Incompetence is by no way patented by the government, but there is plenty of it within the bureaucracies. So if you are a manager seeking ways to increase the productivity and performance levels of your employees, you'd be wise to make note of the more likely inhibitors to a successful working environment listed below.

1. Setting, or allowing employees to set, goals that are too easy.
   In many offices, government work moves at a crawling pace. This stems from the desire of employees to set goals for themselves that keep stress levels low as well as the desire of managers to prevent a backlash. But one of the reasons GE's former CEO, Jack Welch, was so effective was that he made each manager set two types of goals: targets that HAD to be met and stretch targets, or reaches for which to strive. Often, in the process of meeting stretch targets, employees shot past the goals that had to be met, showing that performance is often tied directly to those goals. The easier the goal, the lower the performance level.
   
   
2. Rewarding mediocrity.
   Few things kill morale faster than one employee seeing mediocrity rewarded in another. Although managers must use positive encouragement to keep the poorer performers motivated, they need to be careful that other employees, who perform better, don't view the positive feedback as a reward for half-measures. If they do, they're likely to "dumb down" their performance to meet the performance level or the mediocre employees.
   
   
3. Allowing too much collaboration on work products.
   Everyone wants to be told they did a good job when they did. So managers must create opportunities where employees can show off their skills and dedication and be rewarded for their work. Sometimes managers group employees together to get tasks done in an effort to expedite the work product and reduce the work load on a single employee. Others times they do it hoping the poor performer might learn some useful project management skills. They may or may not know one employee in the group is the weak link who will be carried by the others, but either way, creating the group project increases the opportunity for the poor performer or lazy worker to ride on the coattails of the others.
   
   We've all worked with this guy: the office leech. The guy who couldn't get his shoes tied without help, spent the past 10 years becoming an expert at avoiding work, and takes credit for the work of others. Once again, this is a morale killer that will drive a knife through office productivity and accountability as an attitude of "why should I bother if he does nothing and takes all the credit" mentality infects the workplace. The best thing to do is isolate this person so they're work ethic does not affect the rest of the workplace.If you are a manager doubting you have one of these employees, compose some 360 evals i.e. ask around. You're bound to open a can of complaints from your other staff.  
   
   
4. Using numbers as the only way to measure performance.
   Metrics are very useful in determining the efficiency of jobs that require a lot of repetition, like fielding comments from a website, calls answered, letters written, etc. But in most offices, metrics can be very deceiving. Take, for instance, a lawyer at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Trademark lawyers are tasked with reviewing a certain amount or quota of filings for trademarks each week. But some trademarks are considerably more and less difficult than others. On a week where they end up being easy, a PTO lawyer may (and often does according to rumor) end up with 20 hours of free time. Since there is no incentive to do more (save for a little brown-nosing), productivity goes down, despite meeting metric goals. Thus, managers would be wise to monitoring tasks measured solely in metrics for qualitative measures as well.
   
   
5. Emphasizing relationships over performance.
   It happens in every office; the most likable one is the boss's buddy. And he or she uses her personal relationship to avoid work, buddy up on projects with those who can produce, and ends up with the promotions at the end of the year you deserved more. It's enough to make you irate, sick or simply turn off the switch that drives you to perfection. When in Rome right?
   
   
6. Taking too long to hire someone.
   The government is notorious for taking months upon months to hire a new employee and this process serves to insulate agencies from recruiting top talent. There is a reason the top law firms and companies offer summer internships and high-paying summer associate positions: to ensure they can hire the most talented people. It's akin to plucking basketball players right out of college instead of waiting for them to graduate and enter into the draft where competition is more fierce.
   
   In the federal government, deliberating the hiring process allows time for could-be employees to be recruited quickly to other fields and the private workforce. After all, few would sit for 6-9 months after graduating from a program JUST to get a government job, when they could obtain a private sector job with about the same pay in one month. No matter how badly they may want that government position, economics plays a role. Shelling out 6 months of rent with no guarantee of a position at the end of the process and zero insight into the competition just isn't a very appealing option. Likewise, those who have a job and are looking to leave are doing so because the thought of having to spend another six months there is likely killing them. As a result, most who can get a job somewhere else do. This significantly reduces the available talent pool.  

• Managing Your Government Career: Success Strategies that Work
• I'm quitting my federal job. What happens to my annual leave?
• The top paying federal government jobs
• Federal Pay Calendar for 2010
• Feds can't figure out how to appeal to young professionals