each section is based upon function, not personality Further, new section chiefs have smaller section so
they will cut their teeth successfully Also creating an ombudsman position to act as go-between with Div Dir and
deal with merit, promotion, diversity, and personnel issues
There needs to be a comprehensive plan on how to consciously implement the 1 15 It should have not been done
top down as it was, but included all levels for how benefit or work in a 1.15 system
Empowerment would need to be thought through
Make adjustments so that 1-15 is equitable Some people can be switched.
Eliminate boutique offices (OSPEI), groups (Environmental Justice) — rearrangement of status quo
Going back to Branch Chiefs is not viable
Reorg would have been better if we had an outsider take a look and our work and come up with an appropriate
management structure for each program not concerned with uniformity
How much more can we delayer9
Don't delayer more - can't go further
If we are going to go to 1 15, need to really look at whole super structure, invest time in comprehensive reorg plan
80 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
Training
More training on teams would be good
Training - bringing in outside speakers or
authorities in the forefront on management issues
would be valuable; brings us current
Looking to more empower staff through training
LDP and other intensive courses are more effective
as they are integrated
Quality of training is horrible. A lot of it is knee jerk
reactions to perceived needs without actual needs to managers
Like Zenger-Miller being inappropriate because it was geared
towards private sector and not government A lot of us have
very bad attitudes towards training When people hear
training they run the other way Training budget is laughable
it is so low
Training isn't substitute for a lot of the problems we have
Training is good to do, but needs time and resources Hard to
understand current priorities Would like training for helping
staff with career development
Training for managers is mandatory, but managers aren't
going. Lack of time and upper management support
Likes recent training for managers but not sure it will help It
is great to talk to others but hard to carry it back to real world
with 20 people sections
Training needs for managers - but this is always very different
from the day to day experience
Training - this won't solve ratio issue
Not best to have everyone run through the same course
We're inundated in training, I just finished the last of the six
leadership courses but we don't have time to reflect and
implement what we learned
Managers get way more training than staff, there's an
imbalance there - I've had training that I wanted my staff to
have- How to give constructive feedback, for example
I helped develop a training plan for the division some time
ago that just died, I don't know why
Training, not getting enough management training, all the
required training takes most of the 40 hours of training time
allowed to managers annually, management skills can be
Narrative data 81
-------
Effects of 1:11
Training
taught, explored, and learned; you can go out and find out
how outside companies and agencies do things - if not you end
up falling back into the old way of doing things
Training: at management level 80 hour requirement is kind of
a joke, no ume to do it' Don't see a practicable way to
implement this requirement with increased burdens placed on
management
Training: opportunities are there, no time to take advantage
Does get enough training in management; the reorg caused a
complete loss of management culture, of common knowledge
of what's OK and what isn't, they did not deliver on the
promised training on procedure development for dealing with
flattening and 1.11, which led to a lot of inconsistency and led
to the concerns and strength of the unions.
More use of teams might help, pulling together
informal teams to deal with specific problems are a
good idea; the team needs to have a clear goal and
mission.
Don't keep providing lip service to teams Allow
team leaders to work in efficient ways, they should
be rewarded and given an array of duties that can
be given to team leaders Division Director makes
decisions on how to be organized and there is no
limit on the number of team leaders
[Working:] Self-directed team, due to experience
of most of the staff and mix of experience from
within the division and from other divisions and
even other agencies, e g., IRS, branch chief signs
time cards but the team does if anything a better
Teams - problem is the default dealing with consensus -
process over product - unwillingness to take leadership
Teams he directs are not compatible, he seldom has section
meetings with all included - the teams seem satisfied with this
situation
Teams not fully actualized A comprehensive team package is
needed Team training - what they are, how they work, how
accountability is leveled out
Self directed teams won't work as solution as they seem to rely
on individuals who are team-oriented.
Teams teams was a fiasco and a joke, the training was a joke,
the idea of self-directed teams was totally misguided, there are
some good performing teams in the region but that's because
82 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
job than the section chiefs in tracking time and
attendance, including episodic work-at-home
reporting, very attentive to documenting time,
responsive to feedback on needs for improvement
there was a reason to form the team; in other cases the team
was really a section with a chief called a team leader, but a
small section, the idea that you could throw staff together and
have them create work plans together, review each others
work was misguided
Teams- not crazy about them; none of the teams/team leaders
work unless the leaders are given specific line responsibilities
(some supervisory responsibilities), team members end up
bringing everything to the supervisor anyway, especially on
personnel issues or when they don't have confidence in the
leader
Teams teams took on a negative connotation early in Air
reorg , we tried various things but most did not succeed, most
people did not want to make the investment to really sign on
to a team, just wanted to be given their work but not attend
team meetings, instead, we have geographic teams under the
associates that pull in people from the offices as necessary,
however, the Indian team has been a success, because we
believed in it and took the time to develop training and our
ability to go out and speak; Air Toxics team has become
successful but took a lot of pain because some managers don't
believe in teams, would not want to go through the pain of
developing teams again
Teams teams are in name only and not really self-directed,
really sections with a team leader as section leader except for
the name, don't really make group decisions
Teams - did not see any of them pan out due to lack of
management authority and lack of clear definition and
autonomy and lines of authority
Has not heard of successes on teams - have heard horror
stories - has a team on her staff but this is really a seasoned
sup with a senior staff - not really a team
Teams never caught on that well, people like to be able to
refer decisions to a decision-maker
Teams we have no formal structure and the emphasis on
Narrative data 83
-------
Effects of 1:11
Teams
teams is exaggerated because sometimes they are really just a
section
Teams are a way of not counting the 1.11. You can assign 3
people to a supervisor and they don't count in the 1:11; this is
a mechanism to give staff supervisory experience, but team
leader doesn't have the administrative authority It should be
a better career development opportunity (for team leader to
have recognitionyauthority)
Teams: confusion over its role, too ambiguous, their lack of
authority makes it not useful, not enamored; informal because
they're run by staff for staff, not sure teams are helpful, if you
have them they should be focused, effectiveness dependent
combination of who people are
No time to pull together as a team and analyze what it is about
groups that function well, successfully and then model it, do it
right with others.
Has used teams informally on and off - grants team and policy
team - but teams don't necessarily work, its nice to have one
person with authority to decide, so that things don't go around
interminably
Management rotation
^•• 'Urates'"" -''l
1; I ;• n; i".
Mobility assignments - what is this*" Has not become a
reality in R9 Yes. \Ve should implement - would make
a change Without program expertise needed so much,
manager could focus on staff needs more
Management rotation -some value - can't force people to
do it - do it selectively - like the DeFalco way who would
decide that people need to go someplace and would
reassign them - we get hung up on something that will
be good for everybody
Management rotations are deadly - need supervisors to
have expertise in their area
Manager rotations - was a stupid idea, we are not
interchangeable, task/programmatic needs are unique,
don't value program knowledge as it is...we feel like HQ
thinks we are pawns
Management rotations - not cure all, can encourage
opportunity, but not require it
84 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
Management rotation
Rotation policy: should periodically rotate the good
managers back into management and provide
opportunity for NSM positions for current supervisors to
rotate into
Management rotations -
- not opposed
- see down time from learning curve, but could be
great benefits for revitalizing & rethinking
- shouldn't necessarily be mandatory
Management rotations - is helpful to manager to rotate,
as Laura is doing now with Jane & Mike, etc Others
should move but haven't Would make for healthier
organization in long run if rotated Requires them to
find "value added" if they move to new section, dormant
skills when not moving and rely strictly on program
knowledge
Better idea: every ten years managers get to do an LDP
program, rather than just moving to a different program;
should have the opportunity to study or explore
something, or possibly swap jobs with another manager
for a while, like a sabbatical, because supervising burns
people out
Management rotations - could be good thing, even if
involuntary, but would need to balance institutional
knowledge vs. broadening experiences, program would
suffer if too many people move to quickly
Management r.^DOitunity snouid ^available
but not productive to force people, especially.{,h«y
aren t doing well, could give people the wrong message,
that it s better to move around, which could cause the
loss of expertise in exchange for breadth, could be good
in long term but makes it harder in the short term
Management rotations, balance people in positions
where they have grown stale
Management rotations is a concept that could work.
Management rotations never defined what it really
meant, the last concept would have been total disaster
for staff
Management rotation scares her because so much
change and that will make it even harder for groups - to
disruptive
Was in favor of management rotation, but having been
in this position for Five years, now believes that there is
value in gaming knowledge and expertise
Narrative data 85
-------
Effects of 1:11
Management rotation
there are pros/cons and we should have one, it's good
for the agency
management rotations- cutting back on people who
weren't the best managers was a good thing Need to be
honest about having good managers. Can see rotation
for a purpose, but not for the sake of it To develop
skills; not for musical chairs Good to bring in new
ideas. Big process to move especially if it's someone
with institutional knowledge No, unless there is a
purpose.
It is very useful to move managers, depends on the
individual - some excel with new responsibilities
Management rotations may work for some jobs, but others have too specialized knowledge to do. If want to do this,
invest in professional training - Training is important, new ones good.
Management rotations, cutting back on people who weren't the best managers was a good thing Need to be honest
about having good managers Can see rotation for a purpose, but not for the sake of it To develop skills, not for
musical chairs Good to bring in new ideas Big process to move especially if it's someone with institutional
knowledge No, unless there is a purpose
Need more for staff (e.g. group dynamics)
L>ecision-making
Decentralization of decision-making authority needs to go to first-line managers.
Some managers are paralyzed by inability to make decisions, they fear someone will come down on them
Hierarchical approach doesn't benefit managers
Need to improve on delegations of authority
86 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
Decision-making
1 11 would work more efficiently if one would look at delegations of authority from Division Director to supervisors
Old days line of authority is redundant for decision-making
Teams to empower staff - can have all the training you want but people have to learn how to make decisions (can't
be based upon personal agenda "ax to grind"; it's agency decisions Got to make sure majority of decisions are
right
Workload equity
Need to assess GSM workloads or pay them more, particularly those with large staff
Pay scales need to be reassessed in general so that workload matches pay structure
GS14s are now separated into two areas and paid the same Area #1 - former manager who is expert in field. Area #2
- supervisor/manager... these workloads need to be equalized or reflect pay differences, right now they are the same
GS14s widi manager responsibilities should receive equivalent of GS15s
Recognize and create career tracks (Team leader (13+) Manager (14) Manager + large section (15)
All GS 15s should supervise (at least 3 which is allowed turn them into discrete units)
Lots of demands put on supervisors NSMs have a good deal - they keep their GS-14 and have less headaches
NSMs need to be used more effectively - not fair if GS-15s doing less than GS-14 first-line supervisors.
NSMs it's person-specific whether they're being used effectively She thinks the 3 in Water are pulling their
weight
Branch chiefs aren't particularly needed, but you could upgrade some first-line supervisors to give them some career
development and give them greater responsibility
Allow first-line supervisors to rise to GS-15 if they are going to be in the position for years and gaining expertise, so
they don't have the same grade a someone who's been a chief for a year
Should look at non-supervisory management positions very closely to see if their grades are fair, NSMs were
protected for some time but it's been five years, us time to look at it again
We could try to jury-rig some more responsibilities for NSMs, including supervisory perhaps, to give them more
productive work to do and reduce the resentment factor
Narrative data 87
-------
Effects 0/1:11
Workload equity
NSMs - questions equatability of grade level and workload and pay. There is problem with GS14 = Programmatic
NSM and Supervisor and GS15 = Programmatic.
NSMs could take on coaching role for first-lines
Associates - lines of communications are unclear for cross-divisional communication
When critical function needed to fill in rather then rely only in interview/application process have NSM 14 & 15s
asked to step in and fill the need (short term)
Associates may be working but can't tell for sure.
With Deputies in place, need to be more aggressive w/Cross-Division communication - should be a Div. Director's
eyes and ears
First-line supervisor support
Need some relief for the first-line supervisors - not fair to them not fairs to staff, not fair to the mission of the
agency
Need to support first-line managers, help them develop networks in consciously through Buddy System; mix 3-4
in one group, create opportunities to share frustrations & learn other ways to do things
Must address lack of second level (back stopping/coaching) ability for staff to approach Ombudsman.
Should break up Assoc offices and create offices for Managers who are supervising (Managers need privacy to
effectively manage1") Associates should get double window cubes
Mentor needed for supervisors
There is also no safe place for staff to air problems, except Becky Tudisco (Office of Civil Rights) and John Y
(but they have limited authority and it is not really safe)
Create safe haven for grievances/place for staff to air problems (now that is vested in too busy a Div. Dir, plus
consequences of grievance is more serious, can head off problems before they get raised to that level)
Less ability to go somewhere to bounce ideas around, due to lack of branch chief
Harder to meet with other 1" line supervisors, as everyone is stressed and working harder
There are personality conflicts in his section, yet there is no one he can talk to about this; the traditional Deputy
88 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
First-line supervisor support
role to discuss personnel issues has changed, they now focus on programmatic work And, Div Dir's are too
overwhelmed to discuss personnel issues. There is no assistance/support for front lines
First-line supervisors have too much to do We are them dig themselves into a hole For example they may not
know enough to do the right hiring which will be worse than a vacancy. There isn't enough time to help
managers Going more flat is a problem
Vision/Senior leadership
As a Senior level manager haven't felt part of the SMT; have breadth of experience but not valued
Got to get values figured out from the top
Need to agree on a structure and a common vision (e g. regulatory or a combo7) We're good at identifying the
problem, but not the approach We get too caught up in the process
[A top manager] jumps right into issues and misses the steps in between, misses the conversation regarding a
"vision"
To achieve stated goal of 1 -11 the Region needs to have a clear and compelling vision
Leaders need to inspire, set clear goals, work is goal driven
Clearer vision with a clear knowledge of where we are on the scorecard
We should not try to do everything, prioritize better
We have lost some facility with using risk or science in decision-making, while taking up new social issues
Strategic planning We need to evaluate whether we're working on the most important problems, as in the
comparative risk project in the 80s
We need to focus on the mission and why we're here, so that people can feel valued for the work they are doing
Before, had manager who was knowledgeable about program across the country expert, theory was to delegate to
staff something lost when managers could look strategically across programs as before could learn lessons
across the country and manage resources this is not true today
Senior staff gets along better, they are strongly ISTJ, stovepipe thinkers, doers who want to get the job done, they
think in terms of their programs and themselves, but they're a more relaxed group
Narrative fata 89
-------
Effects of 1:11
Vision/Senior leadership
Taking a look at operating plans and having the license to say they simply can't do "this thing" allows flexibility
Goals and accountability
Increased attention to x-media efforts adds accountability, hold people responsible and set measurable goals in
operating plans Find a meaningful way to hold people accountable
We need ways to measure progress and environmental impacts; set goals.
We need to have a clearer sense of whether we are winning or losing.
Stop doing internal reporting, Division Directors should report inefficiencies
Get better at setting very clear expectations with consequences; this will be good for dealing with morale concerns.
Need to figure out how to be more accountable
Rewards
Give managers more varied ways to reward people Trust supervisors in what they say they need to reward staff
We took a good step last year when we sent out the performance review questions, good feedback from managers,
decoupling awards from performance was good but we need to do a better job giving awards throughout the years,
Laura will push for quarterly reports to track getting the award money out through the year
Is it harder, more paperwork required, to give awards now'' Supervisors should have good writing skills and know
what people do, so you should be able to whip those out - it's an important way to show you appreciate staff
The region needs to spend more effort recognizing and appreciating supervisors as well as staff- would help make a
very tough job more rewarding
Supervisors also need to make time to "walk the floors" and talk to staff and show appreciation
90 Narrative data
-------
Effects of 1:11
Other
How do we celebrate successes and learn from failures9
Management style - uses persuasive, convincing style, rather than power/control mode
Image of what supervisors have to deal with small car going uphill with a full load, engine stretched to the limit -
stress on system Changes need to be thought out carefully
Strategies that work for one supervisor, mentoring summer hires, grants assistants, having 3 operations leads in the
unit (work leaders = unofficial teams)
Likes way Region uses regional facilitators - good resource, and keeps projects on track
As manager, needs to think about the makeup of his group (background, skills, styles) to make the group work well
Good to develop more senior people, mentor
**'There is an unspoken expectation in this division for managers to work longer hours (5-10 hrs /PP)
We are so scattered/blasted trying to do so many things
Not working overall, but there are parts that are good as you ask these questions so maybe it is working
Must bolster weak points of system
Retirement turnover will enhance problem as chiefs coming in new, particularly with further flattening
PERFORMS needs to be reviewed
Re-do Keyes survey now, using first one as baseline see if it is still significant
What i<. *voi king - more ready to change and be flexible, should be evolving over time. NOT working
Although sometimes feels like its time to pass the torch, but not until he retires
Need to be less ready to criticize, more forgiving and understanding, need to assume good intentions even when
mistakes are made, need to talk to people directly and nicely when you have a problem, managers need to model
that behavior, which requires cultural change
Narrative data 91
-------
Effects of 1:11
92 Narrative data
------- |