Uses of "Best Places" Rankings

Bob Tobias said yesterday at the release of the Partnership for Public Service's Best Places to Work rankings that he believes the ratings provide an incentive for agencies to improve their management. What he didn't say is that the ratings also provide ammunition for organizations, like unions, that are trying to push management changes of their own. I got no fewer than three press releases from the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union saying that the rankings prove the need for change at the Social Security Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Homeland Security, and Customs and Border Protection.

Using the data is a smart move by the unions, at least strategically. It lets them praise a ratings systems that agencies buy into and tout when they do well in (the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office both sent out press releases trumpeting their ratings). But because the ratings are based on the Federal Human Capital Survey, and thus measures satisfaction in broad gagues rather than linking satisfaction causally to specific policies, the unions can also use the ratings to suggest that their approaches are effective. For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission consistently tops the ratings. And so, NTEU writes to reporters:

One agency where NTEU's efforts to increase frontline employee input has met with success in years past is at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) which again earned the survey's top ranking--it also was the top-ranked agency in the 2007 'best places' rankings. At the NRC, NTEU has successfully negotiated workplace rights and benefits that address employee working conditions and work-life balance, such as alternative work schedules, flexiplace and student loan repayments

Does the rating prove the efficacy of any single one of those programs? Of course not. But the rankings provide information that's useful, both politically and practically, to both agencies and their stakeholders.