The Loud Crisis

s the debate over the creation of the Homeland Security Department wound down last fall, many people, especially those who live outside the Beltway, probably were confused about why a bill that started out as a national security measure ended up in a debate about civil service reform and work conditions. We are glad some of these issues have been resolved, but the debate has surfaced what some of us have known for a long time: The federal government's personnel system is hopelessly, perhaps even dangerously, out of date.

In the early to mid-20th century, the federal government was a government of clerks. Today, the lower grades (GS-1 through 4) make up less than 10 percent of the workforce, yet civil service laws and practices hark back to an era when such employees were in the majority. Much of the government's human resource doctrine is obsolete. Rather than confront that problem head on, the modus operandi has been a piecemeal approach to reform. One by one, agencies have removed themselves from the purview of civil service law. Now, more than half the government's employees work in the "excepted" service, which is exempt from civil service rules and regulations.

Shouldn't this tell us something? It's time to reinvent the civil service so it can serve the government of the future, not the government of the past. Before Sept. 11, the issue was debated in relatively few circles. They included schools of public policy, which were worried that many of their students were choosing not to work in government. Comptroller General David Walker placed human capital on the General Accounting Office's "high-risk" list of government management challenges. Samuel Heyman, a philanthropist with a deep devotion to government, founded a group called the Partnership for Public Service to lobby for better human resources policies and to encourage young people to pursue government careers. And Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, devoted much time, energy and political capital to this topic in spite of its limited political sex appeal.

But the terrorist attacks sparked a new urgency in fixing the government's human resources problem. Now many Americans have learned what only a few of us were worried about: The government has a severe people problem-one that could jeopardize the country's security.

In the next few years, large numbers of civil servants will retire. Yet, in spite of the last year's surge of patriotism, the polls say young people still don't believe the government is a good place to work. Those who try to get government jobs still encounter an antiquated hiring system. As a result, many are lost to the private sector.

The government doesn't have enough people to translate the intelligence we collect. It doesn't have the skills or the money it needs to train people in new technologies. Salaries for highly skilled workers in the private sector have been rising at a rapid clip, but salaries for the top workers in the public sector have been frozen-creating severe pay compression and contributing to an already serious brain drain.

None of this has to be. Successful experiments in civil service reform-pay banding and category ranking, for example-failed to become the law of the land. Two successive administrations have trumpeted numerous flexibilities that managers have already, yet many are loath to use them. In an effort to get them moving, OPM Director Kay Coles James has even published an easy-to-read guide about the flexibilities available. And the recent legislation creating a Department of Homeland Security extends some needed flexibilities to the entire government. It is time to tackle more important issues and make some fundamental changes in human resource policy for the entire government-changes that will allow the government to employ an information age workforce. Over the past year, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University convened leaders from government, academia and the corporate world to study the civil service rules. From these discussions emerged four steps that could bring the government's human resources policy into the next century.

MARKET THE MISSION

The government has one big advantage over the private sector-its jobs have meaning. Whether they are fighting terrorists, protecting the food supply, vaccinating poor children or explaining America to people in far away countries, people in the government know why they are there. But in recruiting new workers, this asset often gets buried in a quagmire of bureaucratese. The all-volunteer military has thrived on its ability to market "meaning," but other government organizations don't have similar advertising budgets.

FIX THE HIRING PROCESS

This is not solely a legislative function. OPM should continue to school managers in the flexibilities already in the law. Agencies can follow the lead of the U.S. Geological Survey and other agencies that have restructured their hiring operations to make them faster and more efficient. Finally, Congress should be congratulated for effectively replacing the rigid "rule of three" with a system of more broadly based hiring categories.

FIX THE FEDERAL PAY SYSTEM

The General Schedule was invented for a different workforce. Congress should let agencies replace the schedule with broad banding, which would provide greater flexibility in hiring and keeping employees. In addition, Congress has to confront the crisis at the top grades.

Historically, civil service pay has been linked to Congress' pay. Not surprisingly, Congress members are reluctant to take the politically unpopular step of raising their pay. But as two of our colleagues at the Kennedy School of Government, labor economists John Donahue and George Borjas, illustrate in a forthcoming volume from the Brookings Institution, there is a real crisis at the top of the pay scale.

Advocating better pay for the people Americans think are already well paid isn't easy. But one only needs to look at the billions of dollars that have been wasted in failed federal information technology projects over the years to realize that paying competitive wages for critical skills would save money in the long run. Congress should pass legislation to base pay rates on occupations and localities-and then put the money on the table to fund it.

In addition, traditional classification systems are inconsistent with the need for a flexible, agile workforce and they encourage the "not in my job description" mentality that is so toxic to public service.

INVOLVE EMPLOYEES

Talented people often leave government after only a few years because they are bored and frustrated In fact, a 2002 survey of graduates from the Kennedy School and graduates from the Harvard Business School found that five years after graduation the business school graduates were more satisfied with their jobs. Private sector employees said they were well-mentored and had responsibility and authority. The government employees interviewed felt just the opposite. No doubt some of them will leave, adding to the brain drain.

A decade ago, a public service commission chaired by Paul Volcker declared a "quiet crisis" in the federal government, Since Sept. 11, the crisis has not been quiet. It is time to fix the whole system. Government is only as good as the people in it, and now, of all times, it needs to be the best.