MR. KOJO NNAMDIFrom WAMU 88.5 at American University in Washington, welcome to "The Kojo Nnamdi Show," connecting your neighborhood with the world. President Obama is the CEO of the federal workforce, but what happens when he makes CEO kinds of moves? Last week the President announced a proposal to freeze federal salaries for two years, a decision he pledged would save $28 billion over the next half decade, something he said makes plain business sense. But the fallout for slimming down for efficiency sake can be a lot more complicated in the public sector.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIThe President's now being accused of helping to perpetuate myths that federal workers are overpaid and inefficient and that federal pay is intricately linked to the swelling budget deficit. Joining us to explore the logistical and the cultural challenges facing the federal workforce and its leaders and what the private and public sectors can learn from each other, Howard Ross, our regular diversity consultant and business coach. He's a principal at the firm, Cook Ross. Howard, always a pleasure.

INTERVIEWERGood to be back, Kojo.

NNAMDIMax Stier is also in studio, he's President and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Max, thank you for joining us.

MR. MAX STIERThank you for inviting me.

NNAMDIMax, you wrote earlier this fall that the President needs to embrace his role as Executive and Chief. Some might say the last week he took on that role and then some when he announced the pay freeze for federal employees. Where do you think that decision fits into your vision of how he should govern as Chief Executive Officer?

STIERWell, I don't think it actually was a good decision by a CEO. I think that the President obviously has a enormous challenging set of issues to address and we are in a big mess when it comes to our physical house. And I think clearly the President is right, that this is going to require shared sacrifice. But I think the issue is, how do we do it smartly and I don't believe that the decision to freeze pay is the right way to go, certainly not in isolation. There are changes that should take place to the pay system, but the freeze isn't one of them.

STIERWhat we really need is a more market sensitive system, something that's not at all what we have and the freeze is only likely to, frankly, make matters worse and not ultimately save that much money.

NNAMDIHoward Ross, I'd like to share a comment with both you and Max Stier from Colleen Kelly, president of the National Treasury employees union, which, by the way, has voted as vowed to block the pay freeze in Congress. She said, quoting here, "I would say that any CEO who would propose a pay freeze without consulting employees is not going to be a very successful CEO." Howard Ross?

MR. HOWARD ROSSWell, I think, certainly the timing of this and the way it was done raises lots of different issues in my mind in terms of the basic physiology of it. I mean, was this an act of the President controlling something that he could control because there's so much he can't control right now relative to the economy? I don't know, but it feels out of context. And one of the concerns that I have is that we already are in a place in our society where people who are working for the government are being almost demonized by people and made to seem as if they're more, you know, sucking on the teat of society rather than contributing as they are.

MR. HOWARD ROSSAnd I think that that has potentially really dangerous ramifications for us moving forward if we find that people are discouraged from public service and coming into government positions.

NNAMDIMax Stier, how was the fallout for this kind of decision more complicated than a decision by a private business leader to do something similar?

STIERWell, clearly, this is being done in a larger context. There is, obviously, some very high stakes negotiations that are going on around tax cuts, around benefits for long term unemployment, around star tree. And, I think, you know, that the President obviously has to consider how this plays into that larger landscape in a way that no private CEO even comes remotely close to having as complicated a set of constituencies and political actors that they have to address. That all said, I think back to your earlier point about being the Chief Executive for the federal workforce. I don't believe that this decision was made in the best interest of the federal workforce.

STIERI do believe that the federal workforce, like the President said, is going to be the first and most willing to make the shared sacrifice. But I don't think the real case has been made as to how that this particular decision fits into a larger scheme of sacrifice that's going to get us to where we need to go.

NNAMDILet's see what our listeners think about this. How do you feel about President Obama's decision to freeze pay for federal workers and what effect do you think it will have on the federal workforce? You can call us 800-433-8850. Send us an e-mail to kojo@wamu.org. A tweet at kojoshow or go to our website, kojoshow.org, and ask your question or make your comment there. Howard Ross, it seems that part of what the President is up against here is that workers carry expectations into jobs in the public sector, particularly the federal government, expectations about stability and benefits. When you look at what he faces as a business coach, how might you recommend he manage those expectations?

ROSSWell, I think, one of the things that we need to recognize is that it's almost a false comparison to even compare working for the government to working in private industry. I mean, the dynamics are so different and as Max was talking about, from the Presidents standpoint, but also from the standpoint of workers, you know? And so, you know, the notion that the public has right now of sort of that this is apples to apples is problematic. I mean, I know I've done quite a bit of work, probably at 10 different agencies over the course of the last year who I've even spoke -- either spoken to or actually been working in.

ROSSAnd the myth that we have that these are folks who are just kind of going along to get along or something like that is just ridiculous. I mean, these are hard working people, a lot of times people, in my experience, most of them could get higher paying jobs on the outside. There are people who have made a determination in some cases for stability, that's true. And in making that determination, they've taken less pay than they might get in the market. And so for the President to change the equation so instantly by saying, well, wait a second now, we know you made this decision to come inside. You've sacrificed some financial remuneration in order to get stability.

ROSSBut sorry about that stability thing. We're now not going to be giving you the dependable pay raises that your cost of living increases -- changes the equation in mid stream. And, I think, that's problematic and it creates a -- it can create an environment of low morale and one in which people begin to question whether or not public service is right for them at a time when we need our smartest people going into public service.

NNAMDIHoward Ross is a diversity consultant and business coach. He's a principal at the firm Cook Ross. He joins us in studio to talk about federal workers and the comparisons made to workers in the private workforce in general and in particular, the pay freeze that President Obama is imposing on the federal workforce. He's joined in studio by Max Stier, President and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Max Stier, another quote, this one from Representative John Boehner of Ohio, the incoming house speaker who, quoting here, says, "A pay freeze won't do much to rein in a federal bureaucracy that added hundreds of thousands of employees to its payroll over the last two years."

NNAMDIIn yesterdays Washington Post Outlook section, you set out to dispel five myths about the federal workforce. One of them is just how large the federal workforce is when you have the incoming house speaker claiming that it has expanded by hundreds of thousands during the course of the past year. How accurate is that?"

STIERIt's not accurate. And indeed, as you suggest, the workforce, in overall terms, is really the, you know, effectively the same size as it was during the late 1960s, during President Johnson's great society effort.

NNAMDII think the population, however, has grown a little bit since then.

STIERJust a 100 million. So in relative terms, the federal government workforce has shrunk in absolute terms. It's about the same size and obviously you've seen some up and downs since then. In fact, the greatest in recent times reduction was during the Clinton years. Even during Ronald Reagan's presidency, the federal workforce grew a little bit. But the key here is that the American people really don't have any real sense about what their workforce is doing for them or what's happening with it. And that's a real problem...

NNAMDISo in other words, you can say just about anything about the federal workforce and people will believe it, even if you say it's grown by hundreds of thousands in the past two years?

STIERI think that's almost correct. I think you can say anything bad about the federal workforce. It's not clear to me that you could say anything good and people would believe it. And, I think, it is important to recognize that it isn't perfect. I mean, this is -- there are a lot of problems in the government and one of the reasons why these negativiness (sic) stick so well is that what we hear about our government are the problems. And we should hear about those problems whether it's a failure in response to hurricane Katrina or the Gulf oil spill.

STIERWhatever it may be, we need to hear about those problems. But what we don't hear about are the numerous successes that are going on concurrently and so it's a very one sided story.

NNAMDII'll get to that in a second. But one of the other things that you describe as myths about the federal workforce in your piece yesterday, that we've really been talking about with you and Howard already federal workers are overpaid compared to their private sector counterparts. You say it isn't true and even at that, that that whole debate misses the point.

STIERCorrect. And unfortunately and this is one of the reasons why this is hard, is that this is not an -- there's nuance in this issue. There are a lot of federal employees that are underpaid relative to private sector comparables. And you look at whether it's the scientists or the doctors in the VA or, you know, the lawyers trying to regulate Wall Street. And they're going -- they could easily leave their jobs and make a whole heck of a lot more money. There are certainly places in the federal workforce that are relatively overpaid against the private sector.

STIERYou're going to find those more likely amongst the blue collar or clerical workers. So it is a little bit more of a mixed nuance story. The bigger problem, though, is that we have a system that does not permit the kind of market sensitivity that we all ought to want. It's a system that was designed in 1949 for a very different government. It requires lock step, pay increases, classifications of jobs across the board. It doesn't permit the kind of real comparison we need. Now, all that said, the other issue we face is that we need more information.

STIERSo the general comparisons and, you know, the government's own shows a 24 percent discrepancy where the public sector is making less than the private sector. Those general comparisons don't make a whole lot of sense because they don't really tell you, job by job, what you need. The old, you know, the old story of Bill Gates walking into the bar with 30 other people and then all of a sudden everyone has an average income of a billion dollars or whatever it might be doesn't mean a whole lot.

STIERWhat you really want to be able to do is understand, are we paying that VA doctor what we need to get, no more no less, to get the kind of treatment we want for our veterans? Do we pay, you know, the scientists at NIH, no more no less what they need in order to find cures for cancer? Whatever it might be, that ought to be the actual mantra that we're looking to solve.

NNAMDIWell, from a cultural standpoint, Howard Ross, I was one -- I for one was surprised by Max Stier's revelation in the Outlook piece yesterday that there are 50 current or former government employees who are Nobel Prize winners. Why is it that, given that outstanding statistic, we still maintain the perception, well, especially outside the Beltway here, that federal workers are somehow inefficient and overpaid?

ROSSWell, it's something that you and I've talked about many times, Kojo. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. I think one of the challenges is that the government and government workers, by extension, are the whipping children today of a certain element of our culture which can, you know, build a lot of capital simply by railing against government. As if government is this huge, you know, megalith building somewhere that we're talking about and not people.

ROSSAnd the reality is that it has potentially huge, huge ramifications. I mean, you know, I was in Singapore not long ago doing some work and I'm not suggesting that there are models wouldn't necessarily use, but it's an interesting comparison. In Singapore, they begin to determine, between ages of seven and 10, who are the brightest and most able children and start steering them towards government service. That's considered to be the prime place for people to work. People who work in government service at all levels, not just the most senior level people become Prime Minister or whatever, but at all levels, people who go into government service are considered to be the best and brightest.

ROSSAnd are revered for the fact that they're willing to go there, rather than to work in the corporations around there. And so as a result of that, there's a mindset which says that if you're really smart and you really want to make a contribution to your society, you do that by serving the public by going into government service. Now, what happens when we begin to say to people that you're not under -- you have no control over your own economic destiny? You're going to be treated as if there's something wrong with you. Like you said, you're less than competent, you're lazy, et cetera, et cetera, for going to work for the government. And I could go on, but the point is clear. I mean, at some point, who wants to sign up for that? Why would anyone sign up for that? And unfortunately, we're not thinking about that.

NNAMDIWe've got to take a short break. I'd like all of you who have called to stay on the line because a lot of our callers clearly agree with President Obama's decision. We'd like to hear from you. You, too, can call us. The number is 800-433-8850. How do expectations compare between people taking jobs in the public sector as opposed to the private sector? 800-433-8850. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.

NNAMDIHoward Ross is with us. He's a diversity consultant and business coach who visits with us regularly. He's a principle at the firm Cook Ross. Today, we're talking about federal workers. And joining Howard in studio is Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Max had an op-ed piece yesterday in the Outlook section of the Washington Post, trying to dispel some of what he says are myths about federal workers. But it's on to the telephone. So let's start with Steve on Route 27. Steve, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

STEVEGood afternoon, Kojo. I really appreciate your show and the service that you do for our communities. So thank you for that. I just wanted to state that I do agree with the president's position here. My company is entering its third year of no raises for anyone. And it was either that or laying off people so we looked around and we were grateful to have jobs. And I think we should share the pain a little bit with government employees, who I do applaud and I work with on a business side frequently. And there are some brilliant people and dedicated people and I'm not one to put down the government employees. But there's a lot of pain out there and it doesn’t hurt to share that a little bit more and maybe it will help the economy.

NNAMDIMax Stier, sharing the pain?

STIERI think that, in general, the notion that we all have to tighten our belts isn't exactly the right one, but I think we want to do it in a smart way. If you look historically at what's happened to the federal government pay raises relative to the private sector, by and large, you see a pretty clear pattern, which is when times are good, you see the private sector market outstripping the raises that the public sector folks are getting. And then, when times are bad, frequently you may see a government either just equaling what's going on in the private sector or very occasionally doing slightly better.

STIERThe issue really shouldn't be how do we make sure that everybody feels pain, but rather how do we get ourselves out of this mess. And in order to do that, I believe the federal workforce plays an integral role. We need to make sure -- again, we're not paying more or less than we need for the talent to address our problems that the government can deal with. And the across the board pay freeze doesn't get us there. We may need to pay more for folks that can deal with cyber security issues. We may need to pay less for some other occupation. I can't say here and now what that should be. We ought to be able to say it, but that would be smart, strategic uses of our resources, not across the board.

NNAMDIHoward Ross, let me raise a broader cultural question with you that has come from comments I've heard from federal workers over the past few days. The federal government bailed out Wall Street with our tax dollars. Now, we see Wall Street is recording bigger profits than it has ever recorded in history in the last quarter, getting ready to pay out fat bonuses again. And what we hear from the president is we're going to freeze the pay of federal workers. Culturally, in the broad cultural context, how should we interpret that?

ROSSWell, I think, very clearly it's part of a broader cultural context that -- which is becoming this economic class warfare that's dividing. I mean, we've now got -- I think the latest statistic I heard is that it was at the top 1 percent of earners in our country have close to 22 percent now of the national income, which is more than the bottom 50 percent combined. You have a shrinking middle class, which everybody knows about. We hear about this all the time and that's largely -- a lot of those people are people who are coming from the work groups we're talking about.

ROSSAnd the question becomes kind of like I said at the beginning. And as you know, Kojo, I mean, I like President Obama. I'm not, you know, one of these people who's constantly criticizing him. But I think what the challenge is, is this, as Max was saying, a thoughtful, strategic way of looking at things or is it a quick fix? Something that's under my control that I can do quickly so that I can look like I am doing something that doesn't really have much of an impact in the long run, but that can continue to feed that sense of class warfare.

ROSSI mean, if people out there were yelling in support of the federal government workers, if we had a human cry out there that said federal government workers are being mistreated or in some way we need more federal workers, would the White House be able to do this? I mean, would they even throw it out there? But in an environment in which the people, who are mostly in opposition, are targeting these kinds of folks, it becomes kind of an easy low hanging fruit to toss into the mix.

NNAMDII got an e-mail from Jen who says, "I've been laughing out loud regarding reading federal workers' comments in the paper about the big pay raises, bonuses in the private sector. Are you kidding? I've worked in the private sector my entire adult life. In the past several years, we've received 2 percent pay raises, if any at all, bonuses, no, job security, no, guaranteed pension, no, low cost health care upon retirement, no. It's the federal workforce that is way out of touch, not the private sector." What do you say in response to Jen, Max Stier?

STIERLook, again, this ought not to be a question of, you know, us versus them. At the end of the day, the federal workforce is our workforce. These are folks that are being paid for by American tax dollars. And what we ought to be asking is not what we can cut or how do we make them feel the same that we do, but rather how do we make sure we get real value for our money? How do we make sure that we have folks in there that are the best people who are solving our really most challenging problems? And trying to, you know, have a litmus test of saying that federal workers should experience the exact same thing in gross that the private sector, doesn't get you there.

STIERAgain, these broad comparisons are not helpful. A lot of people are suffering here. We got Social Security benefits that a lot of folks need. You know, federal workers have to make sure that's going up. We want to make sure that you have people in the government who are there to help people in need. And you want to have the very best doing it. And we need to work real hard and a lot harder than we've done so far in getting there.

NNAMDIOn to Woodbridge. On to Richard in Woodbridge, Va. Hi, Richard.

RICHARDYeah, all right. Thank you for giving me the chance. My point is -- I just want to make a comment. I think this decision by the president to freeze is merely like a drop in the ocean. It's not going to really do that much to solve the problem that we got. Just like one of your guests said, it looks like he's, you know, targeting the easy ones. I think the main point is discuss this boost to (unintelligible) I think is one of the most biggest and that can really make some sort of impact, he’s giving up on that -- and focusing on, you know, cutting of the federal, you know, employee -- freezing their pay, which I think is not really going to make that much impact. Even though I do accept that as a businessman or as anybody, sometimes when things are not going right, you want to make some tough decisions.

RICHARDBut this is not, just like you said, you know, one of your guest is saying, you have to be strategic. You can look into the federal workforce and probably some -- some may need to be, you know what I’m saying, freeze -- or, you know, something about it, but not all the federal forces. You know, and I think President Obama should be stronger about some of these policies. Just like he said he's going to do away with the Bush tax cut, he should have been strong on that point, stand firm on it, and do something that would make a stronger impact than firing some federal employees. So I think is not very that great a policy or, you know, decision.

NNAMDIA piece in the USA Today by David Jackson and Oren Dorell says Obama said his proposal would save $28 billion over five years, a tiny percentage of the total federal debt, now pegged at $13.7 trillion. Richard doesn't believe it's going to make that much of a difference. Richard, thank you very much for your call. I'd like to share with you an e-mail we got from Lisa who says, "The federal government needs smart people and you need to provide incentives for the smartest people to want to work there. I think I read in The New Yorker a few weeks ago, a third of Harvard senior class last year bolted for jobs in finance.

NNAMDII'm not saying that a Harvard degree automatically qualifies you as the best and brightest, but it's a good barometer for the level of education one receives. And I could be mistaken, but I think a lot of these people used to think a lot harder about working for NASA or NIH or the State Department. How do we get back to that?" It follows up on the point you were making earlier, Howard Ross.

ROSSI think it's a -- I think, you know, Lisa's right on target. I mean, and it's not just the federal government that suffers from this. If you think about it, we're capping physician salary. So all of a sudden, you know, people who would have gone into medicine because they're interested in it as a career and have financial thoughts about that are questioning that. In lots of different areas, it's happening. Of course, except in the financial market. And the financial market is still a place where if you want to make money, you can do that. And so given -- the whole basis of our capitalist system is that people can be motivated by money unless we create a way for people to have some stability to balance out the fact that they're giving up finances.

ROSSI mean, you know, this is somewhat of a personal conversation for me. My son just moved to Washington from Boston, where he was a private practice immigration lawyer, to take a job in Homeland Security. And in doing that, sacrifice some income, came to work for the federal government. Now, you know, people are going to do less and less of that if they don't get the stability to go along with it.

NNAMDIPlease, I know we have a number of calls. Hold for one more second because since we're comparing private and public sectors, Max Stier, how would you compare the incentive structure in the federal government versus the private sector? Are workers given the same kinds of incentives to perform and remain loyal?

STIERNot at all. And I think this is another area where there's opportunity for improvement. We don't have a very performance sense in the system. And to take a step back, one of the real challenges that makes it harder to do that is that you don't have the dollar as your ultimate metric of success. Measuring performance in the public sector and government is a lot harder. So if it's at Department of Homeland Security, you know, how do you measure your son's contributions, specific contributions? If you're a lawyer in a law firm, you can measure what they bring in, you know, business...

ROSSHow much of a rainmaker are you?

STIERAbsolutely. So I think there's a -- it's harder, but more -- and a lot more work really needs to be done on measuring performance effectively in government. But what you see in government, by and large with respect to the compensation system, is it is not very performance sensitive. And I do think that's an issue. The ultimate irony is that this pay freeze will actually probably hurt those agencies that are already more performance sensitive than those that are not, because there are some entities of government, like the intelligence community, that have moved more towards trying to align, you know, compensation and performance. In those circumstances, not having the increase will mean that they can't do anything more for their workforce.

STIERWhereas for those that can expect to see improvement simply on their, you know, time in gray, time in government, they're going to be getting some benefit by simply being there. And so that freeze will not be -- it's not good, but it's not going to be as harmful there. But it's a real challenge for the public sector and one in which -- you know, again, if we're going to invest as a CEO, that's a place you should be investing, making the system more market sensitive, making it more performance sensitive, being clear about what we're trying to achieve and how we hold ourselves accountable. That's the work that ought to be done.

NNAMDIIndeed President Obama, before he was inaugurated, Max, we talked about what you described. And this gets back to the point Howard and our e-mailer were making earlier. We talked about what you described as his mission to make government more cool again, his mission to attract top talented federal workforce. How do you think he's measured up?

STIERWell, look, I mean, I think there is definitely, you know, some places where there has been real improvement, for example, the hiring process. It's by no means fixed, but there's a real prioritization of trying to make that happen. And there's been some progress made. That's a big deal. It's still the case, however, that those Harvard students -- it's not just the third that go into finance. But I mean, I was up at the, you know, Harvard Business School two weeks ago and there's a joint Harvard Business School masters in public policy joint degree. You have to get into the Harvard Business School and the Kennedy School of Government in order to get in this program.

STIERAnd those folks are very much public sector inclined and they can't find jobs in the government. And it really is fundamentally a leadership challenge. The top of the house, by and large, does not -- meaning the Cabinet secretaries, the agency heads, they do not see taking care of talent as being one of their priorities. That is one area which is vastly different than the private sector and it's a real problem. And I would say that if you're going to change one thing, that's where you would need to -- you'd have the biggest impact if that changed.

NNAMDIThe story I know is my cousin who was an engineer at NASA who left NASA to go work for a NASA contractor.

ROSSWell, right, that happens. That happens often, too. But I think it's important - and Max talks about this in his column, the terrific piece he wrote yesterday about this. There are ways to do this rationally. There are ways to do this strategically. I mean, he mentions the reinvent the government process that Clinton and Gore went through, for example, where they cut out, you know, 350,000 jobs in a decade. I mean, that makes more of a measurable impact on the expenditures of government than it does to come in and just start hacking off people's pay raises. And I think the problem is -- and, again, Kojo, this is something you and I talked about so many times. It's a function of sort of a thoughtless society where we're knee-jerk reacting to the thing.

ROSSAnd I'm not saying the president only in this case. I mean, in general, the attitude about these kinds of things. Somebody says government is spending too much and people in government pay too much. Everybody goes running down that road without even stopping to say, show me the data. You know, show me the information that says that's true.

NNAMDIYeah, we talk about means.

ROSSThat's exactly right. It becomes the new mean, the new thing everybody believes. Why? Because we all believe it.

NNAMDIHere's James in Washington, D.C. James, you're on the air. Go ahead please.

JAMESGood morning. Hi, Kojo. I'm really enjoying the discussion and so I just want to say thanks, you know, to your guests because I think they pretty much have covered the bases. But what I wanted to know is whether or not -- this is pretty much, as I understand it, a done deal, as far as, you know, the president. Because I'm sure the Congress will go along with it. But I was thinking with regards to the hiring, when you talked about the numbers in dealing with how much of what actually saved, I'm sure it does seem like it was a knee jerk reaction because it was really concern about that. What are some other things that the president can put into that, you know, to, you know, really talk about the federal workforce now that the emphasis is on us. What more can be done as far as saving is concerned?

NNAMDIThen you say the emphasis is on us, I'm assuming -- I'm concluding that you are a member of the aforementioned federal workforce.

JAMESTrue.

NNAMDIMax, talk a little bit about what you see as the two or three more important things, most important thing that the president can do to attract more talent, particularly young talent to the federal workforce.

STIERWell, the first thing you could do is hold his own leadership team accountable to spending time on it so that they were actually prioritizing it. And, you know, like any organization, you take your cue from the top. And if the top pays no attention to, you know, recruiting talent and the care and feeding of that talent, then, you know, no one else is going to either. And by default, it becomes the, you know, the HR function's responsibility. And in the federal government's case, that becomes a transactional process that doesn't succeed in actually getting the work done.

STIERSo, number one, you got to make that a priority. And, frankly, you got really useful information these days with a survey of federal workers that provides you that universal metric about what's actually happening in each agency and each sub-agency that he can hold his leadership accountable for. Secondly, we need to make a better business case about why this matters. I mean, I don't think that, again, we've seen the kind of data that we need in order to demonstrate how when you have better talent, you actually have better performance. And being clear about what those outcomes are that we're trying to achieve and how this is really very much tied to that.

STIERAnd, you know, the list could go on and on from there. I just came back from a conference amongst a lot of leaders primarily from the HR field and you hear about how there are just endless numbers of systems that are being used. We ought to have, you know, again, some centralized approach to how it is that we're doing the stack in the woods, the sort of basic transactional work, which we don't have right now in government. And fundamentally, we need a, you know, a government-wide strategy. You know, each agency is at this on their own and we need, you know, one strategy for the whole government and that would help a great deal, too.

STIERIf I could, I do want to come back to the reinventing government piece because I do think that was an important focus to think about customer relations. But on the workforce side, that 350,000 person reduction was not actually done strategically. It really was more of a Bean County exercise. We're going to get down to the smallest head count that we need. And, again, this is like a toothpaste tube. You squeeze on one end, it's going to come out someplace else. And what we've seen in recent times is enormous, enormous growth in contracting. And so the dollars get spent, they just get spent in a different way. And frequently, they get spent in larger amounts.

ROSSTake privatization of the military.

STIERAbsolutely.

NNAMDIHere is George in Centreville, Va. George, your turn.

GEORGEYeah. It seems to me a lot of this problem that you're having is the public's misperception. Ever since we lost the Fairness Doctrine, when Ronald Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine, the public see the headlines on the media and they don't understand what is going on. So we -- I think the fundamental thing is to restore the Fairness Doctrine.

NNAMDIWhen you say, restore the Fairness Doctrine, you mean in media?

GEORGEIn media, absolutely. You've got raving lunatics like Rush Limbaugh, and Savage and Malkin and they just put out what they call information or something that people can run with. It's a headline. It's nothing more than that, and people do not understand what is actually going on because of people lying to them.

NNAMDIHoward Ross, that brings us back to the broad -- that brings us back, George's point, to the broader cultural discussion about the kind of political environment we're in, the kind of political culture we seem to have developed, in which you've got to have enemies in order to be able to make a political statement, and for a lot of people, the federal employee is now the enemy.

ROSSRight. Well, I mean, I think there's no question that -- that the shift in media has contributed to this, and George's mention of the Fairness Doctrine is one piece of that. But of course the advent of cable news and the internet all contribute to it as well. And the Fairness Doctrine or not, that would be continuing to proliferate -- and I was just talking to somebody recently about the fact when I remember 60 Minutes years ago put on Point Counterpoint.

ROSSAnd it was this big thing, you know, that they were having this active debate between two different sides. And of course Saturday Night Live later, you know, played around with it and everything else. But, you know, we grew up in a news environment where 90 percent was news that was at least purporting and trying to be balanced, trying to be objective.

ROSSAnd then another 10 to 15 percent that said, all right, here's an opinion, here an opinion, there. Now those numbers have reversed. I mean, you've got to search to find news where you just get the information and where you don't get it filtered through a particular size viewpoint.

ROSSAnd when you start watching news based on which side you're believing in, so if I start because the only news I watch is Fox, or the only news I watch is MSNBC, then the facts I get are so filtered by all that, that nobody really knows what real information is anymore.

NNAMDIGeorge, thank you for your call. We're going to have to take to a short break, but before, here's this anonymous comment on our website. "I'm a federal employee and I agree with the President on the pay freeze. I'm annoyed that the bankers who got us in this mess to begin with are getting hefty bonuses again. But the reality is that even in Montgomery County where I live, teachers are being furloughed. So I feel that I want to share that pain.

NNAMDIFor the record, I have a master's degree and chose to be in public service, obviously not for the glory of being appreciated." We're going to take a short break. When we come back, if you've called already, stay on the line. We'll try to get to your call. If the lines are busy, shoot us an e-mail to kojo@wamu.org. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.

NNAMDIHoward Ross is with us. He's a diversity consultant and business coach and a principal at the firm Cook Ross. Today we're discussing federal workers. And so joining Howard in studio is Max Stier, president and CEO of the partnership for public service. We're doing this in the wake of President Obama's decision to freeze the pay of federal workers. And we have a lot of callers who want to join in on this discussion.

NNAMDISo we move onto Beth in Landover, Md. Beth, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

BETHHey. I just wanted to kind of bring into the context of the conversation the fact that this -- President Obama's decision seems to actually dovetail with other state governor decisions and probably other local executive decisions to freeze the pay of public employees. I was hired at a -- Virginia government employee in 2008, and I've been on a pay freeze the entire time I've worked there.

BETHAnd so it doesn't seem like -- it seems like actually not such a surprising move from that perspective. And then, it also seems as though like, you know, we have to read the move as part of -- it's just a part of a larger move to, you know, balance the federal budget. And no one thing is going to fix it. So okay, you know, how much is this going to impact it?

BETHWell, maybe it won't fix the whole budget, but lots of places are going to have to be cut. And it seems to me that like there's weird way in which fixating on the decision to free federal pay is like a way of not coping with the larger issue of the Bush -- tax cuts that are on the table simultaneously, and how we understand the social impact of those tax cuts relative to the federal...

NNAMDIHow do you understand the social impact of those tax cuts, Beth?

BETHWell, I really think that obviously we need to, you know, not punish federal workers, and we need to, you know, reinstate a higher tax rate for people who make over $250,000 a year.

NNAMDIWhat we're talking about here, Max Stier, seems to be really, as Beth pointed out, part of a larger picture. Part of a deal.

STIERYes. Well, look. It should be part of a larger picture. There's a larger problem that needs to be addressed. And again, you know, efforts to reduce the cost of government make a lot of sense in that -- in that larger picture. The question is do you do it in as smart a fashion as possible. And again, you know, we have a system right now that isn't doing this as smart as possible. It's not market sensitive, and it ought to be.

STIERSo I think that there's no doubt that we ought to be trying to find ways to save money, but we ought to actually more importantly be trying to find ways to do government smarter. And there are ways you can do government smarter that don't require you actually to reduce the salaries you give to federal employees, but actually look to trying to get federal employees to be doing their job more effectively and efficiently, and therefore at the end of the day saving even more money.

STIERYou make an interesting point though, that again, this is not an issue that is being faced by the federal work force alone on the public sector side. In many jurisdictions it's not simply pay freezes, but you're seeing furloughs and job cuts, and very substantial reductions in services at the state and local level that are driven by requirements primarily that there are balanced budgets, which you don't have on the federal side.

STIERBut again here, I think the issue has to be how to be smarter about this. The broader context, as you raised is really important as well too. I believe that the number is something like $60 billion a year that would go to -- that could actually be, you know, created in the way of revenue if the tax cuts for those who are making over $250,000 are allowed to lapse. It's $2 billion a year that you're looking at federal employees not getting from the pay freeze.

STIERI'm not trying to say one should happen and one shouldn't happen, but I do think your point that this has to be a broader conversation is really important. We need to be making choices, and we need to be aligning those choices at the same time so we understand what the trade-offs are, and I don't think we've done that here.

NNAMDIAnd I'm glad you brought up the issue of trade-offs, because, Howard Ross, we seem to be as a culture moving more and more in the direction of trying to operate in much the same way as the private sector does, by always looking at the bottom line. It's become popular for politicians to market themselves as a CEO mayor, or as a governor CEO.

NNAMDIOur mayor in Washington, Adrian Fenty, tried to model himself after Michael Bloomberg, but chief executives are accountable, as I said earlier, to a bottom line. Elected officials are accountable to the public. From a managerial standpoint, what does that mean for how you can behave and how you treat your employees? Because the bottom line is one thing. The public really demands service.

ROSSWell, I think that they're -- I think that's really what I was talking about earlier when I said that the comparison is not a valid comparison, because there's certain -- I run a company. The decisions I can make, I can say we're not going to go after this piece of business. We're not going to decide to serve this particular client. We're not, you know, because it's not a good economic quotient for us.

ROSSThat's not something that that the federal government, or any government can choose to do. You've got certain responsibility of things that you have to do regardless of what you...

NNAMDINow we're just not going to educate the children.

ROSSBut I tell you, Kojo, I almost wouldn't even mind if we were operating it from a financial -- from a sound reason financial standpoint, if that was really what's happening. But what's actually happening is, we're in the middle of a political system that's in a complete breakdown. We're dealing more with negotiation and blackmail than anything else.

ROSSWe've got a system where, you know, as Max was just saying, you're talking about saving $2 billion a year, whereas, you know, the tax cuts that Beth was talking about, we're talking about saving hundreds of billions of dollars potentially. But because there's no way I can get that unless I do something else, it becomes a trading game, rather than everybody sitting down together and saying what's the reason strategic way that we move forward collectively?

ROSSBut that conversation just isn't happening. And the question is, you know, at what point does President Obama say, you know, no. You know, there's just certain levels we can't go to. I mean, we faced this with Clinton when Clinton let the government shut down. I’m not suggesting that that's the strategy. Obama knows a lot more than I do about this. But at some point, somebody's going to have to say I'm not going to be willing to be blackmailed into going along with things that don't work.

NNAMDIBeth, thank you for your call. Here's Dennis in Chevy Chase, Md. Dennis, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

DENNISI like the tone of the discussion about...

NNAMDIUh-oh, Dennis, you're breaking up. See if you can get yourself in a more stable location, and I will...

DENNISHi, I'm stable.

NNAMDIThere you go. Go right -- go right ahead, Dennis.

DENNISOkay. I'm glad that the conversation's going toward this explanation. I think that right now Obama faces a major dilemma if he does not explain to the country exactly how these minor, like pay freeze reductions of expenditures are different from the -- what will happen if he approves an extension of the tax cuts. I think that he's -- this blackmail, if he doesn't explain his position now, then he will have a legacy which will effect a lot a bigger issues over the next two years, into the next 20 years.

DENNISAnd I think that it's a very major disservice for the American public, and even the Tea Partiers, if he does not actually explain the benefits and the negatives of going with further tax cuts and extensions versus other things. For instance, I think that the low income people who don't have jobs need to have something, and want something, and the Tea Party is made up of many of those.

DENNISWhereas the financial businesses want the tax cuts and they have money to spare. I think he just needs explain that to the public.

NNAMDIWell, right now negotiators are probably trying that explain that to one another even as we speak, and that horse may have already left the barn, Dennis. We don't know for sure, but we'll see exactly how it turns out. Max, another one of the myths you tried to bust open was the idea that you can't fire a federal worker. How does that process actually work?

STIERWell, it's a hard process. There's no doubt about that. There are very, very intricate requirements, and in fact you have to be able to document and provide time to employees, the very important process protections that are there as well. And it is important to recognize that the government is a different entity where you have to worry about politicization decisions in a way that you don't in the private sector.

STIERBut all that said, there are over 11,000 folks that got fired last year. There are many, many more that in effect got fired, but they were able to in essence resign with honor, and not be formally terminated. And what it really requires ultimately is a manager who does their job well, who actually deals with a problem employee not by simply transferring them to the broken toy section, or someplace else, but really actually goes through the difficult work of documenting the problems and ensuring that it happens right.

STIERThe critical problem though, I would say, in the federal government is two-fold. And one is that that is a hard lift for the manager to do, but they need leadership that's going to back them, up, and that's going to actually give them kudos for taking the time to make it happen. And that by and large doesn't happen. Again, it comes back to that leadership issue. And then we're circling back to the same two questions again.

STIERKey, you know, leadership backup and then really having clear performance expectations, because in an environment in which you're not clear about what you need to achieve, really hard to demonstrate that employee has failed do so. And so I think the myth that needs to be busted is that it's not about an overly complex set of rules, and one might argue that they are.

STIERThe key problems are leaders don't backup managers to show that this is something that's a priority and you don't have clear performance metrics.

NNAMDIHoward, this is something that you deal with a lot in your business, the threat of termination, and how it fits into the whole accountability process.

ROSSYeah. There's no question. And I would say that, as Max is saying, that look, there's some agencies in which people do this well, and there's some agencies where they don't. There's some businesses I work for, private industry, where it's very difficult to fire people, and there's some businesses in private industry where they do it well.

ROSSI think the important thing is in Max's first point which is to recognize once again that, you know, we need to keep -- the public needs to be informed that the reason that there's a strict process in place, a structured process in place to firing government workers, is because there's a potential serious downside to not having that.

ROSSAnd that is, what happens if we have a government in which every job becomes a patronage job, in which if you're not towing the line politically to a particular person that is in power, then we can clear you out and put in. I mean, this is what we're dealing with in Afghanistan now where we're dealing with a government that basically selling jobs left and right to the highest bidder, and is that really the government we want?

ROSSIf it's not the government that we want, then what we need to do is we need to create a protecting environment in which people can do their jobs, know that yes, they can be held accountable for lack of performance, but not by some random whim of people. It needs to be documented in a way that's credible so that we know that it's not happening because a new administration has come in that wants to sweep out the old and give out tons of patronage jobs to people who support them.

NNAMDIHere is Oliver in Washington, D.C. Oliver, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

OLIVERHello, can you hear me?

NNAMDIYes, we can.

OLIVEROkay. Well, I don't know how to say this, but just for one second if you could bear with me. If we assume that -- or if we believe that corporations are in charge of manning society, then it seems like they're -- they've got a campaign to create it to where everyone believes that we should follow the corporate model. And as it was said earlier, the corporate charter dictates that corporations are responsible to their shareholders.

OLIVERSo if they are, then they'd do just about anything to make sure that that corporation performs well enough on the New York Stock Exchange at the end of the quarter. And I think it's that standard that's really creating the problem with the moral compass that we have. Everything is based on trying to make the bottom line and in black ink rather than looking at the long term.

NNAMDIOliver, we're just about out of time. Allow me to have Howard Ross respond, because Oliver, obviously feels that that model is what is shifting our moral compass in the wrong direction.

ROSSWell, I think that there are benefits to lots of different ways of looking at organizations. I thing the government has one way of looking, the not for profit world has another way of looking, for profit corporations have other ways. And I think that -- what I encourage my clients to do in any sector is to see what you can learn from the other sectors to look at. I think that there are a lot of not for profit and government agencies that could benefit from some of the rigor that certain corporations use and vice versa as well.

NNAMDIAnd I'm afraid that's all the time we have. Howard Ross is a diversity consultant and business coach. He's a principal at the firm Cook Ross. Howard, always a pleasure.

ROSSThanks, Kojo. Have a happy holidays.

NNAMDISame to you. Max Stier is the president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Max, thank you for dropping in.

STIERThank you so much.

NNAMDIAnd thank you all for listening. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.