Efficient and effective: guidelines for meeting the mission of the future.

Regardless of quality, vision, or intended impact, no level or aspect of strategic planning can be successfully implemented unless the personnel charged with meeting the goals are capable of doing so. "Knowledge and skill can't be pumped into people the way traditional schools have done it. They can be mastered only by applying theory directly on the job, to real problems, here and now." (1)

Certainly, the past does not equal the future. Issues in today's world compel current leaders to "grow" future ones who will develop, articulate, and implement sound strategic vision. Such an effort will need employees who can become efficient and effective (E & E) at all levels. "Managers are people who do things right, and leaders are people who do the right thing. The difference may be summarized as activities of vision and judgment, effectiveness, versus activities of mastering routine, efficiency." (2) "Management is about coping with complexity. Leadership, by contrast, is about coping with change." (3) Such statements may tend toward conceptualizing the law enforcement executive as "an individual who does right things right and who possesses the mind of a manager, the soul of a leader." (4) Granted, leaders must meet these standards, but what about the day-to-day focus on their employees? Is it reasonable to pursue the goal of E & E for all personnel?

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

THE NCIS EXPERIENCE

The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), the U.S. Department of the Navy's primary law enforcement arm, is in the midst of a transformation. No longer is the traditional reactive law enforcement model adequate given the complex and increasingly blurred terrorist, counterintelligence, and criminal threats to this nation. NCIS has more than 2,200 employees, 55 percent of who serve as civilian special agents (SAs), located in over 140 locations around the world, including those assigned as "afloat agents" aboard ships and aircraft carriers.

The current environment throughout NCIS involves an aging group of supervisors and managers working to train, lead, guide, mold, and mentor a young and inexperienced agent corps. Federal regulations for law enforcement retirement compel an end of service for nearly 40 percent of all NCIS SAs--managers, supervisors, and nonsupervisors alike--within the next 5 years. Depending on individual circumstances, retirement can occur as early as age 50 but becomes mandatory at age 57. The worst-case scenario reveals that the maximum level of experience within NCIS could be only 10 years by 2009.

Current planning objectives within the Far East office of NCIS hinge on identifying interested SAs to "build" them toward model employees and leaders. This overall effort proves similar in nature to a combination of multidimensional scaling (5) that basically develops a geometric picture, or map, of the location of some objects relative to others and specifies how they differ. In this context, the process includes development of a map to identify the location of SAs and the best method of moving them toward the ideal E & E employee or supervisor in terms of skills, traits, and attributes. The movement of personnel, of course, refers to the process of providing information, opportunity, and guidance to those interested to move them to where they need to be.

In terms of problem-versus-system focus, "system models are best thought of as tools for coalescing people to do something together, helping them to undertake a systems improvement task." (6) With this concept, the approach should be from a systems perspective because, by definition, addressing only the supervisory aspect would be nothing more than problem focused and a temporary solution at best. After all, the environment in which NCIS operates requires all employees to function at the highest level possible to fulfill its mission.

The Concept

Building agents? Yes. In simple terms of cultivating and nurturing via mentorship, a process must be established and fielded within the agency from the ground up. The color code depicted in figure 1 can summarize the concept in simple terms. Green is optimal, yellow indicates a need for attention, and red requires intervention. Efficient and effective, of course, falls in the green area and aptly describes the SA successfully investigating cases and making arrests, the supervisor providing correct guidance and leadership, and the executive conveying superior vision and strategy, all vital functions for fulfilling the organization's mission.

In general terms, these color combinations represent levels of performance that could have a significant negative impact on the overall productivity of the office or, of even more importance in the representation of NCIS to its counterparts and customers, on credibility and valued service. The issue comes into question when the employee becomes efficient and ineffective (yellow), inefficient and effective (yellow), or, in the worst case, inefficient and ineffective (red). Inefficient agents could be deficient in report writing, not timely in responding to crime scenes, or lacking in interview skills that would require additional resource allocation. Ineffective supervisors might provide incomplete guidance or conduct unproductive case reviews. Ineffective executives may not engage in vigorous coordinated discussions with upper-level officials for tactical or strategic application of resources. Such examples demonstrate less than expected performance.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

In design and implementation of this type of model, it is critical to ensure that the same terminology is used in communication. First is the standardization of terminology dealing with the core composition of personnel: core values (honor, courage, commitment), core competencies (skills), and a core understanding of the mission and vision for the future. What is the expectation for successful performance in each? Of course, as this develops, the growth-to-goal metric would be a fundamental change of the current employee appraisal system, perhaps better defined as a multilevel process that evaluates employees as individuals in performance and then how this performance meets the growth-to-goal mission.

The Process

"Managers need a simple way to assess the potential for action, focus attention, and help people learn together." (7) The process of evaluation can begin once the terminology is standardized and a common understanding of E & E is reached. Without a specific definition, no reflective scale for the measurement of performance can exist. What exactly is sought as efficient and effective?

Within the Far East office model, the goal is to achieve the core competencies of the profession. These include oral and written communications, problem solving, Navy and NCIS mission/organization awareness, interpersonal/team skills, self-direction, quality principles, customer orientation, flexibility, decisiveness, technical competence, diversity awareness, situational leadership, model/reinforce core values, coaching/counseling, conflict management, change management, team building, and influencing/negotiating. By default, the variance toward inefficient and ineffective occurs when employees do not demonstrate or maintain consistent performance in these competencies.

To assess the process, each manager in the Far East office received a spreadsheet with instructions to include all employees and, independent of their annual performance evaluation, subjectively rate them. Objective areas evaluated included number of years assigned to the office and pay level. Subjective categories dealt with such issues as determining overall performance (denoted via a rating scale of 1 as poor to 10 as excellent), noting changes in performance (improved, stayed the same, decreased, unknown), ranking employees against one another, summarizing briefly what would help them improve (training, experience, commitment), stating their biggest challenges, providing an overall rating (efficient and effective, E & E; inefficient and effective, I & E; efficient and ineffective, E & I; or inefficient and ineffective, I & I), and explaining the steps needed to upgrade them to efficient and effective. Following the analysis of the data and the assessment of the local offices, the supervisors were evaluated by their assistant special agent in charge (ASAC) with the goal of assessing the difference in the two. For example, how the supervisory special agents (SSAs) saw their personnel and office overall, as well as how the ASAC viewed each SSA in comparison with the others.

Agencies can sort and analyze such data to meet their needs and determine options for solutions. This adds additional weight when compared with traditional metrics associated with performance. It also provides further opportunities to identify strategic needs in upgrading both employees and offices. For example, if time management is an issue, a course or block of instruction could address it with all who need assistance. This permits a better directed expenditure of funds, as well as a more tactically oriented return on investment.

Similar sorting options apply for supervisors, administrative personnel, and other employees and can offer a further glimpse into the mechanism of each individual and office and provide cues to modify or improve performance. If persistent issues become apparent, remedies via training or other assistance can be applied.

The Related Factors

Certainly, a spreadsheet does not tell the whole story in a people-oriented business. Other factors affect the performance of each employee every day. How does each person influence the rest of the people in the office? These factors, both external and internal to each office and often to each employee, have a resulting impact on performance metrics, regardless of how they are assessed.

The wide range of external factors can include balancing large or complex case loads; legal, interagency, and interpersonal nuances inherent in operating within a foreign culture; heavy travel schedules; recalcitrant customers; or issues with coworkers. Employees are subject to a barrage of these external factors on a daily basis.

All personnel also carry a burden of personal or internal factors that affect their performance. These can be associated with family commitments (aging relatives at home) and family issues (health and education concerns) that come with living in a foreign country, as well as personal skills.

Regardless of definition, these factors design the discourse from which each agent operates, something inclusive of both quality of life and quality of work life. Considering both the external and internal dynamic of every operational employee, it goes without saying that these individuals can impact the efficiency and effectiveness of the office.

The effect of internal and external factors can overlap an individual's E & E status on a short- or long-term basis. The daily operational environment includes the amount of overtime (whatever, wherever, or however long in duration) worked to accomplish the mission and the extent of travel, or "road time," accumulated during the tour. In short, it encompasses the amount of time agents spend on the job, which translates into time not spent at home. Hypothetically, the daily operational environment can traverse only one vertical or horizontal axis at a time and, in effect, results in an employee being E & E in some respects and E & I in others. The dual status can be temporary or last for a period of time and can fluctuate in size and location based on the impact of the external or internal issues. A balance between flexible and fluid becomes essential in adapting to a fluctuating daily operational environment.

An analysis of the amount of time agents spend out of the local office can provide a glimpse into their operational tempo. Critical thinking applied to the data can offer the opportunity to understand the concept in terms of factors affecting performance, notwithstanding any metrics (i.e., quality of performance) associated with the information. The challenge then would rest in associating a measurable metric to move and size the daily operational environment to reflect the level of E & E that agents have in accomplishing their mission. An otherwise E & E employee who, due to various internal or external issues or excessive overtime or road time, becomes distracted at work and, while still effective, is viewed as inefficient. When personnel demonstrate a negative shift, supervisors must explore reasons causing it and attempt to guide their employees back to a level of optimal performance. Issues that managers can correct should be addressed, and other solutions or employee assistance program interventions should be equally poised to assist in returning personnel to the E & E track. Major benefits of this process include accurate assignment of personnel in particular offices; identification of issues or indicators before they become problems; and better interaction with and among all employees, from entry-level workers to executives.

CONCLUSION

Emergent and exigent requirements have resulted in fundamental change in much of the traditional business processes. Planning and evaluating the direction of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service in close correlation with the Navy and Marine Corps leadership is continuous, looking forward, and anticipating the future, a critical capability with an equally critical outcome. While concentrating on the metrics of performance to evaluate accomplishments, the agency determined that it was reasonable to seek to achieve a specific goal of efficient and effective for all personnel.

The goal is to refine the process to reflect the impact of performance for each individual in combination with the entire office and then how the office performance meets the expectations of local commanders in balance with the mission of a field office within the goals of the agency. In short, this encompasses a three-dimensional analysis, rather than the traditional metric of cases closed. Certainly, the process is a question of balance: personnel versus mission, actual versus perceived threat, effective communication versus interpretation of definition, and customer needs versus agency strategy, among others. What this effort will result in, however, is the opportunity to identify the issues and needs resident at the lowest common denominator within an office and enable change in reaching the goal of efficient and effective, as well as consistent, operational excellence at all levels.

Endnotes

(1) M. Weisbord, Productive Workplaces Revisited (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2004).

(2) W. Bennis and B. Nanus, Leaders (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1985), (emphasis added).

(3) J.P. Kotter, "What Leaders Really Do," Harvard Business Review 68, no. 3 (1990).

(4) C.R. Hickman, Mind of a Manager, Soul of a Leader (New York, NY: John Wiley and Son, 1990).

(5) D.R. Cooper and P.S. Schindler, Business Research Methods, 8th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2003).

(6) Supra note 1, 259.

(7) Supra note 1, 263.

Special Agent Parsons, formerly in charge of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service's Far East office, currently is the assistant director for planning and evaluation.