GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Private sector not necessarily a model for hiring reform

• 84177
  

  I really, really WANT a job with DON, but I cannot even get a response to my inquiry as to why my reinstatement rights/ICTAP Letter were totally ignored. Your self-important attitude is typical HR mentality and housekeeping is certainly in order for the majority of government HR divisions. OPM NEEDS greater involvement in the screening and hiring process.

  Scarlett Smith Posted August 4, 2009 3:13 PM
• 83214
  

  OPM is catering to a generation that wants everything instantaneously and are upset that the Federal hiring process is a bit daunting. We all managed to figure it out -- what is their problem? I want the Federal process to be a bit of a hoop to get through. I want the people I hire to WANT the job. I want them to do a GREAT job for the American public. Forget making it easier for the impatient.

  Nellie Moffitt Posted July 22, 2009 11:06 AM
• 82634
  

  I don't understand people who say the hiring process is so good in the private sector. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. Depends on the company. I also do not understand federal managers who say that too many of their applicants just copy the position description verbatim. I have participated in the hiring process many times and if we got such an applicant, WE THREW HIS APPLICATION IN THE TRASH! We don't put up with BS. Either the application is full of substantive material that can be verified or it's trash. That narrows it down to about three or four we can actually interview and then choose the best one. True, the selecting official is not in the office, but he almost always goes with our choice.

  To be in the government 30 years and still consider oneself inadequate also puzzles me. Sorry, ya'll, but I work hard, put in more hours than I'm required to, and do a good job.

  Puzzled Posted July 16, 2009 6:05 AM
• 82606
  

  Veteran's Preference and the Rule of Three should not exist. These are the main problems with the Federal Hiring Process!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Jack Black Posted July 15, 2009 2:18 PM
• 82596
  

  OPM or OMB can tinker all they want with process. But the real (not faux) problem is with DoD's near 100% internal and insider hiring rate for positions that DOD purportedly recruits in the 'search for excellence.' This inbred hiring rate represents the outcome of "external" (federal-wide and/or all sources area of consideration) hiring actions in the higher grades (e.g., GS 12-15) in the general administrative management series (e.g., GS-0300 and GS-0500 classifications).

  Internal hires are defined as current agency employees. Insider hires are defined as prior agency employees, including so-called 'conversions' of recently retired members of the agency's active duty admin support military into the very same desk and chair from which they retired, or contract employees of the hiring agency.

  Although this near 100% inbred hiring practice is by no means present in all federal organizations, it is rampant within far too many DOD orgs - the largest of all federal agencies. At the end of the day, and despite much lip service about "searching for excellence," these outcomes speak volumes about the nature of these actions and the organizational culture that is present. Essentially every single one of these surmised external to DOD recruitments result in identical outcomes: More and more internal/insider "we take care of our own (at the US taxpayer's expense)" hires.

  Although I realize that the foregoing may sound as if I am a disgruntled federal employee, in reality I am not. In fact, I am far from it. I have enjoyed an extremely successful and uncommonly diverse federal career spanning several agencies across our Nation for the last 33 years, including a tenure as Presidential Management Fellow at one of the genuinely finest federal organizations - the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. And over that time I have seen the very good, good, bad, and the downright ugly.

  My motivation is that I simply care. And I care enough to at least attempt to change the wrongheaded culture for the betterment of the organizations and for those that support us - the United States taxpayers. And to that end, I suggest that GOVEXEC ought to specifically address this area of public import that is in so much need of cleansing sunlight.

  Michael J. Smith, MPA Posted July 15, 2009 12:56 PM
• 82590
  

  I speak as a former Fed manager who participated many times in the application evaluation and interview process over the years. KSAs were and still are lots of narrative BS about mostly nothing specific related to the job. Most applicants seem to copy the job position description, sometimes verbatim, putting in the buzzwords that HR folks loved to see. We were required to determine an applicant's capabilities by plowing through a great deal of garbage written about abstract criteria like ability to communicate or understanding of the regulations. I would have preferred to have a resume with some pointed information as to education & job training, jobs held, and mandatory training & certs. That would have allowed me to set up interviews and then talk to the applicant about the actual experience each had gleaned over the years. Of course, HR had a list of abstract questions you were allowed to ask too related to the KSAs. Amazingly enough, most preliminary evaluations were completed by HR staffing specialists who usually had no real clue about the job or what was needed. But they loved those KSAs and wouldn't consider (1) allowing the professionals in the field to make the first cut and decisions, or (2) allow any divergence from using those pretty much worthless KSAs. I hated preparing them for promotions or applications and I hated reviewing them as a manager for hiring applicants.

  Joan Posted July 15, 2009 12:18 PM
• 82589
  

  I'm a retired fed and I now work in industry. There is a simple fix to the government hiring problem -- change the civil service to "at will" employment. If you want to make it easy and simple to hire, you need to make it easy and simple to fire.

  Otherwise, you need to treat each and every 2009 hiring decision for what it is... a multi-million dollar purchase with a "No Return" policy!

  Would you purchase a multi-million dollar computer system based on a three-page glossy marketing document or would you demand to see detailed technical specifications and capability descriptions?

  I rest my case!

  ED POWELL Posted July 15, 2009 11:52 AM
• 82583
  

  After almost 30 years of federal government service, I can say that at least in my agency, HR is not a priority, nor does it hire the "best and the brightest", which explains a lot.

  Hmmm Posted July 15, 2009 11:20 AM
• 82573
  

  I am one of the HR guys. The short answer is that the Federal process, required by laws passed by Congress, is mostly responsible for the fact that the HR staff is bigger, and there's more of a focus on "legal" stuff such as veterans' preference, KSAs (which allow candidates to be rated and ranked per the law's requirement)and years of experience as a qualification requirement.

  Charlie Posted July 15, 2009 10:06 AM
• 82534
  

  Amazing that folks that do the hiring can't read a resume, and get a grip on what the person has been doing. Its done all of the time in the private sector, because training and skillsets are inherent to certain types of positions, so if you "get' what is done in a position, you can find people who will fit the job. For example, If you are an analyst, then it makes logical sense to see schooling, training or work exp in analysis-including exposure to statistics, survey design, etc. may be in order. The hiring official should grasp the job description enough to know what background mix fits the position best. The trouble is, the federal gov doesn't want to hire someone who CAN do the job well, has a good work ethic, enthusiasm for the work, and innovation on the mind, but prefers to find a person who has all the skills and has done the job over and over, like an assembly line worker, so the agency's don't have to rely on poor manager-supervisors to train someone, or pay for training. Especially when most have little training themselves. Duh.

  Nadine Posted July 14, 2009 6:56 PM
• 82533
  

  I was involuntarily seperated from my federal position in July 2008 when our agency was closed. I was issued an ICTAP Letter with full reinstatment rights, held a Derived Veteran's Preferance and had outstanding performance evaluations. I tried for months to be hired with DON but the HRSC would not acknowledge my reinstatement rights, return phone calls or answer my e-mails. I finally was employed with DOA, but my commute is now 2 1.2 hours each way. I am very happy to be back in the federal system, but to this day I do not understand why my reinstatement rights were totally ignored by the DON HR.

  Scarlett Posted July 14, 2009 6:04 PM
• 82528
  

  I work in a small agency where only one employee (a manager) knows how to run the staffing process! EVERYBODY ELSE who knew ANYTHING retired! We have contractors (old feds) who work side-by-side in our office but they come and go so often that there is no real accumulating corporate knowledge. I am trusting other agency's merit promotion processes as we speak to get out of here before she assigns ME to staffing!

  Michelle Posted July 14, 2009 4:36 PM
• 82527
  

  Since 2004, off and on again, I have been applying for government jobs. I have yet to even get an interview. I am a graduate of the Naval Academy; a Naval Aviator; was Program Manager of the Trident Guidance Programs for GE, Held general management positions in quality and manufacturing, Managed International Surveillance programs for LM and was a business development person for LM and BarcoView. I have yet to qualify for a position with the government. The KSA's don't evaluate a person's aptitude nor the skill sets for a position. They don't evaluate the person's match to the organization. The questions appear to come from a limited set of experiences so narrow as to only include as qualified, someone who has held the position before, the position immediately below it or within the organization with the open position. There are questions asked and phrased such that any choice of answers does not include a comparable choice from an industry experience. The applicant must then answer none of the above and that eliminates the applicant as non-qualified. It does not appear to be able to match similar industry experience and qualifications with that of the government.I suspect the amount of human review is minimal in terms of the screening process. I don't understand why the government hiring process needs such a bureaucratic, paper intensive, "HR" / contractor intensive system that seems to perpetuate itself and the results, which by many public accounts, is in need of improvement. I remain skeptical that without change to the process, the results are going to change for the better.

  Mike k

  Mike Knudsen Posted July 14, 2009 4:25 PM
• 82525
  

  One thing wrong with the current system is that by and large Personnel Offices no longer exist in many field and regional locations with the function being largely consolidated in an agencies headquarters or other central location which in many cases is no longer near where a substantial number of employees work. It was not the Bush administration that started this practtice but rather Clinton & Gore in "reinventing Government". Similar offices in other administrative areas were also eliminated but I will stick to the personnel function.

  Having been a Federal employee for sometime,it is obviously to me, and others that the old system was certainly better than what currently is in place. Formerly there were Regional Personnel Officeswhich were essentially responsible for all personnel functions which included benefits , unemployment, recruitment, labor relations, liasions with OPM and other agencies among othe responsibilities too numerous to mention. Some of those involved in staffing had titles such as staffing or management specialists. This is what they did, not hold some fancy title. They would specialize in a certain area filling jobs, or research regulations, contrary as to what this article implies they do. Managers and supervisors did consult and worked cooperatively with personnel's people when issues arose.

  Application process was 360 degrees different. When one applied for avacancy a multi-part form was filled out. Each part representeda different part of application process from initial application to final selection. Such procedures are rare indeed today. Automation is relied on ! Not that bad but human element is missing. What happened to those who lost personnel jobs in reinventing government /Some went where personnel still existed or relocated with the function, some retired or accepted buyouts, others were reassigned to vacancies elsewhere in their agency, probably not utilizing experience built up over time, or went to work in personnel in other government agencies (state,local) or the private sector. To make a long comment short, the personnle function needs to revert back to what is was in the pre-Clinton years, that is being stationed by those they are serving, both managers and employees.

  Midwest Govt employee Posted July 14, 2009 4:06 PM
• 82519
  

  This is just so silly people applying for jobs either self score or are scored by software. HR isn't even involved except to send the letters out. Until quotas are eliminated for minorities the system is at a stand still. We already have over representation as it is so why the bother. In addition far too many HR folks go out of their way to "Not Hire a VET". Its way past time to start making examples of these scoff laws

  dan m ketter Posted July 14, 2009 3:12 PM
• 82512
  

  The KSA's although time consuming to complete, help the rater cut to the chase. Matching a KSA to an inflated resume can often expose the "fib". We have enough people working in the government who were hired because they were cute, tall, handsome, blue, green,spoke with an accent and do not know the differnce between brake and break, their and there. We are worried about treating the candidate kindly so as not to offend them for being less qualified. What about treating the taxpayers rightly and hiring qualified people to do the job. Making it easy to be hired does nothing for the good of the whole. Who would want a surgeon to operate on them that received his training carving decoys. Both require skills with a knife.

  David Posted July 14, 2009 2:04 PM
• 82506
  

  Having agency "technical" experts review the applicants would only work AFTER HR has made certain the eligibles meet minimum requirements including Veterans' status, education, experience, etc. Then have the expert review the referral list.

  There are too many "buddies", spouses, family members and significant others applying for jobs which adds additional burden on selecting officials who need to avoid the appearance of making a bad selection based on someones relationship to another employee.

  KSA's are vital in determining how an individual actually "does" the job. Resumes' alone do not fully explain what their experience.

  Government Employee Posted July 14, 2009 12:41 PM
• 82505
  

  Stop advertising positions that are for someone's grade promotion! A high percentage of positions advertised under usajobs are for someone's promotion. Stop wasting the public's time.

  Rebecca Posted July 14, 2009 12:40 PM
• 82504
  

  re: "When faced with résumés rather than detailed KSAs, HR personnel must subjectively evaluate candidates for positions or seek additional information from applicants to determine eligibility, thus adding steps to the process."

  OH REALLY? I wonder how many federal agencies there are who ARENT using some sort of automated software to do their rating and ranking of applicants to develop certificates for hiring managers?

  Probably arent many, but here we are again, making HR Specialists the "fall people" for the regulatory procedures that are in place!

  Lets be honest...in the private sector, a hiring manager can look through a bunch of resumes, and if they see someone they think can do the job, they can stop looking at all of the other resumes, whether Vets have appliced or not. You cant do that in the Federal sector, and still have a hope of "fair and open competition"

  OPM tracked Agency's ability to hire against a 45-day model, and also had a Mgmt Satisfaction Survey which, among other things looked at how much involvement the selecting official or subject matter expert had in the development of the job criteria used when hiring that position. But I dont see anyone here--or on the Hill--or anywhere else (including OPM) looking at that data before taking out the old saw about how it takes the government too long to hire and how [their new idea] will fix it.

  Dont get me wrong...there are lots of opportunities for improvements, but KSAs are NOT the problem.

  TIRED of the Same Old Blamestorming Posted July 14, 2009 12:39 PM
• 82501
  

  I recently came from the private sector to the federal government; and I can assure you the KSA's are not a true indicator of selecting the best qualified candidate. Yes the private sector only requires a resume but it also has an extensive interview process, which I have not seen or heard happens with the federal government. Furthermore, I believe it is in Avue's best interest to encourage the continual usage of KSA's because of their business which is to provide applicant tracking systems products to the federal govt. The more complex and intrusive the product the more money they can charge. So why wouldn't they feel KSA's are essential to the federal government hiring process????

  PrivatetoPublic Posted July 14, 2009 12:30 PM
• 82498
  

  This is VERY true. The private sector doesn't have to look at "eligibility" or "rule-of-3", etc, in addition to qualifications. A "bullet" resume does nothing for us or the applicant since the system does a first-scrub based on words used. I'd rather see an "unlimited" resume and the applicants eligibility docs upfront. It never fails the applicant claims one thing and the manager selects them only to be disappointed because the applicant isn't really eligible and there's no way to reach Joe-citizen.

  HR SPECIALIST Posted July 14, 2009 12:19 PM
• 82497
  

  I almost choked on my scone and the Brie fell on the floor when I read this report. Difficult to believe, truly. Oh well I must leave for the club. Truly a pity.

  Biff Posted July 14, 2009 12:04 PM
• 82491
  

  OPM's approach to Delegated Examining Unit advertisements (open to all US citizens) has been to go to the "carefully crafted questions about the job to be performed". The candidates interested in the position self score themselves based on their own personal analysis of their experience and ability to meet those "job questions". They use a scale from "never done this before" to "acknowledged expert". Unfortunately, other than looking at basic qualifications (for example specific degrees), the HR staff use this self scoring to rank the applicants. I have interviewed many high self scoring applicants from top of the job certification and found that they really had little to no experience performing those job functions. When we try to get them disqualified from the job certification for lying about their knowledge, experience and performance, HR says that it cannot be done. The entire Federal hiring process, as overseen by OPM, is a disaster.

  Jim Posted July 14, 2009 11:28 AM
• 82487
  

  I think it is important to remember that the private sector is not monolithic in terms of its hiring processes. There is a large personnel testing & selection industry that develops, validates, and manages all sorts of personnel selection tools, ranging from weighted application blanks to sophisticated, computerized cognitive ability, personality, and biographical assessments. Moreover, merit principles require more than a judgment (based on the resume) that an applicant meets (or not) minimum qualifications. Merit principles are about an applicant's qualifications relative to other applicants, assuming the minimum threshold is met. It is (supposed to be) competitive, and a federal job is not a constitutional right.

  I am concerned, as a practicing Industrial/Organizational Psychologist with 25 years in applied personnel selection test development and validation in both private and federal sectors that the current "reform" will throw out the baby with the bath water. KSAs and lengthy questionnaires and cognitive ability and personality tests are a pain for applicants - but used properly, a hiring agency can in fact get a reliable and valid assessment of each candidate's capabilities relative to others and minimum qualifications.

  Psychomagician Posted July 14, 2009 11:12 AM
• 82486
  

  HR and hiring are not broken! The only problem is that we don't have anybody left here who knows how to do it. If the personal services contractors left tomorrow, we couldn't function because we have lost the capacity to do the work ourselves. Opps! That's right, personal services contracting is against the law. Nobody seems to care.

  Teri Posted July 14, 2009 11:10 AM
• 82484
  

  May I ask a stupid question? Don't the majority of applications for federal jobs go through an automated screening process that determines candidates' eligibiity and qualifications for the job? And isn't AVUE a huge player in that field? Is it at all possible that AVUE's not entirely unbiased in its views of these issues? And as far as HR folks reviewing applications is concerned, I'm hoping that the rest of government is not like my agency, where the HR specialists let the software evaluate the applications, and do very little analysis and evaluation of applications themselves. "Untouched by human hands" or brains should be their motto regarding applicant evaluations.

  Lorraine B. Posted July 14, 2009 11:07 AM
• 82483
  

  Who is kidding who? The hiring 'problem' in the largest of all federal agencies - DOD - is NOT, repeat IS NOT process related. The indisputable 'problem' with the largest of all federal employing agencies is DOD's hyper insular 'we take care of our own' organizational culture.

  And this culture is manifested and indefensibly demonstrated by DOD's near 100% rate of inbreeding in the 0300 and 0500 series (and most likely others) in the mid and upper pay ranges even with purported external to DOD recruitments, meaning federal-wide or DEU area of consideration recruitments.

  Unless and until this reeking 100% self-financial driven rotten egg is dealt with, talking about or even changing the mere process by which DOD recruitments are announced or filled will not change anything.

  At the end of the day, if DOD hiring 'managers' preposterously perceive that skill sets are not portable (Note: THEY ARE!), and worse that they ludicrously buy into the self-validating nonsense that that excellence is only demonstrated by or gained within and among only and merely current or prior DOD staffers (GS or mil or contractor), then they ought not EVER use and abuse US taxpayer funds and recruit at the deep end of the pool.

  If someone wants to seriously change something for the better, then change this dregs of public administrative management practice that is systemic in almost every single corner of DOD.

  Michael J. Smith, MPA Posted July 14, 2009 10:47 AM
• 82482
  

  The Federal Government is NOT the private sector! Private Sector does NOT have all of the restrictions that we do.

  Your HR Specialists are the ones who have to adjudicate veterans preference, research and apply the Remployment Priority List, Priority Placement Program Military spouse "Stopper Lists", ICTAP and CTAP entitlements, etc. when reviewing applications.

  ALL of the above place restrictions on who may be selected. I'm pretty sure that a Manager who looks at 5 applications from two CPS veterans, 2 TP veterans, 1 XP veteran and 1 non-preference eligible is NOT going to be able to issue a selection certificate with the applicants in the right order. (i.e., ensuring that the veterans rights are not violated.)

  Most of the above entitlements are statutory, which means "IGNORE AT YOUR OWN PERIL!"

  Does anybody REALLY think that HR likes to tell management "No, you can't hire the person you name requested because a CPS veteran is blocking the certificate you were issued???????" We'd love to be able to tell selecting officials to hire "whoever you want" and then everybody would be extremely happy.

  I don't mean to vent, but federal HR Specialists did NOT make up the "rules" for Federal Hiring, Congress did. We are just the "enforcers".

  I'd love to see a competitive service agency be able to run a pilot for a year and let the selecting officials do exactly what they want to do with no interference from HR.

  This means that the selecting official has to review all of the applications (Hope you don't get one of those announcements that generates 300 applications like some I've had!) Once the SO comes up with the "Best Qualified List or the DEU Certificate, that person will then make a selection from the available applicants.

  One caveat, when the Selecting Official violates a veterans rights, a military spouses rights, a PPP registrant's rights or manages to get 12 EEO complaints because they hired a person with 1 year of experience rather than the 11 other people with many years of experience who are so much more qualified but "I don't want to pick them because they are old and I'll have to pay them more", HR can't be called in to fix the mess that the manager made.

  P.S. I'll be the one laughing when the case shows up on the Government Executive email newsletter...

  HR Specialist Posted July 14, 2009 10:42 AM
• 82477
  

  First of all, what is Avue's stake in the current process? What is their hidden agenda.

  Many of the comments ring true - resumes are written by someone other than the applicant, and are often padded. But the same holds true for responses to KSAs. Managers need to be able to hire without waiting for second (and third) level approval, but we need to find a way to streamline the firing process while still maintaining civil rights protections.

  My beef is the KSAs that make no sense. When two GS 15s can't figure out what a KSA means, there is something wrong. Agencies need to learn how to write plain English and "vet" their KSAs. Apparently no one is reviewing them before the job announcement is released.

  Army's system sounds like a winner.

  Charleen Posted July 14, 2009 10:00 AM
• 82475
  

  I am a manager in the Department of the Army and I have experienced firsthand an attempt to fuse a private industry model on top of federal hiring requirements. Much of my early experience was with Navy/ONR where we had an excellent hiring process. At Army, we abandoned KSAs and, along with it, any hope of EVER separating "the wheat from the chaff." I get list after list of people who have "gamed" the Army process to get on a certificate which, considering the intellect of the referred candidates, must be pretty easy! I would prefer that screening of candidates INCREASE not decrease! How do you run a merit system with ZERO information on the merit of applicants?

  Will Posted July 14, 2009 9:44 AM
• 82474
  

  I am a manager in the Department of the Army and I have experienced firsthand an attempt to fuse a private industry model on top of federal hiring requirements. Much of my early experience was with Navy/ONR where we had an excellent hiring process. At Army, we abandoned KSAs and, along with it, any hope of EVER separating "the wheat from the chaff." I get list after list of people who have "gamed" the Army process to get on a certificate which, considering the intellect of the referred candidates, must be pretty easy! I would prefer that screening of candidates INCREASE not decrease! How do you run a merit system with ZERO information on the merit of applicants?

  Will Posted July 14, 2009 9:44 AM
• 82470
  

  As a citizen and taxpayer, the federal government, the Office of Personnel Management and John Berry are there to serve ME but they are doing a poor job in the hiring department! I don't understand what opportunities there are for me in government because the descriptions for jobs on the OPM site are, as I search for the proper word, mysterious! That gobblygook is compounded by the enigma of the federal organization, which you must examine and try to understand to get a federal job! Why? Because the federal government has as many hiring processes and systems as they have departments, bureaus, agencies, boards, commissions, government corporations, institutions, centers, administrations, etc. I'm on the outside and I only see ONE federal government, MY federal government. As a taxpayer, why do I have to be confronted with hundreds of different processes? I certainly pay enough for the service, don't I deserve better?

  Edwin Posted July 14, 2009 9:30 AM
• 82463
  

  Its true that what passes for a hiring process in "private industry" does NOT serve federal agencies well. We have had to dismiss more contractors than we keep on.

  Vendors usually expect an agency to bring on their contract people based on resume alone. More often than not, these folks do NOT live up to the resume.

  There are some gifted, experience contractors, but they are not the majority.

  Don Posted July 14, 2009 8:32 AM
• 82460
  

  We developed a method that was fairly reasonable for hiring (at a time when we needed to double in size rapidly). When applications came in, HR screened only for basic qualifications, e.g. education levels, veteran preferences, etc. All applications were reviewed by an in house technical expert, to determine if the group of applicants had the appropriate expertise, and if so, Quality Review Boards were held to rank all the applicants. The Div. Director and operational staff met with HR every other week to check on the status of every open position. This teamwork allowed us to move relatively quickly to hire hard to fill positions requiring M.D.'s, Ph.D.s, with highly specialized skill sets crucial to our mission. Having a technical liaison to interact with HR, doing all the applicant ranking with QRBs, not HR staff, and having a Division Director really involved in the overall recruiting process helped us to achieve our goal and further the mission of our Institute.

  Carole Cole Posted July 14, 2009 8:17 AM
• 82459
  

  KSA's may take a little time at first, but, once you do one, you save it and as you move up, you can add additional experience and training to it over your career. I have a library of KSA's which I update each time I am applying for a promtion. Normally, you will be applying for a similar type position in your career field. I have never found KSA's to be cumbersome, except the first time I had to do one, took a little more time, but after that I only had to add my current job experience or additional training I had, which then enhanced the KSA when applying for a new position. If you truly are qualified you will be able to speak to it in a KSA. Today people get degrees in many areas, but they do not necessarily end up working in the area their degree(s) are in. KSA's are a means to determine that.

  Win Win Posted July 14, 2009 8:05 AM
• 82454
  

  If you want to streamline the hiring, then stream line the firing. Less information and more responsibility on the manager whose vacancy needs to be filled comes with more than just hiring changes. First, let's make them leaders again, not just technocrats who are given responsibility for a function and must then spend most of their time lifting the rocks. You can't speed up one end with out the other. If it still takes heroic efforts to fire somebody (probationary period or not), then I will reamin extra cautious on the front end. I conducted a statisical analysis a few years back when managers were complaing about how long it took to bring someone on board at an overseas post. The numbers showed the managers had the hiring action for the longest period of time, and HR was waiting on their decsions. When the managers were asked about this their response was the investment in dollars and time to relocate the individual and their families was extensive, and if a bad choice was made by either of the two parties so much was lost; the stakes were high. So, I agree with Crum. Improve the up front process and still provide the managers with sufficient information to best inform their decsion, and then HR should bend over backwards to clear the deck in the case of a bad hire.

  Fed Vetter Posted July 14, 2009 7:43 AM
• 82452
  

  Resume's are OK for work and education history. They are not reliable beyond that because so many people do not write their own. Software and writing services can make the applicant sound like a Rhodes Scholar. Then the person gets grilled in an interview and cannot complete a sentence. KSA's help us sort out some of these off the shelf applicants. They focus on working knowledge and accomplishments. Disclaimer: I teach and tutor college students on the job search process.

  Anthony Weishar Posted July 14, 2009 7:19 AM
• 82450
  

  It seems from this article that the problem is the HR personnel. What about having the applications reviewed by the program person who actually knows what the job is and what qualifications are needed? Wouldn't that be the smart thing to do?

  Andy Neilsen Posted July 14, 2009 7:09 AM
• 82449
  

  While I can't speak for "all" of the federal agencies, what is perceived in the above article is untrue for the Department of the Army. KSA's as mentioned above were abolished years ago. The resume is reduced to about 3 pages, and in these 3 pages the applicant describes their experience of the position be announced, along with education acheivements, and awards. The Department of the Army HR determines and verifies applicants hiring preferences such as Veteran. The "true" hiring authority is the first line manager of the position being recruited for who determines the level of skills needed which are factored into the objectives screening elements. Bottom line, the Department of the Army lengthly hiring process is not delayed by KSA, but rather the workload of the HR staff. The Department of the Army computerized the hiring process over 20 years ago and in doing so reduced the HR staff by over 50%. So it is simply a matter of understaffing.

  OPM officials at the very top have no clue again, but are relying on "rumors" that are generated at the bottom and pushed to the top which get distorted at each level.

  DunItBefore Posted July 14, 2009 7:03 AM
• 82448
  

  DUH. I bet there's many Republicans choking on their Brie and scones over this report.

  GaLiberal Posted July 14, 2009 6:53 AM
• 82447
  

  True, the private sector is not an applicable model. If the Feds seek to emulate it, it should look at why 99.9% of those promoted into management are never demoted or fired. Also in the private sector there are no 3rd party management associations - which enter input into the federal union/Agency contract process. It is the lack of management firings that is the issue and problem with govt.

  George Sincavage, AFGE AVP Posted July 14, 2009 6:13 AM