By Tom Shoop | Friday, November 16, 2007 | 01:34 PM
This part of Alyssa Rosenberg's story yesterday on the perils of falling back on generational stereotypes in recruiting really stood out to me:
According to an upcoming MSPB study that will include a review of hiring records and a survey of 2,000 federal employees who were hired in 2005, young employees say they valued the stability of federal government jobs and the pensions and traditional benefits that come with those jobs as highly as their predecessors, and they value these even more highly than workplace flexibilities.
That finding doesn't exactly surprise me. When you set up and perpetuate a system in which the primary value proposition for prospective employees is job security and traditional benefits, then you're going to end up with a self-selected set of workers who value those things -- no matter what generation they come from. And you'll miss out on a whole lot of other highly talented potential employees who are more interested in things like workplace flexibilities and the opportunity to advance quickly. That doesn't seem to me like a path toward attracting the best and the brightest.
Comments
I agree more with Larry than Robert M. While I have seen my share of surreal in my 7 years of Federal government work experience, they actually pale in comparison to what I have witnessed in the private sector and in academia. I left a university to come to work for the government to escape politics.
Gary Larson and Scott Adams have just as much if not more material for The Far Side and Dilbert from the private sector compared to government.
I came to the Federal government because I get more opportunity to raise a family. No arbitrary decisions that I suddenly have to travel twice a week (as my brother experienced). Daycare on site if needed. Flexible schedules. And job security means that I could go for the fixed rate mortgage for a good home. I can leave my work cares at the office most days. I had the flexible schedule and reasonable leave policy to care for my ailing father as needed.
Are the brightest AND, importantly, the best necessarily the ones who want to work 80-90 hour weeks and forsake family for power?
Maybe we should focus on the brightest of the best. And then it's a matter of determining what is best.
Dave B | Tuesday, November 20, 2007 | 09:41 AMThe realization that getting a Federal job requires an amazing amount of patience in dealing with the HR departments is alive and well. And, with the HSPD-12 requirements, it isn't getting better any time soon.
RW | Monday, November 19, 2007 | 12:39 PMTom,
Surely that you are not implying that the best and brightest are not interested in job security and traditional benefits.
I left the Army after 20+ years. I have master's degree and a great deal of experience. I was wooed by international accounting firms that would have (eventually) paid me more than GS-12 pay. But they would have surely had me working my tail off. In the end, the 40-hour work week, job security, and retirement benefits are what convinced me to choose government work.
Maybe the best and brightest don't want to work 80-hour weeks, even for six figures?
Larry | Monday, November 19, 2007 | 07:39 AMI had to laugh when I read this. In the 80s I was playing college professor when the a Navy R&D facility approached me to work for the government. I told them I wasn't looking for a move. They came back several times. They consistently used the government benefits as a recruiting tool. Does the government attract certain people or do they recruit certain people?
Anna | Monday, November 19, 2007 | 04:22 AMThis is the federal government. There is no opportunity to advance quickly based on your skill level and your performance. Once you are in the system, you have to dance the dance just like everybody else.
Highly skilled people want to work in an environment where there is highly skilled management and professional discipline, not one that seams like a made for TV reality show. The place is surreal.
Robert M. | Friday, November 16, 2007 | 06:30 PMABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor Tom Shoop takes a look at news and events affecting the federal bureaucracy, from the perspective of a longtime observer of government.
SEARCH THIS BLOG
ARCHIVES
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
CATEGORIES
- Budget
- Comings and Goings
- Congress
- Defense
- Factoid of the Day
- Fedblog
- General News
- Government Operations
- Headline of the Day
- Homeland Security
- Intelligence
- Management
- Oversight
- Pay and Benefits
- Photo of the Day
- Political Appointees
- Press Release of the Day
- Procurement
- Quote of the Day
- The White House
- The Workforce
- The Workplace










