Mid-level hires rank government above previous employers

Employees entering public service in mid-level jobs are at least as satisfied with the government as they were with their former employers in all but one category, according to forthcoming results from a Merit Systems Protection Board survey.

That one area was agencies' ability to deal with employees who don't perform well at their jobs, the MSPB found. But in 14 other categories, including training and development, the opportunity to make a difference, and effective use of skills and abilities, the government outperformed respondents' former employers.

According to a report in an MSPB newsletter, the survey covered newly hired employees at the GS-12 to GS-15 levels. The MSPB's Office of Policy and Evaluation did not respond to several requests for more details on the methodology, including the number of respondents.

The findings were more evenly distributed with regard to pay. About a third (33 percent) of those surveyed said their pay as federal employees was better than in their last jobs. Thirty-four percent said their new pay was comparable and 32 percent said it was worse.

"If pay is still important to you, and you're looking at your career options, I would not automatically assume that I'm going to take a hit if I'm going to work for government," said John Palguta, vice president for policy at the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service.

The survey indicated that those dissatisfied with federal pay clustered in certain levels and occupations.

"New hires appointed at the GS-12 grade level were likely to say the government's pay was better than their last employer, while GS-15s were likely to say it was worse," the report stated. "Many GS-15 new hires were physicians who earned more in private practice or managers who commanded higher pay."

Palguta noted that pay can be a less important factor for more senior employees.

"The ability to do something that's in the best interests of the country as a whole is very powerful for some people, particularly after they've made enough money," he said. "The financial incentive is not what's drawing them. It's really the nature of the work."

A new report from the IBM Center for the Business of Government echoes the more conventional wisdom on federal pay, noting, "Retaining quality non-retirement-age employees is frequently a particular challenge for government agencies, which often pay less than their private sector counterparts and in some instances pay less than other government entities in the same region. Addressing the work/life balance seems to be a key factor in employee retention."

But despite the IBM report and MSPB survey's differing views of pay as an incentive and of the government's position as a competitor to the private sector, both concluded that knowing more about employees' motivation and satisfaction will help agencies recruit and retain workers.

"In the case of voluntary separation, it is essential to collect information on why employees are leaving, where they are going and what types of jobs they are taking," wrote Ann Cotten, director of the University of Baltimore's Schaefer Center for Public Policy, in the IBM report. "High turnover in a specific department or job classification may be a signal that salaries in the classification are too low, workload is too high relative to the salary, or working conditions are sub-par."

Cotten emphasized that "knowledge of the organizational culture and level of employee morale is helpful in the strategy development and implementation phases of workforce planning because it provides insight into where workforce strategies are most likely to be successful."

The MSPB survey concurred: "Understanding what makes people apply for federal jobs can help agencies develop effective recruiting strategies that will attract a diverse pool of applicants with the skills agencies need."