TOPICS
TOPICS
Report touts intelligence personnel reforms as a model
The intelligence community's personnel approach could serve as the gold standard for the federal government, according to a new report from the IBM Center for the Business of Government.
The report, written by James Thompson and Rob Seidner of the public administration department at the University of Illinois-Chicago, noted that flexibilities granted in a 2004 intelligence reform law gave spy agencies the opportunity to make innovative changes that balanced their specific personnel needs with those of the broader community's. "The component units have ceded some of their autonomy in the interest of a stronger and more cohesive whole," the report stated.
That model could inform governmentwide personnel reform efforts, the authors said.
The customization of workforce policies the Bush administration encouraged by granting agencies exemptions to civil service law has several disadvantages, the report said. Differences in hiring standards and pay systems make employees less mobile, for instance. The government also ends up paying more for workers with critical skill sets because diverse personnel systems force agencies to compete with one another for job candidates.
"Agencies authorized to create their own personnel rules have shifted away from the [General Schedule] and toward paybanding," the report stated. "In the absence of any governmentwide framework, agencies have devised highly diverse sets of paybanding rules and standards that compromise the objective of internal equity."
The report recommended that agencies be given the flexibility to develop their own personnel systems, but within common parameters set by the Office of Personnel Management. This would ensure buy-in by those charged with implementing human resources programs and foster an atmosphere of trust and cooperation among employees.
"If traditional hierarchical approaches are employed, the balance will inevitably tip in favor of departmental considerations," the report said. "In this model, agencies are full participants in the development of departmental rules."
The report's authors also recommended allowing agencies with similar missions to share a common human resources framework. In the area of food safety, for example, the Food and Drug Administration could lead a cluster of agencies that includes parts of the Agriculture and Health and Human Services departments.
In addition, the government could extend the intelligence community's joint-duty requirements to the entire Senior Executive Service, according to the report. "The vast majority of SES members spend their entire careers in a single agency," the report noted. "The purpose [of joint duty] would be to broaden the perspective of those who reach the top levels of the career service and to foster collaboration among agencies in addressing issues that cross agency lines."
COMMENTS
- Mike I agree and am 100% behind it continuing...By hiring vets the taxpayer is getting the best, brightest hardest working individuals for the dollar. Unless and until other agencies adopt P4P ala NSPS those agencies really don't have competent individuals to compete within DOD. The current CS system is replete with underachieving, who expect annual raises and promotions based simply on attendance. How can DOD qualify someone from another agency when everyone is "outstanding" its a joke and those who find themselves turned down for jobs at DOD have the CS to blame not Vets. dan m ketter Posted March 20, 2009 4:48 PM
- Two Points: Of course we all support veterans preference, even us veterans. It IS the law of the land after all. But the indisputable fact reamins: Not all vets are combat vets. In fact, very, very few ever saw ANY danger whatsoever during their 20-years in uniform in admin support roles. Stop attempting to dilute the sacrifcies of those that did and do! And what is the principle reason these people opted to volunteer and then re-enlist for 20-years and more and earn very good salaries and extremely generous tax free housing allowances that not seen in any other walk of American life? The principle answer is to escape their pre- all volunteer military years in minimum or just above minimum wage jobs and lifestyles in the very competitieve US job market. And the issue I repeatedly raise pertains to magnitude. And the magnitude is in one word: PREPOSTEROUS! DOD in almost every single corner hires almost exclusively within and among itself in the mid and upper pay ranges in the admin support areas even when it purports to recruit outside of itself. Again nearly every single time (READ: not 50%, not 75 or 80%, but almost 100% of the time) a DOD hire is made it only hires current or prior DOD staffers, be they DOD GS or recently retired military admin support member who desires a so-called 'conversion' to a GS position post retirement (oftentimes into the very same desk and chair that they 'served' the country, or a DOD contractor staffer. And that abysmal record, boys and girls, is aptly described as SELF-SERVING INBREEDING! Michael J. Smith, MPA Posted March 18, 2009 4:03 PM
- There are many buzzwords (inbreeding, stovepipe, nepotism, etc) to decry the service's habit of hiring prior military. But as yet, I haven't heard why that status quo is a problem, and certainly haven't seen two or three solutions provided for us to vet. Maybe we shouldn't hire any school principal if they were a teacher at any time, and maybe a bank (your bank) manager should come from outside that industry. Further, while the service recruiters are aggressive, and often recruit those who never thought of joining the military, isn't it likely that these prior military, law enforcement and intel personnel are self-selecting? Why would anyone want to continue to work for DoD, DHS, or LE without some commitment to serve? No doubt many get into a comfort zone, and later rise to their level of incompetence. This Marine Retiree/now DHS Fed has personally observed mid-management vacancies filled by morons who happen to be prior military, but I attribute their employment to those who made hiring decisions, not the hiring system itself. John, MPA Posted March 18, 2009 12:39 PM
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco
