For over four decades, a 1981 consent decree effectively banned technical assessments in federal hiring due to fears of disparate impact lawsuits. This forced a reliance on self-reported skills, crippling the government's ability to evaluate technical talent. The recent reversal of this decree finally allows for modern, merit-based hiring.
Related Insights
The belief that simply 'hiring the best person' ensures fairness is flawed because human bias is unavoidable. A true merit-based system requires actively engineering bias out of processes through structured interviews, clear job descriptions, and intentionally sourcing from diverse talent pools.
The federal government is failing to attract young talent, with only 7% of its workforce being early-career compared to 23% in the private sector. This creates a significant risk as 44% of the workforce approaches retirement age, leaving a massive knowledge and experience gap that threatens institutional stability.
The federal government's performance management system is broken by grade inflation, with over 80% of employees receiving top ratings. This makes it impossible to differentiate performance, leading to bonuses being spread thinly across the board and failing to meaningfully incentivize top talent or address underperformance.
Don't hire based on today's job description. Proactively run AI impact assessments to project how a role will evolve over the next 12-18 months. This allows you to hire for durable, human-centric skills and plan how to reallocate the 30%+ of their future capacity that will be freed up by AI agents.
The controversy around David Sacks's government role highlights a key governance dilemma. While experts are needed to regulate complex industries like AI, their industry ties inevitably raise concerns about conflicts of interest and preferential treatment, creating a difficult balance for any administration.
Relying on moral imperatives alone often fails to change entrenched hiring behaviors. Quotas, while controversial, act as a necessary catalyst by mandating different actions. This forces organizations to break the cycle of inertia and groupthink that perpetuates homogenous leadership.
The federal government's rigid GS pay schedule traditionally links compensation to degrees and years of experience, barring skilled but non-traditionally qualified individuals from senior roles. The OPM is now eliminating these requirements to enable a merit-based system where skill, not credentials, dictates pay and position.
At the start of a tech cycle, the few people with deep, practical experience often don't fit traditional molds (e.g., top CS degrees). Companies must look beyond standard credentials to find this scarce talent, much like early mobile experts who weren't always "cracked" competitive coders.
The public sector's aversion to risk is driven by the constant external threat of audits and public hearings from bodies like the GAO and Congress. This compliance-focused environment stifles innovation and discourages the "measured risk" taking necessary to attract modern tech talent who thrive on cutting-edge work.
Traditional hiring assessments that ban modern tools are obsolete. A better approach is to give candidates access to AI tools and ask them to complete a complex task in an hour. This tests their ability to leverage technology for productivity, not their ability to memorize information.
