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

A recent New York Times article revealed that while the national unemployment rate is still dismal, job-posting numbers have gone up.

Job search engine site Simply Hired reported postings rose more than 50 percent last year over 2009; they increased almost 70 percent in December of last year over December 2009.

While these numbers are hopeful, job postings don’t always guarantee there is a job to be filled—a company posting a job can always decide not to hire someone after all or not find someone with the skills they need among the applicants.

Experts disagree on whether the latest hiring news is good or not; almost half of unemployed workers have been out of work for six months or more. Others point out that while workers in more rural areas may be out of luck, those in metropolitan cities have more options available to them. Residents in cities such as Washington, D.C.,West Palm Beach, Baltimore, Boston, Milwaukee, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Oklahoma City, and the San Francisco Bay Area have a much better chance of landing work with more job-postings present in their area.

What do you think? Is the rise in job-postings a good sign for the unemployed? Or does it mean little when compared to current unemployment numbers?

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

Six months after President Obama’s May memorandum mandating hiring reform government-wide, the Department of Defense seems to be making serious strides. According to the Federal Times, The DoD is just one of federal agencies that have made considerable progress in reducing the time taken to hire new employees.

Kathy Ott, acting deputy undersecretary of defense for civilian personnel policy, says the DoD now takes 79 days on average to hire new employees, as compared to 151 days on average this past January. At a hiring reform event held at the Housing and Urban Development Department’s headquarters, Ott vouched for the faster, more efficient hiring of civilians.

“DoD understands the need for, and has embraced, hiring reform,”Ott said. “Hiring qualified talent and making sure it is available when we need it is a key to our mission readiness. It is critical we have the civilian talent we need to support our warfighters. There is nothing more important.”

Attracting good candidates and developing useful hiring assessments are next on many agencies hiring reform to-do lists.

Are you surprised that DoD has reduced their time to hire from 151 to 79 days? Do you work at an agency that has similarly reduced its time to hire? Share your hiring reform experience with us in the comments.

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