Two Interesting Things From OPM Director Berry's Speech Yesterday
I was reading through OPM Director John Berry's speech at the Human Capital Management Forum yesterday, and while most of it's his fairly standard stump speech, two things stood out to me. First, Berry said:
Next, before the year is out, I hope to introduce recruitment and hiring reforms that will make us more aggressive in our outreach to the best potential candidates and more competitive with the private sector in our hiring methods and timelines. These reforms will make it easier for applicants to apply for our jobs and easier for hiring managers to hire the best and the brightest.
I'm not sure whether this will come in a stand-alone bill or whether it'll be part of a budget outline for next year released by the White House. But this was something Berry has promised to do. And so far, he's done a better job than many administration officials of meeting his deadlines, or at least getting within the ballpark of them.
Second, he described in more detail something I've heard him put out as an idea before. He said, in the context of pay reform:
Instead of meticulously parsed grades and steps, maybe we should consider career ladders with just three stages: apprentice, journey-level, and expert. What if we drew bright lines between these stages, and had a high bar to enter each? Would having your rank follow you no matter what job you're doing, instead of having it tied to a specific position, be more appropriate for the 21st century? What if you could go from one job to the next at the level you belong, without the HR staff needing to shoe-horn a justification for it?Maybe such a three-stage system could help ensure that we're promoting the best people, and it would take some of the pressure off of the hiring decision. We don't want hiring managers to be paralyzed by the thought that they're hiring people for life.
Maybe the entire apprentice stage is probationary, or maybe the probationary period is shorter, but instead we require an affirmative step to keep someone on at the end of their probation instead of automatically tenuring them.
So we have the concept of setting a high bar at the beginning of each of the three stages. What might that bar look like? For me, the three most important qualities are fairness, comprehensiveness, and transparency. Fairness means that we build workable standards, apply them uniformly, hear all voices, and do not leave ultimate decisions at one person's discretion.
This sounds strikingly similar to things I've heard out of the Federal Managers' Association. Maybe that's coincidence, or maybe ideas are starting to come into line. Either way, I'm intrigued, both by the concept, and by the possibilities for implementation, which could be challenging. And I'm interested to see all these ideas come into sharper relief.
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.
I have heard all this before many times. There is nothing wrong with the current system as regards grades and steps. The hiring procedures are a travesty in this day and age of technology. OPM needs to get the agencies to standardize applications and hiring procedures. Then do some supervisory training to teach supervisors and managers how to get rid of dead wood. All during my career I had people telling me you can't get rid of so and so, I always managed to get rid of non performers by using the system. Once all the way to the US court of appeals where my actions were upheld. All it took was documentation of an employees conduct or performance and the realization that they brought this on themselves not me.
Dennisd29 Posted Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:14 PMAt the end of the Berry quote it is stated: "For me, the three most important qualities are fairness, comprehensiveness, and transparency. Fairness means that we build workable standards, apply them uniformly, hear all voices, and do not leave ultimate decisions at one person's discretion."
Tautologies of this nature, by definition, sound good, but it's the execution that generally is flawed. I think we can all agree that the stated qualities would be desirable, but who says they would be any more attainable under a different system than they are under the present one? More often than not, it's not the structural mechanics of the system itself but the uncontrollable variables (e.g., the introduction of subjectivity) that prevent realization.
Listing a few uber-desirable qualities as a prelude to offering a new approach, but which are relevant to ANY approach, raises expectations about that new approach.
More often than not, what we get is old wine in a new bottle.
EJC in ATL Posted Monday, November 23, 2009 8:16 AM"Maybe the entire apprentice stage is probationary, or maybe the probationary period is shorter, but instead we require an affirmative step to keep someone on at the end of their probation instead of automatically tenuring them."
The big problem (aside from discrimination and favoritism) is that not one wants to be the "bad guy." Thre are very very few people who are willing to deliver bad news, whether it is about poor performance or a badly written report. Part of this is because most of senior management has gotten their position by "not rocking the boat." I have seen 20+ senior attorneys "hint" that a Directive was poorly written rather than criticize it explicitly, because they knew the Senior level SES was unwilling to hear criticism.
These people are usually equally unwilling to criticize/disappoint those below them. The desire to be a "nice person" seems to outweigh the obligation to not waste taxpayer funds on incompetent employees.
Charlie Posted Monday, November 23, 2009 8:26 AM
Wise Old Owl Posted Monday, November 23, 2009 9:54 AMThe work force has been attacked for many years. We were the objects of all manner of criticism by a pack of academics and politicians. If Berry is smart he will leave us alone. Junk NSPS and go back to the GS system for all.
Mr. Berry presents is an extreme simplification of a complex issue. Even using his apprentice, journeyman, expert metaphor, requires that pay (merit) be distributed in increments, as band specific milestones are met (or not met). Who gets to decide what these milestones are? Are we going to define milestones for each discipline in the Federal Government? Good Luck!
This appears to be yet another feel good, nonsensical, and unworkable approach to HR, which falls far short of the GS system in every way. Leave the GS system alone; it is fine and it works.
US Posted Monday, November 23, 2009 10:53 AMKey parts are:
" recruitment and hiring reforms that will make us more aggressive in our outreach to the best potential candidates and more competitive with the private sector in our hiring methods and timelines. These reforms will make it easier for applicants to apply for our jobs and easier for hiring managers to hire the best and the brightest."
It is great to see that there is an acknowledgment of this by the top HR person. When a prospective federal employee has excellent private sector experience, why has this not been previously considered in HR ratings on applications?
Have heard too many stories about applicants who have relevant skills, yet do not personally know an executive or such in the fed.government, and HR recommends they start at or near entry-level. The time-in-grade rule also requires modification.
For the 2nd part, some modification is also recommended for the GS Schedule and pay-banding systems.
Under the pay for performance systems, no one receives the top rating, yet others question when this does not occur.
However, for the GS Schedule, it has caused too many employees to still operate in a narrow, clerical manner.
There are too many people who do not appreciate the GS Schedule and awards, even ones who are very good employees.
Therefore, modifying the GS system would be good.
jj Posted Monday, November 23, 2009 1:25 PMSounds like berry is hedging his bets and trying to find ways around vet pref
dan m ketter Posted Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:23 PM