1A Blowout for the 13th

The maintenance section of the 13th Flight Detachment is organized in two shifts. The day shift starts work at 7:00 AM and works until 4:00 PM. The night shift starts work at 3:00 PM and works until 11:00 PM. The Detachment has eight fixed-wing aircraft that require daily maintenance.

The mission of the Flight Detachment is mainly to fly military VIPs from one Army base to another. The mission of the maintenance section is to keep all possible aircraft flyable on a daily basis by performing routine maintenance checks and repairs on the aircraft.

Captain D is the supervisor of the maintenance section, and his assistant is Sergeant F. The day crew has eleven men, including one shift supervisor, one technical inspector, one civilian mechanic, and eight Army maintenance specialists. The night crew has twenty men: the shift supervisor, one technical inspector, two civilian mechanics, and sixteen maintenance specialists.

The night maintenance crew carries the major burden, as the staffing levels reflect, because aircraft are usually flown during the day and return to the Detachment by evening. The day crew works on any aircraft that the night crew has not finished, orders parts that have been used in the repair of aircraft, and does the bulk of the administrative work. The Detachment maintains a supply room which stocks all critical repair items that are frequently used. Any time a part is taken from inventory, a replacement is to be ordered immediately. Replacements usually take thirty to sixty days.

The rapport between the day crew and the night crew is generally good. There is some good-natured grousing by the night crew, who claim that they do most of the working while the day shift does most of the sitting. These complaints are balanced by those from some individuals on the day crew, who note that they are left all the unpleasant or difficult jobs.

Aircraft maintenance is adequate, as only one or two aircraft are grounded at any one time. The civilian mechanics generally do most of the major complicated work on the airplanes, while the military specialists perform the day-to-day activities. The latter include daily inspections, changing tires, replacing worn spark plugs, cleaning and refueling the aircraft, and assisting the civilian mechanics.

Each maintenance specialist in the day crew has a specific aircraft assigned for daily inspection and minor maintenance. There are eight aircraft and eight maintenance specialists on that shift. In contrast, one night-crew man cleans all the aircraft, a second refuels them, another checks the radio equipment, still another inspects the engines, and so on. This latter system works extremely well. The man who checks the engines knows exactly what to look for; in the long run savings are effected in the cost of major repair of engines. This man can find deficiencies such as tiny cracks in the cylinders or oil leaks that might cause major damage to the engines.

There is an hour overlap—from 3:00 PM10 to 4:00 PM—between the day shift and the night shift. Its purpose is to get the night shift familiar with which aircraft need repair, what repairs the day shift has made during the day, and what still needs to be done. Every Friday the overlap time is devoted to bringing both shifts together in a discussion group to go over any problems encountered during the week, to hear complaints, and to share information.

Early in 1971, both Captain D and Sergeant F are replaced. The new commander, Captain P, has no previous maintenance experience. Indeed, he has only been in the Army a short time. His new assistant, Sergeant S, has spent most of the last five years as a maintenance specialist with several aviation units in Vietnam. He has no previous

supervisory experience but he is an outstanding aircraft mechanic.Captain P, being unfamiliar with maintenance operations, gives Sergeant S

complete control over the maintenance shop. Sergeant S can make any changes in the work schedule and work hours that he deems necessary.

Sergeant S spends his first few weeks at the unit observing and learning. He interviews all the men on both the day and night shifts, asking them specifically what hours they would like to work and whether they have any complaints.

After Sergeant S has finished talking with all the men individually, he starts to reorganize the two shifts. First, those he judges to be complainers from each shift are reassigned to the other shift.

Second, Sergeant S rearranges the working hours. The day shift will work until 3:00 PM, when the night shift will start.

Third, since the night shift carries the bulk of the work load, Sergeant S tells the night crew that they can go home individually as soon as they complete their work for the evening. If they do not finish their work by 10:00 PM, however, they will have to stay. This seems to please the men, since they rarely have enough work to last even until 10:00 PM. This also means that on bad weather days when none of the aircraft fly, the night crew can go home as soon as they finish performing the required daily maintenance inspections that have to be done regardless of whether the airplanes flew or were grounded.

Fourth, Sergeant S also stops the Friday meetings between the night shift and the day shift. His view is that they usually turn into gab sessions in which sports and girls are discussed far more than are maintenance problems.

Fifth, both shifts are to assign all personnel to some specific activity to be performed on all planes. No longer, consequently, will a specific plane be assigned to each member of the day shift. This specialization will increase efficiency, it is believed.

Things work smoothly until the third week, when a preflight inspection by two pilots uncovers several maintenance tools in the bottom of an engine well. These tools could have seriously damaged the engine in flight, or even caused a fatality. In aviation, there is no excuse for such a mistake. Someone clearly had made a sloppy daily inspection. Several days later, a pilot on a local training flight notices that the oil pressure in .one of his two engines drops below the danger mark. He immediately shuts the engine down and lands safely. Lack of oil pressure can burn up an engine within thirty seconds. The cause in this case was an oil leak, and leaks are usually discovered in the daily inspection before they cause any real problem.

The evening of the oil leak, Sergeant S has a talk with the night crew. He tells them that they will have to be more careful in their daily inspections; the day shift gets its lecture the next morning. These pep talks seem to work, because two weeks go by with no other reported incident.

Then an aircraft blows a tire on landing, and suffers slight damage as it swerves into a ditch. Investigation shows that the tires of this aircraft should have been changed prior to flight, since they developed major bald spots from a previous bad landing. It is not clear whether the important oversight is the responsibility of the day shift or the night shift, or to what degree it is shared. It is even possible that the damage occurred on the several landings made after the last regular inspection but before the blowout. The pilot denies having any rough landings, however. Moreover, in at least one sense, it does not matter who is responsible. The tires could not have been changed because there are no spare tires in the supply room. Whoever had used up the last tires had failed to order new ones. Indeed, no aircraft parts have been requisitioned through the supply room in the last thirty days. It seems that the man who usually made out the requisition slips had been moved to the night shift, and no one had been designated to take his place. Sergeant S then tells the day supervisor to appoint a man to catch up on all the requisitions that had piled up.

Things go from bad to worse. Almost every day sees an incident due to sloppy work, or work not being done at all. Things get so bad that at one time all eight aircraft are grounded because of maintenance problems. Friction also develops between the night crew and the day crew, each accusing the other of not doing a fair share of the work. Some of the men on the day shift also put in requests to get reassigned to the night shift. They explain that the night shift has been getting off from work at 6:00 or 7:00 PM every evening.

Both Captain P and Sergeant S begin to worry, but the matter is taken out of their hands. The plane on which the tire had blown about a week before had been used to fly a Congressman to a military ceremony. The Congressman learns of the blow-out, which occurred on the very next landing after he had been safely delivered to his destination. The Congressman raises the matter with the commander of the base at which the 13th Flight Detachment was housed, in a joking way. The commander is not amused. He orders a full and immediate investigation of the maintenance section.

* * *Directions:You are assigned to do the basic research for the ad hoc investigating committee.Develop an outline of the major findings of fact or reasonable interpretations that

you can infer or deduce from the report above.Develop a list of specific questions for committee members to ask. Whenever

possible, specify the person or persons to whom the questions should be put.

2A Case of Managerial Succession

The Construction Grants Program administers Section 8 of The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which provides for grants to municipalities for assistance in the construction of sewage treatment facilities. This program is handled by nine regional offices, on a decentralized basis.

Prior to June 15,1969, Joseph Montana is a Regional Construction Grants Program Director. He organizes his activities around three section heads, as outlined in Exhibit I. The General Schedule (GS) grades of his complement of employees are indicated.

Montana's organization generates some conflictful situations. For example, Peter Malone, the Chief Engineer, finds it almost impossible to exercise his responsibilities as Deputy Program Director without strain and rancor. Basically, although he has a higher GS level, Malone is constantly reminded by the two other section heads that he is their peer, that he too is a section head. He is also reminded that reporting relationships are such that all three section heads report to Montana, and all take orders from him. Other sources of friction also exist, as between the Application Reviewer and the Program Representative. Their work overlaps, and each is convinced that the other is not needed. In addition, the staff engineers resent some of the work done by the Application Reviewer, particularly his review of bidding documents. They believe this should be engineering work. The review is also crucial because it sets the prices on which is based the remainder of the engineering work. The engineers further resent the fact that they are sometimes called upon to do clerical work, mainly in checking contractors' payrolls when the Application Reviewer gets behind.

Montana keeps the three sections divided by fractionalizing the work. His apparent intent is that no single person master enough knowledge to run the program without the Director. He instructs the sections separately, keeps cooperation between groups to a minimum, and many of his behaviors tend to induce win/lose competition. For example, Clerk-Stenos are assigned the responsibility for Filing by states. Montana rotates the responsibility for a specific state through several clerks, while encouraging each of the clerks to point out the failures and shortcomings of the others so as to get better filing from the clerks.

The major concern of the Engineering Section is that no one but Montana can influence the first and most important task, the determination of which portions of any proposed project can be considered as eligible for Grant participation. Montana holds firm that this is his decision, that no one should even attempt a determination without his prior approval. Typically he also seldom accepts recommendations made to him on such matters. This proves very frustrating. Engineers frequently let Montana make decisions for them, for this is the easier path.

Montana suffers a major illness on June 15, and Chief Engineer Malone becomes Acting Program Director. A period of approximately six months follows before the determination is made that Montana will not return. During this period no major changes can be made, and none are made.

The intervening six months do see some significant developments. Considerably greater friction develops between the Program Representative and the Acting Director, Malone. The Application Reviewer increasingly supports the Acting Director, who also has the support of his Engineering Section, even though some jockeying for position does occur there.

It became possible to begin changes in late 1969, and primary attention is given to office morale. The Clerks and Stenographers had performed well, and it is decided that a suitable reward for them will help morale. This is done through Superior Performance Awards—the only ones for 1969 in the regional office—which help immensely.

Work Complement: 13 positions EXHIBIT II. Reorganization of Regional Construction Grants Program.

The Construction Grants Program also is reorganized, as shown in Exhibit II. Many employees have complained for months that an overlap exists between the Program Representative and the Application Reviewer. In the face of inevitable conflict, Malone decides to place both activities in an Administrative Section under the direction of the Program Representative, with the Application Reviewer as his assistant. The two men are allowed considerable freedom in working out procedures for the Administrative Section. The change gives the Program Representative more supervisory responsibility. Moreover, since the Director now supervises only two section chiefs, he has more time for activities such as maintaining relations with state agencies and applicants.

Malone institutes a third set of changes. There is a shortage of Sanitary Engineers, and those available are hard to recruit for federal service. Therefore, Malone decides to eliminate the greatest possible volume of administrative work from the Engineering Section, and also to reduce each engineer's involvement in whatever administrative work is retained in Engineering.

These several changes have two major benefits. The engineers applaud them. The moves also expand the responsibilities of the Clerk-Stenos in both Engineering and Administrative sections, and hence justify higher grades for some personnel.

The Engineering Section is essentially unchanged. However, the Chief Engineer's job description is upgraded so as to give him joint responsibility with the Director. The intent is to elevate the position to a point at which the Deputy can carry out the Director's responsibilities during the latter's absence. The new Chief Engineer is hired from another regional office, since no existing engineers on duty can be promoted to the GS-13 level

without waiting two years. The new Chief Engineer, with five years of experience in the Program and with an advanced degree, is accepted by the Engineering Section.

Peter Malone is officially promoted to Program Director on February 5, 1970.* * *Directions:You are assigned to Director Malone as a Management Intern. As a first

responsibility, he asks you to review and evaluate what he did and how he did it. Base your report on the description above.

If you feel you need more information on certain points, what would you need to know and where can you get the information?

3A Supervisor for Unit II

A substantial increase in the volume of work in the division you head, Administrative/Technical, results in a management survey designed to provide better utilization of personnel. One recommendation calls for the creation of two new units to be made up of personnel specialized in the handling of certain kinds of cases.

This recommendation is approved by your bosses and you, as chief of the division, are told to go ahead and fill the two positions. The two units are to be made up of GS-14s and GS-13s, with a GS-15 in charge. One unit poses no problems:

the person selected is clearly well qualified for the job and, in addition, is one of the most experienced people in the organization. He is well thought of by both supervisors and subordinates.

In Unit II, however, the case is not as clear-cut. The leading candidates are:George Wilson, a man who has been with Admin / Tech for sixteen years, who has

both a legal and an accounting background and is the most senior person available. He is regarded as a good technical man, with a reputation for thoroughness. But he is also known as a stickler for detail. It pains Wilson to let a case leave him unless it reflects the best possible thinking he can give it. This means, of course, that he is limited in the number of cases he can handle, although he puts in a fair amount of overtime.

His superiors know that when they get a recommendation from Wilson, however, they can depend on it.

Wilson also has the respect of his associates, but they do not find it easy to work with him. When they have been members of task forces of which he has been in charge, they have felt that he required too much of them, took too great an interest in the detail of the job, and was likely to tell them precisely how to go about doing it.

Wendell Rogers is ten years younger than Wilson and has had his GS-14 rating only six months. He is a goal-setter who believes in getting the job done. Twice in the past two years, however, he has pushed ahead faster than the information he had would warrant. Consequently, major errors were made. One of these errors was caught before it left Admin/Tech, so no harm was done. But the other error resulted in considerable controversy in which the agency's chief executive himself became involved. In fairness to Rogers, it should be noted that both these errors were work done by subordinates which he had not examined carefully.

Rogers is well-liked by his associates and would be a popular choice for unit head.Marbury Madison had been in Admin/Tech earlier in his career, but he is now in the

San Francisco region where he has been on special assignment for the past two years. He has been a GS-14 for three years, and is regarded by those at agency headquarters as well-qualified for the position.

Madison also has the respect of those who have worked with him, although he is not regarded as GS-16 talent.

Madison and his wife both like living in San Francisco, where they recently bought a house. They do not really want to return to Washington, but they might be persuaded to do so if they felt they were badly needed.

Hannibal Hyde, the fourth possibility for the position, has spent most of his career in another area of Admin/Tech, but he has handled some of the same kinds of cases that would be given to the new unit he might head. However, the general feeling is that it would take him at least six months to get on top of the job.

There is some reason to believe that his promotion would cause some resentment by division members because an "outsider" was brought in.

Hyde also believes that he has a good chance for promotion within a few months where he is now.

Several added factors which may bear on the selection should be noted. The Deputy Administrator of your agency knows Wilson personally and has a high respect for his ability on technical matters, although he is aware of the fact that Wilson is likely to be tough on his subordinates. As for Rogers, there is some fear in the front office that he may not be careful enough with detail, although they admit that this opinion is based largely on only two cases in which errors were made.

The Personnel Office, on the other hand, prefers a good supervisor who can bring his subordinates along; they are inclined toward Rogers. Whatever is done, Personnel urges that no appointment be made on an "acting" basis.

The Training Division points out that Madison has not been through its management-training programs. Training does not want to see anyone given a job of this nature who has not participated in its programs, although Training does not denigrate Madison's abilities. All other possible promotees have been through these programs.

* * *

Directions:You as Chief of the Division are expected to make a choice. You know that your

decision is being watched with a great deal of interest by all concerned. How do you decide? Why?

4A Tiger in the Planning Section

Jim Dailey has planned a special meeting with Phil Lucas, Director of the Planning Section in an agency of state government. And this is the day—an unusual day. For it is seldom that Jim deals with Phil Lucas in a serious way. Phil is the boss of Jim's immediate superior, Fred Harkness; and Phil is clearly a man of power and high potential who has made his mark at an early age. Moreover, Jim feels it is strong evidence of Lucas's respect for him that his request for an appointment is filled so promptly. Jim believes, in short, that Lucas is a man like himself, and that both men recognize that similarity.

Jim is a self-styled organizational tiger. He has prepared himself well for what he sees as a struggle in which the smartest and most adaptable takes home the biggest prizes. He has his M.P.A. from an outstanding school; his fine mind and skills have been honed with a disciplined rigor; and he has a look-at-me skill with a variety of exotic quantitative and data-processing techniques.

Dailey quickly becomes a key employee in the Planning Section of the agency. In some areas, indeed, he approaches indispensability. This is particularly the case in his

contribution to the design and early programming of a complex Management Information System (MIS), a design now approaching completion.

The tiger bit had come to Dailey during one of those nonverbal games that his set of friends likes to play at their parties. He usually does not disguise his disinterest in such foolishness. But that night was different, perhaps because of that sweet young thing who was egging him on. The game is a simple one. The party-goers pair off, act out behaviors of their favorite animal for a few minutes, and then discuss among themselves their feelings and reactions to the animal-self.

Jim was into it quickly, and in one of those rare times for him, he became an observer watching himself out of control. Jim had caught the fascinated eye of his partner with his acting before he realized what animal he was playing. He was el tigre, the big cat: lean and competent and swift, circling till his need and the proper opportunity triggered a quick leap at the jugular of some available target. Jim let that picture run through his mind. He liked the fantasy, even the part where his bachelor apartment becomes the cave to which he returns to savor his conquests, or to lick his wounds and plan for retribution. The analogy breaks down only when it comes to motivation. Hunger and perhaps fear move the big cat, and they come but episodically. Whatever moves Jim is almost always there, goading him even when he knows he must remain careful and controlled, which is most of the time.

The story about Jim-as-tiger gets back to work, and he even then relishes the image. "Hey, tiger!" is often heard around the office, and not always aloud nor in a friendly tone of voice. Jim is aware of some of the unflattering and private references to "the tiger," but he discounts them. Mostly, he reasons, the whispers come from the losers who can neither help him nor hurt him. The losers can have their little joke. He is after bigger game.

Today Jim is surely the tiger. He has been careful since he joined the Planning Section, although he has been risking increasingly more of the full message to selected colleagues. They do not encourage him but, more important to Jim, they do not warn him to stop. Jim learns two lessons. He is a man others reckon with carefully; and his central argument is widely credible.

Today is the day to be really bold. Jim's approach to Lucas is direct:"Phil, you know me."I have done a good job for you and the Planning Section. I appreciate the early

opportunity; but I did far more than anyone expected of me."Despite this feeling of accomplishment, life in the Section is becoming intolerable

for me. Fred Harkness can't cut the work, that's increasingly clear. And I shouldn't carry his load and mine too, unless I get the recognition soon. And I won't do double duty silently any longer.

"You know my generation, Phil. We tell it like it is. And if we get bombed for that, we pack it up. A professional cannot do it any other way.

"I hope I can tell it like it is."

* * *Directions:You are Phil Lucas. How do you respond to Dailey? Your response should be based

on at least four items of information:1. Fred Harkness is a good personal friend of yours and a loyal agency employee.

He is sixty-two, and clearly is no match for Dailey in his knowledge of systems analysis and data-processing.

2. Jim Dailey's usefulness to the agency is at an immediate peak right now. Some six to nine months from now, when the MIS system is designed and largely in place, you are convinced that Harkness can handle the job as well as, and probably better than, Dailey.

Harkness has that touch with people, you believe.3. You are not certain, but it seems unlikely that Planning will have another job

soon on which Dailey's skills and knowledge will be so critical.4. 'You feel Dailey has real potential/or advancement, and would like to retain him

in anticipation of cashing in on this potential. But you are convinced that Dailey will be more trouble than he is worth unless his attitudes change.

5Auditor In A Quandary

George Hotchkiss is an auditor in the XYZ District Office of the Internal Revenue Service. He is well liked by his associates, is active in community affairs, and is clearly promotable material.

One day Hotchkiss is in the locker room of his golf club, and accidentally overhears comments about the tax problems one of the members is having. Hotchkiss is not really paying much attention, until reference is made to an unnamed revenue agent along these lines: "You can do business with him—isn't that right, John?" The man called John appears to agree. The nature of the conversation is such that it can either be taken as serious, or passed off as guileless banter.

Hotchkiss does not know who the revenue agent is because no names are mentioned, but he recognizes one of the golfers and the business he is in. With a little reflection, he can guess who the revenue agent probably is. Hotchkiss does not know him well, but the fellow's reputation has always been good.

There has been no instance to his knowledge of unwarranted behavior in the XYZ office. To the contrary, things have seemed very much on the up-and-up over the past several years. He recalls one instance where someone reported a suspicion that something improper was going on, but he does not like to think of it. The resultant investigation by Inspection had been embarrassing—many felt it to be heavy-handed and unnecessarily inclusive. In the end, all concerned were given a clean bill of health, but the resulting wounds took a long time to heal. As a matter of fact, a year or two afterwards, the fellow who was believed to have given the tip is transferred to another office.

Hotchkiss reflects upon what he has heard in the locker room, wonders whether there might be anything in it, and how an investigation—if he reported it—might be handled. The XYZ District is not a large one. Even if everyone in it might not know everyone else, there would still be no escaping the talk of an investigation, whether successful or not. Hotchkiss also wonders if the comments he has overheard in the locker room are not too fragmentary to be of much value. Besides, they are in a way privileged, being an overheard conversation in a private club.

Hotchkiss has gotten along well in the past by keeping his own nose clean and not interfering in matters that do not greatly concern him. Maybe, he reasons, that is the best course of action now. He certainly does not want to appear "eager," that is, to be building a reputation for scrupulous honesty by reporting conversations about others.

The matter would be different if Hotchkiss's own honesty were directly involved, he reasons. If this were an effort to influence his own decisions, Hotchkiss would report it.

Hotchkiss is also concerned about what might happen if he did file a report with the Regional Inspector, or RI. Essentially, the problem is that the RI is an unknown quantity. An organization manual would, of course, tell Hotchkiss the name of the Regional Inspector. Hotchkiss needs to know quite a bit about the RI and how he treats information like the conversation in question. But regional headquarters are five hundred miles away. Not only does Hotchkiss not know the RI, he does not really want to get involved.

* * *Directions:What should George Hotchkiss do? Is there anything he can do, as an honest man,

short of reporting the incident?What do you guess Hotchkiss will do, as a practical man?

6Betty Davis, Supervisor

You, Sam McDowell,1 are a Public Information Officer at the Atlanta Regional Office of the Internal Revenue Service. The first few bites of dinner on June 6 begin to sour on your stomach. You just arrived in Nashville on a business trip, after a long and tiring air trip from overseas, with a stopover in Atlana only long enough, to permit calling your wife and picking up a copy of that day's Atlanta Journal. You had looked forward to a leisurely dinner alone, reading through the Journal and some office reports. You do not get past the first page.

"Suspect in IRS Shootings Tells Rally She's Sorry," a first-page headline of the Journal announces.

The details arouse your unusual attention and concern. The shooting took place in the Accounting and Research Branch of the IRS center at Chamblee, Georgia, during normal work-hours. Mrs. Betty Davis—a white supervisor—was shot four times at work on June 2 with a snub-nosed .22 caliber pistol.

L Since the material here has received major public attention, especially in the press, no effort has been made to conceal identities in this case. Note, however, that Sam McDowell and his concerns are fictitious. The learning opportunities in the case are seen as rich enough to legitimate the invention ot McDowell and his concerns.

Mrs. Davis is wounded badly. A fifth and apparently wild shot strikes another worker in the left shoulder. Miss Emily Butler, a black IRS employee directly supervised by Mrs. Davis, is charged with the shooting. Charges of aggravated assault are lodged against Miss Butler, and the hearing is scheduled for July 3. Bail is set at $10,000.

The story of the shooting in the Journal is cast in the context of a report about a rally for IRS employees that was held at noon on Monday, June 5. Some 300 employees attended, most of them blacks. The Chamblee IRS Center has approximately 2,000 employees, about one-fifth of them blacks. They heard Miss Butler say "I'm really sorry it happened." Daniel H. Hol-lums, Director of the Center, also announced that a complete investigation is being initiated. He explained that the reason for the shooting is not known, and added that "there is no evidence at this time that there are any racial issues involved in the shooting." The rally also heard from Reverend Hosea Williams of the Metro Southern Christian Leadership Conference. He noted that the shooting of the two white women derived from "racial pressures" on Miss Butler and other employees, both black and white. "Don't be fooled that this is a fight between black folks and white folks," he is quoted by the Journal as saying, "because it is not. It is a fight between the rich and the poor, the needy and the greedy."

Over the next several weeks, two sets of events begin to escalate the tragic potential in the shooting. First, Mrs. Davis does not recover. Damage to her liver is severe, and a kidney infection sets in. Mrs. Davis dies on July 22, from what the official death certificate describes as the "delayed effects of gunshot wounds to the abdomen."

Emily Butler is formally charged with murder. The tentative trial date is set for

sometime in September.Second, the shooting becomes enmeshed in a growing set of issues, especially after

Mrs. Davis's death on July 22. Broadly, indications are that the shooting is work-related, which has both specific and general implications. Specifically, the news reports explain that the shooting apparently followed a reprimand in a letter from Mrs. Davis concerning Miss Butler's absenteeism. Further absences from her job due to illness would have to be supported by a certificate from Miss Butler's doctor, Mrs. Davis noted in her letter. The letter precipitated a quarrel, and the shooting followed. More broadly, even before Mrs. Davis's death, some black and white IRS employees blamed the shooting on "overt racism" in the Center's unfair promotion and employment practices. By August 25, race clearly seems an issue. On that date, a national campaign to "Free Emily Butler" is announced. Perhaps the most prominent name associated with the campaign is Angela Davis, herself recently the subject of a highly publicized "Free Angela" campaign.

The flavor of the press coverage of the defense buildup for Miss Butler may be sketched briefly, using brief quotations from persons who had become involved in the case.

• Angela Davis personally helped announce plans for the "Free Emily Butler" campaign at the press conference. Emily Butler was "not a murderer," Angela Davis notes. "This particular supervisor, so I've heard, singled out sister Emily Butler as a target for her racist and bigoted conduct. . . . Emily Butler is a scapegoat in the fullest sense, and we have to commit ourselves to saving her," The relationship of the accused black woman and her white supervisor was the same as that between a "slave-breaker and a slave," Angela Davis concluded.

• Reverend Ralph Abernathy, the head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference which is headquartered in Atlanta, explains that Miss Butler was the real victim of the shooting. "The trigger was pulled not by [Miss Butler]," he charged, "but by the vicious forces of racism."

• Black civil rights leader Hosea Williams is quoted as saying that Mrs. Davis was in fact so sick that she would have died shortly even if she had not been shot. He argued:

". . . she wouldn't have lasted long. She was in bad shape. She was scheduled for an operation...." The news reports note that Williams cites no source for this information.

The press also provides coverage which in effect gives contrasting insight about Mrs. Davis. In the press, such reportage takes the general form of countercharge to the themes sketched above.

• An unidentified IRS employee is quoted as saying that she never saw Mrs. Davis treat black employees different from whites. The IRS employee explained that Mrs. Davis "was always at work and always cheerful. But she was a hard worker and wanted everybody under her to do their work. But that was true all over IRS."

• An official of the Fortified Baptist Church, which Mrs. Davis had once attended, was quoted to this effect: "She taught Sunday School and was a devoted mother. She always brought her children to church. And she'd always be the first to volunteer to work with the Benevolence Committee and go out and help needy people."

• Mrs. Davis's mother revealed that: "A colored girl told me after the shooting that she wouldn't be where she was today if it hadn't been for my daughter. She said my daughter never acted any different between employees."

• A physician said to be familiar with Mrs. Davis's physical condition denied that she had been seriously ill prior to the shooting. "That's a bunch of hogwash!" the doctor noted.

* * *Directions:

You, Sam McDowell, grow increasingly concerned. By late August, it is not yet

clear whether the "Free Emily Butler" campaign will gain major momentum. Whether it does or not, you feel it important to think through the matter in terms of its broad managerial implications.

You have not been asked by IRS officials to involve yourself. As an interested IRS employee and student of management, however, you give substantial attention to the matter. You plan on writing a file memo, which you might later seek to have reviewed by your IRS superiors.

What should the IRS reaction be to the recent charges about agency racism? Note that IRS officials announced the shooting over an interoffice communication system on the day it occurred. IRS also officially participated in the rally held on the Monday following the shooting, although agency officials did not originate the idea of the meeting. Keep in mind that the murder trial is scheduled for sometime in September.

You might consider the following action alternatives, among others:Should IRS files be opened to the press to check racism charges? Should IRS

formally make available during working hours any and all personnel whom the press might wish to interview?

Should IRS convene a "blue-ribbon panel" of distinguished citizens to confirm or disconfirm charges or implications of racism against agency personnel practices or policies?

What actions, if any, would be appropriate to signal support for supervisors and managers who might as a result of the shooting be discouraged from, perhaps might even be fearful about, taking necessary disciplinary actions?

* * *In late October, the Emily Butler case goes to court. The prosecution's case rests

basically on several eyewitnesses to the shooting, as well as to events immediately before and after. The basic defense is that Miss Butler was "out of touch with reality" when the eventually fatal shots were fired. Dr. Julius Ehik, a psychiatrist, testifies that Miss Butler

exhibited symptoms he classified as "paranoid personality" and "hysterical personality." Dr. Ehik adds:

[Miss Butler] described the supervisor as an extremely cold person she felt was evil. . . she talked about her sometimes as an object rather than a person, as something very threatening, very bad.

[Miss Butler] displayed some religious preoccupation every time I talked with her. She said she felt she had done what God wanted her to do.

Some of the testimony has major administrative implications. Admissibility of parts of the testimony is bitterly attacked by defense attorneys, and extended appeals are probable if the jury decides that Miss Butler is guilty. Miss Butler does not testify herself, and much testimony deals with what others report having heard her say, both before and after the shooting. But that testimony raises serious administrative issues, whether or not Miss Butler is found guilty of murder, and whether or not the testimony is subsequently declared admissible by courts of appeals.

The administratively relevant portions of the testimony may be excerpted briefly. First, much testimony seeks to relate the shooting to supervisor-employee friction. Thus a detective reports that Miss Butler told him that Mrs. Davis "was giving her so much work it was driving [her] crazy." Dorothy Brown, a friend of Miss Butler and an IRS employee, consistently testifies that she herself had "been applied so much pressure from Mrs. Davis I felt like I had come to the breaking point." Mrs. Brown successfully sought a transfer from Mrs. Davis's clerical pool.

Second, some testimony explains supervisor-employee friction in terms of clashing interpersonal expectations and orientations. A detective who questioned Miss Butler after

the shooting quotes her as saying about Mrs. Davis that: "She was so cold, so very cold that nothing could reach her." Miss Butler is also reported by the detective to have said: "I thought that there was something in this world that will reach her."

Third, Miss Butler had requested a transfer out of Mrs. Davis's clerical pool. The request was denied.

Fourth, Emily Butler is reported to have experienced worsening relations with Mrs. Davis after the request for transfer. Miss Butler, some testimony notes, felt that Mrs. Davis gave her more work as "punishment for going over the head" of her supervisor in seeking the transfer.

Fifth, Mrs. Davis had sometime before the shooting prepared an evaluation of Miss Butler's performance, which apparently was intended for transmission to the central personnel office at die Chamblee Center. The letter was found in Mrs. Davis's desk after the shooting, and had two parts. The top part was written and signed by Mrs. Davis, and noted:

I discussed with Emily the fact that she is not putting forth the effort required to accomplish her duties and, in fact, is balking at some specific duties ... I encouraged her to reorganize her duties to handle her work load better and to accept the duties of her position.

The bottom portion of the letter contained Miss Butler's response:I deeply feel I have put in every effort of my ability to do a superior job on my desk.

I just can't understand this action even if my life depended upon it. I am very proud to work for IRS and have a great desire to work here until I am so old and unable to think straight.

The only thing I can do now is pray to God Almighty, who I sincerely believe in, to protect me from my supervisor who is making things so complicated for me because of unjust and ill feelings toward me ....

At this moment I have been drowned but I am still trying. To be fired from my job would mean death for me. So may I say my last word. God bless you all for I know he has blessed me and always will. (I hope you can understand what I have to say.)

Sixth, on the day before the shooting, Mrs. Davis apparently threatened Miss Butler with firing if she was tardy again.

Seventh, there were numerous signs of the distress that Miss Butler was experiencing. Testimony at her trial implies that such distress signals were perceived by at least three distinct kinds of IRS employees. Firstly, some of Emily's friends testified as to her being "deeply depressed" about her job in the week preceding the shooting. For example, Mrs. Brown testifies that she saw Emily in the hall on the day before the shooting, "looking like a cloudy day about to burst open. She said she was about fed up," Mrs. Brown's testimony continues, "about ready to commit suicide."

Second, Mrs. Brown took Miss Butler to see Mary Gurley, who was then president of the National Association of Internal Revenue 'Employees. President Gurley testifies:

[Miss Butler] stopped me from writing down what was being said. It was hard for me to understand what she was saying, she was crying and trembling so hard. I said I thought she should go to the nurse because she couldn't really respond to my questions.

Nurse Mildred Lambert confirmed that she saw Miss Butler that day, and describes her as "hysterical." Two milligrams of a tranquilizer were administered.

Third, there is testimony that Mrs. Davis had discussed Miss Butler's case with other supervisory personnel. Thus the wounded Mrs. Davis is said to have told a section chief, "I told you something like this was going to happen."

* * *Directions:You, Sam McDowell, feel there is much of administrative relevance in this human

tragedy. Two kinds of questions strike you as most central.First, what policies should be developed to guide future decision-making in cases of

great employee distress? Is it wise to seek to require medical personnel to report cases of such distress to administrative superiors, for example? Or should efforts be made to get such reports from officials of the Association of Internal Revenue Service Employees?

Second, is it appropriate to consider major changes in supervisor/employee relations? For example, should requests for transfer be routinely granted?

As Sam McDowell, you form a small informal study group to look at these questions.

7Circling to Nowhere?

Dan Thompson, a new personnel training officer at a subre-gional office in a large agency, is assigned staff responsibility for the Summer Employee Program (SEP). Dan is pleased in two senses. He likes the idea behind SEP; and he appreciates the confidence that his superiors apparently have in him so soon after his arrival on the job.

SEP has two purposes. It is designed to provide minority group youths with a meaningful work experience. And it also provides them with an opportunity to earn money for college.

Dan hears rumors that SEP is poorly run, and that it is not really worth getting excited about. But he decides he will judge from his own experience. If SEP fails, moreover, it will not be for lack of Dan's effort. He gives it all he has—too much, to judge from the teasing comments of co-workers. A typical work request to Dan, for example, usually is followed by the mildly sarcastic "if you can tear yourself away from SEP, of course."

The first order of business is to get enough supervisors, preferably volunteers, to provide guidance for fifteen anticipated SEP employees, mostly blacks. Dan has a group meeting of the supervisors. At this meeting, six supervisors finally "volunteer."

Dan enthusiastically sets up a development program for the SEP employees and trains the supervisors. Their attendance is good at the training sessions, and he hopes their enthusiasm will increase when the SEPees arrive. The summer program is off to a running start, he believes, all things considered.

After only six weeks, however, seven of the original fifteen students quit the program. They usually explain that they can earn more money elsewhere.

Today Dan is notified that Tommie Dixon is also threatening to quit his job. Tommie was hired to work in the Engineering Department as a draftsman. Dan feels that losing this young man will be a real loss to the organization, and a major evidence that SEP is not succeeding even with motivated and highly talented youngsters.

Mrs. Brensley, Tommie's supervisor, comes in to see Dan. She says: "Tommie is going to quit and I am glad. Just as I expected, he is the most lackadaisical employee I've seen. I guess they don't know any better. He plods around when given work and, worse than that, he is late pretty often. Why don't you talk to him and straighten him out?"

Dan goes to see Tommie, and finds that he is not very talkative. "In the beginning I was doing drafting work," he finally admitted, "and it was great. But later I was only given xerox work. My supervisor does not like me, and has to hunt work for me as if it were her personal white woman's burden. I don't really need to come in on time, do I? After all, what's the big important job that can't wait?"

Dan sees the light. He charges back to Mrs. Brensley, filling her in on all the latest about meaningful work and its relation to motivation. She does not want to be enlightened about behavioral research, however. Mrs. Brensley states; "I didn't ask for Tommie, and I did not want him. I can keep female clerk-typists busy, but not a male. But my supervisor

said we had to take two females and one male. Can I help it if his drafting work only lasted half the summer?"

Dan approaches Mrs. Brensley's supervisor. "Well, that really is interesting," the supervisor responds, "seeing as how you personnel people cram this program down our teeth. And then you expect us to love it. You set these damn quotas. I could care less about your problems."

The problem has come full circle, right back to Personnel. Dan recounts the wages of compulsion to his boss, and then listens to the explanation. "For years, Dan, we tried a strictly voluntary approach, but when we did there was no program because there were no volunteers. So, finally, because our Washington office is under great pressure from the Civil Service Commission to implement SEP, the quota system came about. The real problem is a motivational one, and people like Mrs. Brensley really ought to want to do the right thing."

Dan slowly plods back to his desk, which nicely frames Tom-mie's resignation. Dan's shoulders slump. He wonders. "Why knock myself out? Next year I'll do just enough to comply with what Washington wants. People don't like to be forced, but that's too bad. I have the feeling that the supervisors are racists anyway, especially people like Mrs. Brensley. I think somebody else can try to break the vicious cycle."

* * *Directions:You are Dan and have had a chance to recover/row, the fact that "your program"

has failed.You notice that no one blames you for the failure, as you expected might and should

happen. No one even says: "Nice try." "I told you so, but you wouldn't listen," is more nearly the message.

You have time to think ahead to next year's SEP. Decide on a strategy for yourself.

8Dilemma in Juvenile Court

The people of Tidewater County take pride in the fact that their county has ranked very high nationally in population growth for the past twenty years. Since 1950, the county

has grown approximately eightfold.The Juvenile Court of Tidewater reflects this growth. In 1952, the juvenile section

was merely a branch of the County Criminal Court. It then consisted of one counselor. Alien Mann, who handled all juvenile cases that were not handled informally by parents or small-town police officers. In 1954, newly enacted state statutes set up a system of separate juvenile courts. A judge was elected in Tidewater, and Mann was made his sole assistant. In 1958, Mann hired Harry Barnes to assist him in processing the increasing number of juvenile referrals. The court grew steadily with the county, and currently employs 20 counselors (see Exhibit I).

Bill Jones comes to work for the court as a counselor, after obtaining his degree in criminology and corrections in 1972. He is appalled at the backward operation at Tidewater, one of the larger juvenile courts in the state. He finds that almost all other counselors share his evaluation, and he soon becomes their spokesman. After much griping and complaining among the younger counselors. Bill Jones drafts a recommendation and takes it directly to the judge (see Exhibit II). Bill and his contemporaries are convinced that if the recommendation is adopted, the efficiency of the court will improve markedly.

Judge Smith is shaken when he reads the recommendation in Exhibit II. He is surprised that Jones had brazenly brought the information directly to him, rather than sending it up through Barnes and then Mann, as the structure in Exhibit I provides.

Judge Smith feels a lot of questions need answers. Is it true that all the new coun-selors are as upset as Jones claims? Why hadn't someone told the judge that his employees were so unhappy? It seems as if he is always the last to know. If this situation should leak to the press, he might have problems in next year's election. The judge is a lawyer, and not a social scientist or an administrator. What had Mann or Barnes been doing to rile up these youngsters so much?

Exhibit III, showing how Jones thought the court was currently running, looks accurate enough. The judge does not get involved in the process until the counselor handling the case brings him the pretrial investigation and discusses it with him. This usually occurs just prior to the hearing. The judge is a little surprised at how complex Jones had made the process seem, but it does appear to be completely accurate.

It appears to the judge that Jones was right in his statement that it will not cost much to institute the proposed change. Moving a few desks and throwing up a few wall partitions in the main office building should do it.

Jones' approach is brash, but his plan does appear to have some merit. If the kid went singing to the press, Smith also muses, he could stir up a lot more trouble than he is worth.

Dear Judge Smith:Your court is unhappy. The procedures followed here were outdated ten years ago.

All of the younger counselors agree with me; vast changes are needed.The change that is needed most drastically, and could be instituted at very little cost,

is a simple reorganization. The current counselor system stinks. As nearly as I can tell from observing it for a year, it works (or is supposed to work!) as I have depicted it in the attached chart (see Exhibit III). The counties around us gave up this system some time ago. It simply places too much work on individual counselors. When a counselor has to fool around with the police departments and running down parents for the first time, he lets his

probation work slip. If the counselor concentrates on his probation work (as he should!), the incoming cases stack up. This system would be fine if we only had three or four cases each to worry about. My current case load is 47 and growing every day.

I propose the system shown in the next two charts (see Exhibits IV and V). This new system provides for a better division of work, specialization of counselors, and a more favorable span of control for the supervisors.

Respectfully yours, /s/Bill Jones Bill Jones

EXHIBIT II. Recommendations from Counselors

Judge Smith is leaning toward trying the plan, but decides to get Mann's view on it before making his move. "Mann," the judge requests, "I want you to take a look at this recommendation Jones handed me. I think the lad makes some good points, but I want your opinion before I make my decision."

Alien Mann has his own questions as he scans Jones' recommendation. Why is Jones concerned about "flows" when he has so many cases that demand his time? Why hadn't Jones brought this tiling to Mann in tile first place, rather than bothering the judge with it? Didn't Jones know that Mann was the Supervisor?

Mann is certain about two things. First, he knows for a fact that the new counselors are unhappy. The Supreme Court has really messed up the works. Imagine, juveniles now have all the same rights as adults. That isn't right. The delinquents are all getting lawyers and beating the charges against them. Mann has seen the discontent grow among the newer counselors after recent Supreme Court rulings. Mann also reflects that President Nixon is cleaning up the Supreme Court, so the young counselors should be better satisfied in the near future.

Second, there is no way Mann's schedule and work habits will allow him to make any reasonable sense of Jones' proposal. He calls on his assistant, Barnes. "This gobbledygook gets worse every year. Harry," he says. "Decipher it, and give me a reading on it in the morning, will you?"

Barnes cannot believe what he reads. The kid has gone and done it. He has submitted an asinine proposal to Judge Smith. Barnes wonders why he had not advised Mann against hiring that wise ass a year ago. As Assistant Supervisor, it would have been easy for Barnes to convince Mann not to hire Jones in the first place.

Things had been smooth before Jones started as a counselor, Barnes fumes. Until Jones arrived, there were no radical troublemakers stirring up animosity in the court. The court functioned perfectly well for the fifteen years Barnes worked for it. The old system functioned well with two employees, and it was functioning well now with twenty counselors. Time had proven its effectiveness. Under this old system, each child referred to the court has a single counselor appointed, depending on the district in the county where the child resides. This one counselor receives the referral from the police, conducts the pretrial investigation (when necessary), and is the child's probation officer if the judge decides on probation.

The beauty of this system is its simplicity, Barnes believes. The same counselor works with the same child from the time he is first reported to the court until he is released from probation or confined. Every counselor has the opportunity to really get to know each child assigned to him.

As a former counselor, Barnes does know what a headache the "intake" process is. The police report is usually full of errors. The court records have to be screened to see if the child has ever been before the court. The child's school performance also has to be reviewed. Moreover, letters have to be prepared requesting the parents to bring the child in for an initial interview. Finally, the parents have to be hunted down if they don't show. No doubt, intake processing is the worst job in the court.

But Barnes knows it can be done. In fact, he is the best intake man the court has. He knows the police and school officials, and he knows how to get parents and their children in for initial interviews.

Despite his competence in it, however, Barnes hates the intake process. He hates to have to run all over the county. He does not like to drive, and he does not like being out in the weather. As assistant supervisor, he is able to supervise the secretaries, run the office from inside, check the progress of cases, keep the court docket flowing, and devote a great deal of attention to his favorite area, probation counselling. Barnes is not about to casually threaten this personally comfortable situation.

In any case, Barnes considers the main goal of the court to be straightening out youngsters through probation. The probationers come in twice a month, report their grades and difficulties to the probation counselor, and are on their way. The counselor will make a little note as to what was said, and this will be entered into the child's file. The same counselor processes the intake, trial, and probation phases of each case. What could be more logical?

EXHIBIT V. Proposed Organization of Juvenile Court, Tidewater County

True enough, the adjacent counties had split their juvenile courts into intake and probation sections in the way Jones recommended. Any fool could see, though, that the rash reorganizations clearly had a disastrous effect on the morale of the personnel who were made intake counselors. Faced with the deluge of all the referrals in their respective counties, the relatively few intake counselors were unable to keep up. Four of them in other counties left to go to other courts or agencies. It appeared strange to Barnes that, in spite of this, the governor's blue-ribbon Committee on Juvenile Delinquency praised the action of these adjacent courts in adopting the newer system.

Barnes takes an early and definite position, as Jones learns when their paths accidentally cross as they are leaving the office on the very afternoon that the memo made the rounds. Jones had never seen Barnes so angry. The words are not merely spoken; Barnes spits them out at Jones. "So you thought things used to be miserable around here? Just wait. . . ."

Several colleagues observe the encounter, and word gets quickly back to Judge Smith.

* * *Directions:You are Judge Smith. You felt you might face a real dilemma when you received

Jones' memo. Now you are certain of it.Describe the dilemma, as accurately as you can. Can you see any ways of slipping

through the horns of the dilemma? Your first thought is to make Jones the new intake

supervisor, and let him live with his recommendations. But you are fearful that Barnes will fight any change.

9Dr. Young's Decision

The Virology Section (VS) of the National Communicable Disease Center provides highly technical consultative and diagnostic services to fifty state health departments; it also conducts research related to the prevention and control of virological diseases. In addition, VS laboratories serve as international reference centers for the characterization and identification of certain viruses.

The formal VS organizational structure consists of the office of the Chief, who supervises six units each having responsibility for specific groups of viruses. Each unit maintains one or more laboratories. Both the VS units and the laboratories they contain are headed by doctorate-level scientists. The Section staff totals some one hundred technical and scientific personnel, primarily Microbiologists, Medical Officers, and Biological Laboratory Aids and Technicians.

When the Section was initially established some six years ago, the Center was fortunate enough to acquire an internationally known virologist, Dr. Adams, as chief. Dr. Adams desired to focus his attention primarily on the scientific aspects of the virology program, and consequently he sought an assistant who would assume basic responsibility for all administrative functions. These included issues of budget, space, personnel, activity reporting, and so on. He felt very strongly that the position should be graded high enough to attract an experienced, mature individual who could perform under very general direction. Since Dr. Adams was a renowned scientist in the field of virology, more than half his time would be spent traveling throughout the states and to foreign countries, providing scientific consultation. This made it crucial that Dr. Adams employ someone as an assistant-to-the-chief who could operate independently.

After interviewing several qualified candidates, Dr. Adams decides to select Mr. White. White has a bachelor's degree in Business Administration, is in his early forties, and has some twenty years' experience in administrative-management work as a military officer. White is interested in beginning a civilian career, and is convinced that Dr. Adams provides an ideal opportunity for him.

Mr. White's extensive administrative experience proves valuable to Dr. Adams and the Section, and after a short period of orientation, he is performing in a manner exceeding Dr. Adams' expectations. After the first year, Dr. Adams finds that he is able to rely almost entirely on White for the administrative functions of the Section. He is pleased to be able to concentrate his time and attention on scientific activities and programs. Dr. Adams considers Mr. White an essential participant in his Section staff meetings with the unit chiefs, and relies heavily upon him in program planning and evaluation. While he requires Mr. White to keep him informed by periodic reporting, Adams delegates responsibility for approving a broad range of budget and personnel actions.

Dr. Adams is so pleased with the performance of Mr. White that he obtains a promotion for him.

White is enthusiastic, and demonstrates a constant desire to relieve Dr. Adams of as much of the administrative work as possible. He also feels that he has assumed a very essential and important role for Dr. Adams, a role that is allowing Dr. Adams to devote his energies almost full time to the scientific function. The combination works well. The Virology Program is considered highly successful under Dr. Adams' direction.

After six years of developing and directing the program. Dr. Adams accepts an academic position and resigns as Chief of the Virology Section. After several weeks of

considering candidates to fill the vacancy, Dr. Anderson is selected. He has headed one of the virology units. Dr. Anderson is a young Ph.D. microbiologist, who has attained a reputation for high competence, both technically and administratively. He has served for six years under Dr. Adams as Chief of one of the largest units in the Section. His selection had been made by the Director of the Laboratories, Dr. Young, who is pleased that one of the organization's promising young scientists has been selected to replace Dr. Adams.

However, Mr. White soon realizes that the change in Section Chiefs will drastically change his role as assistant to the Chief. Where Dr. Adams had encouraged Mr. White to assume almost complete independence on administrative matters. Dr. Anderson believes that he should see, know about, and approve every detail formerly handled by White. Moreover, Dr. Anderson informs Mr. White that he will no longer be needed at the program planning and evaluation sessions. Responsibility for activity and program reports that White previously had handled completely is also withdrawn. Seldom does Dr. Anderson request White's assistance.

Mr. White feels that Dr. Anderson is deliberately undermining his role in the organization. He tells Dr. Anderson how useless he feels as his assistant, pointing to the catalog of his former duties and responsibilities that have been reduced or taken away completely, and stressing his desire to be of more help to Dr. Anderson. Dr. Anderson assures him that he wants White to continue as his assistant, and that he does not intend to decrease his role in the organization. He states that he just feels it necessary to keep a tighter administrative control on things than had Dr. Adams. He does not offer to give White any additional responsibilities.

After several months with no change in the situation, White decides to take the matter to Dr. Young, the Director of Laboratories, who is Dr. Anderson's immediate supervisor. In White's opinion. Dr. Anderson is unnecessarily assuming detailed administrative duties. In fact, Mr. White has observed him taking home, nightly, a large volume of correspondence and papers that White believes could have been given to him to handle.

Mr. White explains the situation in full to Dr. Young, emphasizing that he has tried repeatedly to get Dr. Anderson to let him handle the administrative details as he had done with such satisfaction under Dr. Adams. He tells Dr. Young that he wants to stay where he is if Dr. Anderson will utilize his abilities, but that he feels useless now. He requests that Dr. Young reassign him to another Section, unless a change is likely.

Dr. Young is surprised at these developments. He knows that Dr. Anderson is always sure of details, but did not realize this was because Anderson had assumed personal responsibility for handling the administrative details. Young respects White's proven administrative ability, and would like to retain him in the position as assistant to Dr. Anderson. Dr. Young senses that at this time White wants very much to stay in the agency, but there does not appear to be a suitable slot elsewhere in the Laboratories Division.

Dr. Young's desire is especially strong because, from the start, he saw Dr. Anderson as a person and scientist of such great competence that he is not likely to remain a Section head for very long. The next Section head will be very unlikely to give such balanced attention to both scientific and administrative aspects of the job as has Dr. Anderson. Few scientists who become Section heads in the future are likely to have great administrative skills or interests, in fact. White could be of great help to them and to the Section.

* * *

Directions:What actions can Dr. Young take to accomplish his objective?Would it be advisable to tell Dr. Anderson of the high opinion which Dr.

Young has of him? Does Anderson s performance as Section Chief suggest some doubts as to how high in the hierarchy he will rise?

Should Dr. Young simply let Dr. Anderson manage the Section, even if that means that White will request reassignment, and could conceivably leave the agency?

10"For Better or Worse"

Practically everyone in the executive staff at the Philadelphia regional office was shocked at the rumor. Bill Evans, an acknowledged comer who was recently appointed to a GS-14 job, had sent in his letter of resignation by registered mail on Monday, February 7. His resignation came without warning. And by Wednesday, Bill had not dropped by the office to explain. His personal effects were still scattered throughout his desk; his galoshes lay at the foot of his clothes tree; and the huge greeting card his staff ceremoniously gave him on his fortieth birthday was gaily decorating his credenza.

* * *Directions:You are Bill's superior, away on an extended business trip when Evans' letter of

resignation arrives. Your secretary opens Bill's letter of resignation, on your standing order for her to open certified letters that arrive in your absence. Somehow, the word about the resignation gets around.

Your secretary is finally able to contact you at 9 A.M. on Tuesday. She tells you the news and apologizes for "the word already being out."

You do some quick backtracking on Wednesday, February 9, when you return from the business trip.

* * *

The formal record provides some clues about Evans' action of February 7th. Bill was in his fifth job with his third federal agency, and his family had made their fourth long-distance move about seven months before when he moved into the regional office. He had been in the Atlanta area for five years previously, and had two solid promotions there. He had come a long way for a man with an unprepossessing background, and many predicted he could go much higher if he wished.

A few discreet inquiries among Evans' close acquaintances at the regional office and in Atlanta provide some illuminating details. His wife and four children—seventeen, fifteen, thirteen, and almost seven—had settled deeply into their suburban community outside of Atlanta, and they reacted poorly to the news of a possible move. Evans himself had looked forward to his Philadelphia promotion and the necessary move with badly mixed feelings. He was coach of a Little League team; his membership in the local Catholic church was fulfilling; and he was a Big Brother to a local black youth, a relationship he would like to maintain. Perhaps most important, his Atlanta job permitted him to spend much time with his wife and family. The Evanses lived close to Bill's work, so there was little time spent commuting. And no one was very concerned when Bill left early on those days his wife wanted him around the house.

After a considerable period of indecision, the promotion and especially the promise of still bigger things became compelling. The Evans family left Atlanta.

Things went from bad to worse for the Evanses, and quickly. Their youngest, a son, had the most immediate reaction. He began to experience nightmares just before leaving for

Philadelphia in August. The nightmares continued for several months, and intensified enough so as to make the boy's first full year at school a major trial for him. The nightmares become less of a problem over time, but his adjustment to school is difficult and his progress in schoolwork remains unsatisfactory. He is put in the slowest reading group in his new school, although he was a better-than-average preschooler in Atlanta.

Two of the other children—girls who are seventeen and fifteen—also seem to react to the move, and strongly. Their relationship with their mother had been uneven for several years, but suddenly it turns tempestuous. Changing high schools seem a major factor, and both girls resent not being able to graduate with "their class." The older girl also leaves behind a steady boyfriend, the captain of his high school basketball team.

Bill Evans often becomes the pawn in the blustery encounters between "the girls." Both the daughters and the wife competitively seek to gain his good favors and, even when he succeeds in not committing himself to one side or the other, tears and pouting tend to follow. Bill cannot win for losing.

Bill's wife experiences the greatest adjustment problems. At first, the excitement of buying a new house keeps her going. But that experience soon palls. The Evanses go in over their head for the small brick house they finally settle on in Rosemont, a Philadelphia suburb. It is much less house than they had in Atlanta, and more costly. Bill also has a 40 minute commute each way, 20 minutes longer each way than in Atlanta. He would have been less help around the house, consequently, even if his new job had not required a lot more of his time. His new job requires a lot of time to begin with, and stays that way. New responsibilities are added to his job just as he masters the old.

Moreover, Mrs. Evans has trouble "fitting in" at Rosemont. The families there tend to be younger; many of the wives are chic and college-educated; and many of the husbands make more money than Bill, or at least live like it. Mrs. Evans is older than most of her neighbors; she is dowdy by Rosemont standards; she finished high school, but could not envision four years in college; and Mrs. Evans is what her Atlanta neighbors called a "good old country girl," with all the simpler virtues.

Mrs. Evans first grieves for awhile about the loss other very satisfying neighborhood relationships in Atlanta, then aggressively seeks to establish herself in her new neighborhood. Her efforts are personally unsatisfactory, although it seems to Bill her neighbors accept and even like his wife. The reasons Mrs. Evans marshals as underlying her dissatisfaction are numerous. The Rosemont women are aloof and distant; Mrs. Evans does not care for bridge, the local game; and neighbors sometimes poke fun at her southern accent and that of her children. An increasingly black depression sets in.

Mrs. Evans had barely been a social drinker in Atlanta, but soon after arriving in Rosemont her cocktail hour begins progressively earlier and ends later. There are several stormy encounters between Bill and his wife over the past few months about what he calls her "drinking habit." Her standard retort is: "You have your new job; I have my new pleasure."

Matters come to a crescendo on Friday, February 4th. A small dinner party had been arranged for that evening, with the Evanses for the first time planning to entertain two of Bill's close work associates and their wives. About 3:30 that afternoon, however, Bill calls home to tell his wife that he probably will be late getting home, and for her to entertain the guests till he comes.

"Don't hurry," she replies. "There's no dinner tonight. Call it off. Your daughter has run away. I just found her note." Bill senses a slurring of his wife's speech that suggests she is already well into her cocktail hour.

Bill is still gathering details from his wife as he pencils a note to his secretary to cancel the dinner engagement. Their oldest girl had skipped school that day, he learns with some difficulty, apparently to fly back to Atlanta for the big basketball game other ex-high

school. The note she left behind is vague. But it is a reasonable surmise as to where she has gone, and why.

Bill asks his wife to call some of their old Atlanta friends to check on the surmise. She replies: "Never. Not my friends." And she hangs up.

Bill Evans hurries through the work that keeps him late that day, agitated but still controlled. His anger at his wife is growing, as is his concern about his daughter. His drive home is a little reckless.

When Bill arrives home, he finds his wife in the living room, lolling on the sofa, obviously well into her cups. The children are in their bedrooms. One or two sob softly.

Before the weekend is over. Bill has his letter of resignation in the mail.* * *Directions:1. As Bill's superior, what short-run course of action do you take? It is now late

Wednesday afternoon.2. Consider agency policies or procedures that might decrease the probability of

similar occurrences in thefuture.3. Does your agency bear some responsibility for Bill Evans' experience? Do you?

11Fred W. Quigley

You are Fred W. Quigley, the newly appointed head of the Central City regional office of Agency X. You come to breakfast this morning, your first in your new job, looking forward only to a pleasant round of chats with your new colleagues. Your predecessor has long since been involved in important negotiations elsewhere, so you will be saved the experience of eulogizing, in his presence, someone you know only slightly. You can get on with it. A press conference at 1:00 PM is the only scheduled formal event, and you look for it to be a frothy affair.

You are buoyant at breakfast, joking with your wife and children. The rewards clearly have started to come your way. You have worked hard, often in significant if specialized staff-jobs in Washington. You have proven your worth; and now you are really on your way. The region you were picked to head is not the agency's biggest or most important, but you were picked over a number of more senior men and women. And you can show your stuff here for all to see, if there are to be bigger things for Fred W. Quigley. You deeply hope there will be.

Your reverie at breakfast is interrupted by the newspaper report in

Exhibit I. You feel the tiniest beginnings of that familiar AOPE BLASTS PSYCHIATRIC PROBING

The Association of Public Employees (AOPE) passed a unanimous resolution today strongly condemning the policy of the regional office of Agency X, here in Central City, which forces certain of its employees to take psychiatric examinations.

"Is there nothing sacred or private?" asked Fred Craddock, executive director of AOPE. He explained that the association had observed the results of the new program for nearly two years. Craddock could only conclude "it was a disaster."

Craddock noted that several AOPE members had been dis-qualiHed for certain jobs because of the psychiatric testing. In most cases, he added, "these devoted public servants were released without being informed of their rights to free medical treatment, their rights to other jobs, and even about compensation due them."

Numerous complaints from AOPE members, Craddock noted, establish "the agency's calloused and harsh mismanagement of this program. We withdraw our support and demand that the program be stopped—now. It has already caused far more grief, hardship, and bitterness than any program is worth."

Craddock would not comment on whether AOPE would take direct action. AOPE has supported work slowdowns and stoppages in several cases. "We are militant," Craddock did comment, "but we certainly are not reckless. We await early and sensitive action by the regional office of Agency X. Then we will decide about a next step."

Agency X spokesmen refused to comment publicly on AOPE's charge. They noted that any statements will have to come from Fred W. Quigley, who is now moving from the Washington office to become head of the regional office.

Agency spokesmen did explain that the program of psychological testing was seen as an important one for advancing the professional status of certain employees in Agency X who serve the public in positions of great trust and responsibility. "Agency X can only be accused of seeking to protect the public interest," a usually reliable source explained, "by its care in selecting agents who are technically, medically, and psychologically as sound as possible."

EXHIBIT I. Front-page News Story from Regional Times

knot, deep in your stomach, which you have long since learned to trust as a gentle warning of possible danger.

The thoughts flow quickly. Are they out to test me so early in the game? Did they hear I was a thinker, not a decisive administrator? Was Craddock's press release timed so as to ambush me in my first press conference? Two thoughts dominate. Good relations with AOPE will be important, maybe even critical, for the assessment people will make of the job that Fred W. Quigley will do. Moreover, Fred W. Quigley is only dimly informed about the testing program that Craddock lambasted.

You call ahead to your office, and ask for a quick briefing on the program. The drive to the office is less pleasant than you had anticipated.

The briefing begins gently. First, some background: Today's managers face a continuing and growing need for capable people to staff important organizational roles. The problem extends both up and far down the organizational hierarchy. Hence obtaining the maximum from humans operating in complex group settings has long intrigued leaders in every arena of activity. Recently, psychological tests have been used to assist the manager in selecting personnel for hiring and promotion.

Experience with and reaction to psychological testing has been mixed. Testing seems on the increase, on the one hand. On the other, critics stress that invasion of privacy may be involved, or that many tests are not clearly validated in the sense of having predictable associations with a person's performance at work. You also learn that some tests seem biased against blacks, those with disadvantaged backgrounds, and perhaps against women also.

In the context of this debate. Agency X develops an experimental program to improve its ability to select certain employees who are psychologically stable and who can endure considerable stress over long periods of time without losing concentration. Those employees are critical in performing Agency X's most vital mission, which involves a potential for substantial losses as measured in dollars and human lives.

The Central City regional office has made an especial commitment to the program, Quigley learns. The district office is seen as innovative and proactive, for good reason. Hence the Central City regional office volunteers to serve as a pilot study for the program of psychological testing, and supports it strongly in other ways. Quigley also learns that

several members of his staff "really laid their careers on the line" in supporting the testing program.

The new program for selecting employees for sensitive positions has several major features, and only the psychological testing proved troublesome. The ostensible purpose is to detect latent neurotic or nervous problems which may hamper individual performance. How the testing is to be done, or whether it should be done at all, causes great controversy. Objections about invasion of privacy are overruled on the grounds that the public welfare is dominant. Hence debate tends to focus on the specific psychological test or tests that will be used. Repeated meetings are held with the AOPE officials and other interested parties. Only after considerable arbitration and compromise is a certain paper-and-pencil test selected, the identity of which is not important here. It is clear that the convenience of administering and the ease of scoring the test are two major factors in its selection.

The general idea of the testing program is to identify people with a high degree of anxiety, using a brief and inexpensive paper-and-pencil test as a rough diagnostic indicator of high levels of anxiety. All high-anxiety individuals will then be followed up with elaborate tests and interviews to isolate that smaller number of individuals who do have, or might have, "problems."

The psychological test chosen essentially assigns each individual a score ranging from 1 to 10, based on responses to a number of items which are thought to measure level of anxiety. All existing employees in the sensitive jobs are tested, as were all applicants for those jobs. Individuals who score 8.5 or higher, are referred to the Medical Division as "suspects." It is estimated that perhaps 10-15 percent of a "normal" population might score 8.5 or more on this test. All those individuals are required to undergo further psychological testing and interviews. These will be performed by psychologists and psychiatrists who are in private practice or in university medical centers scattered through the region, and who are all Board Certified. The follow-up psychological testing includes a large battery of well-known tests.

The briefing also includes two exhibits. Exhibit II below summarizes the records of those nine individuals who received the highest anxiety scores in the first year of testing. Six of the individuals are employed in what will be called "the program," that is, they are already performing critical and sensitive work. Three individuals are applying for admission to the program. The psychological test in this case will be a useful diagnostic indicator to the degree that all or many of its high scorers can be shown by more extensive testing and interviewing to be poor job risks or poor performers.

Exhibit III provides another kind of check on the usefulness of the present kind of personality testing. It lists regional employees in "the program" against whom personnel actions because of unsatisfactory performance or relationships at work were taken in the first year of the testing program. "Personnel action" is here defined as a request by a supervisor for a "fitness for duty" determination at government expense, the purpose of which is to ascertain whether a specific individual suffers from a physical or emotional problem that would inhibit satisfactory performance at work. These possible actions could follow from a "personnel action":

1. transfer of the individual to a less stressful or demanding Job;2. return to duty in same position;3. disability retirement; or4. terminate the individual in the exceptional case. As for interpreting Exhibit III, if

a significant number of individuals against whom personnel actions were taken in fact attained high scores on the anxiety test, this would provide some evidence of the value of the testing program in pointing to potential problems.

* * *

Anxiety Cases Score Comments#1 9.5 Applicant had long history of anxiety,

obsessive-compulsive neurotic symptoms. Disqualified from program. His application for voluntary disability was initiated before test score was received.

#2 10 Negative work history. Severe domestic situation identified in follow-up examination. Psychotherapy initiated. Returned to work.

#3 10 Past history of nervousness on the job. Psychiatric examination revealed severe anxiety neurosis. Disqualified from program.

#4 9.5 Pre-employment. Applicant objected to "humiliation of psychiatric examination," withdrew application.

#5 9.5 Facility Chief revealed applicant had been overwhelmed by responsibility of being supervisor for two years. Also, wife had recently died as a result of lingering illness. Was given to periods of brooding on the job, chronic malcontent. Chronic severe anxiety revealed on further tests. Disqualfied from program.

#6 9.5 Pre-employment. Full battery of psychological tests and psychiatric examination fails to reveal any nervous or behavioral disorder. Hired into program.

#7 9.6 Pre-employment. Outstanding work record on present job. Normal on subsequent examinations. Returned to job, but not accepted for program.

EXHIBIT II. Summaries of Intensive Follow-up Examinations of Highest Scorers on Anxiety

Cases

Anxiety Score

- -^ Comments

#1 4.6 Longstanding malcontent. Marginal performance,

trouble with authority figures. Argument with

supervisor prompted psychiatric examination at

government expense. Diagnosis: paranoid personalitynon-disabling. Returned to duty.

#2 4.5 Unsatisfactory work—obsessive thoughts about

failure at Work. Psychiatric examination revealed

serious neurotic depression. Disability retired.

n rf#3

7.2 Had been informally charged with making sexual

advances on neighbor children. Wife had urged this

individual to seek psychiatric help. Marginal work performance. Psychiatric diagnosis: Neurotic

depressive reaction. Disability retired.

#4 6.0 Referred for personnel action due to recurring ill

ness. Chronic duodenal ulcers, irritable colon

syndrome. Satisfactory work record. Disability retired.

#5 6.7 Referred tor personnel action due to confusion, disonentation, progressive inability to handle

complex problems. Psychiatric chronic undiffer-

#6 4.3 lentiated schizophrenia. Disability retired. Progressive nervousness, inability to handle complex

problems, pgit persecuted, began crying under

stress, currently hospitalized. Paranoid

schizophrenia

#7 4.6 Long-standing inability to work with peers. Made

many mistEtkgs^ no insight into personal problems. Referred for

personnel action due to increasing

problems \vith authority figures. Psychiatric

diagnosis: faranoid schizophrenia. Predisposition to

paranoid ideas was present and noted by a military

Medical Offi^r ^ long ago as World War II.

Long-time employee.

#8 4.3 Progressive nervousness, irritability.

Diagnosis^^^ronic severe anxiety reaction.

Disability retired.

#9 6.7 Progressive nervousness. Diagnosis: Anxiety reaction.

#10 8.5 Given psychotherapy, retained. Long-standing hypochondriasis, absences from duty. Application for disability retirement is pending.

#11 4.2 Chronic anxiety associated with long-standing back

pain. Returned to duty.

#12 #13

7.2 8.2 Schizophrenia; chronic. Disability retired. Agitated depression—Returned to duty.

#14 8.6 Outbursts of temper and authority figure conflicts.

#15 4.6 Returned to work with psychotherapy. Chronic alcoholism, excessive absence from duty.

Resigned after investigation revealed instances

^Slug Physicians' signatures on sick-leave

excuses.

#16 7.8 Chronic me^al complaints—irritable colon

syndrome, t-tervousness, excessive sick leave.

Psychiatric examination revealed chronic anxiety

reactions. Oisabilirv retirement.

Directions:It is now 11:15 AM.You, Fred W. Quigley, should evaluate this information and prepare a strategy for

your conference at 1:00 P.M. You have an informal luncheon meeting with several of your new senior staff scheduled for 11:45 AM. So time is at a premium.

You are certain of only one point. A friendly reporter has let it be known that he intends to question you about the Craddock charge and AOPE's resolution. So there will be no easy way out if you hold the press conference as scheduled.

12"Gentlemen, the Commander"

Each November, two hundred captains and a few foreign officers gather at Fort Mudge for a career course, a nine-month professional school that is a capstone of a man's early military career. The course is widely known as a "gentlemen's course," and no one—but no one—makes the next promotion without having been there. So the attendees have a sense of having made it. The satisfaction is mixed with only a little anxiety about doing well. The program is demanding, but having been assigned is by far the hardest part of it. They are all in the Fort Mudge Club now.

Attendance is also happily anticipated by the chosen officers, who look forward to nine months in an academic community removed from the demands and frustrations of their normal duties. For most of a year, the officers will be released from the myriad burdens of the company-grade officer—responsibility for vast amounts of property as well as the day-to-day performance and problems of several hundred subordinates. For a while, at least, they will be removed from their normal uncomfortable position halfway between the irresistible force of the senior officers and the immovable object of the junior enlisted men. For a while, at least, the officers can leave behind the practical agonies of racial conflict and drug addiction; and they can indulge in the infinitely more pleasant exercise of talking about problems without having to do anything about them.

The course also will be, in many ways, like a college reunion. For those attending are career officers, men who have served in their specialty for five, six, or seven years. By now, the participants will know most of their classmates personally from shared experiences in far-off posts, or compounds, or jungles.

So it was that Class XXIV came together. They were officers gathered from many installations in many lands, weary of wars and domestic problems, welcoming the months of freedom. They settled into the processing at Fort Mudge amid handshakes and smiles and the casual banter of old friends well-met. The fragments of conversation buoyantly reflected how this was to be a time to be savored and enjoyed and remembered.

"They tell me you get through at 1400 every day.""I'm going to see a real live pro football game, if I don't do anything else.""They give you Sundays off.""I thought you were still lost in Cambodia.""They give you Saturday, too.""All right!"On the first Monday of the school year, the officers were a little weary from a

weekend of drinks and war stories, but they were generally at peace with God and man. They gathered leisurely for the school Commander's welcoming address.

The Commander was new, but the address—like all its kind— would surely follow a prescribed pattern. Everyone would rise, the Commander would enter, saying genially: "Be seated, gentlemen, be seated." And, smiling, he would spend fifteen minutes explaining

how delighted he and the faculty were to have this splendid group of officers at the school. The Commander would dwell on how much they would learn from each other—the Army's finest faculty and this military specialty's finest captains. In short, all the right things would be said. All would leave the assembly with the unspoken but genuine feeling that "God's in his Heaven, and all's well with the world."

That was as it should be. They were all—students, faculty, and Commander—brothers in their difficult fraternity, men whose maturity, competence, and hard work had raised them, from whatever level, to their present status of competent public servants. And they had all been brought together for a while to teach and to learn for the common good.

In such pleasant anticipation of meeting their new commander, the officers waited. The customary solemn voice finally intoned: "Gentlemen, the Commander." The chatter ended, the officers rose, and the Commander entered. The Commander walked to the podium and surveyed the officers before him. In a voice stripped of emotion, he said:

You may be seated. Let us understand each other from the start. While you are part of my command you will—note that I do not say 'I hope'; I say 'you will'—participate fully in the activities of this school. Whatever I do, I do 100 percent and so do those under my command.

Those of you who have not seen fit to join our professional association will do so this week, and the sooner the better.

Your wives will, without exception, participate in the ladies' social functions. And, I might add, any officer whose wife does not participate is only half an officer. This fact will be duly noted on his Academic Report, with foreseeable career consequences.

The [local charitable fund] campaign is now in progress and the school will participate 100 percent. I do not concern myself with the amount of money collected, but I will have 100 percent participation. The senior member of your class, Major Eager, whom I now designate as class leader, would do well to ensure such participation. Any failure to exercise appropriate leadership will be made a matter of record.

Welcome to the Fort Mudge school. Welcome to a 100 percent organization.The Commander stepped from behind the podium, the officers rose, and, looking

neither right nor left, the Commander walked down the aisle and out the rear door.The silence in the room was absolute. Then the officer standing beside the newly

appointed leader said:"Here's two dollars. A penny apiece for every son of a bitch in the class. I've always

wanted to be part of a 100 percent organization."

* * *

Directions:You are the class leader. Major Eager, to whom is directed the sarcastic comment

following the Commander's talk. What do you do? What do you say?You are not certain how many of your colleagues heard the remark. But the

voice sounded like thunder to you.The two dollars are being waved gently in front of you.

13Harold Carter

On Christmas Eve of 1964, Carrier Harold Carter of Station X, a local post office city delivery unit, is authorized by the Station Superintendent to work two hours of overtime. Because of the increased workload, all employees are working longer than the standard eight-hour day, forty-hour work week. The overtime is controlled and authorized

by each unit supervisor or work group supervisor.Mr. Garner, Superintendent of Station X, discusses the mail volume on Carter's

route with him. Both agree that the entire job can be completed in ten hours without any substitute assistance. Garner therefore authorizes Carter to work his route in its entirety, using two hours of overtime. On this schedule, Carter should complete his tour of duty at 3:30 P.M.

At about 3:15 P.M., a telephone call is received at the station by Mr. Walter Alien, the timekeeper. Carter informs Alien that he underestimated his workload and will run over the authorized time. He states that he does not wish to have help sent out, but he does ask that the timekeeper "write me out at 3:30 P.M." In effect. Carter asks the timekeeper to certify that he finished his work on schedule. Even though that is not strictly true, the timekeeper assumes that Carter will be overdue by only a few minutes. When he does come in, moreover. Carter will still have to "ring out" on the office time clock, which Alien certainly would not do for him. It is a very small favor Carter requested.

So Timekeeper Alien does as he was asked, without reporting the incident to Mr. Oliver, the Assistant Superintendent, who was now the supervisor in charge. The hours of operation of the unit are from 5:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. normally, and longer during the Christmas season. The two Unit Supervisors have complementary schedules, with the Superintendent opening the operation and the Assistant Superintendent being responsible for its closing. There is about a four-hour overlap in the work schedules of the two men, from 9:30 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. The timekeeper's schedule is the same as that of the Assistant Superintendent.

Carrier Carter fails to return to the office at 3:45 or 4:00 P.M., as he had told Alien he would. Alien is disturbed because he really had no authority to "write Carter out," as he had done. He also had failed to report Carter's call or his request to the Assistant Superintendent.

About 4:10 P.M., Mr. Oliver pulls the time cards of all of the carriers and clerks who had completed their tours. The time cards are in racks on each side of the office time clock, one set of "In" slots for employees who had checked in to work, and one set of "Out" slots for employees who had checked in and completed their day's work. Carter's time card is still in the "In" rack; he had not "rung out."

Oliver checks with Timekeeper Alien. At this time, Alien relates to the assistant superintendent all of the facts about Carter's call.

At 6:00 P.M., a second call is received by Alien from Carter who asks "Who's there?" referring to the supervisor on duty. Alien tells him and urges Carter to "come on in." Alien is concerned, for good reason. He had technically participated in a falsification of the record, he had initially failed to inform his supervisor of the situation. This second call is received when Mr. Oliver is not available to handle it.

Carrier Carter finally does return to the office at 6:35 P.M. He is not obviously intoxicated, but he does have the definite odor of alcohol on his breath. Mr. Oliver attempts to counsel Carter, but despite all of his efforts he gets no response or explanation. Finally, completely exasperated, Oliver calls Mr. Garner at his home and gives him all of the facts. Mr. Garner returns to the station, arriving shortly after 7:00 P.M. He talks with Mr. Oliver briefly, gathering a few additional facts.

Garner and Carter then spend some time together, and the latter explains his actions. Carter admits that several of his patrons had offered him Yuletide drinks, and that he had most reluctantly accepted. He states that ordinarily his patrons would not have offered the drinks, and that he would not have accepted if they had. He blames his misconduct on the holiday spirit. His explanation for talking to Alien is that Alien is frequently used in an acting supervisory role.

Carter preferred to explain his lateness to Alien or to the Superintendent, moreover,

because he feels that Assistant Superintendent Oliver would "really chew him out" and probably would submit a report with no recommendation for leniency. The result, Carter is certain, would be that he would either be discharged or suspended, with little chance of having either penalty reduced through the Grievance Procedure.1 Carter understands that Garner would have to report the incident, but he also feels Garner would be more sympathetic and more likely to request leniency for him.

Garner tells Carter that he cannot and will not fail to meet his responsibility to make a report; and he states positively that Carter has violated several regulations,2 both of the Post Office and the U.S. Civil Service Commission, as well as applicable laws.

Prior to this incident. Carter had been one of the better employees of the unit. His production was consistently much higher than minimum standards, and the quality was also very high. However, his attendance record, while not the worst in the unit, at one time showed frequent use of sick leave, usually on the day after payday. In recent months, after counselling about his attendance. Carter's record had shown great improvement.

1. See Appendices A and B.2. See Appendices C, D, and E.

Garner submits a written report to the Superintendent of Delivery and Collection. In addition to the Christmas Eve incident, he also cites Carter's excellent work record and his improved attendance record. He requests that any penalty assessed take these factors into account. Garner also points out that this is the first offense of this type by Carter and that his record as a whole would show few if any other offenses for which he had been disciplined or reprimanded.

Garner's report along with its recommendations will follow regular channels, with concurring or dissenting recommendations from each successive level of management. The levels of management above the Superintendent of Delivery and Collection include the Assistant General Superintendent of Mails for Designated Service, and the General Superintendent of Mails. The complete file then will go to the Chief Personnel Officer, whose unit will prepare an appropriate letter of charges or of reprimand.3 A letter of charges would propose discharge or suspension, but a letter of reprimand would not carry such a penalty. The disciplinary action proposed would be incorporated in a letter to the employee and a specific reply period and an appeals procedure would be outlined.4

* * *Directions:Review the data in the case, and familiarize yourself with the excerpts in the five

appendices following.On the basis of such preparation, provide an internal memo which presents the pro

and con arguments for the several possible actions.In addition, recommend a specific course of action in Carter's case.3. See Appendices B and F.4. See Appendices A, B, and F.

APPENDIX A: Postal Procedures TL-143

746.4 ARTICLE X, POD PUBLICATION 53, AGREEMENTADVERSE ACTION APPEAL PROCEDURE A. Eligibility to AppealAny employee who has completed six consecutive months of employment from

date of appointment has the right to appeal an adverse decision or adverse action taken against him. Time on military furlough and also that compensated under provisions of Federal Employee's Compensation Act shall be included in determining the six consecutive

months of employment. Time on other leave without pay and other furlough will not count in meeting the requirement of six consecutive months of employment. A former employee may appeal provided that he has completed six consecutive months of employment and appeals within ten calendar days of the date of his separation.

B. DefinitionsAn "adverse decision" is an action which results in (1) a suspension of an employee

from his job; (2) a discharge from employment; (3) a furlough without pay; and (4) reduction in rank or compensation, including those which are taken at the election of the Department after a classification decision by either the U.S. Civil Service Commission or the Department.

An "appeal" is a written request by an employee for reconsideration of an adverse decision.

An "appellant" is an employee who is appealing an adverse decision which has been taken against him.

The "Department" is the collective term incorporating all post offices, regional offices, special field establishments, and bureaus and offices domiciled in Washington, D.C.

C. Notice of Proposed Adverse ActionWhenever it is proposed to take adverse action against an employee the responsible

official must determine that it is for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service. The letter of proposed adverse action must state specifically and in detail the reasons for the action thereby affording the employee a fair opportunity of offering refutation to the charges. The letter of proposed adverse action must also contain:

1. A statement of the most severe action warranted by the charges (e.g., removal, suspend for days) pending an analysis of the employee's reply.

2. Notification to the employee of his right to reply in person (and in the company of his representative if he so chooses) and in writing to the charges. His right to answer the charges in person is the right of reply to a representative of management who has either the authority to make a final decision on the proposed adverse action or to recommend what final decision should be made.

3. A statement informing the employee that he has a time limitation of ten calendar days from receipt of the letter of proposed adverse action in which to make his reply. (A delay in submission may be granted if good'excuse is shown.)

4. A statement informing the employee that his reply will be fully considered before a decision is rendered.

5. A statement that the employee will receive a letter of decision and that if it is adverse, the employee will be advised as to the charge, or charges, relied upon as the reason, or reasons, for taking the adverse action.

6. A statement that the adverse action proposed will be affected not sooner than 35 calendar days from the issuance of this letter.

D. Duty Status During Notice PeriodEmployees against whom adverse action is proposed shall be retained in an active

duty status during the notice period except when the circumstances are such that the retention of an employee in an active-duty status during the notice period may result in damage to Government property, or loss of mail or funds, or may be injurious to the employee, his fellow workers, or the general public. The employee may then be temporarily assigned to duties in which these conditions will not exist or placed on leave with his consent. In an emergency case when because of the circumstances described in this paragraph the employee cannot be kept in an active-duty status during the advance notice period, the employee may be suspended without his consent.

This is a separate adverse action and the employee is entitled to a letter informing

him of the reasons for his suspension, his right of reply and the time limit. An employee may be placed in a nonduty status with pay for such time, not to exceed five working days, as is necessary to effect his suspension. In the emergency case, the employee must receive at least a 24-hour notice of his suspension.

E. Notice of DecisionThe employee shall be notified promptly in writing of the decision. If the decision is

adverse the letter must state the reasons for the decision. The letter of adverse decision may confirm or reduce the penalty identified in the letter of proposed adverse action, but cannot increase the penalty. The adverse action must be clearly identified, and the effective date shown.

In the adverse decision letter the employee must be informed of his right to appeal through the Department's procedures or to the Civil Service Commission. The employee must be informed that if he elects to appeal the adverse decision through the Department's procedures the appeal can be submitted at any time after receipt of the decision letter but not later than ten calendar days after the effective date of the adverse action. The employee must be further informed that if he submits his appeal through the Department's procedures within ten calendar days of receipt of the adverse decision the adverse action will not be imposed until a decision has been rendered on his appeal by the first appellate level.

The letter or notice of adverse decision will inform the employee that his appeal through the Department's procedures must be submitted in writing clearly identifying the basis for the appeal, and it will inform the employee

that his appeal must include a request for a hearing or a statement that no hearing is wanted.

The employee must also be assured in the notice that if he decides to appeal the adverse action, he will—

1. have freedom from restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal;2. have the right to be accompanied, represented, and advised by a representative of

his own choosing; and3. be assured a reasonable amount of official time to prepare his presentation. (Not

applicable in a situation where the employee is already serving an emergency suspension.)The same rights (1) and (3) shall extend to the representative selected by the

employee to assist him in the development and presentation of his appeal.An appeal to the Civil Service Commission may be submitted at any time after

receipt of the notice of adverse decision but not later than ten calendar days after the effective date of the adverse action.

F. Rights of Organizations with Exclusive Recognition StatusAn organization having exclusive recognition status at the regional level for the

craft group involved is entitled to the following:1. To be notified of the time and place of the first level appeal hearing and to be

given an opportunity to have a representative present throughout the hearing.2. To be sent a copy of the first level appeal decision.An organization having exclusive recognition status in craft group at the national

level is entitled to the following:1. To be notified of any hearings held by the Board of Appeals and Review and be

given an opportunity to have a representative present throughout the hearing.2. To receive a copy of the Board of Appeals and Review decision.G. First Level Appeal 1. Submission of the AppealEmployees under the jurisdiction of a postmaster who appeal an adverse action must

direct their appeals to the Regional Director of the region in which they are employed and must submit a signed copy of the appeal simultaneously to the postmaster. In cases involving post office employees in which the Regional Director renders the initial decision,

and not the postmaster, the first level appeal will be to the Division of Installations Management in the Bureau of Operations.

Employees in regional offices and special field offices, money order centers, supply centers, mail bag depositories, stamped envelope agency, capital equipment warehouses and the postal agency, must direct their appeals to the bureau head or office head of their corresponding office.

Regional employees must furnish a signed copy to the Regional Director, and special field office employees must furnish their field office heads with a signed copy of their appeal.

Employees in bureaus and Departmental offices (or who are under the jurisdiction of same) who appeal an adverse decision must route their appeals through the bureau head or office head for submission to the Office of the Deputy Postmaster General.

2. Preparation for the HearingIf the appellant or his designated representative has requested a hearing, a hearing

officer will be assigned who will, in not more than twenty calendar days from receipt of the appeal in the office, schedule and conduct a hearing. (Extensions of time will be granted if unusual circumstances so warrant.) Hearings will normally be held at the installation in which the appellant is employed. The appellant and the postal official who issued the notice of proposed adverse action will be advised at the least seven calendar days prior to the date of the hearing.

The hearing officer must arrange prior to the hearing a location (e.g., in the post office in which the appeal arises) where the evidence of record can be made available to the appellant and his representative for inspection. Except in certain limited medical cases all evidence must be disclosed to both parties. (The duly authorized physician of the appellant would be entitled to medical evidence that would not be made available to appellant or his representative.)

3. WitnessesAppearances of witnesses will be encouraged, but shall be voluntary, and normally

will be limited to one witness at a time. The administration of the oath or affirmation to witnesses will be given by the hearing officer. Postal employee witnesses will be on the clock for the period that they are necessary to the hearing. Witnesses shall have freedom from restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination or reprisal.

4. Appeal Hearing ProcedureThe hearing of an appeal will be conducted by a hearing officer. The hearing officer

will see that the hearing is conducted in an orderly manner. The hearing officer has the authority to exclude an unruly participant from the hearing;

to suspend a hearing in response to a reasonable request; and to cause the hearing to be terminated.

The testimony of witnesses shall be under oath or affirmation which will be administered by the hearing officer.

The hearing will be closed to the public.The appellant and/or his representative and the official and/or his represent-tive

proposing the adverse action must be present throughout the hearing.The appellant, or his representative, will have the opportunity to make an opening

statement, following which management will have a like opportunity.The appellant, or his representative, followed by management, will present such

witnesses and documentary evidence as each deems necessary. Each party shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses for the other.

The hearing officer shall ask such questions of any witness as he believes necessary to a full and fair development of the facts.

At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, management will have the opportunity to make a closing statement, following which the appellant, or his representative, will have a like opportunity.

5. Summary and Finding of FactAfter the hearing, the hearing officer will, in a maximum of twenty calendar days,

present a summary of the hearing and his findings of fact as well as all other record evidence to the Regional Director or to other appropriate first level appellate office, and furnish the appellant or his representative and the official who rendered the adverse decision with a summary and findings of fact. The hearing officer shall not make any recommendation for a decision or state whether or not charges are sustained.

The appellant and/or his representative and the official who proposed the adverse action may within five calendar days of receipt of the hearing summary and the findings of fact submit their objections and statements to the Regional Director (bureau head, Office of the Deputy Postmaster General, Division of Installations Management, Bureau of Operations, or Office of Regional Administration, Office of the Postmaster General).

Appellants who request a record or a transcript may secure same at cost.

6. If No Hearing Is HeldWhen the employee requests no hearing be held, that just the facts in the appeal be

reviewed, an investigator will be assigned to visit the office from which the appeal initiated and obtain sufficient facts to permit the appropriate appellate office to make a decision on the appeal. The investigator shall notify the appellant and/or his representative and shall afford him an opportunity to present facts and/or evidence relative to the adverse action charges. The investigator given this assignment has twenty calendar days from receipt of the appeal to present his facts to the appellate office having jurisdiction.

7. Letter of DecisionThe designated appellate office shall render a decision within ten calendar days of

receipt of the complete file and the findings of the hearing officer (or investigator) and shall notify the employee and the postal official whose decision was appealed. (A delay not to exceed an additional five days may be made in unusual circumstances.)

The decision shall be in writing, dated, and must advise the employee of the reasons for the action taken, and notify him of his further appeal rights.

H. Second Level Appeal1. Department's Board of Appeals and Review, Civil Service Commission,

Advisory ArbitrationIf a secondary level appeal is filed, it can be filed by the employee or his

representative at any time after receipt of the notice of adverse decision but not later than ten (10) days after the adverse action has been effected.

a. Department's Board of Appeals and ReviewAn appeal to the Department's Board of Appeals and Review should be addressed to

the Board of Appeals and Review, Bureau of Personnel, Post Office Department, Washington, D.C., 20260.

The appeal should contain a full statement as to the reason for appealing the decision, and a copy of the decision rendered in the case. The employee shall send a signed copy of the letter of second appeal to the appellate office which rendered the initial decision. Upon receipt of this copy of a letter of further appeal, the first level appellate office will promptly forward the entire appeal case to the Department's Board of Appeals and Review.

(1) Review by Department's BoardThe Department's Board will docket the appeal, notify the employee and other

interested parties of its receipt, and schedule its review. There is no right to a hearing at the

Departmental level on second appeals, but an additional hearing can be granted if the Board feels that such is warranted.

(2) Decision of the Department's BoardA decision of the Department's Board of Appeals and Review is final (appeal for a

court ruling excepted) and shall be considered as the decision of the Postmaster General. In cases involving policy matters the Board may make privileged recommendations to the Postmaster General who will render the final decision.

The Department's Board of Appeals and Review will submit a written decision to the employee and copies to the appropriate offices and to other interested parties as the Board deems necessary.

I. Residual Authority of the Postmaster GeneralThe Postmaster General retains the authority to review particular decisions of the

Department's Board of Appeals and Review and to direct further consideration.J. Termination of AppealAn appeal shall be dismissed when so requested by the appellant. An appeal may

also be dismissed when the appellant is guilty of unreasonable delay.K. DiscriminationWhen an employee alleges in his appeal that the proposed adverse action is based in

whole or in part on discrimination because of race, creed, color or national origin the claim of discrimination shall be adjudicated under the regulations of The President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, and Departmental regulations. The claim of discrimination shall be investigated and an initial local level decision rendered prior to or concurrently with the processing of the other matters in the appeal.

APPENDIX B: Federal Personnel Manual752-5/752-13SUBCHAPTEB 2. DISCHARGE, SUSPENSION FOR MORE THAN

THIRTY DAYS, FURLOUGH WITHOUT PAY, AND REDUCTION IN RANK OB COMPENSATION

2-1. COVERAGEa. Employees. Subject to the exclusion of certain persons in paragraph l-2a, this

subchapter covers:(1) Any career, career-conditional, overseas limited, indefinite, or term employee in

a position in the competitive service who is not serving a probationary or trial period;(2) Any employee having a competitive status who occupies a position in Schedule

B under a nontemporary appointment; and(3) Any preference eligible employee who has completed one year of current

continuous employment in a position outside the competitive service.b. Agency adverse actions. Subject to the actions excluded in paragraph l-2b, this

sub-chapter covers discharges, suspensions for more than thirty days, furlough without pay, and reductions in rank or compensation including reductions in rank or compensation taken at the election of an agency after a position classification decision by the Commission.

2-2. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ADVERSE ACTIONa. Notice of proposed action. Except as provided in section 2-9, an employee

against whom adverse action is sought under this subchapter must be given at least 30 full days' advance written notice of the proposed action.

b. Identification of proposed action. The notice must identify a specific proposed action; vague proposals, such as "appropriate action," which do not make clear how severe the adverse action may be are inadequate.

c. Specificity of reasons. (1) General standard. The notice must state the reasons

supporting the proposed action, specifically and in detail, including names, times, and places. The notice should be self-contained, so that an individual unacquainted with the facts and circumstances involved can obtain from the notice a clear understanding of the reasons for the proposed action.

(2) Supporting details. It is necessary to state the factual reasons in sufficient detail to afford the employee a clear understanding of the reasons so that he can prepare an answer. Mere statements of conclusions such as "you are guilty of immoral conduct," without supporting details, do not meet the requirement for Specificity.

(3) Factual clarity. The notice must also include a detailed statement of any part of the employee's past record which the agency proposes to consider as contributing toward the severity of the proposed action.

(4) Offer to explain. The agency may wish to include a statement in the notice, particularly when the proposed action involves an employee who is likely to have difficulty in comprehending the communication, to the effect that he may receive a further explanation of the reasons for the proposed action by conferring with an official whose name and designation are included in the notice. The agency must not expect an offer of further explanation to make up for any lack of Specificity or detail in the written statement of the reasons for the proposed action. Furthermore, if a (law is detected in the notice, whether as a result of a request for further explanation or otherwise, the faulty notice should be canceled and a new notice issued.

d. Notices must be proposals and not decisions. A notice must make it clear that it concerns only a proposed action and not a matter already decided. This usually can be made clear by a statement to the effect that the employee's answer will be considered before a decision is reached. The agency should carefully avoid making any statements in the initial notice which can be construed as indicating that a decision has been reached, and if statements of conclusions are included in the notice they should be couched in terms which indicate that they are tentative and are subject to any rebuttal which may be offered in the .reply.

e. Statement of right of reply. The notice must tell the employee that he has a right to reply, both personally and in writing, and to submit affidavits in support of his answer. The notice should tell him that his reply, if any, will be considered. It should identify the person or office to receive a written reply and the person or persons who will receive an oral reply. A reasonable time must be allowed the employee for the preparation and the return of a reply, for securing and submitting affidavits and for requesting and making a personal reply. If the employee requests additional time within which to make his reply, such request should be honored if it is reasonable. The notice should inform the employee how much time will be granted for receipt of his reply. At least 10 calendar days should be allowed for a written reply and more time should be permitted if justified by the circumstances. The employee should be assured that he will be informed of the agency's final decision in the matter.

2-3. DELIVERY OF NOTICEa. Method of delivery. (1) Personal delivery. It is usually best to make personal

delivery of a notice to the employee and, if possible, to obtain his written acknowledgment of its receipt.

(2) Mail delivery. If the agency relies on the mails, it probably is assuming an unnecessary risk. In cases of absence from duty, it is better, if the probable date of the employee's return to duty is known, to await his return or, if this is not practicable, to visit him so that personal delivery can be made. When a notice is sent by mail, there is a danger that the agency may assume that the notice has been delivered when actually the employee did not receive it. When there is no better way to effect delivery, and the agency must resort to mail delivery, it should weigh the relative advantages and disadvantages of registered

mail for delivery to and receipt by the addressee; ordinary registered mail; certified mail; and unrestricted first-class mail. (See discussion in FPM Supplement 752-1.)

(3) Evading delivery. If it can be shown that the employee by his actions intentionally evaded timely delivery, and the agency made every reasonable effort to effect delivery, the notice is valid insofar as the issue of delivery is concerned.

b. Computing the notice period. In computing the advance notice period, the day on which the notice is delivered is not counted. Thirty days is usually the minimum period of advance notice. A few extra days of advance notice provides leeway for unanticipated delays in making delivery to the employee.

15Managerial Prerogative or Social Objective?

You are in the headquarters of the Personnel unit of Agency Z, and are mulling over the form and substance of a report you are going to write. That report poses some knotty issues, particularly because you only recently joined Agency Z.

The basic details are direct. As a representative from the Personnel Department at national headquarters in Washington, D.C., you call on the field office at PIeasantville, Md., to ascertain its state of compliance with the agency's Affirmative Action (AA) program. AA seeks to strongly encourage the hiring of black, female, and minority employees. Your agency is deeply committed at the highest administrative and political levels. Your own Department of Personnel has taken a leading role in sponsoring and selling AA and similar programs, often at the expense of being criticized as social reformers who seem to forget there is a job to be done.

Although you find yourself in clear personal agreement with your agency's AA objective, you sense that old organizational irony again. The Personnel Department is supposed to provide advice, counsel, and help; it is outside the lines of command, and does not issue orders. But in this case, as in many others, the "staff" is put in the position of checking up on the lower"line." Often, the "staff" is even accused of spying for top man-agement, of being informants for the executive "line" officials who want to control operations at the lower "line" levels.

Specifically, the report you eventually write will go up through the several levels of Personnel, and thence to upper-line management. From there, PIeasantville will variously learn about the tone and impact of your report—whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, but especially if it is bad. You are going to PIeasantville, then, as a kind of policeman, who may be helpful and can blow whistles, but who has no authority to make arrests.

As such visits go, the one to PIeasantville goes very well. Not only are you pleasantly surprised at being given such a nice assignment so soon; and not only do you enjoy being out of the office; but paramountly, things go well because the local office has done a really great job in implementing AA. Very early, it becomes clear that the PIeasantville office has a strong commitment to AA. And you come to conclude, after two days of probing, that there probably is no other local office in your agency which can boast of a stronger record over the past twenty-four months in hiring blacks, women, and minority group members. Moreover, PIeasantville managers clearly have not been going for numbers alone. They seek and attract qualified personnel, and have specialized training programs to help their new employees smoothly move into the organization. Problems with AA at PIeasantville are minor ones.

But one unit of the PIeasantville office stands out prominently. The unit has some twenty-five employees, which is about 8 percent of the total PIeasantville work force. However, the unit has no black employees in 1972. In fact, it had more black employees

two years ago. No women have ever worked in this unit, moreover, except as clerks and stenographers. You also notice the entry "1" under the column "Other Minority Employees" on the AA Report of this deviant unit. That employee, as you learn on checking, turns out to be a highly skilled and elderly employee of Spanish birth, from a wealthy family, who fled to this country as an adult in 1934 to avoid the revolution. He has been employed by the PIeasantville office for sixteen years. Hardly an AA recruit, he!

You check further, and find that the supervisor of the unit—uniformly referred to as Mr. Johnson—is both extremely competent and extremely prejudiced. He has been with the agency for twenty-three years, almost all of it in his present position. He is sixty-one, almost sixty-two.

Johnson's competence is almost legendary. The head of the Pleasantville office honestly believes that Johnson is the best in his specialty he has ever seen, a man who could have been promoted many times but who has decided simply to become better and better at what he is doing. Moreover, his external clients swear by the supervisor. They consider him both fair and extremely competent in subtle and demanding work.

Mr. Johnson's prejudices are also strong and open, but he does such an outstanding job that almost all his employees quickly develop strong loyalties to him. A small minority of his employees do learn that they and Johnson are on different wave lengths, and they quickly transfer or leave the agency. Those who remain refuse even to discuss the supervisor's "one unfortunate blind spot." Their loyalty has many sources, no doubt. Note only that the supervisor is successful to an unprecedented degree at getting "his people" promoted. A number of them have already reached positions in the lower levels of senior management in your agency. They are even known as Johnson's Boys, you learn.

About three years before, in 1969, the head of the Pleasantville office did attempt to broaden Mr. Johnson's perspectives by insisting on his adherence to AA. Several eligibles were hired, in fact, but their experience was uniformly bad. Most left the agency quickly, or requested reassignment. They complained of harassment, constant criticism, and lack of training opportunities. The supervisor explained he was too concerned with efficiency to give much time to "sociological experiments." Management investigated, and found no blatant misuse of supervisory power. But Mr. Johnson's lack of enthusiasm, at least, is patent.

Pleasantville management takes the easy route, after a year of the unit being a revolving door for AA recruits. Management transfers all remaining AA recruits into other units; and thelocal Personnel office is instructed by local management not to send any future lists ofAA eligibles to Mr. Johnson.

The result is one lily-white unit, save for the elderly Spanish-American, in a local office with an otherwise-splendid AA record.

* * *

Directions:Your problem is very real, as a representative of Personnel from headquarters.

What kind of a report do you write? Do you neglect the one unit, and emphasize Pleasantville's outstanding record? Or what?

Your decision will not be easy. Consider only these issues:From at least one point of view, Pleasantville's management has exercised a

reasonable managerial prerogative in a sensible way. Where does headquarters staff draw the line on such issues to avoid being accused by field management of constantly intruding into operating matters, of unnecessary meddling?

What is the extent of your staff job? Certainly, you have the responsibility of making certain that Pleasantville management knows of the situation. Beyond that, given

Pleasantville's outstanding AA record, does your responsibility extend so far as to risk relationships by raising the issue at headquarters?

What of the Personnel unit at Pleasantville? For whom do they work? What are the implications of their agreeing not to forward lists ofAA eligibles to Johnson? Will Personnel at headquarters discipline their field representatives if the accommodation is revealed? Will Pleasantville management try to protect the local Personnel representatives?

Since Johnson is almost sixty-two, would not the prudent course be to wait on his retirement?

Suppose a protest is made to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? Is the present arrangement acceptable?1

Just why were you sent to Pleasantville, anyhow, when colleagues of far greater knowledge of Agency X could have gone?

16Mary P. Smith

Females at the Hollingshead Post Office constitute more than one-fourth of the entire complement of three thousand employees. Separations of females represent approximately 90 percent of the average monthly turnover of seventy employees.

One such separation involves Mary P. Smith, a Negro female, single, age twenty-three, weighing approximately 130 pounds, five feet six inches in height. Mary was hired as a Substitute Distribution Clerk on August 19, 1970, and was immediately charged with "scheme responsibility." A "scheme" is the established method by which mail is sorted to carriers for their delivery to designated patrons. Knowledge of this method is a mandatory requirement for all distribution clerks.

Scheme responsibility is onerous and tedious, and Mary sought an early way out. The agency norm is that scheme responsibility is an early rite of passage for new employees, which all employees are expected to undergo, if not necessarily enjoy. Mary was determined to cut short the normal stay, however. The details are obscure, but Mary bypassed her immediate supervisor and sought a transfer. Normally, that supervisor would not have approved an early transfer, which was seen as "avoiding scheme responsibility" and as favored treatment.

In early September 1970, Mary is transferred from the clerical section of the Post Office to the special delivery section, where there is no scheme requirement. Approval for this transfer was obtained from John P. Petrie, Director of Operations. Mary proved to be an excellent special delivery messenger.

Several months after the transfer, management learns that Mary is pregnant. This knowledge is gained in a way that raised serious questions about her continued employment.

On December 18, 1970, during the course other tour of duty, Mary delivers a large bulky package to a downtown business. Shortly thereafter, Mary returns to the special delivery unit and reports to her supervisor, Eldon McKay, that she is ill. McKay directs her to report to the Health Unit immediately, where the nurse on duty can examine her. McKay observes that Mary reluctantly follows these instructions.

When Mary reports to Elaine Faris, Health Unit Nurse, Elaine proceeds to examine and interview her. During the course of this routine procedure, Elaine discovers that Mary is almost three months pregnant. Elaine verbally reprimands Mary for not reporting her condition earlier, as is required by instructions in the Health and Medical Service Handbook. Relevant excerpts from these instructions are distributed to all female

employees (see Appendix A, Part I). Elaine also advises Mary that if her pregnancy had been promptly reported she would not have been required to lift the heavier parcels that are part of a normal day's work. As is specified in the Postal Manual, employees performing duties of special delivery messenger are required to lift and handle parcels weighing up to 70 pounds.

Mary claims that she was afraid to report her condition because she thought she could not secure a leave of absence due to her short period of employment. She further states that she needs to work as long as possible. Mary is unmarried, and has no immediate prospects. Consequently, she needs all the money she can possibly earn prior to her confinement.

Nurse Faris concludes by advising Mary to consult a physician.On December 20, 1970, Mary goes to the Personnel Office and discusses her case

with Tim Lonergan, Employment Officer. Tim explains that, given her short period of employment and the advanced stage of her pregnancy, a resignation would be the logical and quiet alternative. The Health Unit nurse also recommends this approach. Mary agrees and consequently resigns on December 30, 1970. Tim also assures her that she can apply for reinstatement and, under normal circumstances, probably will be reinstated after her maternity status is ended (see Appendix A, Part II).

On January 7, 1971, Mary Smith suffers a premature parturition. She applies for reinstatement soon after her miscarriage. Her application for reinstatement is received by Robert Grady, Chief of Employee Benefits. A complete review of Mary's personnel folder is made.

Grady promptly recommends that no consideration be given Ms. Smith's application at this time. Grady expects that the local Civil Service Commission office will uphold this decision, if it is appealed. The recommendation is approved by the Chief of Employment and Services and the Director, Office of Personnel. The Postmaster concurs.

Upon receiving this denial, Mary appeals to the Regional Civil Service Office for reinstatement. The Civil Service Office reviews her case and advises that, although she is eligible for reinstatement, an agency reserves the right of timing the reinstatement of any eligible employee. Since Mary has been out of employment for only one month, the Post Office can require her to wait for actual reinstatement, at least for an extended period and without any assurance of favorable consideration.

* * Directions:Take the role of Robert Grady, who reviewed Ms. Smith's application for

reinstatement. Develop a full rationale for his decision not to reinstate at the present time.

I. EXCERPTS FROM PERSONNEL HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICE HANDBOOK, U.S. POST OFFICE

"The employee shall notify the health unit immediately where it is ascertained pregnancy exists."

"Employees shall submit to the health unit periodic health certificates indicating continued employment is without hazard. Such certificates should be submitted each month unless the physical condition ot the employee indicates that they should be more frequent."

II. CIVIL SERVICE REINSTATEMENT REGULATIONS"Career nonveterans with less than three years of service are eligible for

reinstatement up to three years from date of separation." "Career nonveterans with over three years of service are eligible for reinstatement indefinitely." "Veterans have indefinite reinstatement status."

17

MCKAY BARNES

McKay Barnes is one of the better revenue agents attached to the Texas district office of the Internal Revenue Service. You are his supervisor, Randall Rodgers.

The supervisory relationship is a satisfying one. Not only does Bames do his work well and get on with his associates, but he has shown you enough other qualities to convince you that he has excellent potential for advancement. You are pleased for another reason. Barnes is black, and you are a strong advocate of minority hiring.

Barnes has been working largely on desk audit where you, as chief of audit, have an opportunity to observe his way with taxpayers. You have found his performance to be satisfactory at all times, and superior in a substantial percentage of cases.

In order to broaden his experience, you recently assigned Barnes to field audit, as you would anyone with his record and background. This is his second month in the assignment. For the past two days, he has been working at the Hi-Fashion Ladies Apparel Company on a job that should take about ten days.

You are visited by the owner of Hi-Fashion who asks you in a reasonable and forthright way whether a white auditor cannot be assigned in Barnes's place, and preferably a female, white auditor. The owner has no complaints about Barnes. Indeed, he reports that Barnes has been polite and proper.

The owner reports, however, that he is caught in a cross-pressure situation he does not enjoy. On the one hand, some major customers have objected to "a black in the front office." The nature of Barnes's assignment suggests to some of Hi-Fashion's best customers that he is a member of the company staff. The owner does have to stay in business, and he cannot afford to offend or antagonize even one buyer. Ladies' fashion clothing is such a delicate business that even a tiny detail might jeopardize a sale, each of which is for hundreds of dollars.

It is neither appropriate nor convenient to continually explain that Barnes is a government employee. Because of the nature of the office layout, moreover, there is really no way of hiding Barnes from general view.

On the other hand, the owner reports that a large group of Hi-Fashion's designers are a militant part of the local Woman's Lib scene. They pointedly note that Barnes, if the first black, is only the most recent in a long line of all-male IRS auditors to visit Hi-Fashion. Barnes's visit, to the female designers, is only a further proof that sexist prejudice runs even deeper than racial prejudice.

The owner can no more stand to alienate his designers than his customers.The owner of Hi-Fashions asks for help.

* * *

Directions:You are Randall Rodgers, Barnes's supervisor. What do you do with Hi-Fashion's

request?The request by the owner of Hi-Fashion comes at an interesting time. Two days

earlier you had been visited by the manager of a factory who complained that the agent assigned there had a disruptive influence on the girls in accounting. The agent was a bachelor, and a good-looking one to boot. To keep the taxpayer happy, you assigned another agent, homelier and married. You try to be sensitive to taxpayer relations as the National Office has frequently suggested.

18NEW MANAGER IN A DISTRICT OFFICE

Social Security Administration (SSA) District Offices are responsible for serving the public through programs in retirement, survivors, disability and health insurance. Perhaps the basic district goal is to effectively and efficiently provide information and service, both in making known the availability of its several programs and in assisting those who file claims for benefits. Beyond these informational and service activities, the dominant objective of SSA is to pay claims as expeditiously as possible. There are two primary measures of assessing service to the public; how promptly district offices process claims and other workload items; and how many errors are made on those claims processed.

For many purposes, then, one can define a well-managed SSA district office in simple terms. Such an office has a good informational program, processes the vast majority of claims in less than thirty days, has a low and stable percentage of claims pending over thirty days, and makes very few errors in the form of changes or development requests from the reviewing office (payment center) on those claims cleared.

District Office X is located in a city of approximately 75,000 population, and services five counties with a population of 225,000. The office has a staff of thirty people. The work complement consists of one manager, one assistant manager, one claims unit supervisor, three field representatives, eight claims representatives, four service representatives, one administrative clerk, and eleven claims development clerk/typists.

Don Jones is the new manager. He joined SSA approximately ten years ago, is young, has progressed very rapidly and has just been promoted to GS-13 as District Manager of Office X. He has served in several other district offices and in the following positions in his career development: claims representative, field representative, claims unit supervisor, and assistant district manager. He has been very fortunate in that he has served in very good offices, in addition to having performed well himself.

The former manager of Office X, Mr. Wild, retired shortly before Jones's transfer into the district office. Mr. Wild started with SSA in 1935 as manager of Office X, and remained in that capacity until his recent retirement. He was well-liked and had a very stable staff, most of them middle-aged and older. Some had been in the office fifteen to twenty years. The assistant manager, Bill Zoom, had been in Office X ten years and had reached his present position by several internal promotions. The staff was a tightly knit group, and did not adapt very well to the SSA's new policy of mobility for development purposes. Employees who transferred into Office X consequently found it difficult to gain acceptance.

Regional management had not forced many changes on Office X in the last two years, since they knew Mr. Wild was retiring. The office's production had fallen off, processing quotas were not being met, and work was of low quality. Of the eighty-five district offices in the region, Office X had the poorest record. More than 15 percent of the claims pending were at least sixty days old. The record caused no concerted local remedial effort, however. For example, no training program existed to raise the quality of work. The administrative clerk, Mrs. Davis, tended to run the office on a day-to-day basis. She kept the manager tuned in on all happenings, and the office just rocked along.

Enter Don Jones, new manager. Regional management selects him to "shape up" the office, to get it producing in line with regional and national goals. This is challenge enough. To compound the situation. Bill Zoom and virtually the entire staff are convinced Bill should have gotten the manager's job rather than Don Jones. Jones does not have to guess their feelings. On his first day at work, Jones is told by Zoom that the staff resented the regional office placing him in Office X. The staff also make their feelings known to Don in many other ways.

Zoom's revelation does not intimidate Jones nor inhibit him in seeking to change performance in Office X, but most of his recommendations or orders variously fall short.

This is the case even though Jones believes his staff is capable and competent. To illustrate, immediately after his arrival Jones asks Bill Zoom to establish a training program to improve performance. With the ever-increasing instructions coming in on the new health insurance program as well as on the normal programs, improvement is imperative. Bill Zoom acts quickly. Thirty minutes of training are scheduled each morning, with additional sessions three days a week for certain employees. But Jones senses little enthusiasm or inventiveness in these sessions, from either Zoom or the employees.

Jones has many similar experiences of one step forward, one step back. To illustrate, the claims unit supervisor is requested to rearrange the work flow to facilitate mail and claims handling. He does this, but in a brusque way that irritates the employees. Jones's first six months on the job are characterized by a similar pattern.

In some senses, Jones also is losing ground in his effort to improve performance. For example, several of the staff start being habitually tardy. Mrs. Davis, the administrative clerk, is a frequent offender.

Regional management has promised Jones their full support. He has wide latitude to do what is necessary to improve the efficiency of the office. However, he is limited in that he must work with the present staff, unless some transfer at their own request or at regional management's insistence. Practically speaking, Don must learn to be accepted by the office personnel while still improving their productivity and attitudes toward work.

After six months, the office record is the same. Don is working longer hours, but he still cannot get through to the staff to change their behavior.

* * * Directions:Diagnose the situation. Suggest a course of action for Don Jones.

19OF BOUNDED COOPERATION

In the Army's Criminal Investigation structure, a Regional Office is a headquarters group which controls many small units (Detachments) that are spread throughout a large area. The Regional Commander sets the policy and exercises command over these units by relying on infrequent visits, telephone calls, and written reports to evaluate the operational effectiveness of his subordinate units.

A Criminal Investigation Detachment typically consists of one commissioned officer, numerous warrant officers, and several enlisted personnel. The commissioned officer is in command. One of the warrant officers—the Operations Officer—assigns cases to be investigated, checks the work, and in general acts as the second in command.

The Detachment's mission is to support the commander of the military installation at which it is located. Personnel are charged mainly with the investigation of all felonies, background investigations, and investigations into activities which may affect the image of the Department of the Army.

Dealing with Criminal Investigators (Warrant Officers) can be quite an experience. Some describe them as "prima donnas," hard to get along with, and as especially lacking respect for inexperienced Detachment Commanders. Others find them to be professional people, well-trained in their work, proud of what they do, as well as honest and determined to respect the confidence that others place in them.

Part I: A ProblemOne new Detachment Commander, Fred Steel, came to have experiences that

provided some evidence of the validity of both these contrasting images of the Criminal Investigators.

Like all new Detachment Commanders, Fred Steel visited Regional Headquarters

prior to assuming command of his detachment. During this briefing, he was informed by the Regional Commander and staff that the detachment he was to command was an outstanding unit, investigatively. There was some bad news, also. Administratively, the Detachment has some weak areas.

The one problem the Regional Commander wants resolved first is the lack of an Informant File. On every inspection of the detachment, the unit is faulted for its absence, and none of the prior commanders had been able to establish one. Steel hears the message clearly. Establish the Informant File, and soon, or go the way of the previous Detachment Commanders who carried away efficiency reports that left much to be desired.

The Informant File is nothing more than a collection of 3" x 5" index cards, each listing an informant's name, his location, the type of information he can provide, and the investigator's name. These cards are turned in to the Operations Officer, who secures them in a safe until they are needed. Used properly, these cards provide leads which can facilitate an investigation or provide intelligence of illegal activity. Normally, they are used in the following manner. Assume that a Criminal Investigator is assigned to work a case involving theft at the commissary. Should he conduct an open investigation, the person(s) involved probably would stop his activities until the investigation stopped. To plant an undercover agent in the commissary is costly and time-consuming, alternatively, and it may not provide the information desired. The prudent investigator, therefore, goes to the Operations Officer and requests a look through the Informant File hoping to find an informant in the commis-sary. If one is listed, the investigator may seek to use him.

After reporting in. Steel takes several days to observe the detachment, meet the personnel, and get somewhat familiar with the overall operation. Only then does Steel talk with the Operations Officer and start laying the groundwork for future policy changes. When advised of the intended meeting, the Operations Officer says, "Sir, I hope you are not going to attempt to establish an Informant File." Steel proceeds to give the Operations Officer the details of his meeting with the Regional Commander, and its loud-and-clear priority for an Informant File. Steel does not press for action, however.

About two weeks later, Steel holds his first full office conference. Here he informs all personnel of his policies and methods of operation. Lastly, he mentions the Informant File, and states the office will initiate one.

The Investigators object, in stereo. Their major points are:1. The informants I have are mine because I worked to establish and cultivate them.2. My informants will work only for me.3. If I turn in a list of informants, they will no longer be confidential. I have

promised my informants that only I would know who they were, and I will not go back on my word. If nothing else, if any of us reneged, pretty soon no one would have any informants.

4. If I have to turn in a list of informants, then I really don't have any.* * *Directions:Imagine you are Steel. How do you evaluate these objections? Can you meet your

own goals and the objections, at the same time?Below in Part II you can read how Steel really did respond. But it should be more

fun to work with Steel's dilemma a little on your own before reading further.

Part II: One ResolutionAfter listening to the objections of the investigators, Steel explains how his plan

would work.1. Everyone will return to his office and think about the following:a. Every member of the Detachment is a member of a team. To insure that the team

will function properly, the members should be willing to help each other when the need arises, even if it means that one investigator will let another use his informants.

b. Informant names are the property of the Army like other information the investigator obtains.

c. Both the Regional Commander and Army Policy require that an Informant File will be kept.

2. Once everyone has had sufficient time to consider these points, each investigator is to complete one or more informant cards, placing each in a separate white envelope which is to be sealed.

3. Investigators are to write their name and the date on the envelope, as well as the informant's location, i. e. commissary or Post Exchange.

4. Investigators then will take any envelopes to the Operations Officer, where each will sign his name across the sealed flap, placing a strip of clear tape across the signature and the flap.

5. The envelopes, unopened, will be placed in a safe, thereby keeping the name of the informant confidential.

6. During the course of an investigation, should an investigator need an informant, he will go to the Operations Officer, who will check the file for an informant in the required location. If any suitable envelopes exist, the Operations Officer will give the inquiring investigator the name or names of those who filed the envelope(s). The two or more investigators will have to work out mutually the method of using any informant. Any envelope might still remain sealed.

7. Envelopes will be opened only:a. On an investigator's departure from the Detachment. b. In the event of an

emergency, and under order from the Detachment Commander.8. Finally, Steel states he is not interested in the names of any informants. He is

only interested in following regulations and providing assistance to investigators in the Detachment.

On that note, Steel concludes the conference and leaves without knowing how his people will react to his plan. But he does feel a little uneasy about their acceptance of his plan.

Over the course of the next few days, the Operations Officer receives envelopes from every investigator. Steel is told by the Operations Officer that the men are not discussing the plan, but the latter is confident that each envelope contains the required information. Initially, the Informant File contained about twenty envelopes. Thirty days later there are seventy envelopes in the File.

* * *Directions:Evaluate Steel's plan. Does it accomplish his purpose, and thatof the Regional Commander? Are there any vulnerable features of the plan? How

would you propose evaluating whether or not the Filewas contributing to more effective investigations?

20ONE PERSPECTIVE ON HILLSDALE TOWER

If there is one human around whom the personality of an airport control tower can be centered, it is the Chief Controller. He has at his command a tremendous amount of authority and responsibility. Three of the major goals of a tower for which the Chief has overall responsibility are: 1) the maintenance of the best possible relations with outside

interests, 2) provision for high-caliber air traffic service to a wide clientele, and 3) operation of the facility, which in this case is a control tower with radar approach control service.

This is the story of one way of handling these multiple goals in a very specific place, written from a very personal point of view. Hence the title: One Perspective on Hillsdale Tower. Other personnel at Hillsdale might write the story very differently.

The problems at Hillsdale Tower basically resulted from an imbalance in emphasis among the three major goals above. On the one hand, the imbalance resulted in accolades for the facility from many of the external interests, including the flying public. On the other hand, much dissatisfaction and bickering existed among the facility personnel.

Hillsdale Tower lies at the center of a dynamic and progressive region, and controls a significant flow of people and products. From a modern four-story brick structure, air traffic arriving or departing within a forty-mile radius of the airport is controlled or assisted using the most modern surveillance radar. Atop the Building is the tower "cab" from which local airport traffic is directed.

No one can forget for very long why Hillsdale came to be what it is. More-than-usually friendly people who cooperated more than the average—that was Hillsdale's successful combination. Even new arrivals in Hillsdale learned that lesson, fast. Local boosters—especially economic notables and those with a direct interest in continued expansion—trumpeted the gospel, in friendly but persistent ways.

The federal employees at Hillsdale Tower learned the lesson as well as anybody; some experienced directly how a culture can mobilize major forces to influence even the unwilling.

A Brief Overview: Advancing by Working Yourself DownwardUnlike most office buildings in which the new employee starts a career on the lower

floors and works toward the top floors, the employee in Hillsdale Tower starts at the top and works downward as he progresses. After his preliminary training, the employee typically starts his on-the-job training in the tower cab, a glass-enclosed cage located on the fourth floor. All of the airport landings and take-offs are directed from this vantage point. Additionally, clearances and instructions received from the radar room are relayed to aircraft.

On the third floor is the radar room, technically called the TRACON (Terminal Radar Control) Room. All of the radar services provided by the facility originate in this room using Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-4) equipment. The room is equipped with adjustable lighting, acoustical ceiling, walls and floor, and air conditioning and heating in order to make working conditions tenable in the noisy and darkened room. Also located on this floor are the training rooms, rest rooms, lunch room and various equipment and supply rooms.

The second floor houses most of the electronic gear necessary for the facility.On the first floor are located the offices of the top FAA Officials in the building, the

Chief Controller of the Tower and the Chief of Systems Maintenance.Finally, the basement houses the heating and air conditioning systems for the

building, along with a Civil Defense Bomb Shelter.FAA air traffic control facilities are strictly regulated by numerous manuals and

publications promulgated by Washington Headquarters, as interpreted by the Regional Office and as precisely defined by Facility Chiefs. These manuals include: the Facility Operations Manual, which specifies how a Facility should be operated; and the Air Traffic Control Procedure Manual, which defines the rules and procedures necessary for the uniform control of air traffic.

Hillsdale Tower is staffed with twenty-six personnel who for the most part rotate on

shifts. This enables the facility to operate around the clock 365 days a year. Following is a staffing chart of the facility.

Position Number Responsibilitiesof Positions

Chief Controller 1 Overall operation of the tower, high-calibre service to wide clientele, maintenance of good relations with outside interests.

Secretary 1 Under supervision of Chief.

Watch Supervisors

4 Operation of Tower on assigned shift, collateral staff duties as assigned by Chief.

Coordinators 3 Operation of TRACON on assigned shift under general supervision of Watch Supervisor.

Controllers 15 Any assigned position of operation, overall operation of Tower cab when so assigned.

Assistant Controllers

2 Flight data position, other positions under supervision of controller.

Total Positions 26

Internal Relations: Open Door or Trap Door?A newcomer upon arriving at Hillsdale Tower might very well be impressed with

the advertised "open door" policy of the Chief. However, after he had submitted a few suggestions for improvement of the facility he would see a different pattern. He would seldom receive an actual no; but he also would seldom receive ayes. Eventually, he would find that only if he is willing to exert extreme pressure will he force a specific decision. Although he may believe he has won a victory in such cases, moreover, the employee will eventually realize through small insinuations that he has gone too far and should not have "rocked the boat" in the first place. For those who miss such messages, Hillsdale also has a record of silent retribution primarily in the form of mediocre promotion appraisals and performance ratings. The "open door" can be a "trap door," in short.

The overall climate at Hillsdale is usually attractive, and yet sometimes induces despair. Consider that the giving of orders at Hillsdale is extremely rare, which suggests pleasantness and easy consensus, which is often the case. But also consider that order-giving is rare because supervisory personnel tend to feel that their orders will not be backed up. This induces despair, especially in the employees who believe that something needs to be done, and soon. Witness the training officer who prepared a test for facility personnel. One person refused to take the test. Nothing was done. The next time several persons refused to take the test, and still nothing was done. The training officer gave up and for years after there was no training program at me facility.

The newcomer eventually learns that this "trap door" policy applied to all facility operations whether internal or external, including dealings with the Regional Office in Plains City. Any internal disaffection tends to be localized. For example, Regional Office has never conducted a formal evaluation of Hillsdale Tower during the Chief's tenure, apparently because of its highly positive reputation with external clients.

There is a further effective deterrent to organized internal "boat rocking" in Hillsdale Tower. Although the Regional Office strongly encourages frequent meetings in order to exchange views and to air misunderstandings, such meetings are seldom held at Hillsdale. Since all operational personnel rotate on different shifts and in an irregular way, there is very little opportunity to develop group ties in more informal ways.

External Relations: Group NormsThe Chief Controller also has a definite style in his contacts with clients external to

his organization. Consider a violation of regulations, which should generate a formal charge for the alleged violation in accordance with published FAA procedures. This procedure is interpreted at Hillsdale so that a report is filed only as a last resort, which generally means that another external client is involved in the incident who insists that a report be filed.

Clients could not ask for a more compatible arrangement. Pilots can count on complete cooperation from the Tower, including special handling in many cases. Many of them "get away with" violations even when they fully expect the book to be thrown at them. For example, consider an airline pilot who reported in at the wrong altitude. Upon arriving at the airport, the pilot speedily called the Tower to admit his mistake. When he

was informed that no other traffic was involved and that no report would be filed he was most grateful, for he well knew that had the incident been reported he would probably have received a fine. Although this procedure is also not "by the book," it has made friends for Hillsdale Tower. On occasion, it also has benefited some of the controllers who have had their mistakes overlooked.

Tower personnel are pulled in two ways, consequently. They find deep satisfaction in their ability to provide superior service to external clients, but they are often frustrated in their efforts to go beyond the call of duty on internal matters. Because of group norms, not only do they fail to receive encouragement from th< Chief, but they also gain the scorn of many of the Tower personnel who let them know rather bluntly that they do not like "show-offs." This atmosphere naturally does not satisfy the interests of those who desire to do more than the minimum work. But they usually accept the group norm, work their eight-hour shifts, and go home.

Administrative Processes: Some Summary Characterizations

Hillsdale Tower can also be usefully described in terms of capsule summaries of several central administrative processes.

A. CommunicationsIn a formal structure, one would expect that minutes would be taken at staff

meetings held between the Chief and the Watch Supervisors. At Hillsdale, there are no such written records. Consequently, a revised procedure agreed upon in a meeting might be interpreted differently by each Supervisor. This on occasion created confusion on the part of air traffic Controllers, who were told different ways to function with no written instruc-tions to clear up the situation.

B. Performance EvaluationOne of the more serious problems which existed within the facility was that

personnel were not informed of their weaknesses. There were extreme cases in which the Chief would not take corrective action even after being informed by supervisors that an individual was not doing acceptable work. It appeared that the prevailing management philosophy was that the effects of constructive criticism of personnel would not outweigh the risk of adverse effects on morale.

C. Performance Ratings and Promotion AppraisalsAnother distinct feature of Hillsdale was its approach to handling Performance

Ratings and Promotion Appraisals. Although instructions from regional headquarters in Plains City required that these forms were to be discussed with the individual concerned, this was not done atHillsdale until recently. This further placed the individual in the position of not knowing for sure where he stood. All personnel were officially considered to be doing good work, regardless of whether they were or not. The philosophy seemed to be that it is better to give "satisfactory" ratings to all personnel, rather than to risk morale problems that might be created by giving unsatisfactory or outstanding ratings to a few people. One result of this procedure was that in ten years no one had been promoted to a major job outside the facility.

Patterns of Power and Conflict: Some Summary CharacterizationsThe factors at Hillsdale outlined above give it a particular quality, especially in its

characteristic patterns of power and conflict. These are patterns developed briefly here.A. CooperationThe newcomer soon learns that he is expected to subjugate his personal feelings in

the interest of cooperation with external interests which are quite powerful. Thus the internal cooperative system was such that if facility personnel make no serious waves,

conditions would be quite pleasant for the most part.B. ConflictA major policy of the facility is to avoid conflict with all external clients, especially

those who might cause repercussions. Therefore, the newcomer must learn that since he is a public servant, he will often have to take abuse rather than enter into confrontation or conflict with an external client. This policy is very effective in one sense, but it implies serious dissatisfaction for those who have to swallow their pride or their sense of what is professionally appropriate.

Internal conflict centered around a generalized resistance to change. Efforts by personnel to effect change usually only increase resistance to change. This situation results in a serious inner conflict for some facility personnel, because they are placed in the frustrating position of having even their most ambitious ideas ignored.

Another source of conflict stems from the fact that during the 1940's and '50's, the typical FAA/CAA manager had no more preparation for his job than coming up through the ranks as a technician. The prevailing concept was that the best way to learn about government management is to work at it. Later in the 1950's, the FAA sought to improve its management in what proved to be a puzzling way. Managerial training was given mainly to the lower levels of supervision, and almost none to the middle management levels and above. This resulted in the situation of having many first-line supervisors more eager to employ modern management techniques than their superiors. Very often, this disparity created resentment and resistance on the part of the superiors, and puzzlement and frustration on the part of the subordinates.

Fortunately, the FAA has spotted this source of conflict and has revised its thinking.Another source of conflict related to the above problem is that the grade structure of

the Agency places only the best technicians in the higher grades, and thereby makes them the only ones who are eligible to bid on high-paying management jobs. The Agency is attempting to rectify this problem by placing greater emphasis on supervisory characteristics on the promotion appraisal forms.

C. Search for EquilibriumFortunately, the new management training efforts of the Agency have begun to

show dividends at Hillsdale, and some of the above sources of conflict have very recently disappeared. Basically, there is a growing realization that it is necessary at Hillsdale to satisfy internal clients, as well as external clients. For example, performance ratings are now discussed with personnel by the Training Officer, who is one of the Watch Supervisors.

D. Delegated Responsibilities Little responsibility was delegated to other supervisory personnel except in training, and even there delegation was quite limited. Delegated responsibilities were often unclearly defined or overlapping, moreover, so that it was quite difficult to pin down supervisory or staff duties. For example, individuals were given operational problems to work on without the knowledge of the Operations Officer. This naturally discouraged the Operations Officer from attempting to develop his position into a meaningful power base. Possibly, this is just what the Chief wanted.

E. Inaction as PowerAnother source of power for the Chief was his expert use of the pocket veto, his

decision not to act. This can be a very powerful tool.F. Leaving Well Enough AloneAs long as external clients continued to praise the facility and as long as the

Regional Office left the facility alone, there was no credible reason for facility personnel to resist the system. The scales were tipped so far in the direction of external client satisfaction that little weight was given to internal dissatisfaction.

Agency Goals Met in Spite of Internal ConflictThus, a paradoxical situation exists at Hillsdale Tower. On the one hand, hidden

internal conflict existed between the Chief and those facility personnel who felt that the facility was close to collapse. Their interests were unsatisfied and their efficiency was not what it could have been. They often caused tension and internal dissension to spread, creating some dissatisfaction among others.

On the other hand, the facility supplied superior service to the external clients. The controllers and resource suppliers in the Regional Office were happy. Clients were more than satisfied by what they considered service of above-average help-fulness and courtesy. Whatever his other characteristics, it is clear that the Chief was effective in meeting overall goals, at least in the short run.

* * *Directions:You have a staff responsibility for supervisory development at the regional

level. Your visit to Hillsdale leaves you somewhat troubled. You wish the Chief Controller were more active in developing his subordinates;

but you do not want to jeopardize the positive aspects of Hills dale's performance.

What do you do?As a starter, detail the various factors offerees that you see creating the

present situation at Hillsdale. Which are most central? And which might you be able to change without detracting from day-to-day performance, which is better than acceptable.

21Privacy and Public EmployA lawyer in District Court ridicules the FBI for firing a fingerprint clerk who had

spent two nights with his fiancee "doing a little premarital necking." Attorney Richard Millman argues that Thomas H. Carter only "lost his job for doing what 99 percent of the population does." Millman cites the Kinsey Report in a plea before Judge Alexander Holtzoff of the U.S. District Court.

Carter had earlier filed a written admission with the FBI that he and his fiancee from Texas had spent two nights in his Washington, D. C., apartment. Carter is twenty-eight. He denied having sexual relations with his fiancee.

The FBI had sometime before received an anonymous letter accusing Carter of "sleeping with girls and carrying on at his apartment." The resulting investigation led to Carter's dismissal.

Holtzoff dismisses the complaint by Carter as having no merit. Millman says he will appeal.

The Government's case for the FBI has a strong moralistic flavor, as it was developed by federal attorney Joseph M. Han-non. He argues: "When the mothers of America read that Mr. Millman and Dr. Kinsey believe it is all right for their daughters to spend two nights in the same bed with a man, I'm afraid all the doors throughout the nation are going to be locked."

"I don't know whether it was immoral," explains Judge Holtzoff in upholding the FBI's firing of Carter, "but it was highly indiscreet. . . . Two people were sleeping in a room. They were apparently observed by someone who was scandalized by it." The anonymous letter results in an FBI investigation, Carter's written admission, and his subsequent firing.

* * * Directions:1. You are a staff member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Develop the

strongest possible case for the position that the FBI has unnecessarily infringed on the rights of Mr. Carter, and that his actions at home had no direct relationship to his performance at work.

2. You are an information officer with the FBI, and have been asked to brief several newspaper, TV, and radio reporters on the Carter case. Develop the position that the firing was justified as a safeguard of the public interest.

24Setting Standards and Supervising WorkAs part of a general program. Organization & Management specialists have recently

surveyed the XYZ Division of a federal agency. Their report indicates, among other things, that inadequate work standards exist. This has resulted, the report points out, in low output and poor utilization of manpower.

John Boynton, the O&M analyst in charge of the study, has been very thorough. He feels that the situation is more serious even than his report indicates. One of the younger men in the XYZ Division has given him a great deal of inside information on a personal basis which supports this judgment. Boynton keeps that information confidential.

Boynton recommends to the chief of the division, Phil Klingle, that an aggressive effort be made at once to establish reasonable work loads, that both quantitative and qualitative measures of performance be established, and that there be less job specialization in the division. Boynton feels that there has been too much specialization in the past, that this has created too many peaks and valleys in work loads, and that it also has discouraged the analysts from helping each other.

Klingle, however, argues that standards cannot be set, due to the diverse aspects of the job he and his people do. Or if they are set, they would be of very little value. He points out that many of the cases with which the division deals are complex, involving 'the expenditure of a great deal of time, while others can be handled easily in an hour or two. Besides, he notes, most of the personnel in the division are attorneys who are professional people and would resent any effort to regulate or control what they do. As for the specialization, he feels that more specialization rather than less is necessary. He scoffs at Boynton's proposal. It basically reveals that Boynton does not understand the work of the division, Klingle concludes.

Klingle says further that he has been given direct authority by the Administrator to get his work done, and that he does not need the help of people who really do not know the work. The Administrator, he claims, has always appeared to be quite satisfied with what Klingle has been doing. Two years ago, for example, Klingle received a commendation for his handling of a particularly difficult case.

Boynton is in a tough spot. He knows that Klingle is a tough man in a fight, and that he means what he says. Boynton also knows that if he presses the case, the support of his own boss is problematic, especially if Klingle really puts up a fight. However, if Klingle can get away with dragging his feet, this might encourage resistance to the O&M program from other units. Moreover, Boynton feels he has a mandate to do what he thinks is right.

* * * Directions:

What should Boynton do?What is a proper role for the staff man in a situation of this kind? Does he have

responsibility for seeing that his recommendations are carried out, or only for making them?