Email Sent to Federal Employees to List Accomplishments Last Week
The Trump administration is moving out with its effort to restructure the federal workforce. This has led to more surprises for a workforce environment that is not used to the approach of the current administration.
This is a posting on X sent out on Saturday, February 22nd:
It is from Elon Musk, the head of the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
Federal employees have been sent an email asking, “What did you do last week?” Employees are instructed to reply with five bullet points describing their accomplishments last week, excluding any classified information.
The deadline for replying is Monday, February 24 at 11:59 PM EST.
The message from Musk followed this posting on Truth Social by President Trump:
ELON IS DOING A GREAT JOB, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIM GET MORE AGGRESSIVE. REMEMBER, WE HAVE A COUNTRY TO SAVE, BUT ULTIMATELY, TO MAKE GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE. MAGA!
We do not know if the posting by Elon Musk was a direct result of Trump’s post or if it was coordinated with the President but they appear to be related.
Subsequently, Elon Musk sent out the following notice on X:
A large number of good responses have been received already. These are the people who should be considered for promotion.
Another post from Musk provides some insight as to why he sent the notice on Saturday:
The reason this matters is that a significant number of people who are supposed to be working for the government are doing so little work that they are not checking their email at all!
In some cases, we believe non-existent people or the identities of dead people are being used to collect paychecks. In other words, there is outright fraud.
Each agency will presumably determine how to implement the directive as some employees may not have been at work or circumstances that may justify an exception.
How will most people respond?
Here is another post with a response from Musk late last night:
A personal opinion: I would respond to the email if I were a federal employee and treat it as an opportunity.
Presumably, if I was productive, the response will take a short time, and my response will be well received. It will impress those who evaluate my work, and this will call attention to my work.
At a minimum, it will give me more time to evaluate what is happening in the federal workforce rather than face potential negative consequences. Maybe it would mean I would get promoted more quickly based on the second Musk post—particularly with so many others leaving government service.
Some will find the post irritating and react with anger or derision. This may just be a way to evaluate how people respond. If you do not respond, or respond with derision, it raises the question of whether you were working at all.
Or, perhaps, you will appear to be a person who is staying at work to rebel against the system and continue to act or perform as you have in the past. You may be looking forward to challenging the system with grievances and appeals and demonstrating out on the Mall or elsewhere to show your solidarity with those who are fighting the changes.
Treat this as a welcomed opportunity to show how much you accomplished (as you usually do) despite the confusion and chaos that may exist now. It may give you more opportunities than those who react with anger and complain about how insulting it is to have to report on what you have accomplished.
Creating a Performance Culture in the Federal Government
When the offer of deferred resignation was sent to employees in January, one of the statements about how the workplace would change was included in the “four pillars” for reforming the federal workforce. This is one of those four pillars outlined in the email sent to employees when the offer was made:
Performance culture: The federal workforce should be comprised of the best America has to offer. We will insist on excellence at every level — our performance standards will be updated to reward and promote those that exceed expectations and address in a fair and open way those who do not meet the high standards which the taxpayers of this country have a right to demand.
Readers who work for the federal government should note that the deadline for replying is Monday night by midnight. Also, “Failure to respond will be taken as a resignation.”
The directive to provide work reports is a much different approach than most in the federal workforce have experienced. If the goal is to identify poor performers who are then fired, that will open up appeals to the MSPB. Normally, performance standards are created with goals and objectives (critical elements), and most performance plans will not reflect these requirements.
Creating a performance plan takes time. The administration is trying to move much quicker than the usually slow, methodical approach of firing federal employees, and may not be resolved for months or years with various appeals filed. That is not how the administration wants to make changes in government.
A reduction in force (RIF) is probably coming to many agencies. How this latest requirement will integrate with that process remains to be seen.
A unique twist is assuming someone has resigned if he or she does not respond. This will probably generate a response from most employees, and it implies the termination of employment for those who do not respond, as they will be considered to have resigned.
Various reports said that some agencies have indicated employees should not respond or at least not respond yet to the email. Of course, federal employees are the ones with the most to lose but, if the agency has sent them information to hold off responding, they will have a chance to make a decision supported by agency management verifying the authenticity of the message.
The administration is clearly working on creating its version of a performance-based culture, with work to be done in an office instead of telework. From his first term in office, President Trump knew that he would encounter considerable resistance to change from what he referred to as the “deep state” and that resistance is active.
The approach also creates confusion among those in the federal workforce, which is generally used to events moving comparatively methodically and slowly.
If you are being urged to not respond at all, look out for your own interests. It will not be harmful to respond if you have something to report and it is useful to the agency. Use it to your advantage.
If others do not respond because they were advised not to do so, let them make their own decisions. Instead, demonstrate you are interested in the job, want to contribute to the mission of your agency, want to see the agency succeed, and you can be a valuable member of a team in your agency.
Perhaps the recent announcement was designed to make more people wish they had taken the deferred resignation offer and to quickly seek employment elsewhere. It may just be a way to weed out disgruntled people. We have seen comments from readers who make these observations: “I should have taken the buyout offer. I didn’t do that because I was advised not to. That was a mistake.”
Consider your own situation. Look out for your personal interests, your career, and your financial future. Make your own decisions on how to proceed.
Union Response
The unions will (and have) predictably responded with strong opposition to the latest news. Shortly after the email was sent, AFGE wrote:
Once again, Elon Musk and the Trump Administration have shown their utter disdain for federal employees and the critical services they provide to the American people.
It is cruel and disrespectful to hundreds of thousands of veterans who are wearing their second uniform in the civil service to be forced to justify their job duties to the this (sic) out-of-touch, privileged, unelected billionaire who has never performed one single hour of honest public service in his life.
AFGE will challenge any unlawful terminations of our members and federal employees across the country.
That clearly implies that the unions will be very busy filing new grievances, alleging unfair labor practices, or going to court to challenge this new requirement and defending employees who did not respond. It is not clear if this reporting on work performed will be a recurring requirement.
In the initial court issuances on lawsuits filed on the deferred resignation program and related issues, the decisions directed unions to file appeals in accordance with the Civil Service Reform Act. Generally, that would require filing an unfair labor practice allegation with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) instead of going to court.
The litigation is in its early stages. More will be forthcoming.
Enjoy the ride.
