Author Archives: Jeff Neal

Why Hiring Reforms in the 2019 NDAA May Not Make a Difference

On Monday, President Trump signed the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA).The NDAA is commonly used as a vehicle for changes that reach far beyond the Department of Defense. The 2019 NDAA includes provisions that are intended to make it easier for agencies to hire new talent. One that is getting a lot of attention is the authority to hire recent college graduates.

Is it likely that the new hiring authority will make a difference? Let’s start by looking at what the NDAA allows. It says “The head of an agency may appoint, without regard to any provision of sections 3309 through 3319 and 3330, a qualified individual to a position in the competitive service classified in a professional or administrative occupational category at the GS–11 level, or an equivalent level, or below.” It goes on to place some limits on those appointments. Appointees must have a baccalaureate or graduate degree from an institution of higher education, apply for the position within two years of receiving the degree (two years after being discharged from military service for individuals who completed at least 4 years of military service), and meet qualification requirements for the job.

The number of appointments in each agency “may not exceed the number equal to 15 percent of the number of individuals that the agency head appointed during the previous fiscal year to a position in the competitive service classified in a professional or administrative occupational category, at the GS–11 level, or an equivalent level, or below, under a competitive examining procedure.” The Director of OPM has the authority to lower the limit “based on any factor the Director considers appropriate.”

That numerical limit is the reason I believe this new authority will not make much of a difference. If we look at hiring data from OPM’s Fedscope, we find that in Fiscal 2017 (the last full year of data) the government made about 19,000 competitive service appointments to professional and administrative jobs at GS-11 or below. That would put the limit on the new authority at 2,865 new appointments government wide. Because the authority applies the 15 percent limit on an agency-by-agency basis, the actual number is likely to be much lower. When we look at individual departments and agencies, the numbers are not big. Commerce could hire about 150 people. Transportation could hire less than 50. Veterans Affairs would be limited to less than 150.

The new authority is not a bad idea. In fact, the number of recent college graduates who are hired is far too low. In the last quarter, the number of federal workers under age 30 was 148,921 out of a federal workforce of 2,075,006 (7.2 percent). The new authority is likely to result in more younger hires, although the fact that people graduate from college at all ages means the new hires are more likely to be younger, but could also be at any age.

If we really want to see improvement, we will need much larger numbers than this new authority is likely to generate. Agencies should use the flexibility to the extent they can. If they do, there is a good chance that the authority will be expanded in later years. If they do not use it (as often happens with new hiring authorities), the case for significant hiring reform will be weakened.

 

 

Government Will Spend Billions in the Next 2 Months — Here Are 3 Places They Should Spend It

It is end-of-year spending spree time again. You know, that season in the government where agencies rush to obligate their money before it turns into a pumpkin. You will see a lot of articles about this (including this excellent deep dive on The Pulse). Some will decry the “wasteful” spending, some will accuse government leaders of being bad executives because they wait until the end of the year to spend money in a mad rush, and some will just note that it is happening and that is nothing new.

The idea that all of this end of year spending is wasteful might have some merit in a few cases. Agencies may be in such a rush that they skip some of the due diligence one would expect when spending taxpayer money. I believe that is a small percentage of spending. The idea that managers are not doing their jobs because they waited until the last quarter is downright silly. Agencies have not started a fiscal year with a budget in more than a decade. Business-as-usual means getting appropriations bills passed in the Spring, then dumping the money on the agencies with half the year gone. If we want to blame someone for the problem, we can start with Capitol Hill.

Rather than complaining about the reality in which we live, I want to offer some ideas for spending that money in a way that may benefit the taxpayers and the government workers who serve them. All of my recommendations concern the federal workforce and ways to improve productivity (with the benefits that follow).

Leadership. I have been writing and talking about this for years, and will not stop until we see real progress. Virtually every problem that we see in the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) is related to the quality of leadership in federal agencies. Exit surveys in agencies where I ran HR programs consistently listed quality of supervisors as one of the top three reasons employees leave. They may love the job, their co-workers and the mission, but a lousy supervisor pushes them out the door. What agencies need are real leader development programs (the kind that take time to do right) and not the quickie 5-day shake and bake programs that get no results. Invest in good leaders and you will have better results. Turnover will decrease, productivity will increase, and planning and the resulting improved execution will make dollars go farther.

Workforce Analytics. The government sits on massive amounts of data regarding the workforce. The tech that is used to support the hiring process tells us the sources of applicants, the experience that successful applicants have, and much more. Once a job is filled, that data sits, unused, until it is erased a few years later. We also have data on performance, education levels, and other workforce characteristics. What do we do with those? In most agencies the answer is nothing. A government with two million employees and years of data on all of them should be doing something with that data to drive decisions on sourcing applicants, selections, training, and every other aspect of talent management.

Employee Training. It is not uncommon to see the percentage of labor dollars spent on training coming in at or below one or two percent. An agency can have a billion dollar workforce and complain about spending money training those folks. Perhaps it is the leadership problem, but it is also a result of misplaced priorities. The same agency that does not mind spending a million dollars to renovate a conference room will balk at spending the same amount to train a few hundred of the people who do the agency’s work. Employee training is one of the best investments an agency can make. It is not just technical training that makes a difference. ICF’s 2018 Federal Digital Trends Report showed that 96 percent of respondents agreed that “Soft skills are just as important a qualification for the team developing a digital technology solution as hard skills (i.e., compared to skills such as coding or programming).”

How much of the hundreds of billions that are being spent will be invested in the people who do the work? Probably not much, and definitely not enough. We are asking federal workers to do more and more with fewer people and often with little support from agency leaders. Turnover is increasing, and morale in most agencies is nowhere near that of the private sector. This year some of the end of year dollars should be invested in turning that around.