How can the US government hire the best tech employees?

11 comments on “How can the US government hire the best tech employees?”

1. Great points, as soon as Chris started talking about doing away with cubicles and the “google way” I started thinking about just how viable the government can be as a destination for young people in the tech world. It seems to me that it is unlikely that the government can attract people monetarily (as you mentioned). It is clear that the salaries in the private sector are much higher but, as Chris mentioned, the government has pension and retirement plans that are difficult to find elsewhere. However anything with a pension would require patience both in terms of how it takes to pay out and how long someone would have to stay employed by the government. Staying with a single job / employer for long periods of time as a young person in the tech world seems a less and less popular choice.

   In my personal experience I can say that the difficulty of getting rid of “dead weight” in government jobs is a big problem. New hires take a long time to come in and ramp up (especially if the level of security clearance is high) and there is a lot of red tape when it comes to firing government employees so poor performers tend to end up just doing less work and managers vie for the opportunity to drop them from their teams onto someone else plate when the opportunity arises. This is in stark contrast to fast moving startups who simply cannot afford under performing employees without failing due to their size and funding.

   On the other hand, I wonder how much the government really wants a huge influx of young people in the tech world. Perhaps it would actually be beneficial to use pension plans and a great work life balance to attract people who have built up impressive resumes working on the cutting edge in the private sector but who are starting to run out of steam / whose priorities have started to shift away from long, fast paced days. It seems fair to say that the promise of fast money and excitement in silicon valley today is a huge reason for the innovation we are seeing.Perhaps the government should be content with fostering and encouraging that to continue, contracting firms with young talent in the private sector for cutting edge results, and then attracting employees who have already been trained and proven their worth to work in house. This is not to say that the government should not hire young people just that it might make sense to look at the numbers differently than a private company, because the government is in many ways a different animal than a private company.

   4+

   Users who have LIKED this comment:

   • 
   • 
   • 
   • 

2. I took note of many of the same points you noted above, Kyle. I have experienced first hand the impact (or lack of impact) of some of this same rhetoric in the private sector as mature companies try to re-invent themselves along the lines of a Google or Apple by moving to open office seating, changing dress codes, etc. Institutional thinking is what governs corporate culture in my experience, not the latest office design or layout. When one has a mass of institutionally invested staff, it’s very difficult to change ways of working. Inertia is very hard to overcome, and doing so requires a concerted, persistent effort from a wide array of leadership over a period of years. If that leadership changes out every couple of years, then change is that much harder because the vision and priorities at the top change as well.

   Having said that, I served in the US Navy as a reserve engineering duty officer for thirty years, where I had the privilege to command eleven units supporting a wide variety of sectors, from amphibious construction, technical support, new submarine construction, maintenance and repair of ships and submarines at two shipyards, an information systems infrastructure at two systems commands. Some of our smartest and best educated citizens are employed by the US Navy, and many rotate from public to private sector and back to public multiple times in a continuum of service. This rotational service is key to bringing in fresh ideas and a renewed energy to implement them.

   Ships, submarines, aircraft, etc., are designed for a long lifetime, nominally thirty years, sometimes fifty-plus. The latest aircraft carrier, lead ship of the first new class designed since the late 1960’s, required thousands of engineers working in multiple systems commands and contractors to design and build her. As one would expect, the engineering talent so engaged comes from a broad distribution, ranging from senior engineers with decades of experience to new graduates wanting to be a part of a design team creating the new electromagnetic catapult for example. Will today’s new graduate working on the catapult stay within the Department of Defense military-industrial complex for his/her lifetime? That depends on the individual: some will, some won’t, and some will be fluid, as is true over any career choice. I think in today’s world, fluidity and a lifelong commitment to learning are critical.

   3+

   Users who have LIKED this comment:

   • 
   • 
   • 

3. Thank you for writing this post Teun. I have been thinking about this since class. Its a subject that fascinates me.

   I agree with you that job security is a performance killer. I think that Chris recognizes that and that is why he briefly mentioned that they are trying to set clear goals and measure performance. The problem with setting to clear goals is that employees expect you to set their goals. Structure can make people complacent. There are a number of studies on this. If you define the ceiling people will likely reach it. If there is no ceiling — the competitive ones will shoot for the moon. In a nutshell, its best to just let them loose and measure outcomes. (Just like in real life! And, just like in this class! @Baretto)

   I love the idea of fluidity that David shared. I see that as a good solution to a hard problem. Exposure to a variety of experiences will help the person improve all separate experiences by bringing something in from the other environment.

   Finally, I have to admit that I expected less (shame on me) and left impressed by some of the things Chris is doing. The idea to engage the public through free a free sandbox is brilliant. What better way to put your finger on the pulse of society? Also, what a better way to draw them in. I appreciate the constrains of the regulated environment that Chris is working in and, because of that, think that his progress is proof that he is a talented leader. Leading change in Government is so much harder than doing the same in a younger or smaller organization.

   Thank you again for writing this post. You added great value through you research and kicked off the discussion quite nicely. Well done!

   2+

   Users who have LIKED this comment:

   • 
   • 

4. Hi Teun, this post does a great job of collecting all the different factors that are preventing the top talent from working in government jobs. There is a stigma of slow-paced, non-important work in government jobs, and job security does contribute to that stigma. Also, I’m sure younger talent is not concerned with job security as software engineers tend to switch jobs regularly to stay challenged and drive up their salary. The slow-paced work culture is also detrimental to attracting young talent since tech companies promise instant responsibility and a chance to make a change instantly. When there is bureaucracy and layers of management that prevent impacting work, it is hard to compete with what the top tech companies offer.

   2+

   Users who have LIKED this comment:

   • 
   • 

5. Hi Teun,

   Great article. I love using Harvard Business Review as a source.

   You hit the nail on the head in the first paragraph. Patty McCord is absolutely correct in that, “People want to work with other people who they enjoy working with, who inspire them, and who they can learn from.”
   In my experience, many State and Government entities are heavily Unionized and Unions often promote laziness in the work place. While the potential advantages are Stability, Flexibility, Benefits, and Time off, none of those will promote or encourage an entrepreneurial culture or promote growth.

   Rather, the Slow salary growth, Capped earning potential, Low levels of control (Union Sanctions) and Lazy co-workers will usually prevent someone from wanting to go above and beyond. https://www.thebalance.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-a-government-job-1669764

   This is one of the reasons why many Government entities outsource IT solutions to value added re-sellers (VARS) that hire top talent and can provide technical solutions utilizing the latest products and services. I commend Chris Cruz on his entrepreneurial spirit and how he is motivated to change IT in Government, but he has a long and “tough road to hoe.”

   Christian

   1+

   Users who have LIKED this comment:

   • 

   1. Hi Christian,

      First of all, I enjoyed reading this post and thought the points were all well supported by strong evidence and clear in what points you wanted to get across to the reader. However, one thing I questioned myself after reading this article was how much power any intern or employee going to work in the California government would have in the first place. Surely if this job in the first place gave their employees a chance to make an impact and promote a policy change or revision that more people regardless of the salary they may receive would jump at the opportunity to work in the government. Perhaps, it is not that government employees need a monetary incentive to work but rather need more responsibility and capability. I understand you cover this point by talking about how hard it is in the first place for changes to be made and projects to be approved, but I wonder what would attract younger generations to work in government more; the opportunity to make change or a comparable salary to what one may make at Google, Facebook, Dropbox.

      -Foster

      1+

      Users who have LIKED this comment:

      • 

6. Hi Teun,
   I thought this was a great post–you identify three important criteria of a desirable job when you mention a positive work culture, fair compensation, and employee autonomy. I wonder, however, if even these are enough to attract and hold young tech workers in government jobs. I have not yet entered the workforce myself and therefore have not interacted with many young software engineers, but I imagine that they are attracted to jobs that provide opportunities for personal advancement and creating a lasting impact. Silicon Valley in California and the startup nature present likely draw many young software engineers away from government jobs–a startup is a great way to experiment early in one’s career and push the boundaries of what we know. Jobs at startups are highly desirable by at least two out of three of the criteria you mention: they generally consist of a team of workers excited about the new company and its product, and workers often have a lot of autonomy. Workers at startups do not have to fill out the piles of paperwork that you mention demotivates government employees; jobs at startups, therefore, promote innovation while government jobs do not. It is hard to imagine the government being able to award the same autonomy to its employees that a startup can: a startup when it first forms is small, self-serving, and without the hindrance of responsibilities, whereas the government is massive and works for the people. In addition to the difficulty of making government employees with more autonomy, it is hard to imagine the government being able to award its employees with the income they would receive if they worked at a startup that performed well. The government pays workers a (relatively) fixed salary limited by its pool of tax dollars, while a startup that takes off has the potential to make its founding members millionaires or billionaires. The stability of government jobs is attractive to individuals that rely on a steady income to meet family responsibilities, pay the house mortgage, etc., but for a young tech worker entering the workforce, the potential of startups is more attractive. In your article you have identified several good steps to changing the nature of government jobs to attract talented workers to government jobs–I only wonder if it is enough.

   1+

   Users who have LIKED this comment:

   • 

7. Teun- I definitely agree with your assessment, I had a similar reaction when Mr. Cruz began talking about attracting and retaining IT talent to the state. The one advantage to government work that hasn’t been mentioned in your post or in the comments is that government jobs are usually the most insulated during an economic downturn, particularly in areas with strong unionization. It is incredibly difficult to fire government workers, particularly in the federal workforce, once they are hired. Like you and others have mentioned, however, this is generally not enough to attract top end talent. At best, it helps attract and retain average workers that value job security over creative freedom.

   One method of injecting new talent in to the system would be introducing a “Tech for America” program that could incentivize government service at the beginning of one’s career in exchange for help with student loans. This would improve the quantity and quality of younger individuals in the government technology field, and when these individuals move on to private sector jobs they would bring this experience and perspective with them. This would hopefully produce a more civic-minded culture and build relationships between startups, large tech companies, and the government workforce that would improve interoperability.

   0

8. Reflecting on what Foster commented above, I believe that one of the main reasons for why the government doesn’t seem to be successful in hiring young and innovative talent is because of its current state of organizational culture. The beauty of working in most tech startups or even tech giants is the presence of flat organizational structures. As an employee, you are valued for your ideas, and the value you generate through your work. In order for organizations to harbor such a culture of idea generation, there needs to exist a culture of professional freedom in terms of policy making, and project initiations. It is not easy to bring about radical changes in government organizations because of the inflexibility that generates from a highly bureaucratic setting. A novel and innovative idea will not necessarily result in its immediate implementation, simply because of the hundreds of approvals needed before the project or idea receives the okay-go! While it is amazing to see how Mr. Cruz seems to be daring enough to think differently by trying to implement a startup and entrepreneurial culture to California’s IT department, he has a long journey ahead that will require a complete revolutionization of existing government organizational culture.

   0

9. Interesting read!

   The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund NBIM, is an interesting investment vehicle – set in place and highly regulated by the Norwegian parliament, Stortinget. Infamously known as the Norwegian oil fund, NBIM currently manage ca. 900 billion USD which makes it the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. Put into perspective, a country that just broke the 5 million people barrier owns 1.3% of all listed companies worldwide. As a government agency NBIM struggled to recruit talented and ambitious students. The well-paid and high paced jobs of the financial sector were far more intriguing than a low-paced and relatively poorly paid job in the jungle of government bureaucracy. NBIM put into place a couple of distinct courses of action that made it one of the most sought after employers for business/finance/economics majors in Norway.

   Firstly, they implemented a talent program for the absolute top of the class students. NBIM’s talent program is a two-year program with an international and global perspective. It lets its students work in its offices around the world from New York to Shanghai. Furthermore, it places its graduates for up to 6 months in partnering banks, banks such as Morgan Stanley, UPS, and JP Morgan in the City and on Wall Street.

   Secondly, through influence or connection – call it what you will – NBIM have managed to secure affiliation with many of the leading business schools in the world. NBIM will not only pay for a graduates MBA or specialized degree, but they will most likely also assist you in getting into the likes of Harvard, LBS, or Insead just to name a few.

   And lastly, NBIM know their audience. A baby boomer may want to add a last couple of years to an ending career to bolster his retirement, just like a generation X hire may want a position in government in an attempt to do meaningful work. The millennials are the most informed and ambitious generation yet. NBIM have understood this, they do not put buckles or chains around top performers; rather, on the contrary they place top performers into top end private sector jobs. They have created an attractive work force for private sector placement and I, as an ambitious and (somewhat) informed millennial know this and so do my Norwegian peers.

   Now, It is hard to directly compare the state of California to a Norwegian-government regulated investment fund. However, some similarities are evident. Both struggle with the loss of talent to the high salaries and infinite and beyond bonuses of the private sector. Both are government agencies with fundamental power and influence. Both are in a unique position to be able to offer talented individuals opportunities without blowing state budget. Now, the dissimilarities between NBIM and the state of California may be even more evident. The fact that NBIM sell out student presentations faster than your typical Mckinsey or DNB (Norways largest bank) or when Mr. Cruz (despite a very interesting and informative presentation) was talking to a half-full auditorium while the obligatory sign up sheet was being passed around.

   NBIM’s model for becoming an attractive employer for talented individuals is certainly not a blue print for the State of California. But they can look, learn and be inspired by the fact that it is possible. If the state of California can initiate some sort of a partnership with Google, Space X, or Amazon for work placements or internships they will not be competing against the behemoths for talent, but working with them. The state of California can also work with schools like Stanford, UC Berkeley, or Caltech to give their employees opportunities to get further empowered and educated – this is a very powerful incentive. And lastly, the State of California by understanding what millennials want and think can target them much more directly. So what can the State of California offer these millennials? They can offer a stint in a government agency, which can act like a stepping-stone in a millennials very ambitious career plan where the sky is the limit.

   0

10. Teun, great post; finding and retaining talent is a challenge faced by all sectors, but is particularly difficult for government as you pointed out due to the lack of an ability to compete financially as well as the burden that comes with layers upon layers of bureaucracy. However, I think that it is important to be realistic in prescriptions for addressing this huge challenge. As you discuss, it’s a massive and urgent problem, but drastically changing these types of policies within the government, like getting rid of “dead weight,” is likely extremely hard as it is an incredibly politically sensitive discussion. That is not to say that changing policy as it relates to talent within the government is impossible or should not be done, but I think that it is important to recognize realistic limitations. One possible short term solution would be to focus on talent management. Oftentimes, people are placed into positions that they are not qualified, or in many cases, overqualified for. I believe that making sure that people are placed in the “right” role would go a long way in improving motivation, morale, and efficiency. Additionally, I think that finding the right venues to begin these types of changes would be an effective way to go about influencing changes within the overall culture. Government is a big beast, and no two parts are quite the same, making where you start incredibly important.

    0

Comments are closed.