Taking a blunt approach to the Intelligence Community’s workforce management strategy by the DNI can produce dire repercussions, as it did prior to 9/11.
Commentary
OPM’s new performance management rules are (mostly) spot on
OPM’s new performance management rules aim to end inflated ratings and eliminate pass-fail systems, all a net positive—it’s about time we went ‘old school’ in holding employees accountable. But the new rules may go too far in prescribing a one-size-fits-all approach.
Only civil servants know where the real government waste is
The Trump administration’s drastic disruption of the federal government — and the attempted dismantling of the federal civil service — continues. There are plenty of inflammatory headlines in that regard. But career public servants take an oath to serve American citizens efficiently and effectively, and they must be given the chance to work collaboratively with their political superiors to make this work. That takes trust on both sides.
Labor groups: Trump’s union-busting EO amounts to ‘revenge’ for suing to block workforce cuts
As far back as the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act (and even before that, in Executive Orders issued by Presidents John Kennedy in the 60’s and Richard Nixon in the 70’s), our political leaders have found that bargaining with federal employee unions was in the public interest. So, IMHO, the Trump Administration has a very long way to go if it’s going to try to show that after all these decades, federal labor unions have somehow harmed national security. So, let’s not cry ‘wolf’ too loudly.
Public service: Professional responsibility vs. personal opinion
We’re into our second month of the Trump administration’s drastic “disruption” of the federal government. That may be a compliment in the private sector where Elon Musk comes from, but it’s not working so well when it comes to federal government services. What then is a civil servant to do? We have three choices, none of them great under present circumstances: First, we can curse the darkness; that’s Door No. 1, and while it won’t change a thing, it’ll feel good. We can choose Door No. 2 and go underground (those that are still employed) and try to sabotage what’s going on. That’s not for me. Or we can take Door No. 3 and help implement the current administration’s agenda, whether their help is grudgingly given or received. You can probably guess which Door I’ll choose.
Forcing a distribution of SES performance ratings: A Good idea that won’t work
I’ve posted a (too long) email I sent to Acting OPM Director Charles Ezell applauding the agency’s attempt to control SES performance rating inflation but criticizing the draft standards as ‘forcing’ a quota of high ratings, when those ratings ought to be aligned (and consistent) with broader agency performance. Note that those ratings should not be based on individual qualities either, as almost all career SES members are ‘wonderful’ in that regard; rather, they should reflect their contribution to overall agency performance (along with their political leadership). This, if an agency performs well, its SES members should be rated accordingly, but the reverse ought to be true as well.
The ‘new’ CHCO Council looks a lot like the ‘old’ CHCO Council
I was interviewed for a story that reporter Drew Friedman did on an OPM memo recommending that all agencies redesignate their CHCO Council roles as “general” rather than “career reserved,” a move that would open up Council membership to ‘political’ appointments. However, in my remarks to Drew, I pointed out that Council is actually co-chaired (by law) by two political appointees, and its Executive Director is already a Presidential appointee. I also pointed out that the original CHCO Council, chartered way back in 2005, included a number of ‘career general’ PAS appointees, in part because they had far more influence with their cabinet secretaries than ‘career reserved’ members…and thus allowing the Council to actually SET policy, not just execute it.
How HR leaders can secure strategic investments for their teams
A Fed Insider Webinar on the above topic, but with an emphasis on the need to work in partnership with ‘line’ officials (and in the case of the federal government, that means political appointees).
The Ugly Truth About Immigration and the U.S. Labor Market
The labor market is already operating beyond full employment, and federal policies such as mass deportations are likely to create additional vacancies, particularly in the more challenging and low-wage jobs in the U.S. But who will then take those jobs? The ugly truth is no one. And that’s a problem for all of us.
Partnership for Public Service ‘Explainer’ Series: What happens to me?
In this hour-long videotaped program sponsored by the Partnership for Public Service and posted on You Tube, I explain the complicated ‘ins and outs’ of Reductions-in-Force (RIFs), Deferred Resignations, and other things that federal civil servants are worried about today.