Truth or Fiction? Management Myths

By Robyn Bage

Despite supervising new managers for more than 2 decades and teaching young management students at community college, I continue to be surprised by the strength of their belief in the most obstructive and destructive management myths. So for your edification (and my students, as I plan to share this with them), here are my Top Five Management Myths.

Number 5: If you pay well enough, people will do a good job for you. Not likely. While money is certainly necessary, it is neither an essential element of job satisfaction or motivation to perform at a high rate of productivity. People need more than just a fat paycheck to be motivated at work. For example, the work needs to be meaningful, and it needs to provide opportunity for growth and advancement. People need to feel a sense of achievement and recognition for that achievement. Have you known anyone who left a lucrative job for one paying much less? Of course you have.

Number 4: Stay the course! My mother ran a small catering business, geared toward families who liked to entertain but who wanted a homey feel to the party. They “bought the food and invited the guests, called her and she did the rest” (paraphrased from her business card which, by the way, I still carry in my wallet). At some point, business started to slow down. Mom held resolutely to her business plan, believing that if she waited out this unfortunate turn of events that business would pick up. It never did. Potential customers clamored for a more modern approach, preferring to have food delivered, fully prepared and served by agile and socially invisible wait staff. Mom hated everything about that, and refused to be pressured to change. A handful of loyal longstanding customers remained with her, keeping her busy until she retired but the business was never the same. Staying the course doesn’t usually work as well as being flexible and accommodating. The very least you should do is respond to your customers changing needs. The best plan: Anticipate them.

Number 3: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  Innovation includes figuring how to make things better and how to more fully meet customer needs. Companies that rest on their laurels most certainly lose ground; the company may be the best today, but it may be second best—or worse—tomorrow. The most successful, enduring businesses strive to continually improve their products and services. They pursue higher quality, increased reliability, new features and better functionality. Their customers clamor for the latest and greatest incarnation. Remember, Apple’s iPhone 4S broke sales records.

Number 2: The squeaky wheel should get the oil. Managers tend to spend a great deal of time dealing with underperforming employees. At first blush this seems rational; we want to turn our poor performers into stars. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that the poor performers bleed the life out of the managers and still do not improve. Moreover, the managers then have little time or energy left to give their more productive employees. A better plan: Take care of your star performers! The payoff in terms of morale AND productivity is greater if you give them your time and attention.

And the Number 1 Management Myth:

“They don’t have to like me; they just have to respect me.” This is simply nonsense! Of course your employees have to like you! They have to value you as a skilled manager, see you as caring and considerate of their wellbeing, growth and development. They have to be able to celebrate and smile with you, as well as sit down and strategize with you. When we do not like our manager, we tend to be dissatisfied at work. Dissatisfaction translates into a lack of motivation to produce ample quality work. When we like our manager or supervisor, we are more satisfied and therefore more motivated. We want to give our job our best efforts. This is not to say that you can make all of your employees happy all of the time. (In fact, that could be Myth #6.) But when employees like you, they trust your decisions, even when they are unhappy about them. And by the way, if your employees don’t like you at all—they won’t respect you, either.

Robyn-Jay Bage is a CEO of a nonprofit human service organization, and an Assistant Professor at a community college.

Constitutional or Not? New Criterion for Government Assistance

By Wiha Powell

In this struggling economy, a significant amount of Americans families are turning to government assistance programs to meet their basic needs.  One such program is the Temporary Assistant for Needy Families (TANF) program, which assists people who lose their job by providing cash and job search assistance.

However, applicants of TANF are currently encountering a new criterion for eligibility- mandatory drug testing. Arguably, the government is calling this new criterion, “a social safety net”. Within recent months, legislature in roughly 36 states has proposed that people who are applying for public benefits such as welfare, unemployment assistance, job training, food stamps and public housing should undergo drug testing.

Recently, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed legislature bill HB 353 into law in May, 2011. The new law, which took effect on July 1, 2011, requires all persons who are applying for TANF to undergo a drug test.  Applicants are informed of this new requirement at the time of their application and are also informed that they are responsible for paying the cost of the drug test. However, if the test result is negative the State will then reimburse the applicant.

Upon signing HB 353 into law, Governor Scott in a press release stated, “While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction.”  Following the implementation of this new requirement, Senator Arthenia L. Joyner, a Democratic leader in the Florida Senate, filed SB 284 to repeal the GOP backed TANF drug testing requirement. According to Sen. Joyner, “the bill Republicans pushed last session is not only likely to be found unconstitutional, it was unnecessary”. The Senator also stated that, “Floridians, who through no fault of their own, fell victim to the great recession and are not only being forced to submit to mandatory drug testing to receive emergency help, but taxpayers are being forced to pay for a screening that has already been found to be a waste of money. This is Big Brother at its worst”.

However, supporters of the policy change all agree that the new law will make certain that our tax dollars are not being misused and the new requirement will root out TANF recipients who are using public dollars to feed their habit. In response, opponents argue that the new policy is denigrating and singling out victims of the recession. Moreover, it subscribes to the stereotypical notion that people who are on public assistance are more likely to be drug users. The new requirement is also being labeled as a violation of the basic constitutional right to privacy, and will most likely be contested by the American Civil Liberties Union in a court of law.

Although justified as an effort to ensure discreet and practical government spending and personal accountability, the policy of mandatory drug testing as a condition of eligibility to receive TANF raises much concern. About a decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the forth amendment, drug testing is a form of search and seizure when carried out by a governmental agency. As a result, probable cause must exist prior to conducting a drug test, which is determined on a case-by-case basis.  However, the approach of policy makers in screening TANF applicant seems immensely circumstantial because there is no probable cause to validate drug testing for TANF applicants. Therefore, the intent of such a drug testing policy is in violation of TANF applicant’s constitutional rights. It is apparent that TANF applicants are Americans who are feeling the extreme hardship of the economy, and are not willing to stand up against such violation. Therefore, the government must administer TANF criteria and eligibility in such a way that it is in accordance with the Constitution. Although, there will be a regrettable few who use government assistance to purchase drugs, there still should be limitations on government intrusiveness to assure and to maintain personal freedom for all its citizens.

3 Ideas for an Easier Meeting Process

By Justin Mosebach

As governments look to cut costs, here are some practical ideas to get you thinking about how to make meetings more efficient.  Obviously, most governments have to abide by different laws (such as different Open Meeting laws, Freedom of Information Act, etc). Take these tips and apply them to your next meeting. Let us know how it turns out.   If you have any other feedback, leave them in the comments section below!

1.)  Make meeting packets available digitally

How can you save preparation time, be more environmentally friendly, and help people be prepared for the meeting – faster?

Figure out what you’re planning to cover during the meeting and compile the information/documents electronically. Instead of printing, email information to the meeting attendees ahead of time. If the files are too large to email, try hosting them on a file sharing solution like Google Docs, your website, or on your intranet.  If you’re dealing with a large amount of information, attendees can use a computer’s search capabilities to quickly find the information they’re looking for in the documents. This also allows attendees to make notes on or share info with other attendees during or after the meeting.

If it’s a public meeting, citizens, elected officials, and staff can download and view their own copy from your website.  Note: If attendees want a printout, you can still provide  one but the number of copies should be reduced.

2.)  Evaluate the agenda ahead of time

Sounds obvious, but why not go through your typical meeting agenda item-by-agenda item before the meeting?  Here are some things to ask yourself:

• What do you hope to accomplish from the meeting?
• Is all the information relevant to everyone?  If not, then ask if it’s important enough to discuss during the meeting or afterwards.  Sometimes a discussion outside of the meeting with the appropriate parties can prove to be more efficient and direct.
• Have you considered your audience?  Will there be someone sitting through the entire meeting just to partake in one agenda item towards end of your meeting? If so, consider moving that item to the beginning of the meeting.
• How long do you anticipate talking about an item? Are there time constraints?

3.)  Record the meeting on video

If you record the meeting on video, you can create bookmarked timestamps for new agenda items.  The Clerk could have a much easier time completing the Minutes after the meeting.

Archiving videos online gives your board and council members the flexibility to easily review past meetings. This could help eliminate the same discussions that you had in a previous meeting.  Attendees can clearly recall what has already been discussed and it’s easier than reading through lengthy or irrelevant information.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Disclaimer: I work for an IT company that (among other things) specializes in products that assist w/ transparency, government, and technology (to include multi-camera digital video recording, hosting and web presentation of public and private content). The company works with the public and government sectors in multiple ways to provide Gov 2.0 and related technology solutions.

Happy Birthday Clean Water Act

By Lisa Beutler

The Clean Water Act (CWA), a federal law designed to keep America’s waterways safe and clean, just turned 39.  Enacted on October 18, 1972, the CWA places restrictions on pollution levels and creates water quality standards for the nation’s lakes, rivers, streams and other waters.

The events leading to its passage are sobering.  Some may remember that in the late 60s and early 70s, record fish kills were commonplace and rivers, including the Hudson in New York and the Charles in Boston were dying.  However, many attribute the final bi-partisan enactment of this law to the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire.

The Cuyahoga River, part of which runs through Cleveland, was considered one of the most polluted rivers in the United States.  Amazingly, there had reportedly been at least thirteen fires on the Cuyahoga River, the first occurring in 1868.  The largest river fire in 1952 caused over $1 million in damage to boats and a riverfront office building.  The final tipping point occurred June 22, 1969, when Time magazine picked up the story and described the Cuyahoga as the river that “oozes rather than flows” and in which a person “does not drown but decays.”

Something that for decades had simply been accepted, now had reached a literal boiling point.  The CWA, like similar laws enacted during that period reflected a fundamental shift in the public’s demands for a healthy environment and the role of government in representing the public’s interest.

So at 39 how is CWA holding up?  The answer is mixed.  Comparatively speaking Americans have access to some of the safest water in the world, although this does not appear widely understood by the public.   Even so, millions in the U.S. drink dirty water and there remain substantial numbers of watersheds with impaired ecosystems.

From the beginning, the CWA has had its detractors.  In the mid-2000s, the CWA was significantly weakened.  In two separate cases, the Supreme Court limited the reach of the Act to navigable waterways, without outlining how that would be defined.   That, according to regulators, left uncertain which waterways the CWA applies to.  As a result, some regulated communities, particularly those discharging pollutants into upland wetlands declared the law no longer applies to them.

The decisions “reduce(d) E.P.A.’s ability to do what the law intends — to protect water quality, the environment and public health,” wrote Peter S. Silva, the E.P.A.’s assistant administrator for the Office of Water, in response to questions.  By 2010, regulators estimated that more than 1,500 major pollution investigations had been discontinued or shelved.

The Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007, H.R.2421was introduced to correct what some viewed as the new CWA jurisdictional ambiguity but it never made it past committee in the House.

Now, at 39, efforts continue to further limit the reach of the Act.  On July 13, 2011 the House passed the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011.  This  bill essentially eliminates the EPA’s power to supersede individual states’ water pollution rules. New EPA regulations would require a full analysis to “analyze the impact, disaggregated by state, of such action on employment levels and economic activity,” and post the analysis on their website.

The stakes in these battles are immense.  Millions and billions of dollars are in play for the industries subject to regulation, many of which argue the regulations are job killing.  At the same time millions and billions of dollars are needed to repair and refurbish both man made and natural clean water infrastructure.  Investments in infrastructure would result in good public outcomes and much-needed jobs.

We can expect that the CWA, as it transitions to 40, will once again be part of the broader conversation of what the public can rightly expect of its government.

US Education System: Crying Out for Help

By Wiha Powell

Decades ago, the United States ranked first in the world in the number of young adults who had high school diplomas. As of today, compared to Europe and Asia, 15 year-old students in the U.S. are ranked just above average in reading and science and below average in math. Moreover, according to OECD (Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development) 2009 Program for International Student Assessment, the United States ranked 17^th in reading, 23^rd in science, and 31^st in math.

One of the major issues with our education system is the declining knowledge and understanding of history, geography, grammar, civics and literature. However, in the attempt to solve the education dilemma politicians, community leaders, along with the education community all sing the same old song, “students fails because expectations are not high enough” or “we need more accountability”.  With this lingering tune, the only solutions that they proposed is to pump more money into the education system, so that teachers receive better pay and children are placed in smaller classrooms in order to receive enough attention.

Yet, with such significant changes within our education system the question remains, “Why are our students becoming more and more illiterate each year?” Furthermore, is pumping more money into schools really addressing the problem or is there an unknown secret political agenda? Instead of ‘adding fuel to fire’, these ‘education experts’ should focus on the root of the problem-No Child Left Behind Act.

After taking office in January 2001, former President George W. Bush made education his number one agenda. His first policy proposal was the “No Child Left Behind” Act (NCLB Act). According to the President, he wanted to tackle the growing problem of illiteracy among American children and the low standard of test scores.  His policy addressed three specific ideologies:

1) annual testing for grades 3-8 to ensure that schools are actually teaching children;

2) give parents the choice to find schools that produce results within their district. However, President Bush gave schools specific time-period to improve and if they failed, parents have the option of going to a more successful school by way of a voucher plan;

3) “flexibility for accountability,” which means giving the control back to local and state schools boards. However, it was made clear that federal funding will stop if failing schools fails to improve. The Act’s main purpose is to have every student in America be proficient in reading and math by 2014.

On the surface, the NCLB Act seems like a fresh new start for the American’s education system, but carefully sifting through the act proves otherwise. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), high schools across the nation are receiving a significant amount of attention from both state and federal interest groups. These high schools are being called upon to renew their curriculum, methodology, as well as teacher/student relationship in order to better serve the needs of the students.

Currently, there are a record number of high school graduates who are not adequately prepared for postsecondary education or for the competitiveness of the workforce. According to NCSL, a survey done by Achieve Inc. stated that college instructors estimated that more than 40 percent of high school graduates are not ready for college courses, and up to 30 percent of first-year postsecondary education students take remedial courses upon entering college.  In the same survey, employers estimated that 45 percent of high school graduates lack the skills to advance beyond entry-level jobs.

At this time, the Obama Administration claims that the NCLB Act shines light on achievement gaps and increased accountability for high-need students; however, it encourages states to lower their standards and narrow their curriculum to focus mainly on test scores instead of student growth and gains. The goal of the Obama Administration is to find a way to give states and districts flexibility to develop solutions locally under the NCLB Act to address their educational challenges while protecting children and holding schools accountable for better preparing young people for college and careers.

It is extremely clear that the NCLB Act is not practical and it is also clear that over the last decade the federal education policies that are being introduced are leading our education system down a destructive path that has severely impacted the traditional public school system. Our education system is desperately crying out for help; to solve this problem America needs to attack the root-the different non-functional education program of the federal government, e.g., the NCLB Act. If it does not work, get rid of it. It is about time the government takes the political agenda out of education, and return back to the traditional education system where students actually learn skills such as reading, writing, science and math that prepare them for college or careers.

ASPA Code of Ethics – The Debate Continues at SECoPA

By Jim Svara

When members of ASPA met at the Southeastern Conference on Public Administration (SECoPA) in New Orleans, among the issues that were discussed was the ASPA Code of Ethics. ASPA has been undergoing a review of its ethics code. As a professional organization, ASPA is concerned that the Code reflects the values of its members.

The early morning session discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the current Code, with significant input from ASPA members who serve as faculty and have used the Code in their classes. Practitioners and faculty agree that the current Code is sound but not engaging.  Agreement during the forum is that the length makes the document hard to understand and obstructs efforts to develop a commitment to its provision. Those in attendance noted that the numerous tenets obscure the five principles in the code.  Rather, the principles come across more as categories than as central values and standards.

In an effort to improve understanding of the Code, there were suggestions to highlight the pledge component, which currently requires members to sign off that they understand and agree to the principles.

Eric Bergrud explained the origins of the code review effort, and I discussed the activities of the working group to date.  A copy of the current code was distributed.  Other members of ASPA leadership present for the discussion were president-elect Tom Liou and national council member Ann Hess Braga.

In response to an open-ended question about the strengths and weaknesses of the current code, two faculty members who use the code in classes and several practitioners offered similar views.  They think that the current code is sound but not engaging.  The length makes it hard to understand and obstructs efforts to develop a commitment to its provisions.

But what about enforcement? A few of the participants were concerned that the Code lacks enforcement provisions.  Consequently, some public administrators may not give it serious attention.   The observation was made, however, that codes oriented to enforcement tend to be specific and this characteristic can contradict the preference for a code that is more aspirational.

ASPA’s Code Review Working Committee has adopted two approaches to revising the code. The first is an incremental approach that retains the current format but suggests revisions in the wording of some principles and specific tenets.  The second is a principle-based code that stresses the central values and standards of the field along with a separate list of practices to promote the code.  It is the principles that would be emphasized in educational efforts and communication to the public.  Without considering the specifics in the illustrations of the two approaches, the participants in the forum all favored the principle-based approach.  They felt that the principles of public administration can be more fully developed and stand out more clearly in this approach.  The presentation is more engaging.

This is not the end of the debate. The Working Committee plans to hold a similar session at NECoPA in New York at 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, October 29.  ASPA members are invited to join this discussion that will be led by Ann Hess Braga. Or you can also share your views by email to Jim Nordin nordinja@sbcglobal.net and Jim Svara james.svara@asu.edu

International Students and the U.S. Workforce

By Wiha Powell

In his speech on immigration reform in El Paso, Texas, President Obama stated, “We provide students from around the world with visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities. But then our law discourages them from using those skills to start a business or a new industry here in the United States.” The President then went on to say, “In a global marketplace, we need all the talent we can attract… we don’t want the next Intel or the next Google to be created in China or India. We want those companies and jobs to take root here.”

Every year the United States opens its door to thousands of international students who dream of receiving an education from one of the nation’s top universities. In order for an international student to attend our universities they need to first acquire an F1 (student) visa. To obtain an F1-visa, international students must first meet the residency requirement of their country, and agree to return upon completion of their studies; in this case, they need to prove that they have ties to their home country, e.g., job offer letter after completion of studies, assets, bank accounts or family. Moreover, they must be enrolled on a fulltime basis and provide sufficient financial evidence to fund their studies.

Also, it may be possible for an international student to convert his/her visa to a temporary work visa upon completion of his/her studies through the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program. This program allows international students, upon graduation, to stay in the United States for up to twelve months to work in their field of study.

The Bush Administration made it possible for some foreign graduates who majored in fields such as science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM-designated degree programs) to stay for an additional seventeen months, totaling twenty-nine months of OPT. This enables a lucky few to switch over to an H-1B (work) visa with sponsorship from their employer.

Currently, the Obama administration is expanding the STEM- designated degree programs’ list to include more majors that are of interest to the United States such as soil microbiology, video graphics and special effects, neuroscience, medical informatics and pharmaceutics, and drug design. With this expansion, the Obama administration wishes to increase the pool of international students who would be eligible for the seventeen-month OPT extension, which will provide more international graduates the opportunity to work in the U.S. as oppose to leaving and being employed by our foreign competitors.

This expansion and extension according to the Obama Administration will be beneficial to the United States economy because it will allow these international graduates to enter into the workforce with skills such as engineering, technology, computer science, neuroscience, etc., which are currently in demand, and in hopes that these international graduates will secure long-term jobs in the U.S. This will in turn create new industries, therefore creating new jobs and help the economy to grow.

Opponents are already apprehensive and hesitant about the extension of the OPT and the expansion of the STEM-Designated Degree Programs’ list. They argue that this will raise concerns and make U.S. citizens who are job seekers uneasy and doubtful about competing against these brainy high-tech international graduates in this critical time of high unemployment.

According to Obama, in “recent years,” one quarter of high-tech startups in the United States were founded by immigrants, creating 200,000 U.S. jobs.

Surprisingly, international students do make up for a considerable amount of students who study science, technology, engineering and math in our universities today. According to the National Science Foundation of the science and engineering graduates between 2000 and 2009, 3 out of 10 graduates were temporary visa holders. Also, between 2000 and 2009 approximately 30% of science and engineering students were temporary visa holders, with a high of 32% in 2002.

However, the percentage of international students who get the opportunity to switch from an F-1 visa to an H1-B visa and ultimately receive a green card is unknown. Most recently, the Obama administration announced that it is working on making the H1-B visa more accessible to job-creators and entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, in this uncertain economic time employers are still seeking talented and skilled individuals. Therefore, instead of looking elsewhere, it would be more beneficial to have these highly skilled individuals stay in the U.S. and eventually securing long-term jobs rather than losing them to our competitors overseas.