Government Executive - Authors - Kaylan Billingsley

3 Reasons Young Feds Should Try to Work Overseas

Kaylan Billingsley, Young Government Leaders — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:00:00 -0400

One of the effects of a more globalized world is the increased number of overseas opportunities for employment. One of the largest overseas employers for Americans is the United States government. According to the Office of Personnel Management, as of March 2013, there are over 34,000 federal civilian employees working in foreign countries. This can include cabinet-level agencies like the Departments of State or Defense, as well as agencies like USAID and the PeaceCorps. Overseas employment provides federal employees with a number of both financial and skill-based benefits that can help build the careers of many young feds. So what are the major benefits that contribute to the decision to work overseas? I’ve highlighted my top three factors that can be HUGE influencing forces on young feds making the move abroad.

1. Living Quarters Allowance

Living Quarters Allowances, or LQA’s are monthly monetary sums given to employees stationed overseas that do not have government-provided housing. LQAs are designed to cover rent, utilities and other allowable home expenses, and are allotted based on the employee’s grade and family size. It makes up a portion of overseas employees’ pay, and the best part is that it is non-taxable. What does this mean for young feds? Young people tend to be more transient, and are typically less likely to be property owners. Living overseas and receiving LQAs allow young feds to save their money more than if they were working and renting an apartment in say, Washington DC. Not only are they receiving a regular paycheck, but rent and utilities are no longer a part of a young federal employee’s financial worries! This can be one of the biggest incentives for young feds already strapped with things like student debt, as it allows them to put more of their money away for future investments.

2. Learning a Language

Any young fed looking to break into the worlds of international development, defense, intelligence or foreign policy know that fluency in a foreign language is frequently a requirement for many positions in these fields. It is the timeless question of the chicken and the egg. Is learning a language necessary for overseas employment or is overseas employment necessary for learning a language? The answer: both. Many times employers in the aforementioned fields, both federal and private require a non-English language before employment. In this case, young feds or those who aspire to work for the government can look to agencies like USAID and the PeaceCorps that take on volunteers and field workers without the language requirement. Every language course I’ve ever taken has always touted immersion as the most effective way to achieve fluency, and the federal government definitely has avenues for young feds to live overseas and learn a language. This will then open numerous doors for young feds to continue their careers in other agencies, as their linguistic training has helped them add another weapon to their resume’s arsenal.

3. Unique Networking Opportunities

Many young people completing an undergraduate degree may shy away from volunteering for agencies like the PeaceCorps because of the lack of financial stability. However, these agencies’ benefits go far beyond the immediacy of a paycheck. The PeaceCorps especially gives job training and job searching assistance for volunteers who have completed their service. This gives young people the inside track for gaining employment with the federal government. Working abroad also can provide young feds with a network of employers outside the confines of a DC agency, expanding their ‘rolodex’ of names for future employment opportunities. Jobs like a PeaceCorps volunteer or a State Department Foreign Service Officer are unique in that they have their own group identities. Employers that have had FSO or volunteer experience may identify with applicants that share the experiences of one of these positions. This could make them more inclined to employ a person with skills and values that they can easily identify due to their shared experience.

What are the other benefits, or perhaps pitfalls, of feds working overseas that you’ve seen?

Image via David P. Lewis/Shutterstock.com

]]>

The Telework Gap

Kaylan Billingsley — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 00:00:00 -0400

It seems there is a telework generation gap in government.

As technology makes it easier to remotely connect with others, many businesses and federal agencies have made the move to allow employees to telework. Employers are implementing telework for variety of reasons. Many cite the need to address low morale and stress, while others focus on environmental issues and cost cutting. Whatever the reason, telework has become more prevalent, which has sparked a debate about whether it makes employees more or less productive than traditional office operations.

The question about the productivity of telework is of particular importance to the federal government, which is already plagued by its reputation for red tape and ineffectiveness. Now with deep budget cuts being made at agencies, telework is being explored even further for government operations.

According to an Office of Personnel Management report, among a workforce of 2 million federal employees, 684,589 were eligible for telework by September 2012, and 168,558 employees were participating in telework programs. Of these employees, 46,000 were teleworking three or more times a week. In a survey of 166 young federal employees by the professional group Young Government Leaders, 132 were allowed to telework and 114 telework at least on occasion—86 percent of those eligible.

What does this mean for productivity?

Some have criticized Marissa Mayer, chief executive officer at Yahoo!, for banning telework at the company, citing the unstoppable force of technology and the benefits that telework provides. In the Young Government Leaders survey, 44 percent of respondents said teleworking improved their productivity while 5 percent said it decreased their productivity. The rest said it had no impact.

Respondents also were asked what they thought their manager’s perception of telework was. About 25 percent said their managers thought it increased productivity, and 21 percent said their bosses believed it decreased productivity. So, while the majority of workers believe teleworking is just as effective, if not more so, than regular office work, there is still some reservation among managers.

This disconnect could be due to gaps in age and technological familiarity, which can be a source of distrust of technology among managers. Another reason could be that managers aren’t communicating their support and trust in employees who telework. A third reason could be that many government managers have yet to set appropriate and effective ways to measure performance of teleworkers. It may be up to those employees to communicate to their bosses that their performance has not diminished and make a conscious effort to demonstrate their productivity.

The same methods used to measure in-office performance might not be as useful when evaluating employees’ work from home. Thinking carefully about how to manage and communicate with employees who telework is critical for the arrangement to benefit the employee and the agency.

Kaylan Billingsley is a research fellow at Young Government Leaders, a nonprofit professional
organization for federal, state and local employees.

]]>

The Telework Generation Gap

Kaylan Billingsley, Young Government Leaders — Fri, 10 May 2013 15:46:00 -0400

As technology has made it easier to remotely connect with others, many businesses, corporations and federal agencies have made the move to allow employees to “telework” or “telecommute.” There are various reasons as to why these employers are implementing telework policies. Many cite morale and stress reasons, while others claim environmental reasons and cutting costs. Whatever the reason, teleworking has become more prevalent in work environments, which has sparked discussion about whether or not it is more or less productive for employees than traditional office operations.

The federal government has not been immune from this discussion. The question about the productivity of telework policies is of particular importance to the federal government, which is already plagued by the reputation for red tape and ineffectiveness. Now with deep cuts being made to federal agencies, teleworking is being explored even further in government operations. In a report published by the US Office of Personnel Management, as of September 2012, of over two million federal employees, 684,589 were considered eligible for telework, and 168,558 employees were participating in telework programs. Of these employees, 46,000 were teleworking three or more times a week. In a Young Government Leaders survey of 166 young federal employees, 132 were allowed to telework and 114 of them have indicated that they telework at least on occasion (86 percent of those eligible).

What does this mean for productivity? Some have criticized Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer for banning telework, citing the unstoppable force of technology and the benefits that telework provides. In YGL’s survey, 44 percent of respondents believed that teleworking improved their productivity and 5 percent believed it decreased their productivity with the rest believing it had no impact. In responding to what they thought their manager’s perception of telework was, 25 percent believed their manager thought it increased productivity and 21 percent thought their manager believed it decreased productivity. So, while the majority employees believe that it is just as effective, if not more so, than regular office interactions, there is still some reservation from management concerning its degree of effectiveness.

This could be due to gaps in age and technological familiarity between managers and employees, which can be a source of distrust in technology by managers. Another option is that managers don’t communicate their support and trust with employees who telework. A third scenario is that government managers have yet to set appropriate and effective ways to measure teleworking performance. Finally, it may be up to the employee to communicate with their manager about how their performance has not changed and make a conscious effort to demonstrate that productivity. The same methods to measure in-office performance may not be as useful when evaluating employees from home. Thinking carefully about how one manages and communicates with employees who telework is critical for this arrangement to benefit the employee and his or her agency.

Image via Deborah Kolb/Shutterstock.com

]]>

Analysis: What Will Furloughs Mean For Young Feds?

Kaylan Billingsley, Young Government Leaders — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:50:00 -0400

One of the main concerns for all federal employees are mandatory furlough days. With budgetary cuts as harsh as 11 percent for some departments, furlough days will be used as a way to trim some of the spending by federal agencies.

While one or two days a month do not seem at first glance to be that detrimental to an employee’s paycheck, state furlough programs have proven otherwise. In California, UC Berkley’s Center for Labor Research and Education found that the three mandated furlough days per month during the 2009-2010 fiscal year amounted to a 13.8 percent reduction in salary, which is almost two months of pay per year. The study found that this hardship could possibly be linked to increased levels of stress in the workplace, more careless work errors and possibly higher turnover rates.

What could this mean for young feds? One of the main concerns for young employees is the growth of student debt for professionals under the age of 30. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, as of September 2010, student loan debt surpassed credit card debt for the first time ever, and in 2011 it surpassed automobile loans. According to the Project on Student Debt the average amount of student debt for the Class of 2011 was $26,600. A 2012 Young Government Leaders (YGL) survey found that the average debt load of respondents was $47,400, due in part to over half having a masters degree or higher. Young feds count on their newly acquired government jobs to help ease the burden of debt through salaries, and even loan repayment assistance from some agencies. In the same YGL survey it found that 43 percent of respondents had one month or less of savings with 25 percent living paycheck-to-paycheck.

The implementation of furlough days could lead to higher turnover of younger federal employees due to disenchantment with the benefits originally promised by their respective agencies. Or, on a more basic level, young feds may leave the public sector out of financial necessity.

Young feds that are new to the public sector and hit with furloughs may find more security in the private sector, as they are more apt for lateral career mobility due to their lack of familial and financial constraints. What does this mean for the public sector as a whole? This could create less of a base to build future high-level positions in federal agencies, particularly in areas of defense where sequestration cuts could hit the hardest. Young feds will not be the only ones losing when furloughs take effect. Furloughs will be detrimental to the future of federal agencies as they become less attractive career paths for young graduates and professionals.

Continued congressional gridlock between the executive and legislative branches should be cause for worry for federal leaders everywhere. It’s not just their respective budgets on the line. It could very well mean stagnation in the future productivity and growth of the public sector.

Image via Stephen VanHorn/Shutterstock.com

]]>