With an increase in the frequency of tattoos and body art in today’s workplace, many employers are struggling to balance policy against personal expression. According to a 2006 study by the University of Chicago and Northwestern University, nearly 50 percent of Americans between the ages of 21 and 32 have at least one tattoo or a piercing other than in an ear.

An article published last week by HR Executive Magazine suggested that employers treat the issue under an organization’s dress code policy. A legal advisor qouted in the piece suggests that consistency in enforcement and communication of such a policy ensures that no party is disenfranchised or perceives preferential treatment. Religious expression must also be factored into both the application and enforcement of policy, with most employers drawing the line at offensive material that may be categorized under harassment.

And this doesn’t just apply to civilian workforces. In spring of last year, the Army News Service reported that regulations regarding tattoos had been modified to aid in recruitment of personnel. Under Army Reg 670-1 (which governs the wear and appearance of uniforms), recruits and all soldiers are allowed to have tattoos on the neck and straight down behind an imaginary line from the jawbone. The policy further states that “Tattoos that are not extremist, indecent, sexist or racist are allowed on the hands and neck. Initial entry determinations will be made according to current guidance.”

As the younger generation continues to move up the corporate ladder, these policies may relax and/or go away altogether. Most advisors recommend that employees simply use common sense for their environment, but really it’s up to the individual to determine whether their freedom of expression is appropriately balanced against the demands of their current position.

And yes, I too have a tattoo (on my left shoulder).

Let’s keep the conversation going.

With several close friends and colleagues in the process of career changes, I thought a quick post on their labors would be in order. In what may be my shortest blog to date, let me summarize - job boards are useless!.

Although the reasons for my saber rattling are long, let me simplify in a step-by-step guide to today’s most prevalent process:

Step 1 - Company takes a painfully long effort to write a job description and define the characteristics for success with the hiring manager(s);
Step 2 - Position opens;
Step 3 - Recruiter blindly posts position on all job board sites;
Step 4 - Masses of individuals post to open job;
Step 5 - Time passes;
Step 6 - Hiring manager has lunch with a friend, who mentions a colleague who might be perfect for the job;
Step 7 - Time passes;
Step 8 - Hiring manager interviews the referred individual;
Step 9 - Recruiter finally looks through online applications but doesn’t have the domain expertise to translate matches for downselect;
Step 10 - Time passes;
Step 11 - Hiring manager hires former colleague;
Step 12 - Posting remains on job board even though position is filled.

My recommendation? Network, network, network. And if you’ve successfully landed a good position via a job board, please let me know so I can unravel the mystery. For the rest of you, pick up the phone (yes, the phone) and call the people you know.

Let’s keep the conversation going.

This is the title of the latest study released by the Partnership for Public Service, a bipartisan non-profit organization dedicated to Federal employees and their agencies. Research was conducted by PPS in conjunction with Grant Thornton, whereby 55 interviews were conducted with Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCOs - pronounced “Chicos”, as in “the man”) and other key HR leaders from 28 major Federal departments and other small agencies. The findings were released this morning at a forum attended by approximately 80 public sector, private sector and media this morning here in Washington, DC (myself included).

Eight major findings came out of the study:
1) HR and human capital related issues are considered front and center in today’s Federal environment.
2) The General Schedule (GS) pay system is outdated and needs to be modified.
3) Recruiting and hiring are increasingly too difficult for agencies.
4) Performance management is improving in pockets, but has a long way to go.
5) Skills among HR personnel are lacking.
6) The demographic gap between new Federal workers and pending retirees is increasing.
7) The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) get mixed reviews.
The HR Lines of Business (HRLOB) initiative, whereby intergovernmental service providers offer consolidated back-office functions, is met with cautious optimism.

During the Q&A portion of the forum, a very good panel comprised of Dr. Ron Sanders (Asst Deputy Director and CHCO, Office of the Director of National Intelligence), Marta Perez (CHCO, Department of Homeland Security) and Michele Pilipovich (Director of Human Resources, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation) were asked a series of questions. As an example, the panel was asked about the addressing the skills gaps among the ~20,000 HR professionals working in the Federal government. Sanders focused in three areas of need, namely “cultural anthropologist, systems architect and astrologist”, for HR needs to increasingly reflect the new world of diversity, be prepared to identify connective tissue via systems thinking, and apply foresight in planning for the future needs of the workforce and related agency goals. Perez agreed and spoke of a need for “forwardcasting”, and that the day-to-day transactional activities of HR personnel are limiting their ability to be consultative to the organization at large. Pilipovich provided a small agency perspective, adding that “mastering the basics [of Federal HR] can take years to develop”.

Although I have pages of other notes and findings, my overall impressions are that the CHCOs recognize that today’s employees have a choice and will not dedicate their life to public service. Instead, employees will “vote with their feet”, as Sanders put it, if the Federal government does not materially improve pay-for-performance, HR technology, opportunities for advancement, knowledge share/knowledge capture and service delivery. Another final note is that agencies are not only competing with the private sector for talent, but also battle one another for top candidates, leading some agencies into a perpetual backslide if they cannot find a means to circumvent current limitations to the HR offerings.

Let’s keep the conversation going.

Part of my usual morning routine is perusing some of the more popular news and information portals for interesting tidbits and unique approaches to the market. With coffee in hand and eyes a bit bleary, this is my way of staying connected to the community at large. As such, I’m a rabid consumer of data and enjoy reading about the successes of others. However, one thing I’m getting a bit concerned with is the growing number of self-described “aptitude”, “readiness” and/or “personality” quizzes that claim some scientific basis in primary research.

Today’s example comes from the Jobs section of Fortune Online. Go ahead - I’ll wait why you open another window. Scroll down and look toward the bottom left for the Quizzes section. With titles like What kind of manager are you? and What’s your EQ at work?, it’s tempting to test oneself. As you dive a level deeper, you’ll see a running total which gives you sense of how you’re performing.

This is complete and utter nonsense. These tests should be titled, How well can you read and determine what we want you say?, or perhaps Am I smarter than the person who wrote this?. Despite three painful semesters in aerospace, I’m no rocket scientist, but I can score perfectly on each. How? By gaming the system for the answers that are obviously what the author seeks in making her/his point.

As such, I don’t see the value of these instruments. If you want to get a real sense for positive psychological movements in your work or life, check out providers like Wellcoaches. If you want to learn how to game the system, there is plenty of online fodder to hone your skills.

Let’s keep the conversation (and testing) going.

Although it’s not garnering significant attention in the market, a significant battle has been brewing for the rights of Federal Competitive Sourcing.

Historically, federal agencies who desire to contract out the work of greater than 10 employees enter what’s known as an OMB Circular A-76 competition. In this process, the MEO - Most Efficient Organization - is deemed the victor, typically pitting an the Fed’s current workers against their commercial counterparts. Not surprisingly, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) has been unhappy with this process from its inception. The administration, however, feels that competition helps improve government regardless of the victor, and sees AFGE’s push for legislative modification as counter productive. On the commercial side we see contractors and consultants who have built business units on how to conduct A-76 competitions and the cost reductions associated with these public-private partnerships.

You now know the backdrop for the cagematch. Let’s meet the players:

1) The Bush Administration - The authors of A-76, the administration was quite unhappy to find that the House intended to make significant modifications to this process in the HR 2829. Their response?

“The Administration strongly opposes language in section 738 that unnecessarily delays, complicates, and undermines the use of public-private competition in determining the most efficient performance of commercial activities. Section 738 undercuts the level playing field for public-private competition by creating uneven protest rights. It also imposes intrusive data requirements concerning the provision of fringe benefits that fail to recognize the various ways contractors effectively provide benefits to their employees and marginalizes the consideration of quality in determining the best provider for the taxpayer. On a government-wide basis, competitions conducted over the last four years are expected to produce nearly $7 billion in savings, with the majority of savings to be achieved in the next 5-7 years. The House is urged to strike this language.”

Throw against the mesh-wire with a wimper, the administration was quickly sprawled out, unconscious, as the bill overwhelmingly passed the House.

2) AFGE - Turning it’s attention to the Senate, AFGE pulled out all the stops. And as of last Friday the 13th, AFGE declared themselves victorious by issuing the following statement.

“The Senate FY08 Financial Services Appropriations Bill, like the House bill, would provide federal employees in all federal agencies with the same appeal rights long enjoyed by contractors to have botched and biased privatization decisions reviewed by independent third-parties…..[and] would also eliminate the ability of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to tell federal agency career managers how many employees and which employees to review for privatization, and when to do so. It would also require that any decision by a federal career manager to conduct an OMB Circular A-76 review be made wholly independently of OMB.”

3) The Contractors - A no show in the public eye. Although one can imagine concerted efforts behind the scenes, neither the Contract Services Association nor the National Contract Management Association issued public statements.

So, it appears that more federal jobs will remain federal jobs, and more competitions will end in protest, likely protracting the process for competitive sourcing while shrinking interest from the commercial sector. Just another day here in Washington, DC.

Let’s keep the conversation going.

To demonstrate the sheer viral power of the internet, I’ve posted the message below, written just over one week ago. This is allegedly the “farewell” note sent by an exiting employee, formerly of JP Morgan Chase. Friends of the firm have confirmed that this is, in fact, real. It’s a testiment to how - if one so chooses - bridges can not only be burnt, but blown to pieces with nary a survivor. Enjoy!

Dear Co-Workers and Managers,

As many of you probably know, today is my last day. But before I leave, I wanted to take this opportunity to let you know what a great and distinct pleasure it has been to type “Today is my last day.”

For nearly as long as I’ve worked here, I’ve hoped that I might one day leave this company. And now that this dream has become a reality, please know that I could not have reached this goal without your unending lack of support. Words cannot express my gratitude for the words of gratitude
you did not express.

I would especially like to thank all of my managers both past and present but with the exception of the wonderful S__ H__: in an age where miscommunication is all too common, you consistently impressed and inspired me with the sheer magnitude of your misinformation, ignorance and intolerance for true talent. It takes a strong man to admit his mistake - it takes a stronger man to attribute his mistake to me.

Over the past seven years, you have taught me more than I could ever ask for and, in most cases, ever did ask for. I have been fortunate enough to work with some absolutely interchangeable supervisors on a wide variety of seemingly identical projects - an invaluable lesson in overcoming daily tedium in overcoming daily tedium in overcoming daily tedium.

Your demands were high and your patience short, but I take great solace knowing that my work was, as stated on my annual review, “meets expectation.” That is the type of praise that sends a man home happy after a 10 hour day, smiling his way through half a bottle of meets expectation scotch with a meets expectation cigar. Thanks T__!

And to most of my peers: even though we barely acknowledged each other within these office walls, I hope that in the future, should we pass on the street, you will regard me the same way as I regard you: sans eye contact.

But to those few souls with whom I’ve actually interacted, here are my personalized notes of farewell:

To P__ C__, I will not miss hearing you cry over absolutely nothing while laying blame on me and my coworkers. Your racial comments about J__ C__ were truly offensive and I hope that one day you might gain the strength to apologize to him.

To B__ A__ whom is long gone, I hope you find a manager that treats you as poorly as you have treated us. I worked harder for you then any
manager in my career and I regret every ounce of it. Watching you take credit for my work was truly demoralizing.

To S__ K__, you should learn how to keep your mouth shut sweet heart. Bad mouthing the innocent is a negative thing, especially when your
talking about someone who knows your disgusting secrets. ; )

To B__ M__ (Mr. Cronyism Jr), well, I wish you had more of a back bone. You threw me to the wolves with that witch B__ and I learned all too
much from it. I still can’t believe that after following your instructions, I ended up getting written up, wow. Thanks for the experience buddy, lesson learned.

D__ M__ (Mr. Cronyism Sr), I’m happy that you were let go in the same manner that you have handed down to my dedicated coworkers. Hearing
you on the phone last year brag about how great bonuses were going to be for you fellas in upper management because all of the lay offs made me nearly vomit. I never expected to see management benefit financially from the suffering of scores of people but then again, with this company’s rooted history in the slave trade it only makes sense.

To all of the executives of this company, J__ D__ and such. Despite working through countless managers that practiced unethical behavior, racism, sexism, jealousy and cronyism, I have benefited tremendously by working here and I truly thank you for that. There was once a time where
hard work was rewarded and acknowledged, it’s a pity that all of our positive output now falls on deaf ears and passes blind eyes. My advice for you is to place yourself closer to the pulse of this company and enjoy the effort and dedication of us “faceless little people” more. There are many great people that are being over worked and mistreated but yet are still loyal not to those who abuse them but to the greater mission of providing excellent customer support. Find them and embrace them as they will help battle the cancerous plague that is ravishing the moral of this company.

So, in parting, if I could pass on any word of advice to the lower salary recipient (”because it’s good for the company”) in India or Tampa who will soon be filling my position, it would be to cherish this experience because a job opportunity like this comes along only once in a lifetime.

Meaning: if I had to work here again in this lifetime, I would sooner kill myself.

To those who I have held a great relationship with, I will miss being your co-worker and will cherish our history together. Please don’t bother responding as at this very moment I am most likely in my car doing 85 with the windows down listening to Biggie.

Let’s keep the conversation going.