Broken Trust
The Growing Divide between Government Labor and Management
Public employees take a lot of grief for their lack of responsiveness to the public’s needs. Conservatives often claim that job security in public employment reduces the incentive to work hard for the public good. Former president Trump certainly played to this theme with his “Schedule F” proposal to remove civil service protections from most federal employees. In my 30 years of government service of one kind or another, I found that the opposite was true - public employees who felt the most secure were the ones most likely to respond flexibly to the changing needs of public service. They wanted to use the skills and knowledge acquired in their government experience to inform development of new practices.
In a system where employees can trust that the rules of fairness will always apply, they take the opportunity to make changes to help the public. Where trust has been eroded, employees become risk averse. Perhaps no event in a state agency illustrates this better than when a rush of Covid-caused unemployment applications hit the Oregon Employment Division (OED). In the 10 years leading up to the pandemic, poor management and concern that a more efficient system would result in lost jobs caused OED to slow-roll the transition from a 1980’s era IT infrastructure to a more modern one. During the pandemic, the demand for unemployment benefits during the pandemic outpaced OED’s ability to process claims. In contrast to OED employees, who felt threatened with termination, more than 300 employees from other agencies with reliable employment systems volunteered to help out. Because they trusted their agency, they took chances to help the public.
I saw a similar dynamic during my service in Afghanistan in 2011. At that time, few of us were working in our “usual jobs” from back home; on deployment, we were required to think and react flexibly to the needs of the mission. For individually deployed reservists like me, our unit commanders supported our deployments and we were promised a return to our pre-deployment positions, giving us the security to act quickly in response to changing needs. Conversely, for the active duty personnel, many of whom were on their third deployment in my unit, they felt uncomfortable working outside their areas of expertise, worried that too much risk-taking would result in poor subsequent assignments, and they therefore often acted more conservatively to respond the the changing mission.
I once proposed a legislative committee on government efficiency. The central concept was that, in many areas, we could deliver services to the public more quickly and efficiently by adopting best practices from other states and the private sector, from updating IT to processing improvements. In turn, the state would promise to retrain employees displaced by these changes and offer a similar position elsewhere in the government. Put simply, we would give employees job security in exchange for their willingness to work collaboratively. Unfortunately, the proposal foundered on the rocks of distrust.
A foundation of trust is necessary, but not sufficient, to engage employees in collaborative change. Too often, management comes to the conversation with a detailed plan constructed without employee involvement, alienating the workers from the task. When engaged early on in the conversation and given significant input, the employees themselves are often the most motivated participants. Who among us hasn’t wanted to fix the problems they encounter in their workplace, but found themselves stymied by a management’s lack of interest in making changes?
Most of us want to do our jobs as effectively as we can. Despite criticism of the “Deep State,” resistance to the Trump Administration’s agenda was not based on obstructionism fueled by excessive job security, but rather a respect for the law. Public employees have the right to a fair hearing before dismissal in most cases, and most knew that, when they followed the law, they were secure in their positions, backed up by this due process. This security is a feature, not a bug, of our public service.
Recommendations
A Woman of No Importance by Sonia Purnell. The Gestapo considered Virginia Hall the most dangerous American spy in World War II. Twice rejected from the Foreign Service, she lost her foot in a hunting accident, yet went on the run the most extensive spy network in France. Her work with the French Resistance led to her region liberating itself before the Allies arrived. She was a truly remarkable and underappreciated American.
The Women by Kristin Hannah. This novel tells the story of US Army Nurses in Vietnam. They saved lives and gave their own, only to return to be told by the VA that they weren’t Vietnam Veterans because, “No women served in Vietnam.”
Leading by Example. In the military, we were asked to develop our own definition of leadership. Mine was, “Leadership is the act of setting forth a positive vision of the future than inspires others to act in support of it.” This election seems remarkably short on positive visions of the future. Unemployment, inflation, and crime are all down and the economy is up, but you wouldn’t know it from listening to this season’s candidates. Please vote for candidates who believe that leadership is about inspiration, not criticism.
Keep Letters from a Recovering Politician Free
As always, the best thing you can do to support this column is to share it with people who might be interested. I do not have a paid plan because I want folks to be able to access it without worrying about money. If you’d like to leave me a tip to show your appreciation, you can click on the “buy me a coffee” button below.
During my 40 plus year working career in various for profit, nonprofit, and self employed endeavors, I found there was a constant tension between those that value performance and those that value power. Those that valued performance were more likely to be open to change, risk taking, and "looking outside of the box." In contrast, those who sought power and control were more likely to resist change and innovation, being more interested in controlling the process regardless of outcomes. In fact, "the power elite," if you will, didn't really care about outcomes at all as long as they were pulling the strings.
When I worked in the Physical Plant at the University of Washington, I was a Plumber,Pipefitter, Steamfitter, I was a Plumber by Trade and a 5 year Apprenticeship and had worked in The Shipyards and a Couple of Refineries in Canada so I could do the work as a Journeyman, I didn't NEED supervision but I had 5 "MANAGERS"! In the Plumbing Industry most shops just have 1 on the Job and an estimator, payroll and the Owner! We staffed to max efficiency which for Humans is 6 People for each Foreman and is replicated upward as the Job size increases and on Larger Jobs you might need an Engineer. Most State Jobs have overloaded MANAGEMENT because that's the only way for promotion or pay raises for staff because the rates are set by the POLITICIANS and most States can't give you a raise and if you're already 15 to 20% behind the wages paid to the public jobs it becomes a larger issue! Too bad Politicians are so worried that workers are lazy or bums that we need SUPERVISION!