This nicely illustrates a point that I first observed at the Department of Energy
(DOE).
I started out working at DOE in the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). OHA managers
were very traditional in their approach. Heirarchical, generally seeing no need to
inform the
staff about what was going on in the world, and not particularly interested in
soliciting
staff input. To make matters worse, our office was facing a budget crunch, and the
whole
department was on the Congressional chopping block.
Rumors circulated constantly, as staff used their internal connections to get bits and
snippets of news. Resentment, anger, and distrust of management grew. The
wildest rumors gained credibility. The work atmosphere became unbearable.
Managment remained clueless as to the problem, and blamed it on the staff's bad
attitude.
Management came to bitterly resent the staff, causing them to tighten up further.
The situation got so bad the Secretary intervened (we were a direct report in those
days).
She mandated that management involve staff and keep staff informed (this was during the
"Total Quality Management" phase and we were all being empowered). Managment
therefore started to hold open meetings for all the staff as a unit, where they would
make pious pronouncements as to the new, open process, how their door was always open,
and would give a general summary of the state of affairs.
Oddly enough, this only increased the anger on the part of the staff. They felt
patronized
by management and its attitude toward openess. They felt powerless to make
suggestions, and feared repraisals for doing so. The few suggestions made were
greated with mild expressions of interest ("we must look into that") and then ignored.
Managements few steps at empowerment were so ludicrously inadequate that staff
believed management was enacting them as the barest minimal effort to comply with the
Secretary's dictates.
Some staff went so far as to actively supported Congressional efforts to terminate the
office (even at the cost of their jobs) as a means of striking back.
Managment, for its part, was angry and hurt. After all, they were *trying* to be open.
They didn't understand why nobody trusted them, why staff had such a bad attitude,
and why staff didn't understand that the suggestions that were made were wholly
impractical. After all, there is a traditional way of doing business, evolved for
good reason, and staff need to understand that. Of course the first steps would be
cautious ones. But these first cautious steps failed so badly, and engendered such
ill-will, that managment saw no point in pressing further.
Ultimately, I left that office and ended up in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Office. Management there had an entirely different strategy. The head of the Office
would report back to the enitre office immediately after any high-level staff meeting.
She made no attempt to sugar-coat bad news or otherwise hide information. She worked
actively to implement staff suggestions, and where she couldn't she explained in
detail why not. She called on staff to work with her on clever means to get around
obstacles, rather than abandoning a staff-suggested effort.
As a result, staff trusted her. When the bad-times came and RIFs looked likely, staff
came together and agreed to furlough rather than RIF. Staff always knew that she was
telling it like it was, and that when she said she didn;t know something or something
hadn't been decided, she was telling the truth and not hiding the ball.
The longer we go without a genuinely open Board, the more conversations that happen in
private, the harder it will be to establish trust.
Harold Feld
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
