New Idea Ten: Get Rid of Unncessary Positions (Submitted Online)

[New Ideas for Government]

1. Each agency should take a look at themselves and get rid of unnecessary positions. Those people not needed can be transferred to areas that are short of people.

2. Demote individuals not doing the level of work they are supposed to be doing.

[Dawn Holland]

I agree with this idea. I believe the government should implement a policy, whereas when the administration changes, an analysis of current staffing resources is conducted to ensure staffing levels are sufficient and qualified in order for each agency to achieve its mission and goals.

[Lowman Hatfield]

To even begin to discuss unnecessary positions in the government arena, we first have to understand why a position is believed to be a waste of resources. Yes, there are various agency positions across the government enterprise that is possibly not staffed at an appropriate level. Various reasons could surround reason for understaffing. We have to remember, that even government workers are contracted to provide a function to a particular job. Instead of looking at getting rid of unnecessary positions, lets identify ways for the government to become more innovated and streamline the function that they are contracted to do in support of the people of the United States.

In regarding to demoting individuals, what criteria would you use that would allow for a government supervisor to demote an employee? Are we demoting an individual based on the fact that they have not met the standards assigned by the statement of work? Is an employee being demoted because they have met but not exceeded the minimal requirements for promotion?

It’s ok to say “just get rid of it” but it is better to provide recommendation to help solve a problem that all government agencies will face in 2009.

[Mark Abramson]

Both Dawn and Lowman make interesting points. The question in my mind is how well does government do in workforce planning -- assessing the jobs and skills they currently and matching that assessment with their current staffing. My impression is that government could improve in its workforce planning efforts. What do other thinks about government's current effectiveness in workforce planning?

[Lowman Hatfield]

Dawn and Mark,
Money has the greatest influence on workforce management. First there is a myth that contractors pay more than government employees so it is hard to retain the government workforce. Second, money is taken from one organization, leaving the other poorer. Due to this change of funds, it may be impossible to backfill a position or even create a position to fulfill a requirement. We now have a situation where outsourcing is the only way the government may be able to complete a requirement.

It is also hard to get a position in the government without knowing someone or being recruited out of college. There are people who are afraid of the questions that are asked and background checks that are preformed in order to get a position. Now, I am not advocating relaxing the rules in order to fill a position. What the government needs to figure out is how to retain, train, and, redeploy current government employees who would like the opportunity to move on and start a new career within the government sector.

[Teresa McGervey]

Just to go off on my tangent, I have been thinking about some radical (but perhaps too naive for some) changes to hiring and job classification system that the Federal government uses. I have not and do not work in Human Resources but I have worked at a variety of agencies (7 agencies in 4 cabinet departments) that have their own, oddly-similar hiring and personnel classification systems. I am proposing one extreme solution that may provide one way for agencies to keep up with new technologies, world events, and demands, not just on an "as-needed" basis, but also on a recurring one. What would happen if more civil service positions had term limits?; people would have the benefits of a full-time, permanent hire but would only hold a particular position for a set time period. There would be tiers of term lengths (even within the same job classification) and opportunities to move within an agency following the end of the term. This is too complex to explain in this blog but the Federal Government must (to be blunt) get rid of its sacred cows in hiring, retention, and job classification practices and come up with ways to be more flexible.

[Lowman Hatfield]

Teresa,
I actually had a conversation with a friend of mine who works for the government and they believe that contractors should have term limits placed on their positions. Now as a contractor working on federal contracts, I had to disagree with that mentality of thought. Yes, all positions should have a shake up now and then.
But to get back to your comment, I am not sure if term limits would be beneficial because you would constantly have to deal with a learning curve. Yes, new blood brings fresh ideas, but it is also possible that the new person can not meet the requirements of the job but was able to get job because it was their time to sit in that position.
You are right, it would be hard to try to break down the hiring process over a blog but it is possible come up with some great recommendations that can presented to the next president and or cabinet members.

Lowman

[Joseph Sitterly]

I have enjoyed a very successful 30 plus year career. With respect to learning curve mentioned by Lowman, some professions take numerous years to gain necessary expertise. With respect to Teresa's "extreme solution", I have observed the difference in reliable production, overall commitment, and organizational loyalty of the "full timer" compared to the "term limit" positions. Another, equally disturbing personal observation is the reluctance of the work place to invest time and money in developing "term" employees. Not to say term limits would not work in some developmental, less complex positions, but strong leadership with the understanding that training and investment in people is a must, for the overall vitality of the civilian workforce. Regards, Joe

[Gwen Johnson]

The first thought that comes to my mind is "what happens to a civil servant when his or her term expires?" You can't just throw people out on the street.

[Mark Abramson]

This continues to be an interesting discussion. As for Gwen's point about "what happens," I think that could be worked out. With a three year term appointment, people could be clearly notified six months ahead of time as to whether there term appointment would be renewed or ended. This also gives an employee the opportunity to both literally and figuratively "re-up" for another term.

This also raises the issue of career management. I've long felt that employees (in all sectors) need to take greater responsibility for their own careers, including keeping up to date in the field (on their own if necessary) and keep an eye open at all times for employment opportunities in other agencies and sectors.

[Dawn Holland]

Teresa brought up a very good point, which has been my concern with career government employees who have moved up the ladder because the years have gone by (I refuse to identify them as sacred cows :-) ). I wonder if those employees can compete against those people who have continued to invest in their education, skills and knowledge to keep up with the times and technological changes. If government employees knew they had to compete for their position every so many years, I'm sure we would have a more efficient, innovative, customer-friendly, rather satisfying tax-payers mentality of government employees.

[Kimberley Green]

I think that local and the federal government already look to get rid of unnecessary positions - it is usually cyclical and tied to the budget. However, in response to the issue of "transferring people to areas that are short of people" - takes away the fundamental principal of working were we want to work - finding jobs of our choice. Just because an Agency has a need does not make it the managers of that department, their right to obtain employees working in another department, agency, type of governmental entity fair. Although it seems touted in articles, people are not commodities to be "traded" as is practiced in the corporate world. Studies show people perform better when they have "buy-in" or control over their work environment - shuttling people about just doesn't cut it.

[Mark Abramson]

Kimberley makes some interesting points. I would, however, offer several additional points for her consideration.

1. Civil servants should remember that they do work for one employee: the federal government (or the larger department in which they work). After consulting with their employees, I think it is "legitimate" and "fair" to ask civil servants to move to another position where they are needed --either on a temporary or full time basis. If it is full time, the employee must obviously agree.
2. I have found that mobility between agencies can be an excellent development experience for many federal employees. My experience has been that the problem is not "too much" change by federal employees, it is "too little" change. Everybody, myself include, often need to get outside of their "comfort zone" and take on new responisiblities and challenges during their career.