Federal agencies rely on long term projections and workforce planning exercises to determine how best to adjust for both current and future needs.
Effective workforce planning is an important component of federal HR – allowing specialists to better understand their hiring needs both now and up to five years into the future.
Most workplaces strive for better diversity, establishing initiatives to create a more representative workforce and address potential barriers to inclusion. Nowhere is this truer than in federal agencies, which are guided by policy directives on the matter.
Management of human capital in a federal agency requires careful analysis of the workforce. From outside factors that create different demand scenarios to internal factors, like the average age and tenure of the workforce, workforce profile analysis allows you to better understand the impact that different events might have on your future needs.
Federal workplace diversity analysis is a process by which agencies in the Federal Government evaluate the current workforce to identify triggers that lead to barriers to diversity. Through annual reports produced by every agency organization to stay MD-715 compliant, gaps are identified in the diversity of the current workforce.
Every agency in the Federal Government is required to complete the same reporting for MD-715 compliance. Whether you have a dedicated team in your agency managing these reports every year or it’s a team effort,
All federal agencies are tasked with performing standardized reporting each year to meet MD-715 requirements. The tables included in the management directive are designed to help agencies identify potential triggers for gaps in representation, but in many agencies it’s difficult to get to that point.
On May 25, 2018, President Trump issued several executive orders that directly influence labor organizations for federal employees. Two of these orders in particular are designed to influence the relationship between labor unions and organizations.
There are many opportunities to use the vast stores of employee data in the Federal Government to evaluate potential issues and enact change at a large scale. But due to a lack of resources and systems to leverage these resources, many agency components are unable to do so. They focus more heavily on data collection and organization than they do analysis, and the result is a lack of data-driven decision making.
You can never truly replace the insights of a good manager working closely with their team, identifying weaknesses and coaching employees to improve. But in a large federal agency, it becomes increasingly difficult to rely solely on these one-to-one interactions. Without a plan to identify key positions and assess employees based on their proficiency in clearly defined skills they need to perform their job, gaps can start to appear that influence not only immediate performance but long-term needs.