|
|||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Federal Employees Largely Satisfied with Jobs
Nearly all federal employees thought their work was important and liked their jobs. The only glaring complaint was about promotions -- a problem tied to the rigid General Schedule career-ladder system that ties pay to tenure. The government is being challenged to improve its performance management so employees see the link between merit, pay and promotion.
Most federal employees are satisfied with their jobs and with the leadership of their organizations, according to a major government survey of employee attitudes.
Results of the 2010 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey of a quarter-million full-time, permanent federal workers in 82 agencies, were generally rosy and showed improvement in key areas of employee engagement. The survey was conducted by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Nearly all (92 percent) respondents -- all anonymous -- thought their work was important, and 86 percent liked their work. Seven in 10 would recommend their organization as a good place to work, and two-thirds (66 percent) were satisfied with their pay -- six percentage points higher than in the last survey in 2008.
Employees were also proud of their organizations and leaders: Nearly eight in 10 (78 percent) believed their agency was successful in accomplishing its mission, and six in 10 (62 percent) were satisfied with their organization, up five percentage points.
In fact, the only glaring complaint was about promotions. Only about one-fourth of the respondents thought pay raises depended on how well they performed their jobs; 45 percent says pay raises were not tied to performance. And fewer than one-half believed their work units found people with the skills they need.
This feedback reflects the government's hidebound General Schedule system, which puts employees on a rigid career ladder that ties pay to time on the job, experts say. In today's competitive market, the government is being challenged to improve its performance management so employees see the link between merit, pay and promotion.
"Identifying and exposing problem areas, while at times uncomfortable, is essential to improving government operations, stated OPM Director John Berry in releasing the survey findings. "Performance management, including the management of poor performers, and the promotion process are areas of concern."
Other lagging indicators are in the area of work/life, a category introduced for the first time. While three-quarters (76 percent) of respondents says their supervisors support work/life balance, only one-quarter (23 percent) were satisfied with child-care programs and fewer (20 percent), with elder programs. (The survey notes that many respondents indicated they had no basis with which to judge those programs.)
Six in 10 were satisfied with their alternative work schedules, and half were satisfied with health and wellness programs (51 percent) and with employee-assistance programs (48 percent). Only two in 10 (22 percent) engaged in some telework, which may be limited in many governmental agencies.
The largest of its kind, the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, was introduced in 2002 as the Federal Human Capital Survey to focus on employee perceptions that drive satisfaction and engagement. This is the fifth survey and the first under the Obama administration, which has decided to conduct it annually.
The survey should be credited for its impressive 52-percent response rate, says Paul Rowson, managing director of the WorldatWork HR group in Washington. "There are a quarter-million respondents. That says people care enough to respond."
Overall, the federal government has shown "marked improvement," Rowson says. Employees are "feeling connected to their jobs" and there is a "line-of-sight between individuals and the mission" of their organization.
The government also deserves credit for just conducting the survey, he says. "Could you see anyone in the private sector getting undressed [like this] in front of the public? ... It's not only a huge response, but it's completely transparent. ... It's a fishbowl concept. I think that's what makes it successful."
The survey has raised a competitive spirit among government agencies as they compete for top spots, and try to keep off the bottom. This year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was first in all four areas measured: leadership and knowledge management; results-oriented performance culture; talent management and job satisfaction. They were followed by the Federal Trade Commission and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in that order, in three of those areas; and by NASA, the State Department and the FTC, in that order, in the job-satisfaction category.
There is a prize: The Partnership for Public Service uses the OPM survey as the basis for its annual Best Places to Work review. The purpose of that list "is to give agency managers information and a frame of reference and the incentive to make use of the information," says John Palguta, the Partnership's vice president for policy in Washington.
As a result, the Partnership staff is often called in by agencies to help design action plans to raise their ranking. For example, Palguta worked with the Internal Revenue Service, the biggest division of the U.S. Treasury Department, to facilitate discussion among top managers, HR and even the union on how to respond "constructively" to the OPM survey.
In a blog post last February, Ray LaHood, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, urged his employees to participate in the upcoming survey: "We want a great response rate that reflects the viewpoints of a wide cross-section of DOT employees (and -- not that I'm competitive -- that blows away the other federal agencies). More importantly, input helps us shape the future of the Department."
The DOT actively made improvements after the 2008 survey. The department instituted a training program for first-line supervisors to enhance leadership, management, communications and employee engagement, and required ethics training for all senior management personnel leaders.
But the biggest fallout of the 2010 survey may be greater attention to performance management and promotion. "Unfortunately, it's an area where there's a disconnect between the public and private sectors," says Rowson. "In the private sector, performance metrics are a key element of shareholders' value. Pay for performance is a universal process. It's a dominant form of reward. "When you get to the federal government, ... it has established a pay model [the GS] based on seniority, time and grade. ... It's part of the culture," he says.
The GS is designed on a "different business model -- people doing service to their country. Everyone is committed to the mission. Every year is rewarded with a step increase," says Rowson. The GS scale also creates stability in a workplace where the bosses who write the checks -- Congress and the President -- can change every two to four years.
The Partnership has suggested abolishing the GS system, Palguta says, and advises federal agencies to improve performance management and communicate very clearly about the criteria and competencies for promotion.
"Managing in the public sector may be tougher," he says. "There are laws and regulations. It's really important we select people into federal supervisory jobs who have the greatest potential to be supervisors, [who have] people skills and who can develop metrics."
The federal government is still very attractive, but salaries and benefits are not as competitive as they used to be, especially on the local level, says Jerry Greenwell, CEO of CPS Human Resource Services, an HR group in Sacramento, Calif., that works with government bodies.
"The performance-management system needs to change -- how you evaluate productivity and increase organization performance. ... It's something the private sector has seen for a long time. ... There is pressure [in the public sector] to put measures in place, to look at results, and that's a big change," says Greenwell.
"The challenge for the government is, maybe they can't pay as much, but they need to build in flexibility into performance management and the pay program so they can reward high performers, because that's the only way they can keep them," he says.
July 27, 2010 Copyright 2010© LRP Publications |
||||||
Print
Email
Write to the Editor
Reprints
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
© Copyright 2010 LRP Publications. All rights reserved.
|
||||