Forest Service employees are confused about the future direction of the
agency, upset with the increased emphasis on firefighting and have a
dim view of the political leadership in Washington, according to an
agency survey.
Dialogos, a Cambridge, Mass.-based consulting firm, interviewed more
than 400 Forest Service employees under condition of anonymity, and
their responses were brutally blunt.
"Are we a timber organization? Are we a fire organization? Are
we recreation-based? Are we just cleaning toilets now? I mean, what are
we doing," one employee said.
As the Forest Service attempts to improve its safety record,
fight wildfires and reform its bureaucracy, employees are stuck in the
middle, Dialogos found. "The agency is experiencing confusion and drift
in its central identity and direction, and ambiguity in the way it
allocates power and responsibility," the report says. "Together these
are leading people to be both unsure of where they stand, and unsure of
where the agency is heading."
Dialogos has a $987,000 contract that runs through September
2008, said Forest Service spokeswoman Allison Stewart. "Safety is our
number one priority and we've been having issues with that in recent
years," she said. "We thought maybe we need some external help to look
at ourselves differently."
Former Chief Dale Bosworth last year directed the agency's
national safety council to examine Forest Service culture and ways of
doing business that could threaten the health and lives of employees.
As of the first quarter of 2007, 63 Forest Service employees
have died in work-related accidents since 1998, compared with 24 in the
National Park Service and 13 in the Bureau of Land Management.
"We cover our asses and put up banners for safety," an employee told Dialogos.
'We have no mission'
Most notably, employees joined members of Congress in expressing concern that wildfires have taken over the Forest Service.
Fire-related costs now account for nearly half of the Forest
Service's annual budget, and employees said the agency spends more time
and resources related to wildfires than managing forests. They
described firefighting as a burden and said it is unfair the Forest
Service has to fight fires for other federal and state agencies.
"We have no mission," one employee said. "We take care of
resources, but have no money for campgrounds. We are not the Forest
Service anymore; we are the Fire Suppression Service."
Even if they know their mission, employees said the agency's
culture is not welcoming, as they fear ridicule or punishment for
raising unpopular topics or questioning superiors.
"Individuals that raise difficult issues can be accused of
being negative and subsequently feel their input is not welcome,"
Dialogos wrote. "They may even get ejected from the system. Employees
do not feel safe to speak up in such a climate, adding to the
perception of suppression."
Employee fears are understandable as the agency undergoes
reorganization efforts, Dialogos wrote. "Currently it is in a state of
'change and redefinition.' Whenever this occurs in any organization
there will be fear and trepidation, holding on to the past because the
future is uncertain."
Chief distributes report
Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell said the Dialogos report "is
not easy for most of us to hear" but in a June memo, she urged senior
officials to distribute and discuss the findings.
"Perhaps most painfully, our can-do mindset is diluting our
effectiveness, overtaxing our workforce and resources, and contributing
directly to fatalities and injuries," Kimbell wrote. "Every time we say
'that rule does not apply to me,' we are exacerbating operational
challenges that put our coworkers and the Forest Service itself at
risk. As Einstein once noted, 'Insanity is doing the same thing and
expecting different results.' Our culture creates the results we get;
we cannot expect different results until we do the hard work to change
it."
Kimbell has an uphill battle, as employees blasted initiatives spearheaded by the Washington headquarters.
"There are so many initiatives now, I ignore most of them
unless they manifest or actually affect me," one employee told
Dialogos. Others questioned whether there will be enough money to
implement any changes.
Aside from the safety culture program, major initiatives at
the Forest Service include efforts to review the structure of regional
offices, centralize budget and finance offices, enhance diversity of
workforce and visitors, and "identifying foundational principles" to
ensure a resilient and adaptive agency in the future.
Unlike the leaders of most other land-management agencies, the
Forest Service chief does not need Senate confirmation, although he or
she serves at the pleasure of the administration. Employees seem immune
to the change at the top and expressed a sense the chief's role is too
political and the Washington office is heading in a different direction
from field offices.
Andy Stahl, executive director of the Forest Service Employees
for Environmental Ethics, said outside pressure on the agency has
increased since the mid-1980s when the Reagan administration attempted
to boost logging levels.
"Ever since, there has been a battle between the foresters and
the administration of the day, as each successive administration has
attempted to solve what they see as political problems, but Forest
Service professionals see as technical problems," Stahl said.
New consensus needed
The problems Dialogos outlined will continue unless a new
political consensus regarding national forest management emerges, Stahl
said, but that does not appear likely anytime soon.
"There are so many reorganizations, this [safety initiative]
is another one," an employee said. "Each chief has their own -- I
suppose safety is Gail's initiative."
Stahl said Kimbell has failed to get employees' attention, in
contrast with previous chiefs such as Mike Dombeck, who had a specific
vision for national forests, or Bosworth, who had his clear, if not
exactly upbeat "Four Threats" mantra.
Dave Iverson, a Forest Service economist who posted the report
on the Adaptive Forest Management blog, said he hopes the report
produces some changes in the agency culture.
"They made some pretty telling points about the Forest Service
culture that should be addressed by any transformation effort that's
under way or should be under way," Iverson said.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
