By Jim Lint
Professor, School of Business at American Public University
The long-term employee in the office is often the well-skilled expert in his/her specific job domain. Often, conflict comes when the employee is not trained or does not have an understanding of the next layers of management.
A Story of Conflict Between Expertise and Management
One day, an employee who worked security clearance issues was notified that an aging employee had mental problems involving paranoia. The supervisor notified the manager, and they notified the Employee Assistance Team to assist with getting counseling for this long-time good employee.
The manager contacted the Management Employee Relations office due to this employee’s disruption of the office. Other office workers became scared the aging employee would bring weapons to the office and use them to protect herself.
Their fear was justified because this event happened at about the same time a few other high-publicity shootings occurred. The last one that had some parallels to this story was the 2013 shooting at the Washington DC Navy Yard.
Supervisors and managers experienced an increase in their stress. Some looked at various methods to legally remove this troubled employee from the workplace, while staying within federal civil service rules. They considered removing her security clearance, which would make her ineligible for continued employment.
Supervisors and managers knew that this 30-year employee had been an excellent performer and still did the job well. They knew it would be hard to remove a well-rewarded employee for performance reasons.
After a month in an increasingly agitated office, the managers went to the security office to see if the security clearance could be removed. They had already done a local suspension of the employee’s security clearance.
Now they had an office employee without a security clearance and who could only do parts of the job. The removal of a security clearance is much different than a suspension. There must be proof and it must meet criteria. Security clearance remove is very strict, so a manager cannot come to work and say, “I do not like employee X; I am removing his/her clearance.”
Because the removal of a security clearance can destroy a civil service worker’s career, there are built-in protections. A manager must prove a cause for removal of a security clearance. Mental and emotional stability is a cause for clearance removal.
An employee experiencing problems with mental and emotional stability must get doctor visits for assessment and then a determination to say if his/her condition it is treatable or temporary. This is not a fast or easy process. (If the employee refuses to get assessed, that can lead to revocation of a security clearance.)
The managers for the aging employee put pressure on the organization’s chief personnel security specialist. This specialist was experienced and was well regarded internally and externally in the organization. When the specialist got pressure from the managers of the aging employee, the security specialist requested a quick fix from his supervisor and managers.
The specialist received no support for expediting the situation or immediate action. The specialist was frustrated and stressed, because he wanted to avoid a shooting similar to the Washington Navy Yard incident at his location.
The specialist knew he could not label the aging employee as “crazy” and have that employee kicked off post. The specialist knew the rules and never would think of trying to deny the rights of an employee.
The security supervisors and managers saw this event as one action overseen by a security office employee who was an expert and knew the limits. The specialist saw this problem as the most important personnel security case out of the 13,000 he was responsible for monitoring.
The security leaders did not pay extra attention to the specialist’s request for a quick fix to the situation since they knew that the specialist would take any legal action possible. No one saw a legal solution. The managers saw the security employee’s request for “something to be done” as blowing off steam.
Because the security specialist did not bring actionable solutions, managers were frustrated. The specialist was told by the G1, HR Personnel Experts, that the faster way to end the employment of the aging employee was for her managers to use the normal management action tools and not to use the security clearance as a fast and easy way to remove the employee. HR said this after it was determined that the security clearance revocation was not as easy as people guessed.
Two days later, the specialist wrote an uncharacteristic email to a third-level leader. He stated that he was very disappointed in the security’s office’s leadership. He was very worried about this aging employee and feared a repeat of the Navy Yard shooting. He wanted action. (He did not state what legal action, but just action.) The security expert was frustrated and feeling the frustration of the organization managers who were looking for a fast, easy (for them) way to solve the problem.
The manager was shocked since he had known the employee for over a decade. There were no legal actions for the manager to take. The specialist knew the higher adjudication facility would not move faster until all medical actions were taken. The manager knew the speed and requirements for information for the higher adjudication facility.
While this story was sad for the managers, it was a great learning experience. It showed the conflict between the various competing and non-cooperative focuses of the specialist, the aging employee, the aging employee’s managers and the security managers. The security specialist managers failed to take into consideration the external threat environment that impacted the security specialist’s mindset. The security specialist was fully focused on one case, while the managers focused on system-wide or multiple cases that would impactorganizational security in an increasing threat environment.
Ironically, no one in the security office knew that the organization’s senior lawyer was already working the issue. The senior lawyer had a meeting with the managers of the aging employee the day before the security specialist sent the email expressing his frustration.
The senior lawyer had already laid out a course of action for the aging employee’s managers without using the security clearance removal process. The normal management process was working with the security clearance process as a second, parallel process.
The senior lawyer led the managers through the legal process of the G1/Human Resource policies to give the employee a list of options that included her eligibility of early retirement. The normal Human Resource process has a lot of tools to manage situations. The understanding of these processes allowed the use of good legal tools that helped the employee with medical care and a future without getting in trouble or losing the benefits earned by her good work over her career. This was exactly how system should work. The happy ending is that the system and process worked, as it should work in these situations.
Management Lessons Learned from This Story
This situation provided valuable lessons for the management at this organization. It revealed that:
- Managers must look at the focus of experts and specialists in time of stress and trouble.
- Employee perception may be different from the manager’s perception of the problem.
- The employee may only look at an individual case. The manager may be looking at the “big picture”. Neither is wrong. Both individuals are best looking at their own picture, but together they make a good team. Leadership involves teamwork.
- The manager could have communicated the bigger picture in a better way to the employee. The manager could have bounced his assumptions off the specialist employee who may or may not have had valuable contributions to the discussion. The security specialist would have been happier making a contribution and knowing that the manager had seen all elements of the single case.
- The specialist did not know that the managers were under stress. The managers were making reviews for manpower cuts and cost savings. Contingencies for furloughs and office shutdowns were planned, while the security expert saw a single case. Neither side saw the problems of the other.
Bottom Line: Both were right in their viewpoints. The employee was fully focused, on the situation, while the security office manager had the big picture. Our workplace system is created for using the best brains of both worlds.
Employee Growth Requires Learning the Value of Two Viewpoints
For outstanding employees to grow, they need to learn the value of the big and small picture. Both views are required for a productive organization.
Without workers or managers, there is no need for the other. Teamwork is critical.
Resources:
Parts of this case came from the author’s first book “Leadership and Management Lessons Learned, A Book of Management Vignettes.” See http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00G04EG1E ALL proceeds go to charity. The author became an Associate Member of the Military Writers Guild in February 2016.
About the Author
James Lint recently retired as the civilian director for intelligence and security, G2, for a large military command. He is an adjunct professor at AMU. Additionally, he started the Lint Center for National Security Studies, a nonprofit charity that recently awarded their 40th scholarship for national security students and professionals. James has 38 years of experience in military intelligence within the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Army, contractor, and civil service. He was elected as the 2015 national vice president for the Military Intelligence Corps Association. James served in the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis and at the Department of Energy S&S Security Office. He started his military career in the Marine Corps, serving for seven years, and also served 14 years in the Army as a Counterintelligence Special Agent. His military assignments include South Korea, Germany, and Cuba in addition to numerous CONUS locations. He authored a 2013 book, Leadership and Management Lessons Learned and a new book “8 Eyes on Korea, A Travel Perspective of Seoul, Korea,” published in 2016.
Comments are closed.