I have stated elsewhere, including in my book “Beyond Going Postal” (BOG), the OIG is a third, dark arm of top postal management. Recently, the OIG released an audit report titled Management Advisory – Management of City Letter Carriers’ Street Performance (Report Number DR-MA-09-001(R), and it can be found at www.uspsoig.gov/foia_files/DR-MA-09-001_...
The OIG has been reviewing city letter carriers’ office and street performance for the past 5 years, and the stated objective of the subject audit report was “to determine if management could strengthen controls to reduce carrier misconduct (emphasis added).” Taken in account that the OIG explicitly indicated in its report that only a small percentage of the 220,000 letter carriers were found to be involved in misconduct related to their official duties, this stated objective is not credible. Additionally, their focus on issues and corollary recommendations in the report appear more related to city carriers’ street performance overall and the role of the supervisors in this effort rather than the misconduct of city letter carriers per se. In reading the report, misconduct appears to be a secondary issue rather than a primary issue of the audit.
So what were the more likely objectives of the report? Before answering the question, it is relevant to look at the recent history of OIG audits of city letter carriers performance. From 2004 to 2006, there were 10 audits of city carriers’ performance, including the standard operating procedures (SOPs) utilized by first-line supervision for the purpose of monitoring their performance. The subject audit appears to be an extension of this body of work and not necessarily a focus on city carrier misconduct. For more on the noted OIG audits from 2004 to 2006, a more detailed examination is offered in Appendix E in the book BGP.
Thus, the likely main objective of the report, in agreement with its title, was to provide top postal management with an update on the management of city letter carriers and related reduction of costs involved in delivery operations. Ostensibly at the behest of top postal management, this is also the likely reason the OIG conducted this particular audit. With this aim in mind, focuses of the OIG audit included an evaluation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) pilot program and highlighting of concerns and issues related to SOPs utilized by first line management in the monitoring of city carriers performance as well as a call to review the creation of an evaluated route system for city letter carriers. It is unclear if these were specific expectations of review by top postal management or if it was “discretionary” focuses of the OIG. Regardless who was “responsible” for these focuses, it can reasonably be argued that the issue of reviewing city carrier misconduct noted in the report was utilized as a “smoke screen” for the more overarching issues such as the implementation of GPS nationwide and/or the creation of evaluated routes as a means to demonstrate actual or potential cost reductions.
Although the subject report still supports the notion that the OIG is a dark arm of top postal management, there appears to be a softening of its approach and a new willingness not to be a complete “rubber stamp of approval” for the autocratic methods and practices of top postal management. For the first time, the OIG questions the use and validity of specific SOPs in the management of city letter carriers’ performance. Moreover, for first time the OIG formally recognizes the daily challenges of first-line supervisors held accountable for executing these SOPs. This recognition has been long overdue for overburdened supervisors and managers who too often have been expected to work numerous hours over the 40 hour work week without the commensurate compensation as well as dealing with the negative fall-out of ineffective tools to manage performance. It appears that they not only listened to supervisors concerns, but they also formally recognized these concerns in an official report for the first time.
Let’s look at some of the specific recommendations in the subject OIG report that reflects the OIG’s willingness to critique current SOPs utilized by delivery supervisors to manage city carriers’ performance. In its first recommendation, the OIG recommended that the USPS “revise existing Postal Service policies and Standard Operating Procedures to reduce the number of required Delivery Operations Information System (DOIS) reports from eight to four to aid Supervisors in managing carrier street performance.” Management did not agree with the recommendation, but did indicate that it would review all DOIS reports as part of the 2010 budget with the goal of reducing the number of reports. In context of this OIG recommendation, it was noted in the report that the OIG had learned in its prior reviews that supervisors were not consistently able to effectively utilize the daily DOIS reports because of staffing and time pressures. Here for time in an audit report, pertaining to the management of city carriers’ performance and corollary supervisory responsibilities, a real concern and acknowledgement of time constraints and lack of resources for supervisors responsible for managing street carrier performance was underscored. For this official recognition, they are to be commended.
As for its second recommendation, it was recommended that the USPS “modify DOIS Route/Carrier Daily Performance Analysis Report to show “exceptions” – i.e., only actual route times varying from projected route times.” Here again management response is in my opinion was nonresponsive and evasive. It agreed to explore the development of an additional report for this purpose and plans to complete this action by March 31, 2010. In light of what was discussed in the first recommendation and the burden on supervisors regarding time constraints and lack of resources, why would postal management want to consider an additional report?
After reviewing the OIG’s first two recommendations, it seems odd that its third recommendation would be for top management to “reinforce to delivery Supervisors and Managers the importance of holding performance discussions with city letter carriers, conducting street observations, and taking corrective actions for misconduct issues.” It seems odd because they have already indicated that they learned in previous audits that supervisors responsible for city carriers’ management were burdened with time constraints and lack of resources. In fact, as a footnote in the report, it stated: “The number of routes and the geographical area covered reduced Supervisors’ ability to provide effective “real-time” monitoring through street observations. It seems to me the focus would be on addressing the systemic issues here rather than an identified deficiency in previous audits, namely noncompliance of supervisors’ performance expectations in the monitoring of city letter carriers.
The final two recommendations in the report appear more as broad solutions to deal with and significantly ameliorate the relevancy and importance of the initial three recommendations. For example, the fourth recommendation was stated as follows: “Study the costs and benefits of converting the existing city letter carrier hourly compensation system to an evaluated compensation system similar to that of rural letter carriers. The analysis should include the Postal Service costs being incurred for street observations and grievances.” Interestingly and telling, top postal management concurred with the recommendation, but the response was redacted (i.e., blocked out) in their initial memorandum and its revised memorandum.
The fifth and final recommendation addressed the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) at a pilot location. The OIG pointed out that that GPS is “Internet based, real time, and operated by satellite signals. The device has no software to maintain or install and includes an alarm feature to notify the district office if the vehicle goes to a preprogrammed off-limits site.” In the subject report, it was concluded that GPS resulted in a significant decline in overtime used compared to a control group, and just at the one pilot city the USPS could realize over one million dollars in saving during a two year period. Although not specifically mentioned in the report, it could be inferred that the use of GPS would lessen the responsibility for overextended supervisors from providing “real time” monitoring of letter carriers in accordance with their street management responsibilities. Postal management indicated that they intend to reassess expansion of the pilot project of GPS nationwide, and the OIG intends to further analyze other postal districts that may benefit from the use of GPS as a means to monitor city letter carriers’ street performance.
In light of this review of the subject OIG recommendations, it appears that the OIG is posturing to assist and support postal management’s implementation of GPS nationwide and the championing of an evaluated compensation system for city letter carriers like the rural carrier craft. It is unlikely GPS would be implemented nationally if the USPS and NALC ultimately agreed on an evaluated compensation system or it was imposed either via the collective bargaining process by an arbitrator or congressional mandate. In my next blog, I will discuss the ramifications of these competing choices and their impact on the postal culture. Although it appears that the OIG is softening its approach in how it deals with employee relations concerns (e.g., its highlighting of constraints on first-line supervisors), suffice to say at this point it remains a loyal, dark, third arm of top postal management.
Action to reform the postal culture is necessary now. Postal employees, regardless of rank or position, deserve a postal culture in which the core values of respect, fairness, and validation of dignity, are not empty slogans, but instead are the reality of organizational life.