Tag Archive for: Dan Gephart

By Dan Gephart, October 6, 2020

Gourds, pumpkin spice, a slight nip in the air, falling leaves. It’s all a reminder for many supervisors that it’s time to start working on those end-of-the-year performance reviews. Many federal employees will be getting feedback on their performance for the first time since their last review. And that, FELTG Nation, is inexcusable.

Whether it’s anxiety, frustration, or confusion, you cannot afford to avoid regular, honest performance-related discussions with your employees any longer. Providing feedback effectively is a skill — one that every supervisor can and should develop.

FELTG Instructor Anthony Marchese will present The Performance Equation: Providing Feedback That Makes a Difference on October 28 from 12:30 – 4 pm ET. I caught up with Tony, who besides teaching for FELTG is a consultant, author and former academic dean, to talk about performance feedback.

DG: Why is feedback so important?

AM: Feedback is essential for growth. It is embedded in some of our earliest experiences. It helps provide a map of meaning to help direc

t us toward desirable behavior. In other words, it helps us to understand where we are in relationship to where we could or should be. It helps reinforce positive behavior and offers insights into where we may need to adjust behavior that is incongruous with expectations.

DG: Does it always have to be formal?

AM: Definitely not! However, before we discuss delivery methods, we need to ensure that it is happening. In a recent study, Gallup reported that 50 percent of surveyed employees (from a variety of sectors) did not know what their managers expected of them on a daily basis. Forty-seven percent of respondents indicated that they receive feedback only a few times a year or less. If an employee consistently possesses that level of uncertainty further reinforced by an absence of performance conversations, it is unlikely that they will receive a positive performance review. It is a near impossibility that they will exceed expectations. Consider how the current pandemic may have further exacerbated ambiguity, uncertainty, and the frequency of performance conversations. We must do better.

DG: Speaking of the pandemic, a majority of federal employees are working from home now. What are some pitfalls for supervisors to avoid when providing feedback remotely?

AM: Try to avoid negative surprises. Let your employee know in advance what you’d like to discuss. Provide specific, self-introspective questions to help them prepare for the conversation by carefully considering their performance and be ready to discuss what to continue, discontinue, and how to do it. Also:

• Try to avoid using a virtual feedback conversation to test out a new, unfamiliar technology. Video is always better. Make sure that you and your employee know how to use it. Remember, nonverbal cues are incredibly important and can be easily
• missed when not meeting face-to-face or using video. Let them see you. Be sure to see them.
• Try to make the feedback session an active, brainstorming experience. Rather than spending the time “telling,” consider a structure that encourages equal participation, reflection, and problem-solving. This energy helps mitigate the Zoom fatigue plaguing so many right now and also positions the supervisor as a collaborative partner in helping your employee be at their best.

DG: How do you provide feedback to essential workers who are so busy they don’t have time for a feedback session?

AM: If a supervisor is too busy to provide feedback, he or she is too busy to be a supervisor.

More than ever, it is important that each employee feels connected to her or his supervisor. In a world filled with uncertainty, anxiety, and exhaustion, supervisors who choose not to take the time to provide feedback perpetuate an already difficult situation.

Feedback can come in many forms. It is not limited to a 60-minute, sit-down session in an office. It can occur during a weekly one-on-one. It can occur via e-mail following a deliverable. It can be offered by colleagues (a 360 perspective is important). Right now is a great time to rethink how we provide feedback. For example, rather than a supervisor leading a session during which they “tell” their employee how they did, they may want to consider positioning the meeting as an inquiry opportunity. This helps promote individual ownership for performance. Supervisors should be curious. Ask questions of their employees like: How did you think the planning session went? What worked well? What would you change? Here is what I observed. What can we do together next time to ensure whatever a successful outcome would be?

Since most work-related communication has been interrupted/impacted by the pandemic, supervisors may want to reconsider how they leverage their one-on-ones, team meetings, and emails.

DG: What is the one thing every supervisor could do immediately to improve feedback?

AM: The most important thing is simply to do it. Don’t contribute to the 50 percent of employees who are unclear about what they should be doing. Here are a few other ideas to consider:

• Conduct a self-assessment. Ask yourself: Do my employees know what I expect of them? How am I so sure?
• Conduct a team assessment: Ask your employees (individually): Do you feel like you have what you need from me to perform your job well? What can I do/provide to ensure that you have what you need? What should I do more of/less of?
• Performance feedback needs to consider both the “what” and the “how”. Many supervisors assume that once they provide feedback (especially constructive), their employees will know precisely how to change. This is often a false assumption. When providing feedback, discuss with your employee a strategy (with identified goals, resources, timelines, and accountability) to help support their efforts.

If you’d like to bring Dr. Marchese to your agency for training on feedback, communication or any leadership-related topic, email Gephart@FELTG.com.

By Dan Gephart, FELTG Training Director, August 11, 2020

I really had hoped and expected that when we conducted an interview with Dennis Dean Kirk, it would be to discuss his new role as Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board. As the FELTG Nation knows, President Trump nominated Mr. Kirk more than two years ago for one of the three open spots on the Board. Those three spots remain open because the Senate has not scheduled a vote, and the likelihood of us getting an actual Board anytime soon is, to quote the person who made the nomination: #Sad!

But Mr. Kirk isn’t just sitting around waiting to hear from the Senate. Since being named the Office of Personnel Management’s Associate Director of Employee Services earlier this year, Mr. Kirk has dived deep into his role of developing and administering policy on issues as wide ranging as pay, labor relations, performance management, and more. And now Mr. Kirk and his Employee Services team are focused on implementing President Trump’s executive orders and ensuring that all federal supervisors are appropriately “equipped to address performance and conduct issues.”

As you can imagine, the FELTG team is very interested in Mr. Kirk’s current work. We’ve been providing specific useful guidance on the aforementioned EOs in training since the day after they were signed. And equipping supervisors to address performance and conduct, well that’s kind of our thing. So we’re thrilled to see OPM prioritizing supervisory training and we thought it important that you knew what was going on. So we reached out to OPM and sent our questions to Mr. Kirk. What follows is that Q&A.

DG: Could you tell us briefly about the team you have in place at Employee Services and the priorities you have been working on?

DDK: Our team is a mix of highly qualified and seasoned civil servants and senior political appointees who are experts in their fields. Appointees help lead the department and ensure that our priorities are aligned with the Trump Administration’s policy objectives.

Our top priority is assisting agencies in implementing President Trump’s three workforce Executive Orders on employee removals, collective bargaining, and official time. These Executive Orders have tasked agencies to renegotiate collective bargaining agreements to bring them in line with the provisions of the Executive Orders, understand and record the amount of official time that is being billed to the taxpayers within their agency, and rein in extra-statutory impediments to maintaining accountability within their organizations. As a result of the data collected from these efforts, OPM is creating reports on the use of official time, collecting and publishing collective bargaining agreements, developing model collecting bargaining agreement language with the help of the Labor Relations Group, and creating training materials to help managers understand how and when to take adverse actions.

Over the past four decades, the cost of higher education has risen dramatically. In 1978, the average expense of one academic year at a four-year in-state public college was $8,250 in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollars. Today, one year at the same college would cost $21,370 on average. This trend makes the widespread reliance on educational requirements by employers an ever-steeper hurdle to gainful employment for many Americans. For example, among U.S. workers over the age of 25, 26 percent of blacks – as compared to 40 percent of whites – have at least a bachelor’s degree.

President Trump believes that regardless of whether an individual had the ability to pay for a college education, they should have an opportunity to demonstrate whether they have the capacity to perform the duties of a job. The Office of Personnel Management is also implementing the President’s Executive Order on Modernizing and Reforming the Assessment and Hiring of Federal Job Candidates issued this summer to open up the Federal hiring process to job seekers with a much wider set of experiences. This Executive Order requires that agencies develop and offer competency-based assessments – as distinct from self-assessments – for every job advertised in the competitive service. It also specifies that, unless a certain level of education is required for licensure in a certain field, educational attainment cannot be used to bar someone from taking an assessment.

We are setting up listening sessions between private businesses – both large and small – and Acting Director Michael Rigas and our team at OPM to learn from the innovative ways these companies are identifying talent using assessments rather than relying on college degrees. OPM is also supporting the Federal HR community to help them meet the demands of the Executive Order and reviewing our guidelines and policies to assure that education is not used as a barrier to entry.

DG: OPM shared an employee engagement toolkit with agencies earlier this year. What was the goal of that toolkit?

DDK: In October of 2018, OPM issued government-wide guidance and reporting requirements on two President’s Management Agenda milestones. To support agencies with achieving these milestones, OPM developed the employee engagement toolkit for supervisors.The two milestones were the “Workforce of the 21^st Century” Cross-Agency Priority Goal, Subgoal 1:”

1. All major components/bureaus will identify its bottom 20% on the 2018 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) Employee Engagement Index (EEI) and target a 20% improvement in those units by the end of 2020.
2. All agencies will have clear standard operating procedures for disseminating the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) data to all organizational levels

DG: Have you received any feedback on the toolkit?

DDK: OPM has received positive comments from agencies expressing the value of the toolkit. Several agencies have informed OPM they have taken steps to deploy the toolkit within their agency, and they have offered webinars to highlight the toolkit and how to interpret and use FEVS results to improve employee engagement.

DG: While there has been improvement, a majority of employees still responded negatively to the statement on OPM’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey: “In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not improve.” Why do you think this is a perennial issue and what can be done to fix it?

DDK: This is why we are making the implementation of the President’s three Executive Orders on accountability and labor relations a top priority. When President Donald Trump issued three executive orders that made it easier to fire poorly performing government employees, the backlash from public-sector unions was fierce. Union leaders did not like it—one called it an “assault on federal employees.” But a poll following the signature of these Executive Orders found that the majority of government workers— 51 percent —support the Administration’s efforts.

Moreover, only 24 percent of Federal employees oppose the recent executive orders, and another quarter are unsure. Some federal employees no doubt take advantage of their insulation from accountability, but most civil servants are hard-working and dedicated — a fact attested to by the 70 percent customer satisfaction rate among those who receive some federal service. The diligent federal workers must pick up the slack for those who do not do their share, only to sometimes be denied opportunities for advancement by the dead weight above them. And, as anyone who has worked in an office environment knows, unmotivated and unruly co-workers can take a heavy toll on morale. So, although a few bad apples may prefer to keep the status quo, it is not surprising most federal employees welcome these provisions of the President’s Executive Orders.

DG: What do you see as the main reason some training is not effective? 

DDK: Over the years and through extensive research, OPM has learned the value of shifting from traditional classroom-based learning to experiential and social learning activities. With experiential and social learning activities, approximately 70 percent of learning takes place on-the-job; 20 percent of learning results from meaningful relationships and coaching; and 10 percent of learning occurs through formal classroom training. OPM’s research also suggests that this approach to employee training is more situated in the context of an employee’s work, providing cost savings opportunities to build and demonstrate the competencies needed for success.

DG: What is the skill you’d most like to see supervisors improve upon over the next year?

DDK: OPM supports Federal agencies to ensure all supervisors develop critical leadership competencies within the first year of appointment and are appropriately trained on performance management, as well as addressing performance and conduct issues.

Additionally, OPM is committed to providing supervisors with best practices, guidance, training, and forums with a focus on employee experience, performance, and continual learning. We also emphasize the importance of succession planning in support of talent management from entry to leadership level.

DG: What is the most critical skill you’d like to see HR improve upon over the next year?

DDK: OPM encourages HR professionals to shift their focus from the traditional functional role to more of a strategic partner within their organization. The Federal Government continually faces unique challenges to meet its mission to effectively serve the American people. HR professionals can support Federal leaders to improve the agility of the workforce, adapt to change, and develop workforce solutions to overcome these challenges.

Editor’s note: FELTG’s flagship course UnCivil Servant: Holding Employees Accountable for Performance and Conduct, is just one of our many training programs that empower federal supervisors to confidently and effectively take legally defensible actions to address poor performance and misconduct, and comply with OPM’s 5 CFR 412.202(b) requirements. We can provide this course specifically for your agency. And we’ll be teaching UnCivil Servant: Holding Employees Accountable for Performance and Conduct virtually as an open enrollment over two half-days on September 9-10. Gephart@FELTG.com

By Dan Gephart, June 2, 2020

I’ve attended the EEOC’s EXCEL Conference for several years as a member of the press, which included a pre-arranged sit-down interview with one of the EEOC commissioners. Sometimes I interviewed the Chair, but usually I interviewed whoever was newest to the commission. (Guess they drew the short straw.)

The interviews didn’t usually delve too deeply into federal sector EEO issues, which is understandable. Many of the commissioners came from a non-Federal background and they were still learning the ropes. Most of their attention was on the private sector.

Chai Feldblum (pictured above to the right), however, showed no reticence in talking about nitty-gritty federal sector issues. Despite being on the job for just a few months, she was not only enthusiastic, she was informed, curious, and engaging – the kind of traits that made her a popular professor at Georgetown University’s Law School. And Feldblum was very approachable, which is almost as impressive as her bio.

Feldblum graduated from Harvard Law School and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun. She was legislative counsel for the ACLU’s AIDS project, where she played a key role in drafting the Americans with Disabilities Act. She provided legal counsel on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and other efforts to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. She founded Georgetown’s Workplace Flexibility 2010 campaign. And she was the first open lesbian to serve as EEOC commissioner.

She served on the commission from 2010 to 2019 and was even nominated for a third time by President Trump before conservative Utah Senator Mike Lee, a longtime opponent of LGBTQ rights, blocked the nomination.

Feldblum is a partner at Morgan Lewis and director of the firm’s Workplace Culture Consulting & Training, which helps employers implement preventive strategies to eliminate harassment and enhance workplace productivity.

At the EEOC, Feldblum forged successful working relationships with her fellow commissioners, especially then-Chair Victoria Lipnic. This led to some ground-breaking actions, such as a wide-ranging report on workplace harassment and the Commission’s ruling that sexual orientation and transgender discrimination are forms of sex discrimination under Title VII.

With many of us waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision on Zarda, Bostock, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes — which will either affirm or reject the EEOC’s approach to sex discrimination — we thought it was an ideal time to catch up with Feldblum. She opted not to share her gut feeling about how the Supreme Court would rule, but, as always, she was thoughtful and informative in her responses.

DG: You spent nine years at the Commission. What do you think is your legacy there?

CF: I feel my legacy falls into two broad categories, substantive and procedural. On the substantive side, I feel the Commission made huge strides in protecting LGBT people under Title VII by ruling that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination are forms of sex discrimination; in advancing employment rights for people with disabilities by reinvigorating the affirmative action requirements for federal agencies under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act; and in protecting pregnant women by issuing guidance that ensured they could receive light duty work when needed, which was adopted in part by the Supreme Court. I feel grateful that I was able to play a leadership role in those substantive areas.

On the procedural side, I enjoyed digging into the logistics of the EEOC and helping with strategic planning for the agency. The digital charge system, as well as the respondent and charging party portals, have enabled the EEOC to continue working well during this COVID-19 pandemic. I will always be proud of the contribution I made towards those advancements in technology for the agency.

DG: What is the biggest difference you see between the private and federal organizations when it comes to EEO issues?

CF: I have been struck more by the similarities than by the differences. In both private and federal organizations, I have met incredibly committed people who care deeply about EEO issues. In both types of organizations, I have met people who are interested in going beyond EEO compliance to broader workplace culture change. And in both private and federal organizations, I have seen people struggle with similar challenges, whether it is a limited amount of resources or skepticism from some quarters as to the utility of investing in workplace culture change. This is probably why it is good that I’m an optimist. I believe that the utility of robust EEO compliance and workplace culture change, in both private and federal organizations, will carry the day.

DG: It’s been almost four years since the Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace was released. Is there anything you would add, take out, or clarify if you were in charge of updating it now?

CF: I believe the Report of the Co-Chairs of the Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment has stood the test of time. It remains a very useful document for anyone wishing to understand the prevalence and scope of workplace harassment, the reasons for under-reporting of harassment, and new ideas for “rebooting harassment prevention.” I do not think there is anything I would take out of the Report. But together with my colleague Sharon Masling [former Chief of Staff for Feldblum at the EEOC], who joined me at Morgan Lewis as a Co-Director of Workplace Culture Consulting, we have built on and expanded the work and the ideas of the Report. Over the course of a year here at Morgan Lewis, we have created a quantitative survey on assessing culture, developed a system for a qualitative assessment of workplace culture, and refined a Respectful Workplaces training. All of this work builds on the research and insights of the Report.

DG: Are you seeing an increase in discrimination and harassment in the workplace and/or in the public space as COVID-19 has taken over the globe?

CF: The evidence is pretty clear that Asian-Americans have been the victims of increased harassment and hate crimes during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council has collected data of over 1,700 incidents of verbal harassment, shunning and physical assaults against Asian Americans since March 2020. These reports come from 45 states and Washington DC and over a third of the incidents happened in public venues. I am sure workplaces are not immune from the possibility of discrimination and harassment against Asian Americans. I feel that the employers I have been able to work with over the past year are well-positioned to stop this form of discrimination and harassment from permeating their workplaces. But we need this to stop everywhere.

DG: What should the EEOC’s approach be to cases involving sexual orientation and gender identity in the federal workplace as we await the Supreme Court ruling?

CF: Keep going until the Supreme Court rules. The EEOC has continued to accept charges from LGBT employees and applicants who allege employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. That is precisely what the agency should do, since it has not voted to change its position on this issue. The question is whether the Supreme Court will read the law as the EEOC did. That is what we are all waiting to see.

[Editor’s Note: The Supreme Court decision in Zarda, Bostock, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes will be discussed in the session The Latest on Sexual Orientation and Transgender Discrimination during FELTG’s weeklong conference-like virtual training event Federal Workplace 2020: Accountability, Challenges, and Trends July 27-31, 2020. Register for one, several or all sessions. And EEO counselors and investigators can learn more about the topic and earn refresher hours during the July 9 webinar The Latest on Sexual Orientation and Gender Discrimination in the Federal Workplace.]

Gephart@FELTG.com