This Washington Post Column Is Very Strange
Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor of the Washington Post, has a column out today on the need for federal workforce reforms. Normally, I'd welcome this with open arms. Hiatt has a big platform, and I think it's great that he's using it to call attention to the good work done by civil servants and the need to reform federal workforce processes.
But the piece itself has some serious problems, among them, skipping over the fact that the Obama administration has begun to shape its response to the federal workforce crisis. Hiatt only quotes Max Stier (a frequent source of mine), who condemns the administration's actions to this point. Hiatt doesn't appear to have spoken to anyone in the Obama administration, and he does not mention Michelle Obama's visit to the Office of Personnel Management, the president's challenge to federal employees to come up with ways to improve government, or the fact that Obama's OPM Director John Berry, is in place, along with almost his entire leadership team, much earlier than his predecessors. Not to mention the fact that the Obama administration is conducting a serious review of the largest Bush administration pay-for-performance system, or is working to stop the outsourcing of federal jobs and insource some others that were already contracted out (something Hiatt identifies as a major problem).
There's no question that the problems the federal government faces are serious. The hiring process is undeniably broken. Pay systems have to be reconciled. This is a key moment when government must fix those problems or risk losing out on a wave of enthusiasm for federal employment. But Hiatt says that "on the civilian side, no one feels responsible for making things work better." That does not reflect the reality of the Obama administration's actions. More reporting would have made that clear.
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 Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.
All reformers should find real jobs. They are just beltway bandits chasing a buck.
Let the civil servants do the mission work. Dump all the so called pay-for -performance chatter. Stop the hate.
Wise Old Owl Posted Monday, April 27, 2009 4:00 PMOne would hope that some of the negativity of the past eight years would come to an end. Apparently, we must always be on guard to cull the wheat form the chaff when we read an unbalanced article.
US Posted Monday, April 27, 2009 4:04 PMHiatt? He who has no problem letting George Will write explicitly misleading columns easily corrected by simple online fact checks?
What a shock - not.
hopperhomer Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:45 AMNot to muddy the already murky water, or confuse anyone with facts, but why is the outsourcing of federal jobs a big deal? After all, it was the answer for Bill Clinton and Al Gore when they needed a way to deliver on their campaign promises to reduce the size of the government. Bush continued to build on their foundation. So what if it costs more?
Bud Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:11 AMDon't forget his "lumbering older workers" comment this week, too. What a nitwit.
ritgar80 Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:36 AMWhen you have a left wing newspaper say that federal civil service needs wholesale reform you know the existing system is beyond repair. The job for life mentality is finally coming to an end hear hear!!
dan ketter Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2009 1:04 PMThis is in response to "Bud" - what do you mean so what if outsourcing costs more? In this economy, can American taxpayers afford to pay for outsourcing to contractors just so the White House can boast a "smaller Government"? It's a proven fact that contractors cost more than civil servants. Period. The Government does not need to show a profit, unlike private industry. Government executives make about 1/3 the salary of private companies like Lockheed and Boeing. So what if it's "a job for life"? That's where performance reform comes into play. Non-performing civil servants should be fired just as easily as private industry employees. The Governement just hasn't figured out how to do that yet.
donsginny Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:41 PMI think Obama is on the right track, but I worry that the Berry appointment was a bad move. I can't seem to find any of his qualifications on the OPM website, nor those of his #2. I worry that the appointment was a nod to the gay community, which is fine, but if you're serious about reforming the government workforce, you should have someone with actual expertise in doing so as the chief of OPM - an academic or federal workforce expert would be nice.
Consultant Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:54 PMI think that assuming someone who has run a good business (i.e., our Cheif Performance Officer) or a successfuly government agency can run OPM is not a smart move. We need people who understand the broad issues of all the federal agencies - not folks who have only shown they can master the idiosyncracies of a single agency.
Hiatt mentions the military as a good example of a government hiring process that works. That's a great start. A lot of the consultants/academics, such as John Campbell and Wally Borman, who were instrumental in building that system - would be far better choices to head OPM and to revise the federal civilian hiring system.
To Donsginny-
My point exactly. Read slower, think sarcasm.
Bud Posted Wednesday, April 29, 2009 7:54 AM