ML22271A906

Appendix L - Heart Be Risksmart

ML22271A906
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/29/2022
From:	Aaron Mccraw, Sean Peters NRC/EDO/AO, NRC/RGN-III
To:	NRC/EDO
Peters S
Shared Package
ML22271A894	List: ML22271A895 ML22271A896 ML22271A897 ML22271A898 ML22271A901 ML22271A903 ML22271A904 ML22271A905 ML22271A906 ML22271A907 ML22272A007
References
Download: ML22271A906 (11)

Text

Appendix L - HEART Be riskSMART Analysis Be riskSMART Template Should the NRC establish a Presence with a Purpose (PwP) approach to Clearly articulating the problem is essential. Add an introduction, optimize the hybrid environment for improved organizational health sufficient for a reader with no now and in the future?

prior knowledge to understand As some work duties require an in-person presence, the context for the the objective and the scope. presence with a purpose approach is to require in-person presence only Where appropriate, cite the where that in-person presence may lead to an improvement in Be Management Directive or other relationship building, knowledge management, and collaboration.

requirements and guidance that apply to the issue. Include constraints such as compliance requirements or standards that the solution would need to meet.

What can go wrong - What can go right -

Challenges/risks Opportunities/benefits Spot (the What can go wrong/right? Write

1. It will take investment of time 1. More intentional in-person risk triplet) down what can go wrong (in and resources to implement interactions (6,8) other words the risks and PwP (2,4) 2. Increased flexibility and challenges) or right (in other

2. May burden supervisors (3,4) autonomy for staff (9,9) words the benefits and

3. May be implemented 3. Supervisors are empowered opportunities).

inconsistently across groups to make decisions that are (5,4) best for their teams (8,7)

What could go wrong if we

4. General obstacles in a virtual 4. Reduced office space usage adopt Presence with a Purpose?

workplace (2,2) and overhead (8,6)

What could go right?

A. Inferior orientation for 5. PwP can be implemented new staff to the NRC immediately, as it is a (Numbers Mean - Consequence/

B. Less effective philosophy, not a policy. It is Likelihood on a scale from 1 to collaboration flexible, scalable, and 10.)

C. Diminished relationship adaptable to any future building policy revisions (7,7).

D. Insufficient knowledge transfer/management

1. 1.

a. Takes attention and a. Better collaboration, resources away from knowledge other work management, and What are the consequences? For b. The Office of the Chief relationship building each wrong and right, identify Human Capital Officer b. Increased sense of the consequences. Note that (OCHCO) will need to belonging there can be multiple provide training for 2.

consequences for a given wrong supervisors a. Increased staff or right. To each consequence 2. engagement assign an impact. Usually, high, a. May lower productivity b. Increased staff medium, and low are sufficient. and mission focus for productivity supervisors who must c. Better work-life balance manage in-person for staff expectations and d. Higher retention schedules L-1

b. Supervisors and OCHCO e. Improved recruitment staff may spend more and ability to hire top time addressing problems talent that result from abuse of f. Staff more willing to workplace flexibilities participate in high-value

c. May require a policy in-person activities change, requiring 3.

additional effort from a. Improved organizational OCHCO staff and culture management b. Better team dynamics,

3. productivity, and

d. Employees in different performance groups may feel that their c. Improved trust and arrangements are unfair fairness

e. May cause employee 4. Allows for the reallocation of flight towards more building and maintenance flexible branches costs towards other mission

f. May lead to increased support activities employee 5.

grievances/complaints a. Increased engagement

4. May cause minor b. Improved trust diminishment of staff and c. Compatible with future team capabilities telework policy changes See numbers above in paratheses See numbers above in How likely is it? For each consequence identify a paratheses likelihood. High, medium, and low are usually sufficient.

Consider all available data.

Steps that can be taken to manage Steps that can be taken to Manage the risk of what can go wrong and increase challenges and risks identified with enhance opportunities are opportunities for what can go PwP are discussed in the narrative discussed in the narrative right. What you manage will increase or decrease the Manage probabilities and consequences assigned in the previous step.

The managed likelihoods and consequences are used to make the decision in act step.

The recommendations will be sent to OEDO for a decision. HEART After receiving inputs, evaluating recommends moving forward with the Presence with a Purpose information, and documenting approach. The HEART has concluded that PwP opportunities and what you spotted and benefits largely outweigh the challenges and risks. PwP is scalable and managed, the decisionmaker very low risk, therefore, we can adopt the approach and course correct can now make a fully informed as we gather lessons learned.

Act decision given their risk External benchmarking provided insights into making changes with appetite. In most decisions the individual contributor or team is focused evaluation after implementation but not delaying the decisionmaker. Strategic implementation for all details to be worked out. Since PwP is already a decisions require fair low-risk activity, implementation and acceptance should emphasize consideration of all views. educating supervisors and staff on the concept and philosophy and evaluation after implementation.

L-2

Upon implementation, PwP needs to be monitored to ensure that Realize is implementation of the decision, monitoring progress organizational health is improving. Course corrections need to be and tracking performance. If the made as needed.

issue has a performance Realize indicator, then include the target and results. It is also important to be prepared to make course corrections as needed.

HEART suggests sharing the recommendations agencywide early The goal of the final step in the framework is to manage during an OEDO Townhall, in EDO updates, in Network Teach knowledge by providing lessons Announcements, through the offices etc., thereby opening the lines of learned and insights to a broader communication for feedback.

audiencespread the word!

L-3

HEART Be riskSMART Analysis of Presence with Purpose Recommendation The HEART used the Be riskSMART approach to quantify the likelihood and consequences of potential challenges and opportunities with implementing the Presence with Purpose (PwP) model. HEARTs Recommendation 1, Presence with Purpose, is supported in this analysis by Recommendations 2, 3, and 4. The actions within our control in Recommendations 2, 3, and 4, will help lead to the success of Presence with Purpose, but those actions are not addressed explicitly as part of the risk triplet. Rather they are discussed and analyzed as part of the manage step in the Be riskSMART framework. Therefore, this Be riskSMART analysis assesses if Presence with Purpose should be adopted.

A key to understanding this analysis is that the Be riskSMART framework starts with understanding actions within our control (i.e., what can go right and what can go wrong). The outcomes of such actions are the factors that are evaluated as part of the consequence and likelihood in the risk triplet. The spot step in the Be riskSMART framework includes the following three components:

1. What could go wrong/right? These are the actions within our control.

2. What are the consequences? These are the outcomes, both positive and negative.

3. How likely? This is how likely the consequences will occur given the action. This is not an assessment of how likely it is that the given action will occur. The action is presumed to occur.

A list of opportunities and challenges was developed based on insights from the focus groups, staff comments (such as from the Straight from the HEART Teams Channel), senior leader comments, benchmarking with external organizations. and discussions with the HEART Steering Committee. Opportunities and challenges are within the control of the NRC.

To allow for visualization of the consequences and likelihood, a consequence score from 1-10 was put on each challenge and opportunity. Also, a likelihood score from 1-10 was put on each challenge and opportunity. A high consequence score means that the challenge or opportunity is significant. The likelihood of each consequence occurring was rated on a 1-10 scale, where 1 is least likely to occur and 10 is most likely to occur.

Each of the opportunities and challenges are discussed below, including a description of the consequences, a narrative justification for each consequence/likelihood score, and specific ways that the consequences can be managed.

Opportunities HEART identified the following opportunities:

O.1 Increased value with intentional in-person interactions (Intentionality)

O.2 Increased flexibility and autonomy for staff (Flexibility)

O.3 Supervisors are empowered to make decisions that are best for their teams (Empowered Supervisors)

O.4 Reduced office space usage and overhead (Space)

O.5 PwP can be implemented immediately, as it is a philosophy, not a policy. It is flexible, scalable, and adaptable to any future policy revisions (Immediate Implementation)

O.1 Increased value with intentional in-person interactions Score: Consequences 6, Likelihood 8 L-4

Implementing PwP would create the opportunity for more intentional in-person interactions. PwP encourages an environment of purposeful in-person presence, providing an increased sense of belonging.

In the current hybrid environment, with about 40 percent in-office time, many work groups do not have common periods in the office together. Additionally, having rigid, fixed in-office schedules for staff creates obstacles for staff and immediate supervisors coordinating in-person activities. One way some teams have sought to improve the implementation of the fixed in-person schedule is to require core days or core hours to increase opportunities for in-person engagement. And indeed, comments in the focus groups and in the Straight to the HEART Teams channel included the suggestion to consider core days or hours. Under the PwP approach, implementation of core days or core hours would neither be required nor excluded as a possible schedule under which teams could choose to operate. The consequence score was not impacted by the presence or absence of core days or core hours.

PwP will likely reduce incidental in-person, in-office interactions, or watercooler interactions. This is discussed in Challenge C.4.C and resulted in a slightly lower consequence score for this opportunity. However, PwP provides increased ability for intentional and purposeful interactions. Under the PwP approach teams will be in-person at the same time and for a specific shared purpose. This will decrease feelings of isolation in the office and increase a sense of belonging.

Intentional and purposeful interactions under the PwP approach can even happen remotely as has already been demonstrated in the current hybrid envrionment. Teams status indicators, the ability to chat and turn that chat into a call allows for face-to-face interactions with more ease. These interactions, albeit not in-person, are intentional and have already proven to be very effective. See Recommendation 3. Specifically, staff identified many benefits of virtual meetings. Easy sharing of content on the screen, sharing of files, note taking, collaborative side chats, polling, hand raising, no room size limits, etc., provide for interaction opportunities that were not available in person. Additionally, knowledge sharing, such researching a topic or updating Nuclepedia can happen during a virtual meeting, rather than being put off for a later time.

Given the above, the expected consequences are considered moderate (6). The likelihood of the consequences occurring is high (8).

O.2 Increased flexibility and autonomy for staff Score: Consequences 9, Likelihood 9 The PwP model would allow for increased use of remote work options for specific positions.

Increasing flexibility and autonomy for staff allows the agency to create an atmosphere that supports the needs of staff to maintain an appropriate work-life balance and is a demonstration of increased trust. It leads to increased staff engagement, increased staff productivity, better work-life balance, and staff more willing to participate in high value in-person activities.

According to exit surveys from FY22 Q1-Q3, Dissatisfaction with Telework Opportunities is the most common and the most important (#1) contributing factor that has resulted in staff leaving the NRC. Additionally, several staff identify their commute being too long as a contributing factor to their decision to leave. Indeed, some staff transferred to other agencies due to the telework policy, as shown in Appendix K. The PwP approach would provide additional flexibilities over the current telework posture and, therefore, is likely improve retention. If staff were only to have to commute for PwP, commutes would be less frequent. This could significantly help with retention of senior staff that are comfortable working remotely, live within the locality, and are willing to come into the office when needed. This does not mean staff could live anywhere without agency consideration. As long as the staff remains working in the locality two days a pay period, there would be no impact on locality pay, nor would any additional paperwork be required.

L-5

The flexibility for distant-remote workers is well established and would continue under the PwP approach.

Improvements in technology (e.g., MS Teams) have increased the ability of remote workers to fully participate in meetings virtually and work collaboratively with team members. Remote work agreements typically include expectations for occasional travel to the primary worksite. Presence for distant-remote staff would require additional considerations and approvals for travel. But presence could be achieved from anywhere. Presence for distant-remote staff may consist of periodic travel to the primary worksite or travel to other locations with other staff, such as for inspections, attending conferences or other meetings, or participating in training. Additionally, increasing distant-remote work under the PwP approach is expected to lead to a significant improvement in recruitment as high-quality candidates from diverse geographical locations would be more likely to apply and accept positions.

Given the above, the expected consequences are considered high (9). Similarly, the likelihood of the consequences occurring is high (9).

O.3 Supervisors are empowered to make decisions that are best for their teams Score: Consequences 8, Likelihood 7 Currently there is an opportunity to empower immediate supervisors to set schedules for local staff to only be in in-office for a purpose. For PwP to work most effectively, immediate supervisors would need to be empowered to set schedules for local staff. Currently the telework policy is focused around in-office days and immediate supervisors are empowered to approve project-based work at home. For some periods of time, even before the hybrid environment, supervisors potentially allowed remote work for up to a week at a time as project-based work.

There are some staff that live near work but are outside of the locality. These staff would be required to work in the locality two days a pay period or they could lose their locality pay. This should be a discussion with the immediate supervisor to determine whether in-locality work is appropriate.

An opportunity exists to allow immediate supervisor to approve distant-remote work. Agency treatment of distant-remote as rare has been considered damaging to the agency. Recruitment without having the tool of distant-remote discourages some high-quality applicants. For staff that want to move out of the locality, this rare treatment of remote work often gives them no option but to leave the agency, even when they have largely location-independent work and are willing to return to the office periodically.

The agency policy that dictates the levels of approval for distant-remote work is on the NRC intranet page. There are numerous offices that must approve distant-remote work. These offices are not in the loop with respect to the type of work, the style of the staff and supervisor, or other related factors. Yet, any of these offices can deny distant-remote work. This erodes trust in the organization, damages the agencys reputation (Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, FEVS, results), and makes recruitment and retention more of a challenge. Of all the recommendations within this report, failure to thoughtfully expand distant-remote work is the most likely to provide future challenges to the agencys ability to perform our mission.

The consequences and likelihood of this opportunity are relatively high compared to many of the other opportunities. This would involve changing agency policy as described on the intranet. And significant portions of R2 and R3 should be implemented to ensure that there are few negative effects from the change. Seizing this opportunity will result in the largest and most beneficial gain for the agency, to improve recruitment and retention, improve FEVS ratings, and better position the NRC for long-term success in performing its mission.

There may be differences in expectations between staff and immediate supervisors about the need for in-office presence. Current policy allows for immediate supervisors to bring staff into the office when needed. This may cause friction with staff that disagree that in-office presence is needed. This is not a change from the current hybrid environment and is not considered a negative. Additionally, agency culture information and the Speed of L-6

Trust activities can be leveraged at the lowest level to facilitate a common understanding of the need for in-office presence and resolve most differences.

Establishing PwP and empowering immediate supervisors to approve all types of remote work would be an opportunity to significantly improve the overall health of staffing at the NRC. Therefore, the opportunity is high and the likelihood is a little lower due to need for changes to policies and agency culture. The NRC has a strong history of successfully empowering immediate supervisors with significant authority, and this would be a continuation of that history.

O.4 Reduced office space usage and overhead Score: Consequences 8, Likelihood 6 The PwP approach could significantly reduce the needed space. The PwP approach could permit the agency to leapfrog beyond the concept of hoteling and allow staff with location-independent work to have the autonomy to choose where to perform their work. While some staff may continue to prefer to work in the office and while office space will still be required to support purposeful in-person engagement, the need for space in the future likely would be significantly reduced. It is beyond the scope of the HEARTs work to determine how much space would be required upon full implementation of the PwP approach; however, based on current occupancy rates at NRC headquarters, the current space requirements are roughly 40 percent of the pre-COVID-19 space requirements.

A challenge with this opportunity is that NRC spaces are not laid out to support intentional in-person collaboration.

More conference spaces and fewer cubicles would be appropriate. Newly designed floors should have much more conference room and huddle space that could be used for intentional gatherings of remote workers. There would also need to be permanent workspaces for staff that choose to work in-office or have location-dependent work.

The consequence of this opportunity was ranked very high. Savings in space costs may be reallocated for travel, more collaborative technology, administrative support staff, or other mission needs. The likelihood of this opportunity is considered a little lower since it will involve a long-term plan to reduce the NRCs footprint.

O.5 PwP can be implemented immediately, as it is a philosophy, not a policy. It is flexible, scalable, and adaptable to any future policy revisions Score: Consequence 7, Likelihood 7 Presence with Purpose is a philosophy, more so than a work model. Under the PwP approach, staff and their immediate supervisors are encouraged to routinely engage in meaningful dialogue about the teams need to engage in in-person activities. PwP drives commitment for meaningful in-person interactions, increases engagement and promotes trust within teams. As such, the approach would be highly beneficial to the agencys mission, culture, and future.

Although there are some implementation mechanics that would need to be considered, the PwP approach could be implemented immediately without a change in policy by empowering staff and their immediate supervisors to exercise flexibilities with their scheduled in-person activities. The PwP approach can also be scaled to any future changes in agency telework posture or policy.

Given the above, the expected consequences are considered high (7). Similarly, the likelihood of the consequences occurring is high (7).

Challenges HEART identified the following challenges:

C.1 It will take investment of time and resources to implement PwP (Implementation Time)

L-7

C.2 May burden supervisors (Burden)

C.3 May be implemented inconsistently across groups (Consistency)

C.4 General obstacles in a virtual workplace (General Obstacles)

A. Inferior orientation for new staff to the NRC B. Less effective collaboration C. Diminished relationship building D. Insufficient knowledge transfer/management C.1 It will take investment of time and resources to implement PwP Score: Consequence 2, Likelihood 4 PwP will change the way that the NRC manages staff time and locations. Such changes require an investment in time and resources to implement. This will take attention and resources away from managers. However, as managers become more familiar with the PwP approach, it is expected that implementation will become more streamlined and reduce the attention and energy required. This consequence can be managed through the development of guiding principles, established at the agency level, that identify the moments that matter for in-person presence. (See HEART Recommendation 1).

In addition, corporate support organizations will likely need to invest time and resources to implement PwP. For example, the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officers (OCHCO) role in implementing certain aspects of PwP will likely change the way it manages some staff functions, including telework agreements. However, once OCHCO establishes its modified processes, further investment of time and resources is expected to be minimal.

It is also likely that the agency will need to implement training for supervisors on how to effectively manage a virtual work force. OCHCO has already been offering training for leading and working in a hybrid environment; therefore, this is not a significant change. Moreover, supervisors developed experience managing fully remote staff during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.

Given the above, the expected consequences are considered small (2). The likelihood of the consequences occurring is moderate (4).

C.2 Increased supervisor burden Score: Consequence 3, Likelihood 4 PwP changes the way that immediate supervisors need to interact with their staff, which could be perceived as an increased burden for supervisors. PwP is not intended to be a laissez-faire management approach, rather PwP requires the creation and management of intentional in-person interactions. The potential for an increased burden on supervisors is mitigated as supervisors are permitted to call staff to the office for work duties, where appropriate. Moreover, this consequence can be managed through the establishment of agencywide guiding principles that identify the moments that matter for in-person presence. (See HEART Recommendation 1). Such guiding principles could be further supported by existing information from the Agency Culture Team concerning what activities are best done in-person.

Under the PwP approach, immediate supervisors must be equipped and supported where in-person interactions are not presumed to occur with regularity. Supervisors may not be equipped to manage virtually as recommended in PwP. Productivity may also be lowered for supervisors that are unable to efficiently manage virtual workers.

However, HEART Recommendation 2 provides methods to manage this consequence by providing actions to improve supervisor and staff skill sets such that virtual work can be performed most effectively. Further, once supervisors become familiar with the PwP approach, it is expected that managing schedules and in-person activities under the PwP approach will become a standard business practice, and thus, the burden on supervisors is expected to diminish over time.

L-8

Given the above, the expected consequences are considered small (3). The likelihood of the consequences occurring is moderate (4).

C.3 May be implemented inconsistently Score: Consequence 5, Likelihood 4 The PwP approach has the potential to erode trust if the criteria for determining when in-person presence is required are not implemented in a consistent and fair manner. This consequence can largely be managed through the development of guiding principles that identify the moments that matter for in-person presence as outlined in HEARTs Recommendation 1 and through effective communications as outlined in HEARTs Recommendation 4.

The PwP approach empowers immediate supervisors and their teams to determine how best to accomplish their duties. While there may be schedule differences among teams or among individuals with the same job title, such differences may be necessary to best support business needs and the agencys mission. Better communication and more transparently documenting decisions will ensure that the criteria for determining in-person work are applied consistently and improve trust.

Any perceived inconsistencies may cause staff to seek positions in groups that are considered to have more flexible work options. The actions outlined in HEARTs Recommendations 1 and 4 will ensure that staff understand the purpose for their in-person work and strengthen trust. This will build an environment of commitment to purposeful in-person presence as opposed to an environment of merely compliance with rigid in-person requirements, thereby mitigating the desire for staff to seek positions in groups that are considered to have more flexible options.

Perceived inconsistencies may also result in an increase in the number of grievances and complainants associated with the implementation of PwP, placing a greater burden on certain corporate support organizations. This consequence can be managed through transparent decision-making and effective communication as outlined in HEART Recommendation 4. Such transparency and openness will result in fully reasoned and supportable decision-making while improve employees understanding of the basis for the decisions made about their individual circumstances.

Finally, supervisors and OCHCO staff may need to invest time and resources to address conduct or performance issues arising among staff who may abuse workplace flexibilities. While these factual circumstances under a PwP approach may be novel, the underlying employee relations and legal principles are not new. As such, OCHCO and Office of the General Council staff are already equipped to manage conduct and performance issues that may arise under the PwP approach.

Given the above, the expected consequences are considered moderate (5). Similarly, the likelihood of the consequences occurring is moderate (4).

C.4 General Obstacles Score: Consequence 2, Likelihood 2.

In addition to the other challenges and attendant consequences, the following four general obstacles were scored as a single challenge: (A) inferior orientation for new staff, (B) less effective collaboration, (C) diminished relationship building, and (D) insufficient knowledge transfer/management. A narrative explanation of each general obstacle is provided below.

Although discussed here as challenges, HEART believes that these general obstacles also present potential opportunities if managed appropriately and deliberately. As such, the expected consequences are considered small (2). Similarly, the likelihood of the consequences occurring is low (2).

L-9

C.4.A Inferior orientation for new staff There is concern that, under the PwP approach, new staff will not get proper training or orientation to the NRC culture without having significant fixed in-person time. On the contrary, in-person time would be managed intentionally, including appropriate levels of purposeful in-person time for newly on-boarded staff. And indeed, many teams already have more senior staff available in-person for orientation of new staff. A movement toward the cohort Nuclear Regulator Apprenticeship Network paradigm for new employees would help to mitigate this challenge.

Moreover, HEART Recommendation 2 helps to mitigate this challenge by equipping managers with the skills to effectively orient new staff in a hybrid work environment. Additionally, the tools available and discussed in HEART Recommendation 3 make information more readily available for new staff, including tools such as the New Employee Nuclepedia pages and the Agency Culture Team SharePoint site. With such resources, new staff are able to get comprehensive information quickly, wherever they may be located.

C.4.B Less effective collaboration There is concern that collaboration among staff will be less effective with no fixed in-person time. As was seen during maximum telework and as expressed by staff on the Straight to the HEART Teams channel (see Appendix H),

staff were able to connect with on another using chat, calls, video calls, virtual whiteboarding, and other virtual collaborative means. In some cases, staff even expressed that their ability to collaborate was enhanced in the virtual environment. While there are some activities, such as team building, that may be better done in-person, PwP encourages purposeful in-person activities. As such, these consequences are expected to be minimal.

C.4.C Diminished relationship building There is concern that relationship building would suffer without fixed in-person time. Seeing staff in person can lead to impromptu conversations that can build and strengthen relationships, resulting in increased trust. While the reduced co-location of people could lead to less frequent impromptu conversations, many staff expressed on the Straight to the HEART Teams channel that their ability to build and maintain relationships was not diminished, and in some cases enhanced, in the virtual environment using technology. Technology provides alternative means to have impromptu conversations, such as through MS Teams chats and video calls. Indeed, some agency groups have had success creating and sustaining online groups and conversations that have created additional avenues for relationship building. The NRC culture team Culture Conversations is an example. Also, as shown in Appendix D, remote and hybrid workers feel more connected than their in-office counterparts (FutureForum).

Further, the consequences are mitigated by HEART Recommendation 2, which is intended to equip managers and staff to more effectively work as part of a hybrid team. Additionally, HEART Recommendation 3 focuses on leveraging technology to create connections. By creating virtual groups with focused, relevant discussions and senior leaders support, there would be new ways for staff to build connections that were not available pre-pandemic.

C.4.D Insufficient knowledge transfer/management There is concern that without fixed in-person time for all staff, there would be a reduction in or less effective knowledge management. Although in-person sharing of knowledge has historically been an attribute of knowledge management at the NRC with in-person training for qualifications, etc., the current and future direction for knowledge management has shifted toward the use of technology-based tools. For example, OCHCO established an agencywide knowledge management system called Nuclepedia. On Nuclepedia, staff can create pages to share programmatic information, standard operating procedures, and other insights. Additionally, Microsoft Teams allows for communities to grow to share knowledge. MS Teams communities may be permanent and are interactive. Embracing and developing digital resources such as Nuclepedia and MS Teams mitigates the consequences of a reduction in in-person knowledge transfer.

Scoring L-10

The resulting scores have been charted in accordance with the Be riskSMART framework and the above scores and narrative justifications. Each point on the chart represents either a challenge (in red) or an opportunity (in green),

charted on the axes of consequence and likelihood. Each points location on the chart derives from the rating established by HEART and is explained above.

For challenges (red), the bottom left of the chart represents low consequence challenges that are unlikely to lead to negative results whereas the top right of the chart represents high consequence challenges that are likely to lead to negative results. For opportunities (green), the bottom left represents low benefit consequence, and the top right of the chart represents high benefit consequences that are likely to lead to positive results.

Presence with a Purpose - Be riskSMART Analysis Challenges are Red, Lower is Less Risk; Opportunities are Green, Higher is Better 10 9

O.2-Flexibility 8

O.1-Intentionality O.3-Empowered 7 O.5-Immediate Implementation Supervisors Likelihood 6 O.4-Space C.1-Implementation 5 Time 4 C.2-Burden C.3-Consistency 3

2 C.4-General Obstacles 1

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consequence Conclusions The Be riskSMART analysis shows that the PwP approach creates relatively small challenges and relatively large opportunities. The softer areas of consistency and first-line supervisor burden are more significant than the minor challenges but are still considered very low risk. The opportunities are significant and are expected to result in improved organizational health at the agency while only requiring a low-risk appetite. The HEART recommends moving forward with the approach of PwP, monitoring progress, and incorporate lessons learned as needed.

L-11