Reader responses to Ned on Feds - The shallow pool

DAILY BRIEFING

Reader responses to Ned on Feds - The shallow pool

Here are the responses we have received to the May 1 Ned on Feds column, "The shallow pool."

"Ned Lynch is right on target with this one. We seem to be proving, once again, 'be careful what you wish for!' There are not only the consequences, but the 'foreseeable' consequences of the wish. The long-term effects of the 'rush to downsize to save money' will continue to have serious convulsive effects on government operations for the next 15 to 20 years, both in terms of quality and efficiency.

"We have sent some of the worlds finest talent out the back doors of all federal agencies over the past 8 to 10 years, along with millions in taxpayer dollars that we spent for their education and training. In view of our personnel management and leadership performance, we would unquestionably fail in 'Human Investment -101.' You can not right-size, downsize, reinvent, reengineer [particularly an elephant like a bureaucratic organization] without "redesigning and rewriting" the organizations primary and secondary missions.

"Uninformed myopic managers bent on radical change, do not make good visionary leaders, and, visionary leaders without a long-term leadership strategy aren't going to get the horse to water-mush less get them to drink! We are in desperate need of visionary leaders who have the talent to pull the organization to that vision - into the future. We need leaders who can instill trust and confidence through the proper use [not abuse] of human resources.

"I tell my students, 'the problem with common sense is that it isn't very common.' Thanks Ned, for the 'un-common sense,' it is refreshing to hear someone 'tell it like it is!'"

-Richard A. Watts, Professor
Department of Leadership and Management
Army Management Staff College

"I am a Local National working for USAREUR. It has always puzzled me why the U.S. civilian employment system promotes people who have been in grade only 12 months. In one year there is no way an employee, especially at the GS11 or GS12 level can do anything to prove their abilities sufficiently to warrant promotion to the next level.

"At the 12 level we are talking program managers. Program management requires long term planning and decision making. In many cases, the employee making such decisions may well be gone before the full impact of the decisions they made is felt. Another drawback to the "one year in grade" rule is that some employees will move from a GS11 position in USAREUR to a GS12 position in Korea (since it is generally accepted that you can get a higher grade in Korea easier than you can anywhere else...) and then back CONUS as a 13 in two, possibly two and half years. At the higher grades the time in grade should increase to at least two or even three years before promotion. This will provide sufficient time to properly assess the individual's abilities and potential for promotion. In the civilian sector a person with a track record of a different job every year would not be viewed positively.

"Something else I've noticed in my 30 years of working for USAREUR is that too few 'supervisors/managers' are good at managing people. People management skills appear to be a low priority and yet a manager with poor people management skills can have a truly devastating impact on an organization in a short space of time. People skills should be a high priority when recruiting for manager/supervisor positions."

-Glynis Walker
C8, HQ USAREUR,
ODCSPER, IMSD

"I certainly do agree, even though I am one of those personnel specialists who doesn't not have a college degree. I have been fortunate and had many great opportunities in my career. I am not am not at all offended by the premise that we have promoted people for more social considerations and short term consequences than for their potential long term contributions: it is true and we are reaping the consequences.

"I have spent most of my thirty plus years career in management positions and saddens me and many of my colleagues to find so many these days in positions of authority at all levels who are incapable. Unfortunately, I find it is not merely those without college degrees who are marginal, as you suggest, but many of my colleagues who had advanced degrees. Many within the federal workforce are incapable of creative thinking or comprehending basic management theory. We now develop hollow management buzz words with promises of quick fixes every few years to attempt to cover the poor management practices, of course, they soon fail. Hollow words never replace leadership skills. I attribute most of this to our basically flawed system. We hired 'technicians' and promoted those who complete assigned tasks without question. The federal system does not reward thinkers or creators, but certainly not leaders. Risk is to be avoided at all costs. The government wanted non-questioning, high-producing paper pushers 25 years ago, now we expect that same personality to "grow" to the tasks now required in this fast-pace, high-tech environment. How foolish! Training will not change these basic personality traits, so we now demean those who contributed honest, loyal service, but have outgrown their usefulness. Even worse, we may have promoted them beyond their capacity so both they and their subordinates are miserable. Now, we must live with that we have created.

"To change this environment we must consider placements based upon personality and character traits as well as possession of knowledge. We should promote based upon personal traits and competencies rather than as a reward for tasks well done. Past performance in a given situation does not guarantee future success in a position requiring different traits as we can so easily see in hindsight. Find the natural leaders within the groups and train them. Change our workforce! Hire more risk takers and creative thinkers and stop stiffing and punishing those few we have.

"I have loved working within this large, unwieldy federal system and have enjoyed most of my assignments, both here and abroad in a variety of agencies. This is not a tirade from a bitter civil servant, only a concerned one who is approaching retirement."

-Brenda DePuy
CSR, NIH

"I couldn't agree more with Ned in responding to the negativity of managers concerning the applicant pools for promotion.

"In addition, I think we are continuing to perpetuate the gutting of public employees, while incrementally finding it acceptable to devastate the civil service system and its due process. Ignoring the qualified list and deciding to leave a position unfilled seems to be an attempt at non compliance with the promotion procedures which are law. If a manager can afford not to fill a 'necessary' position, I question the necessity of advertising the position in the first place.

"Another tact for these discriminating managers to take might be to have a training program in place for newly hired/promoted employees (much like private industry). Other inventive managers might place a mentoring program in place to address these newly promoted hires who have qualified for promotion.

"It is not fair to those public employees with aspirations and qualifications to be 'held down' because they are perceived inferior, or do not have an advocate in a position of authority. Once an applicant has been deemed qualified, it is not fair for a manager to label him as 'not qualified. What is the basis for this judgement, where is the proof, and why do we all believe them? We may recall that even Michael Jordan was drafted in the seventh round of the NBA draft. Evidently someone thought that he wasn't up to the competition level in the NBA, or failed to see his potential (there, we can be wrong).

"Federal agencies today have wide latitude in hiring contractors to fill immediate needs. This allows them to ignore filling public billets which otherwise should be filled. This contractor pool seriously decreases the opportunities for public employees, as we watch private employees lobby management for all the best assignments, and win. I cannot realistically believe we are saving money in these situations where I know how much money is being paid to an employee who is in the private sector. These costs are simply not tracked and scrutinized. This situation is discouraging to career feds, who now are being judged inadequate because of their age, and their public status.

"Thank you for hearing my opinions."

-Name withheld

"Your article is a remarkable and insightful assessment of contributing (if not root) causes underlying the 'shallow pool' dilemma we currently face! Although one could name other contibuting causes, you seem to have captured the truth."

-Name withheld

"I strongly feel that a major factor in the 'shallow pool' is the dismantling of OPM. Most agencies now have a great deal of control over their own personnel practices and procedures. No agency has as its primary function the establishment, maintenance, and oversight of personnel rules and regulations, policy and practices. Yet each one has been given the 'freedom' to experiment in this field. OPM has been reduced to an advisor with little to no enforcement capability in this realm-gee, what's to enforce anymore? So instead of one forklift full of rules and regulations, we now have (I suspect) the equivalent being produced by each agency in this exhilarating new free-for-all. (Or should I say 'free fall'?)

"Furthermore, the 'expendable employee' atmosphere many of these agencies are in the process of virtuously cultivating is beginning to result in a demoralized outgoing workforce and a mercenary neophyte workforce. I am a third-generation federal employee in a family that believed that 'federal service' was every bit as honorable as military service. But I will dissuade my children from a federal career. The public doesn't believe there's honor in our work, there's no such thing as a career anymore, and the private sector pays a much higher rate.

"Reinvention taught us that we no longer serve our citizens-we 'wait' on our 'customers.' So why are the talking heads distressed now? Isn't this what everyone wanted? Well, for Pete's Sake!! If you don't like it, take your custom elsewhere. All you have to do is wait for the next available 'agent.'"

-Name withheld

"I found your thoughts interesting. I would like to suggest another barrier to getting good candidates...mandating experience in Agency specific programs or processes. Really good candidates learn quickly, adapt quickly, and function quickly. They bring new insights to old programs and synergize experiences to improve productivity. Being able to recite chapter and verse of a particular regulation does not equate to being able to apply that knowledge in the workplace. Moreover, taking four to six months to make that decision greatly decreases the chance of obtaining the really good candidates."

-Name withheld

"How bold of you to state in writing the very things we aren't allowed to talk about. Yes, I agree with everything you said. As a GS-13, step 6 and a Trainer, I've seen my share of discrepencies between who gets on the most qualified list and who gets the promotions. Also discrepencies between who gets training/professional development and what kind.

"Despite all the money being spent on mandatory training such as Diversity or Ethics, at least at my former agency, there were a number of highly qualified, 'high potential' GS-13s (myself among them) who were discouraged from applying for advertised promotion positions into management because they were not among the 'inner circle' of preferred employees. I left that agency along with quite a few of my peers, mostly lateral changes, and our careers stalled. Now, we are in agencies we like (but, most of which are not fee-funded and have fewer resources), re-establish our credentials, and, in a shrinking govt., compete for the ever fewer promotional opportunities. I've learned to discreetly ask before I bother with the application ordeal if the job is already targeted for someone in-house?

"I represent a shrinking demographic in the federal workplace-professional-grade level white females. I can identify reasons why this demographic has diminished while others have gained representation, despite affirmative action.

"And, yes, in a shrinking govt. with shrinking budgets, training becomes a desired 'extra' that can't be fulfilled. There are no funds for professional development, and few for necessary skill maintenance or upgrades. And there are big discrepencies between what opportunities are available to the same GS-13 in a larger agency with more funding than a smaller agency with little funding.

"EEOC and OPM should take a honest look at these issues together. And, rather than leave it up to the individual agencies to fund training and employee development, establish trusts for each employee-Individual Training Accounts-like a benefit-that accrues and can be contributed to and shared-like annual leave or health insurance or TSP-something that is funded across the govt, not by penalizing smaller, poorer agencies at the expense of their employees."

-Name withheld

"Thumbs up not once but four times for Ned on Feds for this topic. I have experienced and witnessed this degradation specifically in the 'procurement arena' for the past eight years. The four points that Ned dicusses and the reasons are a fact of life and reality. Keep up the interesting topics. Ned, you are doing a great job!"

-Name withheld

"I think it is unfair to make such a broad statement. I happen to be one of those federal employees who have worked very hard to get to the place where I could seriously be considered for a promotion to a GS-11 specialist position. I did not start working for the government right out of school. I did not seek a higher level position while raising my children, but I have since dedicated a lot of time, energy and training to get to the place where I could consider myself a viable candidate for a higher level position. To think that I would not be considered a serious candidate because of my age, 51, or that fact that I could possibly retire at the age of 55 is pure discrimination."

-Name withheld

"HR or PERSONNEL staff rating applicants have, as you said in factor # 3, no positive requirements for an education. Some who have never set foot on a campus, had to complete college course requirements and be graded themselves are judging qualifications of BA/S, MS/S, and PhDs. Some compare the words of qualification standards with applications without knowing what they mean. Some make significant organizational decisions having little understanding of organizational dynamics, other organizations, other places. These insecure employees sometimes band together to keep well educated applicants with diverse backgrounds out. The long-term impact on organizations can be smothering.

"Solution: OPM should raise standards for HR employees just as they did for contracting officers and require them to have an extensive and broad education and have worked in several different offices and places. Agencies should be required to look among their current employees for educated experienced employees who have been passed over by these people."

-Name withheld

"I am in complete agreement with this.

"My name is Sherry Gilson and I retired on March 1 from the position of Personnel Director for the Maritime Administration. I spent 25 of my 30 years in the government in personnel.

"Due to the cutbacks in government employment coupled with buyouts and in most agencies, with Justice being the exception, lower budgets, many agencies have done very little hiring in the past five or six years. These cutbacks were particularly harsh in the administrative areas, including personnel, due to requirements to meet mandated reductions from the NPR. Many experienced, talented employees took the buyout and left.

"Also the inability to hire new college graduates (due to the demise of the PACE) has led to (as mentioned in your article) increased upward mobility from the clerical ranks. There are many people who can make this jump, but after awhile, particularly in a small agency, most of those have made the jump and the pressure is still on for the advancement of the remainder.

"Managers continue, in my experience, to be reluctant to take on additional responsibility in the personnel arena. In my previous agency, we only did basic qualifications and had subject matter experts do the actual ranking and rating of applications. Getting managers to give us names of these folks was like pulling teeth. And frequently the supposed experts were someone the manager could spare from his staff, not the brightest and best.

"Many surveys have shown that government service is no longer considered to be a sought after career. I believe there are many reasons for this-the continual bashing of the government and its employees, the inflexibility of the classfication and thus the pay system, the lack of flexibility in the benefits package (one size fits all) and the continuing restrictions on pay. The job market is very tight and we're not competing very well. OPM dispute this by putting out statistics on the number of applicants, but as you have pointed out numbers doesn't equate to quality.

"I could go on and on, but I've probably said enough."

-Sherry Gilson
Retired

"I couldn't disagree with you more. As a GS-12 (presently DA-III in a Demonstration Program) with almost 10 years Government experience in DoD and a background in Contracting, Logistics and as a Deputy for Small Business, I have been unable to land a GS-12 position.

" It's not that I haven't tried checking USAjobs.opm.gov every morning. I disagree with you that there are not enough qualified applicants to fill GS-12 positions.

"Besides the experience, I also hold an MBA in Organizational Management and Finance. So your reference to not having a college degree being the reason for lack of qualified people is ridiculous. In reality, I have found that not to matter. With every attempt to get ahead within government, I have found myself hindered by an applicant that has already been selected from within that agency. Many times the only reason why an agency goes through this process is because they legally have to. In reality they already know who they are going to hire."

-Name withheld

"A huge part of the problem is that we are using a very fallible hiring/screening process by which people are rated (to say nothing of the 'good old boy' network and don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about). Having been the victim of this system, I've seen stupidity run rampant.

"The 'K.I.S.S. Principle' (keep it simple stupid) doesn't apply in this area. The fixes are so obvious but of course the 'powers that be' will not realize this until they've received a 'not best qualified' rating. I've said it once and I'll repeat it again, this rating/hiring system is in need of an overhaul. And by the way, why doesn't the MSPB conduct a survey to see how many civilian employees (GS-1 thru GS-11 to start with) actually trust or have confidence in this system to be fair and honest?

"They'd probably find out what they already know-the CPOs realize that the very people they service have no confidence in the way they do their job. The process does neither the supervisor nor the applicant any justice. The natives are tired of the 'well it's not a perfect system' response."

-Name withheld

"One problem with the hiring process is that applicants are required to put together lengthy essays on their KSAs. People who are good employees, productive and active in their current jobs, have little time for the effort required to do a good job on the KSAs. This discourages applicants except those that are desperate for a job. And otherwise very good potential applicants don't apply.

"Also, the job series structure limits movement from one series to another artificially. As jobs change, job categories tend to blur. But the OPM series standards remain stagnant."

-Name withheld

"For the most part I agree with your assessments. However, with respect to why 1/3 of the time managers reject the applicant pool provided by personnel, I would add the following based on my experiences:

"From the manager's perspective:

"Selecting officials want the ability to make selections, regardless of merit promotion rules or certification lists. If they receive a list and someone who they know, and often times encouraged to apply, did not make the list as best qualified, they reject the list. Positions are reannounced and changes made until the desired candidate makes the cut.

"From the applicant's perspective:

"It is frustrating to apply for a position in which management already has a candidate in mind. If asked the "smart" manager will say they will consider all qualified candidates. We've all seen announcements with a 2-week window of opportunity for individuals to submit applications. Certainly, one could take the approach that not all of these are pre-selected situations, and apply anyway. But many times it is a waste of time and effort. If an announcement is not open for at least a month, I would not submit an application with any hope of hearing back. Others with federal experience have told me they don't apply unless the position lists 'multiple' vacancies. Further, some managers protect themselves by going through the full process of scheduling interviews (and wasting candidates time) just to insulate themselves from any charges of wrong doing (i.e., pre-selection). This can include calling references and the current supervisor, which can be the 'kiss of death' if the candidate is not selected and their current managers have problems with them seeking other opportunities.

"NPR initiatives promised, among other things, corrections and adjustments to the hiring rules, but nothing surfaced to correct the situations described above."

-Name withheld

"Since we are dealing with people-large numbers of people-it is not surprising that there are a multiplicity of factors involved. All of those cited by OPM and by Ned have 'surface validity.' It is only through follow-ups with the survey respondents or another statistically valid, random sample of government employees that we can get below the opinions to the bedrock facts."

-Mel Waldgeir
Chief, Human Resources
HSW/HR, Brooks Air Force Base

"Excellent article. However, the MSPB study in progress fails to consider that some agencies utilize a clandestine 'word-of-mouth' vouchering system during the selection process. While this invisible process enables executive staff to get the 'nitty-gritty' on applicants, it also promotes discrimination, hidden agendas and personal preferences.

"For the purposes of the study, this type of system also allows managers to promote the concept that 'in about 60 percent of the cases, less than half of the applicants rated 'best qualified' deserved the ranking.' They may use this hidden avenue of opportunity to reopen the position posting for 'more qualified' candidates.

"In the case of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the automated management selection profile system provides no feedback as to why the applicant may not have been selected for a position. Or how the applicant may improve deficiencies to better compete for future openings. Applicants have no way of competing with, or rebutting the vouchering system because they never know what was said about them-positive or negative.

"Thanks again for the informative article."

-Name withheld

"I don't necessarily agree with Ned's first 2 hypotheses, but I think his 3rd and 4th hypotheses on are right on the mark. The 'professionalization' of the clerical pool has done the most significant damage to the Federal workforce. Elevating staff without requiring additional formal preparation is not the way to go. Limited perspective just exacerbates mediocrity.

"I would also recommend that another factor that should be required before advancing personnel beyond journeyman level positions. Personnel should be required to rotate into other positions within the government, or even do a stint in the private sector. Having exposure to a different way of doing things gives people an added perspective; that is so very necessary to effectively handle the rapid changes we all now face."

-Name withheld

"You described FDA perfectly. My agency is also having trouble recruiting middle and senior managers from within the ranks. Few of the best applicants want to move because it takes 2 or more years to recover financially. Few want to take on the added headaches for the meager increase in pay."

-Name withheld

"You might also consider the rating system. It is so broken that most people can't qualify for their own jobs! With the new resume systems, untrained personnel specialists, and computer systems doing the screening, employees stand little chance of making 'the list.' After a while, you have to ask yourself if it is really worth the effort to fight the system!!"

-Name withheld

"I'd like to respond to the column on the hiring process. I recently advertised two GS-12 Personnel Specialist vacancies. A few years ago I would have had a lot of candidates, now very few and very few of those truly met the criteria for the position. You missed one of the biggest problems and that is of VEOAs and the laws with veterans preference. When I get a list of applicants and the is a score of 80, based on 10 point preference, over those that score 100, but are nonvets, would you want to hire the least qualified on the list? And VEOA was pandering to the veterans groups by Rep Mica instead of really fixing the veterans preference laws. It is too bad no one wants to stand up and really address those issues! The pool has shrunk and then Congress has added laws making it even more difficult to hire the best qualified!"

-Name withheld due to political considerations!

"You might want to consider another reason why managers find the 'best qualified' pool to be quite shallow: Managers are not always involved in creating the rating sheets that determine how many points are given for each KSA. Even when they are involved, I am not aware of anyone auditing OPM to see if the rating sheet was used appropriately. As a manager who does a lot of interviewing, I find that many applicants seem to get points for education and experience that are not related to the job requirements."

-Name withheld