Discussion Topic #3 - Term Limited Employment

As a discussion topic, I would like to explore further the concept of term limiting employment in the public sector.  What would be the pros and cons of making employment hires under the condition that the job will last no longer than 10 years.

Certainly, some of the details would need to be refined.  Perhaps providing substantial bonuses at the 5, 8 and 10 year marks.  Retirement accounts would need to be adjusted, but probably along the lines of the current movement towards defined contribution plans.  Jobs could be staggered to avoid any single mass exodus.  And potentially, provisions could be made to give the agency an option to retain the employee for an additional 4 years.  And the transition from our current system to this model would require a thoughtful approach with all the stakeholders.

The con’s that were presented in class seem to be losing institutional knowledge and difficulty in attracting top talent.  I will attempt to address those first.

Institutional Knowledge 

Working with the understanding that an employee was term limited would create more of a focus on documenting institutional knowledge.  This was a primary incentive behind our discussion for succession planning.  And given today’s free agency mindsets, should management not always be preparing for any employee to leave at any given time?

Attraction of Talent

The second objection to the concept was the difficulty in retaining top talent with the prospect of service being limited to 10 years.  Do we, or the top talent, believe they will want to be in any one position longer than 10 years?  We need to be challenging that top talent to grow and develop.

In contrast, is a top talent that has been doing the exact same job for 10 years, really ideal?  I was just reading recently HBR's When It;s Time For the CEO To Go that identified the CEO's optimal time to be 7 years plus or minus 2 years.

Other Considerations

Additionally, how many job descriptions, written 10 years earlier are likely to still be relevant.  This would give a great way of reassessing needs periodically and also of intentionally finding talent to meet specific needs.

One running joke in our HR class was that there was no problem in the HR field that could not be cured in 30 years.  Wouldn't it be prudent to cut that by a third? 

And how many of my CPM class cohorts, instructors, or lecturers have held one single position, without significant advancement for more than 10 years.  From what I know, that number is probably pretty small.  That is just becoming less of a reality for the Gen X/Y demographic. 

Finally, this might provide a great counter balance to bureaucracies intrinsic desire for self preservation described in the first installment of this discussion series.  In this model self preservation becomes building skills and talents that are valuable for the employee in the future, not hoarding institutional knowledge so as to become irreplaceable?