A Critical Asse

A Report to the 

Congress of the Un

U.S. Merit System

Opp
THE CHAIRMAN 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

1615 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20419-0001 

August 2005 

The President 

President of the Senate 

Speaker of the House 

Dear Sirs: 

In accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 1204(a)(3), it is my honor to submit this 

Merit Systems Protection Board report, “The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment 

Opportunity.” 

The Federal Government’s human capital is its most vital asset. With the wide range of 

increasingly complex skills needed for the 21st century public service, and the vital responsibility of 

civilian employees in the defense of our nation, it is more imperative than ever that candidates for 

Federal appointments are thoroughly assessed. The probationary period can be a highly effective 

tool to evaluate a candidate’s potential to be an asset to the Government before an appointment 

becomes final. However, the probationary period is effective only if agencies use it to assess their 

candidates and act upon those assessments. 

This report explores how agencies are using—or failing to use—the probationary period to 

ensure only the best candidates receive finalized appointments as Federal employees. We found that 

one obstacle is in the phrasing of the law regarding probationers and the limitations it effectively 

imposes on establishing probationary periods of more than one year. Our study also reveals that 

many roadblocks to successfully using the probationary period come from within the agencies 

themselves. An unwillingness to assess candidates, or to act upon an assessment, prevents the 

probationary period from being as effective as it can and should be. This report provides 

recommendations for changes in the law to increase the ability of agencies to use the probationary 

period more effectively. It also includes suggestions to assist agencies to meet their responsibility to 

assess probationers and act upon those assessments to ensure the American people are served by the 

most talented workforce possible. 

I believe you will find this report useful as you consider issues affecting the Federal 

Government’s ability to select and maintain a highly qualified workforce. 

 Respectfully,

 Neil A.G. McPhie 

THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD:

A Critical Assessment


Opportunity


A REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Neil A. G. McPhie, Chairman 

Barbara J. Sapin, Member 

Office of Policy and Evaluation 

Director 

Steve Nelson 

Deputy Director 

John Crum, Ph.D. 

Project Manager 

Sharon Roth 

CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i 

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

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

What Is the Probationary Period? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Scope and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

The Final Assessment Before Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Selection Assessment Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Implementing the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Consequences of Inaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 

Probationer Performance and Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Retaining Problem Probationers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Proactive Decisions to Grant Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Assessing Probationer Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Basing Assessment Length on the Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Using a Longer Probationary Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Establishing Performance Standards for Probationers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Performance Problems: Probationers Are Different . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Communicating Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Communications Prior to Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Communications After Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 

Supporting Supervisors of Probationers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Appendix A: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

The Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 

Agency Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

The Focus Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Many aspects of Federal human capital management are currently 

being explored for potential reform. The probationary period is one 

of these areas. This report focuses on the original intent of the 

probationary period—a crucial assessment opportunity before an appointment to 

the civil service becomes final. While in many cases the probationary period has 

become a mere formality, this report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

addresses how it can and should be used as a part of the process to select an 

applicant for an appointment. To look at a probationer as a candidate for final 

appointment and not as an employee with the full protections of Federal 

employment may require a dramatic shift in culture and mindsets. However, 

this change is necessary if the probationary period is to be fairly and effectively 

utilized as the valuable assessment tool it was intended to be. 

Background 

The purpose of the probationary period is to provide the Government with 

an opportunity to evaluate an individual’s conduct and performance on the 

job to determine if an appointment to the civil service should become final.1 

Until the probationary period has been completed, a probationer is still an 

applicant for an appointment, with the burden to demonstrate why it is in 

the public interest for the Government to finalize an appointment to the 

civil service for this particular individual. Once an appointment is finalized, 

the probationer becomes an employee who is given a considerable level of 

protection under the Federal Government’s merit system. But, until the 

appointment is finalized, a probationer has only limited job protections. 

One of the primary reasons non-probationary Federal employees are granted 

protections related to adverse actions is to keep the civil service free from 

prohibited personnel practices. The requirements for due process help 

ensure that adverse actions such as removals are based solely on merit and 

support the public’s interest in a capable and efficient workforce. In the case 

of new-hire probationers, the public interest is served by limiting certain 

1 5 U.S.C. §3321 and 5 CFR §315.803. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board i 
Executive Summary 

rights, including the right to appeal an adverse action. These limitations 

ensure that agencies can promptly and effectively act upon their assessments 

of probationers. 

The probationary period, if used fully, is one of the most valid assessment 

tools available for supervisors to determine an individual’s potential to fulfill 

the needs of the specific position, the agency, and the civil service. However, 

this outcome requires that an agency assess its probationers to determine 

if they are an asset to the Government. Furthermore, the probationary 

period is effective only if action is taken to prevent less than fully successful 

individuals from becoming Federal employees—with all the rights that such 

an appointment entails. Without this assessment and action, the 

probationary period becomes meaningless. 

Findings 

Supervisors want to take responsibility for their probationers receiving 

finalized appointments as Federal employees. Our survey asked 

supervisors if they should be required to certify that their probationers are 

successful before the individual is converted from a probationary status to 

one that provides the full range of protections granted to Federal employees. 

Almost 70 percent responded they should be required to provide 

certification, while only 5 percent preferred the current method by which 

conversion is automatic based upon the passage of a set period of time. 

The probationary period is not being used as a tool to assess 

probationers to determine if an appointment to the civil service is in 

the Government’s best interest. Despite reporting that they understood the 

appointment was not final, many of the supervisors we surveyed indicated 

that they did not intend to remove probationers who were not an asset. Our 

survey asked supervisors if they would select their probationer again if given 

the chance to do it over. More than half of those who said they would not 

select their probationer—and over 80 percent of those who were not sure if 

they’d select their probationer—said they expected to retain the probationer 

beyond the probationary period. 

If agencies do not address problems during the probationary period, 

the individual is unlikely to depart afterwards. According to the Central 

Personnel Data File (CPDF) maintained by the U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM), removal of probationers is very rare, but the removal 

of non-probationary employees is even rarer. Only 1.6 percent of competitive service workers are removed in their first year of service, the traditional 

length of the probationary period. However, after that first year of service, 

ii The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
Executive Summary 

the removal rate in the competitive service drops to below 0.5 percent and 

remains there for the next two decades of service. Resignation rates also drop 

after the first year of service, and remain on a downward trend for the next 

20 years. 

Probationers are treated as if they are not much different from nonprobationers who have received a finalized appointment to the Federal 

service. Both agency cultures and individual supervisors may bear a degree 

of responsibility for this result. Some agencies informed us that they 

required their supervisors to use performance improvement plans and timeconsuming opportunities for improvement before an action could be taken 

to remove a poorly performing probationer. When we asked surveyed 

supervisors who reported performance and conduct deficiencies by 

probationers how they had addressed their situations, slightly more than 

half reported providing additional on-the-job training beyond that which 

was already planned, and almost a third provided additional classroom 

training. Nine percent said they had reprimanded a probationer, and four 

percent had suspended a probationer. 

Performance and conduct problems can be expected to occur, but 

agencies do not provide sufficient support to supervisors for them to 

address problem probationers. It is not uncommon for a supervisor to 

encounter a probationer with performance or conduct problems. When 

asked about the performance of all probationers they had supervised in the 

past 3 years, 43 percent of supervisors reported that one or more 

probationers had performance deficiencies. When asked about conduct in 

the same time period, 36 percent reported one or more probationers had 

deficiencies. When we asked supervisors why they kept probationers with 

identified deficiencies, we received a number of comments that indicated 

the supervisors felt pressured to either keep the person or lose the resource 

and have no one to do the work at all. 

Supervisors want their agencies to have greater flexibility to determine 

the length of the probationary period. Sixty-five percent of supervisors 

indicated they would like to see their agency have the authority to determine 

the length of the probationary period. Supervisors of trainees were twice as 

likely to want a longer probationary period for their particular positions 

versus those supervisors who indicated their probationer was not a trainee. 

Currently, this flexibility is not an option for most agencies. OPM 

regulations limit the probationary period to one year, and even if that were 

changed, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75 would provide full job protection appeal 

rights under most circumstances after one year, even if the individual was 

still a probationer. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board iii 
Executive Summary 

Agencies often fail to communicate that the probationary period is 

important and will be used. A third of surveyed probationers reported that 

they did not know they would be required to serve a probationary period 

when they first began work. Almost a quarter reported that they had never 

been told of the consequences of being a probationer, even though they had 

been on board for more than 7 months when they received their surveys. 

Comments from probationers indicated that many did not think their 

agency took the probationary period seriously nor had any intent to use it 

to assess them or their peers. 

Recommendations 

1.  The statute and regulations should be changed to better support the 

use of the probationary period as a time period to assess candidates 

before they receive finalized appointments as Federal employees. 

This includes providing agencies with the flexibility to set the length 

of the probationary period based upon the unique characteristics of 

their positions and training programs. Specifically: 

❏ Congress should amend 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75 to indicate that if an 

individual is in a probationary status, the individual is not entitled to 

the protections granted to Federal employees, even if the individual 

has been in service for more than 1 year. This would help support the 

message that appointment as a Federal employee must be earned 

through successful performance and is not an entitlement that 

automatically results from a job offer or physical presence in the 

workplace. Amending the statute would also enable OPM to provide 

all agencies with meaningful flexibility regarding the duration of the 

probationary period. 

❏ OPM should establish procedures so that a probationer does not 

automatically become an employee in the absence of agency action. 

An agency should be required to certify that a probationer’s conduct 

and performance have established that the individual will be an 

asset to the Government. In the absence of this certification, the 

probationer’s employment should automatically terminate upon the 

expiration of the probationary period. The use of a not-to-exceed 

date for that period can help emphasize that the individual has not 

been promised a finalized appointment, but rather has been given a 

time-limited opportunity with the burden on the probationer to 

demonstrate why a finalized appointment is in the interest of 

the Government. 

iv The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
Executive Summary 

❏ If Congress amends 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75 as recommended above, 

OPM should modify 5 CFR §315.801 and §315.802 so that they will 

no longer set the probationary period at 1 year with a prohibition on 

extensions. OPM should, instead, issue regulations that permit 

agencies to set a probationary period of 1 to 3 years for each 

occupational area upon showing that the nature of the applicable 

positions calls for the particular length requested by the agency. 

2.  Agencies should create a culture in which probationers are treated 

with respect as candidates for an appointment, but not as Federal 

employees with finalized appointments. In particular: 

❏ Performance appraisals for supervisors should include an evaluation 

of how thoroughly they have used the probationary period as an 

assessment tool. Supervisors should be held accountable for using the 

probationary period fairly, fully, and in the best interest of the Federal 

Government. This should not be considered an additional critical 

element, but rather should be seen as an intrinsic part of their existing 

responsibility to thoroughly assess their subordinates and take action 

when appropriate. 

❏ Supervisors should receive training in their responsibilities to the 

agency, the civil service, and the probationer. They should be made 

aware when they have hired a probationer, and reminded that their 

role is to assess the individual for appointment as well as to supervise 

the performance of work towards organizational goals. 

❏ Agency policies should treat unsuccessful probationers differently than 

Federal employees with finalized appointments. Agencies should 

ensure that probationers receive clear guidance and a full 

understanding of performance expectations, as well as the appropriate 

level of training for an individual with their level of experience. 

However, agencies should also ensure that probationers and their 

supervisors recognize that probationers are not similarly situated to 

other Federal employees and are not entitled to the same level of 

investment or opportunities for rehabilitation. 

❏ Probationers should be notified, before accepting a job offer, that they

will be probationers and what that means. Human resources staff and 

supervisors should ensure that probationers are aware they have been 

offered an opportunity to demonstrate on the job why finalizing their 

appointment would be in the best interests of the agency and the entire 

civil service—but that a finalized appointment is not guaranteed. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board v 
Executive Summary 

❏ In their discussions with a probationer, before and after the individual 

begins work, supervisors should reinforce the message that 

probationers are still applicants and the probationary period is an 

extension of the examining process, prior to finalizing probationers’ 

appointments. 

3.  Agencies should use the probationary period to terminate 

probationers who fail to demonstrate the appropriate level of 

performance and conduct. For example: 

❏ Agencies should support supervisors in their efforts to use the 

probationary period and avoid sending any messages that could 

inappropriately discourage supervisors from taking action. For 

example, if supervisors believe that the authorization or funding for 

spaces would be lost if they terminated probationers, they may be less 

likely to terminate marginal/unsuccessful probationers. Supervisors 

should be given the opportunity to recruit for the right fit, rather than 

being put in the position of having either the marginal/unsuccessful 

probationer or nobody at all. 

❏ Supervisors should establish performance standards for probationers 

that address both organizational performance goals and their own 

expectations for their probationers. Trainees should be measured 

by both the performance of short-term goals as well as their 

demonstrated potential to advance to the full-performance level. 

Standards should be set based upon what could reasonably be 

expected of a new employee, and those standards should not be 

modified around the individual. Rather, the individuals should be 

measured against the standards. 

❏ Supervisors should provide clear instructions to probationers as well as 

guidance and training in order to give probationers a fair opportunity 

to demonstrate why it is in the public interest to finalize an 

appointment to the Federal service. If, after this instruction, a 

probationer is not fully fit for the position, in both performance 

and conduct, supervisors should terminate the probationer. 

vi The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
INTRODUCTION

The probationary period is one of many areas of the Federal civil 

service currently being examined with a view towards creating a 

more effective public service. Using agency unique legislation or 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) demonstration project authority, 

some agencies are modifying the probationary period to determine if an 

alternate length would be more effective. However, there is more to the 

optimum use of the probationary period than setting an appropriate length. 

The probationary period is one of the most valuable assessment tools 

available to Federal supervisors because it allows a supervisor to evaluate a 

candidate based upon the probationer’s performance of the actual duties of 

the position before the appointment becomes final. However, the efficacy 

of the probationary period relies upon its fair and deliberative use by 

supervisors and their agencies. Without the use of the assessment aspects 

of the probationary period—and the will to act based upon the findings 

of that assessment—the ability of the probationary period to help create a 

more efficient and effective workforce is severely limited. 

What Is the Probationary Period? 

When examining the Federal probationary period it is important to 

recognize that employment under a probationary period is not the same 

as other Federal employment. Under statute, an appointment in the 

competitive service is not final until after the probationary period is 

complete. The purpose of this period is to provide the Government with 

an opportunity to evaluate the individual’s conduct and performance on the 

job to determine if an appointment should become final. The history of the 

Federal probationary period goes back to the creation of the civil service in 

the Pendleton Act of 1883, which required that there be a period of 

probation before an appointment becomes final.2 

Explaining the probationary period is complex, because what it means to be 

a probationer can vary based upon the circumstances surrounding either the 

2 5 U.S.C. §3321; 5 CFR §315.803; and the Pendleton Act of 1883, sec. 2. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1 
Introduction 

appointment or the individual. A newly-hired employee with no prior 

Federal experience will not have the same rights as coworkers who have 

completed their probationary periods. However, an individual who has 

completed a probationary period in the past can—under limited 

circumstances—be selected for a position through a method that creates a 

new probationary period. Such a person may—or may not—retain the 

rights they earned by previously completing a probationary period. Any 

situation involving a person with prior Federal service therefore must be 

examined on a case-by-case basis to determine the individual’s rights. 

This distinction is important because probationers are not the same as 

employees with finalized appointments. Non-probationers are entitled to 

advance written notice and an opportunity to reply to a proposed adverse 

action, as well as the right to appeal such an action to the U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) for adjudication. Probationers lack 

these entitlements. If an agency decides to remove a probationer for posthire performance or conduct, the agency’s only obligation is to notify the 

probationer in writing of the agency’s conclusions regarding the probationer’s 

inadequacies and the effective date of the removal.3 Anything beyond these 

limited entitlements is at the discretion of the agency. 

This report focuses primarily upon individuals who are new to the 

Government and have not yet completed a probationary appointment, 

and are therefore not entitled to the job protection rights referenced above. 

Through their successful completion of the earlier assessment phases and the 

presentation of the job offer, these new hires have earned the opportunity to 

demonstrate why it is in the public interest to offer them an appointment 

to the civil service. However, they have not yet earned the finalization of the 

appointment. That can only be done over time by demonstrating proficiency 

on the job. 

Herein lies the greatest challenge for the effective use of the probationary 

period as an assessment tool. Agencies—leadership, managers, first line 

supervisors, human resources staff, team leaders, co-workers, and the 

probationers themselves—must come to see the probationary period as an 

extension of the application process. Rather than thinking of the probationer 

as an employee similar to those with finalized appointments, all involved 

should consider the probationer as an applicant who has successfully 

completed several phases of the assessment process and is currently engaged 

in the most important assessment of all—the extended work sample test/job 

interview that comprises the probationary period. 

3 5 U.S.C. §7513 and 5 CFR §315.804. 

2 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
Introduction 

This report addresses the reasons why a probationary period is so critical to 

establishing an effective and efficient civil service, and the changes needed in 

order to provide for an effective use of the probationary period. The Merit 

Systems Protection Board undertakes such studies as part of our statutory 

responsibility to conduct special reviews and studies of the civil service and 

other Federal merit systems. 

Scope and Methodology 

As a part of this study, MSPB sent a survey to approximately 1,000 newhire probationers and their supervisors to obtain their viewpoints on the 

probationary period and how it is being used. (Service computation dates 

were used to ensure the probationers being studied did not have prior service 

that could have resulted in the completion of a probationary period.) Sixty 

percent of those who received a survey responded. The survey was conducted 

in late 2004. 

We also consulted with human resources specialists and agency policymakers, 

who provided us with their insights and with examples of how their agencies 

manage the probationary period. In addition, we collected data from OPM’s 

Central Personnel Data File (CPDF), which contains a record of personnel 

actions throughout the Government. 

In our discussions, questionnaires, and evaluation of CPDF data, we limited 

the scope of our study to the competitive service probationary period for 

new hires. The excepted service has a similar period referred to as a trial 

period. There is also a supervisory probationary period that applies only to 

employees when they are first selected for a position in which they supervise 

other Federal employees. These periods are each designed to provide an 

agency an opportunity to assess the candidate’s performance of the duties 

of the position. However, they do not all have the exact same rules, length, 

agency responsibilities, or potential consequences if the probationary 

period is not successfully completed. While many of the principles and 

recommendations in this report are appropriate for trial periods and 

probationary supervisory positions, the report relies solely upon data related 

to newly-hired probationers in the competitive service and targets 

recommendations specifically to that group.4 

More information on our methodology can be found in Appendix A. 

4 The use of a not-to-exceed date, the importance of a requirement for a pro-active step before conversion 

to a finalized appointment, and the call to amend 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75 are just a few examples of 

recommendations that are equally appropriate for excepted service appointments. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3 

THE FINAL ASSESSMENT

BEFORE APPOINTMENT

The probationary period is important because it is one of the most 

valid assessment tools available to Federal agencies. Many agencies 

use training and experience (T&E) to assess applicants, even though 

research has shown that T&E has a limited ability to predict an applicant’s 

potential to succeed in the job.5 By using the probationary period, a more 

valid tool, agencies can increase the likelihood that applicants who receive 

final appointments will succeed on the job. However, the effectiveness of the 

probationary period relies on the agencies’ willingness to act in response to 

their assessments. Without action, agencies lose the effectiveness of the 

probationary period as an assessment tool. 

Selection Assessment Tools 

There has been extensive study of various assessment methods to determine 

how to effectively predict likely success by any particular job applicant. As 

noted in the Board’s 2004 report, Identifying Talent through Technology: 

Automated Hiring Systems in Federal Agencies, many Federal applications 

will ask candidates to specify whether they frequently perform a particular 

function, or if they have training in it, and assign a number of points to the 

applicant based upon the level of training and experience they identified. 

This method is one of the less effective assessment tools available. (The 

validity of assessing training or experience is greatly improved when those 

assessments link the training or experience to a behavior—when applicants 

are not just asked to indicate if they have performed a task, but are 

instructed to provide an example of how they used the specified task to 

reach a successful outcome on a particular project. This is known as the 

behavioral consistency model.)6 

5 John E. Hunter and Frank L. Schmidt, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel 

Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings,” Psychological Bulletin, 

vol. 124, No. 2, pp. 262-274, 1988. 

6 Ibid. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5 
The Final Assessment Before Appointment 

In comparison with the training and experience model, other methods for 

assessing applicants, such as reference checks and structured interviews, have 

a better likelihood of validly predicting future performance. By combining 

methods, agencies can increase the probability of a good selection. For this 

reason, the Board’s reports have recommended using a “multiple hurdle” 

approach in which several assessment tools are used in combination. For 

example, a structured interview plus a work sample is more effective to 

assess a candidate than either tool used alone.7 However, ultimately, all the 

best methods combined can only increase the potential to select the best 

candidate—they cannot guarantee that the right person will be chosen. Over 

the long term, with tens of thousands of Federal vacancies each year, the 

Federal Government can increase the number of selectees who successfully 

match the positions for which they were chosen if agencies use the more 

valid assessment tools, and use them in combination with each other. 

However, in each individual case, there will still be a very real chance that 

the top candidate indicated by the assessments may not prove to be an 

appropriate match for the position. 

Some agencies have acknowledged this inherent risk. For example, the Social 

Security Administration has noted, “The employee’s probationary period is 

the last step in the examination process. It provides the final indispensable 

test, that of performance on the job, which no preliminary testing methods 

can approach in validity.”8 It is also an opportunity to identify, before the 

probationer’s appointment becomes final, situations where the match between 

the person and the employer or position is not sufficient to serve the Government’s needs. Therefore, a probationer who does not prove to be a solid 

match should not be seen as a sign that a mistake was made or that someone 

did something wrong in the process. Rather, a probationer who is found to 

be a less than advantageous match should be seen as a sign that supervisors 

did something right—they continued the assessment process and reached the 

appropriate conclusion based upon what management observed on the job. 

Implementing the Assessment 

The assessment of the probationer during the probationary period can be 

effective only if the conclusions reached are put into effect. In their work 

evaluating the validity of various assessment tools, Hunter and Schmidt 

noted that reluctance by supervisors to terminate marginal performers 

hampered the effectiveness of the probationary period and made it a less 

valid test than it could be if used properly.9 

7 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential, February 2003. 

8 Social Security Administration, “Evaluating, Retaining, and Separating the Probationary Employee,” 

S315-1, sec III. 

9 Hunter and Schmidt, op. cit., p. 268.

6 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
The Final Assessment Before Appointment 

Our survey responses demonstrated that this concern is well founded; some 

of our surveyed supervisors indicated they do not plan to act upon the 

assessments they have performed. One of our questions asked supervisors to 

indicate if, given the opportunity to do it over, they would select their 

probationer again. Eleven percent of surveyed supervisors either said they 

would not hire the probationer or said they were not sure if they would hire 

the probationer.10 When asked if they expected to retain their probationer 

beyond the probationary period (and thus provide a finalized appointment 

to the civil service), more than half of the same supervisors who said they 

would not select their probationer again reported they expected to retain the 

probationer, as illustrated in Table 1, below.11 

The questions would you select this individual again and will you retain are 

not—or should not be—divergent questions, and therefore should not 

produce dramatically different answers. If the answer to one question is “no” 

then we might expect the answer to the other question would typically be 

“no.” Yet, as demonstrated in Table 1, the answers clearly did not match. 

Table 1: Responses from Supervisors Who Reported 

They Would Not Choose to Hire the Individual Again 

Expect to retain the probationer 52% 

Do not expect to retain the probationer 31% 

Not sure if expect to retain the probationer 17% 

Total 100% 

10 According to OPM’s Fedscope database, in FY 2004 more than 55,000 permanent new-hires were given 

competitive service appointments. (From FY 2000 to FY 2003, the number of accessions ranged between 

62,000 and 75,000 each year.) Thus, while the number of probationers varies from year to year, the number 

of supervisors who would not select the probationer again, but intend to permit the finalization of the 

appointment, would consistently equate to a large number of individuals, most of whom are required to 

serve a probationary period. 

11 While 575 supervisors responded to this question, more than 500 supervisors reported they would select 

the same individual again. Thus, there were only a small number of supervisors able to tell us what they 

would do with a probationer that they would not select again. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 7 
The Final Assessment Before Appointment 

If a supervisor would not choose to select the person if they could do 

the recruitment process over again, then it appears inconsistent that the 

supervisor would select the person for the receipt of a finalized appointment. 

That supervisors could say they would not select the person again—and also 

report their intention to allow the person to attain status—could be an 

indication that they misunderstood the purpose of the probationary period 

or are deliberately not applying it for a variety of reasons. 

In most cases, our supervisory respondents seemed to know that 

probationers have not received finalized appointments as Federal employees. 

More than 95 percent of our supervisory respondents told us they were 

aware that an appointment is not final until the probationary period is 

complete. Thus, their retention of probationers they would not select again 

seems to result from a decision not to use the probationary period as an 

assessment tool more than from a lack of knowledge that the appointment 

is not yet final. 

Supervisors’ comments indicate that they do not see the probationary period 

as a real opportunity to assess the individuals for appointment. In the words 

of one supervisor, “[It] seems to be just a formality. Never actually used to 

remove an employee. [My agency] must have a really bad employee in order 

to remove during [the] probationary period.” Probationers have also gotten 

the impression that the probationary period is a mere formality. As one 

probationer put it, “It is my understanding that as long as you are not a 

screw-up you will get through the probationary period.” 

Consequences of Inaction 

If supervisors do not act to ensure that only well-suited, qualified candidates 

receive a final appointment it can have serious consequences for the civil 

service. History shows that once an individual has completed the 

probationary period, the person tends to remain in service for an extended 

period of time. CPDF data reveal that most resignations and removals occur 

in the first year. As illustrated in Figure 1, below, if individuals do not resign 

in their first year on the job, the likelihood that they will choose to depart 

is greatly reduced, and continues to decline as time passes. Similarly, 

supervisors become much less likely to remove an individual once the 

person is a Federal employee, with full appeal rights. 

8 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
The Final Assessment Before Appointment 

Figure 1: Resignation and Removal Rates Based on Length of Service* 

RESIGNATION RATES REMOVAL RATES 

1.8%


9%


10% 

1.6%


8%
 1.4%


7%
 1.2%


6%


1.0% 

5% 

.8% 

4%


.6%
 3%


.4%
 2%


.2%
 1%


0%
 .0% UNDER 

1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 UNDER 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 1 

Years of Service Years of Service 

*Central Personnel Data File, Competitive Service only, September 1998-September 2001. 

As discussed earlier, the probationary period was created to provide 

supervisors with the opportunity to identify which individuals will be 

assets to the Government and which individuals are not well-suited for the 

positions. It is vital that supervisors make use of this period, because if there 

is a problem with someone, our data indicate that ignoring it is not likely 

to make it go away. Rather, delaying action beyond the probationary period 

makes it more difficult to take action. 

Over the course of time, a marginal or poor performer—or a person with 

poor conduct—can affect the morale of the office, the effectiveness of coworkers, the reputation of the work unit or agency, and the ability of the 

organization to accomplish its goals. Even some probationers objected to 

what they saw as their agency’s reluctance to act when a probationer was a 

marginal or poor performer. We received comments such as: 

“I don’t feel the [agency] takes full advantage of this probationary period 

to really come to any conclusion about some new hires. There are people 

from our hire group that should not have survived as an employee 

through this period, but did nevertheless. Why threaten people with a 

probationary period, where they should be doing their best and working 

their hardest, when it will not be followed through?” 

“Nobody cares about the 1-year probationary period. The reason is that 

they have never seen it used and it definitely should [be]. There are some 

very lazy people that slow production and should be weeded out.” 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 9 
The Final Assessment Before Appointment 

“With my understanding of what the probationary period is for, it still 

surprises me how many people make it through this probationary period 

when they don’t meet the agency’s expectations. I guess what I am trying 

to say is, if you are going to have a probationary period, use it or get rid 

of it.” 

Probationer Performance and Conduct 

Probationers with performance or conduct deficiencies are not uncommon 

according to our survey participants. When asked about all probationers they 

had hired in the past 3 years, 43 percent of responding supervisors reported 

that they had experienced performance concerns about at least one of their 

probationers. Although performance was a more common problem than 

conduct, 36 percent of responding supervisors stated they had faced 

problems with the conduct of at least one probationer in the past 3 years. 

There was extensive overlap between these two responses. Of those 

supervisors that said at least one employee had performance deficiencies, 

78 percent also said at least one employee had a conduct problem. Clearly, 

not all probationers are successful. 

The tools supervisors used to address these problems are one more 

demonstration that some supervisors are not treating the probationary period 

as an assessment period prior to the finalized appointment. When handling 

the conduct and performance deficiencies reported on immediately above, a 

number of supervisors utilized tools that are designed for employees rather 

than for probationers. For example, of those supervisors who encountered 

conduct or performance problems with a probationer, 9 percent reported 

they had used a reprimand for one or more probationers in the preceding 

3-year period. Four percent indicated they had suspended one or more 

probationers. 

It is not impossible that a high quality candidate may make an error serious 

enough to warrant formal discipline while still showing sufficient potential 

to be allowed to continue the opportunity to demonstrate why it is in the 

Government’s interest to finalize the appointment. But, when nearly one in 

ten supervisors report using reprimands or suspensions (or both) on at least 

one or more probationers, this is a sign that some supervisors may be 

treating probationers as if they were similarly situated to employees who have 

completed a probationary period and are therefore entitled to the use of 

progressive discipline. (Our survey data did not permit us to identify which 

steps were attempted on the same individual prior to removal and which 

were applied to other probationers by that same supervisor.) Of those 

supervisors who reported removing a probationer during the prior 3 years, 

nearly 10 percent informed us they had used suspensions, and nearly 

10 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
The Final Assessment Before Appointment 

20 percent reported using reprimands. The use of such disciplinary methods 

for probationers by some supervisors is an indication that they may not be 

treating probationers as applicants for a finalized appointment, but rather 

as employees with finalized appointments, with all of the rights and 

responsibilities that go with such employment—including progressive discipline. 

This treatment of probationers as if they were no different than nonprobationers also appears to occur when the quality of work is at issue. 

Of those supervisors who indicated there was a problem with one or more 

probationers in the preceding 3 years, just over half reported using additional 

on-the-job training beyond what was already planned. Nearly one-third 

reported using additional classroom training. As with conduct issues, it 

may be appropriate for an otherwise successful candidate to receive some 

additional training if there is a strong expectation that the individual will be 

an asset with minor investment. However, with over half of all supervisors 

with performance concerns making this investment for one or more 

probationers, it raises a concern that probationers are not being assessed as 

potential assets as much as they are being treated as permanent employees 

with finalized appointments. 

One supervisor expressed frustration at the manner in which probationers 

are treated in the same manner as other employees, asking, “When there is a 

problem with employees who are probationary, why is it so hard to remove 

them? There was a lot of documentation of counseling and warning letters.” 

Another supervisor claimed that in his agency, “There is no probationary 

period—anymore.” This supervisor reported having a poor-performing 

probationer who was expected to remain beyond the probationary period. 

“It is hoped that she will improve with time,” the supervisor remarked. 

Retaining Problem Probationers 

When we asked our supervisory respondents why they kept probationers 

whose conduct or performance was not fully acceptable, they gave us 

explanations ranging from complicated regulations to fear of Equal 

Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints. Several indicated that the 

culture in their agency did not permit them to take immediate action to 

address a probationer with poor performance. One supervisor reported, 

“The agency has complicated the dismissal procedures to the point that 

probationary employees are extremely difficult to get relieved if they cannot 

or will not do a good job. The process should be returned to the requirements we had years ago. One major infraction and they were walked out.” 

A supervisor in a different agency claimed, “Although the Human Resources 

Office had approved the dismissal of a non-performing employee, my 

supervisor threatened to rate me as unsatisfactory for dismissing him.” 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11 
The Final Assessment Before Appointment 

This last comment, which we hope reflects an atypical experience, is the 

opposite of what supervisors should experience during the probationary 

period. The Code of Federal Regulations states, “The agency shall utilize 

the probationary period as fully as possible to determine the fitness of the 

employee and shall terminate his services during this period if he fails to 

demonstrate fully his qualifications for continued employment.”12 

Supervisors, as stewards of the public interest and representatives of the 

agency, should be held accountable for using the probationary period to 

ensure that probationers are not provided full appointments to the Federal 

service unless they have demonstrated that such appointments are in the 

public interest. Second-level supervisors, therefore, should seek to ensure that 

their subordinate supervisors are using the probationary period fairly and 

equitably to assess candidates and that supervisors are taking the appropriate 

measures in response to that assessment. 

Unfortunately, the message that agencies appear to be sending to first-line 

supervisors does not support a thorough use of the probationary period. 

In the words of one supervisor, “Government organizations want you to 

overlook a lot—for the sake of filling a position. The philosophy is ‘any 

body’ to fill the position regardless if they are qualified or suited for the job.” 

This use of the word “body” is prevalent in a number of comments, such as 

“due to staff shortages, borderline performance and abuse of leave issues are 

overlooked to keep the ‘body’.” Also, the human resources specialists in our 

focus group indicated they believed that the manager’s need for “a warm 

body” was the overriding concern. One specialist noted that supervisors may 

be reluctant to give up a resource, no matter how flawed, if they have reason 

to believe they will not be allowed to recruit behind that person. 

As we see from these findings, the successful use of the probationary period 

as an assessment tool relies heavily upon the agency’s culture. The 

probationary period cannot be used effectively if supervisors who decide to 

step in and prevent the full appointment of a poor or marginal performer are 

punished, whether through the disapproval of their own supervisor or the 

withdrawal of funding for a replacement. 

Supervisors told us there was yet another reason for keeping a poorperforming probationer. Recruitment in the Federal system is a time- and 

resource-consuming process. As noted in our recent report, Managing 

Federal Recruitment: Issues, Insights, and Illustrations, some agencies spend 

millions of dollars per year on recruitment efforts. It is understandable that 

12 5 CFR §315.803. 

12 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
The Final Assessment Before Appointment 

after investing so much, and waiting months to hire an employee, the 

supervisor may be reluctant to terminate the probationer and begin the 

assessment process all over again. However, as expressed earlier in this report, 

a Federal employee is a long-term commitment. As undesirable as it may 

seem to have to recruit and assess anew, the consequences of retaining a poor 

or marginal performer are far worse. Once the probationary period is over, 

such a performer is likely to stay for years. The level of investment necessary 

to be sure the selectee is the right person is more than offset by the scope of 

the long-term investment the Government makes when the appointment of 

a new Federal employee is finalized. 

While human resources, recruitment difficulties, budget concerns, collective 

bargaining agreements, upper level management, and other factors can affect 

the environment in which the supervisor makes the decision to retain or 

remove a probationer, the final responsibility rests with the supervisor. If a 

first level supervisor is not given the full authority to make this decision, 

then the responsibility resides in the level of supervision that chose to retain 

rather than delegate this important authority. Other influences may make 

the process easier or more difficult for the supervisor, but supervisors are 

hired to manage subordinates—including making employment decisions. 

With authority comes responsibility. If supervisors fail to meet this 

responsibility, then it is the responsibility of those above them to address 

that failure. 

Proactive Decisions to Grant Status 

Once probationers have come on the rolls, they remain on the rolls unless 

there is an action taken to separate them—whether by termination or 

resignation. After 1 year, probationers are automatically granted status as full 

Federal employees, with all of the protections that provides. Some agencies 

do ask supervisors to assess their probationers as the anniversary approaches, 

but no requirement is built into the system to compel supervisors to certify 

that the probationer has been found fit for a finalized appointment before 

these rights are bestowed. The protections result strictly from the passage 

of time. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13 
ndicated

The Final Assessment Before Appointment 

Figure 2: Supervisors’ Opinions 

on Process to Convert Probationers to Employees 

How do you think Automatic After Period Expires 

employees should be converted 

from a probationary status 

to a status that provides 

the full range of appeal rights? 

69% 

26% 

5% 

Only Upon 

Certification 

Automatic 

Unless Problem 

Indicated 

The supervisors who participated in our survey indicated a desire for 

certification to occur before the probationer gains status as a Federal 

employee. We asked our survey participants, “How do you think employees 

should be converted from a probationary status to a status that provides the 

full range of appeal rights?” As noted in Figure 2, only 5 percent supported 

the current process, where conversion takes place automatically unless the 

supervisor separates the probationer before the probationary period is 

completed. Approximately one-quarter approved of the idea that the 

conversion should be automatic unless the supervisor specifically indicates 

there is a problem with the employee. However, an overwhelming 

69 percent declared that conversion should occur only after receipt of a 

supervisor’s certification that the probationer’s conduct and performance 

are fully acceptable. 

Supervisors’ comments reflected frustration with the results of the current 

process. One supervisor said, “I have fairly new employees who passed the 

probation period but shouldn’t have. A manager should have to answer 

specific questions prior to [the probationer acquiring] full employee status.” 

Another stated, “Supervisors need to be held accountable for employees 

being passed from probationary to permanent status.” 

14 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
The Final Assessment Before Appointment 

Case law has established that under the current system “the employee’s 

separation from the rolls must be effected before the employee has 

completed his/her probationary or trial period. Otherwise, the procedures 

applicable to the separation of a career-conditional employee who has 

completed his probationary period are mandatory.”13 The probationer 

automatically becomes a Federal employee unless removed before the 

expiration of the period—the least desirable method to address conversion 

according to our surveyed supervisors. 

In order to ensure that only qualified probationers become Federal 

employees, we believe the process should be changed. Rather than 

automatically granting status to a probationer if management fails to remove 

the individual before the year is finished, the probationer should receive an 

appointment with rights only if management has certified that, based upon 

the observed conduct and performance of the individual, such a conversion 

is in the public interest. In the absence of this certification, the relationship 

between the probationer and the Government would end upon the 

expiration of the probationary period. 

This change would require that OPM alter its regulations. Instead of 

allowing agencies to issue a competitive service appointment on the first 

day of employment, which then becomes final after 1 year, we recommend 

that OPM create an authority under which a competitive appointment 

would begin with a not-to-exceed date determined by the length of the 

probationary period. At the end of this probationary appointment, the 

agency would be given the authority to convert the probationer to a 

permanent appointment predicated upon a certification that the individual 

demonstrated during the probationary period that it is in the Government’s 

interest to provide such an appointment into the civil service. In the absence 

of such a conversion action, the appointment would expire and the 

individual’s relationship with the Government as an employer would come 

to a close.14 

This proposed probationary appointment would not be a temporary or 

term appointment; two hiring categories that currently exist to provide 

employment when the need for a worker is short-term and the not-to-exceed 

date is determined based upon the projected length of the need. Rather, the 

proposed probationary appointment would be a third type, one where the 

13 Ibrahim v. Dept. of Agriculture, 51 M.S.P.R. 269 (1991). 

14 This concept is slightly similar to a system that existed under the former U.S. Civil Service Commission, 

whereby individuals hired under certain methods would serve an appointment of no more than 3 years. At 

the end of the period, the agency was given 90 days in which it could convert the individual if several 

conditions were met, including a certification that the individual’s performance and conduct had been 

acceptable. If the certification did not occur, the individual’s appointment expired. 5 CFR §315.703a 

(1977), Conversion to career employment from indefinite or temporary employment. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15 
The Final Assessment Before Appointment 

need for a worker is permanent, and the not-to-exceed date would be based 

upon the time required to assess the candidate. It would be important that 

this probationary appointment carry with it the health insurance, life 

insurance, retirement, and other benefits that are important for attracting 

qualified candidates to the Federal service. 

If the probationary appointment system is put into use, it is foreseeable 

that because of administrative errors or a lack of timely management action, 

a few successful probationers could see their probationary employment 

expire before a certification is processed to convert them to a finalized 

appointment. Thus, we would recommend that the regulations include 

provisions to permit the appointment of a probationer whose probationary 

period expires if the agency certifies that prior to the expiration of the 

probationary period, management found that conversion to a final 

appointment was in the Government’s interest and the lack of conversion 

was due to an error or delay on the part of the agency. We expect that as 

with any new system, as agencies become familiar with it, the number of 

administrative errors or delays would be greatly reduced. 

Despite the potential drawbacks that might possibly result from agency 

processing delays, the use of a not-to-exceed date is important—not only 

to compel agencies to certify if their probationers are successful, but also to 

help clarify that there is not yet a final appointment, and that such an 

appointment will be founded only upon the acceptable conduct and 

performance demonstrated during the probationary period. This would 

better support the role of the probationary period to provide “for a period 

of probation before an appointment in the competitive service becomes 

final.”15 

15 5 U.S.C. §3321. 

16 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
ASSESSING PROBATIONER 

PERFORMANCE 

Managing the performance of probationers is one of a supervisor’s most 

important duties and one of the most complex. It requires a sufficient 

period of time to observe the individual, clear and measurable 

standards to gauge the performance against, and both the will and the ability to 

act upon the results of the assessment. The current statute, OPM regulations, 

and (in some cases) agency policies do not provide supervisors with the level of 

support and flexibility they need to make the most of their many performance 

management responsibilities. However, the most serious flaw is the extent to 

which these authorities fail to create sharp lines that differentiate between a 

probationer and a Federal employee who has a finalized appointment to the 

civil service. Supervisors cannot effectively manage the performance of their 

probationers, in keeping with the intent of the probationary period, if they 

find themselves hindered by requirements that are designed to protect Federal 

employees with finalized appointments—something that probationers are not. 

Basing Assessment Length on the Position 

Currently, the probationary period for most agencies is 1 year, and cannot be 

extended. However, there is a developing trend towards longer probationary 

periods when the nature of the work makes it difficult to assess a candidate 

in such a short period of time. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

Restructuring and Reform Act authorized IRS to establish probationary 

periods of up to 3 years if “the Secretary of the Treasury determines that the 

nature of the work is such that a shorter period is insufficient to demonstrate 

complete proficiency in the position.”16 The Departments of Homeland 

Security and Defense have also been given the flexibility to move beyond a 

1-year probationary period, as have several demonstration projects. 

The 1-year probationary period is not always practical in today’s Government, 

particularly if the probationer is a trainee and may not perform the full 

duties of a journeyman level employee for several years. When asked if the 

16 Public Law No. 105-206, “Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998,” §1201(a). 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17 
Assessing Probationer Performance 

length of the probationary period was sufficient, many of our respondents 

told us it was not. In particular, supervisors of trainees sought a longer 

probationary period. In one agency, more than a third of the responding 

supervisors said they thought the period should be longer. This was the 

agency with the highest percentage of trainees. For our entire surveyed 

supervisory population, only 9 percent of those supervising non-trainees 

reported the probationary period should be longer, while 22 percent of the 

supervisors of trainees wanted a longer probationary period. Even those 

supervisors who did not want a longer probationary period for their own 

positions still recognized that the 1-year period may not be appropriate for 

all positions. Sixty-five percent of supervisors indicated they would like to 

see their components have the authority to determine the length of the 

probationary period. 

Given the increasing complexity of the work performed by Federal 

employees, and the lengthy period of training required for some positions, a 

standard probationary period for all occupations and grade levels is no longer 

appropriate. OPM has already recognized this when it comes to the 

probationary period for new supervisors. For the supervisory probationary 

period, their regulation states, 

The authority to determine the length of the probationary period is 

delegated to the head of each agency, provided that it be of reasonable 

fixed duration, appropriate to the position, and uniformly applied. An 

agency may establish different probationary periods for different 

occupations or a single one for all agency employees.17 

We recommend that the head of each agency also be authorized to determine 

the length of the probationary period for their non-supervisory probationers, 

as has already been granted to the IRS, and more recently, the Departments 

of Defense and Homeland Security. The need for this flexibility goes beyond 

agencies engaged in matters of taxes, security, or defense. All agencies should 

be granted the ability to set the probationary period based upon their 

particular needs. However, the length should be set based upon the position, 

not the person. Therefore, as with the supervisory probationary period, the 

duration should be fixed and uniformly applied to similar positions that have 

a similar need. 

This reform will require a change in statute. While OPM has the authority 

to set the length of the probationary period, or to delegate it to agencies, the 

probationer obtains the rights of a Federal employee after 1 year, even if the 

individual is still a probationer. Chapter 75 of Title 5 of the United States 

Code currently states: 

17 5 CFR §315.905. 

18 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
Assessing Probationer Performance 

(a) For the purpose of this subchapter— 

(1) “employee” means— 

(A) an individual in the competitive service— 

(i) who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an 

initial appointment; or 

(ii) who has completed 1 year of current continuous service 

under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year 

or less... 18 

In 2002, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held 

that if a probationer meets either (i) or (ii) above, the individual has all of 

the rights of a Federal employee.19 This interpretation of the statute restricts 

the ability of OPM to grant agencies effective flexibility on the length of the 

probationary period.20 

We therefore recommend that Congress amend this section to reflect that an 

individual who is a probationer is not a Federal employee for the purpose of 

receiving the protections of civil service employment, regardless of the length 

of service. This would enable OPM to offer agencies discretion in 

establishing the length of the probationary period based upon the nature of 

the occupational field and the degree of training necessary before individuals 

reach the full-performance level. If the law is changed, we recommend that 

OPM grant to agencies the flexibility to set the length of the probationary 

period for a period of 1 to 3 years. 

This is not to imply that the longer period is appropriate for all positions. 

OPM should provide agencies with guidance on how to identify when 

certain positions within a particular occupational field require a longer 

evaluation period before an informed decision can be reached on the 

adequacy of the candidate. The longer probationary period should be 

limited to such positions, and approval should be made at an appropriately 

high level to ensure consistency within an agency. Where an occupational 

field or training program is substantially similar throughout the Government, it would be beneficial if OPM issued Government-wide probationary 

instructions to ensure equity. 

18 5 U.S.C. §7511(a)(1)(A). 

19 McCormick v. Department of the Air Force, 307 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

20 It affects the ability of an agency to effectively use a probationary period of more than 1 year, and 

complicates the use of a probationary period for individuals who have previously completed a probationary 

period but have been given a new Federal appointment, potentially in a different career field or after an 

extensive break in service. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19 
Assessing Probationer Performance 

Using a Longer Probationary Period 

Agencies should be aware that a longer probationary period does not alter 

the responsibility to assess probationers throughout the entire period. The 

IRS is an example of one component that has been given the authority to set 

longer probationary periods, and has used it with caution and deliberation.21 

IRS has extended the length of the probationary period for Frontline 

Manager Trainees, Treasury Enforcement Agents, and Criminal Investigator 

Special Agents. However, while its legislation allowed the probationary 

period to be set up to 3 years long, IRS did not set all probationary periods 

at 3 years. Rather, it reports that probationary period lengths were set based 

upon the rationale for extending the probationary period. The reason for the 

longer period is important when deciding whether or not to use a period of 

more than one year. A longer probationary period is appropriate when an 

individual is a trainee and will not perform the journey-level work during 

the first year. Supervisors may be unable to fully assess a candidate until that 

candidate has completed training and begun performing the actual work of 

the position. However, a longer probationary period should not be used to 

delay taking action when there is sufficient data to create an informed 

decision at an earlier date. 

In the memos authorizing the longer probationary periods, the Treasury 

Department noted that these extensions carry responsibilities. One such 

memo states, in part: 

We are pleased to see that your formal training curriculum incorporates 

monthly documented review and feedback to the employee, and 

additional formal assessments every six months (provided in writing to 

the employee), to eliminate any potential conflicts between a two-year 

probationary period and annual career ladder promotions. Your training 

plan reflects that IRS has taken action to ensure that, for this two-year 

probationary period, your managers effectively communicate 

performance expectations to the employees, and ensure that performance 

elements and standards carefully document the requirements for each 

successive grade level. Accordingly, we are happy to approve the two-year 

probationary period for Frontline Manager Trainee positions in IRS, and 

are pleased to support your judicious use of the personnel flexibilities of 

5 U.S.C. §9510.22 

21 The Departments of Homeland Security and Defense have not yet issued specific details on occupations 

and pay bands that will be subject to their longer initial service period or their processes for training and 

assessing individuals in these positions. As a result, these newer systems are not addressed in this report. 

22 Department of the Treasury Memorandum, “Extended Probationary Period for Frontline Manager Trainee 

Positions,” Apr. 9, 2003. 

20 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
Assessing Probationer Performance 

Because trainees typically do not perform journey-level work from the start, 

trainee positions have a particularly high potential to benefit from a longer 

probationary period. These are also positions with a good likelihood to have 

career ladder promotions. While assessment for promotion should be an 

ongoing process, with progress reports regularly provided to the individual, 

promotions occur no more often than once every 52 weeks (exceptions are 

possible at grades below GS-05).23 Probationers should be assessed far more 

frequently than this. Thus, while assessing a probationer for finalization of 

the appointment and assessing an individual for a career ladder promotion 

may be complimentary processes, the decision to promote cannot alone 

fulfill the responsibility to regularly assess probationers. 

A longer probationary period is an opportunity to observe the probationer as 

the work increases in complexity. However, if a probationer is not successful 

at an earlier stage, continuation of the probationary employment is not in 

keeping with the purpose of the probationary period. Certain aspects of 

conduct and work habits may become evident early in the period, and 

should be acted upon promptly. It is important that agencies ensure that 

supervisors of individuals on longer probationary periods are performing an 

assessment throughout the period, and not using the longer period to delay 

action. Otherwise, as the probationary period goes on, the agency will have 

invested more and more in the individual and the probationer may have a 

false expectation built upon the agency’s lack of earlier action. 

Therefore, while we recommend longer probationary periods when an 

agency deems it necessary to fully evaluate a probationer, we also remind 

agencies of their obligation to ensure that their supervisors manage the 

probationary period effectively for the entire length of the probationary 

period. Extending the period cannot resolve the problems that may have 

caused the agency to seek a longer probationary period unless agencies 

establish cultures that support the constant assessment of probationers 

and the separation of probationers who are not a proven asset to the 

Government. Without this willingness to assess and to act on the assessment, 

the longer period becomes meaningless. 

23 5 CFR §300.604. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 21 
Assessing Probationer Performance 

Establishing Performance Standards for Probationers 

Probationers should have their performance evaluated in terms of their 

fitness for appointment to the civil service. At the same time, like nonprobationers, they should also be assessed in light of the organization’s 

strategic goals and the role of the position in the accomplishment of those 

goals. In addition, both probationers and non-probationers should be 

assessed for recognition, including awards (and salary in a pay-forperformance system). Thus, while the performance criteria for probationers 

and non-probationers can be expected to overlap, they may not necessarily 

be exactly the same. 

According to the Code of Federal Regulations, probationers must fully 

demonstrate their qualifications for the position.24 In our survey, we asked 

supervisors what standard they used to determine if a probationer should 

obtain status as a non-probationary employee. More than 87 percent of 

responding supervisors stated that, when assessing probationers, their 

standard was that the probationer must fully meet the established 

performance and conduct expectations. However, 7 percent of responding 

supervisors said that their measurement for continued employment was that 

the probationer must exceed or greatly exceed expectations. Six percent 

placed their requirements at a level below fully meeting the established 

expectations. 

One possible explanation for the number of supervisors using a standard 

other than fully successful is that they are finding the performance standards 

to be inadequate. One of the most important purposes of performance 

standards is to identify for removal those probationers who are marginal or 

unsuccessful. When asked why a probationer who was considered an 

inadequate fit was retained, one supervisor responded, “Employee met 

requirements but will not perform well in position.” If an individual can 

meet the performance requirements but be unable to perform well in the 

position, it can be an indication that the performance requirements are 

flawed and do not accurately measure the critical aspects of the position. 

The supervisor quoted above reported that the probationer in question was a 

trainee. A trainee position is one in which an individual is selected at a level 

below that which has been identified as needed to support the organization’s 

mission. The intent at the time of hire is to dedicate time and resources to 

give the selectee the knowledge and to help build the skills necessary to 

perform at the required level. This is different from a full-performance-level 

hire, in which the individual is immediately placed at the grade that has been 

identified as meeting the agency’s needs. 

24 5 CFR §315.803. 

22 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
Assessing Probationer Performance 

For trainees, it may be appropriate to measure not only the quantity and 

quality of the probationer’s work towards mission accomplishment, but also 

the extent to which the probationer demonstrates the ability to learn new 

concepts and successfully apply them at the level required in the fullperformance position the individual will one day be expected to fill. 

However, this does not mean requiring the probationer to be more—or 

less—than fully acceptable on non-trainee standards. Rather, the standards 

should be adjusted to measure what is actually being sought from the 

individual: an ability to contribute in the present capacity, as well as an 

ability to develop into a fully successful employee who will be an asset to the 

Government. This dual objective may require using different standards for 

probationers versus non-probationers, a practice that is fully appropriate 

because these two groups are not similarly situated. The standards should be 

fair and appropriate for each group—but not necessarily the same. 

Performance Problems: Probationers Are Different 

A probationer is still an applicant for a finalized appointment to a particular 

position as well as to the Federal service. While most fully appointed Federal 

employees are entitled to a performance improvement period before a 

performance-based adverse action may be taken, probationers are different. 

(It is worth noting that under alternate personnel systems such as those 

created by the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense, many fully 

appointed employees may no longer have an entitlement to a formal 

improvement period, although it will remain an option if a supervisor 

deems it appropriate.) 

If a probationer is not able to perform acceptably, the Government has no 

obligation to extensively train the individual. Nonetheless, as noted in a 

previous section, we found widespread use of additional training for 

probationers. More than half of the supervisors who reported that they had 

deficient probationers said that they had used additional on-the-job training. 

Three in ten said that they had used additional classroom training. These 

additional training investments may or may not have been appropriate. 

While the purpose of the probationary period is to continue the assessment 

process, agencies can expect that some training will be necessary, and this 

should be planned for when the decision is made to select a probationer. 

If the probationer is mostly successful with the planned level of training, a 

small investment in additional training, to see if the probationer can become 

fully successful, may be in the interest of the Government based upon the 

potential shown by the probationer. However, extensive training based on 

the needs of the particular individual is not appropriate for a probationary 

employee. Instead, probationers have the responsibility to demonstrate they 

are qualified for the position and are capable of becoming assets to the 

Government. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23 
Assessing Probationer Performance 

We found some indications that agencies may be making it harder on 

themselves than necessary by creating procedures that treat probationers with 

performance problems as if they are no different from appointed employees. 

The following is one component’s explanation of how it addresses 

probationers with performance deficiencies: 

Probationary employees, as well as the general [component] workforce, 

who demonstrate unacceptable performance are issued a written warning 

which provides the following information: describes the unacceptable 

performance; identifies the performance standards which must be 

attained in order to demonstrate acceptable performance; establishes the 

period of time allotted to demonstrate acceptable performance; provides 

a structured performance improvement plan (PIP) which may include 

developmental assignments, counseling, formal training, on-the-job 

training, etc.; and explains what actions will be taken if the unacceptable 

performance continues or [acceptable performance] is not demonstrated. 

A component in a different agency set forth similar guidance. While the 

component permitted a supervisor to take action at any time during the 

probationary period for “problems with conduct or general character traits” 

the policy also stated that the probationer “must be given at least 90 calendar 

days to work under performance standards before action can be taken for 

performance problems.” 

This is appropriate guidance—for addressing non-probationary employees. 

When it comes to probationers, however, an extensive (or resource intensive) 

performance improvement opportunity is counter to the intent of the probationary period. In the case of a probationer, the Government responsibility 

is an extension of that which is owed to an applicant. When the agency 

hired a probationer, it was offering an extensive job interview/work sample 

opportunity. Just as with a work sample test, the Government owes the 

applicant clear instructions and the tools to accomplish the assigned tasks. 

The agency does not owe the probationer the time or training that may be 

necessary to rehabilitate a poorly performing Federal employee. 

When asked why a probationer was allowed to complete the probationary 

period when he was not successful, one supervisor replied, “The employee 

was not anywhere near where I had hoped. I gave him additional training 

without a lot of improvement. By then the 12-month probationary period 

was over. Since then his performance and conduct have both declined.” 

Another supervisor reported retaining a probationer who was not a good fit 

because it was “too hard to get [the] person retrained into something else.” 

These comments are yet another indication that agencies are not treating 

probationers as applicants in the final assessment phase, but rather as Federal 

employees with finalized appointments to the civil service—something they 

are not. 

24 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
COMMUNICATING EXPECTATIONS

Agencies should treat probationers as applicants for appointments 

instead of as employees. Probationers should be made to understand 

from the start that they are being offered an opportunity to 

demonstrate why it is in the Government’s interest to grant them an 

appointment, but that the appointment will not be final until the 

probationary period has been successfully completed. Unfortunately, 

according to probationary respondents, agencies rarely communicate this. 

The absence of such communication is yet another indication that agencies 

do not intend to use the probationary period to assess probationers and act 

upon that assessment. The message being sent to probationers is that the 

probationary period is not important enough to warrant being mentioned. 

Our probationary respondents to the survey provided us with comments 

such as: 

“I had no idea there was a probationary period or if I am still on probation.” 

“While there was a timely mention that it would take place, there was no 

effort to explain its purpose or consequences.” 

“I knew there was a probationary period, but I don’t know whether I’m 

still in a probationary period because this was never discussed.” 

“I assumed there was a probation of 3 months. At 11 months I was 

asked to sign papers which stated that I [had] completed my [1]-year 

probation period.” 

“I was not aware that I was still under probation or the consequences 

until I received this survey.” 

“The only way I EVER became aware of a probationary period was 

when I saw it in my service record in the computer. No one ever 

explained to me that I could even view my service record or what any of 

it meant. I came upon it by chance while entering a leave request.” 

“I was never fully made aware or informed as to what a probationary 

period is, how long, or even its purpose and what or who decides what 

happens at the end. I knew of it, that it existed and I was on it, but no 

more or what I need to do to successfully complete it.” 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25 
Communicating Expectations 

One probationer summed up our point particularly well: “This topic should 

be discussed thoroughly with the new employee. This would leave no doubt 

in the new employee’s mind of what was expected of him or her. This was 

never discussed with me.” 

An agency’s silence about the probationary period before bringing a 

probationer on board speaks volumes about the extent to which the 

agency’s culture fails to take the probationary period seriously. 

Communications Prior to Selection 

The message that the probationary period is not a serious matter begins with 

the first communications between the agency and potential applicants. As 

noted in our report Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 

(April 2003), vacancy announcements are typically too long and filled with 

fine print that few people want to read. However, much of that fine print 

exists because there is important information the Government needs to 

communicate. One piece of critical information is the notification that a 

new Federal employee will be required to complete a probationary period. 

Not all vacancy announcements carry a notice that the applicant may be 

required to serve a probationary period, and the announcements that do 

have this information vary in specificity.25 Below are a few examples of the 

language we found on OPM’s USAJOBS website. 

■ Selectee may be required to serve a probationary/trial period. 

■ One-year trial/probationary period is required. 

■ New Appointees will be subject to a probationary/trial period. The 1st 

year of service of an employee who is given a career or career-conditional 

appointment is probationary when the employee is appointed from a 

competitive list of eligibles. Reinstatement applicants will be required 

to serve the 1-year probationary period unless the probationary period 

has been completed. Employees appointed under the Veterans 

Recruitment Authority will require 2-year trial period. 

The first example does not explain the length, purpose, or potential 

consequences of being a probationer. The second implies that a trial period 

is 1 year—not accurate information based upon the hiring authorities 

advertised in the area of consideration for that announcement. The third 

example gives the accurate length of the probationary and trial periods, and 

enough details to confuse some readers who are not familiar with the Federal 

25 OPM’s Delegated Examining Operations Handbook addresses what must be included in a vacancy 

announcement. There are both required and recommended items; the probationary period is not mentioned. 

26 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
Communicating Expectations 

civil service. It does not inform the reader that the appointment is not final, 

or that the probationer does not have the same rights as a Federal employee. 

It also may imply that the full appointment status automatically comes with 

the initial selection. 

Our survey responses indicated some probationers did notice the references 

to the probationary period in the vacancy announcements. Specifically, 3 out 

of every 10 surveyed probationers indicated that the vacancy announcement 

had informed them that they would be required to complete a probationary 

period. However, fewer than 1 in 10 reported that they had learned of the 

potential consequences of being a probationer through the vacancy 

announcement. 

One possible explanation for this lack of emphasis on the probationary 

period may be an expectation that the performance assessments either will 

not occur or will not be acted upon. If the human resources staff who create 

the vacancy announcement believe the probationary period is a mere routine 

that will not be used to assess an applicant for appointment, it could explain 

why there does not seem to be a sense of urgency to communicate 

expectations and consequences in the vacancy announcement. 

The vacancy announcement is not the only pre-hire opportunity to 

communicate with applicants. Some of our surveyed probationers noted 

that the interview was when they first heard of the probationary period. 

The interview is an opportunity to describe the probationary period as an 

assessment period. The supervisor can let the applicant know what the 

selectee will need to demonstrate during the probationary period in order to 

qualify for an appointment, and set the applicant’s expectations at a 

reasonable level by explaining that if selected, the individual would still 

have to successfully complete a probationary period before the appointment 

could become final. 

Of the more than 40 agencies and components that provided us information 

on their probationary period processes, none mentioned the job interview as 

a means by which the agency told applicants about the probationary period. 

Notification during job interviews appears to be primarily a result of 

individual supervisors taking initiative rather than agency- or componentwide policies or established procedures. Only 20 percent of supervisory 

respondents reported that they discussed the probationary period at all with 

their probationers before the probationers entered on duty. We do not know 

the level of detail in these discussions, but the very absence of any 

communication from the majority of supervisors about the probationary 

period before the probationers come on board sends a message to the 

probationers. The message: the probationary period is so unimportant to 

their supervisors that it is not even worth mentioning that it exists. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27 
Communicating Expectations 

Another opportunity to notify a probationer is the job offer. Several agencies 

and components informed us that their human resources offices were 

required to include a notification regarding probation in the job offer. 

According to our surveyed probationers, the job offer was used to notify 

them about the probationary period more than any other pre-hire method. 

Unfortunately, just being notified that the probationary period exists is not 

enough. While 34 percent of our surveyed probationers were told of a 

probationary period in the offer, only 25 percent were told of its purpose, 

and only 17 percent were told of the potential consequences of being a 

probationer. 

Even with all the different communication methods combined, the message 

that the probationary period exists was often not sent. A third of our 

responding probationers reported that they did not know they would be 

required to complete a probationary period until after they reported for duty. 

This lack of communication about the probationary period throughout the 

entire pre-hire process is problematic on several levels. First, the probationers 

are put into a position where many of them may not know that they are 

subject to an additional assessment before their appointment becomes final. 

They are giving up their current situations without being educated about 

precisely what they are accepting in exchange. With so much at stake, 

candidates deserve to understand what is being offered and the conditions 

that come with that offer. Furthermore, in some cases, a lack of notification 

can invalidate the probationary period.26 

Secondly, this is the start of the management-employee relationship. Trust is 

an important element in a productive relationship, and if a probationer feels 

the employer was disingenuous by failing to mention the probationary 

period, the relationship can be damaged. 

Additionally, silence about the probationary period can send the message 

that the agency does not take the probationary period seriously, since it is 

apparently not important enough to mention as an aspect of employment 

along with salary, benefits, or related matters. This message is sent by the 

human resources staff, supervisors, and everyone else probationers encounter 

who do not inform them of the probationary period’s existence and potential 

consequences. 

26 If individuals with rights as current Federal employees accept an appointment that by its nature subjects 

them to a new probationary period, they retain their current rights unless they make a knowing and 

voluntary decision to relinquish those rights as a condition of accepting the new job. If the decision was not 

an informed one, the rights are retained. Edwards v. Department of Justice, 86 M.S.P.R. 404 (2000); and 

Ramos v. Department of Justice, 94 M.S.P.R. 623, 629 (2003). 

28 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
Communicating Expectations 

Communications After Selection 

In some locations, the message that the probationary period is not important 

continues to be sent after the probationer reports for duty. 

For agencies responding to our questionnaire, the most common time to 

notify probationers of the existence of the probationary period was when the 

probationer entered on duty. Several agencies noted that they had developed 

orientation programs and materials including handbooks, and that notifying 

probationers of the probationary period was a part of this orientation, 

which occurred either the first day or soon thereafter. Yet, there were a 

few probationers who were not aware of the probationary period until they 

received our survey. These individuals were on appointments subject to the 

probationary period and reported starting their Federal service at least 

7 months prior to completing our survey. Still, 6 percent informed us that 

despite their communications with their supervisors, human resources 

offices, co-workers, and friends, they were never told that they would be 

required to complete a probationary period. 

Even for those probationers who were notified, the message sent was 

sometimes incomplete. Nearly one-quarter of our surveyed probationers 

told us that the potential consequences of being a probationer were never 

explained to them. As illustrated by Figure 3, below, most of those who were 

notified of the potential consequences were told after they came aboard: 

Figure 3: Notification of the Potential Consequences of Being a Probationer 

How were you notified of the potential consequences of 

your probationary status? (Select all that apply.) 

Performance Standards 

Never Explained 

Handbook 

Job Offer 

Other 10% 

40% 

24% 

20% 

17% 

Vacancy Announcement 9%

Warning 1% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29 
Communicating Expectations 

As shown above, the most common time to be told of the consequences of 

the probationary period was during discussions of the performance standards, 

cited by 40 percent of probationary respondents. Yet, given the importance 

of the supervisor’s expectations in both the assessment of a probationer and 

the outcome of that assessment (termination versus retention), 40 percent is 

a regrettably low number. The link between performance standards and the 

probationary period is too important to be left out of discussions regarding 

performance expectations. 

Supervisors’ expectations and the potential consequences should be 

communicated to probationers if the probationary period is to be used to 

separate individuals who are not assets to the Government. Silence on the 

matter may cause a probationer to assume that all is well, creating an 

expectation that the appointment either is already finalized, or that the 

finalization is a mere formality. Probationers deserve to be given the clear 

message that the probationary period will be used by the agency for 

assessment purposes and that action will be taken based upon the assessment 

results. This can and should be done in a positive manner by notifying 

probationers that the reward for success is a finalized appointment that 

carries significant job protection rights. 

Supporting Supervisors of Probationers 

Supervisors have a critical role in the administration of a probationary 

period. Ultimately, it is a supervisor who must determine if the probationer’s 

conduct and performance are acceptable. Unfortunately, some of the 

supervisors who responded to our survey indicated that they are not given 

adequate information to carry out this critical responsibility. One supervisor 

told us, “When [the individual] came here I had no idea he was on 

probation.” Another stated, “At a minimum, supervisors should be given 

some idea at the outset of their advertisement of the employees’ rights and 

options rather than [having to rely on] the ‘voyage of discovery’ that is 

currently the norm.” 

Our survey did not ask supervisors when they became aware they were 

supervising a probationer. However, we did ask when they received training, 

guidance, or instructions concerning their role as a supervisor of 

probationers. As noted in Figure 4, below, almost one in five supervisors 

never received any training, guidance, or instruction. (For those with 5 years 

or less as a supervisor, 28 percent reported that they had never received 

guidance.) A lack of basic information can make it difficult for a supervisor 

to administer the probationary period effectively. Furthermore, while almost 

30 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
Communicating Expectations 

60 percent of supervisors did receive training at some point in their career, 

less than 10 percent were given instructions as a reminder at the time that 

they selected a probationer. It is difficult for supervisors to use the 

probationary period as an assessment tool prior to appointment unless they 

are aware that they have selected a probationer and know what their role is 

as the supervisor of a probationer. 

Figure 4: Training, Instructions or Guidelines 

When did your agency provide you training or other 

guidance/instructions concerning your role as a supervisor during 

a subordinate’s probationary period? (Select all that apply.) 

When I became a supervisor 

I never received training 

or other guidance/instruction 

When I selected probationer 

59% 

19% 

9% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

The supervisors who responded to our survey indicated that they wished 

they had been given more information. The gaps in knowledge varied from 

supervisors who said they did not know an individual was a probationer to 

those who did not know when a subordinate’s probationary period would 

end. (Three percent of our survey’s supervisory respondents reported they 

did not know the length of their subordinate’s probationary period, while 

4 percent reported a length that is shorter than the 1-year minimum 

required by OPM regulations.) One supervisor indicated that the problem 

was not a lack of knowledge about the probationary period, but simply, 

“As a supervisor I sometimes forget to discuss ‘probationary’ status with new 

hires.... It may be helpful to develop an information sheet/form explaining 

the probationary period and require the employee and supervisor to both 

sign it for new hires to the Federal system.” 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 31 
Communicating Expectations 

Supervisors need support from their agencies in order to meet their 

responsibilities as supervisors of probationers. Many receive only silence— 

which itself is a message. If supervisors received the message—through 

training, guidance, and their own supervisors—that the probationary 

period is to be taken seriously as an assessment period, and that assessing 

the probationer is a critical function of being a supervisor, that message 

could be passed on to the probationer. The current overall lack of 

communication throughout the pre- and post-hire process indicates that 

the message is not being adequately communicated to either supervisors or 

probationers. As long as agencies remain silent on this issue, they can expect 

supervisors to continue using the probationary period at a level far below its 

full potential. 

32 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The probationary period is an opportunity to assess the conduct and 

performance of a probationer to determine if the individual is a good 

match for the needs of the hiring agency before an appointment to 

the civil service becomes final. However, this assessment frequently does not 

occur. Our survey responses indicated that even though supervisors are 

aware that the probationer’s appointment is not final, supervisors tend to 

treat their probationers as fully appointed Federal employees, with all the 

rights and responsibilities that implies. Agency policies and responses 

to our questionnaire also indicated that in many cases, probationers who are 

marginal or unsuccessful are not handled any differently than fully appointed 

Federal employees. 

The message being sent by supervisors, human resources staff, and agency 

cultures overall is that the probationary period is a mere formality. Some 

supervisors expressed frustration at the lack of agency support for the full 

use of the probationary period, and even a number of probationers were 

perturbed by what they saw as agencies’ failure to use the probationary 

period to remove marginal and poor performers. 

The probationary period, if fully used, is one of the most valid tests 

available to determine if an individual will be a successful employee. 

However, full and successful usage requires a fair, in-depth assessment of 

the probationer and a willingness to terminate the probationer if the 

individual fails to prove that a finalized appointment would be in the 

public’s best interest. Until this occurs, the effectiveness of the probationary 

period will remain severely limited. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33 
Findings and Recommendations 

Recommendations 

1. The statute and regulations should be changed to better support the 

use of the probationary period as a time period to assess candidates 

before they receive finalized appointments as Federal employees. 

This includes providing agencies with the flexibility to set the length 

of the probationary period based upon the unique characteristics of 

their positions and training programs. Specifically: 

❏ Congress should amend 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75 to indicate that if an 

individual is in a probationary status, the individual is not entitled to 

the protections granted to Federal employees, even if the individual 

has been in service for more than 1 year. This would help support 

the message that appointment as a Federal employee must be earned 

through successful performance and is not an entitlement that 

automatically results from a job offer or physical presence in the 

workplace. Amending the statute would also enable OPM to provide 

all agencies with meaningful flexibility regarding the duration of the 

probationary period. 

❏ OPM should establish procedures so that a probationer does not 

automatically become an employee in the absence of agency action. 

An agency should be required to certify that a probationer’s conduct 

and performance have established that the individual will be an 

asset to the Government. In the absence of this certification, the 

probationer’s employment should automatically terminate upon the 

expiration of the probationary period. The use of a not-to-exceed 

date for that period can help emphasize that the individual has not 

been promised a finalized appointment, but rather has been given a 

time-limited opportunity with the burden on the probationer to 

demonstrate why a finalized appointment is in the interest of the 

Government. 

❏ If Congress amends 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75 as recommended above, 

OPM should modify 5 CFR §315.801 and §315.802 so that they 

will no longer set the probationary period at 1 year with a prohibition 

on extensions. OPM should, instead, issue regulations that permit 

agencies to set a probationary period of 1 to 3 years for each 

occupational area upon showing that the nature of the applicable 

positions calls for the particular length requested by the agency. 

34 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
Findings and Recommendations 

2.  Agencies should create a culture in which probationers are treated 

with respect as candidates for an appointment, but not as Federal 

employees with finalized appointments. In particular: 

❏ Performance appraisals for supervisors should include an evaluation 

of how thoroughly they have used the probationary period as an 

assessment tool. Supervisors should be held accountable for using the 

probationary period fairly, fully, and in the best interest of the Federal 

Government. This should not be considered an additional critical 

element, but rather should be seen as an intrinsic part of their existing 

responsibility to thoroughly assess their subordinates and take action 

when appropriate. 

❏ Supervisors should receive training in their responsibilities to the 

agency, the civil service, and the probationer. They should be made 

aware when they have hired a probationer, and reminded that their 

role is to assess the individual for appointment as well as to supervise 

the performance of work towards organizational goals. 

❏ Agency policies should treat unsuccessful probationers differently 

than Federal employees with finalized appointments. Agencies 

should ensure that probationers receive clear guidance and a full 

understanding of performance expectations, as well as the appropriate 

level of training for an individual with their level of experience. 

However, agencies should also ensure that probationers and their 

supervisors recognize that probationers are not similarly situated to 

other Federal employees and are not entitled to the same level of 

investment or opportunities for rehabilitation. 

❏ Probationers should be notified, before accepting a job offer, that they

will be probationers and what that means. Human resources staff and 

supervisors should ensure that probationers are aware they have been 

offered an opportunity to demonstrate on the job why finalizing their 

appointment would be in the best interests of the agency and the 

entire civil service—but that a finalized appointment is not 

guaranteed. 

❏ In their discussions with a probationer, before and after the 

individual begins work, supervisors should reinforce the message 

that probationers are still applicants and the probationary period is 

an extension of the examining process, prior to finalizing probationers’ 

appointments. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35 
Findings and Recommendations 

3.  Agencies should use the probationary period to terminate 

probationers who fail to demonstrate the appropriate level of 

performance and conduct. For example: 

❏ Agencies should support supervisors in their efforts to use the 

probationary period and avoid sending any messages that could 

inappropriately discourage supervisors from taking action. For 

example, if supervisors believe that the authorization or funding for 

spaces would be lost if they terminated probationers, they may be less 

likely to terminate marginal/unsuccessful probationers. Supervisors 

should be given the opportunity to recruit for the right fit, rather than 

being put in the position of having either the marginal/unsuccessful 

probationer or nobody at all. 

❏ Supervisors should establish performance standards for probationers 

that address both organizational performance goals and their own 

expectations for their probationers. Trainees should be measured 

by both the performance of short-term goals as well as their 

demonstrated potential to advance to the full-performance level. 

Standards should be set based upon what could reasonably be 

expected of a new employee, and those standards should not be 

modified around the individual. Rather, the individuals should be 

measured against the standards. 

❏ Supervisors should provide clear instructions to probationers as 

well as guidance and training in order to give probationers a fair 

opportunity to demonstrate why it is in the public interest to 

finalize an appointment to the Federal service. If, after this 

instruction, a probationer is not fully fit for the position, in both 

performance and conduct, supervisors should terminate the 

probationer. 

36 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY

The Survey 

Individuals were selected at random from the Office of Personnel 

Management’s database to participate in our survey. The population was 

limited to full-time, permanent, non-seasonal employees who had a careerconditional appointment and were first hired into the competitive service 

within the 6 months preceding the random drawing of participants. 

Individuals were selected from each of the following agencies: 

■ Department of the Army 

■ Department of the Navy 

■ Department of the Air Force 

■ Other Department of Defense Components 

■ Department of Veterans Affairs 

■ Social Security Administration 

■ Bureau of Prisons 

■ Internal Revenue Service 

■ Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

We sent 1,070 surveys to probationers, and an equal number of a different 

survey to the supervisors of those probationers. Seventy-two supervisor 

surveys and 101 probationer surveys were returned as undeliverable. The 

response rate for each group was approximately 60 percent, with 600 

supervisors and 581 probationers responding. Because of the manner in 

which the survey was conducted it was not possible to associate the responses 

between a particular probationer and that individual’s supervisor. 

This survey was not intended to represent the Federal Government as a 

whole. Rather, its results paint a picture of what is occurring in the agencies 

that recruit the most probationers, as well as in certain other agencies, to 

provide a cross-section of the workforce engaged in different occupations. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 37 
Appendix A: Methodology 

Agency Input 

We also sent a different set of questions to a number of departments, 

agencies, and components. The questions addressed how they managed the 

probationary process, including any flexibility that was available to them. 

We received a total of more than 40 responses. These responses came from 

one or more components within, or the headquarters of, the following: 

■ Department of the Interior 

■ Department of Defense 

■ Department of Health and Human Services 

■ Small Business Administration 

■ National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

■ Department of Agriculture 

■ Department of Veterans Affairs 

■ General Services Administration 

■ Department of the Treasury 

■ Department of Labor 

■ Department of Education 

■ Social Security Administration 

■ Department of Justice 

The Focus Group 

Our focus group consisted of approximately 10 members of the Federal 

Midwest Human Resources Council in Chicago, IL. 

38 The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity 
A Critical Ass

THE PROBATIONARY P

Opp