Federal Diary Live

What's the health of the federal service? Is the government getting the right people in the right jobs?

John M. Palguta , vice president for policy at the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, joined The Post's Stephen Barr , who writes the Federal Diary column, for a discussion of the recruitment challenges facing the government Wednesday, Sept. 27. at noon ET on Federal Diary Live.

Palguta helps guide the research and analysis at the Partnership, which seeks to improve and revitalize federal service. Palguta served for 34 years in the government and was a member of the Senior Executive Service. Prior to the Partnership, he served as director of the office of policy and evaluation at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Stephen Barr: Thanks to all joining in this discussion, especially our guest, John Palguta, a longtime federal executive and human resources expert. John, let's start with an overview, if you would--what are the pros and cons of federal recruitment these days? Again, thanks for spending your lunch hour with us.

John M. Palguta: Hi Steve, thanks for inviting me to talk about one of my favorite topics.

The goal of federal recruiting, of course, is to find the right people for the right jobs in government. In my view, that means government should be able to recruit it's fair share of the "best and brightest" who are well matched to the jobs to be done. The basic pro is that almost every federal manager and HR professional recognizes that as the goal and is trying hard to do that. The con is that too often and for a variety of reasons they are coming up short!

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do you see much in the way of succession planning going on at agencies? This is supposed to be an OPM priority, but I'm not sure the people are in the pipeline.

John M. Palguta: I think almost every federal agency recognizes that succession planning is extremely important and a few are doing some good work in this area, with OPM's encouragement. But quite frankly, not enough is being done.

The good news is that the federal government still has hundreds of thousands of highly talented employees who are very dedicated to providing the best possible service to the American public and very effective at doing just that. The bad news is that the federal workforce is aging and the federal government has lost or will be losing a significant percentage of its workforce to retirement on top on the normal attrition due to resignations. The federal civil service has twice as many workers over the age of 45 (60 percent) as the private sector (30 percent). Perhaps the worse news is that the pipeline of new talent available for some key workforce needs is not what it should be to ensure a steady flow of the talent needed and the federal hiring system, generally speaking, is not yet up to the challenge.

With the effects of what the Office of Personnel Management calls the "retirement tsunami" already affecting many agencies and expected to peak between 2008 to 2010, succession planning and action based on that planning does need to be a priority.

It's possible, for example, that we could see a combined turnover (retirements and resignations) within the next five to six years of close to 900,000 employees from the 1.9 million federal workforce (not counting the Postal Service). That's a huge percentage to lose at a time when the demands upon the government are increasing and the supply of highly skilled workers in the civilian labor force is expected to decrease.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: It seems to me (and confirmed by recent studies on the subject) that employment in the federal government suffers from a big image problem. Misperceptions abound. Shouldn't OPM (or someone) take on responsibility for improving the perception of working for the federal government? Wouldn't this help the individual agency's recruiting efforts? Who should have primary responsibility for doing this?

John M. Palguta: You're absolutely right. Working for the federal government, as I did for over 30 years, can be extremely rewarding and there are wonderful people to work with and compelling missions to be accomplished but the image still too often tends to be of a dull, gray workplace with boring, non-essential work being done. Nothing could be further from the truth and it will take the combined efforts of many individuals in and outside of government to counter that. I know OPM is airing some great videos in different TV markets of real feds in real work places.

We're also trying to do our part at the the Partnership for Public Service. This evening (Wednesday, September 27), as an example, the Partnership and the Atlantic Media Group will host the 2006 Service to America Medals black-tie dinner to honor a number of exceptional federal employees who are representative of many others who labor in relative anonymity.

At the dinner we will announce the 2006 Federal Employee of the Year -- a renowned CDC scientist leading the world's efforts to prepare for a catastrophic flu pandemic. In addition, seven outstanding federal workers and one team will also receive the prestigious Service to America Medals in other categories. The 2006 winners range from a Nobel Prize Winning Physicist to the architect of our military's personnel recovery system that has rescued more than 1,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Five medal winners hail from Washington, DC and others are from Atlanta, Tampa, Denver, Philadelphia and Baton Rouge!

_______________________

Southwest D.C.: Hi John, Re the federal workforce losing thousands to retirement by 2011--what happens to the knowledge base as we old-timers head out the government's doors and onto the golf course?

Thanks!

John M. Palguta: This goes back to the previous question on the need for succession planning but it also raises another important point. As the proportion of the federal workforce who are retirement eligible increases and as more employees exercise that option, it does create an experience and knowledge vacuum that cannot be filled simply by hiring entry-level workers. The federal government is going to need to also focus on recruiting mid-level and even some senior level talent from outside of government.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: I read that on the average, federal employees are paid more than twice what non-federal employees are paid. Is that true? If it is, is it also true that federal agencies have trouble attracting candidates when trying to fill jobs?

John M. Palguta: That statistic on federal pay was based on a comparison of the average pay of all federal employees compared to the average pay of all private sector employees. That's true but this isn't even an apple and oranges comparison-it's more apples and watermelon!

The federal government doesn't sell fast food or operate large scale retail stores using minimum wage employees. So comparing average salaries doesn't really make a lot of sense. I think what we need to know is what will it take for the government to be able to compete for the talent that it needs. So, are medical researchers at the National Institutes of Heath and the Centers for Disease control offered salary and benefits at least in the ballpark of what they could earn in private medical research labs? What do we need to pay for top notch military intelligence analysts in the Department of Defense and for State Department diplomats working under harsh conditions around the world? What about the thousands of dedicated doctors and nurses caring for our wounded and disabled veterans in the Department of Veterans Affairs--are we paying a competitive wage for those folks compared to the private sector? If we are, that's fine. If we're not, that's a problem.

Just to be clear, I think the goal for government should be a market-based pay and benefits package. I don't think government needs to be the highest paying employee for a specific job but I don't think it should the lowest paying employer either. We do tend to get what we pay for!

Finally, and not to belabor the point (but I do feel strongly about this), it's hard to imagine how the public interest is served if we do not have the best talent possible for the jobs to be done. Approximately, 45 percent of all full-time, permanent civilian employees in the executive branch work in the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. Do we not want the best talent possible supporting our war fighters and maintaining a strong line of defense in the war on terror?

How about the other 55 percent of the federal workforce? For which federal departments and agencies are the mediocre and dull sufficient? The Department of Justice and FBI? Food and Drug Administration? National Cancer Institute? Do we want social security recipients dealing with SSA claims representatives who cannot accurately determine their entitlements? Is it o.k. if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Nuclear Security Administration in the Department of Energy have second class engineers ensuring the safety of our nuclear power plants and weapons? Is substandard care sufficient in our VA hospitals? Hopefully, these are all rhetorical questions!

_______________________

Northern Virginia: I know that it is tiring and cumbersome to apply for a federal job, especially when one has to answer the KSA questions, yet I understand its purpose. I applied to some federal government jobs throughout the years with no results, so I went to my library and read books on how and what kind of language to use while applying for a federal job.

Well, persistence paid off, and I am currently a federal employee, no small thanks of me being informed of the hiring and application process, and what the hiring managers look for in a candidate.

However, one maddening part of all this process was the lack of response of my inquiries to the HR offices I was applying to. I don't exaggerate when I say that when I called the HR rep named in the applications, they were not in their office at least 90% of the time. Worse, I didn't get one phone call back after I left a voice message.

HR personnel need to held more accountable and sensitive to the applicants.

I think that's one important reason

John M. Palguta: I feel your pain! Based on research that has been done on this issue, we know that the biggest complaint among job applicants--even successful applicants such as yourself--is the black hole phenomenon. I hear complaints all the time from folks who took the time and effort to apply for a federal job and then who felt their application went into a black hole in that they receipt of their application was not acknowledged nor did they receive any feedback on whether they were in the running or if the race was over, even months later.

Fortunately, some federal agencies are doing something about it but every agency and every federal recruiter and HR professional needs to take responsibility--and be held accountable--for ensuring that this doesn't happen on their watch.

By the way, I'm glad to hear you persisted and are now a federal employee. Congratulations and Thanks!

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: The Federal Government is facing a huge retirement wave in the next few years. I know many agencies are hoping to replenish their workforces by recruiting more employees at the college level but what are they doing to attract older, more experienced workers?

John M. Palguta: This was touched upon in two of the previous questions. I would simply add here that a few agencies are starting to recognize that attracting and hiring some older, more experienced workers is not something to be done to be nice to those folks, but rather it's becoming a business imperative as skills gaps are identified and the internal talent pipeline are found to running dry. I think more needs to be done in this area.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Where would you encourage young people to apply for jobs in the government? We're talking college graduates, not people with advanced degrees.

John M. Palguta: Absolutely. In fact, I have two daughters in college and I have encouraged them to consider a job in government after graduation. Of course, it's been a long time since they took my advice seriously but I'm hoping this might be an exception!

I would also reiterate here that the specific goal, in my view, is to encourage some of our best and brightest college graduates, including those without advanced degrees, to consider government jobs for which they are well matched. Right now the federal government simply doesn't always have enough of the right people in the right jobs.

For example, more than 80 federal organizations employ individuals with skills in more than 100 different languages, according to the 2005 National Language Conference Report. Unfortunately, the shortages of skilled language personnel across these agencies are complicating the government's efforts in trade, peacekeeping, diplomacy, security, and intelligence.

On a different front, the 9/11 Commission report concluded in 2001 that the FBI did not have a sufficient number of analysts to qualified to perform the analytic duties required of them. Yet, a recent report found that in FY 2004, the FPI met just 39 percent of its hiring goal for intelligence analysts.

There are plenty of great, challenging jobs out there for the right college grads.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: Follow-up to my earlier question. Do you think that the OPM would be well served by looking to DoD recruiting programs as a template for non-military service recruiting?

John M. Palguta: I think looking at how the Department of Defense successfully recruits for military jobs, which are some of the toughest jobs goings, could very well inform our recruitment efforts in other parts of government.

_______________________

Clifton, Va.: You have to have management hiring and promoting competent employees. If they are promoting the employees who just don't make trouble, the agency loses if these employees can't do the job!

John M. Palguta: Right on. The bottom-line has to be on finding and selecting the best person for the job to be done. Anything else is unsatisfactory.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Palguta, have you read the GAO report on Hispanic representation in government and, if so, what is your view on using citizenship as a benchmark for deciding whether agencies are hiring adequate numbers of Hispanics? Thank you.

John M. Palguta: What I took away from the GAO report was that a greater understanding the obstacles to greater Hispanic representation in government should lead the government to craft better recruitment and hiring strategies to improve that representation. I don't think their analysis was intended to serve as an excuse for doing less.

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: The federal hiring process has become worse than before. My wife with 13 years of federal service tried to get back in after raising our kids. But the ridiculous application forms that some agencies use make no allowance for anything but a college student. We are no longer trying.

As for new hires, I have a daughter in law school, and doing some research, I find that most agencies when looking for lawyers, want them to be a member of the bar (which means the applicant won't know that until some time in the fall) and most want a year's experience! And that just for a GS-11 position! So much for recruiting among law students.

My wife and I can remember when things were much better in the recruitment arena. (She worked at the Civil Service Commission, and I was a part time CSC examiner). What happened, and will it get better?

John M. Palguta: Your points are well taken. I also worked at the Civil Service Commission many years ago and I certainly hope that some of the "backsliding" in recruitment efforts that occurred when all recruitment and examining was decentralized will be overcome and we will get better. I know a lot of folks are tying!

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: It's good of MSPB to make hiring recommendations, per Stephen's column on Tuesday, but it seems they drift away to nothingness at OPM. What is the Partnership doing in this area?

John M. Palguta: Truth in advertising--I've work for both MSPB and OPM in the past and both agencies actually do a very good job. OPM has some tough challenges on their hands and limited resources.

Regarding what the Partnership is doing to help, we work closely with the federal community--including OPM--to try to make a difference and I'm always impressed by how open the agencies are to working with others towards common goals of improved hiring and how much the federal community wants to improve.

Steve, tells me that time is about up. There were some terrific questions that we didn't have time to get to but maybe next time. I would invited readers who want to know more about the Partnership and about some of the great work that is being done in the recruiting area by federal agencies and others to check out our Web site at:

Partnership for Public Service

_______________________

Stephen Barr: John, thanks so much for taking questions and comments from Diary readers! Your participation in this discussion gives us a better handle on the challenges that agencies face in hiring today. We'll be back here at noon next Wednesday. Please join us!

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.