A Special Study

FAIR & EQUITABLE TREATMENT:

A Progress Report on Minority Employment in

the Federal Government

A Report to the President

and the Congress of the United States

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
ii FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

Notice

This U.S. Merit Systems Protection

Board report was electronically

converted from its desktop publishing

format into a format suitable for

viewing or printing with the Adobe

Acrobat reader program. Because of

this conversion, there will be some

slight variations (especially in special

characters) from the paper copy.

Notably, page numbers in the body of

the report vary by 11 pages from those

shown in the Table of Contents, and

Appendix 1 could not be included in

this electronic version.

For a paper copy of the report, please

contact:

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Office of Policy and Evaluation

1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Room 884

Washington, DC 20419

Toll-free (800) 209-8960

V/TDD (202) 653-8896

FAX (202) 653-6772

Internet: pe@mspb.gov

For questions, suggestions, or feedback

about this electronic version or

distribution of MSPB reports, please

contact Paul van Rijn by e-mail

(paul.vanrijn@mspb.gov).
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD iii

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Ben L. Erdreich, Chairman

Beth S. Slavet, Vice Chairman

Antonio C. Amador, Member

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Director

Evangeline W. Swift

Deputy Director

John M. Palguta

Project Supervisor

Bruce Mayor

Project Analysts

John Crum, Ph.D.

Charles E. Friedman

Katherine C. Naff

Additional Analytical Support

Jamie J. Carlyle, Ph.D.
iv FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Issues To Be Examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Definitions of Minority Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Employment of Minorities in the Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Minority Access to Federal Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Distribution of Minorities by Occupational Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Distribution of Minorities by Grade Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Career Advancement in Professional and Administrative Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Minority Representation in Management Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Diversity in Executive Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Factors Affecting the Distribution of Minorities in Professional

and Administrative Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Differences in Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Differences in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Differences in Job-Related Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Minorities and Career Advancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Current Promotion Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Other Disparities in the Treatment of Minorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Opportunity to Act in Supervisory Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Performance Appraisal Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Compensation for High Performers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Discharge Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Perceptions of Minority Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Perceptions of Progress by Minorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Explanations for Disparities Between Minorities and Nonminorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Historical and Contextual Backdrop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Stereotypes as a Factor in Judging Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

The Challenges of Impartial Evaluation and Effective Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Mismatch Between Expectations and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD v

Contents

The Consequences of Disparate Treatment and Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

The Impact of Stereotypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Some Consequences of Employee Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Views on Affirmative Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Lack of Confidence in the Governments Commitment to EEO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Costs Incurred by the Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Appendix 1: Survey on Career Advancement and Workforce Diversity

in the Federal Civil Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Appendix 2: Promotion Rates for Professional Positions, by Grade Promoted From,

Time Period, Race/National Origin, and Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Appendix 3: Promotion Rates for Administrative Positions by Grade Promoted From,

Time Period, Race/National Origin, and Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Appendix 4. Summary of Career Advancement Findings for Specific Race/National

Origin Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Tables

Table 1. Distribution of RNO Groups in the

Federal Workforce by Grade, March 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 2. Workforce Composition for Professional and Administrative Positions, 

by Race/National Origin, Sex, and Time Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 3. Number and Percentage Distribution of Federal Executives,

by Race/National Origin,Sex, and Time Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 4. Number of Career Federal Executives by Race/National Origin,

Sex, and Time Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 5. Average Length of Service of White-Collar Employees,

by Race/National Origin, Sex, and PATCO Category, March 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 6. Average Grade of Survey Respondents in Professional and Administrative

Positions, by RNO and Sex, and Difference in Average Grade Compared to

White Men, Not Controlled and Controlled for Education and

Experience, January 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 7. Average Performance Rating of White-Collar Employees, by

Race/National Origin, Sex, and PATCO Category, March 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 8. Percent of Employees Agreeing With: Minority women face extra

obstacles in their careers because they are both minority and female,

by Race/National Origin and Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
vi FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

Figures

Figure 1. Comparison of Minority Employees in Civilian and Federal Workforces,

by Race/National Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 2. Comparison of Civilian and Federal Workforces, by PATCO Category

and Race/National Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 3. Percent of Minorities in Each Grade Level of Professional

and Administrative Positions, by Race/National Origin, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 4. Professional Positions: Average Grade by Race/National Origin

and Sex, 1978 and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 5. Administrative Positions: Average Grade by Race/National Origin

and Sex, 1978 and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 6. Professional Positions: Representation in Managerial Jobs

by Race/National Origin, 1978 and 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 7. Administrative Positions: Representation in Managerial Jobs by

Race/National Origin, 1978 and 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 8. Percent of Workforce With a Bachelors (or Higher) Degree,

at Time of First Job and in January 1993, by Race/National Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 9. Professional Positions: Promotion Rates by Grade and

Race/National Origin, 1993-94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 10. Administrative Positions: Promotion Rates by Grade and

Race/National Origin, 1993-94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 11. Professional Positions: Cash Awards by Grade Level Grouping and

Race/National Origin, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 12. Administrative Positions: Cash Awards by Grade Level Grouping

and Race/National Origin, 1994. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 13. Extent to Which Employees Believe Minorities Are Subjected to

Flagrant or Obviously Discriminatory Practices, by Race/National Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 14. Percent of Employees Believing Minorities Have Made Progress in

Moving Into Top-Level Positions, by Race/National Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 15. Responses to a Survey Question Concerning Whether Employees

Chose Not To Apply For a Job Because of Their Race/National Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 16. Responses to a Survey Question Concerning Whether Supervisors

Who Discriminate Receive Appropriately Strong Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Contents
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD vii

Executive Summary

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) has responsibility to

report periodically to the President and the Congress on whether the Federal civil service is operating in accord with statutory merit system principles. Among those principles is a requirement that employees and applicants for employment receive fair and

equitable treatment without regard to race, color, national origin, and other non-merit

factors. As one of the largest employers in the Nation, with responsibility for serving

all segments of society, it is clearly in the public interest for the Federal Government

to treat its own employees in a fair and unbiased manner. In that context, MSPB

sought to determine whether minorities and nonminorities have equal access to Federal jobs and, once employed, whether they are treated equitably. This report presents

the findings from that study.

to respond to that situation. A review of current

Federal employment statistics reveals that since

1978 the status of minorities has improved markedly. In fact, current overall minority employment in the Federal Government exceeds

minority participation in the civilian labor force.

Moreover, in administrative occupations and at

the higher grade levels in professional occupations, minorities and nonminorities are now promoted at generally equivalent rates.

While recognizing the significant progress that

has been made regarding minority employment,

the Boards review also finds that there are still

measurable differences in the employment-related experiences of minority and nonminority

Federal employees. For example, although the

differences are much smaller than in previous

years, minorities have not advanced as far in their

careers as nonminority males and not all of the

differences can be explained by differences in

education, experience, and other measurable

merit-based factors. This report concludes that

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) reaffirms that merit is to be the cornerstone of the

Federal civil service. Federal employees are to be

selected and advanced solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills. However,

drawing from the impetus of congressional action

in 1972 which extended coverage of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 to Federal employment, the

CSRA also articulates a concurrent goal of a

workforce representative of all segments of society. In other words, Federal agencies have a dual

obligation to strive for a representative workforce

and to do so in a manner free from discrimination

and preferential treatment. The challenge facing

the Government is to ensure Federal managers

successfully balance the need to meet both of

these statutory objectives.

Throughout much of this century, instances of

discriminatory employment practices had a

clearly negative impact on the representation and

careers of minorities in the Federal workforce.

Over time, a number of major efforts were made
these differences in treatment are due, in some

measure at least, to the influence of subtle raceand sex-based biases that continue to influence

subjective judgments on employment-related

matters.

Finally, although the study found no evidence of

widespread, intentional discrimination, survey

responses from over 13,000 randomly selected

Federal employees identified wide differences in

perceptions between minorities and

nonminorities with regard to how minority employees are treated in the Government. In part,

this has led to an environment in which significant numbers of both minority and nonminority

employees believe they are the victims of discrimination. These differences in perception are

so large that they suggest that many minority and

nonminority employees have great difficulty in

understanding or accepting the others perspective.

The Boards recommendations call for active efforts to continue the progress that has been made

to achieve a representative workforce in a manner

compatible with the requirements of a meritbased civil service system; continued vigilance for

remaining instances of employment bias; and ongoing efforts to develop the best tools possible for

accurately and objectively rating applicants and

employees on job-related characteristics.

Findings

■ Minorities have made substantial progress in

terms of gaining access to Federal civil service

jobs, and are now well represented in most

white-collar job categories.

Based on the civilian labor force index of the

U.S. Census Bureau (required for comparative

use in the Federal Government), Hispanics are

the only minority group that remains

underrepresented in the Federal workforce as a

whole, primarily in technical, clerical, and

blue-collar jobs. Asian Pacific Americans, while

employed in the Federal Government at a rate

roughly equal to their representation in the civilian labor force, are somewhat

underrepresented in administrative and technical jobs. (To look more closely at the reasons

underlying the continued underrepresentation

of Hispanics, overall, the Board is preparing a

separate report focused on the factors affecting

the employment of Hispanics in the Federal

Government.)

■ Minorities are not evenly distributed across

the white-collar workforce.

Minorities tend to be concentrated in lower

paying occupations or in the lower grades of

higher paying occupations. While the average

grade of minorities (and particularly minority

women) has increased substantially in professional and administrative occupations since

1978, minorities (and particularly minority

women) are still at lower average grades than

White males in these occupational categories.

While the progress has been slow, minorities

have increased their numbers in all management categories, including executive jobs.

The proportion of Senior Executive Service or

equivalent positions held by minorities increased from 4.8 percent to 11.5 percent from

1978 to 1995, while the proportion of executive

jobs held by White women increased from 2.7

percent to 14.6 percent. At the same time, the

proportion of these jobs held by White men decreased from 92.5 percent to 73.9 percent.

Executive Summary
■ Even when differences in education, experience, and other advancement-related factors

are statistically controlled for, minorities have

lower average grades than White men, suggesting that the careers of some minorities

have been hindered by their race or national

origin.

The average grade of minorities in professional

and administrative positions is lower than that

of White men. This difference can only partly

be explained by differences in education and

experience levels between minorities and

White men. Moreover, minority women are adversely affected by this disparity at an even

higher rate than are minority men.

■ A comparison of current white-collar promotion rates for minorities and Whites suggests

that minorities are not now subject to an

across-the-board disadvantage (or advantage)

in the promotion process, although some areas of difference remain.

Continuing problem areas for some minorities

are promotions at trainee and developmental

grade levels (i.e., below grade 11) in professional occupations. At higher grade levels in

professional occupations, minorities are now

promoted at rates generally equivalent to those

of nonminorities. In administrative occupations, the picture is somewhat different in that,

at all grade levels, most minorities are promoted at rates equivalent to White employees.

Contrary to the view of many of our survey

participants, minorities do not have an advantage over Whites in terms of likelihood of being promoted in either professional or

administrative jobs.

■ In professional and administrative positions,

minorities receive, on average, lower performance ratings and fewer cash awards than

nonminorities.

Lower performance ratings can put minorities

at a disadvantage during a reduction in force.

Employee motivation and trust in the fairness

of the appraisal process can also be adversely

affected by differences in ratings and awards

that they believe are influenced by race or national origin.

■ Survey responses further indicate that minorities are not provided with the same opportunities to demonstrate their abilities as

nonminorities.

Fewer minority employees than White employees reported that they have the opportunity to

serve as the acting supervisor when the regular

manager is away for a short period of time.

■ Minorities and nonminorities have significantly different perceptions about the degree

to which discrimination may still be present

in the workplace.

Many minority employees believe they are not

treated fairly or equitably in the Federal civil

service. Substantial numbers of minorities report that they are subjected to discriminatory

practices in the Governments workplace, in

both blatant and subtle ways. In contrast,

Whites generally believe that discrimination is

minimal. For example, while 55 percent of African American survey respondents believe that

African Americans are subjected to flagrant or

obviously discriminatory practices in the Federal workplace, only 4 percent of White survey

respondents share this perspective.

Executive Summary
■ Minorities and nonminorities also have different perspectives on what measures, if any,

are still needed to achieve a more diverse

workforce.

For example, minorities and nonminorities

have sharply differing points of view about

whether managers should even consider the

extent of minority representation in a work

unit when selecting from among equally wellqualified candidates to fill a vacancy.

■ Substantial numbers of Federal employees

lack confidence in their organizations ability

to ensure equal employment opportunity.

This lack of confidence, along with perceptions

of discrimination on the part of a large number

of Federal employees, has an adverse impact

on motivation, teamwork, and productivity.

When employee frustration and distrust are

translated into protests and lawsuits, further

costs to the Government are generated, as well

as potential damage to its credibility.

Conclusions

The Federal Governments merit-based employment system has worked to significantly reduce

incidences of obvious bias in the workplace. Notwithstanding these successes, measurable differences in the career advancement opportunities

experienced by minorities and nonminorities in

the Federal Government are still evident. Moreover, these differences cannot be fully explained

as the effect of merit-based factors such as differences in experience and education. In some measure at least, these remaining differences can be

attributed to the subjective judgments that ultimately come into play whenever decisions are

made on issues such as employee selections, promotions, and performance appraisals.

While the exercise of judgment is an integral and

necessary part of the management process, continued effort must be exercised to minimize the

influence of bias or group stereotyping, even if

unintentional. These biases can create an unfair

disadvantage for some employees, and result in

perceptions of discrimination among both minority and nonminority employees.

Given the importance of the Governments role in

enforcing equal employment opportunity and the

potential for even inaccurately perceived inequities in the treatment of employees to disrupt productivity and teamwork, it is essential that these

issues receive ongoing attention. In that regard,

MSPB makes the following recommendations:

Recommendations

1. Agencies should conduct their own analysis

of differences in promotion rates, performance awards, and other aspects of the personnel process.

Because our findings are based on Government-wide data, our study did not identify

greater or lesser disparities between minorities

and nonminorities that may exist within individual agencies and departments. After careful

review of the relevant facts, each department

and agency should disseminate accurate information to their workforce so that employees

perceptions and actions can be based more on

accurate data rather than on rhetoric or misconceptions. Where there are differences in

group outcomes between minorities and

nonminorities, concerted action should be

taken to find the causes and address them.

Executive Summary

x FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT
2. Assessments of progress toward ensuring

equal employment opportunity should include gathering and addressing employee

perceptions.

A regular mechanism should be institutionalized for identifying whether employees perceive a lack of equal opportunity or unfair

treatment. Where inaccurate perceptions are

identified, agencies should develop programs

to remedy the problem. In addition to suggesting areas for further investigation, such assessment devices can identify areas where factual

information needs to be provided to employees

in order to correct misconceptions. This is essential for maintaining a workforce committed

to teamwork and high productivity.

3. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management

(OPM) and Federal agencies should continue

to work toward development of better and

more user friendly tools for assessing candidates, that allow supervisors to more accurately and objectively rate candidates on

job-related characteristics.

Managers should be made aware of the potential for unconscious bias in employee selection,

appraisal, and reward determinations and

alerted to the need to critically examine their

decisions before finalizing them. Improving the

effectiveness of evaluation tools and providing

supervisors and employees a better understanding of the limitations of these tools should

help reduce the incidence and perception of

bias in the system. OPM should form a partnership with agencies in order to share the

costs of developing more effective evaluation

tools and training programs.

4. When choosing from among equally qualified candidates for new hires or promotions,

agencies and selecting officials should actively pursue the concurrent goals of the

statutory merit system principles which call

for: a) selection and advancement based

solely on relative ability, knowledge, and

skills combined with b) efforts to achieve a

workforce from all segments of society.

In order to achieve a representative workforce

in a manner consistent with merit principles,

extra efforts may be needed to ensure that

members of all segments of society are included in applicant pools when vacancies occur. Agency human resources management

staffs should work with selecting officials to expand recruitment efforts as broadly as possible

to ensure that highly qualified candidates from

all segments of society across the nation are

aware of open positions and are encouraged to

apply.

5. Supervisors should understand and be able

to clearly articulate to employees the criteria

for evaluating employees for appraisals and

awards and candidates for vacancies and promotion opportunities.

Supervisors should also provide appropriate

information about the qualifications of those

who were selected, promoted, or rewarded to

others in the work unit to help those other employees understand the basis for the managers

decisions.

Executive Summary

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD xi
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 1

Introduction

There are currently over 1.7 million full-time, permanent, civilian employees in the Federal

workforce. For the last two decades, it has been

the policy of the United States to achieve a civil

service that is representative of the citizenry in

terms of race, national origin, and sex. Indeed,

considerable progress has been made in recruiting women and minorities into Federal employment; both groups now make up a greater

proportion of the Governments workforce than

ever before. However, it is less clear whether minorities and women have realized full equality of

opportunity within the Government. In a 1992

report, the Merit Systems Protection Board found

evidence that women continue to encounter barriers to advancement unrelated to their qualifications.1

 The primary questions addressed by the

present report are whether minorities face similar

disparities in Federal Government employment

opportunities, whether aspects of employment

such as awards and important assignments are

equitably distributed, and the extent to which

employees are confident that they are working in

an environment free of discrimination.

Background

Reasons to be concerned about whether minorities enjoy equal employment opportunity within

the Federal workforce include the dearth of minorities in senior level positions2

 and ongoing

protests and lawsuits alleging disparate treatment.3

 Moreover, in response to a

Governmentwide survey administered by the

Board in 1992, 34 percent of African Americans,

30 percent of Asian Pacific Americans, 19 percent

of Hispanics, and 11 percent of Native Americans

said that they believed they had been denied a

job, promotion, or job benefit because of unlawful

discrimination based on race.4 It should also be

noted that while the Federal Government is now

1 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling in the Federal Government, Washington, DC, October 1992.

2 U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Workforce: Continuing Need for Federal Affirmative Employment, GAO/GGD-92-

27BR, Washington, DC, November 1991.

3 See, for example, Leigh Rivenbark, Black workers bash Commerce for bias, Federal Times, June 13, 1994; Leigh Rivenbark, Hispanic FBI agents claim bias continues, Federal Times, Feb. 6, 1995; Christy Harris, Black agents suit could grow, Federal Times,

Aug. 8, 1994; Veronica Jennings, Blacks describe how bias hurt their careers at NIH, the Washington Post, Aug. 10, 1993.

4 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Working for America: An Update, Washington, DC, July 1994.

Executive Summary
2 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

committed to providing a workplace where equal

employment opportunity (EEO) is valued, historically it has not always been a leader in the

employment of minorities.5

 It was only with the

passage of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Act of 1972 that Federal workers received explicit

statutory protection against discrimination.

There are a number of reasons why the Federal

Government should be particularly concerned

with eradicating barriers to equal opportunity.

One of these is that the Government is the

Nations largest employer and enforcer of laws.

As such, it has a special responsibility to ensure

that its own house is in order with respect to

EEO. As one author noted:

* * * [G]reat changes in a wide arena are instigated by small alterations in governmental personnel policy. The symbolic role of public

position should not be overlooked. In seeking to

implement the goal of greater equality in society

generally government has a special responsibility

to come to others with clean hands. If the elimination of prejudice cannot be achieved in the

public bureaucracy it is unlikely that it will be

achieved anywhere.6

The Board has previously noted that because of

its leadership role, the Governments employment practices have consequences which extend

beyond the employment arena.7 Recently, the bipartisan Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,

created by Congress to study barriers to the advancement of women and minorities in corporate

hierarchies, echoed this recommendation, emphasizing the leadership role Government must take

in the quest to make equal opportunity a reality

for minorities and women.8

 Given the Department of Labors role in ensuring nondiscrimination in private sector employment, the Justice

Departments role in protecting civil rights, the

Department of Housing and Urban

Developments role in enforcing fair housing

laws, it is imperative that the Government ensure

that its own workforce is diverse and free from

discriminatory practices.

Another reason the Government should be especially concerned with EEO is that there is particular value in having a Federal workforce that

mirrors the population in terms of race/national

origin (RNO) and sex. The importance of this concept gained official recognition when Congress

passed the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,

which stated that it is the policy of the United

States to achieve a Federal work force reflective

of the Nations diversity. The act also called for

eliminating the underrepresentation of women

and minorities in all occupations and grade

levels.9

5 For an overview, see David Rosenbloom, Federal Equal Employment Opportunity, Praeger, New York, 1977.

6

 Samuel Krislov, The Negro in Federal Employment, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1967, p. 5.

7

 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Balancing Work Responsibilities and Family Needs: The Federal Civil Service Response,

Washington, DC, November 1991.

8 Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nations Human Capital, Washington, DC, November 1995.

9

 5 U.S.C. §7201.

Introduction
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 3

A Federal civil service that mirrors the population

has a variety of benefits for the Nation as a whole.

Among them are the following:

 A diverse civil service serves as a funnel for divergent points of view and is more likely to

have diverse skills and talents, making it better

able to deal with the wide variety of problems

that exist. Housing policies, for example, that

have been developed based on the insights and

experiences of a diverse group of individuals

are likely to better serve the needs of diverse

communities than those developed by people

who share a common background.

 A diverse civil service helps ensure that social

responsibility is shared, leading to a greater acceptance of governmental policies. When

women and minorities can see that their perspectives have been included in developing

health care policies, for example, they can have

greater confidence that those policies will reflect their particular health care concerns.

 A representative Federal workforce has a positive impact on social conduct and future behavior in society as a whole. If a particular

racial or national origin group doesnt see its

members represented among Federal employees, its youth may see no point in investing financially or psychically in education or in

gaining other prerequisites for Federal jobs,

and thus a cycle of exclusion is perpetuated.

Conscious efforts to achieve a representative

workforce can help to break this self-generating cycle in which minority youth are signaled

a lack of opportunity and, in turn, become reluctant to test the reality of the situation.

Of course, for these benefits to be realized, the

Federal Government must not only include members of each racial and national origin group

within its ranks, but also ensure that all those employees have an equal opportunity to advance

and to be treated equitably in all other aspects of

employment. These issues are of particular concern to the Board because they are found in the

statutory merit principles which the Board is responsible for overseeing. Included among those

principles are the following10:

 Recruitment should be from appropriate

sources in an endeavor to achieve a workforce

from all segments of society, and selection and

advancement should be determined solely on

the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and

skills, after fair and open competition which

assures that all receive equal opportunity.

 All employees and applicants for employment

should receive fair and equitable treatment in

all aspects of personnel management without

regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or

handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights.

Issues To Be Examined

Although this report is concerned with the general question of minority employment in the Federal Government, we focus on several specific

issues. The first of these is the question of minority representation in the Federal workforce, an issue we examine within the context of certain U.S.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

10 5 U.S.C. §2301 (b)(1) and §2301 (b)(2).

Introduction
4 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

(EEOC) requirements. Specifically, the EEOC requires Federal agencies to compare the representation of minorities (and women) in their

workforces to decennial census data regarding

the employment of minorities and women in the

nationwide civilian labor force (CLF). If the proportion of minorities in the Government is lower

than the proportion of minorities in the CLF, it

would suggest that there are barriers to the hiring

of minorities into the Federal workforce. After

making such a comparison on a Governmentwide

basis, we focus on the equally important question

of whether minorities are well represented not

only in all parts of the Government but in all

types of jobs, and in the highest, most influential

positions.

A second major issue we address is whether career advancement patterns differ among employees from different race or national origin groups

and, if so, the possible reasons for these

differences.

Because certain other issues are also important indicators of equal employment opportunity, we examine them as well. For example, do minorities

receive job assignments or awards at rates comparable to nonminorities?

Finally, we analyze the views of minorities and

nonminorities concerning the Governments employment policies. Regardless of the actual existence of unfair treatment for any Federal

employee, perceptions of inequity are certainly

also a cause for concern. Such perceptions can

have a detrimental impact on the morale and productivity of all employees, as well as an adverse

effect on Federal mission accomplishment. Because of this impact, it is important to better understand the causes of perceptions of unfair

treatment and to identify possible corrective measures which might address the underlying factors

contributing to them.

Methodology

In order to understand whether members of the

various racial groups have equal access to Federal

jobs and whether they are treated equitably in

those jobs, we collected information bearing on

these issues from a variety of perspectives. In

some ways this study builds on a previous Board

study11 which identified some of the major factors

that account for the successful advancement of

employees in Federal agencies. That study identified differences in qualifications as well as subtle

biases that lead to disparate rates of career advancement between men and women. Following

that design, the present study examines the career

advancement and employment status in general,

of groups of various races and national origins by

collecting information from numerous sources.

These sources were:

 The Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). The

CPDF is a computerized data bank maintained

by the Office of Personnel Management. This

data bank contains information on all current

civilian Federal employees, except employees

in the U.S. Postal Service and in selected agencies exempt from reporting employee information (e.g., intelligence agencies). From the

CPDF, we obtained information concerning

promotion rates, cash awards, performance ratings, and the supervisory/managerial status of

1.7 million permanent, full-time, Federal civilian employees. This information was broken

down by various demographic factors, such as

race/national origin, sex, grade, job series, and

employing agency.

11 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Question of Equity (full citation is in footnote 1).

Introduction
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 5

We examined these data by looking at (1)

snapshots of employees at two different

times (1978 and 1995) to see how their distribution by occupational category and grade might

have changed, and (2) promotion rates for various RNO groups over a 17-year period to examine trends over time.

 Survey of Federal Employees. We mailed a

survey questionnaire to a representative, stratified, random sample of blue-collar and whitecollar full-time, executive branch civilian

employees. Of the 21,935 surveys delivered to

employees, 13,328 were returned, for a 61-percent response rate. The survey, a copy of which

is shown in appendix 1, asked employees questions about their career advancement and other

work-related experiences with the Government, as well as their perceptions of the treatment of different minority groups in Federal

service.

 Input From Other Knowledgeable Individuals and Groups. We collected information in

writing and in focus groups from directors of

equal employment opportunity or their designees at the 22 largest Federal departments and

agencies. We also held discussions with officials from other Government organizations,

such as the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, the Department of Labor, the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Indian Affairs, and OPM. Our contacts also included

representatives from numerous minority interest groups such as Blacks in Government, the

National Association of Hispanic Federal Executives, National IMAGE, and the Federal

Asian Pacific American Council, and other

knowledgeable private individuals.

 Related Published Research. We also conducted an extensive search of academic literature for relevant studies addressing equal

employment opportunity issues. The information collected was used to supplement findings

from our other data sources.

Definitions of Minority Groups

In this report, we discuss employees as members

of the five major race/national origin groups defined below12:

 African American (Not of Hispanic Origin) includes all persons having origins in any of the

Black racial groups of Africa;

 Asian Pacific American includes all persons

having origins in any of the original peoples of

the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, Japan, Korea, the

Philippine Islands, and Samoa;

 Hispanic includes all persons of Mexican,

Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race;

 Native American includes all persons having

origins in any of the original peoples of North

12 Personnel records in the CPDF include a code for the race/national origin of an employee, which is typically self-reported by that

employee. Similarly, employees self-reported their race/national origin to us in our survey questionnaire. All analyses in this report are

based on such self-reported identification. (Survey responses also included an Other category, the results of which are not separately

described in this report.)

Introduction
6 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

America who maintain cultural identification

through tribal affiliation or community recognition; and

 White (Not of Hispanic Origin) includes all

persons having origins in any of the original

peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle

East.13

We recognize that there can be important subgroup differences within minority groups as well

as among them. For example, American Hispanics trace their origins to different continents and

many different countries. While many share a

common language, there are also important cultural differences among these groups. Additionally, within each Hispanic national origin group,

there are also people from different racial groups,

including Black, White, and multiracial.

That being the case, it normally is best not to generalize about members of any group of employees. However, recognizing that some compromise

is necessary in order to study the issue, we chose

to adhere to the five major categories listed

above. Furthermore, when analyses of the survey

responses or CPDF data indicated no substantial

differences among minority groups, we collapsed

the various groups into an overall minority category for brevity of presentation or whenever required by sample size for reliable analysis.

13 This report uses slightly different labels for minority groups than those traditionally used in Federal Government reports. For example, we use the term African American, rather than Black, and Native American rather than American Indian. Notwithstanding

these different labels, the groups described in this report represent the categories specified by guidelines set by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB is currently considering the possibility of changes to its categorizations, and has held public hearings

on the subject of Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. However, since such changes have

not taken effect, this report is based on OMBs existing categories.

Introduction
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 7

The Employment of

Minorities in the Federal Government

that minorities hold jobs in the Federal Government in numbers proportional to their participation in the national labor market, we compared

the presence of minorities in the Federal

workforce with data from the Bureau of Labor

Statistics on minorities in the civilian labor force.14

Using this type of comparison, we find that most

minorities are generally well represented in the

Federal workforce. In fact, overall minority employment in the Federal Government exceeds minority participation in the civilian labor force (29

percent compared to 24.6 percent). This is illustrated by figure 1, which depicts the representation of each minority group in the Federal

workforce compared to the information obtained

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

As can be seen in figure 1, the Federal Government actually employs a higher percentage of African Americans and Native Americans and, to a

lesser extent, Asian Pacific Americans than are

Minority Access to Federal Jobs

Our study was concerned with numerous issues

relating to the employment of minorities in the

Federal workforce. The first issue we investigated

was whether minorities are given an equal chance

of obtaining employment with the Government.

The next important questions were whether minority group members who do enter the Federal

workforce are treated in the same ways as

nonminority employees, both in terms of opportunity for advancement and recognition for superior performance.

To answer the first question we reviewed OPM

data concerning approximately 1.7 million fulltime, permanent employees working in the executive branch of the Federal Government

through March 1995. This total includes about

300,000 African Americans, 64,300 Asian Pacific

Americans, 98,000 Hispanics, and 30,200 Native

Americans. To learn whether these data mean

14 The information on overall minority participation in the civilian labor force is based on information obtained from the Bureau of

Labor Statistics Civilian Population Survey as of September 1994. It should be noted, however, that although the Government is required to use information about the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) obtained from the Census Bureau to determine the extent to which minorities are well represented in the Federal workforce, there is at least one potential problem which may limit the utility of this

standard for making valid comparisons. As it is currently defined, the CLF includes persons employed (or seeking employment) in the

United States, irrespective of their citizenship, while positions in the Federal civil service can only be filled by U.S. citizens (except under very rare circumstances). Because of this citizenship restriction, comparisons between the CLF and the Federal workforce may be

misleading for minority groups with disproportionately large numbers of non-U.S. citizens among their members.

Introduction
8 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

underrepresented in the Federal workforce. To

look more closely at the issue of the reasons behind the underrepresentation of Hispanics in the

Federal workforce, the Board is undertaking a

separate study of the factors affecting the employment of Hispanics in the Federal Government.

Distribution of Minorities by

Occupational Category

Although the information just discussed shows

that the Federal Government has been successful

in employing at least a proportionate share of minorities overall, it is important to also determine

whether the Government has done as good a job

of employing minorities in all types of jobs. Minorities may, for example, be employed in clerical

and technical jobs and not be adequately represented in professional and administrative jobs.

The distinction between these categories is significant because jobs in the administrative and

professional categories typically provide much

greater opportunity for employees to advance to

higher graded, more responsible positions than

do clerical and technical jobs.

Figure 2 shows the representation of minorities

and nonminorities by PATCO category (PATCO

is the OPM acronym for the different categories of

white-collar jobs; i.e., Professional, Administrative, Technical, Clerical, and Other) within the

Federal Government and the civilian labor force.15

As can be seen in this figure, African Americans

hold slightly more than their proportionate share

of professional and administrative jobs, but, rela15 These categories are based on a system devised by OPM for grouping together similar types of jobs, based on the skills,

knowledges, and abilities that the jobs require. In this report, jobs falling in the Other category are not included in our data or discussed.

found employed in all of the national workforce

in the 1994 Civilian Population Survey (CPS).

Hispanics, however, are somewhat

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

0

5

10

15

20

10.6

17.7

3.3 3.7

10.0

5.8

0.7

1.8

Race/National Origin

Percent

Civilian Labor Force

Federal Workforce

Figure 1.

Comparison of Minority Employees in

Civilian and Federal Workforces,

by Race/National Origin

Note: Data are for full-time permanent employees and include both blue- and white-collar employees. Civilian data

are as of September 1994, and Federal data are as of March

1995.

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics CPS data, September

1994, as reported in OPMs Annual Report to Congress on

the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program, CE104, April 1995; and OPMs Central Personnel Data File,

March 1995.

The Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 9

10.2

23.0

3.5 3.1 6.6 6.2

0.8 2.5

79.0

65.2

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

Percent

12.4

29.4

2.7 3.0 6.9 6.6

0.6 2.2

77.4

58.8

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

Percent

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

5.6 7.7 5.4 6.1 3.5 3.7 0.4 1.2

85.0 81.3

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

Percent

Civilian Labor

Force (Technical)

Federal Technical

Workforce

Civilian Labor

Force (Clerical)

Federal Clerical 

Workforce

Civilian Labor

Force (Professional)

Federal Professional

Workforce

Professional

Technical Clerical

Race/National Origin Race/National Origin

Race/National Origin Race/National Origin

8.9

13.4

2.8 2.5 5.2 5.1

0.6 1.3

82.5

77.7

Administrative

Civilian Labor

Force (Administrative)

Federal Administrative

Workforce

Percent

Figure 2.

Comparison of Civilian and Federal Workforces,

by PATCO Category and Race/National Origin

Source: EEOCs Annual Report on the Employment of Minorities, Women, and People With Disabilities in the Federal Government, FY 1991, for 1990 CLF data, and OPMs Central Personnel Data File, March 1995.

The Employment of Minorities
10 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

tive to the CLF, more than twice as many jobs in

the technical and clerical categories.16

As figure 2 also demonstrates, Asian Pacific

Americans and Hispanics are found in professional jobs in the Federal workforce at rates similar or even slightly above their representation in

the civilian labor force in 1990. Asian Pacific

Americans, on the other hand, appear to be

slightly underrepresented in administrative and

technical positions, while Hispanics appear to be

underrepresented in technical and clerical jobs.

Although not seen in this figure, Hispanics are

also the only minority group underrepresented in

blue-collar jobs (Hispanics hold about 10.2 percent of the blue-collar jobs in the CLF but only 7.7

percent of the blue-collar jobs in the Federal Government). Native Americans seem to be well represented in all job categories.

These findings suggest that, in general, the Government has been successful in recruiting qualified people from most minority groups for most

occupations, including the jobs that provide the

potential for advancement to the highest level

jobs in the Government. Saying this, however,

does not necessarily mean that the Government

has done an adequate job of recruiting minorities

in all types of jobs at all geographical locations.

There may be some types of jobs for which the

Government has not been successful in hiring adequate numbers of minorities. Similarly, there

may be some locations where the Governments

employment of minorities is out of balance with

the local labor force. For example, the local labor

force in California may contain a higher percentage of Asian Pacific Americans than are employed

in the Federal workforce in that area. Additionally, as the General Accounting Office (GAO) has

pointed out in a study of the employment of minorities in the Government, there are wide differences in the rates of employment of minorities

across Federal agencies.17 Thus, despite the fact

that the Government is providing adequate access for minorities to Federal jobs in general,

there are occupations and locations where minorities remain underrepresented.

Distribution of Minorities by Grade

Level

While minorities seem to be well represented in

the Federal workforce in most job categories

(with the exception of Asian Pacific Americans

and Hispanics in some types of jobs), an equally

important issue is whether minorities are as well

represented within the various grade levels that

make up the hierarchy of jobs within the civil service. Table 1 shows the percentage of minorities

and nonminorities holding jobs in each of several

white-collar grade level groupings.

As can clearly be seen in table 1, African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans tend to be

16 The information concerning minority participation in the civilian workforce by job category is based on information obtained

through the 1990 census. In contrast, the information about minorities in the Federal workforce discussed in this report is based on

Federal employment as of the end of March 1995. Since almost 5 years passed between the collection of these two sources of information, all comparisons based on job category should be viewed as somewhat limited. This may be especially true for Hispanics and

Asian Pacific Americans, who, because of immigration, have been increasing their participation in the national labor force at faster

than average rates.

17 U.S. General Accounting Office, The Changing Workforce: Demographic Issues Facing the Federal Government, GAO/GGD92-38, Washington, DC, March 1992.

The Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 11

Table 1.

Distribution of RNO Groups in the

Federal Workforce by Grade, March 1995

Race/National Origin

(Percent)

Asian

African Pacific Native

Grade American American Hispanic American White

GS 1-5 29 17 22 32 13

GS 6-10 39 26 36 35 28

GS 11-12 22 36 29 23 33

GS 13-15 10 22 13 11 25

SES 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6

Note: Percentages in columns may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, March 1995.

concentrated in the lower grades.18 Whites and

Asian Pacific Americans, on the other hand, tend

to be found more frequently in higher graded

jobs. Specifically, approximately two-thirds of African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans are employed in GS grades 1-10, while only

about 40 percent of Asian Pacific Americans and

Whites are in jobs at these grade levels. Similarly,

Whites and Asian Pacific Americans are twice as

likely to be employed at grades 13, 14, and 15 as

are members of other minority groups.

Differences in the distribution of minorities and

nonminorities by grade level can also be seen by

comparing the average grade of full-time, permanent employees in each RNO group. As would be

expected given the information presented in table

1, Whites (10.43) and Asian Pacific Americans

(10.49) have the highest average grades. The average grades for the other minority groups are quite

a bit lower, with African Americans averaging

9.21, Hispanics 9.31, and Native Americans 8.83.

Based upon this information, it is apparent that

most minority employees are concentrated in

lower level jobs, while nonminorities are more often found in higher level positions. In fact, minorities in total hold 29 percent of the jobs in the

Government but only 10 percent of the seniorlevel positions that do not involve political appointments. While these numbers would appear

to indicate a great disparity in the treatment of

18 The Federal Government classifies most of its jobs according to a General Schedule (GS) which divides white-collar jobs into 15

grades that increase in complexity and responsibility as the grade increases.

The Employment of Minorities
12 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

minorities within the Government, there are a

number of factors that to some degree account for

these differences.

One factor which contributes to the concentration

of minorities in lower level jobs (and consequently lowers their average grade) was alluded

to earlier. This is the fact that, in general, minorities are more frequently found in positions in the

technical, clerical, and other job categories.

Since jobs in these three categories seldom advance beyond the grade 9 level, the employment

of large numbers of African Americans in technical and clerical jobs explains some of the difference in average grade between African Americans

and Whites. In fact, when members of any minority group are proportionately more often found in

jobs classified in the technical, clerical, and other

job categories, the net effect is that they will also

more often be found in lower graded positions.

Since only professional and administrative positions provide the opportunity for advancement to

highest grade levels in the Federal Government, it

is especially important that minorities have adequate access to these types of jobs. As was discussed previously, the evidence suggests that for

the most part this is the case. With the possible

exception of Asian Pacific Americans in administrative jobs, minorities hold about the same proportion of professional and administrative jobs in

the Government as they do in the overall national

workforce.

Career Advancement in

Professional and Administrative Jobs

If minorities have adequate access to professional

and administrative jobs, the next question that

arises is, Have minorities who are in these positions been provided equal opportunity to advance to the highest grade levels? One way to

begin to look at this issue is to examine the distribution of minorities by grade level in these two

job categories. Figure 3 shows the percentage of

each minority group at each grade level in professional and administrative jobs.

As figure 3 illustrates, as the grade of the job goes

up, the proportion of minorities typically goes

down substantially. The exception to this is Asian

Pacific Americans in professional jobs; members

of this group hold about 5 to 7 percent of the jobs

at each grade level except in the Senior Executive

Service (SES). Nevertheless, at the present time it

is apparent that minorities in general have not attained higher level positions in proportion to

their representation in the Federal workforce. The

data for African Americans in particular show a

marked decline as the grade level increases in

both professional and administrative positions.

The main exception to this conclusion is at the

SES level for administrative jobs, where the percentage of jobs held by African Americans actually increases above the GS-15 level.

Despite the fact that minorities are not currently

well represented in higher graded positions, the

relatively large number of minorities who are

now in trainee or developmental positions (i.e.,

typically grades 5, 7, and, to a lesser extent, grade

9) means that the number of minorities at higher

grade levels should increase substantially in the

future if they are promoted at rates similar to

nonminorities. As we discuss later in this report,

however, based on the rates at which people in

higher graded positions have historically been

promoted, it will most likely be many years before minorities hold a proportionate share of the

highest level jobs in the civil service.

Although there is a lack of minorities in higher

level positions at the present time, it would be incorrect to conclude that progress has not been

made over the last decade and a half. As table 2

The Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 13

shows, with the possible exception of Native

Americans, the representation of minorities in

professional and administrative positions has increased significantly. The increase has been such

that, as mentioned earlier, minorities, with a few

exceptions, are now generally found in professional and administrative positions at rates similar to their participation in similar jobs in the

national labor force.

Of course, as the percentage of professional and

administrative jobs held by minorities has increased, the proportion of jobs held by

nonminorities has decreased by a similar amount.

What is noteworthy is that while the proportion

of jobs held by White employees in general has

been decreasing, the proportion of jobs held by

White women has been increasing. This increase

for White women means a large net reduction in

the proportion of jobs held by White men. This

does not, however, mean that White males have

lost their jobs. In fact, White men held about

446,700 professional and administrative positions

in 1978 and 461,500 positions in 1995. Minorities,

5 7 9 11 12 13 14 15 SES

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Grade

Percent Professional Administrative

5 7 9 11 12 13 14 15 SES

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Grade

Percent

African American Asian Pacific American

Hispanic Native American

Race/National Origin:

African

Asian Pacific

Hispanic

Native

African

Asian Pacific

Hispanic

Native Am.

American

American

American

American

American

Figure 3.

Percent of Minorities in Each Grade Level of Professional

and Administrative Positions, by Race/National Origin, 1994

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, calendar year 1994.

The Employment of Minorities
14 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

on the other hand, collectively held 67,500 professional and administrative positions in 1978, compared to 179,100 positions in 1995.

The reason White men can hold a larger number

of professional and administrative positions in

1995 but a smaller percentage of the total jobs in

these two categories is that employment in both

of these categories has been increasing over the

last 17 years. This does not, however, mean that

there has been an overall increase in Federal employment. In fact, the increase in employment in

professional and administrative jobs has been

more than offset by a decrease in employment in

other job categories, particularly in the blue-collar

area.

The net result is that the employment of White

men in professional and administrative jobs has

remained relatively constant over the 17-year period 1978-95, while most of the growth in these

two job categories has resulted in a dramatic increase in the employment of minorities and

women. This increase in minority employment

again suggests that the efforts to recruit qualified

women and minorities have for the most part

been effective (with the exception of Hispanics

and Asian Pacific Americans who have yet to

achieve full representation in some job categories).

These changes mean that some White males who

have been employed during the entire 17-year period may have noticed that the composition of the

workforce has changed dramatically. Whereas

Table 2.

Workforce Composition for Professional and Administrative Positions, by Race/

National Origin, Sex, and Time Period

Professional Administrative

RNO and Sex 1978 1995 1978 1995

White men 83.5 59.4 71.8 49.9

White women 8.1 21.9 16.1 27.8

Whites (total) 91.6 81.3 87.9 77.7

African Americans 4.3 7.7 7.7 13.4

Asian Pacific Americans 1.9 6.1 1.0 2.5

Hispanics 1.5 3.7 2.4 5.1

Native Americans 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.3

Note: Percentages in columns are computed independently and may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, 1978 and 1995.

The Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 15

White males made up 83.5 percent of the professional and 71.8 percent of the administrative

workforce in 1978, these percentages had fallen to

59.4 percent and 49.9 percent respectively by

March 1995.

Although the proportion of minorities in administrative and professional positions has increased,

employees from most minority groups in 1995

still find themselves concentrated in lower

graded positions in these job categories. Figures 4

and 5 show the changes in average grade, by

RNO and sex, for professional and administrative

occupations, respectively, between 1978 and 1995.

These figures suggest that, although the relative

placement of minorities and women in the grade

hierarchy of professional and administrative occupations has improved in the 17-year period

1978-95, Whites held (and still hold) a greater

proportion of high-graded positions than minorities do. For the most part, White employees still

have a somewhat higher average grade than employees from other RNO groups. Moreover, the

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

0

5

10

15

9.8 9.9 9.6

8.9

9.8

11.4 11.811.4 10.8

12.1

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

0

5

10

15

1978

Race/National Origin

Average Grade

Race/National Origin

Average Grade

11.3 11.6 11.2

10.4

11.6 12.0 12.4 12.1 11.7

12.6 1995

Figure 4.

Professional Positions: Average Grade by Race/National Origin and Sex, 1978 and 1995

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, September 1978 and March 1995.

The Employment of Minorities
16 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

difference in average grade was (and is still)

greater between male and female employees than

between minority and nonminority employees of

the same sex. The net effect is that there is still a

substantial gap between the average grades of

minority women and White men.

These same figures also illustrate the following

noteworthy trends:

 Women have made progress in increasing their

representation in higher graded positions,

compared to White men. Women now hold 23

percent of the positions GS-13 and above. In

1978 women held only 6 percent of these positions. As a consequence, the gap in average

grade between women and nonminority men

has decreased six-tenths of a grade or more.

Having said this, minority women still lag behind White men in both professional and administrative positions by at least one whole

grade;

 Men from most minority groups made relatively little progress in raising their comparative representation in higher graded positions,

compared to White men. With the exception of

Asian Pacific American men in professional poAfrican American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

0

5

10

15

Race/National Origin

Average Grade

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

0

5

10

15

Average Grade

Race/National Origin

11.010.910.810.711.3 11.611.411.411.812.1

9.9 9.7 9.3

8.8

9.9

11.111.110.811.0

1978

11.6

1995

Figure 5.

Administrative Positions: Average Grade by Race/National

Origin and Sex, 1978 and 1995

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, September 1978 and March 1995.

The Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 17

sitions, most minority men continue to be

about a half a grade lower than nonminority

men; and

 Notwithstanding the absolute and relative

gains made by others, the average grade of

White men also rose slightly during this 17-

year time span.

The fact that the average grade of White men actually rose a bit during this period is an important point, because it shows that while the

representation of minorities and women improved, the average grade of White males was

not adversely affected. This is not to say, however,

that the promotion opportunities of White men

were not reduced compared to the level of advantage that they may have had in the past. Nevertheless, despite a dramatic increase in the

employment of minorities and women, White

men in professional and administrative positions

have not lost jobs, have experienced an increase

in average grade, and, in fact, continue to hold a

disproportionate share of the higher graded positions.

Minority Representation in

Management Positions

The above discussion focuses on the proportionately smaller number of minority employees

found in higher graded positions, compared to

nonminorities. A related facet of this problem is

that, even though minorities have had some success of late in gaining entry into professional and

administrative occupations, they have been less

successful in increasing their proportional representation in the ranks of management within

these occupations. The higher one looks in the

managerial hierarchy, the smaller the proportion

of minorities one finds, and while absolute numbers of minorities in management positions have

increased in recent years, they remain

underrepresented in these important positions.

Figure 6 illustrates this point for professional positions, showing, for 1978 and 1995, the percentage of each category of position (nonsupervisory,

supervisory and managerial, and executive)

which was occupied by members of each RNO

group. Figure 7 shows comparable data for administrative positions.

One finding that is particularly notable is that

Asian Pacific Americans are relatively close to

Whites in terms of average grade, but occupy

considerably fewer management positions. While

nonminorities hold about 81 percent of the nonmanagement professional jobs, they hold about

86 percent of the supervisory and management

positions. In contrast, Asian Pacific Americans

hold about 6.5 percent of the nonmanagement

professional jobs but only about 4 percent of the

jobs in management. This finding appears to provide some support for the view expressed by

some of the people we interviewed that Asian Pacific Americans are sometimes excluded from positions of management authority.

Underrepresentation of minority employees in

management positions can have a number of

negative consequences. These include: fewer minorities who can serve as role models and mentors for minorities aspiring to advance in their

careers; less first-hand knowledge in the ranks of

management concerning the problems, concerns,

and aspirations of minority employees; and possibly less commitment (and resulting effort) by the

management team towards the achievement of a

diverse workforce. Given such consequences, it is

possible that extra efforts to increase the number

of minorities in management positions may be

necessary if this artifact of past hiring practices is

to be overcome.

The Employment of Minorities
18 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

The idea that the lack of minorities in management positions is the result of discrimination in

hiring was expressed by at least one of our survey

respondents, who commented on this situation as

follows:

In general, the number of nonminorities in management or supervisory positions throughout the

Federal Government indicates that discrimination in the workplace exists. The argument that

there are not enough qualified minorities to fill

these management positions is a poor excuse.

(MSPB survey respondent, GS-12 Hispanic

male)

Diversity in Executive Positions

Among all the positions in management, those at

the SES or equivalent levels have the highest visibility and the most power and prestige. Therefore, it is useful to look at these positions in even

Figure 6.

Professional Positions: Representation in

Managerial Jobs by Race/National Origin, 1978 and 1994

Note: Data for executives reflect positions in grades 16, 17, and 18 in fiscal year 1978, and for the Senior Executive Service in

calendar year 1994. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, fiscal year 1978 and calendar year 1994.

African American

Asian Pacific

Hispanic

Native American

White

0 25 50 75 100

8.1

5.9

3.9

6.5

4.1

1.5

3.9

2.9

1.1

0.9

1.0

0.5

80.6

86.1

93.0

Race/National Origin

Percent

American

Percent

African American

Asian Pacific

Hispanic

Native American

White

0 25 50 75 100

5.6

3.8

2.0

2.5

1.4

0.5

1.8

1.1

0.3

0.8

0.8

0.1

89.4

92.8

97.1

Race/National Origin

American

1978 1994

Executive

Nonsupervisory Supervisory/Managerial

The Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 19

greater detail. Table 3 shows the number and percent of executive positions by RNO, for 3 different

years (1978, 1985, and 1995).

As table 3 shows, minority representation in executive positions almost tripled during the 17-

year period 1978-95, increasing from 301

positions to 861 positions. Even with this substantial increase, however, minorities are still substantially underrepresented in executive jobs as

compared to their representation in all professional and administrative jobs in the Federal civil

service (in 1995, minorities occupied over 179,100

of the roughly 844,200 professional and administrative positions found in the Government (or 21

percent), versus only 861 of the Governments

7,494 executive positions (or 11 percent)).

Looking at groups, the largest increase in executive positions was achieved by White women,

Figure 7.

Administrative Positions: Representation in

Managerial Jobs by Race/National Origin, 1978 and 1994

Note: Data for executives reflect positions in grades 16, 17, and 18 in fiscal year 1978, and for the Senior Executive Service in

calendar year 1994. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, fiscal year 1978 and calendar year 1994.

African American

Asian Pacific

Hispanic

Native American

White

0 25 50 75 100

8.6

5.7

5.2

1.0

0.9

0.3

2.6

2.1

1.2

0.7

1.0

0.4

87.0

90.4

92.8

Race/National Origin

Percent

African American

Asian Pacific

Hispanic

Native American

White

0 25 50 75 100

14.7

10.4

9.3

2.6

2.0

1.2

5.4

4.5

3.1

1.3

1.6

1.1

76.0

81.5

85.2

Race/National Origin

Percent

1978 1994

American American

Executive

Nonsupervisory Supervisory/Managerial

The Employment of Minorities
20 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

whose numbers increased from 165 to 1,092 positions over the 17-year period. White women now

account for 14.6 percent of the SES, up from 2.7

percent of executive positions in 1978. African

Americans achieved the smallest percentage increase, growing from 202 executive positions in

1978 (3.3 percent) to 527 such positions (7 percent)

in 1995.

While these comparisons show impressive gains

for minorities and women, they may be a bit misleading since they include senior executives who

are political appointees as well as those who are

members of the career civil service. The difference

is important since most political appointees serve

less than 2 years and by statute may hold no

more than 10 percent of the Governments SES

Table 3.

Number and Percentage Distribution of Federal Executives,

by Race/National Origin,Sex, and Time Period

1978 1985 1995

RNO and Sex Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

African American 202 3.3 300 4.4 527 7.0

Asian Pacific American 26 0.4 59 0.9 100 1.3

Hispanic 57 0.9 67 1.0 174 2.3

Native American 16 0.3 32 0.5 60 0.8

Subtotal Minorities:

Men 282 4.5 395 5.8 625 8.3

Women 19 0.3 63 0.9 236 3.1

All 301 4.8 458 6.7 861 11.5

Whites:

Men 5,741 92.5 5,978 87.5 5,541 73.9

Women 165 2.7 398 5.8 1,092 14.6

All 5,906 95.2 6,376 93.3 6,633 88.5

Grand Total 6,207 100.0 6,834 100.0 7,494 100.0

Note: Data for 1978 represent GS 16/17/18 employees, while those for 1985 and 1995 represent SES employees. Subtotal

and total percentages are computed independently and may not equal individual percentages shown due to rounding.

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, 1978, 1985, and 1995.

The Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 21

positions. Table 4 shows how the career service

composition of the SES has changed between 1989

and 1995.

As table 4 shows, the percentages of minorities

and women in the career SES have increased substantially over the last 6 years, although not as

dramatically as would appear to be the case when

political appointments are included. Nevertheless, women, both minority and White, have almost doubled their representation in senior level

positions. Even so, women remain severely

underrepresented in these senior positions since

they hold only 15 percent of the career SES positions, compared to about 36 percent of all professional and administrative jobs in the

Government.

Members of the various minority groups (male

and female) also increased their representation in

the ranks of the SES, but still remain substantially

underrepresented compared to their proportion

of the professional and administrative

workforces. African Americans now hold 6.4 perTable 4.

Number of Career Federal Executives by Race/National Origin, Sex, and Time Period

1989 1995

RNO and Sex Number Percent Number Percent

African American 286 4.6 431 6.4

Asian Pacific American 44 0.7 81 1.2

Hispanic 81 1.3 120 1.8

Native American 33 0.5 55 0.8

Subtotal Minorities:

Men 372 6.0 524 7.8

Women 72 1.2 163 2.4

All 444 7.2 687 10.2

Nonminorities:

Men 5,256 85.3 5,170 76.9

Women 463 7.5 863 12.8

All 5,719 92.8 6,033 89.8

Grand Total 6,163 100.0 6,720 100.0

Note: Percentages in columns are computed independently and may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, September 1989 and March 1995.

The Employment of Minorities
22 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

cent of the career SES positions, compared to 11.3

percent of the professional and administrative

jobs overall. The figures for other RNO groups

are: Asian Pacific Americans, 1.2 percent of the career SES positions versus 4 percent of the total

professional and administrative positions; Hispanics, 1.8 percent versus 4.6 percent; and Native

Americans, 0.8 percent versus 1.3 percent.

Factors Affecting the Distribution

of Minorities in Professional and

Administrative Positions

Differences in Experience

As the preceding discussion demonstrates, while

minorities are well represented in jobs with advancement potential to the highest graded positions (i.e., professional and administrative jobs),

they generally are concentrated in lower graded

jobs in these occupations. The questions that need

to be addressed, therefore, are: (1) Why are minorities more often found in lower graded professional and administrative jobs? and; (2) When,

if ever, can they be expected to hold an equitable

share of positions at the highest grade levels?

There are several possible answers to the question

of why minorities are not found in proportionate

numbers in higher graded jobs. One of the most

obvious possibilities is that because many of the

minorities currently in professional and administrative jobs have been recruited in the last 17

years, they may not have had time to gain the experience necessary to successfully compete for

higher level jobs.

In order to look at the issue of experience, we obtained information from OPMs computer files

which can provide a rough but useful measure of

how different RNO groups compare under this

criterion. Specifically, using information based on

the service computation date of Federal employees (which credits both their civilian and military

service), OPM computed the average length of

service of white-collar employees, by RNO group

and sex. This average is only an approximate

measure of an employees experience level, since

total length of service does not measure the relevance or quality of a persons experience. Neither does it count ones experience in the private

sector.

Table 5 illustrates the differences in experience

levels by RNO group and sex. As this table

shows, there are small but real differences in the

amount of experience of members of different minority groups. Generally speaking, Hispanics,

Asian Pacific Americans, and Native Americans

in professional positions have somewhat less experience than African Americans, who in turn

have less experience than Whites. There seem to

be smaller differences in experience for employees in administrative positions, with Asian Pacific

Americans and Hispanics having slightly less experience than African Americans, Native Americans, and Whites.

Differences of the degree shown in table 5 may in

some measure account for some of the differences

in average grade seen between employees of different RNO groups. For example, since Asian Pacific American women have only slightly lower

average grades that White women, it is possible

that the difference in average grade between

Asian Pacific American women and White

women in professional and administrative jobs

may be explained by the difference in years of experience between members of these two groups.

It is also possible that some of the difference between the average grade of Hispanics and Native

Americans in both professional and administrative positions as compared to Whites can be explained by the fact that the average Hispanic and

The Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 23

Native American has less experience than the average White employee in these types of jobs.

Given the fact that African Americans and Whites

have only slightly different amounts of experience, it seems clear, however, that the considerably lower average grades of African Americans

cannot be explained simply by differences in the

number of years of experience that they have.

It is also worth noting that, except for clerical positions, women generally have slightly fewer

years of service than men in comparable posiTable 5.

Average Length of Service of White-Collar Employees,

by Race/National Origin, Sex, and PATCO Category, March 1995

Average Length of Service (years)

RNO and Sex Professional Administrative Technical Clerical

African American

Men 15 17 15 12

Women 14 19 14 12

Total 14 18 15 12

Asian Pacific American

Men 12 15 14 10

Women 10 14 12 11

Total 12 15 13 11

Hispanic

Men 14 17 15 11

Women 11 16 13 11

Total 13 16 14 11

Native American

Men 15 18 15 10

Women 12 17 13 11

Total 13 17 14 11

White

Men 17 18 16 11

Women 12 17 14 12

Total 15 18 15 12

Note: Average length of service is computed using service computation dates, which include both Federal civilian and

military service time.

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, March 1995.

The Employment of Minorities
24 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

tions. A similar finding was also reported in the

Boards study of the glass ceiling for women,

which found that some of the differences between

the distribution of women and men in professional and administrative positions could be explained by the fact that women, on average, had

fewer years of service.19

Differences in Education

Another factor that the Board previously found to

be related to the grade level a person achieves in

both professional and administrative jobs is the

amount of formal education attained by the employee.20 Figure 8, which is based on information

collected in our survey, provides information concerning the educational attainment levels for

members of different RNO groups. Shown in this

figure are the percentage of Federal workers who

had at least a bachelors degree at the time of

their first Federal job, and the percentage of employees who currently hold such a degree.

As this figure illustrates, Asian Pacific Americans

start their Federal careers with the highest percentage of bachelors degree holders of any RNO

group, and they maintain this distinction as their

careers progress (53 percent on initial entry to

Federal service, rising to 58 percent by January

1993). Perhaps because of their high level of educational accomplishment when they enter the

Government, Asian Pacific Americans show the

least growth in attainment of bachelors degree

credentials while they are Federal employees.

Whites are less likely to have bachelors degrees,

both initially (37 percent) and later in their careers (45 percent), while the other minority

groups (African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans) show somewhat to substantially

lower educational attainment. Native Americans,

who both start and end with the lowest absolute

rates of educational attainment among the various RNO groups, actually show the greatest rate

of increase subsequent to initial hiringalmost

doubling, from 12 percent to 23 percent.

19 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Question of Equity, pp. 13-15 (full citation is in footnote 1).

20 Ibid., pp. 14-15.

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

27

36

53

58

26

33

12

23

37

45

Race/National Origin

Percent

Time of First Job January

1993

Figure 8.

Percent of Workforce With a

Bachelors (or Higher) Degree,

at Time of First Job and in January

1993, by Race/National Origin

Source: MSPB survey of Federal employees, January 1993,

question 25.

The Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 25

21 Ibid., pp. 15-22.

According to 1990 Census Bureau data collected

by the Glass Ceiling Commission, only 5,899 Native Americans 18 years and older had bachelors

degrees and only 3,277 Native Americans held

post graduate degrees in 1990. Since data from

our survey indicate that approximately 23 percent

of the almost 11,000 Native Americans employed

in professional and administrative positions in

the Federal Government have college degrees, it

is quite probable that the Government may be the

largest employer of college-educated Native

Americans in the country.

Differences in Job-Related Behaviors

In addition to experience and education, a variety

of job-related behaviors may have an effect on

how far employees advance in their careers. For

example, in the Boards 1992 study of barriers to

the advancement of women in the Federal

workforce, we found that women were sometimes perceived as not as committed to their jobs

as men because they were not as likely to be willing to relocate and were less able to work long

hours or overtime.This, in turn, had an adverse

impact on their careers, until they were able to

prove their commitment to their jobs, in part by

remaining in the workforce.21 In order to explore

whether similar factors affected the careers of minority employees, we asked our survey respondents a series of questions about a number of

work-related behaviors.

When we asked our survey respondents about

their willingness to relocate, we found that about

three-quarters of them had never relocated as

Federal employees, while about 7 percent had relocated three or more times. Generally speaking,

there were no large differences among the various

RNO groups, although Whites (8 percent) and

Native Americans (8 percent) were slightly more

likely to have relocated three or more times than

were African Americans (3 percent), Hispanics (4

percent), or Asian Pacific Americans (3 percent).

When we asked people whether they would be

willing to relocate to further their careers, Hispanics (52 percent) and African Americans (51

percent) were somewhat more likely to say that

they were willing to relocate than were Asian Pacific Americans (44 percent), Native Americans

(44 percent), and Whites (40 percent). The finding

that 52 percent of the Hispanics say they are willing to relocate may be particularly significant

given an issue that arose during our discussions

with minority interest groups, i.e., the view apparently held by some Federal managers that Hispanics may not be willing to move from certain

geographical locations. If so many Hispanics say

they are willing to move for a job, geography may

be less of a barrier to employment than has been

suggested. As noted earlier, this will be one of the

issues we will examine more closely in an upcoming Board report.

Another factor that could affect employees careers is their commitment to their jobs. When we

asked our survey respondents about this commitment, we found little or no difference among employees from different RNO groups, with 96

percent of our respondents indicating that they

were committed to their jobs. Evidently, differences in advancement among employees from

different RNO groups cannot be explained by differences in willingness to relocate or expressed

commitment of employees to their jobs.

However, there were some small differences by

RNO in the willingness of employees to devote

whatever time is necessary to their jobs in order

to advance their careers. About 75 percent of the

White survey respondents indicated that they

The Employment of Minorities
26 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

were willing to devote the time required to get

ahead, compared to 86 percent for African Americans, 85 percent for Hispanics, 81 percent for

Asian Americans, and 79 percent for Native

Americans. African Americans also reported

working significantly more hours of overtime in

the job previous to their current one than did

other minority employees or Whites. There were

no differences among RNO groups in the number

of hours of overtime worked in their current jobs.

Based on these results, no overall pattern in any

of these job-related behaviors would account for

the difference in the distribution of minorities and

nonminorities by grade level in professional and

administrative jobs. Minority employees report

just as much commitment to their jobs as

nonminorities and appear as willing (or even

more willing) to do whatever it takes to be successful.

Minorities and Career Advancement

The preceding discussion of differences between

minorities and nonminorities in terms of experience, education, and job-related behaviors suggests that some minorities may be found at lower

grades levels at least partly because of lower educational attainment and, to a lesser extent, less experience. Fortunately, it is possible to determine

statistically the relationship between each of these

variables and the grade of each employee completing our survey. Since we were primarily interested in advancement to the highest grade levels

in the Government, we performed this analysis

only for employees in professional and administrative jobs.

When we considered all the relevant responses to

our survey questions (e.g., regarding education,

experience, overtime, travel, relocations), we

found that the race or national origin of the employees still had an effect on how far they advanced in their careers, independent of

differences for each of these factors. On average,

African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans did not advance as far as either Whites or

Asian Pacific American employees with the same

qualifications. This is an important finding since

it indicates that members of some minority

groups have not been treated fairly in terms of

advancement over the course of their careers.

After determining that members of some minority groups have not been treated the same as

nonminorities in terms of advancement, we attempted to quantify what the negative effect of

being a minority had been, using average grade

data as the standard for assessing differences in

peoples careers. Since experience and education

appeared to be the two most important objective

factors which affect peoples career advancement

(and the factors for which there are greatest differences among RNO groups), we compared the

careers of people from different RNO groups

while controlling for the statistical effect of differences in education and experience. We then

looked at the resulting differences in average

grade.22

The results of these comparisons in table 6 illustrate the extent to which, for professional and administrative positions, the careers of minority

group members have lagged behind similarly

qualified nonminority men. From this table we

22 It was beyond the scope of this study to determine whether the educational and experience factors discussed here are, in fact, jobrelated, or whether they may serve to artificially limit the career movement of those individuals who lack them.

The Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 27

Table 6.

Average Grade of Survey Respondents in

Professional and Administrative Positions, by RNO and Sex,

and Difference in Average Grade Compared to White Men, Not Controlled

and Controlled for Education and Experience, January 1993

Average grade

Average Difference (controlling Difference

grade compared for education compared to

RNO and Sex (unadjusted) to White men and experience) to White men

African American

Men 11.45 (.79) 11.60 (.41)

Women 10.81 (1.43) 11.17 (.84)

Total 11.09 (1.15) 11.38 (.63)

Asian Pacific American

Men 11.83 (.41) 11.98 (.03)

Women 10.89 (1.35) 11.51 (.50)

Total 11.47 (.77) 11.83 (.18)

Hispanic

Men 11.48 (.76) 11.63 (.38)

Women 10.18 (2.06) 11.12 (.89)

Total 11.00 (1.24) 11.46 (.55)

Native American

Men 11.68 (.56) 11.75 (.26)

Women 10.42 (1.82) 10.81 (1.20)

Total 11.03 (1.21) 11.32 (.69)

White

Men 12.24 ..... 12.01 .....

Women 10.95 (1.29) 11.34 (.67)

Total 11.79 ..... 11.77 .....

Note: Asian Pacific American men show virtually no difference between their average grade and that of White men

when education and experience are controlled for.

Source: MSPB survey of Federal employees, January 1993.

The Employment of Minorities
28 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

can draw several interesting insights, including

the following:

 When comparisons are made between

nonminority and minority employees who

have equivalent credentials, the average grade

differences between employees from these

groups are much less extreme than when no

adjustment is made for differences in education and experience. In other words, a large

portion of the difference in the average grades

of minorities and White men can be accounted

for by differences in education and experience.

However,

 Even after controlling for differences in education and experience, there was generally a

negative effect on the careers of minorities and

women in professional or administrative positions because of their race/national origin and

sex. The negative effect was smaller for minority men than it was for White women or minority women;

 Asian Pacific American men are an exception

to this general finding about minorities, as

their average grades are virtually the same as

those of White men, when we control for education and experience. These data look at only

the highest grade level achieved in ones career, however, and do not reflect the fact that,

at any given grade, Asian Pacific American

men occupy proportionately fewer supervisory

or managerial positions than White men;

 The perception that minority women experience greater discrimination in their careers by

virtue of their being both minority and female

is supported by the data in table 6. Average

grade differences are generally larger for minority women than they are for either

nonminority women or minority men.

Current Promotion Patterns

The previous section showed that differences in

the career advancement of minorities and

nonminorities cannot be entirely accounted for by

differences in education and experience. The next

issue we looked at is whether current promotion

patterns also show differences between minorities

and nonminorities.

A review of promotion rates is particularly important because most Government employees are

initially hired into trainee jobs rather than into

full performance or senior-level jobs. In fact, historically, the vast majority of the Governments

higher level positions have been filled by the internal promotion of current employees rather

than through the selection of new employees

from the outside. For this reason, the attainment

of an equitable distribution of minorities in

higher graded positions ultimately depends upon

equitable promotion rates for all employees.

Since, as discussed earlier, minorities appear to be

well represented in most categories of Federal

jobs, the answer to the question of how long it

will take until there is a proportionate representation of minorities in higher graded positions is

largely a function of the promotion rate of these

employees.

There is no fixed target in the Federal Government which defines the numbers of people who

will be promoted in a year. At any given instant,

various factors (e.g., turnover rates, growthor

downsizingof programs, changes in the grade

levels of work being performed) may influence

how many promotions occur. For these reasons

promotion rates are subject to substantial year-toyear fluctuations. In fact, as we discuss later in

this report, promotion rates have fallen recently

for most professional and administrative positions to the lowest levels since the 1977-78 time

frame. In order to avoid drawing potentially erroThe Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 29

neous conclusions based on what might have

been anomalous circumstances in a single year,

we have chosen to use promotion rates in our

analyses which are averaged over 2-year periods.

We believe using 2-year averages creates a

smoothing effect which provides a reasonable

balance between precision and consistency.

Our analysis of promotions includes both

temporary and permanent promotions because temporary

promotions, while

comparatively few, are

an integral part of the

career advancement

process. We also believe that any analysis

of promotion rates

needs to be done at

each individual grade

level. The relative

overrepresentation of

minorities at lower

grades, when combined with differences

in promotion rates for

different grade levels

(i.e., a larger proportion of the professional

and administrative

workforce gets promoted from grade 5 to

grade 7 each year than

gets promoted from

grade 14 to grade 15),

makes it inappropriate

in most cases to display

promotion rates which

put all grade levels together. Accordingly, we

have concentrated our presentation on rates broken down by individual grade level.

The average annual promotion rates by RNO

group for professional and administrative positions at the grade 5 through 14 levels for the 2

89

92

94

91

91

65

85

75 65

75

30

40

33 26

33

18

22

18 14

18

10

8

10

9

9

7

6

8

9

6

7

5 7

7

6

5

7

9

11

12

13

14

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

Race/National Origin:

Grade

Promoted From

Figure 9.

Professional Positions: Promotion Rates

by Grade and Race/National Origin, 1993-94

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, calendar years 1993 and 1994.

The Employment of Minorities
30 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

years 1993-94 are shown in figures 9 and 10 respectively.23 The rates shown at each grade level

represent the average annual percentage of employees at that level

who were promoted to

the next grade level

during 1993-94. In discussing differences in

promotion rates, we

have chosen to concentrate our analysis on

differences which appeared to be substantial in nature. Since

there is no predetermined definition of

what constitutes a

substantial difference

in promotion rates, we

have developed our

own definition for that

term. Given the yearto-year variation that

we found after looking

at selected promotion

rates since 1977, allowing for the effects of

rounding errors, and

recognizing that promotion rates are considerably higher at

lower grade levels versus higher ones, we

characterize as substantial those promotion rate differences

which amounted to 5

or more percentage

points at grades 5 and

7 (where most employees are promoted after only 1 year), and 3 or more

points at grades 9 and above (where promotions

do not usually occur each year).

The Employment of Minorities

23 Data for promotions from grade 15 to the SES are not displayed in figures 9 and 10, since the numbers involved are so small that

it can be misleading to display the data in percentage form.

Figure 10.

Administrative Positions: Promotion Rates

by Grade and Race/National Origin, 1993-94

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, calendar years 1993 and 1994.

5

7

9

11

12

13

14

0 20 40 60 80 100

76

79

73 65

77

59

56

67

49

56

27

28

27 24

27

18

17

17

16

17

9

9

10

10

9

8

7

9

11

7

8

8

8

8

6

Grade

Percent

Promoted From

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

Race/National Origin:
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 31

Using this framework as we review the information in figure 9, we note that there were only a

few grade levels at which minority promotion

rates in professional positions were at a substantial disadvantage to those of nonminorities:

 African Americanspromotions from grade 7

and to a lesser extent from grade 9; and

 Native Americanspromotions from grades 7,

9, and 11.

Interestingly, there were also a small number of

situations in which minority promotion rates in

professional positions actually exceeded those of

nonminorities by a substantial amount. These

were promotions for Asian Pacific Americans

from grades 7, 9, and 11.

As figure 10 shows, the promotion rates for administrative positions were slightly different from

those for professional positions. As with professional positions, Native Americans were again

promoted at lower rates from grades 7 and 9. Additionally, Native Americans were promoted at

lower rates from grade 5. Otherwise, there were

no grades at which minority employees were promoted at a substantially lower rate than Whites.

Moreover, at the GS-7 level, Hispanics were promoted at a somewhat higher rate than either

Whites or employees from other minority groups.

Also, Native Americans were promoted at a

higher rate from GS-13 than were African Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, or Whites. Thus, at

least during 1993-94, most minorities were not

disadvantaged in promotions in administrative

positions.

In summary, the pattern that emerges from figures 9 and 10 is that African Americans were

somewhat disadvantaged in professional promotions from trainee and developmental positions

(i.e., grades 7 and 9), while Native Americans

were promoted at lower rates from the lower

grade levels of both professional and administrative positions. Otherwise, minorities were generally promoted in both job categories at rates

similar to those experienced by Whites. Based on

this information it would appear that career barriers for employees from some minority groups

may currently be more of a sticky floor than a

glass ceiling phenomenon. That is, the most substantial promotion bottlenecks which minorities

faced in 1993-94 were found early in an

employees career (i.e., below grade 12) rather

than at more senior levels. Of course, such bottlenecks at lower grade levels result in fewer candidates being available for promotion at the higher

grade levels and, thereby, contribute to the

underrepresentation of employees from these minority groups at higher grade levels.

While the 1993-94 promotion rate data examined

above suggest that substantial progress has been

made in eliminating systemic barriers to the promotion of minorities at higher grade levels, it is

important to place these data in context. That is,

although promotion rates for minorities and

nonminorities at this time appear to be basically

equitable except for some minority groups at the

lower grade levels, the results of our analysis of

our survey did reveal that there had been a cumulative negative effect for being a minority over

the course of most employees careers. This finding suggests that promotion rates may have favored nonminorities at some point in the past.

To gain some insight into this issue and to see

whether there may be different promotion patterns affecting men and women, we looked at detailed promotion data for a variety of time

frames, including the 2-year periods 1977-78,

1984-85, 1991-92, and 1993-94. The results of this

review for professional positions are provided in

appendix 2, which shows promotion rates broken

down by RNO, grade, and sex. Appendix 3 proThe Employment of Minorities
32 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

24 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Question of Equity, p. x (full citation is in footnote 1).

25 Ibid., pp. 19-20.

vides similar data for administrative positions.

Based on our review of promotion rates over the

years, several important patterns emerged, including the following:

 Sticky floors (which inhibit advancement from

trainee and developmental levels into higher

level jobs) affected African American, Hispanic,

and Native American men in professional positions through several time periods and at several levels, and thus appear to be a continuing

problem;

 Over and above the problems described above

for most minority men, women in professional

positions faced even greater career advancement obstacles. During a number of time periods women (including both minorities and

nonminorities) experienced substantially lower

promotion rates from grades 7, 9, and, in some

cases, 11 in professional positions than did

White men (or minority men).

These are significant findings, as promotion rate

disadvantages at these levels can greatly impede

the advancement of minorities and women into

higher level positions. This point was also raised

in the Boards report A Question Of Equity:

Women and the Glass Ceiling in the Federal Government. Referring to the lower promotion rates

of women in professional jobs at the grade 9 and

11 levels, that report said: As these grades are

the gateway through which one must pass in

moving from the entry level to the senior level,

this disparity has the effect of reducing the number of women eligible for promotion in higher

graded jobs.24 Based on the data contained in

this report, we now know that this problem affects not only women generally (and minority

women particularly), but also some minority men

as well.

It may be that a similar phenomenon is affecting

the advancement of both women and African

American and Native American men in professional positions at lower grade levels. In our earlier Board report on the barriers faced by women,

we concluded that women may be required to

prove their commitment to their organizations

before they are given the same opportunities as

men.25 It could be that some minority men in professional positions also have to prove themselves

to the managers in their organization, who tend

to be disproportionately nonminority men. On

the positive side, the current promotion rates indicate that once minorities make it through the

lower grades, they are promoted at rates equal to

those found for nonminorities.

It is also important to note that over the years, including the most recent ones, we found little evidence of discrimination against White men.

White males, with a few exceptions, continue to

be promoted at rates equivalent to employees

from most minority groups at each grade level in

professional and administrative positions.

Another interesting finding was that 1993-94 promotion rates for employees at GS-11 and above

fell by about 20 to 30 percent from earlier levels.

In all probability this reflects recent efforts to reinvent and downsize the Federal Government. In

particular, it is likely that a disproportionate

share of the people who took advantage of the

buyouts available during those 2 years were in

higher graded positions, but that efforts to reduce

the number of people in middle management preThe Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 33

vented these people from being replaced. It is also

likely that the lower promotion rates observed

during 1993-94 will continue for the foreseeable

future as downsizing will almost certainly reduce

the need to promote people to higher graded positions.

The likelihood of continued lower promotion

rates has at least two important consequences.

The first relates to the question of how long it will

be until minorities will hold a proportionate share

of the higher level jobs in the Government. Although we did not attempt to develop a model to

predict how long it would take for minorities to

obtain parity as we did in our study of the barriers to the advancement of women, when we consider the current low promotion rates which we

believe will continue indefinitely, we can only

conclude that it will be many years until minorities are found in proportionate numbers in highgraded positions in the Government.

The second consequence of the lower rates of promotion for employees at the GS-11 and above levels is that the likelihood of being promoted will

decline for all employees in these grades. Even

before the drop in promotion rates, only about

one in nine employees at the GS-12 and 13 levels

was promoted each year. If the most recently observed rates continue, only about 1 in 12 of these

employees will be promoted each year. The importance of this fact is that many employees overestimate the likelihood that they will be

promoted and become frustrated when their expectations are not met. If the current lower promotion rates continue, the effect may be even

greater feelings of frustration for both minorities

and nonminorities. As we discuss in the next

chapter of this report, this may exacerbate the polarization that already exists between minorities

and nonminorities in terms of how they view the

Government as an employer. For example, even

though promotion rates are now about equal for

minorities and nonminorities, some members of

each group will most likely see promotions going

to members of the other group as evidence of discrimination.

Other Disparities in the

Treatment of Minorities

Opportunity to Act in Supervisory Positions

Thus far in this chapter we have discussed the

status of minorities with regard to their participation in the Federal workforce and the factors that

affect their distribution within the hierarchy of

jobs in the Government. There are, however, a variety of other areas where minorities may or may

not be subjected to disparate treatment as employees of the Federal Government.

We noted in the previous MSPB report on the

glass ceiling as it affects women in the Federal

Government that women are more likely than

men to report that developmental assignments,

formal managerial training programs, and the opportunity to act in a position prior to appointment have been very important in their career

advancement. We suggested one reason is that

these opportunities to demonstrate their competence and abilities help break down traditional

stereotypes of women as less suited for managerial positions than men.26 It is likely that the same

is true for minorities and so it is equally important that minorities be given the opportunity to

show what they have to offer their organizations.

One indication of whether minorities are given

the chance to demonstrate their abilities is

26 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Question of Equity, p. 24 (full citation is in footnote 1).

The Employment of Minorities
34 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

whether they are typically asked to act in place of

an absent supervisor. Our analysis of our survey

data revealed this to be a particularly important

issue, since we found that people who had acted

in place of their supervisor were more likely to

have received a greater number of promotions

during the course of their Government careers.

One item on our survey addressed this issue by

asking employees how often they are asked to

serve as the acting supervisor when their supervisor is away for short periods of time. For

those professional and administrative employees

who are in a position to serve as the acting supervisor (should they be asked to do so), a larger

proportion of minorities (29 percent) than

nonminorities (24 percent) report that they

Never or Very rarely are asked to do so. Correspondingly, a larger percentage of

nonminorities (45 percent) than minorities (38

percent) report that they Regularly or Almost

always are given such assignments.

Because some of the difference between minorities and nonminorities in response to this item

may be caused by the fact that minorities are

more often found at lower grade levels than

nonminorities, we restricted our comparisons to

employees working at the GS-11 and above grade

levels. However, this limited the comparisons we

could make between some minority groups and

nonminorities because of very small sample sizes.

As a result, we can report meaningful data for

only one direct comparison between a minority

group and nonminorities on this question. Specifically, comparing African Americans and

Whites, there is a 10-percentage-point difference

between the proportion of African Americans

who report they Regularly or Almost always

are asked to serve as acting supervisor (35 percent) and the proportion of Whites who say this

(45 percent).

Unfortunately, people who are not given the opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities (or

sharpen their skills) through acting supervisory

assignments or special assignments such as high

profile task forces or instructor duties are often

thought to be less well qualified than those who

have had the chance to perform these assignments. And, in fact, having not had the opportunity to improve their skills, they probably are less

well qualified for promotion. The problem with

such a process, however, is that it is inherently

unfair, since those who did not have the chance to

work on the special assignments have not had an

equal chance to prove their capabilities or improve their qualifications.

Performance Appraisal Ratings

The assessment of employees performance can

affect both their potential for career advancement

and their views of their working environment.

Additionally, performance appraisals are used for

other, sometimes competing, purposes such as reductions in force, awards, and performance counseling. Unfortunately, despite attempts to develop

objective performance standards, the appraisal

process continues to be highly subjective.

For example, the Board has examined performance rating data in previous reports and found

that ratings have a tendency to be inflated (e.g.,

more than half of all employees are typically

rated as being better than average). We have also

observed a tendency for women to receive higher

ratings than men.27 The question that we were

concerned with for this study was whether there

27 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Toward Effective Performance Management in the Federal Government, Washington, DC,

July 1988, pp. 7 and 11.

The Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 35

The Employment of Minorities

were differences in performance ratings for minorities compared to nonminorities.

To answer this question we again obtained information from OPMs Central Personnel Data File.

Table 7 displays the information drawn from this

file showing the average performance ratings for

selected PATCO categories and the SES, by RNO

and sex. Among the differences in average ratings

shown in this table, some trends appear particularly noteworthy. For example, in professional positions, minorities from virtually all RNO groups

have lower ratings than White men. In fact, looking at these PATCO categories and the SES, we

see that, with the exception of Asian Pacific

Americans in some job categories, minorities

(both men and women) generally have lower ratings than nonminorities. The table also shows the

previously mentioned tendency for women across

all of the RNO groups to receive higher ratings

than men.

While an initial reaction to the differences shown

in table 7 might be that minorities are not performing as well as nonminorities, other studies

suggest that this may be an erroneous conclusion.

In fact, extensive research has been done in the

area of performance appraisals. Consistently, this

research has shown that supervisors rate employees from their own RNO group higher than they

rate employees from other groups.28 In general,

Whites rate other Whites higher than they rate

minorities. Similarly, African Americans tend to

give the highest ratings to the African Americans

who work for them.

Given this tendency, it is not surprising that

Whites, on average, receive slightly higher performance ratings than most minorities since Whites

are considerably more likely to hold supervisory

positions. Unfortunately, the disparity in the distribution of performance ratings between minorities and Whites can have a variety of negative

consequences for minorities in particular, but also

for the entire workforce. Lower ratings can have

an effect on an employees probability of receiving awards and promotions, and on his or her retention status during a reduction in force. The fact

that nonminority coworkers receive higher ratings can also lower the morale of minority employees and increase their perceptions of

discrimination. It is not surprising, therefore, that

in response to one of our survey questions, minorities in general and African Americans in particular were more likely than Whites to express

the view that the performance appraisal process

was unfair. These perceptions can in turn lead to

hard feelings and distrust that can result in a decrease in the productivity and efficiency of both

minority and nonminority employees.

These very serious consequences of a disparity in

performance appraisal ratingstaken together with

the research showing that supervisors rate employees from their own RNO group highervividly illustrate why it is so important that minorities be

better represented in supervisory and managerial

positions in the Federal Government. Equitable

treatment for minorities ultimately may depend on

having a management workforce that is sufficiently diverse to offset the operation of subtle differences based on race. The ramifications of this

issue are discussed later in this report.

Compensation for High Performers

While promotions are unquestionably the most

desired form of recognition for performance,

other monetary compensation can also fulfill an

28 Kurt Kraiger and J. Kevin Ford, A Meta-Analysis of Ratee-Race Effects in Performance Ratings, Journal of Applied Psychology,

vol. 70, No. 1, February, 1985, pp. 56-65.
36 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

The Employment of Minorities

Table 7.

Average Performance Rating of White-Collar Employees, by

Race/National Origin, Sex, and PATCO Category, March 1995

Average Performance Rating (on a 5-point scale)

RNO and Sex SES Professional Administrative Technical Clerical

African American

Men 4.32 3.97 4.06 3.90 3.77

Women 4.50 4.10 4.15 4.01 4.02

Total 4.37 4.04 4.12 3.98 3.99

Asian Pacific American

Men 4.35 4.10 4.14 4.12 3.99

Women 5.00 4.12 4.30 4.20 4.27

Total 4.46 4.11 4.21 4.17 4.21

Hispanic

Men 4.26 4.08 4.07 3.97 3.86

Women 4.53 4.14 4.18 4.11 4.12

Total 4.32 4.10 4.12 4.05 4.07

Native American

Men 4.29 4.07 4.06 3.80 3.77

Women 5.00 4.00 4.20 3.94 3.99

Total 4.38 4.04 4.12 3.89 3.97

White

Men 4.44 4.18 4.21 4.04 3.88

Women 4.48 4.24 4.34 4.17 4.23

Total 4.45 4.19 4.26 4.11 4.18

Note: Unabbreviated PATCO category labels included in table are: professional, administrative, technical, and clerical.

Table does not reflect jobs in the PATCO other category. Also, SES includes all PATCO categories.

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, March 1995.
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 37

important role in motivating and honoring highly

successful members of the workforce. For whitecollar employees, the compensation they receive

from awards can come in either of two waysa

one-time payment or an ongoing increase in base

pay (called a quality step increase or QSI).29

Cash awards and QSIs also provide intangible

benefits to employees, through peer group recognition, heightened self-esteem, and possibly enhanced promotion potential.

Because cash awards and QSIs are both a reflection of how management values an employees

contribution to mission accomplishment as well

as a potentially important element in making that

person more promotable, they have a double-barreled significance to an employees career advancement. First, if awards are not equitably

granted, those who are unfairly shortchanged immediately suffer a loss in their compensation as

well as their dignity. Second, since awards can be

a factor in determining a persons ranking for

promotion, if employees are unfairly denied a

cash award or QSI, their subsequent career advancement can be negatively affected.

Figure 11 displays selected cash award data for

fiscal year 1994. Specifically, the figure shows the

number of cash awards (not including QSIs) per

100 employees for professional employees broken

down by grade level grouping and race/national

origin.30 Figure 12 presents similar information

for employees in administrative positions. The

award data displayed in figure 11 reveal several

important patterns:

 In each of the grade level groupings, White employees in professional positions received cash

awards at a substantially higher rate than one

The Employment of Minorities

Grades 9-11 Grades 12-13 Grades 14-15

0

20

40

60

80

100

59

54 55 52

58

71 73 72

59

75

60

47

51 52

63

Grade Level Grouping

Number of awards

per 100 employees

African American Asian Pacific American Hispanic

Native American White

Race/National Origin:

Figure 11.

Professional Positions: Cash Awards

by Grade Level Grouping and Race/

National Origin, 1994

Note: Award data do not include quality step increases.

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, calendar year

1994.

29 Blue-collar employees can receive one-time cash awards, but under the Federal Wage System they are not eligible for quality step

increases.

30 Performance awards included in our cash award data are primarily composed of the following types of awards: performance

awards (e.g., sustained superior performance); Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS) performance awards; special act or service awards; suggestion awards; and SES distinguished and Presidential rank awards. They also include a small number

of other types of relatively unusual awards (e.g., gain sharing awards, invention awards). They do not include within-grade increases

(which are not considered awards) or QSIs.
38 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

or two of the different minority groups. The

most extreme differences occurred at GS-14

and 15, where Asian Pacific Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans received, on the

average, 16, 12, and 11 fewer awards per hundred employees, respectively, than did White

employees; and

 Native Americans were at a substantial disadvantage in receiving cash awards at all grade

level groupings.

 In administrative positions, the award rates for

minorities and nonminorities were somewhat

closer than for professional positions. The largest gaps between White employees and other

groups occurred for Native Americans and

Hispanics at GS-14 and 15.

 At grades 9 and 11, and 14 and 15, employees

in administrative occupations typically were

rewarded more often than were employees in

professional occupations.

Based on other data from OPM, we also noted the

following trends concerning cash awards:

 In administrative occupations, women (both

minority and nonminority) receive substantially more cash awards than do men.These

disparities are striking in their consistency and

magnitude. This pattern is also evident, though

less extreme, in professional occupations.

 For professional and administrative occupations, the average amount of cash given to minorities per award tends to be lower than that

given to nonminorities. For example, for professional occupations during calendar year

1994, the average award amount for minorities

was 2.4 percent less than that given to

nonminorities at grades 9 and 11, 6.1 percent

less at the 12 and 13 levels, and 7.8 percent less

at grades 14 and 15. Differences in the cash

value of awards also exist in administrative occupations, but the differences are smaller.

One of our survey respondents offered the following perspective on the granting of cash

awards:

It is apparent in this office that promotions [and]

cash awards are based on favoritism. While this is

a slightly different issue from being discriminated

against based on gender and race, it is still a form

The Employment of Minorities

Grades 9-11 Grades 12-13 Grades 14-15

0

20

40

60

80

100

62 6259

63 65

69 71

63 63

70

65 67

61

54

69

Grade Level Grouping

Number of awards

per 100 employees

African American Asian Pacific American Hispanic

Native American White

Race/National Origin:

African American Asian Pacific American Hispanic

Native American White

Race/National Origin:

Figure 12.

Administrative Positions: Cash

Awards by Grade Level Grouping and

Race/National Origin, 1994

Note: Award data do not include quality step increases.

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, calendar year

1994.
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 39

of discrimination. I have also noted that the Favorites are White-Anglos. (MSPB survey respondent, GS-9 Asian Pacific American female)

While QSIs are a small subset of the monetary incentive picture (and not included in any of the

above discussions on cash awards), it is also noteworthy to examine what has happened with the

granting of these awards. As mentioned above,

QSIs are permanent increases in an employees

salary, as compared to cash awards, which are

one-time bonuses. Looking at QSI data for calendar year 1994, we find that:

 For professional positions, nonminorities receive QSIs at higher rates than minorities at

grades 9 and 11 (3.1 percent versus 2.4 percent),

the 12 and 13 levels (4.4 percent versus 3.7 percent), and the 14 and 15 levels (5.6 percent for

nonminorities versus 4.7 percent for minorities); and

 Nonminorities also receive more QSIs than minorities in administrative positions at GS-9 and

11 (3.9 percent versus 3.4 percent for minorities), but at virtually the same levels at GS-12

and 13 (5.1 percent for both minorities and

nonminorities) and GS-14 and 15 (4.5 percent

for minorities and nonminorities).

Discharge Rates

In 1994 OPM released a statistical report on the

discharge rate of Federal employees. This report

revealed that while overall discharge rates were

low, they were significantly higher for minorities

than they were for nonminorities. In fact, minorities were more than three times as likely to be discharged than were nonminorities.31

As a result of this finding the Director of OPM

called for an investigation into the reasons for this

disparity. A report on that investigation was issued by OPM in April 1995. The researcher investigating this issue for OPM found that African

Americans and Native Americans working in the

executive branch of the federal government were

significantly more likely to be fired than comparable nonminorities, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific

Islanders.32 The report also noted that newly

hired African Americans were more likely to be

discharged during their probationary period than

were employees from other RNO groups.

Although the study did not provide a definitive

explanation for the reason for these disparities, it

suggested that racially or culturally based stereotypes may affect the discipline process. Other

possible reasons it cited include: differences in

types of jobs held by minorities and

nonminorities; poor selection, development, and

accountability of supervisors and managers; and

the possibility that minorities dont understand

and work the system as well as nonminorities.

In order to better understand what may be happening in this area, the Board is currently conducting a study to look at possible reasons for the

disparities in the discipline rates of minorities

and nonminorities. This study is designed to help

identify the underlying factors that may explain

the reasons for the apparent disparity.

31 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Minority/Nonminority Disparate Discharge Rates, Washington, DC, February 1994.

32 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Federal Discharge Rates, Washington, DC, April 1995, p. D-21.

The Employment of Minorities
40 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

Perceptions of Minority Employment

Thus far our report has discussed two central

themes. On the one hand, we have substantial

evidence that the status of minorities has improved over the last 17 years. Members of most

minority groups are now well represented in

most Federal occupational groups. There have

been marked increases in the number of minorities employed in higher graded and even executive level positions. There is also evidence that

current promotion rates are nearly equitable for

most occupations at most grade levels for both

minorities and nonminorities.

On the other hand, we have found a continuing

pattern of small but real inequities. The average

grade and, therefore, pay is lower for African

Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and to

a lesser extent Asian Pacific Americans than it is

for Whites. Some of this difference can be accounted for by differences in the types of jobs

typically filled by many minorities or by differences in education and experience. But we also

found that a significant number of African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans have not

advanced as far in their careers as Whites and

Asian Pacific Americans with similar qualifications. Similarly, although they may be expected to

prove their commitment to a greater degree than

nonminorities, minorities are less frequently

given the opportunity to serve as acting supervisors. Minorities also tend to receive lower performance ratings as well as fewer and smaller cash

awards. Moreover, minorities, especially African

Americans and Native Americans, are more likely

to be discharged from Federal employment.

Thus, there is an improved work environment

which nevertheless has a number of lingering disparities. Against this backdrop of factual findings,

it is also important to understand the feelings and

beliefs that employees have about what happens

around them (or to them) in the workplace since

what people believe affects how they understand

and respond to events.

To find out about employee perceptions, our survey included a series of questions about how employees view various issues affecting their career

advancement. The responses we received suggest

that there are substantial differences in views

among employees from different RNO groups.

One fundamental issue which is of major concern

to our study is whether minorities believe that

problems in their career advancement may be

linked to discriminatory practices in the workplace. We therefore asked survey respondents the

following question: In your organization, to

what extent do you believe that employees from

the following groups are subjected to flagrant or

obviously discriminatory practices which hinder

their career advancement? Figure 13 shows how

employees responded to this question.

Many employees from each minority group believe that they are victims of flagrant discrimination. This view was most prevalent among

African Americans, 55 percent of whom thought

that they were victims of discrimination to a

Great extent or Moderate extent. Substantial

proportions of the other minority groups also

hold this view: 28 percent of Hispanics, 21 percent of Asian Pacific Americans, and 19 percent of

Native Americans. Generally speaking, minority

employees are more likely to think that members

of their own group are victims of discrimination

than are members of other groups.

The depth of the feelings of minorities who believe that they are victims of discrimination was

illustrated by many of the comments we received

in response to our survey. Among the comments

were the following:

The Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 41

Here we have a White female employee who never

worked for the Government before. She comes on

board September 1991, the last month of the fiscal year, and was given an outstanding [rating] for fiscal year 1991. I asked the supervisor

how could he possibly justify that rating? The reply was nonsensical. Six months later, this same

White female employee was given a career ladder

promotion. Each time my career ladder promotion was due, I had to ask the supervisor over

and over to submit [the] paperwork to process my

promotion. Needless to say, by comparison, I

never received my promotions in a timely manner. Again when I questioned the supervisor

about this, I received a non-justifiable answer.

(MSPB survey respondent, GS-12 African

American female)

In the Federal Government the general rule for

Blacks [is], if youre Black, get back, and if youre

White, youre all right. There are managers with

no concept of what a manager is or [is] supposed

to be. Managers are not concerned with your

knowledge, skills, and abilities, but are only concerned with the color of your skin and/or if you

are Black, would you fit in the White scope of

things. (MSPB survey respondent, African

American female)

Much of what I have seen and felt, I prefer to

keep inside. Lets just say that racial equality is

not in sight. You cant imagine how much it

hurts to write the above comment after 30 years

of service. (MSPB survey respondent, grade 15,

race or national origin unidentified)

Based upon the subtle but real differences in

treatment and a history of discrimination in society in general as well as in the Government, it is

not surprising to find that minorities generally

believe that they continue to be the victims of discrimination. What is surprising is the extent of

the differences in perceptions between minorities

and nonminorities. Very few nonminorities believe that flagrant discrimination against employees from any minority group exists in the Federal

Government.

A similar pattern of responses, showing disparate

views between minorities and nonminorities, was

evident in the answers given to a related survey

question. That question asked, In your organization, if the management became aware of the exAfrican American

Other Minorities

White

Asian Pacific

Other Minorities

White

Hispanic

Other Minorities

White

Native American

Other Minorities

White

0 20 40 60

55

15

4

21

14

3

28

23

3

19

15

5

Respondents’ Race/

Percent

Discrimination Against Asian Pacific Americans

National Origin

American

Discrimination Against Native Americans

Discrimination Against African Americans

Discrimination Against Hispanics

Figure 13.

Extent to Which Employees Believe

Minorities Are Subjected to Flagrant

or Obviously Discriminatory

Practices, by Race/National Origin

Note: Response percentages are for answers of To a Great

Extent or To a Moderate Extent.

Source: MSPB survey of Federal employees, January 1993,

question 46.

The Employment of Minorities
42 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

istence of flagrant or obviously discriminatory practices against the following groups, to what extent

do you believe management would take forceful

actions to stop such practices?

In response, only 32 percent of African Americans

answered that to either a Moderate extent or

Great extent, management would take forceful

action to stop flagrant discrimination against

them, while 64 percent of Whites held this view

concerning African Americans. Interestingly,

however, more Whites were confident that management would take forceful action to stop flagrant discrimination against African Americans

than against other minority groups (i.e., only 48

to 57 percent of White respondents believed that

management would take action to stop discrimination against Hispanics, Asian Pacific Americans, and Native Americans). In fact, the

difference in the views of Whites and

nonminorities concerning protection from discrimination is greatest between Whites and African Americans. Whites tend to believe that African Americans have made the most progress in

moving into top-level positions and are better

protected against discrimination by management

than are members of other minority groups. For

their part, African Americans employees are the

most likely to believe that they are victims of flagrant discrimination and are least likely to believe that they have made progress in moving

into top-level positions.

The survey also asked comparable questions concerning the presence of subtle barriers which

hinder the career advancement of men and

women from each minority group, and the likelihood of managers taking forceful actions to remove such subtle barriers if they became aware of

them. The responses to these questions follow the

same general patterns as those described above

concerning flagrant discrimination, including the

fact that the greatest difference in views is found

between African Americans and Whites.

Table 8.

Percent of Employees Agreeing With:

Minority women face extra obstacles in their careers because they are

both minority and female, by Race/National Origin and Sex

Race/National Origin

Asian

African Pacific Native

Sex American American Hispanic American White

Men 45 26 37 21 17

Women 71 47 64 54 32

Note: Response percentages are for answers of Strongly agree or Agree.

Source: MSPB survey of Federal employees, January 1993, question 39c.

The Employment of Minorities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 43

Finally, the survey also included a question regarding the special circumstances which minority

women may face. Specifically, it asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the

following statement: Minority women face extra

obstacles in their careers because they are both

minority and female. The answers we received

show that substantially more minorities than

nonminorities believe this to be true (54 percent

versus 23 percent).

Since the insights and experiences of men and

women on this question may be different, it is

also useful to look at these data by sex and RNO

combined. Table 8 does this, illustrating that

views on this issue are very polarized, with the

different sexes as well as RNO groups holding

widely divergent perspectives.

Perceptions of Progress by Minorities

So far, this discussion of perceptions held by employees has focused primarily on discrimination

against minorities. Our survey also asked respondents what they believe about the progressmade

by minorities. The responses to this question provide a slightly different perspective on employee

attitudes. Taken together, the responses to these

questions give some important insights about

why it may be taking a long time to achieve full

equal employment opportunity in the Federal

civil service.

Figure 14 shows the responses to the question,

What is your general impression of the amount

of progress each of the following groups has

made in moving into top level positions in the

Federal Government in the last 5 years? The percentages shown in the figure reflect, for each minority group, a summation of the Considerable

progress and Some progress answers, by the

RNO of the respondent.

Looking at these responses, we see at least three

things which seem noteworthy:

 Self-assessments among the various minority

groups, about the progress that their own

groups had made, were clustered fairly closely

together. That is, 26 to 38 percent of the members of each minority group believed that their

own group had made at least some, if not conThe Employment of Minorities

0 25 50 75

36

52

66

35

30

38

38

34

49

28

24

22

Percent

African American

Other Minorities

White

Asian Pacific

Other Minorities

White

Hispanic

Other Minorities

White

Native American

Other Minorities

White

Respondents’ Race/

National Origin

American

Progress By Native Americans

Progress By Hispanics

Progress By Asian Pacific Americans

Progress By African Americans

Figure 14.

Percent of Employees Believing

Minorities Have Made Progress in

Moving Into Top-Level Positions, by

Race/National Origin

Note: Response percentages are for answers of Considerable progress or Some progress.

Source: MSPB survey of Federal employees, January 1993,

question 32.
44 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

siderable, progress in moving into top-level

jobs;

 Nonminorities evaluated the progress of each

minority group (except Native Americans)

slightly to substantially more favorably than

members of the groups themselves did; and

 Among the various groups, the greatest dichotomy between one groups self-perception

of the progress it had made and the other

groups views on that progress occurred for African Americans. All other minority groups

and Whites had a much more favorable assessment of African American progress than African Americans themselves had.

Appendix 4 provides some of the overall findings

discussed in this chapter broken down by RNO

group. In the next section of this report we will

discuss some possible explanations for the divergent views of minorities and nonminorities as

well as some of the consequences.
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 45

In the previous chapters of this report we have

noted that minorities have made considerable

progress in entering the Federal service and in

advancing into top level jobs. We believe that

much of this progress is directly attributable to

the existence of a strong merit system in combination with continuous attention to the importance

of a diverse civil service. It is the merit system

that ensures that, in most instances, the most

qualified candidate for a job will be selected regardless of sex, race, or national origin and that

high quality work will be recognized and rewarded.

However, findings presented in the preceding

chapter on the employment of minorities in the

Federal Government also suggest that minorities

may not be treated equally with respect to all employment-related actions in the Federal Government. While these findings do not suggest

flagrant, pervasive discrimination, they do indicate that minorities continue to face some disadvantages, particularly in those aspects of

employment where subjective judgments play an

important role.

On average, African Americans, Hispanics, and

Native Americans are found at lower grade levels

in professional and administrative occupations

than Asian Pacific American and White employees, even accounting for differences in education

and experience. Moreover, they are more likely to

be subject to disciplinary actions than Asian Pacific American and White employees. For their

part, Asian Pacific Americans are found in grade

levels comparable to those of nonminorities, but

are less likely to be found in supervisory or management positions. Members of most minority

groups tend to receive lower performance ratings

and fewer cash awards than Whites, and there is

some evidence that they are not given the same

opportunities for career advancement-related assignments, such as temporary supervisory roles.

In addition to facing differences in employmentrelated outcomes, minorities and nonminorities

hold very different perceptions of the dynamics

of the workplace. For example, while most White

employees believe that African Americans have

made some or considerable progress in moving

into upper-level positions in the Government,

their view is not shared by African Americans

themselves. Overall, a significant percentage of

minorities believe that they are victims of continuing discrimination, while nonminorities apparently believe discrimination has been nearly

eliminated.

The purpose of this section is to provide some explanations as to why these differences between

minorities and nonminorities continue to exist.

We believe there are four major factors that interact with one another to account for most of the

differences we have identified in this study. These

Explanations for Disparities Between

Minorities and Nonminorities
46 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

factors include (1) societys history of discrimination and racism which exists as a backdrop to,

and influences, peoples perceptions about work

in the Federal Government and relationships with

one another; (2) the continuing tendency, in the

absence of objective criteria, for judgments about

minorities in employment situations to be influenced by stereotypes; (3) the inadequacy of tools

for evaluating employees when hiring and appraisal decisions are required, and poor communication of the reasons for such decisions; and (4)

the reality that expectations of career-enhancing

opportunities exceed actual opportunities. Each

of these factors is discussed below.

Historical and Contextual Backdrop

One of the reasons that some disparities in the

treatment of minorities continue to exist, and that

perceptions of disparate treatment are so tenacious, is that our Nation has a long history of discrimination against minorities which has not been

totally eradicated. Discrimination in employment

on the basis of race, color, or national origin has

been unlawful since the passage of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, and certainly we have come a

long way toward providing equal opportunity in

employment for all citizens. At the same time,

there is widespread acknowledgment that we

have not achieved complete equality of opportunity yet. When asked by a Gallup poll in 1990 if

they believe Blacks have as good a chance as

White people in their community to get any kind

of job for which they are qualified, one-quarter of

those interviewed said Noa figure that has remained unchanged since 1978.33

This reality has further been acknowledged by

the Nations leadership. President Clinton, for example, said recently, Despite great progress, discrimination and exclusion on the basis of race and

gender are still facts of life in America.34 Similarly, when asked whether he believed that the

Nation was colorblind, Newt Gingrich, Speaker

of the U.S. House of Representatives, responded,

Were not colorblind. Id say its a lie to walk

into a school in America and say, This is a colorblind society.35 Moreover, in a recent decision

which raised questions about the constitutionality

of many affirmative action programs, the Supreme Court noted, The unhappy persistence of

both the practice and the lingering effects of racial

discrimination against minority groups in this

country is an unfortunate reality * * *.36

None of these comments was addressed directly

to Federal employment, and, in fact, representation of minorities in the Federal workforce in general exceeds their representation in the private

sector. Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to believe

that the Federal Government, which employs a

broad cross-section of the American populace, is

immune from the attitudes and beliefs that pervade American society as a whole. In fact, those

who have researched issues more specifically related to the employment of minorities have

reached similar conclusions. For example, in its

report on Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian

Americans in the 1990s, the U.S. Commission on

33 The Gallup Poll Monthly, June 1990, p. 24.

34 Clinton vows he will fight to retain affirmative action, Los Angeles Times, June 14, 1995, p. A1.

35 Kevin Merida, Gingrich offers provocative views on racial issues, the Washington Post, June 16, 1995, p. A9.

36 Justice Sandra Day OConnor, writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Pena, Secretary of

Transportation, et al., 115 S.Ct. 2097 (1995).

Explanations for Disparities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 47

Civil Rights noted that, The evidence accumulated in this study convinces the Commission that

the problem [of employment discrimination] is a

serious one and that it pervades both private corporations and government agencies.37

Finally, we know that minority womenwho comprise over half of minorities in the Government

also face disparate treatment based on their sex.

The stereotypes and assumptions that minority

women face as women, discussed at length in a

previous Board study,38 no doubt contribute to the

disparity in treatment and perceptions of minorities and nonminorities discussed in the previous

chapter.

Stereotypes as a

Factor in Judging Employees

One manifestation of the lingering racism in our

society is the tendency to let stereotypes color

ones judgment about people of different racial or

national origin backgrounds. In one sense stereotyping is a normal processnot necessarily inaccurate or biasedthrough which people organize

information about the world around them. In a

sense, stereotypes serve as a kind of shorthand.

If we know a few obvious facts about a person,

we assume we know a great deal more based on

that persons membership in a group. The problem comes when people are willing to attach

negative characteristics to the obvious facts such

as the persons race or national origin.

By their very nature, stereotypes can affect behavior unconsciously and strongly influence how

people act toward one another. Those who are influenced in their decisions by stereotypes normally dont even realize that they may be making

inaccurate judgments about others, or that stereotypes have anything at all to do with their personal decisionmaking process.

It is exactly for this reason that we can better understand the causes of the disparities between minorities and nonminorities identified in this study

if we recognize that stereotypes can negatively influence some managers judgments. Stereotyping

is a natural process that is engaged in by people

of all races and national origins, minority and

nonminority. However, it is a process which is

less likely to adversely affect White employees

than minorities because White employees are

much more often found in positions responsible

for evaluating people in order to hire, promote,

discipline, or reward them.

In every case discussed in this report, the magnitude of the differences between minorities and

nonminorities was small but real. Given the size

of these disparities in outcomes, it may be that

they can best be explained by subtle factors affecting the judgments made about minority employees. Rather than being the result of obvious

and intentional discrimination on the part of

nonminority supervisors and managers, it is possible that many of the differences we found resulted from the use of stereotypes in situations

where there was limited objective information

available for making judgments about employees.

This is not to say that flagrant discrimination

does not exist anywhere in the Government, but

much of the disparity we found in the treatment

37 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans in the 1990s, February 1992, Washington, DC, p.

197.

38 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Question Of Equity (full citation is in footnote 1).

Explanations for Disparities
48 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

of minorities can be explained without assuming

that substantial numbers of supervisors are consciously biased against minorities.

Stereotypes create expectations about a person

based not on what he or she has done, but on

what he or she is assumed to be like, because of

membership in a group. Stereotyping is most

likely to occur when there are very few employees of a particular group in an organization, not

much is known about those employees besides

their appearance, and criteria for evaluating

people are ambiguous.

For example, an Asian Pacific American recently

promoted to a supervisory position in an organization that consists mainly of non-Asian Pacific

Americans, could be a victim of judgments based

on stereotypes when the time came to evaluate

her performance as a manager. Since one stereotype that affects Asian Pacific Americans is

that they are assumed to be passive and better

suited for technical rather than people-oriented

work,39 this manager might be vulnerable to judgments that are influenced by such a stereotype,

regardless of her actual skills in managing her

staff.

The nature and impact of stereotypes in employment situations have been documented by considerable research conducted in experimental

settings. In one example of such a study, interviews by White interviewers with African American and White candidates were videotaped.

Unknown to the interviewers, the applicants had

carefully rehearsed responses to the interview

questions so that their answers were identical. Yet

the videotapes showed that without realizing it,

White interviewers reacted more negatively to the

African American candidates than to the White

candidates, even though their qualifications and

interview responses were exactly the same.40 Also,

as discussed earlier in this report, research has

suggested that people tend to evaluate more favorably the performance of people of their own

race than those of another race, particularly when

those of the other race are few in number in their

organization.41

Beyond providing an inappropriate and unfair

basis for making judgments about a person, stereotypes have a number of additional negative effects for the person who is judged on this basis.

Stereotypes can be self-fulfilling and thereby ultimately result in low self-esteem. People who are

presumed to be unsuitable for a job because of

membership in a group may be influenced by the

reactions of coworkers or supervisors who act on

the basis of the stereotype. Individuals who are

victims of stereotypes may begin to doubt their

own competence and may not perform up to their

potential.

Stereotypes also tend to be self-reinforcing, in that

people tend to ignore information that challenges

a stereotype and remember information that confirms it. For example, if a White man, who fits the

traditional stereotype of an effective manager,

makes a mistake, it may well be dismissed as

something that could happen to anyone. But if

39 Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, Good For Business: Making Use of the Nations Human Capital, Washington, DC, March

1995, pp. 104-105.

40 Thomas F. Pettigrew and Joanne Martin, Shaping the Organizational Context for Black American Inclusion, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 43, No. 1, 1987, pp. 41-48.

41 Kraiger and Ford, op. cit.

Explanations for Disparities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 49

the Asian Pacific American manager were to

make the same mistake, it may reinforce the stereotype of her unsuitability for a managerial position. Conversely, when the White manager excels

at a task, it may be attributed to skill; when a

woman or minority surpasses expectations, it

might be attributed to luck or special treatment

based on the individuals race, national origin, or

sex. Thus, stereotypes often operate as a subconscious sieve through which information about a

candidate or employee is filtered, interfering with

a thoughtful, objective evaluation of the individual.

What minority employees see as discrimination

against them may well be the outcome of attitudes and behavior that stem from stereotypes

held by people of different races or national origins. That minorities would interpret such attitudes and behavior as discrimination is certainly

reasonable given the history of discrimination in

our society. This problem is exacerbated when supervisors lack tools for objectively evaluating employees without falling prey to the subjectivity of

stereotypes.

The Challenges of Impartial

Evaluation and Effective

Communication

One reason stereotypes can influence judgments

and result in disparities in the treatment of minorities and nonminorities and in perceptions of

disparate treatment is because managers often

lack the tools and skills they need to effectively

manage a diverse workforce. These can include

the tools for recruiting and selecting high-quality

candidates, and the skills for effectively communicating the reasons for nonselection to those who

are not chosen. They can also include the skills to

clearly communicate performance expectations

and the tools to objectively evaluate performance

outcomes. Previous Board reports have addressed

shortfalls in management skills, which arise out

of the tendency for agencies to emphasize technical rather than supervisory skills in selecting supervisors, and to neglect sufficient training of

new supervisors once they are selected.42 We believe these shortfalls contribute to disparities in

the treatment of minorities and nonminorities

and to employees perceptions of disparate treatment.

There is probably no part of a supervisors job

that is more important and at the same time less

well-understood than the process for evaluating

an employees performance and potential for future performance. Yet supervisors must make

such assessments every day in order to make hiring and promotion decisions, assign work, allocate scarce training resources, write performance

appraisals, and make tough decisions regarding

disciplinary actions. While the Governments

merit system ensures that such evaluation processes serve to maximize fairness and minimize

the potential for bias, no system can ever be completely without judgment or the potential for inequity.

To illustrate this point, let us look at the selection

process. In an effort to ensure that applicants for a

job are evaluated objectively, many agencies use a

system of assigning them numerical scores according to how closely candidates qualifications

meet ranking factors pre-specified on a crediting

42 See, for example U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, First-Line Supervisor Selection in the Federal Government, Washington,

DC, June 1989; and U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal First-Line Supervisors: How Good Are They?, Washington, DC,

March 1992.

Explanations for Disparities
50 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

plan. Since there are few situations in which we

can determine precisely what attributes will lead

to success on the job, crediting plans are normally

based on a series of assumptions. One such assumption is that past behaviors are reliable predictors of future performance, which is not

always the case. This is especially true when the

vacancy to be filled involves job requirements

that differ from the requirements of the jobs previously held by the applicant.

Additionally, the development of crediting plans

requires making subjective judgments about

which skills and aspects of past performance

should be included and how much weight each

should be assigned. Is it more important for the

team leader to have demonstrated technical competence, leadership skills, or teamwork? Should 3

years of experience as a supervisor be given more

or less weight than an advanced degree, or 10

years of technical experience in the field? There is

nothing scientific about how these decisions are

made; they are based on judgments which at

times are not much better than guesswork.

Compounding this problem for minorities is that

judgments made about the qualifications necessary to succeed in a job are often based on the experience of those who have traditionally held

those jobs. Since the incumbents, particularly in

higher graded jobs, are likely to be White men,

the evaluation process can fall prey to a self-perpetuating cycle in which those who fit a traditional image have an advantage. Add to this the

fact that minorities often have fewer opportunities to demonstrate their abilities (see previous

chapter on employment of minorities in the Government) and what looks like an objective, neutral process in reality can work to the

disadvantage of minorities.

Once the best qualified candidates are referred to

a selecting official, further subjectivity enters the

process. In the absence of any other effective

means for deciding which of the few top-scoring

candidates is really the best for the job, supervisors may easily fall back on selecting someone in

their own image, or selecting someone based on

the recommendation of someone they know.

Again, both of these tendencies can work to the

detriment of minorities, even though that is not

the intention of the selecting official. One survey

respondent expressed her perception of how this

process operates this way:

The subtle barriers are those that concern me.

Managements general lack of respect and mistrust of anything other than the White male is

the real problem. Management should have more

training to overcome their fear of minorities.

(MSPB survey respondent, GS-13 White female)

There is yet another factor that also may work to

the disadvantage of minorities: the Federal hiring

process is often slow and cumbersome. In the interest of getting someone on board quickly so that

the job can get done, supervisors sometimes sacrifice quality for expediency, selecting from among

the first qualified candidates available, rather

than waiting for one who will be a better employee for the job in the long run.43 This can pose

a problem for selection of minorities when the job

is advertised in such a way as to solicit applications from a limited range of peoplei.e., the

area of consideration has been defined narrowlymaking it difficult to find a diverse group

of highly qualified applicants. Moreover, when

presented with a list of qualified candidates, most

supervisors have neither been trained for the selection process nor given the tools to choose the

best person for the job among those on the list.

43 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Rule of Three in Federal Hiring: Boon or Bane?, Washington, DC, December 1995.

Explanations for Disparities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 51

Actually, the fact that the selection process involves a great deal of supervisory discretion can,

under some conditions, serve as a disadvantage

to nonminorities as well as minorities. This can

occur when a supervisor believes it is important

to correct underrepresentation of women or minorities in his or her work unit and so feels compelled to overemphasize the race, national origin,

or sex of applicants without ensuring first that

they are also high-quality candidates. The experience of one of our survey respondents illustrates

this situation:

As an applicant, I have been denied positions because I am a White male. As a supervisor, I have

been pressured to select applicants who had less

experience and in my judgment, less ability,

though they did qualify for positions. (MSPB

survey respondent, GS-14 White male)

It is important at this point to clarify some very

common misperceptions about the nature of the

Governments affirmative employment program.

Affirmative employment in the Federal Government currently means that supervisors may take

race/national origin into account in choosing

among qualified candidates. They may not choose

an unqualified candidate over a qualified candidate. There is no Governmentwide requirement

for supervisors or agencies to meet quotas;

rather, where the representation of minority

groups is below their representation in the civilian labor force so that a conspicuous absence or

manifest imbalance exists, the agency may, but is

not required to, develop reasonable goals to address the imbalance.44 Such affirmative employment programs are often designed to overcome

the unconscious bias that adversely affects minorities and women, as described above.

However, while the requirements of affirmative

employment programs in the Government do not

mandate selection or promotion of minorities,

this does not mean that in practice, decisions

have not been made which emphasize the minority status of the candidate selected at the expense

of fitting the right person to the job. Particularly

in agencies where underrepresentation of minorities has been severe, pressure has been put on

managers to increase diversity at all levels within

their organization. However, because these managers are often in a hurry to fill vacancies, they

may not take the time to try to recruit from a

broader applicant pool in order to find highly

qualified minorities. Consequently, in some cases

it is likely that some managers have selected or

promoted minorities from a limited, local applicant pool who are not as well qualified as people

they might have found if recruitment had been

carried out more broadly.

Due to the subjective nature of the selection processes we have just discussed, supervisors also select White employees who are not well qualified.

The problem, as noted in our earlier discussion of

stereotypes, is that mistakes made by minorities

can be much more visible and more likely to be

remembered than mistakes made by poorly qualified nonminorities. Thus, the perception by

nonminorities that affirmative employment programs have resulted in the selection of minorities

over equally or better qualified nonminorities is

probably accurate in some cases. It is also true

that less qualified nonminority employees have

probably been selected over better qualified minorities; these instances are just less visible and

more easily forgotten. Our preceding analysis of

current promotion rates showed that minorities

and nonminorities are promoted at comparable

44 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEO Management Directive MD-714, issued Oct. 6, 1987. Although this directive was scheduled to expire at the end of fiscal year 1992, it has been extended indefinitely.

Explanations for Disparities
52 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

rates. This suggests that while the best qualified

candidate may not always be selected initially, affirmative employment programs have succeeded

in ensuring that minorities and nonminorities are

affected about equally by the promotion process.

Comments we received from survey respondents

also suggest that when one or more of their own

subordinates applies for a promotion, supervisors

sometimes intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent the reasons for their selection decision.

Rather than risk alienating a White employee

who may have been passed over for a promotion

because he or she was not the best qualified, some

supervisors allow employees to believe that there

was no option but to select a minority candidate,

even when there was. While we have no way of

knowing how common this practice is, it is unlikely that very many supervisors intentionally

mislead their subordinates. But, as we discuss

later, there is a natural tendency for many people

who are not selected to assume that some external

factor unrelated to their qualifications was operating to influence the decision not to select them.

Any hint by a supervisor that suggests affirmative employment considerations entered into the

selection decision may be interpreted by employees as the reason they were not selected even

when the successful candidate was better qualified.

In short, there are a number of weaknesses in our

system for recruiting and selecting employees

that reinforce each other and can result in the perception that minorities have unfair advantages in

career advancement. In some instances, higher

level management may put pressure on first-level

supervisors to correct underrepresentation without first ensuring that those supervisors have the

support and tools they need to recruit and evaluate enough minority candidates to identify the

best person for the job. In those instances, the potential exists that a minority will be selected who

is not an ideal match for the job. This in turn contributes to a perception of reverse discrimination, and in some cases also sets up the minority

employee for failure. The imprecision of the instruments we use for ranking candidates exacerbates this problem because in the absence of an

explicit reason (such as the goal of achieving a

representative workforce) for selecting one candidate over another, unintentional bias may insert

itself into the process. When first-level supervisors are unable or unwilling to effectively or honestly explain their selection decisions to

nonselected employees, misperceptions are further heightened and resentments fueled.

The paucity of appropriate feedback on selection

decisions is illustrated by the responses to one of

our survey questions. When we asked survey respondents who indicated they had not been selected for a competitive promotion for which they

had applied in the last 3 years whether they had

asked for and received useful feedback about

why they were not selected, less than half (48 percent) indicated they had asked for feedback. More

importantly, only 8 percent of respondents indicated they both asked for and received useful

feedback as to why they were not selected. It certainly would be a good management practice to

make this information readily available to unsuccessful applicants, whether they asked for it or

not.

As this discussion has shown, inadequate skills

and tools with respect to selection and communication can contribute to disparities in the treatment and perceptions of minorities and

nonminorities. Supervisors, under pressure to fill

jobs quickly and to correct underrepresentation,

sometimes select the first candidate available to

them from a list of qualified candidates, rather

than taking the time to recruit a more qualified

candidate. Lack of careful selection is even more

likely to occur when the supervisor lacks the tools

Explanations for Disparities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 53

to effectively evaluate candidates on the list received from the personnel office. If the selected

candidate is a minority group member,

nonselected employees are left to assume (or in

some cases are even told) that they were passed

over because of affirmative employment requirements. Meanwhile, because of hasty selections,

some minority employees are put in a position

where not only is success more difficult but their

failings are very visible.

Mismatch Between

Expectations and Opportunities

A final factor that feeds the perceptions by both

minorities and nonminorities that their groups

are subject to discrimination is the reality that

there arent very many opportunities for promotion available. This creates considerable frustration for all employees (minority and

nonminority) and frequently causes them to attribute their lack of advancement to something

other than the fact that a lot of people were in

competition for a rare promotion opportunity,

and a better qualified candidate was selected.

The scarcity of available opportunities for advancement is evident from the previously presented data (see figs. 9 and 10) showing

promotion rates by grade for 1993-94 in professional and administrative positions. As we noted

earlier, advancement beyond GS-12 is almost impossible for employees who are not in professional or administrative jobs. In fact, there are

very few technical positions above GS-12 or clerical positions above GS-9. Moreover, even in professional and administrative positions,

promotions beyond grade 12 are relatively rare.

While the majority of employees who begin their

careers in a GS-5 professional or administrative

job will be promoted to GS-7 and then to GS-9

relatively quickly, promotions slow down greatly

from that point on. Only a little more than onequarter of the employees in GS-9 jobs were promoted to GS-11 in 1993-94, and only about

one-sixth were promoted from GS-11 to GS-12. At

grades 12, 13, and 14, fewer than 1 in 10 employees were promoted, and fewer than 1 in 100 employees in GS-15 jobs were promoted to the SES

in 1993-94. Moreover, for all employees, promotion rates above the trainee level (i.e., above GS-7)

were lower in 1993-94 than they were in 1991-92.

It is no wonder, then, that employees become

frustrated as their opportunities for promotion

become increasingly restricted.

Moreover, when people fail to achieve an objective they have set for themselves, it is human nature to attribute that failure to something external

to themselves.45 Thus, as mentioned above, it is

only natural for people to attribute another

candidates success in gaining a promotion for

which they also competed to external factors such

as affirmative employment objectives (or discrimination) rather than to the fact that they may

have been less qualified than the other candidate.

In many situations, nonminorities may attribute

their failure to achieve a promotion to affirmative

employment requirements, while minorities may

attribute their failure to achieve a promotion to

racism. These tendencies are, of course, exacerbated when applicants dont receive feedback

from selecting officials as to the real reasons for

the selection.

45 G. Weary, M.A. Stanley, and J.H. Harvey, Attribution, Springer Verlag, New York, 1989.

Explanations for Disparities
54 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

Conclusion

Overall, the Governments merit system and emphasis on achieving a diverse workforce have

succeeded in ensuring that in most instances minorities and nonminorities enjoy an equal opportunity to pursue successful Federal careers.

However, as outlined in the previous chapter,

some differences in employment outcomes and

larger differences in perceptions remain. This

chapter has described some of the factors that can

work in combination to explain these disparities.

The attitudes and biases that are found in the

Federal Government reflect those that are found

throughout our society, and that is a society in

which racism and discrimination persist at least

to some degree. Moreover, Federal employees are

human, and human nature is such that we tend to

stereotype groups different from us and to act on

the basis of assumptions inherent in those stereotypes. Embedded in those stereotypes is a mismatch between the characteristics we associate

with various minority groups, and characteristics

we associate with certain kinds of jobs. Mistakes

made by minorities in jobs traditionally held by

nonminorities (such as supervisory positions) are

likely to reinforce those stereotypes.

Human nature also is such that we tend to attribute our failures to something other than our

own shortcomings, and so when we encounter

difficulty in competing for promotions beyond

entry-level grades, we assume those who were

successful had an advantage other than their

qualifications.

The adverse effects of these factors are exacerbated by hiring, promotion, and performance appraisal processes which involve considerably

more subjective judgment than we usually acknowledge. Those processes force supervisors,

who often lack the training and tools required to

make good and objective judgments, to make decisions based on other criteria. When they believe

the priority is to correct underrepresentation in

their workforce, and to do so in a hurry with a

small number of candidates, the result is sometimes the selection of minority candidates who

are not ideally suited for the job. On the other

hand, without other criteria, unintended bias may

creep into the selection processan effect that

prevents minority candidates from being given

adequate consideration. The result is not only the

disparities in treatment described in the previous

section, but a severe polarization in the perceptions of both minority and nonminority Federal

employees.

Explanations for Disparities
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 55

Differences in the treatment of minorities and

nonminorities, however subtle, and differences in

the perceptions of the two groups have a significant and adverse impact on the Federal

workforce. Even perceptions of discriminatory

treatment cost the Government in terms of turnover, loss of credibility, and lost productivity. Particularly in these times of fiscal constraint, when

the Government is demanding more than ever

from its employees and requiring increased levels

of cooperation and teamwork, such perceptions

have a detrimental effect on employee and work

group productivity.

The Impact of Stereotypes

As discussed in the previous chapter, one of the

ways in which stereotypes of minorities adversely

affect employee productivity is in creating selffulfilling prophesies. Considerable research has

shown that people who hold stereotypical beliefs

adjust their behavior to those whom they stereotype and as a result those who are subject to stereotypes tend to behave in such a way as to

confirm the stereotype.46 For example, if a White

employee assumes, based on a stereotype, that his

African American coworker is unqualified for her

job and incapable of meeting performance requirements, he may act in ways which undermine

his coworkers confidence in her own work performance. As a result, she performs less effectively. The White employee may even make it

more difficult for the African American to succeed by denying her access to the kind of informal relationships or networks which can be

helpful in providing information and advice. If

the White employee is the African American

employees supervisor, he may give her less challenging assignments.

Thus, stereotypes indirectly deprive the Government of some of the potential contributions which

minority and female employees can and should

make to their organizations. In many cases, the

differences in the ways minorities are treated as a

result of stereotypes are subtle and difficult to detect. As one survey respondent told us:

It was difficult to respond to some of the [survey]

questions because [the] treatment and behavior of

those above me are subtle and imperceptible, but I

feel some form of bias exists. (MSPB survey

respondent, GS-14 Asian Pacific American male)

Nevertheless, when we asked survey respondents

how much stereotypes based on their race/national origin have adversely affected how they are

The Consequences of Disparate

Treatment and Perceptions

46 Ann Morrison, The New Leaders: Guidelines on Leadership Diversity in America, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1992.

Explanations for Disparities
56 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

treated in their organizations, nearly half of African Americans and one-third of other minorities

answered Greatly or Moderately. However

subtle the expression of stereotypical beliefs may

be, a significant portion of minority Federal employees believe that they exist and that they are

affected by them. Given the backdrop of small

but real disparities in the treatment of minorities

that were discussed earlier, it is really not surprising that substantial numbers of minorities hold

these views.

Research outside the Federal sector has shown

that minorities sometimes avoid situations where

they are likely to be subjected to stereotypes.47

They often choose not to apply for positions

where a minority will be highly visible, and to

leave organizations where they believe their visibility subjects them to particular scrutiny. While

we do not have any direct evidence from the Federal Government on stereotypes as a cause of employee turnover, we do know that a significant

number of minority survey respondents (nearly

one in five) reported that they chose not to apply

for a promotion or developmental assignment because they believed that no one from their race/

national origin group had a chance of being selected (see fig. 15). This suggests that at a minimum, there have been many instances in which

Federal supervisors have lost the opportunity to

consider a full range of qualified applicants for

jobs.

Some Consequences

of Employee Perceptions

Figure 15 illustrates another point, which is that

some White employees (in this case about 1 in 10)

also believe that because of their race/national

origin they might be denied consideration for a

promotion or developmental opportunity. This

was also a common theme among many of the

comments we received in conjunction with our

survey. The following statement is typical of these

comments:

I have been turned down for a job simply because

I was not a minority. This is discrimination

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

18

51

20

44

19

44

14

43

9

45

Race/National Origin

Percent Yes No

Figure 15.

Responses to a Survey Question

Concerning Whether Employees

Chose Not To Apply For a Job

Because of Their Race/National

Origin

Note: Percents for each RNO group do not total 100 because

responses of Not applicable and Dont know/Cant

judge are not displayed on the chart.

Source: MSPB survey of Federal employees, January 1993,

question 33.

47 Pettigrew and Martin, op. cit.

Consequences of Disparate Treatment and Perceptions
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 57

plain and simple. (MSPB survey respondent,

GS-13 White male)

There are both minorities and nonminorities,

then, who believe their race or national origin adversely affects their career advancement. In the

previous chapter we provided several explanations for the relatively common perception that

Federal supervisors are giving undue weight to

nonmerit factors in making selection and promotion decisions, including the lack of effective communication about the basis for their decisions to

employees who were not selected. We also noted

in an earlier section that minorities and

nonminorities have very different views of the extent to which minorities face discriminatory treatment in the Federal Government. In the section

below, we discuss the consequences of such perceptions in the Federal workplace.

Views on Affirmative Employment

One of the areas where minority and nonminority

employees views diverge the most is on the

value of affirmative employment programs. For

example, when we asked our survey respondents

whether they believed selecting officials should

consider whether minorities are

underrepresented in the work unit as one of the

important factors in deciding among otherwise

equally qualified minorities and nonminorities,

more than half of minorities but less than onethird (30 percent) of nonminorities agreed. While

these responses may reflect, in part, the self-interest of minority respondents who stand to gain

from affirmative employment programs and

nonminority respondents who do not, respondents attitudes toward affirmative employment

are not based on self-interest alone. (If they were,

we would expect there to be even greater agreement on the part of minorities and even less

agreement on the part of nonminorities.) Rather,

support or opposition to affirmative employment

policies also reflects the extent to which employees believe discrimination is still a problem in

Federal agencies, and whether minorities have

made sufficient progress in gaining access to

higher level jobs. Of those White employees who

believe that African Americans have made some

or considerable progress in moving into top-level

positions (see fig. 14), for example, only 30 percent agree that minority underrepresentation

should be considered in selection decisions, and

54 percent disagree. Among White employees

who believe progress by African Americans has

been minimal or nonexistent, these numbers are

reversed; 50 percent agree that minority

underrepresentation should be a consideration in

selection decisions, and 31 percent disagree.

A similar pattern can be found when comparing

those nonminorities who believe minorities are

subject to flagrant discrimination to a moderate

or great extent versus those who believe they are

subject to discrimination to a minimal or no extent. Likewise, minorities who believe that little

progress has been made are more supportive of

considering underrepresentation in hiring decisions than those who believe minorities have

made considerable progress.

This relationship between support for affirmative

employment programs and the perception of the

extent to which minorities continue to face barriers in career advancement speaks to the need for

agencies to ensure that employees receive accurate information about the status of minorities

(and women) in their own workforces. Where

there are real disparities in opportunities available to particular groups of employees, and employees are apprised of the situation, they are

more likely to support efforts to make opportunities equal. Similarly, where the facts indicate that

minorities are equitably represented in organizations and there is no evidence of disparate treatConsequences of Disparate Treatment and Perceptions
58 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

ment, informing the workforce of these facts may

help to dispel some misperceptions that create a

perceptual gulf between minorities and

nonminorities. When employees do not have

facts, but are left to rely on their own perceptions,

the result instead is a polarization of the

workforce with all of its adverse consequences.

Lack of Confidence in the

Governments Commitment to EEO

One consequence of the polarization of views between minority and nonminority Federal employees that permeates the Federal workplace is that

many employees lack confidence in their organizations commitment to equal employment opportunity. When we asked employees whom we

surveyed whether they agreed that their organizations truly support EEO, very few employees

expressed agreement. Only about one in four employees (26 percent) agreed with the statement,

My organization gives positive recognition and

rewards to supervisors and managers who actively support the goal of equal employment opportunity for all employees.

Of even greater concern than the lack of confidence in their organizations promotion of EEO is

employees lack of confidence that discrimination

complaints would be resolved fairly by their organization. Figure 16 shows the responses of employees to a survey question which asked them

whether they believe their organizations management would impose appropriately strong disciplinary measures against a supervisor or

manager found to have discriminated against an

employee. Fewer than half of all employees (43

percent) agreed that such action would be taken.

Almost one-quarter (22 percent) of employees

disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, while an equal percentage were unsure.

Moreover, when we asked employees if they believe an action they filed charging race/national

origin discrimination would be resolved in a fair

and just manner by their organization, even fewer

employees (34 percent) agreed. One-quarter (27

percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed, while

one-fifth (21 percent) were unsure. Among survey

respondents, African Americans have the least

confidence in their organizations; only 18 percent

African American

Asian Pacific American

Hispanic

Native American

White

0 20 40 60 80 100

Race/National Origin

Percent

13 45

16 21

13 35

20 27

11 17

Strongly agree Neither agree

nor disagree

Strongly disagree Don’t know/Can’t judge

or Agree

or Disagree

22

22

20

32

22

20

32

31

33

50

Figure 16.

Responses to a Survey Question

Concerning Whether Supervisors

Who Discriminate Receive

Appropriately Strong Punishment

Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: MSPB survey of Federal employees, January 1993,

question 39j.

Consequences of Disparate Treatment and Perceptions
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 59

agreed or strongly agreed that an EEO complaint

would be resolved fairly by their organizations

management, and nearly half (49 percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed. White respondents

have the most confidence, although 22 percent

disagree or strongly disagree that management

would resolve such an issue fairly. This distrust of

the EEO process was also reflected in the written

comments of some survey respondents. The following is one example:

Employees perceive EEO programs as lip service.

Complaints and grievance processes are a joke because even though everyone knows that management cannot or is not supposed to retaliate

against an employee for filing a complaint, they

know it happens. We need to stop talking about

EEO and affirmative action and just do it. It has

to start at the top. (MSPB survey respondent,

GS-12 Hispanic male)

Thus, one consequence of employee evaluation

processes which inevitably involve subjective

judgment and too little communication with employees about why selection, award, and punishment decisions are made, is that a significant

percentage of Federal employees lack confidence

in the Government as an employer committed to

equal employment opportunity. At times, the absence of confidence translates into anger, which is

expressed in lawsuits, demonstrations, and other

forms of protest, which are often reported in the

press.48 Not only do employees, then, doubt the

Governments commitment to EEO, but upon

learning about the discontent, the public may also

lose its confidence that the Federal Government,

the Nations largest employer and enforcer of its

EEO laws, is truly dedicated to equality of employment opportunity.

The fact that the EEO complaint system lacks

credibility also reinforces the importance of monitoring employment-related data, employee perceptions, as well as formal charges of discrimination. In response to a question on our survey,

only 12 percent of those employees who believed

that they were victims of discrimination in the

last three years said they filed a complaint. Those

who did not file a complaint were given a list of

reasons why they chose not to and asked to mark

all that applied. The most commonly selected

reasons were fear of retaliation (marked by 50

percent); that it was not worth the effort (marked

by 40 percent); and the disbelief that they would

get a fair hearing (marked by 37 percent). Thus,

while the EEO complaint system serves an important role in providing redress for aggrieved individuals, it is not realistic to rely on it as the only

gauge of whether discrimination or perceptions

of discrimination are issues in any particular

organization.

Costs Incurred by the Government

In addition to damaging the credibility of the

Government as an equal opportunity employer,

perceptions of discrimination can result in real

monetary costs to the Government. For example,

the Government may well have to incur the expense of replacing employees who ask for reassignment or who resign because they believe they

do not have an equal opportunity to advance.

While we dont have the data required to estimate

48 See, for example, Leigh Rivenbark, More bias charges at Justice, the Federal Times, May 9, 1994; Veronica T. Jennings, Blacks

describe how bias hurt their careers at NIH, the Washington Post, Aug. 10, 1993; Tracy Everbach, U.S. government hires too few Hispanics, study says, Dallas Morning News, Apr. 22, 1991.

Consequences of Disparate Treatment and Perceptions
60 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

49 Morrison, op. cit., p. 21.

50 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: Trends, Progress, and Continuing Challenges, Washington, DC, October 1995.

51 U.S. General Accounting Office, Discrimination Complaints: Monetary Awards in Federal EEO Cases, GAO/GGD-95-28FS,

Washington, DC, January 1995.

these costs in the Federal Government, one private sector company, Corning Incorporated, estimated its cost of recruiting, training, and

relocating replacements for women and minorities who left the company at $2 million to $4 million a year.49

In addition to giving rise to recruitment and replacement costs, perceptions of discrimination

can cost the Government in terms of lost productivity. The Boards latest study of sexual harassment in the Government, which did collect data

regarding the impact of a hostile work environment on employee turnover, use of sick leave, and

individual and work group productivity, estimated the sum of these costs to be $327 million

over a 2-year period.50

We can assume from these studies that there is a

real cost to the Government from employees perceptions of discrimination. This is in addition to

the $31 million paid to Federal employees and

their attorneys as a result of discrimination complaints in fiscal years 1993 and 1994.51

Beyond the potentially quantifiable direct costs

related to turnover, lost productivity, and litigation, such perceptions are also bound to have indirect and less measurable (but still detrimental)

impacts on the ability of Federal employees to

work together to get the job done. When such a

large percentage of employees lack confidence in

their supervisors and the EEO process, and perhaps their coworkers, it is bound to have an adverse impact on collegiality and teamwork. As

the Government downsizes, it is imperative that

members of the workforce learn to work in new,

more productive ways. To the extent that animosity exists among members of the workforce, this

will not happen. Employees who do not believe

they have been treated fairly are unlikely to go

out of their way to cooperate with their supervisors and coworkers.

Perceptions of discrimination also have an impact

on employees motivation. When we asked survey respondents the extent to which their motivation on the job has suffered because of the way

people from their race/national origin group

have been treated in regard to career advancement, 24 percent answered to a Great or Moderate extent. Again, African Americans are the

most affected, with 41 percent indicating that

their motivation has suffered to a Great or

Moderate extent.

Thus, in a variety of measurable and

unmeasurable ways, the Government as an employer, and therefore the taxpaying public, is paying a price for the differences in the treatment and

perceptions of employees outlined in this report.

Even small differences in the treatment of employees are resulting in large differences in perceptions of their own and others opportunities

for advancement, and to a lack of confidence in

their organizations commitment to EEO. This

distrust, in turn, costs the Government in terms of

employee turnover, unwillingness of employees

to make themselves available for promotion, loss

of productivity, and lack of teamwork.

Consequences of Disparate Treatment and Perceptions
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 61

Conclusions and Recommendations

Considerable progress has been made toward

achieving a Federal civil service that reflects the

Nations diversity, as envisioned by the Civil Service Reform Act in 1978. The Government employs a higher percentage of African Americans

and Native Americans than are employed in the

civilian labor force, and about as many Asian Pacific Americans. Hispanics are underrepresented

in the Federal workforce, and that is the subject of

an MSPB report to be issued in 1996.

In addition to making noteworthy progress in entering Federal jobs, minorities are making considerable progress once they enter Government

service, with more minorities than ever holding

top-level positions in the Government. In general,

it appears that adherence to merit principles and

the Governments conscious effort to achieve a diverse workforce have gone a long way towards

ensuring equal employment opportunity for men

and women, minorities and nonminorities. However, parity has not yet been fully obtained and it

is clear that some barriers to complete equality of

opportunity continue to exist. On average, African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans

have not advanced as far as White or Asian Pacific American employees in white-collar jobsa

disparity that can only partly be explained by the

fact that a greater proportion of employees within

these groups tend to be found in lower graded

technical and clerical jobs than in professional

and administrative jobs which have advancement

potential to higher grades (albeit less and less in

the continuing environment of downsizing and

restructuring). Among employees in professional

and administrative jobs there is a tendency for

minorities to be concentrated in the lower grades.

This disparity can also only partly be explained

by differences in education and experience and is

not accounted for at all by other work-related factors, such as job commitment and availability for

geographic relocations. Minority women are at a

greater disadvantage than nonminority women

or minority men. While Asian Pacific Americans

are found at grade levels comparable to those of

White employees in professional and administrative jobs, they are less likely to be in supervisory

or management positions.

The situation has improved over time in that, currently, at most grade levels, promotion rates are

fairly comparable for all groups. However, African Americans continue to be promoted at lower

rates than other employees in trainee and lowergraded positions in professional occupations (GS7 and GS-9), while Native Americans are

promoted at lower rates in both professional and

administrative positions at grades 7, 9, and 11.

Moreover, because Governmentwide downsizing

and restructuring have resulted in a considerable

reduction in overall promotion rates, it will take a

long time for minorities to be fully represented in

senior levels.

Consequences of Disparate Treatment and Perceptions
62 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

Minorities also tend to be at a disadvantage in

terms of job rewards, which no doubt has an impact on their job satisfaction as well as career advancement in the long run. They receive fewer

opportunities to act temporarily for their supervisors, lower performance ratings, fewer and

smaller cash awards, and fewer quality step increases at most grade levels. Moreover, African

American and Native American employees tend

to be discharged at a significantly higher rate

than White employees, Asian Pacific Americans,

or Hispanicsa subject that is being explored in

greater depth in another Board study that is underway.

The disadvantages faced by minorities in their

Federal careers are small in terms of the size of

the aggregate statistical differences, but these disadvantages are very real. They appear in those aspects of the employment process in which

individual judgment is required; e.g., promotions,

assignments, rewards, and discipline. A major

reason that such disparities continue is that the

Government has not found a way to successfully

build in mechanisms for ensuring that the subjective judgments necessarily involved in these processes are free from bias or other phenomena that

inadvertently work to the disadvantage of employees who dont fit the traditional mold. Some

people believe that the system is inherently racist.

What we found was not intentional racism, but

rather processes for allocating job rewards that

have a built-in inertia in favor of the status quo, a

status quo that was defined in an era when White

men held the vast majority of professional jobs.

These disadvantages for minorities have consequences that will grow in significance as the Government continues to downsize. As long as

minorities are few in number in top-level positions, they are likely to be subject to stereotypes.

This creates a self-perpetuating cycle in which

their performance is judged more harshly, their

mistakes are remembered, and their opportunities to demonstrate their abilities are fewer.

Equally significant are substantial differences in

the ways minorities and nonminorities view the

dynamics of the workplace. African Americans, in

particular, are very likely to report that they are

subject to flagrant or obviously discriminatory

practices, while very few White employees perceive this to be the case. Conversely, African

Americans have little confidence in

managements commitment to stop such discrimination, while White employees have greater

confidence that management would take steps to

eliminate discrimination against African Americans than against other minority groups. White

employees also tend to have a more positive assessment of the progress made by minorities in

moving into top-level positions than do minorities themselves.

It is clear that many of these perceptions reflect a

significant degree of misunderstanding on the

part of many minority group members and

Whites. Minorities are subject to disparate treatment in some instances, but we found little evidence that they are subject to flagrant

discrimination, at least with respect to those job

outcomes we could measure. Minorities have

made progress in moving into senior-level positions, although they face more barriers in making

that progress than many White employees recognize. Nor did we find evidence that reverse discrimination against White employees actually

occurs to any great extent. In the absence of factual information about the nature of work-related

opportunities in their own agencies, employees

have been left to make inaccurate assumptions,

resulting in a polarization that harms workforce

effectiveness.

Employee misperceptions have a significant cost

to the Government in terms of turnover, lost proConclusions and Recommendations
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 63

ductivity, and ineffective teamwork. Moreover,

misperceptions lead employees to distrust the

Governments employment policies, thus contributing to a self-perpetuating cycle in which efforts

to make opportunities more equitable instead

contribute to stereotypes and increased polarization.

With these conclusions in mind, we offer the following recommendations:

1. Agencies should conduct their own analyses of differences in promotion rates, performance awards, and other aspects of the

personnel process. Because our findings are

based on Governmentwide data, our study

did not identify greater or lesser disparities

between minorities and nonminorities that

may exist within individual departments,

agencies, or subunits of those departments or

agencies. After ascertaining their own situation, agencies should disseminate the findings of their analyses to employees so

perceptions can be based on accurate data

rather than on rhetoric or misconceptions.

Where there are disparities between minorities and nonminorities, concerted action

should be taken to find the causes and address them.

2. Assessments of progress toward ensuring

equal employment opportunity should include gathering and addressing employee

perceptions. This can be done through surveys, interviews, focus groups, or some combination of the three. What is important is

that some regular mechanism be institutionalized for identifying where employees are

likely to perceive unfair treatment or a lack

of equal opportunity. Where perceptual problems are identified, agencies should develop

programs to remedy these problems. In addition to suggesting areas for further management investigations of actual disparities,

such assessment devices can identify areas

where factual information needs to be provided to employees in order to correct perceptions that some employees receive better

or worse treatment than other employees as a

result of their race or national origin. This is

essential for maintaining a workforce committed to teamwork and high productivity.

3. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management

(OPM) and Federal agencies should continue to work toward development of better

and more user friendly tools for assessing

candidates that allow supervisors to accurately and objectively rate candidates on

job-related characteristics. For example,

OPM should consider developing sample

questions for assessment interviews. Moreover, with OPM guidance, agencies should

provide training to supervisors in how to use

these tools in such a way as to minimize the

bias that often inserts itself into the evaluation process. Managers should be made

aware of the potential for such unconscious

bias in their selection, appraisal, and reward

determinations so that they can critically examine their decisions before finalizing them.

OPM should also include in its training for

supervisors instruction in how to effectively

communicate to the workforce both the criteria that will be used to evaluate candidates/

employees and the reasons for selection and

reward decisions once they are made. As better evaluation tools are developed and as supervisors and employees gain a better

understanding of the limitations of such

tools, the polarization within the Federal

workplace will be lessened, enhancing productivity, justifying the expenditures required to develop better tools and training

programs. OPM should form a partnership

with agencies in order to share the costs for

Conclusions and Recommendations
64 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

developing more effective evaluation tools

and training programs.

4. When choosing from among equally qualified candidates for new hires or promotions, agencies and selecting officials

should actively pursue the concurrent goals

of the statutory merit system principles

which call for: a) selection and advancement based solely on relative ability,

knowledge, and skills combined with

b) efforts to achieve a workforce from all

segments of society. In order to achieve a

representative workforce in a manner consistent with merit principles, extra efforts may

be needed to ensure that members of all segments of society are included in applicant

pools when vacancies occur. Agency human

resources management staffs should work

with selecting officials to expand recruitment

efforts as broadly as possible to ensure that

highly qualified candidates from all segments of society across the nation are aware

of open positions and are encouraged to

apply.

5. Supervisors should understand and be able

to clearly articulate to employees the criteria for evaluating employees for appraisals

and awards and candidates for vacancies

and promotion opportunities. Employees

should be made aware of the imprecision of

such assessment procedures in general. They

should also be educated about the

Governments policy goal of having a diverse

workforce. Supervisors should also make it a

point to provide information about the qualifications of those who were selected, promoted, or rewarded to others in the work

unit so those other employees understand

the basis for their decisions.

Given the importance of equal employment opportunity to the effective operation of the Government and the Governments role in enforcing

equal opportunity, we believe continual monitoring of potential disparities in employment opportunities as well as employees perceptions of their

treatment within the Government are in order.

For over 15 years MSPB has addressed potential

problems with respect to equal employment opportunity. In future assessments of the Federal

civil service we will continue to pay particular attention to the issues addressed in this report, and

encourage agencies to do the same with their own

workforces.

Conclusions and Recommendations
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 65

APPENDIX 1:

Survey on Career Advancement and Workforce Diversity in

the Federal Civil Service
66 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

Appendix 1
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 67

Appendix 1
68 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

Appendix 1
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 69

Appendix 1
70 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

Appendix 1
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 71

Appendix 1
72 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

Appendix 1
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 73

Appendix 1
74 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

Appendix 1
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 75

Appendix 1
76 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

Appendix 1

For a copy of this survey, please contact:

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Office of Policy and Evaluation

1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Room 884

Washington, DC 20419

Toll-free (800) 209-8960

V/TDD (202) 653-8896

FAX (202) 653-7211

Internet: pe@mspb.gov
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 77

APPENDIX 2:

Promotion Rates for Professional Positions, by Grade

Promoted From, Time Period, Race/National Origin, and Sex

Column labels: M = Men; W = Women; and T = Total

Promotion Rates (in percent)

Asian

African Pacific Native

American American Hispanic American White

Time period M W T M W T M W T M W T M W T

Promoted from Grade 5

1977-78 82 85 84 81 75 79 79 77 79 65 57 60 77 84 78

1984-85 85 86 85 95 94 95 101 99 101 84 83 84 92 91 91

1991-92 89 86 87 100 102 101 85 81 83 88 116 99 92 88 90

1993-94 94 85 89 92 91 92 99 90 94 90 91 91 93 89 91

Promoted from Grade 7

1977-78 51 43 47 61 34 53 60 43 56 58 51 54 63 39 56

1984-85 69 77 73 77 85 80 83 76 81 65 66 65 78 76 78

1991-92 72 68 70 85 79 83 87 76 82 75 66 70 84 72 79

1993-94 73 61 65 95 74 85 87 64 75 80 54 65 81 68 75

Promoted from Grade 9

1977-78 27 25 26 40 27 36 45 25 40 16 7 11 39 23 35

1984-85 31 36 33 51 37 46 37 28 34 25 31 27 39 31 36

1991-92 37 33 34 57 38 49 39 34 37 35 29 32 43 35 39

1993-94 31 29 30 48 32 40 34 32 33 24 27 26 35 30 33

Promoted from Grade 11

1977-78 16 16 16 18 16 18 20 17 20 15 12 15 18 17 18

1984-85 16 17 16 23 21 23 19 19 19 13 15 13 17 21 18

1991-92 22 22 22 28 22 26 25 20 24 20 19 20 24 24 24

1993-94 18 17 18 23 20 22 19 17 18 12 15 14 18 19 18

Promoted from Grade 12

1977-78 11 12 11 8 11 8 9 19* 10 12 9* 12 9 14 9

1984-85 10 14 12 11 17 12 12 18 13 10 10 10 11 17 12

1991-92 12 14 13 9 14 10 13 16 13 15 12 14 11 16 12

1993-94 9 10 10 7 10 8 9 14 10 8 11 9 8 12 9

Promoted from Grade 13

1977-78 7 8 7 5 7* 6 5 4* 5 8* 3* 8 6 9 6

1984-85 7 9 8 8 8 8 8 9 8 4 10* 5 8 12 9

1991-92 9 13 11 9 12 10 10 12 10 11 19 13 10 15 11

1993-94 7 8 7 6 7 6 7 10 8 9 9 9 6 9 6

Promoted from Grade 14

1977-78 4 7* 4 7 11* 8 6 12* 7 9* 0 9* 5 7 5

1984-85 5 8 6 8 9 8 7 5* 7 7* 12* 7* 7 10 7

1991-92 9 11 10 6 9 6 10 9 10 10 11* 10 8 13 9

1993-94 7 8 7 5 7 5 6 10 7 6 9* 7 5 9 6

* These percentages may not be meaningful as they represent 10 or fewer actual promotions per year.

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, fiscal years 1977-78, 1984-85, 1991-92, and calendar years 1993-94.

Appendix 2
78 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

APPENDIX 3:

Promotion Rates for Administrative Positions by Grade

Promoted From, Time Period, Race/National Origin, and Sex

Column labels: M = Men; W = Women; and T = Total

Promotion Rates (in percent)

Asian

African Pacific Native

American American Hispanic American White

Time period M W T M W T M W T M W T M W T

Promoted from Grade 5

1977-78 62 70 67 74 83 79 67 66 67 28 26 27 81 77 79

1984-85 69 67 68 65 64 64 70 68 69 69 74 72 70 71 70

1991-92 72 78 76 74 79 77 82 79 81 74 76 75 72 82 77

1993-94 71 78 76 80 78 79 74 71 73 72 62 65 74 79 77

Promoted from Grade 7

1977-78 45 63 56 50 49 49 49 54 51 39 36 37 57 54 56

1984-85 47 51 50 40 52 46 53 55 54 43 36 38 55 55 55

1991-92 58 66 63 62 62 62 70 66 68 57 53 54 59 63 62

1993-94 52 62 59 54 57 56 68 65 67 50 49 49 54 58 56

Promoted from Grade 9

1977-78 25 33 29 21 31 25 27 40 30 21 25 22 25 30 27

1984-85 25 27 26 23 29 26 25 32 27 25 25 25 28 32 30

1991-92 30 35 33 31 35 33 27 34 30 25 27 26 30 33 32

1993-94 25 28 27 25 30 28 23 31 27 24 24 24 25 28 27

Promoted from Grade 11

1977-78 14 16 15 11 15 12 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13

1984-85 16 17 17 15 18 16 17 17 17 13 16 14 18 21 19

1991-92 19 21 20 17 22 20 19 20 19 16 19 17 19 21 20

1993-94 17 19 18 15 19 17 17 18 17 15 17 16 16 18 17

Promoted from Grade 12

1977-78 8 8 8 8 13* 8 9 8* 9 8 8* 8 8 8 8

1984-85 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 12 11 13 14 13 11 13 12

1991-92 12 13 13 11 12 11 14 14 14 12 16 14 12 14 13

1993-94 9 9 9 8 9 9 10 10 10 9 12 10 8 10 9

Promoted from Grade 13

1977-78 9 6 8 7 8* 7 9 2* 8 13 6* 12 9 6 9

1984-85 8 8 8 9 10 9 10 10 10 12 9 11 10 12 10

1991-92 12 13 12 10 14 12 12 15 13 14 13 14 11 14 12

1993-94 9 8 8 6 9 7 9 9 9 10 12 11 7 8 7

Promoted from Grade 14

1977-78 6 4* 5 3* 7* 3* 5 9* 5 5* 5* 5* 5 6 5

1984-85 6 8 6 7 6* 7 7 11* 7 10 4* 9 7 10 8

1991-92 11 12 12 10 16 11 10 12 10 11 12 11 9 12 10

1993-94 8 9 8 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8* 8 5 8 6

* These percentages may not be meaningful as they represent 10 or fewer actual promotions per year.

Source: OPMs Central Personnel Data File, fiscal years 1977-78, 1984-85, 1991-92, and calendar years 1993-94.

Appendix 3
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 79

APPENDIX 4.

Summary of Career Advancement Findings

for Specific Race/National Origin Groups

In the sections below, we present highlights of the

data collected for this report, organized and summarized by RNO group. First, however, we provide some general findings to set the stage for the

detailed RNO summaries that follow:

 Minorities, with the exception of Hispanics, are

generally represented in the Federal workforce

at rates at or above their representation in the

civilian labor force.

 The average grades of minorities in professional and administrative positions are lower

than that for White men, due in part to differences in education and experience levels between minorities and White men. However,

even when the effect of these differences in

education and experience are eliminated (by

statistically controlling for these factors), minorities, with the exception of Asian Pacific

American men, still have lower average grades

than White men. Moreover, the average grade

of minority women is even lower than that of

minority men.

 With the exception of Asian Pacific Americans,

a smaller percentage of minorities than Whites

in the Federal workforce have completed at

least a bachelors degree.

 In professional and administrative positions,

minorities generally receive lower performance

ratings than Whites.

 The proportion of Senior Executive Service or

equivalent jobs held by White men decreased

from 92.5 percent in 1978 to 73.9 percent in

1995. While minority representation in executive positions increased from 4.8 to 11.5 percent

during this period, the proportion of executive

jobs held by White women increased from 2.7

percent to 14.6 percent.

 In response to a survey question, fewer minority employees than White employees reported

that they have the opportunity to serve as the

acting supervisor when the regular manager is

away for a short period of time.

 Almost one-third (30 percent) of supervisors,

managers, and executives expressed the view

that their own career advancement would not

be affected by the EEO practices they follow as

a part of management.

 In response to a survey question on why they

were not selected for a recent promotion, the

most common major reasons cited by employees were preselection of candidates by manageAppendix 4
80 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

ment and the existence of a buddy system.

Also, 14 to 38 percent of employees said that

their race or national origin was a major reason

for their nonselection.

 Another survey question asked whether employees had chosen not to apply for a position

because they felt someone from their RNO

group had no chance of being selected. Some

14 to 20 percent of minorities and 9 percent of

Whites said they had chosen not to apply for

jobs for this reason.

 Among employees who had recently applied

for a promotion and not been selected, only 8

percent of these employees were able to ask for,

did ask, and then did receive useful feedback

on the reasons for their nonselection. Some 32

percent of employees chose not to ask for feedback.

African Americans

Attitudinal findings from MSPB survey:

 In our survey of Federal employees, African

Americans expressed the highest levels of concern of any group about the presence of flagrant or obviously discriminatory practices in

the workplace, with fully 55 percent saying

that members of their group were subjected to

such discrimination. In contrast, only 4 percent

of Whites had this view about discrimination

against African Americans.

 Similarly, while 66 percent of Whites believe

that African Americans have made some or

considerable progress in moving into toplevel positions, only 36 percent of African

Americans share this perspective.

 Substantially more African Americans than

members of the other RNO groups believe that

managers should consider underrepresentation

of minorities in a work unit as one of the important factors when making selections for a

vacancy.

 In response to a survey question asking

whether individuals felt that they had hit a

road block in their careers compared to others

at their grade level, 65 percent of African

Americans in white-collar jobs answered Yes.

In comparison, 43 percent of Whites said Yes

to this question.

 Regarding reasons why they believed they had

not been selected for a recent promotion, 38

percent of African Americans believed that race

or national origin discrimination was a major

factor in their nonselection, including 11 percent who reported this as being the single most

important reason for their nonselection.

 Fewer African Americans than Whites reported

that they are given the opportunity to serve as

the acting supervisor (when the regular boss is

away).

Statistical data:

 In professional, administrative, technical, and

clerical occupations, the Government employs

a higher proportion of African Americans than

are found in comparable sectors of the civilian

labor force.

 Looking specifically at professional occupations in the Government, from 1978 to 1995, African American representation increased from

4.3 percent of the workforce to 7.7 percent,

Appendix 4
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 81

while in administrative occupations, it increased from 7.7 percent to 13.4 percent.

 By grade level, representation of African

Americans in professional and administrative

positions declines steadily the higher one looks

in the hierarchy (except at the SES level of administrative jobs). In professional positions, it

declines from a high of 17 percent at grade 5 to

a low of 4 percent in the SES, while in administrative ones, it declines from 23 percent at

grade 5 to 10 percent in the SES.

 The average grade of African American women

in professional positions increased substantially from 1978 to 1995 (rising from 9.8 to 11.3),

while that of African American men, which

started at a much higher level, rose much less

(from 11.4 to 12.0). In comparison, the average

grade of White men in these positions rose

from 12.1 to 12.6.

 In administrative positions, the average grade

for African American women rose from 9.9 to

11.0, and for men from 11.1 to 11.6. The average

grade for White men in administrative positions rose from 11.6 to 12.1.

 Among professional positions in 1994, African

Americans filled 8.1 percent of nonsupervisory

positions but only 5.9 of the supervisory and

managerial positions and 3.9 percent of the executive positions. For administrative occupations, the comparable numbers are 14.7, 10.4,

and 9.3 percent.

 From 1978 to 1995, African Americans increased their representation in executive positions from 202 (or 3.3 percent) to 527 (or 7.0

percent).

 In professional positions at grades 7 and 9, African Americans are promoted at lower rates

than Whites, while at other professional grade

levels, and for administrative positions, African Americans are promoted at rates substantially equal to those of Whites.

 In professional and administrative positions,

African Americans receive slightly fewer cash

awards than Whites.

Asian Pacific Americans

Attitudinal findings from MSPB survey:

 In our survey of Federal employees, 21 percent

of Asian Pacific Americans indicated that they

felt that members of their group were subjected

to flagrant or obviously discriminatory practices, while only 3 percent of Whites had this

view about discrimination against Asian Pacific Americans.

 In contrast to attitudes expressed by other minority groups, Asian Pacific Americans and

Whites both judged the extent to which Asian

Pacific Americans had made progress in moving into top-level positions at about the same

level. Specifically, 35 percent of Asian Pacific

Americans and 38 percent of Whites said that

Asian Pacific Americans had made some or

considerable progress in moving into such

jobs.

 About half (49 percent) of Asian Pacific Americans believe that managers should consider the

level of minority underrepresentation in the

work unit as one of the important factors when

making a selection for a vacancy. In contrast,

only 30 percent of Whites agreed.

 In response to a survey question asking

whether individuals felt that they had hit a

road block in their careers compared to others

Appendix 4
82 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

at their grade level, 42 percent of Asian Pacific

Americans in white-collar jobs answered Yes.

In comparison, 43 percent of Whites said Yes

to this question.

 Regarding reasons why they believed they had

not been selected for a recent promotion, 30

percent of Asian Pacific Americans believed

that race or national origin discrimination was

a major factor in their nonselection, including 5

percent who reported this as being the single

most important reason for their nonselection.

Statistical data:

 A comparison of Asian Pacific American representation in the civilian labor force and the

Federal workforce shows that Asian Pacific

Americans hold a smaller percentage of administrative and technical jobs in the Government

than they do in other sectors of the American

economy. In contrast, they hold a slightly

larger percentage of professional and clerical

jobs in the Federal sector than they do in the civilian labor force.

 Looking specifically at professional occupations in the Government, from 1978 to 1995,

Asian Pacific American representation increased from 1.9 percent of the workforce to 6.1

percent, while in administrative occupations, it

increased from 1.0 percent to 2.5 percent.

 By grade level, representation of Asian Pacific

Americans in professional and administrative

positions declines only slightly up to the SES

level. In professional positions, it is at the highest level at grades 12 and 15 (with 7 percent of

the workforce being Asian Pacific American),

and at it lowest level in the SES (with slightly

more than 1 percent being Asian Pacific American). In administrative positions, Asian Pacific

American representation declines from 4 percent at grade 5 to about 1 percent in the SES.

 The average grade of Asian Pacific American

women in professional positions increased substantially from 1978 to 1995 (rising from 9.9 to

11.6), while that of Asian Pacific American

men, which started at a much higher level, rose

much less (from 11.8 to 12.4). In comparison,

the average grade of White men in these positions rose from 12.1 to 12.6.

 In administrative positions, the average grade

for Asian Pacific American women rose from

9.7 to 10.9, and for men from 11.1 to 11.4. The

average grade for White men in administrative

positions rose from 11.6 to 12.1.

 Among professional positions in 1994, Asian

Pacific Americans filled 6.5 percent of

nonsupervisory positions but only 4.1 percent

of supervisory and managerial positions, and

1.5 percent of executive positions. For administrative occupations, the comparable numbers

are 2.6, 2.0, and 1.2 percent.

 From 1978 to 1995, Asian Pacific Americans increased their representation in executive positions from 26 (or 0.4 percent) to 100 (or 1.3

percent).

 In professional positions, Asian Pacific Americans are promoted at a higher rate than Whites

and other minorities at the GS-7, 9, and 11 levels, while at most other grade levels of professional positions and all grades in

administrative positions, Asian Pacific Americans are promoted at rates about equal to those

of Whites.

 In professional positions at grades 14 and 15,

Asian Pacific Americans receive substantially

fewer cash awards than Whites, while in other

grade levels (for both professional and adminAppendix 4
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 83

istrative positions), the award rates for Asian

Pacific Americans and Whites are comparable.

 Asian Pacific Americans have the highest proportion of bachelors degree holders of any

RNO group, with 53 percent having such a degree at the time they were hired into the Government, and 58 percent having achieved such

a degree by January 1993.

Hispanics

Attitudinal findings from MSPB survey:

 In our survey of Federal employees, 28 percent

of Hispanics indicated that they felt that members of their group were subjected to flagrant

or obviously discriminatory practices, while

only 3 percent of Whites had this view about

discrimination against Hispanics.

 Similarly, while 49 percent of Whites believe

that Hispanics have made some or considerable progress in moving into top-level positions, only 38 percent of Hispanics share this

perspective.

 About half (51 percent) of Hispanics believe

that managers should consider the level of minority underrepresentation in the work unit as

one of the important factors when making a selection for a vacancy. In contrast, only 30 percent of Whites agreed with this perspective.

 In response to a survey question asking

whether individuals felt that they had hit a

road block in their careers compared to others

at their grade level, 49 percent of Hispanics in

white-collar jobs answered Yes. In comparison, 43 percent of Whites said Yes to this

question.

 Regarding reasons why they believed they had

not been selected for a recent promotion, 29

percent of Hispanics believed that race or national origin discrimination was a major factor

in their nonselection, including 3 percent who

reported this as being the single most important reason for their nonselection.

Statistical data:

 Among all minority groups, Hispanics show

the greatest disparity between their representation in the Federal workforce and their representation in the civilian labor force. Specifically,

Hispanics hold a smaller percentage of technical, clerical, and blue-collar jobs in the Government than they do in other sectors of the

American economy. In professional and administrative occupations, Hispanics hold about the

same percentage of jobs in the Federal sector as

they do in the civilian labor force.

 Looking specifically at professional occupations in the Government, from 1978 to 1995,

Hispanic representation increased from 1.5 percent of the workforce to 3.7 percent, while in

administrative occupations, it increased from

2.4 percent to 5.1 percent.

 By grade level, representation of Hispanics in

professional and administrative positions declines fairly steadily the higher one looks in the

hierarchy. In professional positions, Hispanic

representation declines from a high of 6 percent at grade 5 to a low of about 1 percent in

the SES, while in administrative positions, Hispanic representation declines from 9 percent at

grade 5 to about 3 percent in the SES.

 The average grade of Hispanic women in professional positions increased substantially from

1978 to 1995 (rising from 9.6 to 11.2), while that

of Hispanic men, which started at a much

Appendix 4
84 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

higher level, rose much less (from 11.4 to 12.1).

In comparison, the average grade of White

men in these positions rose from 12.1 to 12.6.

 In administrative positions, the average grade

for Hispanic women rose from 9.3 to 10.8 and

for men from 10.8 to 11.4. The average grade

for White men in administrative positions rose

from 11.6 to 12.1.

 Among professional positions in 1994, Hispanics filled 3.9 percent of nonsupervisory positions but only 2.9 percent of the supervisory

and managerial positions and 1.1 percent of executive positions. For administrative occupations, the comparable numbers are 5.4, 4.5, and

3.1 percent.

 From 1978 to 1995, Hispanics increased their

representation in executive positions from 57

(or 0.9 percent) to 174 (or 2.3 percent).

 In most professional and administrative positions, Hispanics are promoted at rates substantially equal to those of Whites. (At grade 7 in

administrative occupations, Hispanics are promoted at a rate higher than that of Whites.)

 In professional positions at grades 14 and 15

and in administrative positions at grades 9

through 15, Hispanics receive substantially

fewer cash awards than Whites.

Native Americans

Attitudinal findings from MSPB survey:

 In our survey of Federal employees, 19 percent

of Native Americans indicated that they felt

that members of their group were subjected to

flagrant or obviously discriminatory practices, while only 5 percent of Whites had this

view about discrimination against Native

Americans.

 The proportion of Whites and other minorities

who believe that Native Americans have made

progress in moving into top-level positions is

actually smaller than the proportion of Native

Americans themselves who believe they have

made progress. Specifically, only 22 percent of

Whites (and 24 percent of other minorities) believe that Native Americans have made

some or considerable progress in moving

into top-level positions, while 28 percent of Native Americans have this perspective.

 Somewhat more than one-third (37 percent) of

Native Americans believe that managers

should consider the level of minority

underrepresentation in the work unit as one of

the important factors when making a selection

for a vacancy. In contrast, only 30 percent of

Whites agreed with this perspective.

 In response to a survey question asking

whether individuals felt that they had hit a

road block in their careers compared to others

at their grade level, 45 percent of Native

Americans in white-collar jobs answered Yes.

In comparison, 43 percent of Whites said Yes

to this question.

 Regarding reasons why they believed they had

not been selected for a recent promotion, 22

percent of Native Americans believed that race

or national origin discrimination was a major

factor in their nonselection, including 4 percent

who reported this as being the single most important reason for their nonselection.

Statistical data:

 A comparison of Native American representation in the civilian labor force and the Federal

Appendix 4
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 85

workforce shows that Native Americans hold a

higher percentage of white-collar jobs in the

Government than they do in other sectors of

the American economy.

 Employment of Native American in professional and administrative occupations increased substantially from 1978 to 1995, but not

nearly as markedly as for other minority

groups.

 Looking specifically at professional occupations in the Government from 1978 to 1995, Native American representation increased from

0.7 percent of the workforce to 1.2 percent,

while in administrative occupations, it increased from 1.1 percent to 1.3 percent.

 By grade level, representation of Native Americans in professional and administrative positions declines steadily the higher one looks in

the hierarchy. In professional positions, Native

American representation declines from a high

of 6 percent at grade 5 to a low of about 0.5

percent in the SES, while in administrative positions, Native American representation declines from 2 percent at grade 5 to about 1

percent in the SES.

 The average grade of Native American women

in professional positions increased substantially from 1978 to 1995 (rising from 8.9

which was substantially lower than the

average for any other RNO- or gender-group

to 10.4, which is still the lowest of any RNOs

or gender groups average). Native American

men, who started at a much higher average

grade level than Native American women, also

experienced a substantial growth in their average grade during this time period, rising from

10.8 to 11.7. In comparison, the average grade

of White men in professional positions rose

from 12.1 to 12.6.

 In administrative positions, the average grade

for Native American women rose from 8.8

(again, the lowest of any groups average) to

10.7, while for Native American men, their average grade rose from 11.0 to 11.8. The average

grade for White men in administrative positions rose from 11.6 to 12.1.

 Among professional positions in 1994, Native

Americans filled 0.9 percent of nonsupervisory

positions, 1.0 percent of the supervisory and

managerial positions, but only 0.5 percent of

executive positions. For administrative occupations, the comparable numbers are 1.3, 1.6, and

1.1 percent.

 From 1978 to 1995, Native Americans increased

their representation in executive positions from

16 (or 0.3 percent) to 60 (or 0.8 percent).

 In both professional and administrative positions at grades 7 and 9 and at grade 11 in professional positions, Native Americans are

promoted at lower rates than Whites, while at

most other grade levels in these occupational

categories, Native Americans are promoted at

rates substantially equal to those of Whites.

During 1993-94, Native Americans in administrative positions at grade 13 were promoted at

a higher rate than Whites.

 In professional positions at all grade levels and

in grades 12-15 in administrative occupations,

Native Americans receive substantially fewer

cash awards than Whites. Only at grades 9 and

11 in administrative positions are the award

rates between Native Americans and Whites

basically comparable.

Appendix 4
86 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT

Whites

Attitudinal findings from MSPB survey:

 In response to a survey question about the

presence of flagrant or obviously discriminatory practices against each of the minority

groups in the workplace, very few Whites (3 to

5 percent) expressed the view that this type of

behavior occurs. This was in sharp contrast to

the views of minorities; in particular, 55 percent of African Americans believe that their

group was subject to flagrant or obviously discriminatory practices, versus the 4 percent of

Whites who shared this belief concerning African Americans.

 In response to a survey question asking

whether individuals felt that they had hit a

road block in their careers compared to others

at their grade level, 43 percent of Whites in

white-collar jobs answered Yes. In comparison, minority group members said Yes to

this question at rates of 42 to 65 percent.

 In response to a survey question asking employees who had not been selected for a recent

promotion why they thought they had not gotten the job, 14 percent of Whites indicated that

their race or national origin was a major factor

in their nonselection. Included in these responses were 3 percent of Whites who said that

their race or national origin was the single

most important reason for their nonselection.

Statistical data:

 A comparison of White representation in the civilian labor force and the Federal workforce

shows that Whites hold a smaller percentage of

white-collar jobs in the Federal Government

than they do in other sectors of the American

economy. The level of representation of White

men versus White women varies substantially,

however, among different job categories (e.g.,

professional, administrative, technical, and

clerical).

 The proportion of jobs held by White men in

the professional and administrative jobs declined substantially from 1978 to 1995. Specifically, White men declined from 83.5 percent of

the professional workforce to 59.4 percent, and

from 71.8 percent of the administrative

workforce to 49.9 percent. Nevertheless, there

was actually a small increase in the number of

White men employed in these types of positions over the 17-year period. In 1978, 446,700

White men were employed in professional and

administrative positions, while by 1995 the

number had risen to 461,500.

 During this same time period, the representation of White women and minorities increased.

In the professional workforce, the proportion

of White women rose from 8.1 percent to 21.9

percent, while minorities increased in the aggregate by about 10 percentage points from 8.4

percent to 18.7 percent. For administrative positions, the representation of White women increased from 16.1 percent to 27.8 percent, while

minorities increased about 10 percentage

points from 12.2 percent to 22.3 percent.

 From 1978 to 1995, the average grade of White

men in professional and administrative positions increased by about 0.5 of a grade in both

categories (from 12.1 to 12.6, and 11.6 to 12.1,

respectively), while the average grade of White

women increased by 1.8 grades in professional

positions (from 9.8 to 11.6) and 1.4 grades in

administrative ones (from 9.9 to 11.3). In both

categories, White women and minorities of

both sexes still have lower average grades than

White men.

Appendix 4
A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 87

 During 1978-1994, while the proportion of

Whites in various categories of professional

and administrative positions declined, Whites

continued to hold a disproportionate share of

supervisory and managerial positions. In 1994,

although Whites held about 81 percent of

nonsupervisory professional jobs and 76 percent of nonsupervisory administrative jobs,

they held 86 percent and 82 percent of the supervisory and managerial jobs in these two categories.

 Looking at executive positions from all PATCO

categories together, White representation declined from 95.2 percent to 88.5 percent from

1978 to 1995. The proportion of White male

representation dropped from 92.5 percent in

1978 9to 73.9 percent by 1995. During this same

span, the proportion of White women increased from 2.7 percent to 14.6 percent.

 In professional positions, Whites during the 2

year period 1993-94 were promoted at rates

equal to or greater than minorities at all grade

levels with the exception of Asian Pacific

Americans at grades 7, 9, and 11. At these

grade levels, Asian Pacific Americans were

promoted at somewhat higher rates than

Whites. In administrative positions, Whites

were promoted at equivalent rates to minorities except for Hispanics at grade 7 and Native

Americans at grade 13.

 Looking at cash awards, Whites during 1994

consistently received these awards at rates that

equaled or exceeded those for minorities at all

grades levels in both professional and administrative positions.

Appendix 4