Introduction

I came to work for the federal government in the summer of 1974. I did not want to work there, but it felt as though I had nowhere else to turn. I had graduated from college with a degree in fine arts and quickly learned that there was little demand for someone with my limited business skills.

Prior to entering government service, I floated among a variety of unsatisfying jobs, ranging from a private investigator to a taxi driver to a stereo salesman. Finally, at the urging of my wife, I took several civil service exams and eventually secured a civilian job with the United States Army as a personnel intern.

I kept looking for better jobs in the private sector, but my education and background always seemed to get in the way. Over time, I began to see the benefits of working for the government, as I enjoyed the mission, career opportunities, pay, job security, and other benefits. Eventually, I decided to make it a career.

During my 32-year career, I worked for a number of different agencies, including the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, the Federal Energy Administration, the Veterans Health Administration, and the Veterans Benefits Administration. I also worked in multiple locations, including Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx, New York, as well as Roanoke, Virginia, Los Angeles, California, Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, Georgia.

I spent my entire government career working in human resources and/or management. Three of these years were devoted to representing the government before third parties on such diverse issues as removals, grievances, discrimination complaints, and unfair labor practice (ULP) charges. I’ve worked both in the field and in headquarters, and in a staff and a line management capacity. During my last 12 years, I served as a senior executive.

I’ve been fortunate enough to receive numerous awards, ranging from the Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Service to the President’s Council on Management Improvement Award. More importantly, I’ve had the opportunity to work with and learn from a wide variety of first-rate people, both within and outside of government. I’ve also been lucky enough to spend half my life serving my heroes—America’s veterans.

As a fine artist by nature and by training, I tend to see the world a bit less rigidly than most government employees. I learned early on that while the government has many rules, regulations, and procedures, they are generally there both to provide a governing framework and to avoid the abuses of the past. These rules can and should be interpreted and applied flexibly, so we can carry out the mission of government while managing and treating our employees in a fair and equitable manner.

There is no doubt that working for the government is different from working for the private sector. Although they both have their challenges, the government’s challenges are clearly exacerbated by the systems that are in place for hiring and managing its people. That being said, it is my firm belief that once you understand how and why things work the way they do in government, and recognize all of the forces that are at play, you will begin to see that you do not have to choose the status quo and follow a course of inaction. This book will teach you that if you have the right mindset and skill sets, you can successfully manage the government’s employees and accomplish great things.

In order to understand this even more clearly, I am providing a series of Examples and Cases in Point. The Examples are general scenarios, and the Cases in Point are situations in which I was personally involved or of which I had direct knowledge.

Let’s explore the key issues in more detail so we can learn how to better address the enormous challenges that face government managers.

What Is Different About Working for the Government?

There are many reasons why working for the government is different from working for the private sector. We will take a detailed look at seven of these reasons:

1. The private sector is in business to make a profit, while government exists to serve and protect its citizens.

2. Government organizations are typically run at the highest levels by elected officials, meaning the agenda and direction of the organization are subject to change every few years.

3. Government organizations, especially at the federal level, are generally larger than most private companies and, as such, require a higher degree of bureaucracy, rules, and regulations.

4. Government organizations typically receive more scrutiny than the private sector because of oversight by Congress, the Inspector General, the media, consumer advocates, and others, which means that the organization will probably move more slowly and be less innovative than the private sector.

5. Government employees are often paid at a different rate from their counterparts in the private sector.

6. Government employees usually have better job security than private-sector employees because they have more legal protections and do not have to worry about their organization being taken over by another company.

7. In the federal government and in most state and local governments, employees do not have the right to strike.

For all of the reasons stated above, working for the government is clearly different from working in the private sector. Let’s look at each reason in more detail and see how it affects government employment.

The Private Sector Is in Business to Make a Profit

Companies are in business to make money. Everyone knows that if a company does not make a profit, it will eventually go out of business. That is why organizations are always competing for the largest possible share of their market—the larger the market share, the greater their profit. The employees all know that a sudden change in the organization’s financial situation can result in many people losing their jobs. They also know that a new product can greatly alter the market, so innovation is highly valued in the private sector.

This ongoing pressure to survive typically creates a sense of urgency that does not exist to the same extent in government. In a sense, working for the private sector can be riskier and sometimes more exciting than working for the government.

By the same token, while government employees do not have to focus on making a profit, they have incredible opportunities to make a difference in the lives of this country’s citizens. Government employees are charged with protecting America from its enemies, taking care of its veterans, providing social security payments to the elderly and infirmed, administering its immigration program, collecting taxes, and protecting the environment, among other things. Government employees also educate our children, police our streets, fight fires, and collect our garbage. Perhaps the best thing about working for the government is the ability to have an impact on the lives of our fellow Americans.

Thus, the first and most pronounced difference between working for the government and for the private sector is the very nature of their missions. The missions themselves drive the way people think and act within these two very different environments.

Government Organizations Are Run by Elected Officials

Transfer of power at the federal, state, and local levels is part of the American system of government. Elections are held every few years, which often triggers a dramatic change in the leadership, philosophy, and approach within a particular government entity. While private-sector companies also experience leadership changes, such changes are not as predictably cyclical as they are in government. This means that government employees, particularly the supervisors, need to be prepared for constant ongoing change, and in many cases a 180-degree change when one political party takes over from another. While private-sector employees also have to deal with frequent change, such change is driven more by the profit margin, whereas in government, change is driven more by ideology.

Some Political Generalizations. In my experience, when Republicans take over, they tend to focus more on business-oriented issues such as productivity, efficiency, oversight, accountability, and consolidation. They seem to be less interested in working with unions and less concerned about employee issues. They generally look to shrink the size of government by transferring work to the private sector. At the federal level, they normally try to increase the percentage of the government’s budget that will be devoted to national defense.

Conversely, Democrats seem to be less focused on applying bottom-line business principles and more focused on service delivery, emphasizing areas like customer and employee satisfaction. They look to partner with government unions and tend to focus on employee concerns. They may also look to allocate a greater portion of the budget to social issues such as health care, welfare, or the environment.

Government Organizations Generally Require a Higher Degree of Bureaucracy

The federal government employs almost 2 million people. while state; city, and county governments employ millions more. Although some corporations are very large and also have a fair amount of bureaucracy, most companies are much smaller than the government. Moreover, they are usually not covered by the overwhelming number of laws, rules, regulations, and labor agreements that government organizations are, meaning they have more flexibility and more room to maneuver when dealing with their employees.

To put this in perspective, according to Vice President Al Gore, the reinventing government initiative “. . . forced agencies to cut 16,000 pages of needless regulation, and 640,000 pages of internal rules . . . those rules and regulations make government services slower and more expensive.”¹ Despite his efforts, imagine how many pages still remain in the federal government!

Private-sector companies have much more leeway than their government counterparts when it comes to hiring, promoting, and rewarding their employees. Although they cannot discriminate against anyone based on race, creed, or national origin, it is much easier for them to hire the person of their choice because they do not have to deal with the multitude of rules and regulations that the government faces.

Veterans’ Preferences. Most government organizations are required to give veterans’ preference to prospective applicants. This means that a veteran may get as many as five or ten extra points when being rated and ranked for a government job. Moreover, in many cases, government organizations are precluded from passing over a veteran in order to select a nonveteran. The rationale for this is that veterans have made an enormous sacrifice for our country and therefore deserve priority when competing for government jobs. While few people would argue with this rationale, the principle of veterans’ preference does limit a government selecting official’s options when trying to select the best possible candidate for a government job.

Rule of Three. In the federal government, selecting officials not only have to apply veterans’ preference; they also have to follow “the rule of three.” This rule means that when they hire someone from outside government, selecting officials have to choose one of the three highest-ranked candidates. Although that seems to make sense at first blush, the rule of three often constrains government officials from selecting a far better candidate who may be ranked lower on paper.

Government Organizations Typically Receive More Scrutiny

Pick up any newspaper and you will find that it contains many articles about the government. Most of these articles seem to be negative, since exposés about the government always sell more newspapers than stories detailing how well the government is operating. These articles invariably cover mismanagement, inefficiencies, and sometimes outright fraud.

The government is an easy target because of its size and scope, and because almost everyone is a taxpayer and expects to get a good bang for their buck. Moreover, the Freedom of Information Act² ensures that there is more access to information about the government than ever before, which invites even more scrutiny.

Government managers also have both Congress and their organization’s Office of the Inspector General (IG) looking over their shoulders on a regular basis. Beyond this, government unions are always there to hold management accountable for any actions that they deem to be unfair or inappropriate. Lastly, employees are frequently encouraged to report incidents of fraud, waste, abuse, or corruption.

With all of these forces in play, it is difficult for government managers to take action that might be controversial without expecting a strong reaction from one or more of the above players. On top of this, the political leaders of their organizations are carefully watching how things play out, and they often reverse course when it is the politically expedient thing to do. Is it any wonder that it is so difficult to get things done in government?

For example, due to local media attention in Illinois and at the behest of certain congressmen, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) IG reviewed a large number of decisions that were made by VA in response to claims for benefits that were filed by veterans in that state. The review commenced because records indicated that veterans in Illinois were receiving a disproportionately low amount of benefits when compared to veterans in other states.

As the review advanced, the IG decided to look at how claims were decided across the country. Eventually, it concluded that while veterans may have been underpaid in Illinois and a few other states, other veterans across the country were probably overpaid for certain types of conditions at an enormous cost to the taxpayer.

In response, VA officials decided to take an even-handed approach to these findings by (1) reaching out to veterans in the states where payments appeared to be low and inviting them to file new claims for benefits; and (2) reviewing the claims decisions of veterans who were receiving benefits in those categories that the IG deemed were highly questionable.

Veterans’ service organizations and advocates vigorously protested VA’s decision to review decisions that could result in reducing the benefits of certain veterans. From their perspective, the government was trying to reduce the federal deficit on the backs of veterans. The media also chastised VA for this decision in a series of local and national newspaper articles. Eventually, all of the scrutiny and pressure forced VA to cancel its review of the decisions that may have resulted in too many benefits, even though its intent was to make sure veterans were receiving only the benefits that they are entitled to by law. Conversely, VA did contact the veterans who may have been underpaid, and invited them to file new claims for benefits.

Government Employees Are Often Paid at a Different Rate

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),

[There is a] wide variation in federal/private sector pay differences by occupation. For example, federal employees in selected professional and administrative occupations tended to hold jobs that paid less than comparable jobs in private sector firms . . . For about 85% of those federal employees, their pay lagged behind private sector employees by more than 20%. By contrast, about 30% of federal employees in selected technical and clerical occupations held jobs with salaries above those paid by private sector firms . . . In general, jobs in technical and clerical occupations showed much smaller differences in pay between federal and private sector workers.³

The challenge of paying federal employees is greatly exacerbated by the fact that geographic differences around the country result in many federal employees being greatly underpaid in high-cost areas such as New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA) was intended to address this situation by providing for “locality” pay raises based on comparisons between federal and nonfederal salaries in local areas. However, the federal government never implemented the full raises required by the FEPCA because of the cost involved and because of questions regarding the methodology used to calculate the pay comparisons.

To be fair, the FEPCA focuses only on pay and not on benefits. In an earlier report on the federal personnel system, the CBO determined that the value of federal employee benefits often exceeds the value of private companies’ benefits by as much as 7 percent of pay, offsetting at least to some extent the federal disadvantage in salaries.⁴

Conversely, according to several studies, the average state and local government employee collects considerably more in total compensation than the average private-sector employee. “Wages average a hefty 37 percent higher in the public sector, but the differences in benefits are even more dramatic. Local governments pay 128 percent more, on average, than private employers to finance workers’ health care benefits, and 162 percent more on retirement benefits.”⁵

While pay and benefits vary across governments and geographic areas relative to the private sector, few if any government organizations follow private-sector practices that include market-based and performance-oriented raises. According to U.S. Comptroller General Davis Walker, “There is widespread agreement that the basic approach to federal pay is broken . . . (but) pay increases are no longer an entitlement but should be based on employees’ contributions to the organization’s missions and goals.”⁶ Although state and local governments, for the most part, have the advantage of competitive pay and benefits, their pay systems generally lack the same flexibilities as the private sector, making Davis Walker’s comments equally applicable to them.

Government Employees Usually Have Better Job Security

We all know that private-sector employees do not have the same job security as government employees. They can lose their jobs in many ways, ranging from corporate takeovers to the relocation of their activity to another city or even another country, or to a downturn in the economy. They can also lose their jobs if their corporation’s stock price takes a tumble due to poor performance or loss of market share, or if their company is engaged in fraud or malfeasance, all of which will hurt the bottom line and can trigger layoffs.

One notable case involved an excellent salesman in the private sector who was laid off four times, for many of the reasons just described. Having a wife and two young children, he was very concerned about his future. He eventually went to work for the government because he knew he would have greater job security and, hopefully, more career growth.

The government is funded by one of the few things in life that are certain, taxes. While the tax base can certainly shrink if the economy falters, government will always exist. The only question is its size. Moreover, the government can and often continues to function with a deficit, although because of its sheer size, the federal government can operate with far more debt than state and local governments can. A private company simply cannot operate in this fashion for an indefinite period of time because it constantly has to compete in the marketplace in order to survive and has no tax base. Moreover, it does not have the ability to simply raise taxes like the government can.

Most private-sector employees also do not enjoy the same job protections as government employees. Unless they have a contract, which most do not, private-sector employees can be fired at a moment’s notice, and for almost any reason, and they will have little recourse to challenge that action. The tenuous nature of many private-sector jobs contributes to a culture that is often edgier than that in government.

Government employees generally have far more protections than their private-sector counterparts. Once they pass probation (usually a year), it can become quite difficult to fire them without a lot of hard work, documentation, third-party intervention, and aggravation. Most government employees can contest any action taken against them, and the cumulative effect of having to discipline or actually fire a government employee can discourage supervisors from taking action. At the same time, employees quickly figure out when management is not prepared to fire many of its employees, and this helps contribute to a culture that often lacks a sense of urgency.

A government human resources specialist from Bremerton, Washington, explained the challenge:

We have certainly removed poor performers, but supervisors are reluctant to assign meaningful work to poor performers for extended periods in order to build a case. If we wind up overcharging a customer for redoing work or missing a contracted completion date, we risk losing the customer.⁷

Most Government Employees Do Not Have the Right to Strike

The right to strike is a fundamental principle in the private sector. It serves as the basis for collective bargaining and encourages both parties to try and reach agreement. This right confers an enormous amount of power on private-sector unions and motivates them to focus on broad issues such as pay, benefits, and job security.

The same does not hold true through much of government. For example, 38 states have no-strike laws.⁸ The federal government makes it a felony for its employees to strike. Even those jurisdictions that recognize a public employee’s right to strike prohibit police and firefighters from striking, as well as other employees they deem essential.⁹

In my experience, since the vast majority of government unions do not have the ability to strike, they tend to focus on narrower, more mundane issues than their counterparts in the private sector do. Lacking the ability to strike, unable to negotiate pay, and not having the same job security concerns as private-sector unions, they have to find other issues to make themselves relevant and to galvanize the workforce. As a result, many will seek to negotiate on even minor changes in policy, will often “make a mountain out of a molehill” of obscure personnel issues, and will vigorously represent even the worst employees, so they can maintain a high profile with the bargaining unit.

Newer, more educated employees often do not join government unions, because they cannot negotiate on issues that are of importance to them. In addition, even though unions are legally obligated to represent all employees in the bargaining unit, motivated employees often resent them for protecting people who do not contribute to the organization.

All of these factors contribute to a different type of relationship and a different level of tension between management and government unions than you will find in the private sector.

In several of the organizations that I have worked in, union officials would frequently raise issues that, from many people’s perspective, were innocuous. They would complain about the arrangement of a couple of desks, argue over a short-term assignment for one employee, criticize the phrasing of a vacancy announcement, and so on. Although I was able to resolve the vast majority of these issues, I couldn’t help but wonder how much of the government’s time was being wasted on nonsense. Sometimes, it almost felt like a Seinfeld episode. That is, a show about nothing.

Why People Come to Work for the Government

In my experience, government workers represent the full spectrum of our nation’s population, in the same way that workers in the private sector do. They are young and old, male and female, black and white, Asian and Hispanic, Jewish and Gentile, veteran and nonveteran, educated and not educated. Some expect to work for the government their entire careers, while others only expect to work there for a short period of time.

People come to work for the government for many reasons, including but not limited to the following five:

1. They want to make a difference.

2. They want the total package of government pay, benefits, and retirement savings plans.

3. They want the job security offered by government.

4. They want the right job and the training that the government can offer.

5. They know the government offers many opportunities to advance.

Interestingly, in a survey done by Hart-Teeter Research of people who did not apply for jobs with the federal government, 38 percent of respondents said it was too much of a hassle to apply, 27 percent indicated that pay would be less than the private sector, and 10 percent said the jobs would be boring.¹⁰ Let’s look at the reasons why people work for the government in a bit more detail.

They Want to Make a Difference

Many people want to do something more than simply make money—they want to make a difference. For example, after 9/11 “more than 100,000 people . . . sent applications or resumes” to the Central Intelligence Agency.¹¹ Other people want to fight crime, work with foreign governments, protect the environment, or simply maintain our libraries. There is no better place to accomplish these goals than with government.

A few years back, we hired a young attorney from the private sector. When I asked her why she wanted to work for the government, she replied that she was very unhappy as a private family attorney. She felt as though she was constantly stuck in the middle of disputes involving unhappy families, and she wanted to do something more positive and productive with her life. Moreover, she was unhappy working up to 70 hours per week. After much soul searching, she chose to work for the government.

They Want the Total Package of Government Pay, Benefits, and Retirement

I discussed the government’s pay and benefits in the last section, so I will not rehash those issues. Another major advantage of working for the government is its generous retirement package. Many people retire with 50 percent, 60 percent, 70 percent, or even 80 percent of their last few years’ average pay.

Let’s look at the overall issue of pay, benefits, and retirement in more human terms: A friend of mine had lost his job in the private sector, and, given his age, had a hard time finding another job in the private sector. He was very concerned about the lack of health insurance for his family and the fact that he was ill prepared for retirement. Although he knew that he would be virtually starting over at a relatively low salary, he decided to go to work for the government, knowing that he could improve his family’s long-term financial health with the government’s package of pay and benefits. He also realized that if he worked for the government for 15 years or more, he would be at least somewhat prepared for retirement.

They Want the Job Security Offered by Government

In the previous section, I also discussed how the government offers job security. Accordingly, there is no need to repeat that a government job is more secure than most.

A real-life example of someone who was looking for such security would be a close relative of mine who lost his business and eventually took a job in the private sector. After moving from job to job, he was let go because his company was experiencing financial difficulties. Recognizing that he was living from paycheck to paycheck and had no solid long-term prospects, he decided that he needed a job with more security. As a result, he submitted his application to work for the government.

The Government Can Offer the Right Job and Training

Most government employers look for the same set of knowledge, skills, and abilities that private-sector employers look for. Many, if not most, government jobs are filled at the entry level, which means that in most cases, the government is simply looking to hire good people and then train them to become journeymen.

This approach provides a wonderful opportunity for recent graduates, as well as people looking for a job change, to work for and develop a career within government.

One young man I know left the military after spending several years in Vietnam. He went to college through the GI Bill, and then began looking for a steady job in order to support his family. He found an entry-level position with the government and slowly worked his way up, taking advantage of the government’s many training opportunities and being promoted to a variety of increasingly responsible positions. Eventually, the President of the United States appointed this man to be the undersecretary of that same government organization.

The Government Offers Many Opportunities to Advance

The sheer size of the government means that good people can get ahead relatively quickly. Perhaps the most difficult part of the process is getting into the government, since the application process can be both daunting and discouraging. Fortunately, for those people who are persistent, once you get into the government, you can move both up and around pretty quickly.¹²

Many entry-level positions start at a fairly low salary. However, for those positions that offer promotion potential along with a significant training period, you can move up pretty quickly as long as you do a decent job.

One case involved an individual who was hired as a trainee claims examiner making about $33,000 per year. It was tough for her to make ends meet because the salary was so low. However, she knew that if she worked hard, her salary would steadily rise. Over the next few years, she received four promotions. Five years later, she had more than doubled her salary.

Why Do Government Personnel Systems Make Things So Difficult?

We’ve established that there are clear differences between government and private-sector employment. We’ve also established that, in general, people are people, and that they choose to work for the government for a wide variety of reasons. Once they come to work for the government, they work within a personnel system that has evolved over several hundred years and is quite different from the wide variety of systems used in the private sector.

In my view, it is the system that usually creates the challenges that government managers face in trying to manage the government’s employees. The more they understand how these systems have developed, and understand how to successfully navigate these systems, the more effective they will be in managing the government’s workforce.

Let’s take a brief look at the history of the civil service, so we can have a better understanding about its evolution.

History of the Civil Service

At the beginning of our country, successful career civil servants were usually able to retain their jobs during a change in administration. That all changed during the administration of Andrew Jackson, who removed countless civil servants from the opposition party and filled these positions with his own supporters. Jackson felt that “No man has any more intrinsic right to official station than another . . . The duties of all public officers, are, or at least admit of being made, so plain and simple that men of intelligence may readily qualify themselves for their performance.”¹³

The following decades were filled with corruption, and civil service jobs became highly politicized. Machine politics became a fact of government life, and federal employees were expected to devote their time and money in support of elected officials. Moreover, the constant turnover of government employees left the government with virtually no institutional memory.

The problem was compounded by the continuing growth of the federal government. The federal government employed about 20,000 people during Jackson’s presidency. By the end of the Civil War, 53,000 were employed, and that number rose to 131,000 by 1884.¹³ Meanwhile, elected officials were continually besieged by supporters seeking positions within the federal government.

The problem continued well past the Civil War, and despite public support in some circles for reform, no action was taken. However, when Charles Guiteau was not selected for a position he believed had been promised to him, he assassinated President James Garfield. This shocking event struck a nerve, and the public demanded change. The political spoils system suddenly grabbed the national spotlight, and Congress eventually passed the Pendleton Act of 1883.

In general, the Pendleton Act required that applicants for classified government jobs take a competitive examination under the auspices of the newly formed Civil Service Commission. Almost 15,000 jobs were classified in this manner so that the United States would have a professional and continuing bureaucracy. That number eventually rose to 86,000 jobs in 1897, which was almost half of the entire federal government.¹⁴

The act was designed to screen out unqualified applicants and require government managers to select only from the people receiving the highest scores on the civil service exam. In this way, public officials would no longer be able to guarantee jobs to their cronies. At the same time, it would ensure that highly qualified candidates, including immigrants and blacks, could get ahead even if they were not connected to a political candidate.

Interestingly, the Pendleton Act did not protect civil servants from removal, even though that was one of the major flaws of the spoils system. The rationale was that since people could now be hired only under a competitive civil service examination, politicians would have no incentive to remove these individuals, as they would be unable to hire their supporters.

By the turn of the century, however, Congress had precluded removal of federal employees without “good cause.” Subsequent to that, the Taft Administration required that agencies desiring to fire a federal employee first give the employee a notice of removal, written reasons for the removal, and a reasonable time in which to respond.

During and after World War II, other rights were given to federal employees, including the right to an in-person hearing and the right to appeal. Later on, as pressure developed to protect federal whistleblowers, President Nixon granted employees the right to appeal their dismissal to an outside organization (the Civil Service Commission).

Employee protections became even stronger with the establishment of federal unions. Initially President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, which officially recognized federal unions. In 1978, Congress, at the urging of President Carter, passed the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), which for the first time enacted into law the rights and obligations of the parties to collective bargaining—employees, agencies, and labor organizations. The CSRA encompassed a wide variety of management reforms, including the establishment of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), which oversees the federal government’s labor relations program; and the creation of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the new authority charged with adjudicating employee appeals of removal.

The CSRA was not a complete success, as Carter was unable to achieve the flexibility he sought for federal managers to fire incompetent employees and it failed to weaken the hiring rules involving veterans’ preference. However, he was able to lower the standard for removing poor performers from a preponderance of evidence to substantial evidence.

Other administrations attempted to improve federal personnel management with varying degrees of success. Of note was the fact that separate systems were eventually set up for the Postal Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the intelligence agencies.

Perhaps the most significant effort came when President Clinton established his Reinventing Government initiative under the leadership of Vice President Gore. They eliminated the Federal Personnel Manual (FPM), which contained thousands of pages of personnel rules and regulations. However, Title 5 of the U.S. Code, which covers government organization and employees, still remained, as did most of each agency’s internal rules and regulations. Moreover, the actual processes and approaches with respect to recruitment, discipline, retention, and labor relations remained essentially unchanged.

As is often the case, state and local governments followed the lead of the federal government, and over the years began granting similar protections to their employees. While there are certainly variances on a state-by-state and city-by-city basis, it is fair to say that governments at all levels have had similar histories and the same types of challenges as the federal government.

According to Governing.com,

In virtually every state, however, the demand for reform currently outweighs the risk. . . . Pay for performance, although still controversial, is a hot topic. Improved performance appraisal is a common goal. And aggressive use of probationary periods has helped some states to hire more freely, with less fear of saddling themselves with incompetents. (Of course, there can be hitches. In both New Jersey and California, it is very difficult to terminate anyone during probation.)¹⁵

Perception

As you can see, the government’s personnel systems have clearly hampered its managers from doing their jobs as effectively as they would like. Listen to the challenge, as described by David Osborne and Peter Plastrik:

Imagine working in an organization that makes it so hard to fire nonperformers that managers have quit trying. . . . Imagine hiring from a list of the three top scorers on a written test that has little to do with future performance on the job. Imagine routinely losing your best employees because you can’t pay them what they’re worth. And imagine enduring layoffs in which those with seniority “bump” other employees—so when 100 people lose their jobs, 400 more play musical chairs, winding up in jobs they aren’t trained for and don’t want.¹⁶

Throughout my career, I’ve heard that it’s virtually impossible to get anything done in government. People who have never worked for the government certainly believe that, as many seem to have heard horror stories from government employees and have been anxious to pass those stories on to me. I, for one, certainly have experienced these challenges.

We were hiring a large group of trainees. When we received the list of applicants for consideration, the first two names on the list were disabled veterans. After interviewing both of them, we did not think that either one of them would be a good fit with our organization. However, because they were at the top of the list and civil service rules precluded us from selecting any of the strong candidates below them without also selecting the disabled veterans, we reluctantly selected both of them.

Very quickly, they proved to us that our instincts were right. We eventually terminated both of them while wasting a lot of time, energy, and money.

In another instance, we demoted a supervisor for lying and for retaliating against an employee who had exercised her right to file a complaint. From my perspective, it was an open-and-shut case, especially since she confessed. The employee appealed to MSPB. At a prehearing conference, the MSPB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) told me that since this was a first offense and because the employee apologized for her actions, he would almost certainly find for her if the case went to hearing, and we would also incur additional attorney’s fees.

The actions of this ALJ ultimately forced me to rescind this employee’s demotion (although she did not return to a supervisory position).

Government employees seem to have the same perceptions about the difficulties of managing within government. In a recent survey of 1,051 federal employees, almost 80 percent indicated that the hiring process was slow. Moreover, on average, they felt that about 24 percent of their co-workers were not doing their job very well and a full 67 percent believed that the disciplinary system was not too good or not good at all.¹⁷

According to one federal worker “I have witnessed people who are GS-10 through GS-12 who spend their entire day doing their own personal business. I have also witnessed GS-5s who do nothing but goof off for at least an entire day each week.”¹⁸ This individual’s perceptions are hardly unique.

As I see it, the government’s complex personnel systems, coupled with the perception that it is extremely difficult to implement them, have led to a collective sense of inaction when it comes to managing people. Government managers have heard the stories and experienced problems of their own, and over time have often concluded that the best approach is the path of least resistance—that is, taking no action. The bottom line is that inaction has become a self-fulfilling prophecy; people have convinced themselves that it is just too difficult to take action.

What Can Be Done?

First of all, I need to be clear that this book is not designed to address the staffing challenges caused by the government’s hiring systems. My goal is to teach people how to manage their employees once the government has hired them. My only advice in this area is to follow the rules and regulations that cover hiring, but where appropriate, to also take maximum advantage of the flexibilities that are often available.

Options for Flexible Hiring. The federal government does not require its agencies to fill all of their positions through the traditional civil service examination. Agencies can hire outstanding scholars, certain Vietnam veterans, individuals with disabilities, and so on without being forced to make selections off of a civil service register. Under those circumstances, agencies have much more flexibility in making selections than they would if they followed the normal procedures.

Staffing issues aside, I strongly believe that it is much easier to manage and deal with government employees than you might think. Although it is certainly true that the personnel systems are somewhat constraining, they have evolved into their current form for a reason—to prevent the abuses of the past and to make sure that the government treats both job applicants and its employees in a fair and equitable manner.

In my experience, you can recognize an excellent employee(s) for outstanding performance, you can discipline a government employee for misconduct, you can remove an employee for poor performance, you can work with unions, and you can successfully deal with all kinds of issues. I’ve also learned that government employees will respond to the right kind of leadership, can and do work very hard, and are more than willing to do the right thing.

The reason why that doesn’t happen as often as everyone would like is not primarily the fault of the government’s personnel system, although it certainly makes things more difficult. The real reason is that far too many government supervisors and managers either are unable or unwilling to get things done in government, and as a result take no action. This may happen for a number of reasons:

• They have seen other managers get ahead despite taking no action and may decide that this is the way to get ahead. They follow the principle of “Don’t rock the boat.”

• They may have tried to take action once before and had a bad experience.

• They may be afraid of the flak they will receive if they take action (from the union, from upper management, etc.).

• They may constantly receive personnel advice that stifles them from taking action.

• They may be unwilling to devote the time required to take an action.

• They may simply not know a better way to proceed.

MSPB confirmed this problem in its study Federal Supervisors and Strategic Human Resources Management. The board determined that “. . . most federal supervisors do a commendable job of performing the technical work of their units, but have a much harder time with the human resource management tasks that are necessary to the ongoing effectiveness of the organization.”¹⁹

For example, MSPB noted that one of the biggest problems that supervisors have is in the area of performance management. From the supervisors’ perspective, the problem lies in areas that are out of their control (the employees’ attitude, lack of confidence in the system, limited support from higher levels, etc.). However, MSPB also stated “. . . some problems with handling poor performers also stem from the supervisors’ own difficulties in dealing with problem employees.”²⁰

Regardless of the reason(s) for inaction, it is my firm view that if you follow the philosophies, strategies, and tactics described in this book, you will conclude that you can successfully manage government employees. You will learn that “there are plenty of ways to skin a cat,” and that there are multiple opportunities and more than enough flexibility to take action, both positive and negative.

The approach that I describe in the following chapters is not revolutionary, nor will it sound foreign to most readers. It is a common-sense approach to managing government employees that (1) is based on a strong set of core values; (2) emphasizes treating people fairly and on a consistent basis within the framework of an integrated set of personnel systems; and (3) is predicated on the fact that where personnel action is necessary, you can and should take appropriate action.

In fact, the lessons from this book are equally applicable to the private sector, with the main difference being that private-sector managers do not have to deal with the same constraints that public-sector managers do. That being said, wherever you work, we all face the same challenges when managing people. These challenges are the same because people are people and will respond well to good management and poorly to bad management, regardless of whom they work for.

Key Points to Remember

• Working for the government is different from working for the private sector; the civil service personnel systems make it harder to manage the government’s employees.

• If you have the will and the skill, you can successfully manage government employees.

• You can and should take advantage of the flexibilities offered by the civil service personnel systems.

• The philosophies, strategies, and tactics described in this book will work equally well within the private sector.