This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff. Questions or comments should be directed to inform-editor@umail.umd.edu. OPM Program Leadership OPM's Objectives The Director of OPM signaled the agency's intentions in the work and family arena with the following statement in a 1988 pamphlet discussing Federal dependent care policy: "The U.S. Office of Personnel Management has initiated a number of programs to assist federal workers who face that challenge [to balance work and family life]. Several considerations have guided our approach, reflecting obligations to our government mission, to our employees and their families, and to the societal health in general: "To government, as employer and representative of the public, we owe economy, efficiency, and mindfulness of mission. As we adjust to new circumstances, we try to do so without incurring high costs, and without undermining the purpose of the organization. At the same time, we realize that employee morale and productivity, and so agency effectiveness, depend very much on our handling of the new conditions. "To our employees, we owe flexibility and a new understanding of the demands of their personal lives. We make every effort to adapt workplace conditions to those new demands. "To society, we owe public-spirited regard for the critical principles and institutions at stake in these new concerns. We know our actions in this area affect, and are affected by, some of the most significant values and value-generating institutions of our society--the family foremost among them. The continued health of those values and institutions is essential to a free, decent, democratic society." -90 OPM has since attempted to follow up these intentions with practical actions. For example, in a recent letter to the Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Director of OPM summarized recent OPM initiatives in the work and family area, as follows: Balancing Work and Family Obligations. In June of 1988 OPM issued both a memorandum for heads of agencies and an FPM Bulletin to promote sensitivity to the dependent care responsibilities of employees and to urge that existing flexibilities in the personnel management system be used to support employees in dealing with such responsibilities. In separate issuances OPM noted the advantages of part-time employment and job-sharing arrangements. OPM also promulgated regulations to establish voluntary leave transfer and leave bank programs to enable Federal employees better to handle medical emergencies involving themselves or their families. In October [1988] OPM distributed to Federal agencies copies of its report to the President entitled 'Helping Federal Employees Balance Work and Family Life: Dependent Care Policy in the Federal Government.' OPM sponsored an interagency seminar on elder care programs in June, and a Government-wide conference on the dependent care challenge in October [1988]. The conference featured participation by the Director of OPM and the Secretary of the Department of Labor, along with national authorities on child and elder care programs. OPM and the National Council on Aging have been planning the first national teleconference to address responses in the work place to elder care problems. Also, in alliance with the President's Commission on Management Improvement, OPM initiated a project in May 1989 to explore the feasibility and utility of providing opportunities for home-based employment arrangements. -91 Many of the new initiatives described above have their antecedents in earlier OPM programs. In our view, OPM deserves credit for recognizing the potential of preexisting programs to serve newer needs, through creative repackaging, redirection, or remerchandising efforts, as well as its continuing efforts to create new solutions. Assessment of OPM's Leadership Since OPM's "customers" are in the best position to measure the success of its efforts, we asked the directors of personnel of the 22 largest Government agencies for their opinions about OPM's leadership in work and family programs. Specifically, our question said: We are trying to specifically gauge OPM's recent leadership in devising and promoting quality of worklife programs. Please provide your overall assessment of OPM's actions on quality of worklife initiatives, according to the following criteria: attunement to customer (agency) needs; comprehensiveness of approach; effectiveness of solutions; timeliness of execution; and advocacy for program's success. The response categories for each of these questions were on a 5-point scale (e.g., "Very timely," "Somewhat timely," "Neither timely nor untimely," "Somewhat untimely," and "Very untimely"), plus "Don't know/Can't judge." (Note: in our analysis below, we do not comment on, or report, those answers falling into the middle categories, such as "Neither timely nor untimely," or those in the "Don't know/Can't judge" category.) Highlights of the responses included the following: * Agencies gave their most positive assessments regarding "Attunement to customer (agency) needs," with 16 agencies saying OPM was "Somewhat responsive" and one saying "Very responsive." Only three agencies said OPM was "Somewhat unresponsive." OPM has tried in recent years to be more sensitive to its customers, and apparently these efforts are bearing fruit. * Similarly, 13 agencies felt that OPM's solutions to problems were "Somewhat effective," although again 3 agencies said "Somewhat ineffective." Given the natural linkage between listening to one's customers and proposing solutions which meet their needs, these answers are consistent with the first set. * Regarding "Comprehensiveness of approach," while 10 agencies said "Somewhat comprehensive," 3 said "Somewhat limited" and one said "Very limited." These responses suggest that at least a few agencies perceive that OPM sometimes lacks a strategic vision. One agency said in its comments, "OPM tends to react rather than exercise initiative." Hopefully, OPM's recent publication of a strategic plan will further improve OPM's performance in this area. * Agency perceptions about OPM's advocacy for the success of work and family programs also evidence some dissatisfaction. While one agency said "Very forceful" and eight said "Somewhat forceful," five agencies characterized OPM's approach as "Somewhat weak." Since OPM is the Government's lead agency for human resource management issues, it is important that it be viewed as an effective advocate. After all, if OPM doesn't push for superior programs, who will? One agency noted that "The most significant support for child care came not from OPM, but from GSA's ruling that allowed Federal agencies to use Federal space for day-care centers," while another said "We suggest that OPM take the lead in obtaining more flexible employee benefits ..." On the other hand, at least on the flexiplace program, agencies were generally enthusiastic. One commented that "Overall OPM has done a superior job managing this program and is to be commended for its efforts." * Finally, "Timeliness of execution" was the area where agencies had the most problems with OPM leadership. While one agency said "Very timely" and nine said "Somewhat timely," nine agencies rated OPM's actions as "Somewhat untimely." Since the best programs in the world may be useless if they get there too late, OPM needs to improve its ability to respond on a timely basis. In reflecting on why OPM has problems with timeliness, one agency commented that "The political arena, within which we all work, causes OPM numerous problems in getting programs in place. Special projects and task forces appear to draw OPM staff away from their program areas. The level of reassignments also increases the time it takes OPM to accomplish many programs." In response to our request for a self-assessment, OPM chose not to pick from among the multiple choices offered on these same questions, but rather provided the Board with a narrative response, parts of which are excerpted below: In gauging OPM leadership in this area, it is critical to define OPM's role properly. As explained previously, our role is essentially to make Government-wide policy and provide guidance and assistance to agencies so that agencies and even individual managers may operate with maximum flexibility to administer personnel programs appropriate for their own work force and mission, with appropriate employee input through their recognized employee organizations. One size does not fit all--not all agencies, or even all installations, much less all employees. This kind of role is especially appropriate in the programs discussed in this questionnaire--programs which are aimed at accommodating employees' personal situations, and in which compliance with merit system rules and regulations is not much of an issue. Nearly all of OPM's actions, and the answers to nearly all of MSPB's questions, are strongly affected by this role definition... We think that, faced with hard choices in the allocation of resources to competing demands, we have assigned appropriate priority to our activities in improving the quality of work life and have received a good return on our investment of resources. Of course, we recognize that one can always do more. We do not disagree with OPM's definition of its role but note that MSPB offered some elaboration on methods for fulfilling that role in a 1989 MSPB report on OPM's significant actions. In that report, and based on our assessment of OPM's activities prior to 1989, we said: OPM needs to more firmly establish itself as a leader of the civil service system. Hallmarks of that leadership should include:... Building upon the framework laid in the report titled 'Civil Service 2000.' OPM commissioned this study only after receiving a congressionally imposed requirement. The report examines the future of the civil service system and provides broad recommendations to address some of the challenges ahead. While the report and the dialogue it generated provide a view of what could be, OPM should build upon this effort by a clear articulation of what the civil service should be 10 years and 20 years from now and by gaining consensus and support for that vision. -92 Using the above criterion as a touchstone, the Board finds some areas where OPM's leadership has been noteworthy, as well as others where it has been muted. For example, OPM's recent role in the evolution of flexiplace illustrates proactive leadership. Notwithstanding a slow start to the pilot study, OPM has been efficiently and effectively working with other parts of the executive branch, trying to build momentum for this project. Another good example of OPM leadership occurred during the development and implementation of alternative work schedules in the Federal Government. As mentioned earlier, Government use of this work and family benefit still exceeds that of other employers. OPM's efforts in this regard were even recognized recently in congressional debate. Specifically, when the "Women's Equal Opportunity Act of 1991" was introduced in the Senate, its sponsor said: This subtitle provides that it is the sense of the Congress that OPM has made commendable efforts with respect to the development, use, and expansion of alternative work schedule programs and that such efforts should be continued to help Federal employees, as well as to serve as a model for State and local governments and private sector employers. -93 In contrast to the above examples, OPM's role in the child care area has been slow to evolve, as it was not until mid-1988 that OPM began actively communicating with agencies about child care needs. Moreover, OPM's child care agenda still lacks broad impact, as OPM continues to take a back seat to GSA in this area. In congressional testimony given in March 1989, Robert Tobias, President of the National Treasury Employees Union, said that "Certainly, we don't object to working with OPM, but I believe that GSA is the key partner in this [child care] process, because GSA has the space and unless GSA is in the room where bargains are being made, it's very difficult to deal through OPM to GSA." -94 There is no question that the 5 to 20 percent tuition savings which GSA's involvement helps child care centers in Federal buildings to offer is important. However, we think that a more active role by OPM could easily transform the child care discussion from one focusing on the mechanics of space procurement, to one focusing on improved Federal mission accomplishment through proactive work and family policies. In the area of part-time employment, OPM has made a number of efforts to promulgate the intent of the law, but we believe this is another area in which additional efforts would be justified and, ultimately, beneficial to Government. While part-time can simply be a designation for work schedules consisting of less than 40 hours per week, it can also be an aggressive strategy for attracting people for hard to fill jobs, or a tool for reaching potential employees whose life circumstances might otherwise keep them from taking Federal jobs. The kind of ongoing, proactive leadership that we are suggesting here is not a product of staff level effort in OPM (although not a replacement for it either), nor should it imply a negative assessment of the work which OPM staff people have already made in support of these programs. Rather, it bespeaks a recognition that leadership comes from the top. The creative involvement of OPM's top managers and its Director have the potential to catapult work and family issues to another level. While not a work and family program issue, OPM's role in securing pay reform legislation in 1990 provides something of a model. OPM's persistent, reasoned support for that effort, spear-headed personally by the Director, produced results few thought possible. While most work and family programs will not be as politically sensitive as that initiative, nor require as much direct, high-level effort, the model is clearly there to be adapted and followed, as appropriate.