With the current USDA reorganization plan, I asked Michael Rains to describe the process used in the 2000s for merging two research stations. As he says in the post, he thinks the current distribution is optimal. I agree with him on that. The point here is to examine a “good” process and hopefully give the Admin some ideas if they want to reorganize. Now that they have backtracked to taking public comment, perhaps a new process will incorporate some of Michael’s proven approaches.
**********
In 2006, the USDA Forest Service formally merged two research stations into one called the Northern Research Station. The merger strengthened the ability to do leading-edge science, promoting the long-term health and productivity of natural resources in a twenty-state region that extends from Maine to Minnesota and from Missouri to Maryland. With the various reorganization ideas floating around the United States Department of Agriculture and its agencies, perhaps it is a good idea to review organizational adjustments for mission attainment in ways that have been described by a wide range of individuals and organizations as extremely effective. At that time, the USDA leadership, for example, described the combination of these two research stations as one of the strongest processes they have seen.
The Northern Research Station had its roots in two research stations: the Northeast Research Station, which included 13 states and was headquartered in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania; and the North Central Research Station, headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. The old North Central Station conducted science in 7 states. The new Northern Research Station (NRS), which continues to conduct science in the combined 20-state region of the Northeast and Midwest, is now headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin, alongside the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL). About ten years ago, I was assigned the lead for both the NRS and FPL (not a merger) until I retired from federal government service in 2017. I am now a Middle School teacher in math, science, and history for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The year was 2005. The Forest Service Chief, the great Dale N. Bosworth, called me. At that time, I was the Director of the Northeast Research Station. The Director of the North Central Research Station was retiring, and the Chief wanted to discuss the opportunity of combining the two stations, North Central and Northeast. We set up a meeting for me to go to Washington, DC. The objective was two-fold: to fully understand the combination process ahead and to discuss initial ideas with the USDA leadership. Full transparency would be a core value.
I spent some time crafting what I thought would be some important questions. For example:
- What is the primary objective of the combination?
- Should we do this combination? Critics? Can we do the combination with minimal
disruption? - Who should lead the process? Who should follow?
- What are the primary hurdles?
- If we step forward, what are the most important “first three steps”?
- How long will the process take?
- Who should lead the new station?
The meetings with the Chief and USDA leadership went well. I was given the go-ahead to proceed. Before departing, I was asked, “What’s your next step?” I said, “Meet with Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Representative David Obey (Wisconsin, D-7).” Both were key
Congressional leaders (chairs of appropriations subcommittees for the Forest Service) and essential to moving forward, or not, with the combination. Those were solid conversations, and both thought the idea of combining the two stations made sense. I knew their approval was fundamental to moving ahead.
The next step was to develop a basic strategy and discuss this strategy with key stakeholders (i.e., employees, State Foresters, Universities, etc.). I made a list of 75 key individuals that I thought we must speak with. That was another critical step. My two fundamental notions when
speaking with these folks were: no surprises allowed, and securing their ideas; both good, and please be aware. The single biggest resentment I have with the current USDA Reorganization Plan is the lack of reaching out to stakeholders. I will say this: for the combination of the two
stations, asking opinions from a wide range of people who eventually could and would “decide” constructively, made all the difference for a seamless transition.
A small deployment team of station employees was convened; we were on our way. The following is what we wanted to achieve, and eventually did:
- Integrate existing and future science, focusing on Landscape Science – science, discovery, and applications that address ecosystem to landscape-level questions.
- Deliver to the constituents of the Northeast and Midwest a broader suite of science.
- Enhance capabilities that allow for national-level concerns in science to be better addressed, including destructive invasive species, bioenergy, social science, and urban forestry.
- Improve the agency structure in the region and overall operating efficiencies.
Before completing all the steps, I met with Chief Bosworth one last time to secure his final approval. The entire process, from initial idea to approval by the USDA Secretary, took less than one year. A record that still stands for this type of organizational adjustment. The process went smoothly. We did not close anything or move anyone; there was no immediate need. We wanted time to be our ally. The key ingredient to a successful merger was full transparency, and let progress dictate the pace. Nothing special, just tried to follow proven tactics and be clinical with the process.
As time passed, our connections within the science community grew stronger following the merger, creating new partnerships and linkages that expanded the scope of our research, allowing our scientists to play a part in the research being conducted beyond the twenty-state area. For example, Northern Research Station scientists contributed to a study by the University of California / Santa Barbara's National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis that estimated the economic impact of non-native forest insects and showed that, by and large, homeowners are footing that bill. We also saved some money. Combining the two stations reduced some overhead
and eliminated duplicative services, reducing our costs by approximately $1 million a year.
Change is seldom painless, and combining the Northeastern and the North Central Stations demanded hard work, patience, and goodwill from employees, retirees, partners, and neighbors. Even in retirement, I remain tremendously proud of Northern Research Station staff for their professionalism in making the merger smooth and contributing to the Station being a world-class research organization then and now. Over the years, the work by the Northern Research Station and R&D, overall, as a Mission Area, has demonstrated that the Forest Service remains a vital voice in scientific research. The merger that created the Northern Research Station also demonstrated that the agency had/has the foresight, ability, and willingness to change its organization when it sees a better way to serve people and the land. Simply put, the task-relevant maturity of the USDA Forest Service is extremely high. As Dr. Paul Hersey once said of the Forest Service (2004), “They respond well to relational behavior, with the most effective leadership style being delegating and participating. They do not require a ‘telling’ leadership style.”
Some critics suggest that combining research stations may “damage external relationships because station program leaders faced demands to meet with a larger portfolio of partners and constituents, and constrained travel budgets limited trips to more distant parts of the new
station’s larger territory.” That is a fair point, and I am sure, at least initially, that may have been an issue with the new station. However, I did not believe then or now that it was a major hurdle for the Northern Research Station. Frequent reviews seemed to confirm this. But it is a concern that we always need to be aware of. At this point, I think the current sizes and geographical distribution of the research stations in the Forest Service are pretty optimal. Further combinations are not at all necessary.
Michael Rains is currently Middle School teacher in math, science, and history for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Before his current teaching assignment, he worked for the USDA Forest Service for 50 years, starting as a wildland firefighter in California and rising to Deputy Chief of the agency. He was a Senior Executive for the agency for over 30 years. During that time, he worked for five administrations and nine Forest Service Chiefs. He had assignments in all Mission Areas of the Forest Service (i.e., National Forest System; Research and Development; Business Operations; and State, Private and Tribal Forestry [Deputy Chief].
Interesting observations and they are appreciated.
But I do have to point out that Mr. Rains was in upper management at the FS, so of course, he will view that process as being a positive move (part of the Clinton/Gore national reinvention lab).
But I would like to hear from the employees and get their take on this.
I would also like to hear from the Union to get their take on this. I would recommend talking the NFFE FS Council President at the time, John Obst, who was also an employee and researcher with Research at the time.
Sharon, I like your insights that you present. But I do have a criticism that most of the people that seem to be active in Smokey Wire are ex-management or WO employees.
I would like to see more input on your site from the non-management employees outside of DC.
Thanks, Art! I agree that the people who comment here are self-selecting and don’t represent the range of opinions. It’s not always easy to find people who are retired and might want to write something, so I would appreciate your help encouraging others to submit their ideas.
The reason I asked Michael in this case was specifically about the process they used for this combination, so that that learning could be passed down. It would also be interesting to get from others involved “things that didn’t work so well” and “things that would have worked better.”
Initially, I did not want to respond to the “so of course” conclusion. If I may, I would like to express my opinion now on, “But I do have to point out that Mr. Rains was in upper management at the FS, so of course, he will view that process as being a positive move (part of the Clinton/Gore national reinvention lab).”
Please do not assume that I would say what I said in an attempt to pass some loyalty test to some “national reinvention lab.” I said what I said about the merger of the two research stations into one because that is what happened — thanks mostly to the tireless work by so many employees. Did we have a few false starts? Of course, but honestly, not too many. The Forest Service Chief at the time, Dale Bosworth, asked our opinions. So did USDA. Then we talked to about 75 stakeholders and got their ideas. We were afforded lots of flexibility. Please do not assume that everyone in “upper management” is a sycophant. I am not sorry that I began my career on the El Dorado National Forest as a GS-2, carrying stakes for a P-Line crew. Yes, I was in the National Office and had some management positions. With the merger, we tried to expand “Urban Natural Resources Stewardship (UNRS).” With 83 percent of America living in urban areas and its associated 138 million acres of urban forests, we thought that was a solid way to link science to “caring for the land and serving people.” Of course, not all agreed. That vision came to me when I was in the Southeastern Area as a River Basin Planner. So, of course, that was not a “management” position, but it did help shape my conservation ethic as I continued with the agency. I always tried to say what I thought. Sometimes, especially lately, the way I say things could be better. But, then and now, I do not regret what I said. I did my best.
Very respectfully,
I worked with the Northern Research Station as a student and professional for 14 years, starting in 2007. I didn’t realize the merge happened shortly before I arrived.
I didn’t hear complaints and grumblings about joining with the NE. I did post-docs in both former regions and there was much collaborating even before 2006 in my area of research.
My issue with the proposed merge is with forcing everyone to move to Fort Collins, as seems to be the idea. How can people do regular research and interact with staff and forests all over the country if everyone is in CO?
I suspect people would be much more open to reorganizing if they weren’t forced to move out of the forests they work in.
Having interacted with many FS researchers, I’ve seen them driving to field sites for a few days, or even just during a normal work day.
The state of Missouri definitely benefits from having a northern research station office. Many projects happen because of proximity. There was a soils study on impact of historical mining and heavy metals that might not have happened if the FS office wasn’t so close.
I can accept the pros and cons of consolidation organizationally, but not spatially.
It is far less expensive for staff to remain in current offices than move to Fort Collins, which has an incredibly expensive housing market.
Also, let’s not pretend this is for any reason other than increasing the number of staff that quit or retire because they can’t move.
The process Rains outlines is rational, reasonable, transparent, and inclusive. Not the hallmarks of the current administration’s reorg. I hope our social scientist friends will be tracking the differences in outcomes!
Michael’s overview of combining the Northeastern (NE) and North Central (NC) Stations brought back memories of that period in my career with FSR&D. I had been project leader (PL) in NE for 11 years when the merger began. I was not one of the employees tapped to work on the merger so was a “follower” of the process. Michael’s description of the process is as I remember it. During that time he stressed the importance of being open about what was happening with our stakeholders and employees. Something Michael didn’t write about in his overview was the combination of research work units (RWUs) after the station merger was official. In that process I became PL of the largest RWU in the new Northern Research Station (other than Forest Inventory and Analysis). Furthermore, my new RWU was the only one that included RWUs from both NE and NC. We had staff, labs, and experimental forests in both New England and the Lake States. We had one in-person all-scientist meetings (not all-employee) where we talked about potential for landscape-scale research we could all contribute to. Unfortunately, although there was sincere interest, reality prevented us from implementing such research during my nine year tenure as project leader of that large combined unit. Some of the issues that prevented us from becoming a truly integrated unit included: all the scientists had ongoing research that they did not want to drop in order to start something new; other than the initial in-person meeting, we never had sufficient budget to get folks together, something that would have encouraged collaboration even if everybody already had a full plate; also the cultures of NE and NC were different enough that expectations about how funds were allocated caused hard feelings that resulted in trust issues in the early years. There was one example of close collaboration between previously NC and NE scientists, but in a RWU with about 20 scientists that wasn’t enough to foster greater integration. As PL I was the only person in the RWU who visited all the locations on a regular basis and got to know all the permanent staff—scientists, scientific support, and administrative. Although I never thought we achieved the vision Michael and I had for a large, integrated RWU, I’m still proud we tried and have fond memories of that period of my career and the people I got to know.
To address some of Art Johnston’s comments: I always considered my job as a PL to be a scientist first and leader/manager second. My career in the Forest Service was in the South and northern New England, I never worked in the WO or at a station headquarters. Neither NC or NE or the combined Northern Station were part of a union. The Forest Products Lab was unionized when Michael became its director, but as he wrote that was not a merger. Besides Michael, the only other person who had direct influence on both the Northern Station and the Forest Products Lab was a shared deputy director.
I need to clarify something I wrote above: I should have written that the unit I led in the then-new Northern Research Station (NRS) was the only one doing research primarily on experimental forests that combined elements of the old NC and NE. Our research focused on ecology, hydrology, and silviculture, all disciplines that are long-term in nature and carried out in settings, like experimental forests, where we could count being able to maintain experiments for decades. Other NRS RWUs that included elements of both NE and NC were Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA), urban forestry, and insect and disease units. I apologize for any confusion.
Thanks for sharing your experience, John! When I worked at CSREES it had just been combined, and the easiest thing would have been to dangle financial carrots for collaboration across the divide, but I could never get the upper level folks to consider. Seems like travel to get people together is a relative drop in the bucket.
I was always curious why upper management of the Forest Service was always so preoccupied with reorganization.
I guess it gave them something to do!!!
The problems in the Forest Service go far beyond organizational structure. Really the entire “culture” of the agency needs changing.
I did work on many of these “projects” as a economist. My recollection is that cost savings were so minor that most reorganizations are NOT worth doing for the cost savings.
When I was in graduate school the economist from Crown-Zellerback told us graduate students that their threshold for “investments” was a 25% return. That caught my attention.
That means dramatic changes in structure. Bureaucracies can never tolerate dramatic changes of that magnitude.
So by definition, all bureaucratic reorganizations are condemned to failure if cost savings in the objective.
Like I said to Art, I don’t think trying to do something once every 14 years or so at the behest of the Admin of the day is exactly “preoccupied.”
I don’t think it’s fair to compare investments for a company with managing a government organization. Plus didn’t Crown Z shut down all its research facilities? I remember interviewing with them for a job, and then the FS got a couple of good people from them.
I’m sure that forest and district combos have saved money.. suppose they close on Admin site- you would have to compare the costs of extra travel to the cost of maintaining two sites. I’m not sure that you can say that it would never pencil out.
The cost savings were minor in my eyes.
Saving 10% based on a consolidation really isn’t much of a savings, compared to the decrease in public service. I also have never seen a reorganization study that accurately estimated savings or for that matter costs. That was the reason Crown-Z had such a large threshold for investments.
I was always impressed with ICS. Sharing of resources might be more effective than consolidations. The Forest Service is real good sharing resources on fires.
Sharon, I disagree that investments by Crown-Zellerbach are different than investments by the Federal government.
I think the Federal government does have an interest in more speculative investments in research, but for run of the mill day to day operations it shouldn’t be different.
I was not that impressed with Crown-Z and its management team. They spent a lot of time on futuring and making their decisions on their vision of the future.
Predicting the future is very, very difficult. They were wrong. It might have been more productive for them to spend their time, positioning the company such that it could survive different futures.
I remember their economist predicting much lower demand for housing in the near future and therefore much lower demand for wood products. I asked him how he could be so sure about their demand projections and I felt like an idiot when he pointed out that everybody that was going to buy a house in the next twenty years plus was alive TODAY (1978).
The US did hit zero population growth in 1981. What they missed was that the United States was going to open its borders, stop harvesting public timber and start importing wood from Canada.
Sierra Pacific made the bet that the reduction in public harvest would result in higher prices for wood products. They guessed right.
Upper management in both private and public organizations is always making bets on the future.
It is very difficult to predict the future. In the early 1980’s I bought at the Coville Safeway for two dollars “The Book of Predictions” that was over 500 pages of predictions for the next 50 years by decade. They asked everybody!! So-called experts, journalists, psychics, celebrities, economists, authors, medical experts, and space experts.
I still have the book and every few years go through the predictions.
They were ALL wrong. It is a rather short exercise to list the correct predictions. Probably less than two pages out of 500 pages of predictions.
Somebody in Region Six in 1984, should have asked the question what happens if we don’t harvest timber. It was unthinkable that it would ever happen at the time.
We really need to plan for resilience. That is really difficult.
Thank you Vladimir for you observations. Why is upper management obsessed with reorganizations?- I would say is had little to do with any desire for efficiency, but rather because is inflated their ego, added to their power, and their desire to look good to their bosses up the line.
I would disagree with Susan Jane Brown. Of course Mr. Raines presents a “rational, reasonable, transparent, and inclusive ” argument as that was the way reinventing government was being promoted in the 90’s–it was Mr. Raines that was that upper management and of course he will present it in a “rational, reasonable, transparent” way. But I highly doubt if other non-management employees felt that way. No employees in the FSS felt that way, and the only reason that the Forest Products Lab did not jump on the bandwagon was because they had a very organized, effective Union (the largest in the FS), and they effectively fought managements reorganization. I will pass on Rains’ piece to my Union friend there and see what they thought.
Art, I wouldn’t say that “upper management” is “obsessed with” reorganizations. Many of the forest and district combos I’ve seen were driven by costs.
At the national level, it seems like Transformation was the last effort in 2007 ish, so awhile ago. And not much actually happened. From those dates, I’d bet there might have been pressure from the R’s to downsize or cut costs. So I don’t think it was really FS “upper management” who wanted to do it, but were responding to pressures. Maybe that wasn’t the case for the NC/NE merger.
I think the NE/NC merger goal was for USFS to be able to say to the political appointees they reduced the number of projects from 30 to 15, even though nobody much was RIF’ed nor physical places shuttered. So, it was classic bureaucratic sleight of hand. Yes, fewer projects, more people reporting the remaining PLs, but functionally no change other than a bit less admin cost and a bit more travel costs for the PLs. And they knew that would satisfy the appointees and that there would be no follow-up question on savings or lab mothballing. Good or bad, Rains was adept at the game – hence one of the longest tenured SES’ers in USFS history.
At the risk of sounding Pollyanna-ish, my experience with combining NC and NE was quite positive. A few years before, the old Southern Station (where I had been a research forester) and the Southeastern Station merged. From what I heard from former co-workers, the new Southern Station was working well. Thus, for me, combining NE and NC seemed like a reasonable evolution of the organization. I had no reason to think it wouldn’t be successful. As I wrote a few days ago, I thought the opportunities the new station offered offset any downsides. It wasn’t until the stations merged that Michael Rains asked the PLs to work with him on combining RWUs.
During my career I think I only met one political appointee and I honestly do not think reducing the numbers of RWUs would have been a big issue for those folks. Also as mentioned before, I was not involved in the station merger process. However, after the merger was official all of us PLs were involved in RWU mergers. I felt that Michael engaged PLs to the extent they wanted to participate. I never felt bulldozed into an organization that I was uncomfortable with. I give Michael high marks for his executive-level leadership during the merger process.