The good ones have more opportunities, so they don't take the BS and leave for better working conditions.
The larger the organization or more monopoly/monopsony position it has, the more these kind of games can be played.
*if not for money, then sufficient political capital such that you can win the next election. Or maybe you have a goal other than winning the next election.
The good ones already have had the opportunity to leave all along, and if they are good enough, they may be able to set up a home based position. Maybe government roles do not need high performers at scale like the private sector does.
Who would pay for a study like that? There's little chance it would yield positive results, and would likely just serve to cause embarrassment for the funder of said study.
As a taxpayer, I respectfully disagree; as someone who wishes the government was more efficient, I disagree; as someone who complains about poorly thought-through red tape and bureaucracy, I disagree; as someone who cares about enforcing regulations that set minimum floors on the safety of our food, transportation, and drugs, I disagree; as someone who cares about the money poured into basic and applied science research without expectation of profit, I disagree.
what suggests that's the criteria that will be used for any RIF? seems to me that if you are a low performer but toe the party line that you will be safer than someone that is seen as rocking the boat and constantly pushing back.
If you are good at your job and you are forced to return to office, you have other choices and you get another job.
If you don’t have other choices because you aren’t good at your job, you return to the office.
It’s the ultimate “Dead Sea Effect”.
https://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-...
> I think low preformers are going to get RIFed
Has the Trump administration ever made competence a requirement for employment? He wants RFK to be the head of health and human services