Pros
I've worked in five government agencies in three states, at the local and state levels, and I've found DIR to have the best work environment of all of them. From day one, everyone has had a great attitude, and all levels of management are genuinely interested in helping individuals attain their professional goals. Executives take time to get to know employees, one of the benefits of having a staff of only about 200 people. I've also seen multiple people get significant funding to pursue professional education. Career mobility is outstanding. People frequently move up or across the organization, and there is a good amount of transfer from and to other state agencies. Cross-divisional work is highly encouraged; hierarchy is almost unnoticeable, which is extremely rare for a government organization. I experience a real sense of autonomy and empowerment every day. I haven't noticed any of the pointless office politics or weird interpersonal dynamics that plague almost every organization. (Honestly, I'm not sure how we've managed to attract so many well-adjusted individuals). People actually enjoy meeting with each other after work, but there's no pressure to be any more outgoing than you want to be. Introverts are probably the majority. Work-life balance is excellent. Teleworking is encouraged, almost expected, averaging two days a week for most employees. We also have an entire division of project managers there to assist anyone dealing with a project, at all levels of the organization. As the state agency most clearly focused on IT, we're the lucky guinea pigs for new technologies; we have all the software and hardware we need to be effective no matter where we are, and everyone is very tech savvy. Reasonable requests for new software licenses or hardware are usually approved. We're funded solely by revenue generated from our contracts with other organizations; we receive no direct legislative appropriations. Partly because of this, we've got a clear focus on customer service and performance, but without the typical stress of a for-profit entity or the ruthlessness of a publicly traded company. Performance evaluations are conducted quarterly, and metrics are based on very clearly defined goals set in conversations with your supervisor. This adds a helpful structure to work that also allows you to see and reflect on your accomplishments. Performance measures are meaningful and I never feel like these management tools are silly bureaucratic exercises. Employees often have previous private sector experience, and people really do come here with a public service motivation. We're home to the state's Chief Innovation Officer, Chief Technology Officer, and Chief Data Officer. As might be expected, there's a clear interest in continuous learning, workplace innovation, and data-driven decision making. Right now we're working on a proof of concept for a state blockchain protocol, for example. We're also responsible for protecting the state's high value technology assets from cyber attack. We attract very smart individuals from a wide range of tech specialties, and it's cool to be part of an organization where people value expertise. We're doing important work and have a lot of important work ahead of us.
Cons
Management relies on outside consultants quite a lot, and it sometimes feels like opportunity for professional growth and accomplishment is taken away from agency staff as a result. Unfortunately, this is characteristic of the public sector, where, at least in Texas, flat or declining budgets and hiring freezes are the norm, no matter how well the organization or state economy are performing. Compensation is typical for the public sector, which means it's somewhat lower than the average of the private sector, and bonuses and stock options are nonexistent. However, the full health insurance premium is paid for, if you opt for the individual plan, and coverage for your family is not much more. The scandalous thing to me is the pension system. Working in other governments, the pension was a major attraction, because it was meant to substitute for a majority of your salary at retirement, and came with a very generous state match, making up for whatever gap there was in cash compensation. However, Texas politicians (mostly Republicans), have put the employee retirement system into debt from decades of failure to set aside enough money in the state budget. They seem to hate the idea of using their constituents' money for that purpose, which is a extremely shortsighted. Long story short, the state is finally coming to terms with the situation, but instead of spending more money, they have raised employees' contribution rate to 9.5% of salary. That's a mandatory 9.5% deducted from our paychecks. The state provides a match that equates to 10.5%. You're vested after 10 years. All three of these numbers are just about the least generous of any pension system in the entire country. A 9.5% employee contribution rate is extremely rare. Usually 7.5% is the highest, and most are 6% or below. Usually the government employer will contribute between 133% and 200% of the amount of the employees' contribution, so matching our 9.5% with 10.5% is not as generous as it seems. A 10 year vestment period is punitive, especially in the modern economy where we can all expect to change jobs many times over the course of a career. The standard I'm used to is 5-8 years, but sometimes significantly less. The kicker is that this system is not even intended to replace your income at retirement. They are very clear that this is part of a "three-legged stool," in combination with social security and personal savings. They are expecting to replace maybe 50% of your income at retirement. Think about that. 9.5% of my salary pays into a system that will pay half my salary at retirement, even if I work 40 years for the state. I could make a better return on that 9.5% with my eyes closed. Anyone could. What does this mean? I'm paying for the debts incurred by previous lawmakers who didn't bother to fund the system properly. Compare this to the previous system I participated in. There, I contributed 7.5%, the employer contributed about 14%, vestment was 8 years, and at retirement I could expect 80%+ of my income to be replaced. This meant I could set aside an additional 5% or so of my salary to put in personal savings to meet my needs. I had many motivations for taking this position at DIR, but it is very frustrating to think that I am paying significantly more and getting significantly less. Every now and then I reflect on this, and it causes me to feel resentment toward employees who were hired 5 years ago, before the requirements were changed. I feel resentful toward the state and the lawmakers. And resentment is close to the most destructive emotion there is.
