Does anyone take high level tech jobs in government seriously?
I've seen a BA in international affairs with 5 YOE end up as the "chief product officer" for a $30M organization with no technical or product (rather than program) mgmt experience. Another Director for AI ($5B org) with a BA in poli sci and no technical experience/education either.
I've seen this again and again. On one side, I'm wondering why I'm stuck at the second level of FAANG with my tech chops. On the other, maybe these...
Your ego is incredible
Eh A1, the contracting officers I know know so little about the technical work that they end up wasting millions on things that don't work. They say they work at a "higher level" but they know so little that it's like putting a recent college grad in charge of a project - they either aren't really in charge of the capability, and if they are, it goes sideways.
Are you yourself in a technical field A1?
You seem to have the baseline assumption that gov has the requisite knowledge to run things well when outcomes show otherwise.
Subject Expert
Tech in the government is often only loosely correlated to tech outside the government. Different standards, different environments, different missions, and so on.
Likewise, much of tech in the private sector outside of Big Tech is also different from Big Tech. It's closer than much of government tech, but there still tends to be a pretty significant gap between the two.
All that said, yes, tech in government is often its own insular world that bears little to no relation to the outside world. When I was a fed, I reported to an SES who was leading my large agency's migration to the cloud, and in my first meeting with him, he didn't know what the cloud was.
What DS1 said! So behind its sad.
Why salt?
Government hiring and firing is flawed for many reasons, this is hardly the most egregious example.
I’m not sure I understand the question or the implicit point you’re trying to make.
Yes, many people take senior government roles seriously.
No, it’s not the place that true tech innovators often want to go.
Yes, many leaders in all orgs have credentials that don’t seem to align with their roles.
No, I can’t imagine why you’re disparaging people engaged in public service and trying to fix the mess that is government IT.
Add to that many with the gov, don’t stay to get wealthy or it is a rest until retirement. It is because they want to make a difference. They deal with a ton of bureaucracy and budget. US Gov is the #1 purchaser of tech and are the largest employer in the country.
All that said you may know your discipline better than anyone at any level in gov, but walking in there and trying to be a catalyst for change would likely give you a concussion from banging your head against the wall.
If you wanna be working from CSVs your whole life and everyone cream their pants if you use python, gov is the place for you
Then don’t work in government.. I don’t know how else to explain it to you, but the government is not a technology firm. They farm all that work out to actual tech firms. Yes there is a lot of wasted money and time in the process, that’s inherent to consulting of any form.
Government agencies have OMB-mandated personnel ceilings, so they seldom staff technical-oriented teams in house when they can much more effectively hire a contractor who can offer the compensation and culture that many in-demand tech tech assets seek out. With the exception of maybe NASA, NSF, and maybe NIH, the government has overbearing culture and poor benefits and compensation compared to private industry, so they don’t stand a chance at recruiting and retaining decent tech talent.
The government also has to answer to congress, a governing body who likes to change their mind every budget year, so having an organization of mostly private contractors allows the government to scale up and scale down on whatever technical resources they need at the time quickly.
As one of my teachers put it “progress is made one funeral at a time.” Most of the leadership in government is pretty old.
That said government was one of the first adopters of technology and there is a huge installed base. A lot of it was not build with 2021 in mind. But the needs are also different. When you change from Android to IOS or vice versa you might loose a few messages or contacts. Imagine if instead you lost your social security ad a result of an upgrade. This is why the tech cycles in government are so long, things have to be built forever because it so hard to upgrade and so hard to upgrade because it has to be built forever.
If you want good examples then take a look at the air traffic control systems or banking. Telexes are still a thing.
Lol this happens everywhere in government, seniority rules regardless of their skills set or expertise. The promotion process is probably the largest contributing factor within certain agencies as to actualize the P a lot of times people have to move into positions that they are not trained for.
I don’t how many people are from consulting but senior leadership very rarely have technical skills they should to advise. So it is pretty much the same as the federal government. Networking and ass kissing trumps skillset
If it makes you feel any better, GS-15 salaries max out at $172k per year without any opportunities for bonus or the perks that tech employees are accustomed to like free lunch or staying in swanky hotels. SES salaries typically don’t extend much higher than that. What’s the point of comparing government executives to FAANG??? They’re two totally different animals. Nobody goes into government for the money…
Good to know SPM1, I'll keep that in mind!
Your tech skills or your knowledge of AI will always be trumped by your ability to bs after a certain point. That is the way it is in the government and hell even in the private sector directly contracting with the government. Learn how to sell ice to an Eskimo and i guarantee you that, you too can be come a cxo at an agency near you.
There is no tech talent in govt, get out while you still can. You have butt in seats people that have checked out a long time ago running the show.
Earlier comment was right all I used was CSVs so I had to move to commercial to do something else.
Looks to me like someone is suspicious of institutional knowledge. Which is strange because it seems like they’re in a very technical field but anti-intellectualism is creeping. It also looks like you feel some type away about this person because of the stature they hold while you have all of your “credentials” and your elite degree working in an “elite agency”
I’m private sector so….no
jobs should never be taken seriously. I doubt, for instance, that these so-called Chiefs of whatever could pass the second round of a FAANG interview (or another op that will pay 250k+) to save their lives, since they simply don't have the background or likely anything more than surface-bs-level knowledge. (Judgment from some personal experience with folks of similar backgrounds...)
LOL that you automatically assume c-suite executives are generally “the most capable professionals with the broadest and/or deepest experiences”. That has never been my experience in private industry. Maybe at software companies, but don’t understand how they’re a valid point of comparison for government organizations….
So what are you going to do to fix it?
Lmao you haven't read the comments in this thread if you're asking that question.
I have more issues with PhDs that are completely useless and lazy in the govt. space. If they walk the walk, I don’t care if you’re a music major and you learned along the way by listening to the right people.