This dilemma is very realistic; similar problems faced administrators in our state when our legislature reorganized state government a few years back. West Dakota’s new DEPNR deputy secretary has a Herculean task ahead of her.

I agree with many of the ideas in the posted solution. However, I would start with individual meetings as well as a group meeting with Carla and George, which would provide me with the opportunity to openly recognize their expertise and ask for their assistance in making the merger work. Recognition of their expertise would not be limited to technical knowlege, but would extend to recommendations of members for various task forces and committees. They certainly have the best knowlege of their own staff members’ abilities. I would also appoint each as head of various task forces, based on my knowlege of their individual strengths. That way, they hold primary responsibility for making the merger work, but under my supervision. Neither will want to go out in a blaze of failure, if indeed they decide to leave. I would avoid having numerous task forces reporting directly to me. I will have enough to handle sorting through the various reports and recommendations that are filtered up to me. Throughout, I would carefully avoid any indication that the merger is a return to the “old” agency that existed prior to the division many years ago.

Although each of Bob Behn’s Manager’s Choice dilemmas is set in a particular public agency and deals with a particular problem, each is intended to provide a specific context for a common management challenge — one that might just as easily come up in a different kind of agency facing a similar problem but with different specifics. All Governing.com visitors are invited to draw on their experience and submit suggestions.

Next, with Carla and George at the head table, I would hold a meeting of all the top administrators from both agencies to outline my plans and expectations for the merger and ask for a team-building attitude. I would speak openly about the things that all of them are already thinking — such as “Who is going to lose their job?” and “Which agency’s mission, policies procedures will prevail?” I would reassure the leaders that neither agency was taking over the other, and that the union would give everyone the opportunity to recharge and reinforce methods that work, and adjust or get rid of those that don’t. I would focus on the opportunities for improvement rather than the potential loss of handy and familiar procedures and rules. I would be up-front about the realities of RIF, and announce that a task force of representatives from both agencies would be appointed to address that issue.

Clearly, the ranks must be involved in all technical aspects of the merger, as they are the ones who have the best knowlege of current procedures, and have to live day-to-day with the results. Consequently, I agree that solo-task committees should be appointed for accounting, personnel rules, etc. I would have each report to Carla or George, with weekly or bi-weekly updates provided to me. Each would be required to formulate the “new” policies and procedures, along with a chart or listing of all positions (not people) required in order for the new system to function.

I disagree with the level of informality suggested in the posted solution. I would make it clear that making the merger work is task #1, and would formalize the process somewhat in order to reinforce the importance of the tasks at hand, and to ensure that my authority is established without having to openly state it.

As for the agency mission statement, I would have Carla, George and myself, as a committee, formulate the statement with perhaps a July 1 deadline. All employees would be invited to submit suggestions, but the final version would be a joint effort of the three of us. Meetings on this issue would provide me with opportunities to see what issues are most important to each of them, without having to ask them outright. And the end result would (hopefully) reflect a true merger of the two agencies’ prior missions.

The snowmobile question is a bit tougher. I would ask Carla and George for a list of recommended committee members, and appoint a task force to create an agency position statement at least two weeks in advance of the deadline. Then, in a formal meeting with Carla and George, I would hash it out, make any changes needed, and submit the statement as required. I would then publicize the statement within the agency and praise the collaborative effort that resulted in its adoption.

RIF will be difficult all the way around. Again, Carla and George will have to be the main source of information in this regard. The problem didn’t seem to specify a deadline, but one would assume that the upcoming fiscal year would be the beginning of a consolidated budget. RIF would have to wait until other committes formulated policies, procedures, and related organizational charts so that a realistic assessment of needed (and unneeded) personnel could take place. Carla and George, and their key administrators, will know where the “fat” could be cut in their respective agencies, and will have to bring this knowlege to the table in discussions on RIF. Each will want to protect their own staff, and it will be difficult to come to agreement on who will be subject to RIF. Thus, I would appoint the three of us as a committee to make the final decisions as a group. This avoids me being seen as the “heavy” and likewise allows Carla and George to answer individual RIF’s by reference to the committee. Lower level task forces would be required to show what positions are required for efficient operation in the new department or division they are working on. I would never ask for recommendations on what positions to cut, only on what positions will be necessary after the merger. No names. Then Carla, George and I would go through and staff the agency with personnel who best fit the needs of the new department. Naturally, past performance and seniority of existing staff members could both play roles in this process. Those not chosen to fill new positions would be our RIF group. Each would be given as much time as possible to obtain new employment and would be provided with as much individual assistance and as many choices as the agency could reasonably provide.

Success in this merger will depend upon: (1) Balancing Carla and George’s egos with the need to establish my own authority; (2) creating a team atmosphere through cross-agency committees, establishment of a common goal and recognition of successes; (3) ensuring that the ranks are involved in the merger; and (4) handling RIF with fairness and compassion.

Elizabeth L. Cook, J.D., M.P.A.
Palmetto Law Enforcement Research & Consulting
Chapin, South Carolina

The writer is a member of the Chapin Town Council.

Agree or disagree? If you think you have a better way to deal with this month's Manager's Choice dilemma or would like to expand on the approaches presented here, share your thoughts with other readers. Send your solution to mailbox@governing.com. Please include your name, location, government or business title or job description, and a daytime phone number (for verification purposes).

Copyright © 2003, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing, City & State and Governing.com are registered trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc.