by Kay Boatner

The Senior Executive Service has been in the news a lot lately.

Yesterday, Federal News Radio argued that the SES needs to rotate its talent more frequently, forcing more executives to leave their current position to put in time at similar agencies. Currenly, only about half its 7,000-plus career people have experience in more than one agency.

Today, non-SES managers are speaking out against exclusionary SES members. Federal managers not in the SES argue that as they are the ones on the ground, seeing projects through on a daily basis, they deserve a bigger seat at the decision-making table. A manager from the Social Security Administration argued that in keeping non-SES members out of meetings and councils, the vision being determined might not be the best on for the organization. Managers know based on their day-to-day experience what is realistic vs. what is not.

While the private sector might not have SESrs of their own, their top-tier execs function in a similar manner, with high-level managers likely experiencing the same frustrations as their federal counterparts. Board meetings that happen without these managers determine a daily agenda that these managers will be tasked with carrying out—do they not deserve to be present for that conversation?

Are non-SES managers right in asking for increased input in an organization’s vision? Or is the overall mission of an agency best left to the SES? How can managers and the SES work together to accomplish their goals? And do you also see similarities between the public and private sector when it comes to frustration with organization leaders?

by Kay Boatner

Trust in the federal government has been a popular topic of discussion these days. Last week, our own Ray Horoho blogged about trust in the context of telework. Just a few days earlier the managing principal of Totally Engaged Workforce Solutions, Paul Rowson, shared his thoughts on trust in the federal workplace as a whole.

by Ray Horoho

The previous blogs by Josh and Kiki inspired me to put to “paper” my thoughts on trust in the telework workspace. I loved reading Josh’s blog on telework—I have not read his writings in the Huffington Post yet, but I might just start. I also wasn’t surprised in reading KiKi’s blog that there are folks who work for the government who are not well versed in policies and practices to encourage agencies to use telework more than they have in the past.  

Where Josh is right the essence of work is action, not a location, it is also true that the quality of work and the willingness to accept risk for work done by subordinates is heavily affiliated with trust. The relationship between an employee and a supervisor grows over time and trust builds. The quality of the work and the instinctive nature of when work needs to be accomplished become specified, implied and intuitive over time because of trust.  

Anything introduced inside of the working relationship that challenges trust is going to be met with some sort of defensive posture until such time as the relationship can work through the change and open the aperture of trust to include the new variable. Telework for a workforce of supervisors my age who did not grow up with the notion that you don’t have to watch the pot for the water to boil are reluctant to open the relationship of trust that exists between an employer and a supervisor to include telework.  

The excuses or rationalizations have all been posted and reposted but the bottom line is until the relationship can find trust in where the work is done, the essence of work will remain as much about action as it does location. 

Be bold, take the risk, and trust the relationship to include telework. Trust that the employee supervisor relationship you have now is strong enough to grow into telework and honest enough to go back to the way things were if it doesn’t work out.

Is trust a key factor in telework? What happens when that trust is lost?

by Kiki Georges

Earlier this week, I received a call from a federal employee regarding telecommuting. This employee seemed unaware of their telework eligibility and wanted to know if it was mandatory that the entire government telework this week. I informed them that while it was National Telework Week and that some agencies were encouraging their employees to work from home, it was not mandatory.

The employee informed me that neither they nor their co-workers were aware of this program and that their agency was not participating to the best of their knowledge. I directed them to take a look at our dedicated telework page for more information on the initiative.

This employee’s lack of awareness on National Telework Week and their agency’s apparent ignorance of the event prompted me to investigate the presence of the topic on a handful of government web sites. The majority of sites I examined made no mention of National Telework Week, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education among them.

Teleworking is an effective way to cut costs and commuting issues for many people. This week seems like the ideal time for hesitant agency’s to test the initiative, but awareness is shockingly low. Untilmore agencies encourage telework,the majority of employees won’t feel comfortable working outside of the office environment.

Did you know it was National Telework Week? Did your agency make you aware of this or promote the event in any way? Would their promotion of the event make you more likely to try telework?

by Kay Boatner

The federal workforce has yet to take full advantage of the telework options currently in place for their use, but such programs have been in existence for decades.

In the early 1960s in Los Angeles, Jack Nilles worked as a consulting rocket scientist to the U.S. Air Force Space Program in Washington, D.C.Nilles would later coin the terms “telecommuting” and “teleworking,”prompting him to become known as the Father of Telecommuting.

Inspired by Nilles’ work, public and private organizations in the 1980s began pilot tests of telework programs. In 1981, JC Penney started its first group of home-based call-center agents. A handful of government agencies jumped on the telework bandwagon not long after, including GSA, NIH, EPA, NASA, and IRS. In 1993, OPM officially endorsed the use of telework by federal agencies.

It wasn’t until the late-90s that the public and private sectors’ telework timelines stopped syncing.

While telework has remained a popular topic among its workforce, the federal government hasn’t advanced in the field as swiftly as the private sector. The feds are still stuck in the ‘90s, while other organizations take advantage of—and continue to improve—their existing telework programs.

A random sampling of Cisco employees revealed roughly 90 percent of workers reported working from home at least one day a week. A recent study by OPM states that only slightly more than 10 percent of eligible federal employees telework.

With this kind of disparity, the private sector’s telework timeline is certain to extend, adding more innovations to its list, while the public sector’s telework timeline remains inflexible, never stretching.

In 50 years, what will be noted next to 2012 on the future telework timeline?

Do you think federal employees make the most of their telework opportunities? If not, why don’t they? What prevents you from telecommuting?

by Josh Sawislak

This week, as part of the annual Telework Week event, more than 64,900 people have pledged to work from somewhere other than their office. I could talk about the millions of dollars saved by these people ($5.1M) or the millions of pounds of pollutants they will keep out of or air and water (6.1M), but today I want to talk to you about another important benefit of this telework test drive: its effect on how we work and manage others. 

If you have read my blog on The Huffington Post or heard me speak on this subject, you know my mantra is that the essence of work is that it’s an action, not a location. Like most tools in our management toolbox, telework is not a silver bullet and it’s not right for everyone or every situation. But neither is an office building. 

Google built one of the most elaborate and incredible office campuses in modern history. They spared no expense and had more employee amenities than most of us can imagine (free food, entertainment, recreation, etc.). But it’s pretty clear their goal was to keep their employees on campus and working as much as possible. Foxconn is an electronics manufacturer with major facilities in China—they made that iPhone or Droid in your pocket. They also keep their workers close at hand, but use a more company town approach. Carrot or stick, the goal is the same: keep your people close and keep them working.

So let me propose a different way to improve productivity, innovation, and satisfaction. Build trusting relationships between employees and supervisors by setting goals, communicating about issues and progress, and measuring success against those goals. Make location dependent on need, not some arbitrary or legacy policy. At any one time, some people need to be in the office or in a specific place. Others don’t. 

I was discussing this with GSA Chief Human Capital Officer, Tony Costa, last month and he said something I think sums up this approach perfectly: Be Where You Need to Be.

Do you agree with Josh—is what you produce more important than where you work? Or are offices more integral to an organization’s success than suggested?

Josh Sawislakis a Senior Fellow at The Telework Exchange. He can be contacted at jsawislak@teleworkexchange.com. 

by Kay Boatner

As this week is National Telework Week, lots of agencies are getting their due for their ever-improving telework programs. Several different news sites have expressed the belief that the federal government is on its way to catching up with the private sector when it comes to telework.

Whether or not this is true, one government agency deserves recognition for being ahead of the telework curve when it comes to both the public and private sector. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office employeeshave been actively teleworking since 1997, when USPTO launched its first pilot program.

The program in place today is one that can easily compete with the best examples the private sector has to offer. Those in need of further proof of PTO’s exemplary system need only to look at their results.

According to a recent study, participants of the agency’s telework arrangement, called the Patent Hoteling Program (PHP),process more patent applications per year than their in-office counterparts. The average PHP participant reviews about 4 percent more applicationsthan a PHP-eligible examiner working at PTO headquarters. 

Teleworkers are also less expensive for PTO. With all IT and real-estate related expenses combined, PHP employees cost PTO $1,710 less than employees working at PTO headquarters in the first year, and $3,385 less each year after that.

Actively charting your organization’s telework results is key to its success.Telework programs are not unusual these days—but telework programs with the data to back up their effectiveness and efficiency are. 

Does your organization allow telework? Do you know the statistics behind the program’s effectiveness? If so, are the results mostly positive or negative? Do they surprise you?

by Kay Boatner

Federal employees are well aware of “ROWE”—the term, meaning Results-Only Work Environment, is one that the U.S. government has utilized frequently since its coinage. ROWE was designed to encourage both the public and private sector to telework and to place more emphasis on employees’ results, or output, rather than how many hours they work.

The idea behind the program is a good one—what you produce matters much more than when or where you work. So why has the majority of the federal workforce been so hesitant to adopt telework?

Here at CHCI, we consider ourselves advocates of telework. But in designing our team’s telework structure, we felt ROWE was missing two key themes: accountability and reliability. Knowing you will be held accountable for your work and that you are able to rely on your colleagues just as you would in an office setting were huge variables that we wanted to incorporate into our program. 

Enter, ARROW: Accountable, Reliable, and Results-Oriented Workforce.

The assumption is that by moving toward ARROW, as a team, we agree to be held accountable for the results of our work. The presumption is that people are being productive until they demonstrate otherwise, and the measure for being productive is simply the results accomplished. The pertinent question is, “were the desired outcomes achieved within the agreed-upon timeframe?”We strive in all we do to be an exemplar of ethical behavior; thus, ARROW is Results-Oriented, rather than Results-Only. 

How we deliver our results and outcomes, like the results themselves, matters to CHCI.

ARROW is what works best for us. It might not work elsewhere, however. Just as ROWE might work in one agency, it could fail in another. 

Telework is not one size fits all.

Do you agree or disagree? Do you think ROWE is lacking or is the federal government just not flexible enough to adhere to a results-only program? Does your company have its own take on ROWE?

by Kay Boatner

According to a new study by the Partnership for Public Service and McKinsey & Co., mobility is not a common characteristic of the average federal executive.

The study asserts that 48 percent of Senior Executive Service employees—almost half of the 7,784 executives in the program—have never changed positions and only 8 percent have changed agencies. An even smaller number have experienced working outside of the federal government.

These numbers are troubling because the SES was founded upon the notion of seasoned professionals moving freely among agencies and sectors to impart their experience and knowledge. If they are in fact not mobile, as PPS and McKinsey & Co. suggest, what exactly are they doing?

In addition, the study found that there is no system in place to foster mobility—executives must rely on word-of-mouth to discover new opportunities and initiatives; also, several agencies are thought to “hoard talent”, particularly technical experts in their field.

The SES has been around for well over 30 years—has the program been this off base of its mission since its inception in 1978? Or is lack of mobility and communication a more recent problem?

Regardless, it’s a one that needs fixing. 

How might you go about repairing internal communication issues within the SES? How might the SES optimize their talent government-wide and not just “hoard” talent in specific agencies? As an SES, do you agree with this report?

by Kay Boatner

The Government Accountability Office has found that “virtually all” federal agencies have overlapping or duplicative programs. 

In a report to be released at a congressional hearing later today, GAO identified 50+ problematic areas, including the Department of Defense’s unmanned aircraft systems project, the amount of money the Department of Energy spends on support at contractor-managed facilities, and NASA’s fragmented leadership.

While it’s great that GAO has identified areas that can be streamlined or even cut completely, some suggestions on how exactly to streamline these program overlaps would be even more appreciated.

Certainly some programs can be merged with others. But who will decide what projects get cut? And when? With the economy in the state it is in, the federal government can’t afford to support so many programs identified as unwieldy. 

Identification of a problem is the first step to fixing it. Let’s hope government leaders take that next step towards fixing their inefficiencies soon.

No doubt this report will have an impact on upcoming agency budget requests for the fiscal year 2013. 

Does this report surprise you? Why or why not? How soon do you think agencies will start acting on fixing their so-called issues?