How Federal Employees See Themselves (And Are Seen): One Man's Opinion

By on October 17, 2010 in Current Events with 1 Comment publisher/editor
Ralph Smith suggested some time ago that there might be an article in how
Federal employees are currently feeling about their employment, given the criticism
the Federal workforce has endured in recent years, particularly since the
recession began, for being overpaid and under-worked – stop me if you’ve heard
that one before – among other things.

Federal pay and retirement
benefits are viewed by many of our fellow citizens as overly generous, although
the public’s concern about both of those expenditures clearly extends beyond
the Federal Government to state and local governmental entities. Some truly egregious examples of
government pay and retirement benefits have surfaced in recent weeks at
non-Federal levels. For example,
the city administrator of Bell, California, was being paid almost $800,000 a
year in total compensation – not bad for a city of just 36,552 residents as of
July 2009. The police chief had to
struggle by on just $457K, and the assistant city administrator made a paltry
$376,000. So much for asking not
what your city can do for you. 

(Author’s note: I’m
pleased to report that, since I started writing this article, eight of these officials
have been arrested on charges of bilking taxpayers out of $5.5 million. All of them were taken from their homes
in handcuffs!) 

As a civil service retirement
system (CSRS) retiree, I will acknowledge that it is a generous retirement
system by comparison to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), which,
in turn, is magnanimous when compared with the retirement programs of many
major firms in the private sector, where the trend in recent years has been
away from fixed annuities and toward 401(k)s. But the Federal Government’s “generosity” in structuring its
retirement plans, particularly the CSRS, was designed to allow it to be
competitive in the face of private sector salaries which were often much

For no reason except an endless
capacity for retaining trivia, always at the expense of important information,
I still remember my salary as a brand-new GS-5 with a college degree – $6,548
per annum. It must have been above
minimum wage, and it was certainly more than I had made while working at
McDonald’s, but my $.85 per hour job at Mickey D’s was augmented by an “all you
can eat” provision, and my Federal job didn’t allow me to soak towels in cold water
and hurl them at the silly paper hats of my co-workers.  My first Federal job did pay less than
my position as a sales representative for the American Tobacco Company; however,
that one was not an ideal match. When customers would ask me about the taste of a new brand, I would reply,
sheepishly, that I didn’t know since I was not a smoker. For some reason, my career there did
not flourish.

My sense, as an outsider now but
one who still works with and has contacts in Federal agencies, is that most
Federal employees are very grateful to have their jobs, but I think the
drumbeat of negative articles and stories does take its toll on morale and can facilitate
the development of a “siege mentality.” And, like many private sector firms, lots of Federal agencies have left
positions vacant for extended periods, meaning that the remaining employees
were often expected to pick up the slack. Most of the affected employees probably did not have a feasible
alternative to accepting the additional workload, such as taking another job or

In a July 12 Washington Post
article, Ed O’Keefe and Joe Davidson noted that “In these times of high
unemployment and economic uncertainty, federal workers are continuing a trend
of job satisfaction…though remaining skeptical on a key point: that career advancement in the
government is based on merit…”  (Author’s Note: Some of this skepticism was reflected
in responses to my two recent articles on pre-selection. See Office of Special Counsel Prosecutes HR Specialists for Allegedly Helping Agency Management Pre-select a Candidate and Office of Special Counsel Prosecutes HR Specialists for Allegedly Helping Agency Management Pre-select a Candidate: The Sequel.)

Extracting information from the latest
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) survey of Federal employees’ satisfaction
with their jobs and various aspects of how they see their agencies being
managed, the authors reported that “Three-quarters of respondents said they
feel a sense of personal accomplishment, 8 in 10 like the work they do, and
more than 90 percent think it is important.  In addition, two-thirds of respondents said they’re satisfied
with their pay.”

I think the first three of those
statistics are particularly significant. Throughout my Federal career, I believed that the work I was doing was
important, regardless of agency. The
National Park Service (NPS) is a well-known agency with high public approval, and
I never worked with more dedicated people than my NPS colleagues, but I encountered
equally talented and hard-working people with General Services Administration (GSA),
an organization which was pretty widely despised by other Federal agencies
(“Why can’t they ever get the building temperature cool enough in the summer
and warm enough in the winter?”) and virtually unknown to the general

Long considered a political
dumping ground, GSA turned a psychological corner, I thought, when Ray Kline, Associate
Administrator for Management Operations at the
prestigious National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA), became our administrator. During the tenure of Mr. Kline, who
later served as President of the National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA), many of us were able to take pride in our agency’s leadership as well
as in our work. I was saddened to
learn that Mr. Kline passed away this past April after an exemplary career –
and life.

I also believe it is very
important to like the work you are doing. In my own career, I really enjoyed human resources (HR) work – some
functions more than others – but I only loved the work I did after my Congressional
Fellowship built a bridge which allowed me to cross over to the natural
resources side of the National Park Service. It would have been unseemly to complain
about getting paid to: visit national parks; help protect their unique
resources; work with and for some truly remarkable people; talk about our
program with Congressional staff; and represent the NPS at Air Force Regional
Airspace & Range Council meetings around the country, where I quickly
learned that agencies which often seemed on the surface to have conflicting
missions and objectives could work together cooperatively and even become
partners and friends. 

In point of fact, I could not wait
to get up in the morning and get started with my natural sounds preservation
work. I would have done that job without
pay, although I was careful never to let my employer hear those words. My enthusiasm for the work was shared
by all of my associates, and even the inevitable setbacks couldn’t keep us down
for long. We also had a common
vision of our mission, even when we argued, which we often did – sometimes
heatedly – on the question of how best to accomplish it.

And, in terms of feeling a sense
of personal accomplishment, every night I felt the contentment of believing I
had done something positive that day for a park or for the national park system
as a whole. While others would
have to judge whether that feeling was reality-based or delusional, I
understood the wisdom of Chinese philosopher Confucius’ saying:  “Choose a job you love, and you will never
have to work a day in your life.” 

The statistics quoted above by
Messrs. O’Keefe and Davidson reflect a gap between liking one’s work and
believing it to be important, on the one hand, and a sense of personal
accomplishment on the other. The
specific factors related to the lower percentage of employees who feel a sense
of personal accomplishment were not listed, but I would be surprised if they
didn’t include an employee’s view of her/his supervisor, co-workers, and agency

The lowest number in the Washington Post article about Federal employee
job satisfaction was the two-thirds who were satisfied with their pay. The late psychologist, professor, and
management guru Frederick Herzberg, who introduced the concept of job
enrichment and the Motivation-Hygiene theory, considered pay and benefits
to be one of the “hygiene” factors – in other words, raising an employee’s
salary could cause her/him to move, at least temporarily, from dissatisfied to
less dissatisfied, but could not motivate the employee. Professor Herzberg considered the
principal motivators to be achievement, recognition, the work itself,
responsibility, promotion and growth. 

I have no argument with his list of motivators, but I think some people are motivated by money, as a means of
living well, a method of “keeping score,” etc. Bernie Madoff and fellow former Chief Executive Officers and
current prison inmates come to mind as examples. But whether or not you buy into Professor Herzberg’s theory
on pay, I would guess that most of the one-third of Federal employees who are not
satisfied with their salaries are either not sufficiently disaffected to leave
or cannot find a job in another sector of the economy which would increase
their pay.

As for how the American public
views Federal employees and Federal jobs, I have read enough lately about the
subject to get a clear sense that many worried private sector employees, and
probably most every unemployed and under-employed worker in the U.S., would
give their eye teeth, and probably some other body parts, if necessary, to have
a Federal job about now.

The question of whether and to
what degree Federal employees are underpaid or overpaid vis-à-vis their private
sector counterparts has been debated for decades, with each side offering
various surveys and statistical analyses to support its point. Perhaps some day there will be a salary
comparison so definitive as to end the debate, but I am not holding my breath, particularly
since I think the argument goes beyond metrics. However, assuming for the sake of argument that Federal
employees are currently widely viewed as being overpaid, I think it is
particularly important to make American citizens feel they are getting consistently
excellent service from Federal agencies, which I’m not sure is the prevailing
sentiment at the moment. Drawing
an admittedly crude analogy, let’s suppose that Leonardo DiCaprio gets paid $20
million per film. I think that’s crazy,
but then I watch him in Blood Diamond and Body of Lies and his performances
are so good that my concern about how much he is being paid fades into the

Between perceived incompetence and
misconduct scandals, the Federal Government has been in the spotlight for all
the wrong reasons too many times in recent years.  For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
combined efforts with the White House (“Brownie, you’re doing a
heckuva job.”) and other agencies to make the
government look totally inept, and even uncaring, in the Hurricane Katrina
disaster in 2005. Similar
allegations have been raised in the British Petroleum oil rig explosion, which
killed 11 men on April 20, 2010, and the subsequent massive oil spill into the
Gulf of Mexico.   

And a series of misconduct
scandals has undoubtedly served to further undermine the public’s confidence in
Federal agencies, particularly when the public perceives that the affected
agencies are unwilling or unable to deal effectively with conduct which in a
number of cases can only be characterized as outrageous. 

A Washington Post article
published on October 10 stated that “Americans have a more negative view of
government today than they did a decade ago, or even a few years ago. Most say it focuses on the wrong things
and lack confidence that it can solve big domestic programs…”  In a new study done by the Post, the
Kaiser Foundation and Harvard University, “55 percent of Americans say the
government isn’t paying attention to the biggest issues,” and “Similar
percentages say the government does not use tax money wisely…” 

Perhaps the most worrisome
statistic from the standpoint of Federal employees is that 43 percent would
give the federal government a grade of D or F. Most Federal employee don’t have much control over the
mission or priorities of their agencies, but, by virtue of the way they perform
their jobs, they can often have a significant impact on the public’s perception
as to how well the agencies are performing.

In part two, I will address some
high-profile recent misconduct scandals and will speculate about their overall
impact on the Federal Government. 

© 2016 Steve Oppermann. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from Steve Oppermann.

About the Author

Steve Oppermann completed his Federal career on March 31, 1997, after more than 26 years of service, virtually all in human resources management. He served as Regional Director of Personnel for GSA and advised and represented management in six agencies during his federal career. Steve passed away after a battle with cancer on December 22, 2013.