Reforming the federal civil service is rapidly proceeding. While a court extended the period for federal employees to decide on accepting the deferred resignation offer, several executive orders on other civil service issues are moving forward at the same time.
Two of these were Reforming the Federal Hiring Process And Restoring
Merit To Government Service (“Restoring Merit”) and the Presidential Memorandum Hiring
Freeze.
A new notice from the Office of Personnel Management notes that the documents initiated the process of reforming the federal workforce to prioritize merit and excellence.
This recent directive from OPM to federal agencies reads, part:
Pursuant to the President’s direction in those executive orders (listed above), OPM is developing new performance metrics for evaluating the federal workforce that aligns with the priorities and standards in the President’s recent Executive Orders. To assist OPM in developing those metrics, no later than Friday, March 7, 2025, all agencies should submit data regarding their performance management plans and policies—including those contained in collective bargaining agreements—and identify any barriers to ensuring that 1) agency performance plans make meaningful distinctions based on relative employee performance and 2) the agency has the ability to swiftly terminate poor performing employees who cannot or will not improve.
As a step in implementing these Executive Orders, OPM has directed all agencies to submit the following information by Friday, February 7, 2025:
- All employees who received less than a “fully successful” performance rating in the past three years. With respect to each employee:
a. Name, job title, pay plan, series, grade, agency, component, and duty station;
b. Whether that employee is under or successfully completed a performance
improvement plan within the last 12 months;
c. Whether the agency has already proposed and issued a decision under Chapter 43
or 75, or equivalent procedures, and the outcome of any such decision; and
d. Whether the action is currently appealed or challenged and under what procedures
(e.g., U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, grievance-arbitration, U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, etc.), and any outcome. - Any OPM regulations, agency policies, or terms of collective bargaining agreements
applicable to the agency that would impede:
a. agency performance plans from making meaningful distinctions based on relative
employee performance; or
b. the agency’s ability to swiftly separate low-performing employees.
“All reports should be sent to [email protected] with the subject ‘Agency Report on
Performance Management.’ If you have any questions regarding these reports, please send a
message to [email protected].”
Previous efforts over the decades to change the merit system for federal employees have not had a lasting effect. This approach is different. It remains to be seen whether the final result will be more lasting.
Delay of Deferred Resignation Not Welcomed by Some Employees
The deferred resignation program is one way OPM is reducing the size of the federal government. As expected, federal employee unions have filed a lawsuit to derail the program. How this process will end up is unknown at this stage.
Some employees have expressed their consternation at unions purporting to represent them and resent the unions’ actions which may prevent them from accepting the government’s offer. As one federal employee wrote in an email:
I think it needs to be said the Union just messed up the Deal of a lifetime, they don’t represent everyone. I have 19 years 8 months of Federal government service. Where I come from a deal is a deal. A deal was offered I accepted and now someone “the Union” stick’s their head in and screws up the deal. Everyday (sic) they hold it up it’s one less day I can look for a different job or have administrative leave. Are they the “union going to pay me for that”.
Some employees have expressed their appreciation of union efforts to “require the government to articulate a policy that is lawful, rather than an arbitrary, unlawful, short-fused ultimatum which workers may not be able to enforce.” That quote is from an AFGE press release about the recent lawsuit filed against the deferred resignation offer.
One person, presumably a federal employee, wrote “most of the suits were filed in DC Federal Circuit because the vast majority of Judges (sic) were appointed by Democrat Presidents. Smart move in the Unions (sic) part. I also watched a few Federal Attorneys discuss this on the news tonight. They all agreed that the Union could tie this up in court for a long time. Another smart move.”
In effect, some do not want the changes and agree that the unions delaying these efforts in court for a long time will help the federal workforce prevent any significant changes from actually being implemented.
With about 60,000 federal employees reportedly accepting the deferred resignation offer from OPM, they may feel betrayed by organizations that exist to support federal employees. A backlash from those who accepted the “Deal of a Lifetime” was predictable.
The unions have a predicament. If their actions prevent a significant number from taking advantage of a favorable offer that lets them move on with their life and avoid RIFs and furloughs, these employees are not going to be loyal dues-paying union members. The unions have come down hard in supporting those who do not like the program, question its legality, its compliance with various rules and regulations, etc.
Presumably, at least some of these employees will be voicing their angry reaction to the unions in their agencies. Whether the unions will ignore the interests of these employees or try to assist them in any meaningful way while working to halt the program remains to be seen.
Why Does OPM Want This Information?
The directive does not state why the information has been requested or how it will be used.
Based on the presidential executive orders and memos to federal agencies, we can intuit the general purpose for seeking the information.
Removing a federal employee for performance deficiencies is not a quick or easy process. That was not the intent of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) when it was passed but that is how it has evolved.
Previous Efforts to Create Meaningful Merit System Did Not Meet Expectations: Will This Effort Succeed?
Once OPM has the information on employees “who received less than a ‘fully successful’ performance rating in the past three years”, and what the subsequent actions have been regarding these employees, OPM will decide how to proceed. It is likely they will find that many or even most of these employees are still working for the federal government.
That is not a new problem. Federal personnel experts have been aware of the problem for years, but it has not improved.
Finding out the extent of federal employees who have received low-performance appraisals will be a starting point. It is a common opinion that many federal employees receive a “satisfactory” rating without much regard for an employee’s actual work. Giving a satisfactory rating eliminates most grievances and appeals on the subject and allows the employee to keep “working” for Uncle Sam. They may not receive a promotion but they will continue to receive within-grade increases.
There have been proposals in the past to change the system and make it more effective in taking action against poorly performing employees. There are too many actual incentives to “let it ride” for meaningful action to be taken. The proposals generate new articles and headlines and gradually recede into a distant memory (or into the “swamp” as the Trump administration would see it).
The revolution that President Trump and OPM are pursuing may be different. This new directive is probably just the first small step in what will be a more complex process.
Once OPM has the information from agencies, there will be an effort to speed up taking action against poorly performing employees. Supervisors will be given more directives to take action instead of accepting poor performance as a factor of working in the federal government.
New directives (government-wide regulations) will likely tell agencies to eliminate sections of collective bargaining agreements that insert roadblocks to taking action against poorly performing employees. There may even be actions taken against supervisors who fail to take action to ensure competent employees are rewarded and poorly performing employees are fired.
Federal Hiring Plan
While the government is starting to take action to improve the system of requiring better performance, a related Executive Order will seek to hire employees likely to excel in improving government services.
As noted in the Executive Order:
Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and the Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), shall develop and send to agency heads a Federal Hiring Plan that brings to the Federal workforce only highly skilled Americans dedicated to the furtherance of American ideals, values, and interests.
Summary
There is no doubt more actions will be coming from OPM in the near future with regard to these executive orders as the agency is moving out to implement new policies and procedures in record time.
Those working at OPM and in other agencies will presumably be looking to see why so many past efforts to reform the effectiveness and efficiency of government have failed and try to avoid those same results. It is not an easy job or it would have been done. The Trump administration appears determined and approaches the problem in a different, more aggressive way than previous efforts.
It will be an interesting time to be working for the federal government!
