The 17th thing you need to know after assuming your new job.

34. Using Policy Authority to Change Direction

 Frank, Aside from reorganizing and issuing regulations, are there other ways that I can make major program changes?

Yes, you can initiate change by issuing a policy decision, although it will not be easy if the policy will affect other agencies or companies.

One example reveals the complexity of policy-making. The good news is that it is hard work to create a government wide policy, and that is as it should be.

Many federal agency managers are policy-makers. In the GSA, we had the authority to help disabled federal employees to obtain the same desktop computer technology as everyone else. In the early days of graphical user interfaces (GUI)—the technology that lets us intuitively and easily navigate our computer and cell phone screens—was a real issue. Judge Leonard Suchanek, Chair of GSA’s Board of Contract Appeals, himself blind, told me on several occasions that 80 percent of the disabled people in the country are unemployed, and those with jobs are underutilized.

When a contingent representing blind federal employees in Massachusetts travelled from Boston to meet with us, they gently chastised us for not using our legislative authorities to ensure that workers with vision impairments could use computers with GUI interfaces, the same as all other government employees.

In this case, the software manufacturer, for whatever reason, had not been a good citizen. Two years earlier, in a quasi-hearing, which Suchanek and I co-chaired, company officials said they were aware of the problems blind employees had with their software. They assured us they would solve the problem, but obviously, they had not followed through on their promise.

GSA, as a regulatory agency, always operated behind the screen, never seeking publicity. However, GSA had a big stick: We could prohibit the company from selling its software in the federal government, as Massachusetts itself was apparently prepared to do. However, as always in GSA, we preferred to use our authority as a last resort, negotiation was our preferred route.

In this case, we had recently contacted the company representative in Washington to express our displeasure since the company, after two years, had not fixed the problem. Our next step was to meet with other company officials, those with authority to fix the problem.

At times like this, companies try to steer you to their public relations and Washington liaisons. Sometimes it is okay to work with these officials. Sometimes, it is not. In this case, these officials were not decision-makers and could only carry the message back, possibly with spin, to someone else higher up in the company.

We wanted a specific corporate commitment to solve the problem, and a quarterly plan to develop the needed accessibility products in the software. We did not want to wait until they had a single, all-in-one, final solution that could take years. We wanted intermediate solutions as evidence of progress. If not, we could, as a last resort, freeze the company out of the federal market. Today, it is inconceivable that a government official could stop a leading manufacturer from selling its software to federal agencies. At the time, it was quite possible for three reasons.

Our legislative power in GSA was secure.

There was a high level of interest in the country and in the government to address the problems of the disabled in society.

The disabled community itself was large and sufficiently organized to create a public protest. For example, the hearing-impaired community once demonstrated on Capitol Hill when it felt Congress was ignoring their needs in emerging technology. Congress quickly enacted legislation, and assigned my office a role in implementation.

At the time, the company, and most software manufacturers, operated as if Washington did not matter. Later, in 1998, the Justice Department got their attention with a massive anti-trust lawsuit. Today, the company has a major presence in the nation’s capital, with lawyers and lobbyists representing their interests. The company now makes generous campaign contributions.

While we were not directly successful in our efforts to ensure timely accessibility for the blind, there are some important lessons to learn from this experience.

Senior policy officials with government-wide responsibilities have so many issues to address they cannot cover them all equally well. In this case, Suchanek and I let too much time pass after first talking to company representatives. We had a good plan of action, but companies with only one major issue with the government can outlast government officials occupied with many issues. If the employees from Massachusetts had not asked us to put pressure on the company, we might never have returned to the issue and pushed the company to live up to the promises they made two years earlier.

While we brought attention to the problem, the company solved the problem on their schedule, not ours.

Four Points to Consider Before Taking Policy Action against a Company

Carefully, choose the time to act—timing is critical. Do not expect much support from the White House if you take action against a major company shortly before a presidential election.

Evaluate whether you have the time to see the issue through to the end considering all of the other issues you need to manage.

Send measured signals rather than taking precipitous action likely to cause the company to rush into an ill-conceived attack from which they will be unable to back down later when they have time to consider an appropriate response.

Measured signals could include discussing the issue with an industry association. The association can provide useful insights into the market sector, and its representatives will carry your concern to the selected company, allowing its officials time to conceive possible corrective actions.

A second measured signal before going public is to schedule a private meeting in your office with company representatives to emphasize the government’s increasing concern.

Line up support before firing the first shot if forceful action is still required. Support could come from other companies harmed competitively by the company against which you plan to take action. Better yet, a committee in Congress, which has been tracking the issue, could provide the support you need. In addition, you will need support from your boss because when the going gets tough you will need your management to hang in there with you. However, you should not count on this.