This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff. Questions or comments should be directed to inform-editor@umail.umd.edu. Policy Issues Should the Government Be a Model Employer in Its Employment Practices As we studied the work and family programs discussed in previous chapters, a broader question emerged in our research. That was, to what extent should the Federal Government intentionally seek to be a role model for other employers in designing and executing its work and family programs? In earlier parts of this century, the Government did assume a leadership role in several areas of personnel management (e.g., equal pay for equal work, and annual and sick leave provisions). More recently, the Federal civil service was at the leading edge of implementing alternative work schedules. Governmental leadership (through programs affecting Federal employees) has also advanced emerging public policy objectives, as the following quote concerning opportunities for employment of disabled persons illustrates: The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed last July. It will affect the way in which virtually every employer considers issues connected with the employment of the handicapped, with regulations similar to those that previously applied only at the federal level... The history of the federal government over the last 10 years in dealing with its own handicapped employees -- under nearly identical legal requirements as those set by the Americans With Disabilities Act -- provides private business with a ready model for defining their obligations and assessing the risk of litigation. With this knowledge, employers won't be groping in the dark to comply with the new law. -95 This type of effect could also reoccur in the future. For example, Government support for flexiplace might foster other work-at-home initiatives, thus encouraging energy conservation and also cutting pollution and traffic congestion. More generally, the Federal Government has a special status as both the Nation's largest employer and the embodiment of the Nation's values. And because of this status, many people (including some top Government officials), believe that it is both natural and appropriate that the Government provide leadership in employment matters. For example, the legislative history for the Federal Employees Part-Time Career Act of 1978 quoted one Senator as saying: The Federal Government is the Nation's largest employer, but certainly not the most innovating one. The enactment of [this part-time] legislation would authorize the Federal Government to undertake some very significant initiatives to enhance its position as a model employer--one which public and private employers could look to for leadership. -96 In a more recent example, President Bush told the heads of executive departments and agencies that, "The Federal Government has always been a model for other employers in the protections and benefits provided for those [civilians] who serve [in the military reserves], and I am committed to ensuring that we continue to set an example for the Nation in this regard." -97 There are also reasons which argue against the Government taking a leadership role in employment matters. For example, some would say that the most appropriate model for the Federal civil service is that it should follow whatever private sector employment practices are most common and uncontroversial, seeking to avoid setting any precedents itself. Similarly, while providing leadership in employment practices may be a fine concept in theory, if the cost benefit ratio cannot be vividly demonstrated, it is by no means assured that American taxpayers would consider this the best use of their tax dollars. From the point of view of agency personnel directors, most believe the Government should have an influence on the employment practices of other employers. In response to the question, "To what extent do you believe that the Government has a leadership role in setting an example through its employment practices that other employers might be drawn to follow?," 17 agencies replied "To a moderate extent" or "To a great extent," while only 1 said "To no extent." (Four said "Don't know/ Can't judge.") Of course, it's easy for agencies to project such a role in the abstract, but more difficult to accomplish in the real world, particularly when leadership may cost time and money, or result in vulnerability to criticism. In order to gain further insight into agency thinking, we defined one type of leadership (equating it with the Government having benefit programs which "exemplify excellence in human resource management practices"), and asked agencies two follow-up questions: * "To what extent should the Government's benefit programs be designed to exemplify excellence in human resource management practices, given that such practices may have initial costs which exceed their initial tangible benefits?" and * "To what extent have these Federal benefit programs exemplified excellence in human resource management practices?" A compilation of the responses agencies gave us on these questions is graphically displayed in figure 6 [Figure 6 unavailable in electronic format due to graphics limitations]. As the above figure illustrates, there is a dichotomy between what many agencies think the Federal Government should be doing, versus what it has done, to exemplify excellence in its personnel practices. In their narrative responses, several agencies indicated that they thought the Government should make more of an effort to fulfill a leadership role, including the following: "Government should be an agent of enlightened change." Department of Education "Inasmuch as the Federal Government passes and executes legislation on social issues, e.g., equal opportunity, hiring the handicapped, child labor laws, etc., the Federal Government must set an example in the areas in which it legislates; it must set an example for others to follow in these areas." Department of Justice Not all agency opinions were unhesitatingly positive, however, as this comment from the Department of Commerce illustrates: The idea of Federal Government as a leader in employment practices is antiquated--left over from the New Deal and World War II. Today, Government is viewed as one among many service industries. There is a national pre-occupation with governmental fiscal restraint which militates against such a leadership role. On balance, perhaps OPM's analysis best bridged the gap between the conflicting pressures which the above comments surface: Although it is not our primary focus, setting an example for non-Federal employers can, of course, be a valuable contribution by OPM, as long as doing so neither detracts from meeting the needs of Federal agencies as employers nor results in inappropriate use of scarce Federal resources. Accordingly, OPM is committed to setting an example within the context of its overall Governmental responsibilities. Establishing the Government as a Model Work and Family-Friendly Employer If we take OPM's description cited above as the benchmark of what Governmental leadership in this area should be, the next obvious questions to answer are, "When and how should the Government accomplish these?" Clearly, some areas are more appropriate for Federal leadership than others. For example, consider the policy decision inherent in the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990. That act sets out to achieve effective comparability between Federal civilian and private sector white-collar pay, but does not set as a goal to ever pay more than the private sector. It is therefore apparent that the Federal Government does not (and perhaps should not) seek to be a trend setter when it comes to establishing salary ranges. On the other hand, it may well be that work and family policies are an area ripe for Federal leadership. With a supportive management structure, for example, many of the work and family programs which involve relatively little direct cost (AWS programs, part-time, flexiplace, cafeteria benefits) could be made more widely available to employees and applicants. Such an action could give the Government a competitive edge in recruiting, retaining, and motivating quality employees, making the Government into more of an "employer of choice." Where competitive pressures from other employers require it, or just as importantly, where public policy considerations justify it, the Government could also implement work and family programs with larger up-front costs (like subsidized day care or flexible spending accounts). In measuring the costs and benefits of such programs, it would be incumbent on OPM and agency managers (to say nothing of policymakers and legislators) to consider the longer term benefits of taking action, as well as all the costs of inaction. This is important, since many of the costs and benefits of these issues are indirect, or not immediately apparent to the casual observer, and thus difficult to measure. The expenses of recruiting and training replacements, for example, or the lost productivity while positions are vacant, are real but often hidden. Similarly, an inability to attract top candidates because the Government is not viewed as a progressive employer can also be a major cost. Just as costs can be hidden, so can benefits. Consider the following quote from the book "In Search of Excellence": We often argue that the excellent companies are the way they are because they are organized to obtain extraordinary effort from ordinary human beings. It is hard to imagine that billion-dollar companies are populated with people much different from the norm for the population as a whole. -98 Thus, if Government efforts to establish and project a model work and family employer image succeed in even some small way, we should certainly not dismiss the possibility that the amount of "extraordinary effort from ordinary human beings" which the Government's 2-million plus civilian employees achieve would increase. Given this possibility, we believe such an approach has merit. Having said this, however, two additional things also need to be said. First, we would stress that this conclusion is applicable in a targeted way, not as a general prescription. While it may be very desirable for the Federal Government to lead in some work and family programs, this does not mean that it should or must do this in all benefit programs, in all locations, all the time. Agencies need to assess the needs of their employees on a local basis, and with maximum delegated flexibility from OPM and higher echelon management, provide programs which will meet the work and family needs of employees at each post of duty, within available resources. While priorities must be set at the lowest possible level, management support must come from the highest levels. Second, given the Government's tarnished image as an employer, the risks of inaction seem higher than those of action at this time. Therefore, the Board encourages OPM and agencies to take some risks, looking for creative and cost effective ways to position the Government as a work- and family-friendly employer. The nature of these risks might be to aggressively experiment with work and family programs in a proactive way, before all the evidence may be in to conclusively prove their desirability. Perhaps the criteria for starting a new program which appears to meet an employee need might be a perceived lack of significant additional cost, rather than a demonstrated savings or productivity enhancement. Without such a strategy, the Government may be at an unacceptable disadvantage in the emerging job market of the year 2000. Therefore, the Board believes the time to act is now, and recommends that OPM and agencies work together to strategically position the Federal civil service as a model work and family employer.