By Meredith Camp

In my last blog, I touched on the roadblocks that exist in many organizations that prevent them from hiring people with great potential but less experience. Since then, a piece was written for Forbes on the good reasons to hire under qualified employees. In his blog the author, David K. Williams, talks about his organization’s open-minded approach to hiring talent. He and fellow Fishbowl executive Mary Michelle Scott developed their seven non-negotiables in hirable traits (Respect, Belief, Loyalty, Commitment, Trust, Courage, and Gratitude). I wholly agree with these as desirable characteristics to be found in any employee, new hire or 30-year veteran of the organization, but I wonder if the notion of hiring those with less experience would work quite as well in the government sector. After all, if the employer’s instinct is wrong (which Williams says is only 1% of the time), the employee can be let go in a private organization, while it is much more difficult to drop or even move an employee in the public space. So while rolling the dice might lead to positive results most of the time, there isn’t quite as much ability to gamble with hiring when using taxpayer money. But I do believe there is merit in looking for those traits in anyone you hire, especially because of what comes with those core characteristics. Here is my take on a brief pro/con list (aka: The Ben Franklin) for hiring the less experienced/high-potentials in the government sector.

PROS

• Unlimited growth potential for the employee
• If training is regularly incorporated into the organization, there is no end to what they can learn
• The hire can come up with innovative ways of doing things that can lead to major cost savings for the organization at large

CONS

• Red tape a bureaucracy limit change and innovation (and can squelch any creativity and drive the potential employee may have)
• New hires and lower-level employees may not get priority for training, even if they need it
• With all the cutbacks, government staff is getting spread thinner and thinner; if the employee is unable to perform their job duties, they are likely to get lost in the shuffle and not receive the support they need

Inevitably, the success of this higher risk hire depends largely on the leadership within the organization, especially in more traditional, top-down environments.  Leaders have the ability to either empower or stifle their employees, and it is usually evident which leader retains more of their staff. 

What other pros and cons are there for gambling on a low experience, high potential employee in the federal workforce?  What have you found to work or not work when hiring in your organization?

Post a Comment (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

By Meredith Camp

The latest resignation among high ranking government officials came this week with Nuclear Regulatory Commission's chief Gregory Jaczko. After several years as chair, he is stepping down after scrutiny from other members of the commission over his bullyish manner. This criticism begs the question, was he really a bully? Being stubborn and determined do not, in themselves, peg someone as atyrant, so what else occurred that pushed him into that category by so many others' standards?

It also brings to my mind how other leaders might be viewed. What characteristics make coworkers and subordinates consider someone a bully? It likely has more to do with a combination of off-putting traits separate from their work ethic or what agenda they are actually pushing. In other words, it is probably their personality, not their work. So how do you know if others might perceive you as a bully? Well, unless rumors have spread across the organization about your demanding or difficult behavior, you might be in the dark about how others see you. Here are a few clues:

• It's your way or the highway. You don't give an inch for anyone, no matter who they are or what they have to say. Being this bull-headed can give you a reputation for not caring what your colleagues or employees think about things and that you don't accept anyone else's input on anything. If that's really the case, you probably shouldn't be working with other people-ever.
  
  
• Your opinion is the only one that counts. Similarly to not taking anyone else's input, this characteristic can make you come across as the office jerk. No one wants to work with a person who passes his opinion off as fact or isn't open to the idea that other people might have differing thoughts.
  
  
• You use your power for evil, not for good. Just because you climbed the ladder to your current high-status position, doesn't mean you should abuse the power you have earned. Be fair to others and remember that it's a team effort-others helped get you where you are today, so don't step on the little people.
  
  
• No matter how hard people try, they'll never get it right. Don't make people jump through hoops and play a guessing game to figure out what you want. Be specific and explicit about your expectations. It's a bad boss who punishes his staff for breaking rules they didn't know existed in the first place and there's nothing more frustrating to an employee than hearing the vague guidance of “I'll know it when I see it.”

What other examples of bully behavior have you seen in the workplace? Is there any way to work with this type of leader?

Post a Comment (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

David Kappos, director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, has completely overhauled the agency since he joined the organization in 2009. Paul R. Lawrence and Mark A. Abramson, in their book Paths to Making a Difference: Leading in Government, discuss Kappos' leadership style and the differences he has made within the agency. 

Post a Comment (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Some 70,000 federal job applications were lost when the main online hiring system of the government stumbled for many days during the week of August 8th. According to an Aug. 12 listserv notice from the Department of Health and Human Services, the USA staffing system of the Office of Personnel Management—which posts vacancy announcements before rating and ranking job applications—crashed unexpectedly on August 9. 

OPM had USAJobs.gov back online after two days, but lost all applications that were submitted between late afternoon August 7 and midday August 9. HHS said that the “unscheduled maintenance … was necessary to research, identify and resolve problematic issues reported by users of the system.” It further added that “this unscheduled maintenance has undoubtedly caused a delay in recruitment efforts and service agreements.”

 Were you affected by the site crash? How can OPM better handle situations like this in the future?

Post a Comment (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

A new report released by a nonprofit organization reveals that more than 50 percent of federal employees hold creativity and innovation in high regard.

The Partnership for Public Service—along with Hay Group, a global management consulting firm—analyzed the factors that drive innovation and modernization in federal agencies and found that 63.3 percent of employees gave a positive score on innovation to the government. This percentage was derived at based on the 2010 Office of Personnel Management's annual survey regarding the attitudes of federal employees; the survey included 263,000 employees from 32 large agencies, 34 small agencies and 224 agency sub-components.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and NASA were ranked as being among the most innovative agencies. The Army, State Department and General Services Administration rounded out the top five.

Do you think the federal government is innovative? Why or why not? How is your agency innovative? What else could the government be doing to modernize itself?

Post a Comment (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

New government data has revealed that while 17 large agencies have sped up their hiring times during the second year of the Obama Administration’s efforts to streamline and systematize federal hiring, three agencies took longer to hire in 2010 than they did in 2009.

The Social Security Administration, the Justice Department and the Small Business Administration all reported longer hiring times last year. Four agencies showed no progress in 2010: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NASA and the Departments of Treasury and Agriculture.

Many agencies, however, are making considerable growth and reported decline in hiring time—from when an agency decides to hire a new employee to that new employee's first day. The Departments of State, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, and Health and Human Services all reported a decline in hiring times as high as 40 percent. The average hiring time for Health and Human Services has dropped from 152 to 80 days.

The Office of Personnel Management, which released the latest figures on agencies' hiring times, says agencies should take no more than 80 days to hire a new employee.

Does your agency comply with OPM’s standards? Do you think 80 days is a realistic timeline for government agencies to adhere to? Why or why not?

Post a Comment (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Social media continues to prove itself as an essential tool of communication for lawmakers in the District. In a recent speech, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered his audience cyber options for further learning about and aiding his cause. With some 40,000+ Twitter followers and 70,000 Facebook fans, Sanders is well-positioned to share and receive thoughts regarding his platform on today’s most pressing topics.

Such reliance on technology is becoming the norm for Congress as a whole; social media tools, e-newsletters, and telephonic town hall meetings allow politicians to connect with their supporters and constituencies at the press of a button. Sanders believes social media will remain the contact option of choice in the coming years: “It is clear to me that things like Facebook and Twitter are here to stay.”

According to a survey of 250 staffers by the Congressional Management Foundation, a nonprofit that advises lawmakers on citizen engagement practices, Twitter and Facebook are more useful for putting across a lawmaker’s point of view rather than for deciphering the opinions of their constituents.

Ian Koski, communications director for Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), sums up the worth of social media by praising its reach: “You have to go where the people are, and right now, they're in many different places online.”

Does your local lawmaker make the most of the social media tools available to them? What social media practices should politicians avoid, if any?

Post a Comment (2) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Federal worksite managers are grappling with growing workloads and workforces, while simultaneously dealing with tighter budgets. In response to these tough times, Chief Performance Officer of the Department of Treasury Dan Tangherlini gave up his large office in favor of a smaller workspace. Tangherlini hoped to convey to others that as budgets become compact and workloads increase, everybody has to make sacrifices.

In light of the after effects of the financial crisis, the workforce of the Department of Treasury has increased by an estimate of 18 percent within the past one and a half years. As a result, the average space employees occupied has shrunk from 191 square feet to 167. “There is a word for that,” says Tangherlini. “Tightsizing.”

Deputy Inspector General for Tax Administration Joseph Hungate says that the employees have been positive about the changes taking place with regards to the tightsizing and believe that the measure will lead to reduction in costs and continue to protect the mission of the Treasury.

Has your agency implemented any tightsizing of its own? If so, how? Has it been effective?

Post a Comment (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Late Friday evening, Congress and the White House passed a spending bill covering the rest of the fiscal year, barely averting a government shutdown.

With many news outlets and Beltway insiders declaring a shutdown imminent throughout the day, the final compromise came as a surprise—and relief— to many.

The relief is likely to be short-term—the bill is the largest single spending cut in U.S. history, amounting to some $38 billion. President Obama weighed in on the cuts, saying “Programs people rely on will be cut back. Needed infrastructure projects will be delayed. And I would not have made these cuts in better circumstances.”

In addition to the State Department’s foreign operations, earmarked transportation programs and farm subsidies appear to be the biggest victims of the proposed cuts.

While the cutbacks will be difficult to bear, was the alternative—a closed government—worse? Do you think the compromise will last or are we headed for another potential shutdown in the coming months? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Post a Comment (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Leadership was the topic of the day last Thursday, March 31, when the Center for Human Capital Innovation (CHCI) hosted an all-day conference entitled “Leading Government Through Turbulent Times.”

 

The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Scott Gould kicked off the event with a keynote speech that detailed what it was like to lead in a high-level position at the country’s second-largest federal agency. Gould called for transformative leadership government-wide, and encouraged attendees not to let things like budget restraints deter them from pushing forward with innovative ideas.

 

Gould’s sentiments were echoed by his fellow speakers, including the Office of Management and Budget’s Shelley Metzenbaum, the Office of Personnel Management’s Stephen Shih and Angela Bailey, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Jody Hudson, the Partnership for Public Service’s John Palguta, Hay Group’s Connie Schroyer, and the Lincoln Leadership Institute’s Steve Wiley.

 

The Navy’s Capt. Mike Abrashoff closed the day by sharing stories about his experiences as the former commander of the USS Benfold, previously one of the Navy’s worst ships before being reformed by Abrashoff and his leadership style. Abrashoff encouraged audience members to lead with positivity by highlighting workers on their staff that have turned in excellent performances.

 

The conference concluded with a Call to Action, in which participants were requested to join CHCI in forming a Leadership Community of Practice. The group will work together to put into practice some of the leadership ideas discussed at Thursday’s event.

 

If you have any ideas how CHCI can help to transform the government’s leadership techniques for the better, please leave your thoughts in the comments section. Did you attend last week’s event? What was your greatest takeaway from the day?

Post a Comment (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink