by Meredith Camp

Earlier this week, my colleague Kay blogged about low employee morale at the Department of Homeland Security.Recent news pieces have shed light on how DHS stands in the eyes of its employees and why it is viewed in such a negative manner right now. While there were many factors mentioned—lack of diversity, unclear job responsibilities, and promotions not based on merit—the majority of the issues stem from one main problem: lack of quality leadership.

This is certainly not the first discussion of the connection between leadership and employee engagement. Dozens of studies have shown that poor leadership is a major component of low employee morale and engagement and, conversely, good leadership boosts engagement, regardless of the type of organization.

So how did DHS get into this pickle and, more importantly, how do they get themselves back on the right track? It likely began with government-wide budget cuts several years ago and continued downhill with poor training and lack of communication. Over time, staff felt less valued, leading to lower engagement and higher turnover. DHS is now working on a plan to remedy the issues they are facing with a focus on becoming “one DHS,” including an effort to diversify.

But I wager it is their plan to bolster management leadership that will see the greatest shift in employee engagement. Despite organizational shifts toward more lateral authority formats (instead of traditional top-down), government agencies still have a more hierarchical arrangement; as a result, strong leadership is not just a nice idea, it is imperative to the functionality and success of the organization.

If DHS is smart and wants to see a change for the better, they will invest in hiring savvy leaders and training current ones to communicate with their staff and utilize their talents. As retired USCG AdmiralThad Allen so aptly stated, high morale environments have a commonality: “an enduring commitment by senior leaders to the concept that mission performance starts and ends with people.”

If the focus remains on the mission and the people, the organization is bound to succeed.

Is poor leadership the biggest contributor to low levels of engagement? Do you agree—are an organization’s people just as important as its mission?

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

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

In light of the federal government’s two-year civilian pay freeze, agencies have begun to fear the loss of key talent within their organizations.

A November 2010 report from the Partnership for Public Service revealed that the federal attrition rate is down, with nearly a quarter of government hires from fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2008 leaving their jobs within two years.

The report also cited the need for improved hiring and onboarding strategies, as well as additional training and advancement opportunities within the federal workplace. High attrition rates have been proven to leave federal employees demoralized, and can cost agencies anywhere from 50 percent to 200 percent of an employee’s salary to fill a single position.

While pay raises to reward outstanding remaining employees are not allowed for the next several years, bonuses are still permissible, and promotions are also viable options.

PPS’ study asserts that career development, meaningful feedback and work-life programs are great ways to retain top talent in lieu of pay raises.

Has your agency’s attrition rate already dipped following the “no pay raise” rule? Is management doing anything to address the issue or keep it from happening at all? What strategies are—or could—work for retaining top federal talent?

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

On January 7, the House introduced a bill which proposes to freeze federal pay for a third year, in addition to cutting the federal employee workforce by 10 percent.

Congress and President Obama passed a bill last month to freeze federal employees’ pay for two years, through 2011 and 2012. However, the bill proposed by Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, would extend the pay freeze to one more year, including the year 2013.

The bill also entails annual cuts of $300 million from the federal vehicle fleet, $400 million from federal travel, and $440 million from non-defense printing budgets.

According to Rep. Brady, the CUTS Act would be a balancing factor for the budget and will help in reducing federal expenditures by around $153 billion.

Do you think the pay cut for federal employees is a good idea? Is three years too excessive? What alternate plan would you suggest to help alleviate the government’s budget woes?

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

The presidential panel has offered a second proposal to freeze the pay for federal employees, as well as to cut the workforce. The report, released December 1, adversely affects the majority of federal employees.

The plan will impose a three-year pay freeze on federal workers and Defense Department civilians, in addition to reducing the federal workforce through the means of attrition by 10 percent. This reduction of the federal workforce would also include Defense civilians. The report asks that a task force considers these changes, along with requests that federal retirement payments should be based on the five highest years of employee earning, rather than the highest three.

The report also calls for greater management authority for the US Postal Service, recommending reversing restrictions that prevent the Postal Service from shifting to five-day delivery and gradually closing down post offices no longer able to sustain a positive cash-flow.

Are you a government worker that is upset about the lack of pay raises in the coming years? Or do you agree that this rule is a necessary step to improving our nation’s economy?

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

The rapidly growing pay of federal workers has caught the attention of the fiscally conservative Republicans, who won the majority of last week’s elections for the U.S. House of Representatives.

A study performed by USA Today has found that the average federal salary has risen significantly over the last several years. The number of federal employees earning $150,000 and more has doubled, and salaries have increased tenfold since Obama moved into the Oval Office.

The USA Today analysis also revealed that the raises were prevalent government-wide, but thatlong-time workers have benefited most from pay increases. The salaries of federal employees working since 2005 have climbed 25 percent, in comparison to a nine percent inflation rate for short-term workers. Physicians within the federal workforce have also been rewarded. Medical professionals at veteran prisons and hospitals now earn an average of $179,500, as compared to $111,000 in 2005.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, heads the panel which will analyze federal pay. Chaffetz says he wants a pay freeze and a 10 percent pay cut across the federal workforce.

“It’s stunning when you see what’s happened to federal compensation,” says Chaffetz. “Every metric show we’re heading in the wrong direction.”

Do you agree with Chaffetz? How is it that some people feel government workers are grossly overpaid, while other studies reveal them to be underpaid for their performance?

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

In February 2010, the White House proposed a General Schedule pay raise of 1.4 percent for federal civilian employees, effective in 2011. However, in April 2010, the Senate voted to freeze the pay for the members of Congress. They unanimously voted against the $1,600 pay raise that Congress members were scheduled to get the next year.

The federal pay freeze proposal was defeated on June 18 when the Senate rejected it due to the size of the workforce. The chamber also dismissed an amendment by Senator John Thune (R-SD) which was aimed at paying for a tax and jobs bill by dropping federal bonuses and the 2011 pay raise.

Senator Thune defended his proposed amendment, stating, “The alternative amendment I proposed was a common sense step toward restoring fiscal sanity to our nation’s runaway spending and ballooning deficit.” He further added that “the defeat of my amendment was a missed opportunity for Congress to prove they are serious about tackling our dangerous spending habits and $13 trillion national debt. This amendment would have lowered taxes for families and small businesses as they struggle through these challenging times.”

Senator Ted Kaufman (D-Del), argued that the Republicans were using incorrect information regarding federal pay and bonuses; he stated, “Over the years, as I’ve witnessed countless acts of personal courage, devotion to country and real sacrifice” by federal employees, but “I have also seen and heard such disheartening and baseless attacks against those who choose to serve. The pending amendment is just the latest assault”.

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

By Allan Schweyer

President Obama has so far held the line on civil servant salary increases. But is he making a mistake? Public opinion isn’t likely to go against the President on this one.

USA Today, GovCentral.com, Reuters and many others have recently reported that Federal Government compensation is already out of line with private sector pay across the country, some even suggest pay cuts to reduce the deficit.

Most articles fail to differentiate between a Federal civil service comprised mainly of college-educated, knowledge workers and a private sector workforce that is, on average, less educated and more blue-collar. On the other hand, few private sector organizations offer the range of benefits and job guarantees that civil servants are used to.

Are federal civil servants overpaid or overcompensated when all factors are considered? Are the comparisons to the private sector fair? This issue will be a hot one as the President and Congress seek ways to rein in spending and control massive deficits. It is also a potentially dangerous issue for civil servants, as they could be made scapegoats for a problem that Americans from all sectors of the economy helped to create.

Comments welcome, let’s hear your thoughts.

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