In the very near future many federal agencies are going to be downsized by Congress to cut costs and bodies. Others will be right-sized by management. The idea is to give taxpayers more bang for the buck. Both actions assume they will get more out of fewer people. Productivity/SmartWork will be the key phrases. This, as you know, is not a new idea. But rank-and-file feds, managers and their political bosses will be expected to embrace it just as their ancestors welcomed the newly-invented wheel.

It’s probably safe to assume that most people (to the extent they think of it at all) believe that outstanding, productive people should be rewarded for their efforts. We expect this in sports and we hope for it in local, state and federal government.

The concept of measuring, recognizing and rewarding excellence makes sense. Especially when applied, and limited to, other people! But when it comes to our particular jobs — whatever they may be — we see the need for some wiggle room.

From time to time, Congress (often, but not always, nudged by the White House) comes up with a pay-for-performance program for the federal government. Oftentimes the very people who welcome it (or say they do) immediately seek an exemption from it because the jobs they do, or the people they represent, are special and different. Hard to measure fairly.

This may explain why there is no pay-for-performance standard for the 535 members of Congress. They get the same pay regardless of performance, or lack of same.

Politicians love to point out that they are subject to recall from the voters. That their jobs — unlike the bureaucrats so many disdain — are not secure. That they must earn (and win) their jobs every two to six years. But, in fact, turnover is rare. Once in, most members are lifers. They can be constantly late, absent or take unlimited sick leave. They can vote “present” meaning they are alive, still breathing but not ready to say yea or nay.

How long has your member of Congress or senator been around? Probably awhile. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. And yet…

Federal agencies are bracing for cuts. In dollars and jobs. Buyouts are popping up everywhere. Some agencies want to right-size,” as in replace older, more expensive time-in-grade workers with younger employees who are lower down the GS ladder. Yesterday’s column touched on the implications of the long-predicted “brain drain” on government. It hasn’t happened yet, but the federal workforce is aging and many peope — and politicians &mdash say they want a smaller, leaner and smarter government.

That prompted this comment from a long-time fed, Denis Symes:

” Today’s column discusses how agencies might try to reduce the number of higher paid more experienced Federal employees. You mention the loss of knowledge and experience that could result form a downsizing.

“Here are some of my thoughts:

“1) The output of many Federal jobs are not measurable in conventional times. Many DC area Feds are involved in analytical and policy positions and these are qualitative, not quantitative positions . In many field positions you can measure the work output by counting the number of cases an IRS employee works on a day; the number of field reports an FBI agent completes; the number of cases a Social Security employee works on; etc.

        Read more: Congress

“2) A headquarters based economist, budget or program analyst or, regulatory specialist output is much harder to measure and, given the feelings exhibited by some citizens in many areas that government is over-staffed, too expensive and, non-productive, we are probably first on the chopping block.

“3) Not producing a measureable product (although we hopefully add value to the end result) can present a long term loss to the nation. Decisions and services that are made in the future may be poorer and perhaps even negatively affect government services. And, sadly, neither the populace nor the Congress may ever know.

To reach me, mcausey@federalnewsradio.com

NEARLY USELESS FACTOID

How many windowpanes are there in the world? Why are manholes round? We have no idea either, but these are alleged to be interview questions asked of potential recruits at Google, according to Forbes. Another stumper from Google’s HR department: How do you measure four gallons of water using only a three- and five-gallon jug? Forbes speculates the off-the-wall queries are designed to showcase an applicant’s creativity.

MORE FROM FEDERAL NEWS RADIO

Buyout rollout (updated list)
Which agencies are offering buyouts and early outs?

OPM takes on gender gap in federal pay
The gap in pay between genders is smaller in the federal government than in the private sector, but the EEOC is vowing to reduce the remaining discrepancy.

CBP to probe workforce corruption
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will investigate its workforce for signs of corruption, with help from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG).

Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.