No easy answer to outsourcing drama
By
Nick Wakeman
Washington Technology Editor Nick Wakeman reviews comments about the Obama administration's push to insource work currently performed by contractors. Sure, there are plenty of emotional reactions, but there are some words of wisdom as well.
Emotions ran high among commenters on our story about the push to bring more contractor work in-house.
Contractors, of course, fear losing business. Others are a little overwrought. But among the complaints about lazy federal workers and greedy contractors are some voices that raise good points on both sides of the argument.
“Contracting, when used, should be used for its intended purpose: deliver the service or product, move on. Anything requiring years of support should be done by an employee of the government,” said an anonymous commenter.
“Cut the scope of the government and you can easily cut down the outsourcing. The problem is the rapid growth of government and government spending,” said another.
A third commenter said part of the problem is that the government doesn’t hire smart enough people.
“My take is that the government hires great people to manage not so great people. Leadership then needs to reach outside of their pool of resources to get things done,” he said.
I can’t say that I agree, but he does offer a good reminder to any manager – always hire people that are smarter than you.
A few readers also thought now was a good time for the government to hire the best and brightest from industry. I’m sure more than one agency personnel manager is thinking the same thing.
As for some of the other comments, some of them do express the anger and frustration that many feel toward our government.
“Anyone who wants more government should have their head examined,” wrote one.
Whichever way outsourcing is going – in or out – it always seems to raise people’s blood pressure.