Archive for the ‘Public Sector’ Category

Process and Outcomes: What’s REALLY Going on in Wisconsin

Monday, February 28th, 2011

There are two separate issues in the Wisconsin battle over public sector unionization: (1) the collective bargaining process, and (2) the outcomes of that process.

The outcomes of the collective bargaining process that are under discussion are the wages and benefits of public sector employees. The unions involved understand that economic conditions require painful cuts in pay and benefits. In fact, they agree that the status quo in unsustainable, and they have expressed their willingness to discuss the details. Their offer to negotiate those changes has been refused by Governor Walker.

Over the last few weeks people have cited numerous studies that either affirm or deny the statement that public sector employees are paid more (including benefits) than their counterparts in the private sector. Those on both sides cite statistics that seem to support their respective positions. Yet that public-private pay differential is not the issue here. The real issue is whether public sector employees in Wisconsin will continue to have a voice in discussions about their pay and benefits.

The process of collective bargaining requires the parties to discuss issues related to pay, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. It does NOT require the parties to agree on terms; it merely requires good faith discussion.

Although private sector regulations related to unionization are federal laws, public sector regulations are governed by state laws, which as you may expect, vary considerably. Wisconsin was the first state to agree to allow public sector employees to bargain collectively, so it is more than a little ironic that it is the first state to try to revoke those rights. Its law governing public sector unionization follows closely the findings of its federal counterpart, the National Labor Relations Act. Here is what the Wisconsin law currently says:

“It is the policy of this state, in order to preserve and promote the interests of the public, the employee and the employer alike, to encourage the practices and procedures of collective bargaining in state employment subject to the requirements of the public service and related laws, rules and policies governing state employment, by establishing standards of fair conduct in state employment relations and by providing a convenient, expeditious and impartial tribunal in which these interests may have their respective rights determined.”

In the name of reducing the state’s deficit, Governor Walker clearly is going beyond addressing the outcomes of previous negotiations (i.e., current pay and benefit levels); instead, he is intent upon abolishing the process of collective bargaining for public sector employees in Wisconsin. In short, the battle that has drawn demonstrators from across the country is not about whether the workers’ pay and benefits will change; it’s about whether those employees have a right to be part of the conversation that determines how their pay and benefits will change.

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

Wanted: Courageous Leaders

Saturday, February 19th, 2011

Organizations across the U.S., especially those in the public (government) sector, are struggling to overcome the obstacles and identify the opportunities presented in the aftermath of slashed budgets, plummeting revenues, and forced layoffs and furloughs. The challenge is to prioritize scarce resources so they can be allocated as effectively as possible to achieve the desired outcomes.

There are two critical success factors required to enable decision-makers to devise an effective process for allocating their organizations’ scarce resources in ways that will allow them to re-group successfully: (1) a clearly articulated “big picture” – i.e., an overall mission statement or vision – and (2) courageous leaders. Organizations that have not identified their big picture can be successful if they address that shortcoming, which can be done relatively easily; those that lack courageous leaders, however, are unlikely to be able to rise to the challenges that face them.

Courageous leaders are principled individuals who focus relentlessly on achieving the organization’s big picture, even if doing so results in their paying a personal price. For example, in an ideal world, politicians at all levels of government would do what they were elected to do – i.e., make the tough decisions that are in the best interests of their city, county, state, or country (e.g., a city council member would vote for the interests of the city rather than of his/her district or, more narrowly, a sub-group of that district). In reality, however, they inevitably find themselves in the position of having to choose between the greater good, and a more narrow set of interests, either their own (e.g., re-election) or others’ (e.g., a sub-set of the population). Courageous leaders are those who consistently choose the greater good, even when their actions and decisions may result in their paying a heavy personal price.

Being a courageous leader is difficult. The reality of a world of scarce resources is that decision-makers must be able to prioritize them in a transparent, fair, relatively objective way that serves the greater good. In the U.S., people often want to have their proverbial cake and eat it too – e.g., they want their leaders to maintain or improve levels of services or benefits without raising taxes or cutting pay. Thus decision-makers often must buck the tide of public opinion, which may include people who elected, appointed, or hired them to do that job in the first place. Especially for public officials, it also may mean having to resist peer pressure from their colleagues.

Courageous leaders are able to see the big picture and, importantly, what must be done to achieve it. They must address a multitude of diverse positions on complex issues. The public sector, for example, must serve people who have a myriad of conflicting interests and who all expect and need to be heard and served. Leaders in that sector are responsible for seeing to the needs of those who have nowhere else to turn, even when those needs consume resources for which other stakeholders believe there are more pressing uses.

In short, the role of courageous leader is one that is fraught with peril, as demonstrated by those who have been pushed aside for having stood their ground in focusing on the big picture. The greater danger, however, is the absence of courageous leadership in our organizations and our society.

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

Why City Governments Are Floundering

Sunday, January 23rd, 2011

Across the U.S., scores of municipalities technically are bankrupt, as their financial obligations far outstrip their ability to cover them. Some cities already have declared bankruptcy legally. Politicians nationwide desperately are seeking ways to stave off bankruptcy by stemming the flood of red ink that threatens imminent financial disaster. So far the red ink is winning.

What is preventing decision-makers from devising an effective process for allocating their cities’ scarce resources in ways that will allow them to re-group successfully in the aftermath of slashed budgets, plummeting revenues, forced furloughs, and layoffs?

A major impediment is the lack of a clearly articulated “big picture” – i.e., a city-wide mission statement or vision. A quick check of half a dozen large cities across the U.S. reveals no city-wide mission statements on their official web sites. Yet most of the departments in each of those cities do have mission statements prominently displayed. And therein lies the problem. Although having department-specific mission statements surely is desirable, the departments’ individual efforts must be directed toward the same collective end. Unless those diverse missions are aligned with the city’s mission, all you have is a set of competing and conflicting interests – hardly the basis for setting priorities effectively.

The importance of having an overall big picture has never been more critical for cities than it is now, when resources are exceptionally scarce. Given the need to change decades-old structures, programs, processes, systems, and regulations that no longer work, at the same time that demand for government services has skyrocketed, setting clear priorities to allocate scarce resources most effectively is key to a successful rebuilding effort. In order to set priorities, however, there must be a unifying frame of reference. Otherwise, how can decision-makers and stakeholders agree on what programs or services should take precedence over others? Some groups’ “must have” lists are viewed as “nice to have” or even “unnecessary” from others’ perspectives. Absent the touchstone of a clearly articulated overall mission or vision, who is to say which group is “correct?”

For example, in February 2010, the Los Angeles City Council was considering drastic actions such as laying off over 1,000 employees, eliminating departments, and cutting public safety budgets and staff in order to erase a $208 million shortfall. During discussions about how to close this gap, one City Council member went on record as saying that he wanted to do whatever was necessary to preserve the $1 million allocated to paying a handful of city employees who work as calligraphers – i.e., those who handcraft the ornate certificates of recognition that elected officials like to hand out to constituents and other supporters.

Who is to say that this council member’s priorities were misplaced? After all, while most Los Angeles departments have their own mission statements, the City itself has none. As a result, there is no definitive basis on which people can decide whether keeping calligraphers on the job is more or less important than providing adequate levels of public safety or keeping libraries open.

While there are no easy solutions to allocating scarce resources, you first must have an effective process to guide the tough decisions. Trying to set priorities without benefit of a city-wide big picture is akin to trying to put a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle together without knowing what the picture is supposed to look like – and while both hands are tied behind your back. When I advise clients how to prioritize their scarce resources, step one necessarily is articulating a clear, overall big picture. That picture becomes the touchstone by which all decisions are made, and by which priorities may be set.

What is your organization’s big picture? Making sure that you have one – and that all stakeholders know what it is – ensures that you have a solid foundation upon which to set organizational priorities.

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.