Administration

’Tis the season! (year-end closing, that is) — There is a favorite quote that procrastinators love to cite by Douglas Adams: “I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they go by.”

For most of the fiscal year this quote is humorous and can apply to those deadlines that turn out to be more flexible after all. However, there is one deadline that can’t be ignored and it always falls near the end of September. We are fast approaching the business of bringing another fiscal year to a close, and ’tis the season to look for those telltale signs of the administrative staff working to meet this very important deadline.

A good observer may notice the subtle change in the air that happens with budget and administrative staff. First comes the dreaded e-mail from WASO funneled through the regional office. It is titled something like “fiscal year closeout instructions” with several attachments that when printed may have used enough paper to kill a small tree. Nevertheless, it is a necessary evil that becomes the blueprint on how to close the books on another fiscal year. It is carefully printed, perhaps tabbed or tagged with sticky notes, highlighted, dog-eared and read more than once.

Another change an observer may notice is that the budget and other administrative folks might become a little withdrawn and begin to mumble words like accruals, obligations and status of funds. Doors that were open most of the year may be closed now to allow for quiet processing of all the accounting that needs to take place. Those in the know may not even attempt to approach the closed door the final week of September. If a small offering is appealing, chocolate or other forms of caffeine may do the trick.

Obvious changes may also be seen among the budget and other administrative staff. Our eyes may become glazed, beads of sweat may appear as concentration deepens, snappy answers may occur and we may begin mumbling aloud in what sounds like our own secret language. Acronyms such as AFS, FFS, ET, IT, ALCT and SALT tables become everyday vocabulary as we prepare documents, process actions and update tables in the budget programs.

All tongue-in-cheek comments aside, I am appealing to all park staff to remain vigilant for signs of stress in the administrative and budget staff this time of year. Keep an eye out for raised levels of stress that may produce anxiety, worrying, irritability, feeling insecure, sleep problems, depression, angry outbursts, undereating, overeating, social withdrawal or even crying spells.

Taking care of each other is a vital part of keeping the NPS family healthy and together. A quick check-in with the administrative staff could go a long way in helping someone make it through another day of year-end closeout.

Don’t forget a smile, a joke or a reassuring comment. We all need to come up for air! Oh yeah, and chocolate may also work.

Interpretation

The Art of the Interpretive Rove — Statistically, less than 20 percent of park visitors attend interpretive programs. This is unfortunate, especially when, as interpreters, we spend a lot of time preparing for our formal presentations. With such a small program attendance rate, interpretive roving will always remain a vital means of one-on-one interaction with park visitors. It is important that we understand and appreciate the significance of this method of interaction.

When I was a seasonal interpreter this was never explained to me. I remember my first impression of seeing the term “rove” on my work schedule. I had to ask my supervisor what it meant and how to use my time during a rove. Basically, I was told to “go walk the trails” and “provide a presence” in the park. That seemed simple enough. It gave me an opportunity to get out of the visitor center, get some exercise and immerse myself in the park. I couldn’t believe I got paid for it. I loved roving, but meeting visitors was secondary. If I did meet a visitor along the way, I would say hello as we passed. Occasionally a visitor would ask me directions on the trail. This was the extent of my roving method.

It seems that roving has different meanings for interpreters. At one park where I worked, the staff considered roving to be an opportunity to drive around the park in a government vehicle. Getting out of the vehicle to interact with visitors wasn’t important. On other occasions, when staff saw they had rove scheduled next to their name, this meant they could spend the time checking their e-mail.

I often got morning phone calls from staff asking if they could use the day’s rove time for completing administrative tasks or getting ready for an upcoming interpretive program. It was obvious to me that the staff’s perception of roving needed changing. When I tried to explain to them that roving was much more than what they perceived, I typically got blank facial expressions as a response. Does everything have to be so complicated, they asked? The answer is no; roving doesn’t have to be complicated but it does need to be intentional and focused.

First and foremost, the purpose of interpretive roving is to make contact with park visitors and provide them with orientation, information and when possible, interpretation. As interpreters and supervisors, we must instill in ourselves and our staff the vital importance of roving.

I’ll venture to say that roving is more important than the formal presentations we make, such as interpretive walks and campfire programs. Let’s end the false notion that roving is something an interpreter does in order to “fill in” the blank spaces on a schedule when not presenting formal programs.

Teaching and coaching (unfortunately some still call it “auditing”) effective roving should be given equal or more time during interpretive training than teaching and coaching what is an effective walk, talk or illustrated program. The potential exists to reach over 20 percent of park visitors, more than formal programs are able to do.

Roving is a form of informal visitor contact as described in the NPS Interpretive Development Program. Making an effective contact begins with hiring interpretive staff who have the maturity, social skills and willingness to interact with visitors.

I’m astounded by the number of front-line staff (seasonal and permanent) I’ve encountered who lack these basic skills. These include the ability to be a good listener and have a sincere interest in the needs of the visitor.

I recall talking to one such interpreter at a busy site. Our conversation had just ended and the interpreter turned around to walk away. At that same moment a visitor was walking up to the interpreter just a few feet away. The interpreter spotted the visitor and quickly turned back to face me with a terrified facial expression. The interpreter had turned away from the visitor knowing that the visitor had intended to make contact and ask a question. I was stunned.

It is also important for interpretive staff to understand and respond to verbal and non-verbal cues from visitors during an interaction. These cues include tone of voice, body language and the type of questions they ask. This ability to read visitor cues requires a keen sense of focus that is intentionally watching, listening and responding appropriately.

Consistent and repeated coaching by the supervisor is needed to improve an interpreter’s ability to read visitor cues. Imagine all the interpretive opportunities that are lost as a result of ineffective roving or the lack of roving because the supervisor didn’t recognize its interpretive value. A supervisor needs to make coaching of interpretive roves a priority in the work schedule.

One of the most useful strategies I’ve used during a rove is to listen closely to the type of question being asked by a visitor during a contact. The question usually falls into one of three categories: where, what and why.

“Where” questions (I don’t need to remind you of the most common question that visitors ask!) indicate a need for orientation. “What” questions indicate a need for basic information. “Why” questions provide an opportunity for interpretation. An experienced and well-prepared interpreter will have a variety of appropriate techniques to answer this type of question. During a rove, a good interpreter will provide more than just a verbal explanation.

If future trends continue, resulting in fewer visitors attending formal programs, the importance of the interpretive rove will surely grow. As supervisors and interpreters we need to work together to plan and implement the most effective roving strategy in our parks.

Roving will always be a valuable means of providing a personal service for visitors.

I’m of an age to think more about legacy issues and, as my park manager has said, about whether I’m training my successor, even if I’m not quite ready to hang up the Stetson.

Journeyman resource professionals often comment that seasonals get the best of the work — lots of field time monitoring plants, wildlife, geologic features or archeological sites; hands-on time with museum objects or historic structures; out ‘GPS-ing’ natural or constructed features--in remote corner of their park, while the supervisors are more desk-bound, analyzing data, writing or reviewing the reports, and administering their programs. Whether accurate or not, I hope that supervisors and the subordinates themselves seek opportunities for the seasonals to get broad exposure to park work, across the disciplines in resource management and beyond.

Since I began my NPS career three decades ago, park work, as in so many other fields, has gotten increasingly specialized for many good reasons. Yet, in recent years, a number of my peers and I have not uncommonly discussed how, when recruiting for chiefs of resource management, we long for a broader range of experiences in the applicants. Of necessity, many resource management divisions today oversee both natural and cultural resources, and whether at the regional directorate or park division level, it’s logically quite difficult to find candidates who have experience with both.

Relative NPS newcomers may not know of the 1980s-era discussions over generalists vs. specialists, and I don’t seek a return of the debate. But I do believe we should continually examine whether, as professionals, we’re developing not only the subject matter expertise but the leaders and managers needed to achieve our stewardship goals.

Supervisors, I hope we’ll ask ourselves whether we’re encouraging and supporting our subordinates in being exposed to and familiar with the concerns of other resource specialists and interpretive and protection rangers, or concessions managers and maintenance staff. That we’re seeking out and mentoring future leaders. Young professionals who think you may desire a long NPS career, consider whether you want to be the best in your specific field, or whether to someday become a division chief or superintendent or even director--and, if the latter, seek a range of jobs and/or collateral trainings and experiences to engage across disciplines, to learn and appropriately support the many specialist viewpoints in the context of park legislation, policies, and mission.

Of late, I believe I’m seeing renewed interest in younger employees obtaining red cards for fire duty, as fire managers increasingly struggle to find higher-level staff who desire or are permitted time enough to fill the intensive training requirements for fire assignments. I’m inspired by seasonals from all divisions and disciplines who seem energized by science seminars and are creating teams to make their parks more ‘climate friendly.’ I’ve watched individuals who volunteered to help with the Gulf oil spill and returned from a sweltering, sobering experience with more determination to protect parks, visitors and local communities. I’m thinking about how we prepare and treat our human resources as much as how we sustain our cultural and natural resources. How are we doing?

NOTE: If you work in resource management and are interested in becoming a columnist in this space, please contact the editor at fordedit@aol.com.