Civil Service Systems Impede Efforts to Improve Performance
Government performance has been seen as a problem possibly forever, but the federal Department of Government Efficiency has triggered a renewed focus at all levels of government. Recent reports suggest the number of states with similar initiatives is growing. But if history is repeated, the results will not be impressive. As the old saying argues, every dollar counts but the top-down strategy to cut costs misses the real potential for savings and improved results.
President Clinton’s “reinventing government” initiative led by Vice President Gore provided the evidence that could have been translated into significant savings. In its initial 1993 report the National Performance Review task force proposed some 380 recommendations for government downsizing, reorganization and management reform. Over Clinton’s two terms, NPR produced the only budget surpluses in the last half century and eliminated over 400,000 federal positions. As NPR deputy John Kamensky described, “We focused on how the government works, not on what it should be doing.
Federal budget surpluses today are wishful thinking. Media reports on federal job cuts are not current but it’s clear the totals do not approach the NPR numbers. More importantly, the cuts are adversely affecting agency results. The latest is Bill Gates claim “the cuts will cause millions of deaths.” The longer term impact is the impact the cuts are having on worker morale and adversely affecting their performance. CNN reported the cuts triggered a “very intense culture of fear.” That could have been avoided.
One prominent difference between the best performance management practices in the private and public sectors is the importance of workforce performance. In the best performing companies, employees are empowered and expected to make work-related decisions to improve results. A core NPR principle, then new and largely ignored, was the idea of empowering employees to make work-related decisions. Their innovative ideas were recognized in the hundreds of NPR Hammer Awards.
Empowerment is discussed in the many books on creating high performance work teams. It’s a common thread in the “Great Places to Work” lists. As far back as the 1970s companies experimented with eliminating direct supervisors – that alone cuts costs – and trusting autonomous work teams.
Despite the long-track record, the idea of empowering employees is rarely found in discussions of agency performance. As the NPR history clearly shows, in every sector the answers to operating problems are often known by employees who want their organization to be successful. As one website describes it, “When employees are motivated, inspired, and confident, they’re more likely to go above and beyond in their roles. The key is to build a culture that encourages these qualities.”
The History of Civil Service Highlights the Problem
The performance problem is buried in the history of federal and, with few exceptions, state and local civil service systems. The core principles of civil service are widely understood globally to be “merit” selection and protection from arbitrary dismissal based on political pressure. Those principles have been defended rigorously through history.
Additionally, when government’s administrative systems were formalized early in the 20th century, they were more advanced than in many businesses. Industry then was very different. Businesses were typically small and owner managed. “Personnel offices” were yet to be created. Workers were strictly a cost to be controlled. Top-down management was common in all organizations.
The prevailing management philosophy in that era is credited to the writing of Max Weber, Frederick Taylor, and Woodrow Wilson. Max Weber argued, in his book Economy and Society, that leaders articulate the policies which are then carried out by managers and employees in a series of specialized offices. In government, to quote Weber, “The honor of the civil servant is vested in his ability to execute conscientiously the order of the superior authorities.” Taylor’s contribution is his Principles of Scientific Management, published in 1911. Taylor advocated using time and motion studies to learn the most efficient way to perform each work task. Workers were expected to do “what they were told.” Wilson argued “for the separation of administration from political policy making. . . It is the duty of career civil servants to carry out those policies in good faith.”
The federal Classification Act of 1923 was based on that philosophy. Current federal civil service laws and regulations, with two exceptions, continue today to be based on the same principles. The exceptions are the Classification Act of 1949 that ‘modernized’ the pay system created in 1923. The second is President Carter’s Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 that created the Senior Executive Service and replaced the Civil Service Commission with the Office of Personnel Management. Those laws changed the work lives of only a few federal workers.
Many states continue to operate with similar, outdated civil service laws. A prime example is New York State’s civil service law that was adopted in 1909. The state’s “Civil Service Primer,” published in 2019, repeats the century old regulations. Illinois’s law was passed in 1905. Pennsylvania passed a new law in 2018 but largely “left in place 1941 regulations.” Other states like Georgia enacted laws more recently. Quasi-judicial civil service commissions enforce the laws, which locks in the management philosophy and impedes the adoption of new practices.
The thinking of that era continues as the common basis for the administration of ‘work’ and workers. It’s interesting that unions generally support enforcement of the old laws. It’s the basis for administering the federal General Schedule salary system, with its outdated, multi-page job descriptions. There is no evidence in the law that improving employee performance is a consideration.
Unfortunately, when NPR was in the headlines, the current interest in employee engagement and high performance was a decade away. Republicans gained control of Congress in the 1994 elections, George Bush was elected in 2000, and that triggered a distinctly different agenda for reforming government. The reform initiative lost its momentum and the NPR ceased operation in January 2001. Today, the NPR experience is no longer a consideration.
In the best performing companies, employees are empowered and expected to make work-related decisions to improve results.
State Laws and Agency Performance
Clinton’s reform initiative also resulted in passage of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and that was followed by passage of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA). Both focus narrowly on agency performance planning and reporting. Both are silent on civil service administration. In contrast to what is effectively the universal practice in business, federal executives are not seen as accountable for agency performance.
At the state level, the best source of information is the website, Results for America and the “Invest in What Works State Standard of Excellence” recognition of effective performance management practices. State practices generally are based on the same logic as GPRA, focusing on the use of agency goals, metrics and evidence-based decision making. Each year state practices are evaluated against criteria (for 2024, the first of 12 criteria was “Evaluation Leadership”).
The best state practices for 2024 were:
- Platinum: Minnesota and Tennessee
- Gold: Colorado
- Silver: Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan and North Carolina
What’s significant is that at no point does the website refer to policies or practices related to employee performance. Again, consistent with history, “good management” is silent on the role of employees.
High Risk: Strategic Human Capital Management
In its January 2001 the Government Accountability Office added strategic human capital management to its High Risk list High-Risk (GAO-01-263). From the report,
“High performing organizations in the private and public sectors have long understood the relationship between effective “people management” and organizational success. An organization’s people—its human capital – are its most critical asset in managing for results.”
A follow-up 2003 report, focused in more depth on what was needed to create high performing agencies, summarized the problem as “. . . the long-standing lack of a consistent strategic approach to marshaling, managing, and maintaining the human capital needed to maximize government performance.” It’s now two decades later and it’s still on GAO’s High Risk list.
The problems, as summarized then and never adequately addressed, include:
- “Leadership: Top leadership in the agencies must provide the committed and inspired attention needed to address human capital and related organization transformation issues.”
- “Strategic Human Capital Planning: Agencies’ human capital planning efforts need to be more fully and demonstrably integrated with mission and critical program goals.”
- “Acquiring, Developing, and Retaining Talent: Additional efforts are needed to improve recruiting, hiring, professional development, and retention strategies to ensure that agencies have the needed talent.”
- “Results-Oriented Organizational Cultures: Agencies continue to lack organizational cultures that promote high performance and accountability and empower and include employees in setting and accomplishing programmatic goals.”
That report is relevant to every organization that wants to build a workforce with the knowledge and skills suited to high performance. There is no inherent reason – other than existing civil service laws — that would prevent government agencies from committing to a similar human capital strategy.
What is not mentioned is that it’s increasingly common for top human resource executives to be on a chief executive’s management team. It was true in Tennessee when they initiated civil service reform in 2011. The state’s HR commissioner, Rebecca Hunter, had a lead role from the start. The state is now on the list of best in employers in Tennessee. (The state posts a wealth of information on agency performance.)
Investing in Employee Engagement Pays Off
Multiple research studies have confirmed psychologically engaged employees perform at significantly higher levels. Gallup’s analyses dating back over three decades show organizations are more successful when employees are engaged – they experience improved efficiency, lower absenteeism, better customer service, better recruiting, etc. There is no reason to think engagement is less important in government.
Unfortunately, comparative analyses of government and private sector engagement data have been rare. In a limited analysis of survey responses from 2022, a federal group, the Partnership for the Public Service, worked with data provided by Mercer to compare federal and private sector survey responses. The positive responses from private sector employees were higher on 24 of 28 questions. The differences with five key questions were striking.
- I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things – 76% v 64%
- My talents are used well in the workplace – 81% vs 63%
- I believe the results of this survey will be used to make my agency a better place to work – 61% vs 43%
- How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect your work – 72% vs 50%
- Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization? – 75% vs 60%
The federal data show agencies are not tapping the full talents of employees. Comparisons with data from the “Best Places to Work” would be even more stark. The private sector data show employees have more active, empowered roles. It would be useful for other public employers to make similar comparisons.
The Partnership confirmed the importance of engagement in a 2019 analysis comparing the performance of 150 Veterans Affairs medical centers. They found that centers with higher engagement scores had higher patient satisfaction, better call center performance, and lower turnover among registered nurses. A more current analysis would highlight the best managed hospitals and also draw attention to those where improved performance is needed.
Agencies that have multiple work locations across a state could undertake similar analyses. Year-to-year comparisons would also be valuable. Conducting employee surveys without analyzing the ties to performance ignores the true value of the data.
At a time when performance is a political hot button, the payoff in improved performance when agencies invest in increasing employee engagement will fully justify the nominal costs. Leadership is essential; redefining the manager-employee relationship is essential, creating Employee Resource Groups would help to improve results. The costs are nominal and overshadowed by the gains in performance.
Employees Want to Be Valued Contributors
Coincidentally McKinsey posted a column in late April, “Empowering the US workforce”, that focused on how broader demographic trends – worker shortages will become increasingly common — and automation will impact organizations and their workforces. Employers in every sector will need to reconsider their workforce management policies and practices.
McKinsey summarized the emerging reality:
“As the new administration shifts into high gear, policymakers may find themselves dealing with tight labor markets — a long-term structural trend in many advanced economies. . . Consequently, workforce shortages remain a reality in many parts of the economy and can only intensify as demographic shifts gather pace. This will require rethinking long-standing work practices . . .”
Government’s older workforce, its outdated management philosophy, and its ‘high risk’ human capital practices promise to exacerbate performance problems. The clerical support jobs of the early 1990s are largely gone. Other low-skill workers are likely to be replaced by technology. Today government workforces are increasingly dominated by knowledge workers capable of solving many problems, but their plans are too often blocked or compromised by the reality of working in government. There are proven strategies for creating high performance organizations. The evidence in other sectors linking engagement levels and improved results is solid.
Surveys of job seekers show compensation, an employer’s purpose, feeling valued, and job security make job openings attractive. Public employers may not be able to compete on pay, but they can offer other advantages. Causing workplace stress is contrary to solving government’s performance problems.
The Hammer Awards show many problems can be resolved by front line workers, but the agency-wide solutions will require legislation. Laws replacing or modifying civil service systems will have to be drafted; elected officials need to be convinced – but after the decades of disappointing results, that may not be difficult. Success stories like Tennessee should also be important. Improved performance would be a win-win for everyone – the public, political officials, and employees.
Want new articles before they get published? Subscribe to our Awesome Newsletter.
CAREER ADVICE
GOV TALK
