Being competent in federal service work is trying

[Anonymous]

I’ve spent a significant chunk of my career in the federal government and, lately, the fatigue is setting in hard. It feels as though competence and professionalism are liabilities rather than strengths, particuarly in DOD-land: those of us who meet deadlines, follow policy, and deliver quality work end up covering for colleagues who can’t—or won’t—do the same. Instead of being held accountable, under-performers are quietly reassigned, and sometimes they even become our supervisors. When anyone raises process or performance concerns in a respectful way, the response is that we’re “not team players.”

I’m single, so the FERS pension is a major factor in my long-term planning. On paper it looks like a great safety net, but I’m starting to wonder whether the mental and emotional toll of propping up a broken system for another decade (or more) is worth that future benefit.

If you’ve wrestled with the same dilemma—sticking it out for the pension versus walking away for a healthier work environment—how did you decide? What trade-offs did you weigh, and in hindsight are you glad you made the choice you did? Any perspective is welcome.

[Anonymous]

Your entire first paragraph applies completely to my 25 years of employment in corporate America.

I was a fed in DC for 8 years before grad school.

My fed co-workers were equally talented to the corporate workers I'm surrounded by now.

Corporate work pays more but indeed there has been less job security.

Also there are many people in corporate life who have no interest in the greater good AND also have no incentive to give any lip service to that ideal.

Don't believe what people say about the private sector being magically more efficient and productive. A lot of that is self-serving political rhetoric. As you know, many people only support the parts of government that they personally like and benefit from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your entire first paragraph applies completely to my 25 years of employment in corporate America.

I was a fed in DC for 8 years before grad school.

My fed co-workers were equally talented to the corporate workers I'm surrounded by now.

Corporate work pays more but indeed there has been less job security.

Also there are many people in corporate life who have no interest in the greater good AND also have no incentive to give any lip service to that ideal.

Don't believe what people say about the private sector being magically more efficient and productive. A lot of that is self-serving political rhetoric. As you know, many people only support the parts of government that they personally like and benefit from.

This is not OP. I am not anti Fed. I am not anti goverment. I should clarify, I do not think the federal workforce is characterized by incompetence, it is just that those who are incompetent or toxic are not managed well in a way that protects other employees.

[Anonymous]

The ability to take healthcare into retirement is invaluable. Research how long you have to have it to get that lifetime benefit. Medicare is not enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your entire first paragraph applies completely to my 25 years of employment in corporate America.

I was a fed in DC for 8 years before grad school.

My fed co-workers were equally talented to the corporate workers I'm surrounded by now.

Corporate work pays more but indeed there has been less job security.

Also there are many people in corporate life who have no interest in the greater good AND also have no incentive to give any lip service to that ideal.

Don't believe what people say about the private sector being magically more efficient and productive. A lot of that is self-serving political rhetoric. As you know, many people only support the parts of government that they personally like and benefit from.

This is not OP. I am not anti Fed. I am not anti goverment. I should clarify, I do not think the federal workforce is characterized by incompetence, it is just that those who are incompetent or toxic are not managed well in a way that protects other employees.

PP. You'd be surprised how long incompetent and toxic people can survive in corporate environments. I'm talking big companies.

In general, as long as the boss likes you and there are no clear productivity metrics, and the company is making money, there is no incentive to cut staff. Lots of corporate staff have no clear productivity metrics. Or let me phrase it as...they have shared accountability. Like that phrase "Success has many fathers." Failure is nobody's sole responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your entire first paragraph applies completely to my 25 years of employment in corporate America.

I was a fed in DC for 8 years before grad school.

My fed co-workers were equally talented to the corporate workers I'm surrounded by now.

Corporate work pays more but indeed there has been less job security.

Also there are many people in corporate life who have no interest in the greater good AND also have no incentive to give any lip service to that ideal.

Don't believe what people say about the private sector being magically more efficient and productive. A lot of that is self-serving political rhetoric. As you know, many people only support the parts of government that they personally like and benefit from.

This is not OP. I am not anti Fed. I am not anti goverment. I should clarify, I do not think the federal workforce is characterized by incompetence, it is just that those who are incompetent or toxic are not managed well in a way that protects other employees.

PP. You'd be surprised how long incompetent and toxic people can survive in corporate environments. I'm talking big companies.

In general, as long as the boss likes you and there are no clear productivity metrics, and the company is making money, there is no incentive to cut staff. Lots of corporate staff have no clear productivity metrics. Or let me phrase it as...they have shared accountability. Like that phrase "Success has many fathers." Failure is nobody's sole responsibility.

Please explain, I am confused, how does this relate to my post (OP), I am 100% not being snarky, honest question, just want to understand your insight, thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your entire first paragraph applies completely to my 25 years of employment in corporate America.

I was a fed in DC for 8 years before grad school.

My fed co-workers were equally talented to the corporate workers I'm surrounded by now.

Corporate work pays more but indeed there has been less job security.

Also there are many people in corporate life who have no interest in the greater good AND also have no incentive to give any lip service to that ideal.

Don't believe what people say about the private sector being magically more efficient and productive. A lot of that is self-serving political rhetoric. As you know, many people only support the parts of government that they personally like and benefit from.

This is not OP. I am not anti Fed. I am not anti goverment. I should clarify, I do not think the federal workforce is characterized by incompetence, it is just that those who are incompetent or toxic are not managed well in a way that protects other employees.

PP. You'd be surprised how long incompetent and toxic people can survive in corporate environments. I'm talking big companies.

In general, as long as the boss likes you and there are no clear productivity metrics, and the company is making money, there is no incentive to cut staff. Lots of corporate staff have no clear productivity metrics. Or let me phrase it as...they have shared accountability. Like that phrase "Success has many fathers." Failure is nobody's sole responsibility.

Please explain, I am confused, how does this relate to my post (OP), I am 100% not being snarky, honest question, just want to understand your insight, thanks!

PP. I see corporate people rewarded and praised even though nothing of substance has actually been done. I see people get promoted for energetic work on projects that are cancelled so the net effect of their work on the company's profitability is zero. I see people who care and work hard get laid off even though I know there are other people who coast, take advantage of all their perks, and stay in the same job for decades. I see people who do quality work internally underemployed and deprioritized because they aren't fun to hang out with. I see people who seem to understand sexism and implicit bias maintain a departmental structure where men have all the cushy, easy senior positions.

In other words, human behavior is similar everywhere. Interpersonal politics are often more important than doing really good work. Speaking up is praised but not really rewarded unless you are part of the in-crowd. Also people's definition of competence has a lot to do with whether you are a pain in the ass to them. People tend to dislike competent people who make them do, or feel like they have to do, things they do not want to do.

When I was in my MBA program, and finishing a group paper, with three hours to go, one of our team members showed up to let us know they didn't write their three pages because they needed to get ready for and depart for a flight. No warning in advance. Just failure to do the work. So, I did what I could to fill and patch the hole. One of my male team members told me that "I just needed to relax my expectations". I've always remembered that, because it added insult to injury. I took on extra work because the grade and the completeness of the paper mattered to me. But telling hardworking people to lower their expectations and mesh better with slackers is not a rare response. I've run across it since then.

My point is that if you are having trouble with slackers, and incompetent managers in government, you won't necessarily escape them by going private sector. Especially if you head for a closely related business to what you work on in government. A lot of managers everywhere are just doing it for pay and promotions. They don't actually care to manage people.

[Anonymous]

I understand completely. I retired from a FINREG because I was working with incompetents. I was doing the work. Work they either refused to do or were too inept to do. One continually played the race card. Just ran around all dang day. The other just whined and bothered everyone else when he/she couldn’t do the work. Both knew well how to play the system.

Nothing was done to correct them - ever. The manager just gave those of us who COULD do the work their work to meet deadlines. The agency I was at didn’t want racial suits so we just had to put up with the minority slacker

After being assigned one too many projects, I decided “ thats it. I can’t take this anymore”.
I put in retirement papers and quietly left.

In retrospect, I wasn’t ready to go. But I couldn’t handle the fact that incompetent people get ahead in the federal government.

It has been hard for me to find other work. Age discrimination and I do miss my job. But it had become unbearable.

Lo and behold, these slackers were targeted by DOGE and given tremendous payouts to go home and do nothing. It’s absurd. I think the place used DOGE to clean out garbage like this.

But I get it. Workers don’t get ahead in many parts of the federal agencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve spent a significant chunk of my career in the federal government and, lately, the fatigue is setting in hard. It feels as though competence and professionalism are liabilities rather than strengths, particuarly in DOD-land: those of us who meet deadlines, follow policy, and deliver quality work end up covering for colleagues who can’t—or won’t—do the same. Instead of being held accountable, under-performers are quietly reassigned, and sometimes they even become our supervisors. When anyone raises process or performance concerns in a respectful way, the response is that we’re “not team players.”

I’m single, so the FERS pension is a major factor in my long-term planning. On paper it looks like a great safety net, but I’m starting to wonder whether the mental and emotional toll of propping up a broken system for another decade (or more) is worth that future benefit.

If you’ve wrestled with the same dilemma—sticking it out for the pension versus walking away for a healthier work environment—how did you decide? What trade-offs did you weigh, and in hindsight are you glad you made the choice you did? Any perspective is welcome.

I moved to a different agency and different office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your entire first paragraph applies completely to my 25 years of employment in corporate America.

I was a fed in DC for 8 years before grad school.

My fed co-workers were equally talented to the corporate workers I'm surrounded by now.

Corporate work pays more but indeed there has been less job security.

Also there are many people in corporate life who have no interest in the greater good AND also have no incentive to give any lip service to that ideal.

Don't believe what people say about the private sector being magically more efficient and productive. A lot of that is self-serving political rhetoric. As you know, many people only support the parts of government that they personally like and benefit from.

This is not OP. I am not anti Fed. I am not anti goverment. I should clarify, I do not think the federal workforce is characterized by incompetence, it is just that those who are incompetent or toxic are not managed well in a way that protects other employees.

PP. You'd be surprised how long incompetent and toxic people can survive in corporate environments. I'm talking big companies.

In general, as long as the boss likes you and there are no clear productivity metrics, and the company is making money, there is no incentive to cut staff. Lots of corporate staff have no clear productivity metrics. Or let me phrase it as...they have shared accountability. Like that phrase "Success has many fathers." Failure is nobody's sole responsibility.

Please explain, I am confused, how does this relate to my post (OP), I am 100% not being snarky, honest question, just want to understand your insight, thanks!

PP. I see corporate people rewarded and praised even though nothing of substance has actually been done. I see people get promoted for energetic work on projects that are cancelled so the net effect of their work on the company's profitability is zero. I see people who care and work hard get laid off even though I know there are other people who coast, take advantage of all their perks, and stay in the same job for decades. I see people who do quality work internally underemployed and deprioritized because they aren't fun to hang out with. I see people who seem to understand sexism and implicit bias maintain a departmental structure where men have all the cushy, easy senior positions.

In other words, human behavior is similar everywhere. Interpersonal politics are often more important than doing really good work. Speaking up is praised but not really rewarded unless you are part of the in-crowd. Also people's definition of competence has a lot to do with whether you are a pain in the ass to them. People tend to dislike competent people who make them do, or feel like they have to do, things they do not want to do.

When I was in my MBA program, and finishing a group paper, with three hours to go, one of our team members showed up to let us know they didn't write their three pages because they needed to get ready for and depart for a flight. No warning in advance. Just failure to do the work. So, I did what I could to fill and patch the hole. One of my male team members told me that "I just needed to relax my expectations". I've always remembered that, because it added insult to injury. I took on extra work because the grade and the completeness of the paper mattered to me. But telling hardworking people to lower their expectations and mesh better with slackers is not a rare response. I've run across it since then.

My point is that if you are having trouble with slackers, and incompetent managers in government, you won't necessarily escape them by going private sector. Especially if you head for a closely related business to what you work on in government. A lot of managers everywhere are just doing it for pay and promotions. They don't actually care to manage people.

Ok then, you are just telling me to understand the dynamic and be more a team player. Yes, I have heard this before, hence my OP post. You are repeating what I am already being told to leadership at work.

[Anonymous]

I am so sorry you are being put through this. Thank you for your years of service to all of us. It’s ok to leave now that it’s become a sh*tshow.

[Anonymous]

I would suggest you work at another agency where you won’t be taken advantage of. Mine is great. I am a supervisor and actively manage workload so that my high performers aren’t only rewarded with more work. Low performers get spoken to and then put on PIPs. My highest performers wouldn’t leave me now. They’re so happy. One even passed up a promotion (my job is a grade higher and is a TON more work for such little pay) to stay.

It is hard to reward high fed performers since money isn’t an option. The best reward I’ve found is good, high performing colleagues.

[Anonymous]

Every place I have worked has 80% of the work being done by 20% of the people.

Slackers and incompetents are everywhere. Both Tesla and SpaceX now are big enough that there have to be some there also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so sorry you are being put through this. Thank you for your years of service to all of us. It’s ok to leave now that it’s become a sh*tshow.

+10

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ability to take healthcare into retirement is invaluable. Research how long you have to have it to get that lifetime benefit. Medicare is not enough.

Fed here retiring very soon and completely agree with the sentiment. But it’s not healthcare. Rather, it’s health insurance. The two are not the same.