Let’s assume for a moment that you are an entrepreneur. Or the CEO of an existing successful business. What are your goals going forward for the next year? Five years? Ten years?
What about the people you want to attract, and recruit to come work for you? What knowledge, skills, and abilities do you want them to have? Are “average” performers good enough?
What kinds of things can you, or should you, try to offer prospective employees in order to both compete with other employers, and to assure you have the very best chance of success and of meeting your customers’ expectations (recalling and paraphrasing the words of Peter Drucker, that the only reason an organization exists, is to meet its customers’ expectations)?
In the private sector, firms from Costco to Google offer competitive wages and benefits. While people sometimes complain about the cost of a latte at Starbucks, it is important to note that Starbucks is a rare employer in providing health insurance to part-time employees. They also provide free four-year tuition to get a bachelors degree through a partnership with Arizona State University. Companies like 3M and Gore encourage innovation, giving employees the incentive to use some of their work time to explore innovative ideas.
What then, should be the practice of government, with regard to compensation, career advancement, and benefits? I have heard some argue that government has no market share issues since it is a monopoly, and that there are no shareholders to please (for those who think shareholder value is the primary concern in an economic market). My response is that Congress is the driver of “market share” decisions for government. If customers- citizens- are unhappy with government service, then agency funding will be cut or even eliminated. There are, in fact, powerful incentives for government to do its best for us all.
With regard to compensation, career advancement, and benefits, government has long been at a disadvantage. Salaries for many jobs, have never been comparable to those of the private sector. Significant advantages in government recruiting have come from comparative job security, advancement based both on adequate performance and seniority, and a very good package pension and health benefits portable (not for free, it is important to note) into retirement under most circumstances.
So if we recognize that government needs to be competitive to attract, hire, and retain great employees, why would an administration propose significant cuts in both compensation and benefits? A business short on funds might have to do “more with less” and let people go. Government has the responsibility to deliver the goods and services citizens make clear they need and want. From defense, to interstate highways, to safe food and drugs.
Why, we must ask of our leaders, would they propose significantly damaging the government’s ability to recruit, hire, and retain competent, capable, and willing employees? The possible coherent narratives to explain this all seem to suggest an intention counter to building a highly effective and stable workforce.
Forward Into the Past
- Not So “Good Enough” – On the need for competitive compensation & benefits in government
- It’s The Berries: Emergent Bias and the LUX of Response Capacity
- Don’t Be Messin’ With My Pepe: Food, Change, and Respectful Dialogue
- Sigh-metrical: challenges & opportunities in achieving better outcomes
- Integrated Improvement: adopting a “both…and…” mindset for org improvement
The Vault: Archives
- October 2017
- June 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- November 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- September 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- RT @trapperbyrne: Trump's $44B disaster relief bill includes $0 for #NorCalFires victims. @rachelswan sfchronicle.com/bayarea/articl… https://t.co/… 11 hours ago
- Without a doubt. The data on this is clear. I enforced the H1B laws and regs for years. Employers are obligated bot… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 11 hours ago
- RT @NickKristof: This is what it looks like when a company takes allegations of sexual harassment seriously. twitter.com/nytimes/status… 11 hours ago
- I've got one. Based on an experience two years ago. That which transcends our too-often broken capacities to engage… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 11 hours ago
- Exploring the #AdjacentPossible in ways that are safe to fail. Probing the unknowable without fear. Learning from t… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 11 hours ago
- Join me on 11/28 for ComPlexus Stories: how can connecting with @PlexusInstitute help you achieve more? How can Ple… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 13 hours ago
- Piece does not define the nature of work done by union reps on official time (representation of constituents in con… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 13 hours ago
- RT @RichardHaass: Devastating indictment of Administration's & SecState's devaluing of State Dept & diplomacy at time world unraveling http… 14 hours ago
- Well, yes. RT @FastCompany "Facilitation" is becoming a job skill you’ll need to rely on more and more. buff.ly/2zQvFOi 23 hours ago
- RT @baltimoresun: Baltimore residents react to recent violence: 'I don't really feel safe anywhere anymore.' bsun.md/2Ahp7ZC https:… 23 hours ago