Being competent in federal service work is trying

[Anonymous]

Get over yourself OP. I work with the highest concentration of talent I’ve ever experienced in my 25 years of public and private service. More competent than my clerkship class, and I clerked for a top US court of appeals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP. Not exactly. I told you that I completely understood your first paragraph. I sympathize with you and just want you to understand that you might end up jumping from the government frying pan into the corporate fire.

[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.

Name the corporation. Otherwise I don’t believe you.

[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.

Name the corporation. Otherwise I don’t believe you.

Not PP but that's silly. Of course large organizations suffer the same problems everywhere, and it's easier to just move bad employees around than put them on a PIP in the private sector for the same reasons it's done in gov.

[Anonymous]

Long time fed manager here. Every time I wanted to address performance, I was told "don't be mean, work with them". Believe me I tried. I got some to turn around, others I did place in less harmful/more suited to their "talents" positions. When I finally went to HR for one of the most egregious ones - I felt like it was me that was being disciplined. I had high hopes that DOGE would actually address this. Nope, these folks are just being hidden even more deeply and their work is falling on the actual competent ones. As to that, their are some AMAZING feds who do incredible work. It's just a shame that in my organization they usually just get taken advantage. If they complain/speak up they are seen as the problem.

Sorry for my rant!

[Anonymous]

How long have you been a Fed? Because what you’re experiencing is often SOP.

I have 40 years in, and have seen this forever. Supervisors who do try to take action against low performers/problem employees are discouraged and unsupported (I’m not a supervisor, never have been one, but have seen this every step of my career). “Make it go away” is the message they receive.

And now so many of those problem people are on RAs. If nothing else, just to keep them out of sight and swept under the rug.

[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.

Name the corporation. Otherwise I don’t believe you.

NP and its absolutely true. Tons of inefficiency, slackers, etc in private sector, and it's difficult to fire people. Maybe layoffs are easier in private sector, but individual firings are as hard or harder to do, compared to government where the rules workers have to follow are pretty strict and can be strictly applied.

Human nature is the same everywhere. Every organization has slackers, superstars, and people who think they are the only ones working (regardless of whether that's true). Every organization has a few true leaders, and many people who would rather avoid a hard conversation than do the difficult work of managing and documenting.

All you can do is apply around until you find the small work unit (boss and coworkers) that are a good fit. That's who affects your day to day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP. Not exactly. I told you that I completely understood your first paragraph. I sympathize with you and just want you to understand that you might end up jumping from the government frying pan into the corporate fire.

Hey OP, based on your replies here, I think the problem is you. You basically asked if you should jump ship for a "healthier environment," somebody explained that what you describe happens in the private sector as well, and you can't see how that relates? You seem to have a processing disorder of some kind and I would guess you just misunderstand a lot of what is happening around you. Best to stay put, if I were you.

[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.

It’s called the curse of competency and it’s real. Google it for explanations. You will find it throughout the workforce albeit public, private or nonprofit. If you’re young, don’t stay in the federal government. This is not the time for it. You can find good retirement benefits outside the Feds. Maybe not a pension that you may or may not live long enough to fully enjoy, but 401/457 matches, stock options, reduced stock company purchases, etc. Good luck

[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.

Name the corporation. Otherwise I don’t believe you.

PP. This is an anonymous board for a reason. I'm not going to doxx myself so you can be convinced I'm not a Russian bot or any of the other nonsense people on here accuse people of. You can glean what you can or reject my insights as you see fit.

There's a book called "Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers" by Robert Jackall. It's an older management classic. Highly recommend. Still valid today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sounds like my FINREG. A number of long time slackers have been put on administrative leave. Many others are headed out the door with VERA/VSIP. Can’t wait for them to leave!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sounds like my FINREG. A number of long time slackers have been put on administrative leave. Many others are headed out the door with VERA/VSIP. Can’t wait for them to leave!

this is not my experience. Doge didn't force anyone bad to leave. It forced the good workers out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP. Not exactly. I told you that I completely understood your first paragraph. I sympathize with you and just want you to understand that you might end up jumping from the government frying pan into the corporate fire.

Hey OP, based on your replies here, I think the problem is you. You basically asked if you should jump ship for a "healthier environment," somebody explained that what you describe happens in the private sector as well, and you can't see how that relates? You seem to have a processing disorder of some kind and I would guess you just misunderstand a lot of what is happening around you. Best to stay put, if I were you.

PP. Don't tell OP that OP has a disorder. It's quite possible that OP is correct AND that OP is powerless to change the way of the world. But being competent and not sharing other people's priorities (especially if they are self-serving), does not mean someone has a processing disorder. Humans are very fond of creating in-groups and outgroups. That doesn't meant the people in the outgroup are neurodivergent and/or failing to understand reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sounds like my FINREG. A number of long time slackers have been put on administrative leave. Many others are headed out the door with VERA/VSIP. Can’t wait for them to leave!

+10. The thing that gets me is that now the slackers are sitting pretty with generous payouts. Something I never got while covering their lazy, stupid ass$s. Even if I tried to slack off, I couldn’t. They knew I could get the job done and I did. I always thought I had “ abuse me” plastered across my forehead. For nothing extra. It was miserable and I am glad others in these agencies see it. It’s awful.

Now I have no job. Because I worked hard, I was punished. What a horrendous set up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

NP here but i do not think that is an option anymore - there are few postings and now they are adding the “loyalty” essay

Pretty sure that if you aren’t on the Heritage list, you are unlikely to get the job