Uses of "Best Places" Rankings
Bob Tobias said yesterday at the release of the Partnership for Public Service's Best Places to Work rankings that he believes the ratings provide an incentive for agencies to improve their management. What he didn't say is that the ratings also provide ammunition for organizations, like unions, that are trying to push management changes of their own. I got no fewer than three press releases from the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union saying that the rankings prove the need for change at the Social Security Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Homeland Security, and Customs and Border Protection.
Using the data is a smart move by the unions, at least strategically. It lets them praise a ratings systems that agencies buy into and tout when they do well in (the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office both sent out press releases trumpeting their ratings). But because the ratings are based on the Federal Human Capital Survey, and thus measures satisfaction in broad gagues rather than linking satisfaction causally to specific policies, the unions can also use the ratings to suggest that their approaches are effective. For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission consistently tops the ratings. And so, NTEU writes to reporters:
One agency where NTEU's efforts to increase frontline employee input has met with success in years past is at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) which again earned the survey's top ranking--it also was the top-ranked agency in the 2007 'best places' rankings. At the NRC, NTEU has successfully negotiated workplace rights and benefits that address employee working conditions and work-life balance, such as alternative work schedules, flexiplace and student loan repayments
Does the rating prove the efficacy of any single one of those programs? Of course not. But the rankings provide information that's useful, both politically and practically, to both agencies and their stakeholders.
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.
In someways these rankings are totally meaningless. In someways extremely important. But to make them better it would be useful to change the rankings to include them as segregated by what the agencies do and what their culture is in fact.
Here is what I suggest:
1. Civil agencies involved in primarily regulatory activity, e.g. EPA, OSHA;
2. Civil agencies involved in grants and administration;
3. Civil agencies involved in law enforcement;
4. Civil agencies with uniformed employees;
5. Civil agencies with NO gun and badge employees.
A second category: Those departments and organizations involved with National Security and National Defense!
William R. Cumming Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:43 AM1. Civil agencies under DOD umbrella;
2. Civil agencies not under DOD but under DNI umbrella--e.g. CIA.
3. Those involved with foreign policy and foreign aid.
A third category would be truly independent regulatory agencies. Such as NRC and SEC and FCC.
With regard to Bill's post, I think the ideas have great merit, but there could be a problem with the DoD/DNI part of the National Security slice. Some of the intelligence related agencies come under both - as in two bosses.
Bud Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:31 PMThanks Bud and agree! My hope was that someone would come up with a better set of combinations or permutations rather than viewing all federal departments and agencies as equivalent in their cultural dy namics. Just as the Princeton College Review got into the "FEEL" of various colleges the same needs doing for employees and potential employees. The cultures are vastly different. In some the only really interesting policy work goes out to contractors despite inherently governmental restrictions on that outsourcing.One example of cultural statistics might be how many "Whistleblower" complaints in an organizations history? How many successful?The Partnership for Public Service has done some really good work so just pushing a bit to have them do even better.
William R.Cumming Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:34 PM