Work-Life Balance
At yesterday's Federal Human Capital Survey results release, Nancy Kichak called attention to one number in particular she said she was worried about: a 3 percent drop in the number of federal employees who said they were pleased with the government's efforts to help them achieve a good work-life balance, from 78 percent in 2006 to 75 percent last year. I'll be curious to see what answers agencies and departments come up with to explain that decline, but the FHCS numbers on specific work-life programs offer some disturbing suggestions.
How many federal employees responded positively to the question about their satisfaction with child-care subsidies? A measly 9.1 percent. 22.6 percent said they were satisfied with telework or telecommuting programs. 28.5 percent said they were satisfied with work-life balance programs, including those on health and wellness, elder care, support groups, and other forms of employee assistance.
It's possible that some of these numbers are as low as they are simply because many employees don't yet have much experience with these programs. But if that's the case, perhaps programs need to be better-advertised or made more widely available. Particularly in the case of telework, which the Bush administration has worked hard to promote, the figures are quite low.
None of these numbers detract from the fact that an overwhelming majority of federal employes, 91 percent in fact, see their work as important, and 69 percent have no plans to leave government in the next year. But there is always room for improvement, especially when it comes to promoting the federal government as a good employer. Making sure employees feel good on and off the job is a good place to start.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
Allow me, if you will, to posit a contrarian theory: The reason that the numbers are so low is that several agencies and bureaus actively discourage participation.
Concerned citizen Posted Monday, January 12, 2009 4:59 AMThe fact that it's a 3% decrease is more than just significant. It's probably vastly lower than that. What would be very interesting would be to see the number of responses received given the total number targeted for the survey.
There's an old Navy expression: A bitchin' sailor is a happy sailor. Which leads to a corellary--a silent sailor should cause concern.
I believe that federal employees lose interest in participating in surveys because it seems as if the survey is by iteslf the mission. Executive management points at their surveys as claim "we care." It's the easy way out, where concerned and self-motivated leaders are more likely the answer. We don't need more SES's who look down their snouts at federal employees as their serf labor.
If there weren't a tie to sumptuous executive pay increases and bonuses--think "NSPS" here--federal employee welfare wouldn't even make it as a blip on many SES's radar screens. Granted, this is a personal opinion; I have heard similarly from many other federal employees.
Right now, federal employers can be thankful that the stinking USA job market is what is truly responsible for their ability to attract and retain "the best and brightest."
Fed_Up Posted Monday, January 12, 2009 9:24 AM"Fed_Up" has made a very important observation: "I believe that federal employees lose interest in participating in surveys because it seems as if the survey is by iteslf the mission."
Year after year we participate in surveys, but very little changes. At my Agency the survey was originally called "SFA" for "Survey-Feedback-Action". But many of us thought it REALLY meant "Same F*****g A******s".
The process reminds me of a poster I saw while in High School years ago: "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell." Today I believe that "Surveys for the sake of surveys, are the ideology of Federal Management."
Fed_Up, but not ready to retire Posted Monday, January 12, 2009 11:06 AMI would be interested to know who drafted the survey. Often, agencies hire consultants to perform this chore. That way the results are not directly tied to anyone who has the authority to actually respond. Until the responsibilty for each question is tied to the career of a specific decision-maker within each agency not much is ever going to happen.
Ted Bean Posted Monday, January 12, 2009 3:14 PM