2

A Vision and Goals for Workforce Readiness and Resilience

When there is a shared vision of the mission, commitment to the shared values of an organization and strong and effective leadership that enables employees to be successful morale “happens.” Creating such an environment is not necessarily easy and cannot be accomplished overnight. It is the collective impact of workplace conditions, the quality of front line supervisory leadership, the mission support structure that enables mission execution, and an enduring commitment by senior leaders to the concept that mission performance starts and ends with people.
 —Thad Allen, 2012, Admiral, US Coast Guard (Retired)

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) relies on a large and diverse workforce to meet its mission. Approximately 200,000 men and women serve in the 22 legacy component agencies that make up this federal department. They are united by their mission: to create a safe, secure, resilient homeland where the American way of life can thrive. To be maximally effective in achieving that mission, DHS needs an informed, well-trained, well-led, and properly supported workforce. Given the risks inevitably associated with protecting the homeland, the workforce must have the capacity to operate in the face of uncertainty and adversity. Members of the workforce require tools and resources that will prepare them for their roles, facilitate their success throughout their career, and support them in adjusting and adapting under often challenging working conditions. Ensuring that all its employees have the resources, training, equipment, leadership, capability, and health required to meet



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 59
2 A Vision and Goals for Workforce Readiness and Resilience When there is a shared vision of the mission, commitment to the shared values of an organization and strong and effective leader- ship that enables employees to be successful morale “happens.” Creating such an environment is not necessarily easy and cannot be accomplished overnight. It is the collective impact of workplace conditions, the quality of front line supervisory leadership, the mission support structure that enables mission execution, and an enduring commitment by senior leaders to the concept that mission performance starts and ends with people. —Thad Allen, 2012, Admiral, US Coast Guard (Retired) The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) relies on a large and diverse workforce to meet its mission. Approximately 200,000 men and women serve in the 22 legacy component agencies that make up this fed- eral department. They are united by their mission: to create a safe, se- cure, resilient homeland where the American way of life can thrive. To be maximally effective in achieving that mission, DHS needs an in- formed, well-trained, well-led, and properly supported workforce. Given the risks inevitably associated with protecting the homeland, the work- force must have the capacity to operate in the face of uncertainty and adversity. Members of the workforce require tools and resources that will prepare them for their roles, facilitate their success throughout their ca- reer, and support them in adjusting and adapting under often challenging working conditions. Ensuring that all its employees have the resources, training, equipment, leadership, capability, and health required to meet 59

OCR for page 59
60 A READY AND RESILIENT WORKFORCE FOR DHS its mission must be of paramount importance to DHS. In this chapter, the committee provides a vision and objectives for how DHS can promote and sustain readiness and resilience in its workforce. DEFINITIONS OF READINESS AND RESILIENCE Throughout this report, the committee defines readiness as the capa- bility of an individual, unit, or system to perform the missions or func- tions for which it was intended or designed (DoD, 2013). Producing that capability requires that individuals and units be physically and mentally prepared and supported in an effort to facilitate effective performance, but it also requires resilience. Much has been written by theorists and researchers about what resilience means and how it can best be achieved. In the context of the present report and the mission of the DHS work- force, the committee acknowledges that resilience is a multifaceted pro- cess that is promoted by a variety of individual and social factors (Earvolino‐Ramirez, 2007; Luthar and Cicchetti, 2000; Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003; Tusaie and Dyer, 2004; Zolli and Healy, 2012). Studying resilience, as a concept, provides insight into how individuals and organ- izations achieve outcomes in the face of adversity, strain, and significant barriers to adapt and develop (Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003). To specifically guide its work, the committee adopted the definition of resilience given by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (2011): “the ability to withstand, recover, and grow in the face of stressors and changing demands.” In using that definition, the committee recognizes that both stressors and potential outcomes can be psychological and physical and that resilience provides not only the ability to withstand and recover but the opportunity to grow. The committee further recognizes the importance of focusing on resilience in the face of traumatic inci- dents, but also on the accumulation of everyday stressors that may un- dermine physical and mental capabilities and mission readiness. Growth and competence development are critical both at the individual level and at the unit level (adding to behavioral repertoires). Box 2-1 lists widely accepted resilience factors. From a team perspective, resilience needs to be addressed through high work demands, management and leadership support, work organization and control, coworker and supervisor rela- tionships, leadership behavior, and technical expertise.

OCR for page 59
A VISION AND GOALS 61 BOX 2-1 Resilience Factors Individual-Level Factors Unit (Component)-Level Factors  Realistic optimism  Positive command climate  Facing fear  Teamwork  Moral compass  Cohesion  Religion and spirituality  Social support Community-/Organization-Level  Resilient role models Factors  Physical fitness  Belongingness  Brain fitness  Cohesion  Cognitive and emotional  Connectedness flexibility  Collective efficacy  Meaning and purpose Family- or Social-Level Factors  Emotional ties  Communication  Social support  Closeness  Nurturing  Adaptability SOURCES: Adapted from Meredith et al., 2011; Southwick and Charney, 2012; Wagnild, 2010. The meaning of resilience and its operational definition have been the subject of considerable debate and controversy over the years—both at the individual level as well as at other levels of analysis (such as community, organizational), and there is no readily accepted operational definition (Kaplan, 1999; Luthar et al., 2000; Masten, 2007; Windel et al., 2011). Resilience has been described in the literature in several ways, often conferring images of resilience as an end state, where someone ei- ther does or does not possess it (a personality trait derived from ego resil- iency), much as whether an object is made of a substance that can absorb strain and still maintain its shape after insult (Norris et al., 2009). Or it is described as a developmental process where resilience is defined as a capacity for adaptability, positive functioning, or competence following chronic stress or trauma (Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003). The latter defini- tion allows for the recognition that resilience is not fixed, rather that it is relative, emerging, and changing in relation to specific circumstances (Staudinger et al., 1995). Early experiences shape later ones; by adjusting

OCR for page 59
62 A READY AND RESILIENT WORKFORCE FOR DHS positively to current adversity, capabilities for future adjustments are strengthened. The committee views a ready and resilient workforce as one that is healthy (physically, mentally, and emotionally), has high morale, is adaptable, finds purpose and meaning in its jobs, and is productive and engaged (see Box 2-2). Resilience can exist at multiple levels in the con- text of a workforce: the individual level (and by extension the family level), the unit or group level, and organizational level. This report fo- cuses on processes and strategies designed to promote resilience at the individual level and the organizational level. Many of the strategies nec- essary for promoting resilience at the two levels are needed for a resilient workforce. Focusing on resilience as a process rather than an end state, the committee acknowledges that resilience evolves as a dynamic, multi- faceted process that takes into account a variety of personality character- istics, coping mechanisms, contexts, social-support systems, and biologi- cal predispositions. Resilience must be inferred, and two judgments are required: that the “entity” is doing okay or better than okay with respect to a particular set of expectations of behavior and that the entity has faced extenuating circumstances. We assume that DHS staff for the most part (some more than others) face extenuating circumstances. We are trying to ascertain then, through measurement (see Chapter 4), whether the entity (people and organization) are doing okay or better than okay. The committee views resilience as characterized by patterns of posi- tive (or stable) adaptation in the context of substantial adversity or risk: from a developmental or process perspective, for example, this would mean achieving salient developmental tasks in spite of threats to their achievement. The concept of “resilience” is simply a rubric much as “stress” is a rubric. Resilience is not an objective “thing.” The committee uses ready and resilient as a general umbrella term to describe factors or dimensions in individuals and social organizations that help them to deal with the stresses and tribulations of life and work and to adapt to them in a beneficial way. Health and wellness are protective factors or assets that contribute to those capabilities or mitigate the risks associated with con- tinuing stressors that have documented effects. Promoting healthy devel- opment (physical and mental well-being) and competence (capability to do effective work—adequate resources and mastery motivation, which comes from experiences that fuel growth, competence, and self-efficacy) are important for sustaining stable performance.

OCR for page 59
A VISION AND GOALS 63 BOX 2-2 What Is a Ready and Resilient Workforce? A ready workforce is  Trained with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to perform the mission.  Properly equipped with tools and protective assets to support the mission.  Healthy and fit to endure the environmental conditions required in the mission.  Guided by strong and effective leaders. A resilient workforce:  Is ready to perform its roles and mission.  Withstands and copes with stress.  Adapts and adjusts to challenging conditions.  Rebounds and grows from experience. The committee knows of no theory that links resilience at multiple systemic levels. Although the committee recognized that individuals are embedded in a host of systems that interact and interrelate, the literature is silent on the question of how resilience at one level is related to anoth- er. Therefore, the committee chose to take a pragmatic approach to resil- ience and focused on individuals, their microsystems (units or components), and the broader organization with some attention to the adjacent context in which DHS and individuals are embedded. As noted throughout the report, other distal elements and systems may affect workforce resilience, but the committee focused on the more proximal elements. The committee is suggesting that DHS employ approaches to in- crease the ability of the workforce to be more resilient. In this case, then, it is the DHS organization that must initiate change and not the individu- al worker to help maintain or increase personal resilience. Although there is no DHS baseline measure of worker resilience, the committee believes that the DHS workforce is resilient in its duties; otherwise, it would not be performing adequately. The need for increased organization based resilience rests on the notion that the wear and tear of everyday stress can systematically erode the resilience of workers. That is the crux of the DHS organizational deficiency. It is the organization that can best influ-

OCR for page 59
64 A READY AND RESILIENT WORKFORCE FOR DHS ence individual workers to adapt adequately to stressors. The organiza- tion can facilitate the active process of self-righting and growth. Organi- zational structure can influence how individual workers respond to challenges. In addition, because DHS workers are called on repeatedly to deal with increasingly complex and threatening incidents, it is appropri- ate to expand the scope of resilience to include the development of one’s capacity to deal with future events. In the case of DHS, organizational influence on resilience is not homogeneous. The umbrella of DHS covers many components, and it is necessary to distinguish between macro-level organizational resiliency influences (leadership, agency rules, regula- tions, and directives) and micro-level influences (workload, geographic traits, communications, and district policies). It is important to recognize that some, but not all, micro-level policies and procedures are influenced directly by macro-level policies and standards. VISION AND STRATEGY FOR THE DHS WORKFORCE To be successful, the DHS workforce readiness and resilience (WRR) effort needs clarity of vision, a mission-oriented focus, and clear and measurable goals and objectives to guide those implementing the effort and to promote its beneficiaries’ understanding and acceptance of it. Importantly, such an organizational approach is necessary to instill confidence among the sponsors and funders, who would be hesitant to invest without clear measures of effectiveness. The current resilience program in DHS lacks a unified strategy and clear vision and goals. Recommendation 1: Develop and promote a unified strategy and common vision in the Department of Homeland Security. The committee recommends that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) adopt, commit to, and promote a unified strategy to build and sustain workforce readiness and resilience (WRR) throughout the department. The unified strategy should include overarching policies and measures of effectiveness in support of core goals. To guide the strategy the department, including all component agencies, should adopt the following vision of WRR to advance the core mission of DHS:

OCR for page 59
A VISION AND GOALS 65 Vision: A ready, resilient, and sustainable DHS workforce working to ensure a safe, secure, and resilient nation. Achieving that vision will require commitment from leadership at all levels of DHS. Policies, programs, and resources need to be aligned to realize the vision by establishing and promoting the conditions under which employees in the components and throughout the entire department perform optimally to achieve organizational effective- ness. The vision should be embraced by each DHS operational compo- nent, headquarters office, and directorate while allowing flexibility and innovation to support their specific mission and unique workforce. The committee believes this vision statement aligns with the DHS mis- sion, is simple, and is easy to remember, yet is powerful and will resound with the workforce. However, commitment is needed from top leadership to ensure that the vision is carried out. A FRESH APPROACH The DHSTogether program was developed to enhance the health and well-being of all DHS employees. Although initially there was a great deal of zeal for and commitment to the initiative, it was quickly realized that the plan was too ambitious and required modification (IOM, 2012). Activities were reorganized, and during the last several years the pro- gram has evolved to its present form. In addition, as the DHS environ- ment has changed and key staff has shifted,1 the program has lost some momentum. 1 The DHSTogether program has not had a consistent staffing structure or consistency in the staff supporting it. The head of the division overseeing the program when the pre- sent committee began its work in November 2012 had been in DHS for just under a year and was no longer in that position when the committee held its first meeting in December 2012. At that time, no program manager for DHSTogether was in place. In January 2013, the program manager started in DHS, and it was not until February and March, respec- tively, that an acting director and acting deputy director of the division was named. In December 2012, the detailing of the part-time Human Capital Office employee, who was the only DHS staffer still in the department who worked on DHSTogether from the be- ginning, ended. In April 2013, the chief medical officer (CMO) of the Office of Health Affairs (OHA) and the DHS deputy secretary resigned; in July 2013 the DHS secretary resigned; and the acting CMO will be leaving OHA as well.

OCR for page 59
66 A READY AND RESILIENT WORKFORCE FOR DHS Through its information gathering, the committee heard from staff of various DHS component agencies and others outside the department and reviewed existing resilience programs. It became clear that a fresh approach for improving DHS workforce resilience is required. The committee believes that more than relabeling or minor changes in the current efforts is needed. As it currently stands, DHSTogether is a head- quarters initiative that consists of a loosely connected set of tactics and activities that are aimed at suicide prevention and increasing Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) scores. It is meant to provide guidance and funding of common issues and approaches and to develop solutions that can be used by multiple component agencies (phase 1 projects). Although a few phase 1 projects are under way (see Chapter 1), there has been little or no progress toward finding common issues or approaches in the 4 years of the program’s existence. The goals of the program are thin and are not formalized or codified in a meaningful way. The committee asked the Office of Health Affairs (OHA) for the vision and goals of DHSTogether but was told that there are no formalized, agreed-on strategy, vision, and goals. In the committee’s first meeting, as noted in Chapter 1, OHA presented the draft goals that were under con- sideration (Green and Perkins, 2012):  Strengthen leadership understanding and support of resiliency and suicide prevention  Strengthen individual resiliency  Strengthen organizational resiliency  Increase accessibility, timeliness, variety, and quality of inter- vention services  Reduce work-related stressors that decrease resiliency and increase suicide risk factors  Establish and maintain structure and information/data needed to govern the elements common to all components It was surprising to the committee that 4 years into the program there was no formalized vision or goals that were vetted by all DHS component agencies, and accepted and embraced by upper DHS management. Al- though the goals and associated activities of the program are laudable, the current design is unlikely to result in lasting change; that is, it is un- likely to become a “way of working” that is part of the fabric of DHS. Thus, it is unlikely to achieve the vision described earlier by the committee.

OCR for page 59
A VISION AND GOALS 67 What seems to be lacking is a clear and specific set of strategies that undergird the vision and work in service of DHS’s overall mission. Strategy is different from a tactic: different tactics may be deployed as part of a single strategy (wellness lifestyle programs and services are tac- tical; resilience programs should be strategic and strength-based for sus- tainable behavior change). Through a strategic perspective, the committee envisions that DHS wants both to strengthen its organizational identity throughout its heterogeneous components and to embed specific princi- ples, practices, and resources in all DHS components. Together, those ap- proaches will strengthen WRR. Consequently, the committee proposes that rather than a simple relabeling of or recommitment to the existing DHSTogether program, a more comprehensive integrated approach is needed. DHS might be inclined to call the WRR effort a “program,” but it goes beyond a program. A program implies a plan or system, something that is to be followed, something externally applied, something outside oneself. The committee envisions something deeper, stronger, and more enduring. That is why it proposes that one strategy is for DHS to build its collective identity—which in some ways might be thought of as building its brand. Organizational identity in the most general sense is an understanding of “who the organization is, what qualities seem to define it and distin- guish it from other organizations” (Harquail and Brickson, 2012). Organ- izational identity provides a basis of collective self-definition and in this way is a foundational aspect of an organization’s culture. Recent re- search suggests that organizational identity can serve as a positive sup- port of or even as a catalyst for workforce flourishing (Brickson and Lemmon, 2009). In addition to strengthening its collective identity, DHS must work to embed and align across components principles, practices, and resources that strengthen workforce capabilities and adaptability. That gets at the “new way of working.” Many programs are aimed at improving work- force health and wellness and at improving capabilities to cope with ad- versity throughout DHS and its component agencies, but they vary in comprehensiveness, in leadership commitment, and in resources. The programs differ in key values and principles, such as working together in service of the mission, and they do not harness best practices to integrate or disseminate throughout the department what already works. These are areas that need to be valued and promoted.

OCR for page 59
68 A READY AND RESILIENT WORKFORCE FOR DHS Necessary Preconditions Organizational transformation is hard no matter what type of change is envisioned or undertaken. In fact, many change programs fail to work because leaders fail to recognize that change processes can be more systematic—that the change process goes through phases that take time and effort to plan and execute. For this initiative to be successful, there are a number of necessary preconditions, of which DHS should take note. Clearly Define the “Problem” The most effective transformation efforts start with a clearly defined problem (Beer et al., 1990). That requires a shared assessment of major concerns—what is wrong or what needs to be improved. DHS has identi- fied a concern about the resilience of its workforce. But the committee has raised questions as to whether resilience is actually the problem. The data (FEVS and other information that the committee has reviewed) may suggest that the problem is something else. (See Chapter 4 for additional discussion.) Regardless, there needs to be a joint diagnosis—preferably by the component agencies—and identification of a problem or set of specific problems to be solved. This is a critical step in a transformation process. It contributes to the sense of urgency and mobilizes a commit- ment to change. Establish a Powerful Guiding Coalition and Shared Vision Naturally, successful change requires the support of organizational leaders and transformation often starts because of a leader’s desires. But successful change requires support from more than a few people (Kotter, 2007). Without some mass of support, change will not be successful. That suggests that DHS needs to create a powerful core guiding coali- tion. It also needs to create consensus (get buy-in) on the vision, which was articulated by the committee in Recommendation 1. One of the most important preconditions of successful transformation is a collective (shared) vision. The vision of where DHS leaders want the organization to go answers the simple—yet radical—question. When we are success- ful in our work at a particular point of time in the future, what will our organization look like? A vision tells leadership and those with whom DHS works, lives, and associates, what it is they are going to do. A vi- sion is not a strategy and is not a plan. It describes the future that DHS

OCR for page 59
A VISION AND GOALS 69 desires and is committed to realizing. A vision shows where DHS wants to be. It conveys conviction and aspiration—a picture of what could be. The strategy (or strategic plan) connects today’s DHS with the vision that DHS will have committed to attaining. The vision should provide a basis of the organization’s principles, systems, processes, and practices. Together, those will strengthen the culture and thereby fuel employees’ capabilities to work together and deliver the results that DHS needs. Committed Component Agencies and Engaged Leadership Commitment to change is always uneven. But to be successful, DHS leadership needs to find ways to win commitment off all component agencies. As change processes progress, the more successful change pro- grams involve large numbers of people. The guiding coalition can moti- vate and empower others to take part simply by communicating the new vision. But that is rarely sufficient. Thus, organizations need to remove obstacles. DHS leadership has to identify the most important obstacles to component agency participation. One way to do that is to focus attention on the component agencies that have already begun experimenting or institutionalizing the innovations that DHS envisions. (See Chapter 1 for examples of activities that components have initiated.) If leaders of com- ponent agencies are unaware of the change efforts, and are not visibly engaged or visibly committed, it is unlikely that the transformation effort will be successful. Commitment is essential for the effort, initiative, and cooperation that coordinated action demands (Beer et al., 1990). It may require new competencies, such as knowledge. Communicating and Listening Communication is critical for successful change efforts, and it is easy to underestimate how much is required. Without credible communica- tion, DHS will not capture the hearts and minds of its workforce. DHS has to use every possible channel to broadcast and rebroadcast the vision. Leaders will incorporate key messages about the vision throughout their communication. It is important to remember that communication comes in both words and deeds. Employees are often quick to discern incon- gruity between what the organization says it wants and how it acts. Thus, key leaders need to act in ways that are consistent with the vision—in other words, they must walk the talk. But they also need to seek feedback from employees, both to understand whether the message of change is

OCR for page 59
78 A READY AND RESILIENT WORKFORCE FOR DHS partment (recommendations on leadership development and organiza- tional communication are offered in Chapter 3). In addition, the Human Capital Business Systems in OCHCO house many of the data available to DHS that could be used for assessment and evaluation of WRR. An- other example is the DHS chief information officer (CIO), also in the Management Directorate, who is responsible for information technology (IT) integration (consolidation, integration, and standardization); pro- gram management of data and systems needed to measure, evaluate, and report; and leveraging of IT throughout DHS to support more effective mission outcomes. The CIO will have a large role in ensuring that the committee’s recommendation on measurement, evaluation, and reporting (see Chapter 4) is effectively implemented. However, administrative oversight of these offices falls under the under secretary for manage- ment, not OHA. Authority As noted earlier, the inability of OHA to implement departmentwide policies is a formidable gap, which probably will not be fully addressed through the roles and responsibilities outlined in Recommendation 2. The committee was not specifically charged to prescribe how the resilience program should be managed, so it does not provide a specific recom- mendation in this regard. However, given the inherent weaknesses in the current structure, the committee concludes that OHA is not currently well suited to house WRR. There are any number of potential avenues to address the lack of authority and accountability for a departmentwide WRR effort, from restructuring of the existing program unit to adminis- trative placement of WRR under a centralized DHS authority. When (now former) DHS Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer Dr. Alex Garza addressed the committee at its first meeting to discuss the study’s statement of task, the committee asked for his thoughts about the placement of DHSTogether. He stated that he did not know where the DHSTogether program would ultimately be placed and noted that there are nonhealth elements in the program, such as train- ing and management, which are based in other component agencies. To ensure the success of WRR, the effort needs the requisite authority and accountability to facilitate departmentwide implementation to fulfill the roles and responsibilities outlined in Recommendation 2.

OCR for page 59
A VISION AND GOALS 79 The committee concludes that DHS needs a fresh approach to WRR. The DHSTogether program is small and is not embedded in the DHS culture. It is a headquarters initiative that is not widely recognized or ac- cepted by DHS component agencies as a resource for improving morale, readiness, or resilience of the workforce. The name “DHSTogether” is problematic in that it is inconsistent with the current, understandably si- loed culture in DHS and seems to be more wishful than intrinsic to the organization. On the basis of its review, the committee found that the current DHSTogether Employee and Organizational Resilience Program has not achieved its intended purpose, because of the lack of consistent leadership support, the absence of a strategic plan, the lack of needed authority and accountability, and suboptimal administrative placement of the program in the department. The committee views as major gaps OHA’s lack of necessary authority to carry out a departmentwide readi- ness and resilience program and the lack of a high-level point of ac- countability for component agencies. Recommendation 3: Review and align responsibility and ac- countability for workforce readiness and resilience in the De- partment of Homeland Security. Given the need for a fresh approach to workforce readiness and resilience (WRR), the committee recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security examine the organiza- tional placement of WRR in the department and ensure that it has adequate authority and resources to build, nurture, and sus- tain it. The DHSTogether program currently lacks the authority, influence, branding, and name recognition needed to be successful. The committee was asked to identify gaps and the current program’s inability to imple- ment needed policies and provide the necessary breadth of resources for this vital endeavor to succeed is a salient one and calls for a fresh ap- proach and an examination of its organizational placement. Regardless of how the Secretary decides to address the gap, the seven responsibilities, authorities, and functions outlined in Recommendation 2 are critical for the success of WRR in ensuring centralized direction, coordination, visi- bility, and support to communicate and promulgate a program of its cali- ber. Implementing these recommendations would send a strong message to the workforce and DHS component leadership that the secretary at-

OCR for page 59
80 A READY AND RESILIENT WORKFORCE FOR DHS taches high priority to that workforce resilience. The committee sees the evaluation offered in this report as a chance for the DHS readiness and resilience effort to be rebranded and to start anew with a fresh strategy, one clear vision, mission, and goals, enabled by a robust communication strategy. Engagement and Coordination with Component Agencies In addition to tasking authority, the head of WRR needs to ensure engagement and a two-way conversation with the component agencies to ensure that program content matches the needs of the workforce (Rec- ommendation 2a). There are several options for WRR to receive input from and engage the operational components and headquarters offices to coordinate the development of programmatic content and promote organ- izational support of the program. One option would be to revive and re- structure the Employee and Organizational Resilience Program Taskforce that was created with the DHSTogether program. (See Chapter 1 for a de- scription.) The committee heard from OHA staff that top leadership is responsive to issues of workforce resilience, but leadership attention in any organization waxes and wanes as other priorities arise. That is why it is paramount that the new approach to DHS workforce readiness and resilience become an intrinsic part of the organization so that WRR efforts can be sustained as top leadership changes and compet- ing priorities arise. However input is obtained, a multidisciplinary ap- proach with buy-in from the components and input from personnel who have on-the-ground experience in their components will be needed. If the input comes from too high in the department (such as headquarters), that will perpetuate the disconnect that employees feel from component headquarters and from DHS. The input needs to be grounded in the day- to-day culture, have a full understanding of the stressors of the job, and be immune to politics. The Employee and Organizational Resilience Program Taskforce technically is still part of the resilience program structure. If it is revitalized, its membership structure would need to be changed to one that is likely to last and have buy-in from the bottom up in each component. Another option is to expand the role of the EEESC, whose role is departmentwide direction for engagement, to share component or indus- try best practices, and have component heads oversee the inclusion of the engagement performance objective into all action plans. (See Chapter 1

OCR for page 59
A VISION AND GOALS 81 for a full description.) However, most of the individuals serving on the committee are at the under secretary level, and this would perpetuate the disconnect felt between the workforce and headquarters initiatives. In the 2013 Annual Status Report of the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council, DHS noted that OHA, in collabo- ration with the Office of Management and OCHCO, “will jointly estab- lish a cross-component DHS Prevention Council to formalize inter- departmental collaboration activities. The Council will explore the feasi- bility of a ‘One Healthier DHS’ campaign that would incorporate incre- mental selection of consensus action items taken from the National Prevention Strategy. The Council will be established by September 2013” (National Prevention Council, 2013). If that council is created, it could potentially also serve as a channel for input into WRR but would need to be woven into the larger WRR architecture. Another option would be for DHS to form Health and Productivity Committees or Councils (generally known as wellness and well-being committees) in the components that feed into a larger body (perhaps the taskforce, EEESC, or a new advisory body for the program, such as a readiness and resilience steering committee). Component agencies could each have a council, in each worksite location, that submits recommen- dations regarding workforce needs. A similar format has been imple- mented successfully in the Army and in some private-sector industries. The committees or councils could also be used as sounding boards for activities or programs that the readiness and resilience program is look- ing to implement. That would give the workforce ownership over what is implemented and would increase engagement. A wealth of information on best practices for forming wellness committees or councils is availa- ble (Gantner, 2010; Kaiser Permanente, 2013; WellWorks NC, 2012). The Health and Productivity Council would comprise employees drawn from a cross-section of potential program participants who volun- teer. Councils of this type help to convey the importance of a healthy lifestyle, improve morale and engagement, and ensure wellness initia- tives. They are what employees want (often using surveys) and are tai- lored to encourage positive behavior changes that are sustainable. The members generally serve for at least a year and are the champions on the ground for programs and services between senior leadership and the workforce. Depending on the size of the organization, membership is ideally 8 to 25 people who represent the various departments (Gantner, 2010; WellWorks NC, 2012).

OCR for page 59
82 A READY AND RESILIENT WORKFORCE FOR DHS Health and Productivity Councils can bring about change of three kinds (Gantner, 2010): 1. Individual changes, by providing education, opportunities for motivation and skill building, and engaging meaningful, fun, and challenging activities to help individuals make healthy changes, such as taking the stairs instead of the elevator or filling the vending machines with more healthy snacks. 2. Interpersonal social changes, by getting groups to be involved in team competition, a weight-race campaign, or a resilience and well-being campaign to learn to make healthy choices the easiest choices. 3. Organizational change, by improving the culture of the work- place via policies, norms, and practices, such as a tobacco-free- workplace policy, a policy to get up and stretch at work every hour on the hour, or help in influencing a positive mindset in the workplace by encouraging employees to learn to trust and sup- port each other. Research supports the idea that people make changes to adopt health- ier new behaviors when they are included in the decision-making process to value and support the changes. Best practices for health and productiv- ity and wellness councils are available in Box 2-4. Roles of such com- mittees or councils might include evaluating current programs and policies; assessing employee needs and preferences; developing a health promotion operating plan, including a vision statement, goals, and objec- tives; and assisting in implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of worksite health activities (CDC, 2013). BOX 2-4 Health and Productivity and Wellness Council Best Practices How a Wellness Committee Works  Is a group of employees from all levels of the organization with var- ied positions who are empowered by senior management  Create a Vision and Mission for their location (that feeds into the departments overall vision)  Communicate information about risk factors (lifestyle and chronic conditions and psychosocial issues), and create opportunities for health improvement

OCR for page 59
A VISION AND GOALS 83  Are educated and informed about the latest trends, best practices and research, and participate in training via once per month meet- ings that usually last 1 hour  Support programs and services and communicate in a positive manner to help others achieve their goals  Ask for feedback on, and evaluate health and productivity activities with standardized evaluation forms offered for employees to com- plete who participated in some activities  Engages others and help to design incentives that are rewarding and meaningful to their department or company  Serve as wellness champions or ambassadors  Support senior leaders and management in achieving the organiza- tion’s goals and objectives, with respect for budgetary constraints.  Learn to read a scorecard and compare their department to others throughout the organization to measure progress Choosing Wellness Committee Members  Individuals should be personally interested in their health and well- being and promoting a prosocial attitude in others  Aware of the benefits of programs and services offered  Well-respected and trusted by others—seen as fair and compassionate  Able to get tasks done on time  Supportive of others and encouraging to them  Creative and imaginative  Respectful of the needs, wants, and expectations of others  Willing and able to commit time necessary to achieve the committee goals and vision. This averages 4 hours per month, and for special projects, as much as 2 to 4 hours per week  A policy is developed so supervisors give committee members time to attend and plan wellness initiatives Committee Members’ Roles and Responsibilities  Conduct meetings with a clearly defined agenda and have a chair and co-chair  Record decisions made and plan agreed upon committee activities by the quarter and year—follow the National Calendar of Health as an example  Form subgroups and assign them specific tasks and timelines for completion  Coordinate specific wellness initiatives and have a good communica- tion plan  Prepare and submit materials to organizational leadership as needed for annual program approval and evaluation  Stay within budgetary constraints permitted  Distribute, collect, score, and report the results of employee surveys and evaluations for activities completed SOURCE: Gantner, 2010.

OCR for page 59
84 A READY AND RESILIENT WORKFORCE FOR DHS Unified Approach The unified approach recommended by the committee with a feed- back mechanism in place will create component and employee owner- ship (upward instead of downward flow) of the program. For example, not only is physical fitness important for much of the workforce when doing their jobs (for example, border patrol agents have physically de- manding jobs), but when employees from anywhere in a company are physically fit, they will perform their jobs better. Having the opportunity and encouragement of an employer to exercise during the work day ben- efits both the employer and employees. The committee found that poli- cies regarding time to exercise and the availability of gyms vary widely even within components. In some locations, a gym is available but time to use it is not. A unified approach might state that all components must have an exercise facility onsite (or reasonably nearby), have a clear poli- cy on when it can be used, and allow employees to use work time to use it. That would be implemented differently in a component that works largely typical hours and one that has shift work. If the department de- cided to implement stress management and self-care training, it could be a DHS-wide program with consistent measures for baseline and evalua- tion but tailored to the particular stressors or concerns of a component or subcomponent. REFERENCES Allen, T. 2012. Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management. 112th Congress, 2nd session, March 22. Ballard, D. W. 2007. Recognizing psychological health and workforce well- being. The Federal Consulting Group. Beer, M., R. A. Eisenstat, and B. Spector. 1990. Why change programs don’t produce change. Harvard Business Review 68(6):9. Borras, R. 2012. Testimony of the Honorable Rafael Borras Under Secretary for Management US Department of Homeland Security before the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management, March 1. Brickson, S. L., and G. Lemmon. 2009. Organizational identity as a stakeholder resource. In Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation. New York: Psychology Press. Pp. 411–434.

OCR for page 59
A VISION AND GOALS 85 CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2013. Wellness committees. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/hwi/programdesign/wellness_committees. htm (accessed July 9, 2013). Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 2011. Instruction: Chairman’s total force fitness framework. CJCSI 3405.01. Christensen, C. 2013. Occupational medicine at P&G. Presentation to the IOM Committee on Department of Homeland Security Occupational Health and Operational Medicine Infrastructure, Washington, DC. DHS (Department of Homeland Security). 2010. Bottom-up review report, July 2010. Washington, DC: DHS. DHS. 2011. Department of Homeland Security workforce strategy: Fiscal years 2011–2016. Provided to the IOM Committee on Department of Homeland Security Workforce Resilience by DHS. DHS. 2012. Strategic plan for fiscal years (FY) 2012–2016. Washington, DC: DHS. DHS. 2013. About the Directorate for Management. https://www.dhs.gov/about- directorate-management (July 9, 2013). DoD (Department of Defense). 2013. Joint publication 1, doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States. Washington, DC: DoD. Earvolino‐Ramirez, M. 2007. Resilience: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum 42(2)73–82. Gantner, R. K. 2010. Starting and sustaining a productive wellness committee: A manual for wellness committee members. Pittsburgh, PA: UPMC My Health. Green, A., and L. Perkins. 2012. DHS workforce resilience: Past, current and future. Presentation to the IOM Committee on Department of Homeland Security Workforce Resilience, December 13–14, Washington, DC. Harquail, C. V., and S. L. Brickson. 2012. The defining role of organizational identity for facilitating stakeholder flourishing: A map for future research. In Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. London: Oxford University Press. Pp. 677–690. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2012. Building a resilient workforce: Opportunities for the Department of Homeland Security: Workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Isaac, F. 2013. Work, health, and productivity: The Johnson & Johnson Story. Presentation to the IOM Committee on Department of Homeland Security Occupational Health and Operational Medicine Infrastructure, Washington, DC. Kaiser Permanente. 2013. Healthworks Wellness Committee toolkit. https://businessnet.kaiserpermanente.org/health/plans/ca/workforcehealth/ resourcecenter/doityourself?contentid=/html/workforcehealth/multiregion/ wellness_committee.html (accessed July 9, 2013).

OCR for page 59
86 A READY AND RESILIENT WORKFORCE FOR DHS Kaplan, H. B. 1999. Toward an understanding of resilience: A critical review of definitions and models. In Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations, edited by M. D. Glantz and J. R. Johnson. New York: Plenum. Pp. 17–83. Kotter, J. P. 2007. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review 85(1):96. Luthar, S. S., and D. Cicchetti. 2000. The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology 12(4):857–885. Luthar, S., D. Cicchetti, B. Becker. 2000. The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidlines for future work. Child Development 71(3):543–562. Masten, A. 2007. Resilience in developing systems: Progress and promise as the fourth wave rises. Development and Psychopathology 19:921–930. Meredith, L. S., C. D. Sherbourne, S. Gaillot, L. Hansell, H. V. Ritschard, A. M. Parker, and G. Wrenn. 2011. Promoting psychological resilience in the U.S. military. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Miller, J. 2012. Management successes paving the way for one-DHS. Federal News Radio, http://www.federalnewsradio.com/473/3014706/Management- successes-paving-the-way-for-One-DHS (accessed July 9, 2013). National Prevention Council. 2013. 2013 annual status report. Washington, DC: National Prevention Council. Norris, F. H., M. Tracy, and S. Galea. 2009. Looking for resilience: Understanding the longitudinal trajectories of responses to stress. Social Science & Medicine 68(12):2190–2198. Southwick, S. M., and D. S. Charney. 2012. Resilience: The science of mastering life’s greatest challenges. New York: Cambridge University Press. Staudinger, U. M., M. Marsiske, and P. B. Baltes. 1995. Resilience and reserve capacity in later adulthood: Potentials and limits of development across the life span. In Developmental psychopathology, edited by D. Cicchetti and D. J. Cohen. New York: Wiley. Pp. 801–847. Sutcliffe, K., and T. J. Vogus. 2003. Organizing for resilience. In Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline, edited by K. S. Cameron, J. Dutton, and R. E. Quinn. Williston, VT: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Pp. 94–110. Tusaie, K., and J. Dyer. 2004. Resilience: A historical review of the construct. Holistic Nursing Practice 18(1):3–10. US House of Representatives. 2012. Building one DHS: Why is employee morale low? Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management. 112th Congress, 2nd Session, March 22. Wagnild, G. M. 2010. Discovering your resilience core. https://www.resilience scale.com/papers/pdfs/Discovering_Your_Resilience_Core.pdf (August 21, 2013).

OCR for page 59
A VISION AND GOALS 87 WellWorks NC. 2012. Wellness Committee guide. http://www.eatsmartmove. morenc.com/Worksites/Toolkit/Committee/Wellness%20Committee%20Guide %201-17-12.pdf (accessed July 9, 2013). Windle, G., K. M. Bennett, and J. Noyes. 2011. A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 9(8):1–18. Zolli, A., and A. M. Healy. 2012. Resilience: Why things bounce back. Hachette, UK: Business Plus.

OCR for page 59