GovernmentExecutive.com

With all the buzz in Washington surrounding implementation of pay-for-performance systems at the Homeland Security and Defense departments, it was interesting to hear the leaders of agencies considered the "best places to work in government" downplay pay in explaining their success at a forum in Washington on Wednesday.

"I've never found anyone who says, 'I came into public service for the money,'" said NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, whose agency placed first in the survey of best places to work in government. The survey was compiled by the Partnership for Public Service and American University's Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation using data culled from 100,000 questionnaires the Office of Personnel Management sent to federal employees in the summer of 2002.

The survey identified NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Management and Budget, the General Services Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency as the top five places to work.

O'Keefe said NASA employees are motivated primarily by interesting work. "There has to be a set of objectives beyond [money] to excite and motivate" employees, he said.

Rita Colwell, director of the National Science Foundation, and Morris Winn, assistant administrator of the Office of Administration and Resources Management at EPA, echoed O'Keefe's remarks. "The commitment of our employees to science and engineering is one of the major drivers" of success, Colwell said. Winn said EPA employees are driven primarily by a desire to protect the water, air and land.

Indeed, the report concludes that the best indicators of job satisfaction in public employment stem from effective leadership, a strong alignment of employee skills and agency mission, and teamwork. Pay, benefits and performance-based rewards were cited as important, but not at the same level as the other factors.

Only Stephen Perry, administrator of the General Services Administration, stressed pay-for-performance in his remarks at the forum. GSA, which doesn't have quite the cachet of NASA, EPA or the National Science Foundation, still managed to place fourth on the list of best places to work in government. "We have a rigorous performance management process with goals that are challenging, measurable and well communicated broadly throughout the organization," Perry said. He added that a desire to provide world-class customer service motivated his workforce.

Ranked last on the list was the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a formerly independent agency now incorporated into the Homeland Security Department. DHS did not exist at the time the survey was conducted.

FEMA has long been considered a backwater in the federal government, but its reputation improved considerably during the Clinton administration, and the agency has received accolades in recent years for improving the timeliness and responsiveness of its relief efforts. The positive buzz, apparently, didn't lead to positive results on the survey.

The Defense Department's component agencies were split in the rankings, with the Air Force finishing at the top of the department, and seventh overall. Defense agencies not associated with the major military branches were grouped as one entity, and finished second to last in the survey. The Education Department was third worst, followed by the Marine Corps and the Small Business Administration.

The survey also compiled a list of the top sub-agencies in government, with three NASA entities topping the list: the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.; the Johnson Space Center in Houston; and the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Of course, the data might be different if the questionnaire were distributed today, after the tragic destruction of the space shuttle Columbia. The next best subagency was the Denver region of the Environmental Protection Agency, followed by NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Fla.

The survey offers a few other interesting nuggets. For example, the Housing and Urban Development Department ranked first among the major agencies for diversity. Nearly 50 percent of HUD's workers are minorities. The Transportation Department had the lowest turnover rate, with only 3.2 percent of its workforce leaving in 2002. The State Department, far and away, topped the list of agencies using the Student Loan Repayment Program. More than 400 employees benefited at a cost to the department of $2 million. The next highest was the Energy Department, which spent just $50,000 to help 17 employees pay student loans in 2002. That may have a lot to do with the dearth of young employees in most cabinet departments.

Indeed, in the retirement eligibility category, the Small Business Administration reported that more than 50 percent of its workforce is already eligible to retire, while nearly 50 percent of employees at FEMA and HUD are retirement-eligible.

The Big Payback

Speaking of student loans, President Bush Tuesday signed legislation that will raise the amount agencies can spend repaying employees' loans.

The Federal Employee Student Loan Assistance Act (S. 926), will let agencies pay up to $10,000 a year in student loan payments for an employee, and as much as $60,000 total per employee. Before the bill's passage, agencies could only pay up to $6,000 a year, and the total amount per employee could not exceed $40,000.

"To provide taxpayers with the services they want in the most efficient way, the federal government needs to be able to attract the best and the brightest to federal service," said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who sponsored the legislation. "With college expenses soaring, this legislation helps make the federal government a more attractive employment option."

Employees who participate in the student loan forgiveness program must work for their agency for at least three years, and must repay the money if they are fired or quit before that time.

COMMENTS

• They should not forgive student loans at all - this is a great penalty to those of us that paid for our education and get nothing! Even if you forgive student loans, the government agencies should not forgive loans until the student has paid at least 50% of the loan themselves and should pay nothing until the employee has completed at least five years of full-time government service as a civil servant. This simply gets the default rate on student loans to a lower level by allowing the government to write off the loans so they do not have to report the delinquincy rates at the high levels that exist. If the students are not going to pay the loan anyway, then the government should. GovExec.com reader Posted November 13, 2003 7:03 AM
• It's not about money - I don't believe that I have ever read a survey, management text, or participated in a discussion group that didn't fully agree. There is a given - that compensation is perceived as "fair". If this is not true, the lack of fair compensation is a demotivator. Having important work to do, that is directed to achieving a goal that supports a greater good, being recognized for your contribution, having the resources to do your job, and have a chance to input in the decison making process all rank higher in the "What motivates me" order than pay. Bonuses and other financial rewards, unless tied very directly to performance and contribution of the entire team that is involved in the success, in fact, tend to result in less motivation. Why? They are perceived by various team members as "unfair." It is hard to describe any effort that is truly individual and does not rely on the contribution from some other "team" member, be that a delivery person, typist, research assistant, supplier, publisher, etc. If you want higher morale and motivation in your organization, clearly define the goal and what is expected of each person in support of that goal, provide the resources needed, monitor performance, mentor, coach, praise, solicit and incorporate feedback from the team, and celebrate success. Edward Schwier Posted November 13, 2003 10:58 AM
• Wise up. It is not about money because everyone in government is paid in accordance with the GS schedules! If there is no difference in money other factors are important. The real question is why are the better qualified people not working for the government? Not which agency gets the highest grade on a meaningless survey! GovExec.com reader Posted November 13, 2003 7:05 AM