The 2016 election has ended, Donald Trump is the president elect, and there is no doubt that Washington and the federal government will be getting a facelift. Of the multitude of campaign “promises” made by Trump along the campaign trial and subsequent weeks since his election, one constant has remained: his promise to institute a hiring freeze on the federal government within his first 100 days.
This course of action, is not only reckless but could lead to dangerous consequences. It is ill-advised not only for practical reasons, but because of the effect it will have on millennials—the very people the federal government are so desperately trying to enlist into its ranks.
{mosads}‘Millennials’: a singular term that connotes a group of individuals that is both the future of our country and its present problem—at least, according to the baby boomer generation. While the applicable age range is debatable, there is an unavoidable certainty that individuals 23 to 35 are the next country-leading, nation-building, policy-shaping players of tomorrow.
In late September, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) held a hearing on millennials in the federal workforce and how to best recruit our generation. With a witness panel comprised of representatives from OPM, GAO, DHS, and NASA, the Committee focused, in part, on the culture and environment needed to incentivize millennials to join a system that is often seen as too institutionalized and unrewarding.
It seemed as though they did this out of both curiosity and fear for the future. The senators—while genuinely interested in learning how to best recruit and retain the growing number of millennials prepared to enter the workforce—were fearful of the impending number of people leaving the workforce and the adverse effects it could have if not accounted for with new hires.
According to HSGAC, of the estimated 2.5 million civilians in the federal workforce 31% will be eligible for retirement by September of next year. If, in fact, all 31% retired it would leave a substantial hole in the federal workforce causing agencies to become slower, less reliable, and ineffective in performing their essential functions (not that many Americans would find that any different than how they operate today). Therefore, we, the millennials, the social media activists, the tweeters, the cell-phone obsessed, are the federal government’s greatest investment for the future. These descriptions are in no way meant to be derogatory—as many apply to myself—it is simply the reality we are surrounded by every day and the perception older generations have of us. Yes, we are the generation that is routinely tweeting, snapping, instagramming, and otherwise documenting our everyday lives, but while many see this as a hindrance to our ability to perform our civic duties, to grasp the overall picture, or conduct ourselves with any modicum of professionalism, I would argue that these are some of our greatest strengths.
You would be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with the proposition that millennials are one of the most connected generations we’ve ever seen. Advancements in technology and the surge of available social media platforms have allowed for not only the inception of information, but also its dissemination. These platforms allow millennials to remain both up-to-date and on the cusp of emerging events, policy changes, and developments happening both domestically and around the world. Having the skill and intuitiveness to navigate this new technological era is only a small part of the vast skill set we can bring to the federal workforce.
With a growing number of millennials attaining professional and graduate degrees in a myriad discipline, combined with our ability to efficiently and effectively make our voices heard, we are becoming a “threat” to the older generation. Don’t worry, no one is in jeopardy of being harmed. I am merely conveying the undeniable truth that change is coming. Not today or tomorrow, but I predict a major shift in the federal workforce is coming and it needs to be accepted. This shift will embody the age-old saying, “out with the old, in with the new.” This is by no means meant to sound as though I am ungrateful for all that has been provided us, but the reality is, the current career politicians and federal agency veterans need to begin stepping back, loosening the reigns, teaching, mentoring, and eventually, allowing us to lead ourselves into the future that we envision for ourselves. Thus, with the future integrity of federal agencies already coming into question as a result of Trump’s erroneous and short-sighted Cabinet nominations, he should hesitate adding gas to the fire by obstructing this necessary transition from old-to-new with his hiring freeze.
One of the best ways to recruit and retain millennials in the federal workforce is for the government to detach itself from its rigid hiring scheme, outdated ideas of what constitutes essential core skills, and a late twentieth-century conception of what the federal government should look like. The days of the pre dot-com era of governing are becoming a distant memory. We are one of the most diverse, complex, and dynamic generations prepared to enter the federal workforce. It is imperative that the federal government’s hiring focus shift to an applicant’s aptitude, adaptability, and ingenuity (i.e. forget the check list).
With our robust set of skills and levels of education, we can reshape archaic systems and business models to drive the country forward with innovativeness and ingenuity. Rather than adhering to a inflexible, checkbox system of matching skills to qualifications, the government should employ a totality approach. Federal employers should take into consideration an applicant’s education, experiences, and self-proclaimed skill set as a whole, and determine whether he or she can adapt, learn, and grow in a job rather than fitting into a predefined mold.
This, in part, would mean redefining each level of the GS pay scale to allow for the technical requirements to be less restrictive and allow for greater subjectivity. Rather than abiding by unyielding standards and rigid qualifications, agencies should create middle ground areas that provide applicants a greater chance at matching some, if not all, desired qualifications to fulfill the responsibilities/duties of the position. This middle ground will, I believe, entice and allow more millennials to be recruited into the federal workforce, feel accepted and valued, and therefore will entice them to remain and move upward or laterally across agencies.
Another part of the overall issue is USAJobs, the government’s central job portal. By forcing applicants to apply through this frustrating, slow, and cumbersome system for almost every federal position, the government dissuades those who are on the fence between the public and private sectors (the latter providing a swift and efficient hiring process). Allowing agencies and other federal entities to conduct direct hires would produce a more expedited process, and provide agencies greater control in acquiring the best and brightest talent.
The more flexibility the federal government has in matching their hiring practices to the private sector the better. It will decrease the on-the-fence mentality many develop, especially for millennials who are recent graduates and frantically searching for that first real job and looking to take the first thing offered. By taking note of and integrating the hiring practices of the private sector, the federal government can greatly improve its recruitment efforts and turn its attention then to retention.
It is my belief that these reforms—while not the biggest or the only changes that can be made—will breathe new life into countless federal agencies that are struggling to become more flexible and nimble. An agency and federal workforce that is dynamic and flexible in its hiring practice will result in innovative policies and rulemaking that will not be outpaced by the ingenuity of the twenty-first century.
Hum is a graduate of Albany Law School.
The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.