5 ms·

Veterans will dominate in a lot of these contract bids because they have veterans preferences and many get disability points on their contracts, too. The federa

Veterans will dominate in a lot of these contract bids because they have veterans preferences and many get disability points on their contracts, too. The federal employment system heavily favors veterans and oftentimes lowers standards of employment just to bring in more veterans into companies. Then add in that companies can be essentially paid extra for hiring a veteran on certain contracts and you are left with a heavy bias for employees and leadership whose primary experience in organizations is the old school, rigidly hierarchical military. Trying to work with some of these guys in a start-up setting outside DoD space is no more frustrating than trying to work with a corporate developer that's never had any job besides at IBM their whole lives. It doesn't mean they're bad or unintelligent, but the rigor and emphasis upon certain organizational structures and workflow processes are just plain useless knowledge in a start-up focused upon execution. There's a lot of cultural horrors that will keep out motivated, smart folks from working with the government. I've spent well over 10 years of my life hoping to be the change that I was recruited for, but it's just not enough to be smart and motivated as much as well connected to incumbents that are fighting very hard against change because their very expensive meals and Mercedes S500s depend upon keeping things as stable as possible. This is the precise opposite mentality of the technology giants in industry.

USNetizen 11y ago
Firstly, your perception of veterans is woefully wrong and misplaced. Veterans set-asides in contracting actually do very little to help a company as there is still much legwork to be done. Even then, you stereotype veterans as "rigid" which is simply not at all true. I see envy in your post, not facts. Companies are NOT AT ALL "paid more" for having veterans on contracts. Labor rates are the same regardless of the status of the employee. You're facilitating the spread of rumors, stereotypes and hearsay which is why people think badly of this market. Veterans are given preference for hiring, yes, because they have a skillset that too few private sector employers realize unfortunately. There are studies to prove that point. Secondly, "focusing on execution" and not processes is why so many startups die in a growth stage because it too often means chasing revenue only with few long-term plans. The government is inherently a long-term market. You need to have a long-term view. True, if you're developing a dog-walking app or glorified to-do list, yeah, it's not a market for you. But if you really want to do something game-changing and want to build something of note, I see no better place for it. Look at Palantir for example. There are hundreds of other examples. Lastly, you can't just sit around waiting for "change", you have to make it happen. I used to be a GS-13 employee, fairly high up at one of these agencies, and I voluntarily left a secure job to make more of a change and I see it happening. It's rewarding, but you have to push for it and take risks or else nothing will ever come of it. I speak from experience actually doing this. How many else here can?
- patorjk 11y ago
  > Veterans are given preference for hiring, yes, because they have a skillset that too few private sector employers realize unfortunately. There are studies to prove that point. This seems a little like hand waving. Can you go into what skillsets you're talking about and what these studies are? For certain jobs I can see their experience helping, but I don't see how they should be given preference across the board, especially for technical jobs (ex: given two DBAs, I would imagine you'd want to hire the one most skilled at being a DBA).
  - USNetizen 11y ago
    And who better at being a DBA than someone who did it, for example, for the intelligence community processing millions of records per day/hour? Who better for supporting IT systems than someone who did it in the middle of the desert during combat operations? Life stateside has nothing comparable to that level of experience or pressure. You can Google it. There are dozens of studies showing that companies that favor or are led by veterans are more stable, have higher morale, better cohesiveness, etc. The skills, in particular, they bring are typically "soft" - leadership, adaptability, teamwork, integrity, confidence under pressure, a truer world-view, character, etc. but more and more bring highly advanced technical skills, particularly in the cyber realm. Trying finding those in your average college grad who only knows what he/she experienced on campus and read in a few books. Technical skills aren't everything - they can be taught comparatively easily. Other skills are ingrained in a person through experience. Those are the skills I speak of. If you are hiring only for pure tech ability at that one moment in time and not for the "whole person" then you have a truly short-term view. Even Google and other tech giants realized this.
    - EvanPlaice 11y ago
      You're assuming every military network admin was directly responsible for keeping the system up and running. The reality is much different. Usually, it's a small minority of exceptional individuals that keep things running while the rest skate or gain merit through other means (ex high PT scores). Even then, training for a speciality often covers the bare minimum to operate the equipment for a few reasons. First, training must be standardized across each MOS leaving little room for differentiation. Second, training standards are often set by senior ranking NCOs/COs who may have risen through the ranks for reasons other than technical ability. Any role requires a higher degree of skill (ex engineering) or higher degree of differentiation (ie systems design) are passed off to contractors because the time/money costs of training an entire MOS to a higher degree of technical ability are too high. It's gotten to the point where security has shifted to civilian-only support because the service members can't be trusted to follow best security practices when their superiors take a 'make it happen or your career will suffer' stance. It's really common for the most talented/capable service members to leave the service and immediately return as contractors. They get paid more and don't have to deal with all the rank-and-file BS. The system doesn't reward talent in spite of good intentions. I'm not trying to bag on veterans. I worked as a contractor and personally know many individuals I wouldn't hesitate to follow to the end of the earth. Some individuals are truly exceptional in terms of leadership and/or technical ability but stating that all veterans can be lumped into that group is naive.

USNetizen 11y ago

Firstly, your perception of veterans is woefully wrong and misplaced. Veterans set-asides in contracting actually do very little to help a company as there is still much legwork to be done. Even then, you stereotype veterans as "rigid" which is simply not at all true. I see envy in your post, not facts. Companies are NOT AT ALL "paid more" for having veterans on contracts. Labor rates are the same regardless of the status of the employee. You're facilitating the spread of rumors, stereotypes and hearsay which is why people think badly of this market. Veterans are given preference for hiring, yes, because they have a skillset that too few private sector employers realize unfortunately. There are studies to prove that point. Secondly, "focusing on execution" and not processes is why so many startups die in a growth stage because it too often means chasing revenue only with few long-term plans. The government is inherently a long-term market. You need to have a long-term view. True, if you're developing a dog-walking app or glorified to-do list, yeah, it's not a market for you. But if you really want to do something game-changing and want to build something of note, I see no better place for it. Look at Palantir for example. There are hundreds of other examples. Lastly, you can't just sit around waiting for "change", you have to make it happen. I used to be a GS-13 employee, fairly high up at one of these agencies, and I voluntarily left a secure job to make more of a change and I see it happening. It's rewarding, but you have to push for it and take risks or else nothing will ever come of it. I speak from experience actually doing this. How many else here can?

patorjk 11y ago
> Veterans are given preference for hiring, yes, because they have a skillset that too few private sector employers realize unfortunately. There are studies to prove that point. This seems a little like hand waving. Can you go into what skillsets you're talking about and what these studies are? For certain jobs I can see their experience helping, but I don't see how they should be given preference across the board, especially for technical jobs (ex: given two DBAs, I would imagine you'd want to hire the one most skilled at being a DBA).
- USNetizen 11y ago
  And who better at being a DBA than someone who did it, for example, for the intelligence community processing millions of records per day/hour? Who better for supporting IT systems than someone who did it in the middle of the desert during combat operations? Life stateside has nothing comparable to that level of experience or pressure. You can Google it. There are dozens of studies showing that companies that favor or are led by veterans are more stable, have higher morale, better cohesiveness, etc. The skills, in particular, they bring are typically "soft" - leadership, adaptability, teamwork, integrity, confidence under pressure, a truer world-view, character, etc. but more and more bring highly advanced technical skills, particularly in the cyber realm. Trying finding those in your average college grad who only knows what he/she experienced on campus and read in a few books. Technical skills aren't everything - they can be taught comparatively easily. Other skills are ingrained in a person through experience. Those are the skills I speak of. If you are hiring only for pure tech ability at that one moment in time and not for the "whole person" then you have a truly short-term view. Even Google and other tech giants realized this.
  - EvanPlaice 11y ago
    You're assuming every military network admin was directly responsible for keeping the system up and running. The reality is much different. Usually, it's a small minority of exceptional individuals that keep things running while the rest skate or gain merit through other means (ex high PT scores). Even then, training for a speciality often covers the bare minimum to operate the equipment for a few reasons. First, training must be standardized across each MOS leaving little room for differentiation. Second, training standards are often set by senior ranking NCOs/COs who may have risen through the ranks for reasons other than technical ability. Any role requires a higher degree of skill (ex engineering) or higher degree of differentiation (ie systems design) are passed off to contractors because the time/money costs of training an entire MOS to a higher degree of technical ability are too high. It's gotten to the point where security has shifted to civilian-only support because the service members can't be trusted to follow best security practices when their superiors take a 'make it happen or your career will suffer' stance. It's really common for the most talented/capable service members to leave the service and immediately return as contractors. They get paid more and don't have to deal with all the rank-and-file BS. The system doesn't reward talent in spite of good intentions. I'm not trying to bag on veterans. I worked as a contractor and personally know many individuals I wouldn't hesitate to follow to the end of the earth. Some individuals are truly exceptional in terms of leadership and/or technical ability but stating that all veterans can be lumped into that group is naive.