That’s right the rumors are true: the federal government has fully acknowledged that it can no longer tolerate outdated hiring processes. Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management John Berry says in an interview with Wired.com, “Many of our policies and practices are – I wouldn’t go so far back as the 19^th century, but certainly the 1950s in terms of their approach. Our hiring, for instance, has become so cumbersome and so complicated that it is a nightmare…we need to make that simpler…allowing people a fair shot at a federal job.” And while Gen Y might enjoy retro for costume parties, today’s younger job seekers prefer a job seeking experience that blends with today’s transparent, anytime, anywhere environment.

Director Berry believes that these young people have much more to offer the feds than just a replacement for baby boomers, whose retirements remain uncertain due to the economy. “When Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, the average age of the federal workers who were at Mission Control – the people who got him there safely and got him home – was in the late twenties,” Barry said. “We’re not the first generation to try to involve young folks…the government did it very effectively in the 60s, and those people produced miracles.”

A draft plan (PDF) written by OPM to make the federal government the model employer is currently online and comments from the public are encouraged. The four overall strategic goals include, recruiting and hiring the most talented, providing the tools necessary to help federal employees succeed in their careers, hold leaders and workforce accountable for results and reward those with exemplary performance. Do you think the government is on its way to being “America’s best employer?”

When companies make the commitment to walk down the employer brand development path, they typically hope for resulting positioning that works for all – every job category, every level of the organizational chart, every division, every geography, every minority and majority group, every generation, every life stage … (by now, perhaps you get that I really do mean everyone).

But is this possible? Or, a better question might be, is this desirable? (Actually, an even better question would be why is anyone still paying attention to Madonna, who is to pop music what the Paleozoic era is to geology – old.)

Let’s take generations for example. Under some of the current thinking, each generation has its own dominant drivers. In the book, "Generations at Work," by Ron Zemke, Claire Raines and Bob Filipczak, the authors state that the Veterans (Matures) like to be respected and have a very dedicated work ethic, the [Baby] Boomers want personal gratification, the Generation Xers want independence, and the Nexters (Millenials, Y) really like a team-oriented workplace.

Well then, apparently in order to have overarching positioning that works for every generation, all an employer needs to provide is a team environment that offers independence, respect, and gratification, thank-you-very-much-our-work-is-done-here. But what if there’s too much independence? Will that upset the Gen Y employees? If the matures are getting too much respect, will that prevent the Boomers from attaining gratification?

Tip O’Neill coined the axiom that “all politics is local.” Well let me offer up a saying of my own. “All generalizations are goofy.” (But wait, isn’t that statement a generalization?)

While it’s important to understand group dynamics, or the sociology of work, it’s even more important to go to market based on individual drivers, or the psychology of selection. The secret of positioning is not about finding the common denominator. It’s really about communicating the employment experience on a personal level. (Oh great, now it’s not a secret anymore.)

So, understand the group, but market to the individual.

r