Fair and Equitable Treatment:

Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

The Chairman

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

December 1, 2009

The President

President of the Senate

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Dear Sirs and Madam:

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

to submit this Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) report, Fair and Equitable 

Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining. The purpose of this report is to 

examine changes in the composition of the Federal workforce and Federal employee 

perceptions of their treatment in the workplace.

MSPB has a long history of examining the success of the Federal Government 

and its component agencies in adhering to the merit system principles, achieving a 

representative workforce, and avoiding prohibited personnel practices. Over the past 

thirty years, progress has been made as the Federal workforce has become more diverse. 

However, the percentage of minorities at higher levels of pay and responsibility remains 

below their rate of employment at lower levels. In addition, many employees believe 

that personnel decisions are often based on factors other than merit, such as favoritism. 

Fairness is essential to recruit highly-qualified employees and create an engaged, 

high performing workforce. Accordingly, agencies must ensure that their human resources 

management policies and practices do not create barriers to merit-based selection, 

advancement, recognition, and retention. 

The insights in this report should help Federal agencies enhance their ability to 

achieve and maintain an effective workforce that represents all segments of society, in 

accordance with the merit system principles. I believe that you will find this report useful 

as you consider these and other issues regarding the future of the Federal civil service.

Respectfully,

Susan Tsui Grundmann

Enclosure

A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States 

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Fair and Equitable Treatment:

Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mary M. Rose, Member

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Director

John Crum, Ph.D.

Project Manager

Cynthia H. Ferentinos, Ph.D.

Assistant Project Manager

James J. Tsugawa

Project Analysts

Dee Ann Batten, Ph.D.

Annette Butler

J. Peter Leeds, Ph.D.

Paul van Rijn, Ph.D.

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

Overview.....................................................................................................................................................................i

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

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

Summary..................................................................................................................................................................vii

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

Purpose of the Study...................................................................................................................................................1

Methodology ..............................................................................................................................................................2

Building a Diverse and Representative Workforce.................................................................................................................5

The Case for a Diverse and Representative Workforce ................................................................................................5

Achieving Representation ...........................................................................................................................................8

Summary..................................................................................................................................................................15

A Status Report on the Federal Workforce..........................................................................................................................17

Representation in the Federal Workforce..................................................................................................................17

Pay and Status ..........................................................................................................................................................21

Occupational Distribution........................................................................................................................................22

Level of Responsibility..............................................................................................................................................26

Summary..................................................................................................................................................................28

Fostering a Representative Workforce at All Levels.............................................................................................................29

Analysis of Promotion Rates.....................................................................................................................................29

Trends and Patterns in Overall Promotion Rates......................................................................................................30

Advancement to Leadership Roles.......................................................................................................................................41

Current Status ..........................................................................................................................................................41

Career-Enhancing Opportunities ........................................................................................................................... 44

Seizing Opportunities for Career Advancement .................................................................................................................47

Employee Strategies for Career Advancement...........................................................................................................47

Optimism.................................................................................................................................................................51

Ambition ..................................................................................................................................................................51

Summary..................................................................................................................................................................52

Unifying Concerns and Distinct Challenges.......................................................................................................................53

Changing Perceptions of Discrimination..................................................................................................................53

Different Perspectives on Discrimination..................................................................................................................55

Concerns About Favoritism ......................................................................................................................................56

Looking Back at Progress Made and Challenges That Remain............................................................................................59

Findings From the 1996 Fair and Equitable Treatment Report With Brief Updates.................................................59

Recommendations From the 1996 Fair and Equitable Treatment Report With Brief Updates..................................62

Addressing the Remaining Challenges................................................................................................................................65

Fostering Fairness and Transparency ........................................................................................................................65

Safeguarding Equal Opportunities in Employment..................................................................................................67

Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................71

Conclusions..............................................................................................................................................................71

Recommendations....................................................................................................................................................73

Summary..................................................................................................................................................................75

Appendix A. Merit System Principles................................................................................................................................. 77

Appendix B. Prohibited Personnel Practices .......................................................................................................................79

Appendix C. Discussion Group Questions..........................................................................................................................81

Appendix D. Career Advancement Survey ..........................................................................................................................83

Appendix E. Occupational Definitions...............................................................................................................................95

Table of Contents

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

Executive Summary

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has a clear mission—to protect Federal 

merit systems and the rights of individuals within those systems in accordance with the merit 

system principles. In part, these principles require Federal agencies to recruit “qualified 

individuals...to achieve a workforce from all segments of society” and to select and advance 

employees “on the basis of merit after fair and open competition.” 1 Further, Federal agencies 

must afford applicants and employees “ fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel 

management, without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, 

sex, marital status, age or handicapping condition.” 2 To meet its obligations to report to the 

President and the Congress regarding whether the Federal Government is meeting these goals, 

MSPB has conducted research over the years to evaluate progress in these areas. In this report, 

we summarize results over time from surveys of Federal employees, as well as trends gleaned 

from Federal workforce data. This report combines these subjective and objective components 

to provide a more complete understanding regarding how much progress has been made and 

what challenges remain. 

Overview

In the past 30 years, there have been significant changes to the Federal workforce and 

the broader labor market from which it draws—the civilian labor force. As articulated 

in the merit system principles, the Federal Government is committed to the goals of a 

representative Federal workforce and to Federal agencies which manage their employees 

fairly and develop and deploy their talents effectively. Therefore, it is important to assess 

the Government’s progress towards achieving the stated ideals.

The MSPB, which is responsible for evaluating and reporting on the health of the Federal 

civil service, conducted this study to assess the Federal Government’s progress in meeting 

these goals, with particular attention to representation, career advancement, and the 

perceived fairness and integrity of personnel practices and decisions. With regard to 

representation, we examined the availability of various groups of workers in the civilian 

labor force and compared the presence of these groups in the Federal workforce over 

a period of significant demographic change in our Nation. We also reviewed Federal 

employee opinions over time, including those reported in our 1996 Fair and Equitable 

Treatment Report, and other survey data. Our findings and recommendations are based 

on demographics and trend data on the civilian labor force and the Federal workforce, 

measures of Federal employee opinion, and previous research.

1 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1).

2 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(2).
Executive Summary

ii Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Findings

Progress has been made. First, the Federal workforce has become more diverse, 

consistent with the Federal Government’s commitment to recruit and retain a workforce 

that reflects the Nation’s diversity. Second, an increasing percentage of Federal employees 

believe that they are treated fairly, and a decreasing percentage believe that they have 

experienced discrimination on factors such as ethnicity/race, gender, and age, indicating 

progress toward managing all Federal employees on the basis of merit and in a manner 

free from prohibited personnel practices.

Nevertheless, the ideals of a fully representative workforce and fair treatment of all 

employees have not been wholly realized. Although a statistical analysis of the Federal 

workforce confirms that diversity has increased, that analysis also shows that progress 

has been uneven. For example, the Federal Government continues to employ Hispanics 

at a rate below their availability in the civilian labor force (CLF). Also, the percentage 

of minorities at higher levels of pay (e.g., General Schedule grades GS-14 and GS-15) 

and responsibility (e.g., supervisory and executive positions) remains below their rate 

of employment at lower levels. These differences are the result of a variety of factors, 

including occupational and educational patterns, as well as other possible influences, such 

as the legacy of past discrimination or other socioeconomic disadvantages.

Similarly, although a decreasing percentage of employees believe that they have 

experienced prohibited discrimination, many employees believe that personnel decisions 

are often based on factors other than merit, such as favoritism. Moreover, survey data 

indicate that a substantial group of employees lack confidence in both existing redress 

procedures (such as the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint process) and 

the willingness or ability of Federal agency leaders to take appropriate action against 

managers who discriminate or misuse their personnel authority.

Below, we briefly summarize our findings on specific aspects of fair treatment and career 

advancement.

Promotion rates. Promotion rates are generally comparable across lines of ethnicity/

race and gender, but some differences persist. Statistical analysis indicates that those 

differences are driven primarily, although not exclusively, by factors such as occupation, 

education, and experience. The analysis also suggests that the value of factors such as 

education and experience depends more on relevance and quality than on sheer quantity. 

For example, we found that supervisory experience from an earlier position makes little 

difference in initial advancement but gains importance at higher levels. 

Fostering advancement. As in 1996, minority employees remain more likely to report 

a lack of career-enhancing opportunities, such as serving as an “acting supervisor.” 

Employees in ethnic/minority groups also continue to express less confidence than White 
Executive Summary

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

employees in agency promotion processes. That lack of confidence may be reducing 

the diversity in candidate pools and, as a consequence, diversity at higher levels. In 

our surveys, employees sometimes indicated that they had chosen not to apply for a 

position because they believed the manager (or agency) would not select someone of their 

ethnicity or race for the position. Although fewer employees reported such a decision in 

our 2007 survey, the proportion of employees who “opted out” of a competition under 

the belief that applying would be pointless is not negligible—as high as one in five for 

some demographic groups.

Employee strategies for career advancement. Although employees continue to express 

serious reservations about promotion processes and decisions, employees also reported 

that Federal agencies and managers can and often do promote employees based on 

accomplishment and ability, and that individual initiative matters. When asked about 

factors that had aided their advancement, employees gave high marks to: (1) finding a 

supervisor or mentor who could provide career advice and developmental opportunities; 

and (2) seeking and successfully completing challenging assignments to “get noticed” and 

develop a good track record. Employees also recognized that education and training are 

the foundation for advancement in many occupations.

Views on the impact of ethnicity and race. Survey results show a dramatic decrease 

in the percentages of employees who believe that they have recently experienced 

discrimination on the basis of their ethnicity or race. Nevertheless, a considerable 

percentage of employees still feel that their ethnicity or race has hindered their 

advancement or otherwise disadvantaged them. Also, employees appear to be less aware 

of—or less inclined to believe in—discrimination against employees of a different 

ethnicity or race. Such differences in opinion have significant implications for personnel 

policy and practice. In particular, they create the potential for disagreement and discord 

over matters such as the prevalence and severity of discrimination in Federal agencies, the 

appropriateness of giving agencies and managers greater discretion in hiring and pay, and 

the need for measures to prevent and address prohibited discrimination.

Concerns about favoritism. Decreases in the proportion of employees who believe 

that they have experienced prohibited discrimination have not been matched by 

increases in the proportion of employees who believe that personnel decisions are fair 

and merit based. Substantial percentages of employees believe that managers engage in 

favoritism when selecting employees, allocating work and developmental opportunities, 

and granting awards. It is not realistic to expect every employee to accept every lessthan-optimal personnel decision, such as not being selected for a promotion or the 

denial of a request for training, as fair, just, and merit-based. Nevertheless, continued 

employee perceptions of favoritism are a serious concern, given their pervasiveness and 

their corrosive effects on the credibility of agency leadership, the perceived integrity of 

personnel decisions, and the efficiency and effectiveness of agency human resources (HR) 

systems (including, but not limited to, hiring, performance management, and pay).
Executive Summary

iv Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Recommendations

Recommendations for Federal agencies—

Improve measurement. Efforts to improve representation and fair treatment may be 

unfocused or unproductive unless agencies have a clear understanding of the goals to be 

achieved, their performance in relation to those goals, and how their personnel policies 

and practices are promoting or hindering attainment of those goals. Agencies should 

conduct a thorough workforce analysis, such as the analysis required by the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission’s Management Directive 715. That analysis 

should clearly identify: (1) workforce requirements; (2) areas (such as organization, 

occupations, or grade levels) where representation lags behind the civilian labor force; and 

(3) possible barriers to a fully representative workforce. The analysis should also be used 

to develop strategies for eliminating those barriers. Agencies should also evaluate critical 

HR processes and policies, and that assessment should examine effects on employees at 

different levels and in different demographic categories, in addition to other measures 

such as cost, timeliness, and contribution to organizational and employee performance.

Ensure that HR policies and practices, at both the organizational and individual 

level, do not create barriers to merit-based selection, recognition, advancement, 

and retention. Seemingly neutral policies and practices can unintentionally overlook or 

disadvantage members of certain demographic groups, including those who are highly 

qualified or high-performing. Below, we outline some measures agencies should consider 

in specific areas of human resource management.

• Recruitment. Use a balanced set of recruitment strategies, complementing “passive” 

recruitment methods such as posting jobs on USAJOBS and agency websites 

with active methods such as job fairs, targeted advertisements, and tapping into 

professional networks. Seek balance when selecting and using appointment 

authorities, recognizing that recruitment methods or eligibility criteria for a particular 

authority may limit the diversity or depth of the resulting candidate pool. 

• Assessment and selection. Ensure that selection criteria are job-related and do not 

impose unnecessary requirements or inappropriately favor internal or “connected” 

applicants. Assess critical skills, such as analytical ability and writing, through 

direct measurement, rather than relying upon indirect indicators, such as education 

or credentials. Develop and use structured rather than unstructured assessments 

to improve the consistency and quality of hiring decisions and to minimize 

the possibility that decisions will be influenced by unconscious or unwarranted 

assumptions about candidates. Evaluate the diversity of both applicants and new 

hires to evaluate the success of recruitment efforts and the effects of assessment 

criteria and methods.
Executive Summary

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

• Supervisory selection and training. Emphasize the human resources management 

aspects of supervision when advertising supervisory positions and base selection 

decisions on supervisory competence or potential. In addition to improving selection, 

train supervisors on their responsibilities, to increase their ability to make unbiased, 

merit-based personnel decisions.

• Training, development, and career advancement. Remind supervisors that how they 

allocate work assignments, training, and developmental opportunities can expand 

and accelerate—or constrain and slow—their employees’ growth and advancement. 

Because critical, high-visibility projects, acting supervisor assignments, and selection 

for developmental programs can provide employees with valuable skills and enhance 

their confidence and visibility, agencies should allocate these opportunities with due 

attention to fairness and the long-term goal of developing a diverse pool of capable 

employees, not merely based on expediency or management’s “comfort level.”

• Retention. Devote appropriate resources to orientation and training of new 

employees, to enhance their initial performance and job satisfaction and reduce the 

likelihood of unwanted turnover. Use mechanisms, such as employee surveys and 

exit interviews, to identify problems that may contribute to unwanted turnover.

Emphasize to supervisors their influence over—and responsibility for—the 

career development of the employees they supervise. Supervisors’ power extends 

well beyond formal personnel actions. Supervisors are appropriately accountable for 

timely, high-quality products and services and responsible use of resources. However, 

supervisors should not permit day-to-day demands, expediency, or limited budgets to 

overshadow their responsibility to support the professional development and growth of 

all their employees. Supervisors should take particular care to ensure that coaching, 

constructive feedback, and training and development are available to all employees, not 

only a favored few.

Strengthen processes for identifying and rectifying unfair treatment, including 

accountability for supervisors who misuse their authority. Delegated authorities 

must be accompanied by safeguards. The first safeguard is transparency—establishing 

and communicating bases for personnel decisions, both before and after decisions are 

made, to supervisors and employees. The second safeguard is having procedures for 

identifying and resolving unfairness and inequity in the workplace. In addition to 

informing employees of their rights, agencies should seek to increase confidence in 

the effectiveness of existing redress mechanisms (e.g., grievance and EEO complaint 

processes). Those mechanisms should be complemented by organization-wide processes, 

such as employee surveys and program evaluations, to identify concerns that might go 

unraised or unresolved, at the individual level. The final, indispensable safeguard is 

accountability. Even in the presence of clear personnel policies and viable complaint 

procedures, employee trust in agency leaders will be guarded, at best, if employees believe 

that those leaders will tolerate misuse of authority or mistreatment of employees.
Executive Summary

vi Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Ensure that managers understand that personnel decisions must be based on merit 

factors—that is, the ability to perform the job. However, agencies need to be 

alert to the potential impact of nonmerit factors such as ethnicity/race and gender 

when monitoring workforce patterns. The recommendations outlined above require 

a delicate balancing act from Federal agencies and Federal managers. On the one hand, 

agencies must be conscious of nonmerit factors, such as ethnicity/race and gender, when 

conducting high-level analyses of the workforce and of personnel programs and practices. 

On the other hand, managers must be scrupulous in ensuring that those same factors 

do not influence personnel decisions. Instead, managers must focus on organizational 

needs and individual abilities and performance—not group identity—when filling jobs, 

establishing and communicating expectations, assigning work, evaluating performance, 

recognizing excellence, and holding employees accountable.

Recommendations for Employees—

Employees should understand the long-term implications of their decisions in matters 

such as education, occupation, geographic mobility, and willingness to take on 

challenging projects and to assume supervisory and leadership roles. Not all jobs are 

equal in terms of upward mobility. Some occupations have much more limited career 

paths, and employees may find it difficult to obtain supervisory positions from certain 

occupations.

Employees should recognize that what suffices for initial advancement and routine salary 

progression—conscientious completion of assigned tasks, satisfactory performance, and 

acceptable conduct—is insufficient to earn advancement to higher levels. Accordingly, 

we recommend that employees who desire advancement, or who seek professional growth 

and high regard in their current roles:

• Take the initiative to seek or create developmental opportunities;

• Strive to develop a productive relationship with their supervisors or other mentors;

• Request and accept opportunities to demonstrate exceptional performance and 

initiative; and

• Understand that continuous learning and formal education and training have 

gained in importance, reflecting the increasing complexity of Federal work and the 

professionalization of the Federal workforce.
Executive Summary

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

Summary

Many of the patterns we observed, in both Federal employment and Federal employee 

attitudes, reflect two conditions in the United States. The first is rapid demographic 

change. As the U.S. population has become more diverse, so has the Federal workforce. 

However, because of its stability and distinctive occupational mix, change in the 

Federal workforce has lagged behind change in the broader civilian labor force. The 

second is historical inequities in the allocation of opportunities for both education and 

employment, which can impact qualifications for Federal jobs.

Yet, the merit system principles do not permit Federal agencies to simply accept those 

inequities. Instead, the merit system principles require Federal agencies to strive for a 

workforce that is representative of all segments of American society and to select, develop, 

and advance employees on the basis of merit, without regard to factors such as gender, 

ethnicity or race. Thus, Federal hiring policies must be both race- and gender-neutral. 

Achieving a representative, competent, and motivated workforce—and equal opportunity 

and protection for all—requires more than avoiding prohibited discrimination. This 

report outlines steps that Federal agencies, as well as current and prospective Federal 

employees, can take to achieve those goals.

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

The MSPB was created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. MSPB’s 

primary roles are: (1) to adjudicate appeals filed by Federal employees; and 

(2) to conduct studies relating to Federal merit systems. These functions 

help ensure that the Federal workforce is managed fairly and equitably in accordance 

with the Federal merit system principles3 and in a manner free from prohibited 

personnel practices,4 actions that violate the integrity of the merit systems. 

Consequently, MSPB’s Office of Policy and Evaluation has researched topics in support 

of the merit system principles for 30 years. During this time, we have conducted 

numerous employee surveys and researched many topics relating to the fair and equitable 

treatment of Federal employees. As a result, we have compiled historical data that enable 

us to examine trends over time, with particular attention to those that reveal changes in 

the status and opinions of the demographic groups that compose the Federal workforce. 

Purpose of the Study

As part of its mission, MSPB issued several reports in the 1990s assessing barriers that 

minorities and women encountered in the Federal Government.5 Given the time that has 

passed, concurrent with opportunities for change, this report seeks to assess the degree to 

which the Federal Government is fully utilizing the available workforce and to identify 

challenges that require attention to ensure the Federal Government is operating as a 

model employer in the 21st century. To provide a more comprehensive perspective than 

relying on one approach alone, we use and consolidate both subjective data (opinions 

gathered through interviews, discussion groups, and surveys) and objective quantitative 

data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM’s) Central Personnel Data 

File (CPDF).6 

3 Refer to 5, U.S.C. § 2301. The merit system principles are discussed in the next section, “Building a Diverse and 

Representative Workforce.” Refer to Appendix A for a list of the principles. 

4 Refer to 5, U.S.C. § 2302. The prohibited personnel practices are briefly discussed in the next section and are 

listed in Appendix B. 

5 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling, October 1992; Fair 

and Equitable Treatment: A Progress Report on Minority Employment in the Federal Government, August 1996; and 

Achieving a Representative Federal Workforce: Addressing the Barriers to Hispanic Participation, September 1997.

6 The Central Personnel Data File includes data elements that capture the status of Federal employees, as well 

as changes to their status via personnel actions. The CPDF covers approximately 1.8 million civilian non-postal 

Federal employees.

Introduction
2 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Introduction

As a starting point, we examine the most basic issue of whether the Federal Government 

has achieved the goal of representing “all segments of society.”7 Next, we review the issue 

in further detail to explore whether representation occurs consistently throughout the 

multiple levels and occupational groups of the workforce and explore the factors that may 

be driving the differences that we found. Beyond the factual data, we also consider the 

subjective opinions that Federal employees have regarding fair and equitable treatment 

within the Federal Government. By comparing snapshots of the Federal workforce and 

changes in employee opinions over time, we can develop a better understanding of the 

progress made. Finally, we summarize the challenges that remain and suggest potential 

strategies for improvement. As a result, this report provides an updated perspective on 

where we stand and ideas for moving forward to close existing gaps. 

Methodology

As preparation for this research effort, we collected input from a variety of sources to 

ensure broad coverage of past and present issues. We started with a literature review, 

which included the prior MSPB reports most closely related to the topic of fair and 

equitable treatment within the Federal Government. Then we branched out to similar 

research conducted by other organizations that examined the fair treatment of a variety 

of demographic groups, within the private and public sectors, as well as books and 

articles from academic journals and the popular press. 

Next, we conducted interviews with a diverse group of Federal managers and employees, 

including representatives from Human Resources Management (HRM) offices and 

employee affinity groups.8 The purpose of these meetings was to delve into perceptions 

of how fairly Federal employees believed they were being treated and to discuss 

areas where improvement was desired. We also met with colleagues from the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission to exchange ideas about the research topic obtained through our different 

perspectives. 

In addition, we convened groups of Federal employees to discuss the degree to 

which agencies operate within the merit system principles and to obtain suggestions 

for improvement.9 To get a wide representation of employees, we selected most of 

the participants based on their geographic location, agency, ethnicity/race, gender, 

7 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1).

8 We received input from Blacks in Government, the Federal Asian Pacific American Council, Federally Employed 

Women, National IMAGE, and the Society of American Indian Government Employees. 

9 Refer to Appendix C for the discussion group questions. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3

Introduction

occupation and grade.10 Occasionally, employees volunteered or were nominated by their 

agencies to participate in these sessions. In addition to conducting discussion groups in 

eight different geographic locations, we collected employee input in conjunction with 

presentations given at numerous conferences. 

As a culmination of this information gathering, we identified broad themes and 

specific topics to be covered in the Career Advancement Survey used for this study.11 

Approximately half of the survey consisted of items that had appeared on earlier surveys12

thereby enabling us to compare how opinions changed over time. For the remainder 

of the survey, we developed new questions to expand upon earlier questions or to 

tap emerging issues. We pilot tested our draft survey with diverse groups of Federal 

employees and made revisions prior to implementing the survey. We drew the survey 

sample from the pool of full-time permanent Federal employees whose agencies are 

included in the CPDF. A stratified random sampling plan was utilized with strata based 

on ethnicity/race, gender and pay level. The survey was administered in 200713 in a webbased format with a paper survey for the approximately 5 percent of sampled employees 

who did not have internet access. 

To take advantage of a wealth of archival employee survey data at our disposal, we also 

analyzed results from eight prior administrations of the Merit Principles Survey (MPS)14

spanning the period 1983 through 2007. Many of our findings from these analyses were 

presented in MSPB’s 2008 report entitled The Federal Government: A Model Employer or 

a Work In Progress?

The CPDF provided another rich source of information regarding the Federal 

workforce.15 The CPDF contains two components: a status and a dynamics file. The 

status file enables us to take “snapshots” at various points in time. The dynamics file 

captures all personnel actions that create an individual’s employment record. Combined 

with demographic codes, our analyses can identify trends over time for specific groups, 

as well as the overall representation at any moment in time. Please note that all CPDF 

data in this report reflects fiscal years. Data on the civilian labor force and the relevant 

10 Discussion groups were conducted in a variety of geographic locations, such as Oklahoma City, OK; 

Chicago, IL; Long Beach, CA; and Albuquerque, NM. 

11 A copy of the paper-based Career Advancement Survey can be found in Appendix D.

12 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling, October 1992; Fair 

and Equitable Treatment: A Progress Report on Minority Employment in the Federal Government, August 1996.

13 Given that this data was collected prior to the 2008 Presidential election, this report does not reflect any changes 

in Federal employee opinions that may have occurred more recently. 

14 As part of its statutory function to conduct studies of the Federal merit systems and ensure that employees 

are managed in accordance with the merit system principles, and free from prohibited personnel practices, MSPB 

periodically administers the MPS. Surveys are distibuted to a stratified random sample of Federal employees to 

ensure representativeness Governmentwide. 

15 For our analyses, we narrowed our sample to full-time permanent employees. 
4 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Introduction

civilian labor force are based on the Current Population Survey as reported by the 

U.S. Census Bureau as comparison data for the historical dates or the most recent data 

available. 

Consequently, we have the capability to combine objective evidence of groups’ progress 

(or lack thereof) with employees’ perceptions over time. The end result is a fuller picture 

of how things have changed within the Federal Government and the degree to which 

employees’ opinions concur with the objective evidence. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5

The U.S. population, and subsequently, the available workforce, has 

changed substantially during the past 30 years. Changes in immigration 

patterns, birth rates, and societal norms have dramatically altered the 

Nation’s workforce—including the Federal Government’s—from one dominated 

by White males to one with much greater diversity in terms of ethnicity/race and 

gender. Consequently, most employees now acknowledge that having a diverse and 

representative workforce has become a necessity—not simply something that is “nice 

to do.”16

In response to our Career Advancement Survey, approximately two-thirds of Federal 

employees agreed that the workforce should be “representative of the public they serve” 

and that a “diverse workforce produces better services and products than a workforce 

that is not diverse.” Although the majority of Federal employees recognize the value of 

a diverse and representative workforce, the lack of consensus indicates that some still 

harbor reservations about creating and maintaining a Federal workforce that “is reflective 

of the Nation’s diversity.”17 

The Case for a Diverse and Representative Workforce

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 stated that “In order to provide the people of the 

United States with a competent, honest, and productive Federal workforce reflective of 

the Nation’s diversity, and to improve the quality of the public service, Federal personnel 

management should be implemented consistent with the merit system principles 

and free from prohibited personnel practices.”18 Among other mandates, the merit 

system principles require agencies to recruit qualified individuals “from all segments 

of society,” select and advance employees on the basis of merit after “fair and open 

competition,” and treat employees and applicants fairly and equitably, without regard 

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

16 Diversity implies a workforce that includes employees who differ on a variety of personal 

characteristics, including (but not limited to) ethnicity/race and gender. Representativeness goes further, 

implying a workforce that is not only diverse, but also reflective of the general population.

17 5 U.S.C. § 1101 note. 

18 Id.

Building a Diverse and 

Representative Workforce
6 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Building a Diverse and Representative Workforce

or handicapping condition.”19 The prohibited personnel practices specify that actions 

such as discrimination, reprisal, and other violations of the integrity of the merit system 

will not be tolerated. A variety of laws provide additional protection for employees 

in the public and/or private sector from discrimination, and the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has the authority to levy fines against organizations 

that discriminate.20 Treating employees fairly serves as one of the most basic steps an 

agency can take to achieve and maintain a diverse and representative workforce. 

However, beyond the legal requirements not to treat employees (or prospective 

employees) unfairly on the basis of characteristics that are not job related, many agencies 

have discovered other incentives that have driven them to pursue a representative 

workforce. For example, some agency missions require working closely with members of 

the public. In some cases, proficiency in a language spoken by customers or a familiarity 

with cultural traditions serves an essential role in ensuring that the agency can effectively 

deliver its services.21

Inclusivity also tends to make people feel valued and consequently more likely to 

contribute to the mission and less likely to engage in counter-productive behaviors. 

Research has demonstrated quantifiable benefits of diversity in terms of sales, 

profits, and wider customer base in the private sector.22 In contrast, perceptions of 

discrimination can have negative impacts on employees and the organization through 

decreased satisfaction, commitment, organizational citizenship, and performance, 

as well as increased absenteeism and turnover.23 For example, one study focused on 

“knowledge workers”24 and their commitment levels and subsequent performance 

based on perceptions of fairness.25 The researchers concluded that the quality of the 

manager-employee relationship determines commitment, with transparent performance 

management systems leading to perceptions of fairness. Another study found that 

people’s perceptions of fairness drove them towards either engagement or “burnout” 

19 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1) and (2).

20 Examples include: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the 

Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 

21 For example, fluency in a foreign language may be essential to effectively perform as a Customs and Border Patrol 

officer who is responsible for interviewing travelers to the United States. Similarly, a nurse with the Indian Health 

Service who is sensitive to beliefs within the American Indian community may be more effective in gaining the trust 

required to treat and advise patients. 

22 C. Herring, “Does Diversity Pay? Racial Composition of Firms and the Business Case for Diversity,” American 

Sociological Review, 74(2), 2009.

23 B.M. Goldman, B.A. Gutek, J.H. Stein, and K. Lewis, “Employment Discrimination in Organizations: 

Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Management, 32, 2006, pp. 786-830. 

24 Knowledge workers perform work that involves managing information, using problem solving capability, 

and creating knowledge, which relates closely to professional and administrative occupations within the Federal 

Government. 

25 M. Thompson and P. Heron, “The Difference a Manager Can Make: Organizational Justice and Knowledge 

Worker Commitment,” International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2005, pp. 383-404. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 7

Building a Diverse and Representative Workforce

(defined as exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficiency).26 Hence, employees’ perceptions can 

create real impacts on organizational outcomes, so they warrant being examined and 

acted upon by the agency. 

To explore the impact of perceptions of fair treatment and outcomes in the Federal 

Government, we developed a fairness index comprised of selected items from the MPS.27 

Next, we conducted analyses that demonstrated a strong link between perceptions of 

being treated fairly and employee engagement. Given the previously demonstrated 

correlation between employee engagement and organizational outcomes,28, 29 it logically 

follows that perceptions of fair treatment would have a similar impact. 

In terms of undesirable employee behaviors, we found that perceptions of being treated 

fairly are negatively correlated with metrics such as EEO complaints and complainant 

rates, number of appeals as a percent of the workforce, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) total case rate, OSHA lost-time case rate, and average sick leave 

usage. This means that employees who felt they were treated unfairly were more likely to 

file EEO complaints and appeals, report work-related illnesses or injuries, and use more 

sick leave. 

Not surprisingly, the fairness index was also strongly correlated with intent to leave the 

organization (r=.20, p<.01) so people who felt they were treated unfairly were much 

more likely to report plans to leave within the next year. The 2007 fairness index was 

correlated (r=.44, p<.05) with rate of quits, indicating that people do not just say they are 

going to leave when they feel treated unfairly, rather there is evidence that they actually 

do leave. These types of outcomes create negativity and turmoil in organizations, so 

avoiding them by fostering perceptions of fair treatment logically supports organizational 

missions. 

When examining issues and measures of fairness, the tendency is to focus on differences 

among demographic groups. However, we found that the “fair treatment index” we used 

as a measure of perceived fairness varied more across agencies than across demographic 

lines (e.g., ethnicity/race, gender, and supervisory status). To some extent, this outcome 

reflects cultural and demographic differences across agencies (such as mission, agency 

image and funding, occupational mix, pay levels, and workforce composition). But 

this outcome also confirms the centrality of agency HRM practices to fairness in the 

26 C. Maslach and M.P. Leiter, “Early Predictors of Job Burnout and Engagement,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 

93(3), 2008, pp. 498-512. 

27 Our index of fairness items from the 2005 MPS proved highly correlated with MSPB’s employee 

engagement index (r=.69, p<.01). We created a fairness index by combining responses to 2005 MPS 

items 22 a-g, which measure perceptions of being treated fairly within the past 2 years in terms of career 

advancement, awards, training, performance appraisal, job assignments, discipline and pay. 

28 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, September 2008.

29 M. Riketta, “The Causal Relation Between Job Attitudes and Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Panel Studies,” 

Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 2008, pp. 472-481. 
8 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Building a Diverse and Representative Workforce

workplace, both actual and perceived. Overall, it appears that perceived fairness depends 

more on the employer than the employee. Restated, when it comes to fairness, where you 

work matters more than who you are. 

Finally, competition for qualified employees has forced many employers, including the 

Federal Government, to realize that they can no longer afford to neglect previously 

untapped sources of workers. Agencies need to extend their outreach to develop a 

broader network of individuals who would consider applying for a Federal job rather than 

simply waiting for them to apply. Many prospective employees simply lack information 

about obtaining employment with the Government, which has limited the applicant 

pool.30 

In summary, agencies should be concerned about maintaining a diverse and 

representative workforce for three primary reasons: 

(1) Required by law to treat Federal employees fairly and equitably, and the merit 

system principles mandate recruitment from all segments of society and selection and 

advancement based on merit through a process of fair and open competition.

(2) A business necessity to be able to serve the public effectively. 

(3) Needed to fully utilize all available segments of the workforce. 

Achieving Representation

Achieving representation requires knowing what the desired end state is and 

understanding legal requirements regarding the management of the Federal workforce 

on the basis of merit. First of all, agencies need to decide what the workforce should look 

like in order to be representative. Next, agencies must work to achieve representation 

without intentionally or unintentionally discriminating based on personal characteristics 

unrelated to job performance. The challenge is how to manage the ethnic/racial 

composition of the workforce to achieve this goal while affording protection to everyone—

African American, American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and White. 

Agencies should look at their workforce overall and by major occupations to identify 

where they are lacking diversity. Agencies can use the Census 2000 EEO Data Tool31

to compare the representation within their agencies to availability in the “relevant 

30 Partnership for Public Service, Back to School: Rethinking Federal Recruiting on College Campuses, PPS-06-01, 

May 2006, p. 20. 

31 For the Census 2000 EEO Data tool, visit the Census website at http://www.census.gov/eeo2000/index.html. 

Guidance on determining which data serve as the most appropriate reference point can be obtained from the 

EEOC’s website regarding Management Directive 715.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 9

Building a Diverse and Representative Workforce

civilian labor force” (RCLF) by occupation and/or geographical location.32 However, 

one concern with using 2000 Census data is that some groups, notably Hispanics, have 

experienced rapid growth within the U.S. population that has rendered the 2000 Census 

numbers significantly out of date. 

The OPM provides an annual overview of representation for the entire Federal workforce 

compared to the total civilian labor force by ethnic/racial group and gender. The 

report also reviews representation against the RCLF for each executive department and 

independent agency.33 These calculations take into account the occupational mix within 

each organization to calculate the RCLF. The RCLF typically provides a more accurate 

reference point than the total civilian labor force because of differences between the 

occupations within the Federal workforce and those in the private sector. Within the 

private sector, a large segment of jobs entail sales and personal services, which have no 

counterpart in the public sector.34 However, in some instances, the total civilian labor 

force may be more appropriate, such as when the jobs are entry level because in these 

cases prior job training would not necessarily limit the pool of qualified applicants. 

After assessing the current workforce and identifying gaps that need to be closed, 

agencies should prepare a comprehensive strategy to address these deficits, such as 

identifying specific demographic groups that are not fully represented, occupations or pay 

levels that lack diversity, and the point at which inequities occur. For example, an agency 

may be recruiting and hiring in proportion to the available workforce, but if members 

of one group fail to progress, then the organization should examine if there are any 

barriers preventing a diverse pool of employees from reaching the top levels. Similarly, 

if certain employees believe they are blocked from promotional opportunities and leave 

the organization out of frustration at their lack of career progress, the agency may find it 

is unable to maintain the diversity obtained on the front end due to differential turnover 

rates. Therefore, it is essential for agencies to monitor diversity at various steps of 

workforce management, and not just at the point of entry. 

32 As defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the civilian labor force covers everyone 16 years of age and older, 

who is not institutionalized or serving on active military duty, whether employed or unemployed, and regardless 

of U.S. citizenship. In contrast, the relevant civilian labor force considers only those who are in comparable 

occupations. Therefore, the RCLF will vary by agency. 

33 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Annual Report to the Congress Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment 

Program (FEORP), FY 2008. 

34 The civilian labor force also differs from the Federal workforce in that the CLF includes noncitizens, while 

Federal employment typically requires citizenship. Likewise, the CLF includes those age 16 and older, while the 

Federal Government employs very few from the younger age groupings. More details are included in the 2006 GAO 

report. Additional Insights Could Enhance Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic Representation and MSPB’s 1997 report

Achieving a Representative Federal Workforce: Addressing the Barriers to Hispanic Participation.
10 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Building a Diverse and Representative Workforce

Recruitment. Agencies have access to a variety of tools to facilitate the recruitment of a 

diverse and representative workforce. As we recommended in an earlier report,35 agencies 

need to view recruitment as a “critical management function” that serves a vital role in 

helping them achieve their strategic goals. Agencies should maintain a focus on being 

diverse and representative of the available workforce by building these concepts into their 

strategic goals. Having a representative workforce and a well-qualified workforce need 

not be in conflict. Achieving both goals simultaneously may require some additional 

effort by agencies to ensure that they are identifying a diverse pool of qualified candidates 

and not simply those who are most easily available when the resulting pool lacks diversity. 

Yet, this investment is likely to benefit agencies in the long term as it leads to hiring the 

most qualified applicants who also represent diverse perspectives.

To create the best possible workforce, agencies need to develop a recruitment plan based 

on the current status of their workforce and future needs. To implement this plan, they 

should use a “balanced set of recruitment strategies.”36 These strategies will depend 

heavily upon the responsibilities of the position to be filled, but should go beyond passive 

approaches such as posting announcements on USAJobs and/or the agency website. 

Other strategies to consider may include participating in university and community jobs 

fairs, targeting job advertisements, and tapping into professional networks, which may 

be based on occupation and/or demographic affiliation (e.g., the National Association of 

Black Accountants and the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers). 

Also, rather than waiting for prospective applicants to learn of opportunities, agencies 

should develop recruitment strategies that are proactive and reach out to prospective 

applicants who are qualified but may not have previously considered a Federal career. 

For example, many agencies work with colleges and universities identified as Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions and build relationships 

that generate an ongoing stream of interested applicants. Agencies may also use intern 

programs, such as the Student Educational Employment Program, to groom employees 

from the earliest stages of their career.37

 

Finally, agencies need to evaluate how well each of their recruitment strategies has 

achieved its goals—not only in terms of quantity of applicants from a variety of groups 

but also in terms of quality, and long-term success with the agency. Although it may 

be tempting for agencies to focus on the sheer numbers of applicants from the desired 

demographic groups, it is even more essential to ensure that the agency attracts applicants 

who are well-qualified for the positions. Otherwise, agencies risk discouraging applicants 

35 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing Federal Recruitment: Issues, Insights, and Illustrations, September 

2004. 

36 Id. and U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Attracting the Next Generation: A Look at Federal Entry-Level New 

Hires, January 2008.

37 The Student Educational Employment Program (5 CFR 213.3202) consists of the Student Temporary 

Employment Program (STEP) and the Student Career Experience Program (SCEP). 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11

Building a Diverse and Representative Workforce

(and their counterparts) once they are not selected and give the appearance of adverse 

impact against certain groups in the selection process. 

Applying for a Federal job. There appears to be agreement from a variety of sources, 

including applicants, selecting officials and agency leaders, Congress, and OPM, that 

the current recruitment and hiring process for Federal jobs has tremendous room for 

improvement. In 2008, OPM issued an End-to-End Hiring Roadmap,38 and more 

recently, a bill was introduced to further streamline the hiring process and make it more 

user-friendly.39 The legislation also proposes requiring agencies to devote more attention 

to workforce planning, including identifying “recruitment strategies to attract highly 

qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds.”

All too often, Federal hiring processes remain dauntingly complex and long, especially 

for first-time applicants.40 Research and data from MSPB surveys suggest that the 

Government’s heavy reliance on training and experience (T & E) assessments to screen 

applicants and identify the best-qualified applicants may be counterproductive. 

T & E methods require detailed information about an applicant’s competencies and 

accomplishments, which must be obtained through narratives (such as the often 

laborious “knowledge, skills and ability (KSA) essays”) or questionnaires.41 The ability 

of this approach to attract and reliably identify the best applicants is questionable.42 

Moreover, data from our surveys suggest that agency job posting and screening practices 

may be harming the diversity and, consequently, the quality of applicant pools.43 For 

example, minority employees were slightly more likely to report that they experienced 

difficulty qualifying for a Federal position. This pattern may reflect factors that may 

correlate with ethnicity/race, such as language fluency or education levels. Yet this 

pattern also highlights the potential for seemingly neutral practices (such as narrowly 

defined experience requirements and positive educational requirements44) to limit the 

applicant pool in unexpected and unintended ways.45 Therefore, agencies should take 

care to ensure that their recruitment, application, and assessment processes do not create 

barriers for otherwise qualified applicants.

38 For more details, refer to http://www.opm.gov/publications/EndToEnd-HiringInitiative.pdf.

39 Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act of 2009, S. 736, 111th Cong., 155 Cong. Rec. S3991-92 (daily ed. Mar. 

30, 2009).

40 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing Federal Recruitment: Issues, Insights, and Illustrations, September 

2004; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Attracting the Next Generation: A Look at Federal Entry-Level New 

Hires, January 2008, pp. 17-18.

41 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Identifying Talent through Technology, August 2004, p. 8.

42 F.L. Schmidt and J.E. Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: 

Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings,” Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), September 

1998.

43 Results from the 2007 Career Advancement Survey. 

44 U.S. Census Bureau, Educational Attainment: 2000, August 2003, p. 5. 

45 Both statute, at 5 U.S.C. § 3308, and OPM policy establish a high threshold for positive educational 

requirements. Indeed, section 3308 states that OPM “or other examining agency may not prescribe a minimum 

educational requirement for an examination for the competitive service except when the Office decides that the 

duties of a scientific, technical, or professional position cannot be performed by an individual who does not have a 

prescribed minimum education.”
12 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Building a Diverse and Representative Workforce

Accordingly, agencies need to examine their recruitment and hiring practices to ensure 

that qualified applicants are not deterred or inappropriately disadvantaged by application 

procedures or assessment methods. In terms of substance, agencies should ensure that 

required (minimum) qualifications are truly essential, and that desired qualifications 

are not so narrowly defined as to effectively exclude external applicants. In terms of 

form, agencies should recognize that assessment methods can affect hiring outcomes in 

subtle and unintended ways. For example, the use of KSA essays places a premium on 

writing skill—whether or not that is essential to the job. Lengthy job announcements 

and complex application procedures may reward applicants who have excellent writing 

abilities and the luxury of time to devote to the application process.

Hiring. To guide their recruitment and hiring activities, agencies should closely monitor 

the diversity of employees brought onboard through various hiring authorities and avoid 

relying exclusively on hiring methods that disadvantage certain groups. As we discussed 

in a prior report, which authority is used may influence the diversity of new hires as 

certain authorities tend to favor certain groups over others.46

In a 2008 report, MSPB recommended that agencies improve their hiring practices 

by using “more predictive applicant assessment tools” and evaluating the agency’s 

hiring processes to identify any “unnecessary obstacles.”47 Ideal assessment techniques 

effectively identify the most qualified applicants based only on job-related characteristics. 

Although Federal agencies often rely heavily on methods to assess training and 

experience due to the relative ease with which questionnaires about these factors can 

be developed (e.g., “have you done x, y and z?”), such methods often lack the important 

element of distinguishing how well applicants can perform on job-relevant competencies. 

Rather than relying excessively on the applicant’s past career opportunities, investing in 

more rigorous assessment methods, such as work sample tests and structured interviews,48

may result in a greater ability to differentiate between applicants in terms of current 

capabilities and future potential. 

Even when agencies believe that they are using valid selection instruments, they must 

carefully monitor for any evidence of adverse impact. If any group appears to be 

disproportionately screened out, agencies should carefully review the selection process to 

ensure that all aspects of the examination process are truly job-related, and if so, consider 

what other equally valid screening tools might have less adverse impact. This comparison 

of the population of new hires to the applicant pool can help agencies maintain the 

diversity that they sought through targeted recruitment efforts. 

46 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, In Search of Highly Skilled Workers: A Study on the Hiring of Upper Level 

Employees from Outside the Federal Government, February 2008, pp. 24-25. 

47 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Attracting the Next Generation: A Look at Federal Entry-Level New Hires, 

January 2008, p. iii. 

48 F.L. Schmidt and J.E. Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: 

Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings,” Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 

September 1998, p. 265. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13

Building a Diverse and Representative Workforce

Given the competition for high-quality new hires, agencies need to be more careful 

not to overlook diverse pools of candidates who have already expressed an interest in 

working for the Government and have already demonstrated their capabilities and future 

potential—interns.49 Since agencies typically have substantial flexibility regarding how 

they fill intern positions,50 they can use targeted recruitment to reach underrepresented 

groups.51 Plus, if the interns perform well on the job, they can often be converted to 

permanent status, if the right hiring authorities are used (e.g., Student Career Experience 

Program). For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has worked with 

the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities to place interns in USDA jobs.52 

Equitable promotion rates to ensure diversity at all levels. Promotion rates can 

differ across groups for many reasons, including differences in occupation, geographic 

location, and career interests. However, to achieve both fairness and diversity, agencies 

must ensure that differences in outcomes (such as differences in promotion rates and 

representation) are not the result of discrimination or practices that inappropriately favor 

or disfavor any particular group. Steps that agencies can take include:

• Monitoring recruitment practices, diversity, and retention in mission-critical 

occupations and occupations with high promotion potential. Different occupations 

offer different opportunities for promotion and advancement to managerial positions. 

Agencies should take particular care to avoid directing women or minorities (or men 

and nonminorities, for that matter) into occupations that offer limited potential for 

advancement.

• Ensuring that promotion criteria are appropriately job related and using valid 

assessments to make promotion decisions. Agencies should be particularly careful 

about using classroom training or formal education as an indicator of proficiency in 

areas such as writing, analytical ability, leadership, and subject matter knowledge. 

If such competencies are indeed important, that should be clearly communicated to 

applicants—and the competencies should be evaluated using appropriate assessment 

tools.

• Monitoring promotion processes. In addition to selection decisions, agencies should 

look at applicant pools and how promotion processes are perceived. Data from our 

Career Advancement Survey indicate that minorities are more likely to believe that 

promotion processes are unfair or biased, and since such beliefs can affect the decision 

to apply, there exist obvious consequences for the applicant pool and representation.

• Understanding and communicating factors that are important to advancement. 

Employees are more likely to attain necessary skills and experience—and compete 

49 Partnership for Public Service, Leaving Talent on the Table: The Need to Capitalize on High Performing Student 

Interns, April 2009. 

50 Agencies often use excepted service hiring authorities to fill intern positions due to their temporary nature. 

51 Given the need for up-to-date agency-specific guidance, this report should not be taken as legal advice. 

Each agency should seek the input of their Office of General Counsel regarding the use of intern programs to fill 

positions in the excepted service. In particular, decisions in Weed v. SSA (2009 MSPB 159) and Gingery v. DOD

(2009 MSPB 151) may impact future staffing procedures within Federal agencies. 

52 A. Rosenberg, “USDA Touts Success with Intern Program,” Government Executive, Apr. 10, 2009, www.govexec.com. 
14 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Building a Diverse and Representative Workforce

successfully for advancement—when they have an accurate understanding of what 

is needed to advance. Yet, an employee’s initial experiences can be misleading in 

that regard. Our analysis of promotion rates indicates that the skills, performance, 

and attributes needed for advancement in a career ladder position may not suffice 

for competitive advancement to higher level positions.53 For example, our analysis 

of promotion rates indicates that higher level education may improve an employee’s 

chances of promotion, even when such education is not required for entry into the 

occupation. Similarly, factors such as supervisory experience and willingness to 

relocate may be immaterial at entry level but critical at higher levels.

• Supporting employee growth. Support should not be limited to developmental 

assignments and formal training, although both are important. As discussed later in 

the report, employees believe that supportive relationships with supervisors and other 

mentors play a critical role in facilitating career advancement. Research supports that 

belief. 54

• Emphasizing the importance of effective HRM practices in supervisory selection, 

development, and accountability. Supervisors’ practices in hiring, work assignment, 

and performance management have long-term effects on employees’ careers and the 

quality and diversity of an agency’s future workforce, in addition to the short-term 

productivity and morale of the immediate work unit. 

Retention. Various motives drive employees to separate from agencies. Employees may 

be pulled away by positive incentives elsewhere (e.g., a promotion) or driven away by 

negative incentives, such as a supervisor who plays favorites. Agencies need to examine 

whether patterns exist to suggest that one group is being treated differently, which serves 

to increase the chances that they will leave. 

A review of turnover from the Governmentwide CPDF suggests that the Federal 

workforce remains very stable. In FY 2008, only 2.2 percent of full-time permanent 

employees quit and 3.4 percent retired. American Indian, Hispanic and Asian/Pacific 

Islander employees were slightly more likely than White or African American employees 

to quit. White employees retired at the highest rate, reflecting the greater average age 

and tenure of White employees. These trends suggest that retirements associated with 

the exodus of the Baby Boomers55 from the Federal workforce will create opportunities 

for increasing minority representation. However, gains appear unlikely unless minority 

employees can be retained at comparable rates to White employees.

53 The results of this analysis are presented in the section “Fostering a Representative Workforce at All Levels,” 

pp. 24-34.

54 B. Frankel, “5 Mentoring Best Practices,” DiversityInc., printed from the website www.diversityinc.com, on 

April 15, 2009. 

55 The term “baby boomer” typically refers to individuals born between 1946 and 1964. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15

Building a Diverse and Representative Workforce

Although it may be difficult to identify the real reasons that employees leave, as they 

are often motivated not to burn any bridges by revealing negative experiences, agencies 

should develop mechanisms, such as anonymous exit surveys or confidential interviews, 

whereby employees feel they can honestly share their opinions without fear of retribution. 

However, agencies should realize that exit surveys, although they can provide useful 

information to stem future losses, come far too late to preserve the relationship with not 

only the departing employee, but perhaps also with some of the employee’s colleagues. 

Each person who actually leaves the organization can represent many others who share 

the same concerns and frustrations, so these issues should be considered and addressed 

without delay. 

Given the costs that are associated with turnover, agencies cannot afford to allow their 

employees to leave because of perceived unfair treatment. One survey of employees in 

the private sector found that 6.3 percent selected “unfairness” as the only reason for 

separating from their employer.56 However, minorities were three times as likely to select 

this reason compared to White men. When asked about what could have convinced 

them to stay, the most popular response among minorities was “better managers who 

recognized their abilities.”57 Further, most agencies are aware of the costs of recruiting, 

hiring, and training an employee’s replacement, yet most overlook other costs associated 

with employees who leave because they feel unappreciated because of their ethnicity/

race. Because word of mouth can be a powerful recruitment and retention tool, these 

employees may steer others away from the organization, which makes it even more 

challenging for the agency to build and maintain a diverse workforce.58 

Summary

To recap, each agency has a number of levers at its disposal to build a diverse and 

representative workforce. However, prerequisites for this include: (1) commitment to 

the multiple rationales for achieving a diverse and representative workforce; and (2) 

understanding what is required to achieve this goal. Next, the agency must attend to 

aspects of the recruitment, application, hiring, advancement and retention processes to 

facilitate diversity at all levels of the organization.

56 Level Playing Field Institute, The Corporate Leavers Survey: The Cost of Employee Turnover Due Solely to 

Unfairness in the Workplace, San Francisco, CA, 2007. 

57 Id., p. 10. 

58 Id., p. 7. 

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

How successful has the Federal Government been in achieving a workforce 

“reflective of the Nation’s diversity” as envisioned by the Civil Service 

Reform Act of 1978? To assess whether we have fully achieved this goal, 

we need to look beyond overall numbers to see if members of all ethnic/racial groups 

have achieved parity across pay levels as well.

Representation in the Federal Workforce

Overall, minority representation in the Federal Government has increased. As shown in 

Table 1, the representation of every ethnic and racial group other than White employees 

has increased since 1976. The increase has been greatest for Hispanics and Asian/Pacific 

Islanders. 

Table 1. Composition of the Federal Workforce by Ethnicity/Race, Fiscal Years 1976-200859

Ethnicity/Race 1976 1986 1996 2006 2008 Change 

African American 14.9% 16.1% 17.0% 17.7% 18.0% 3.1%

American Indian 0.5% 1.3% 1.7% 1.9% 1.9% 1.4%

Asian/Pacific Islander 1.1% 2.9% 4.1% 5.2% 5.3% 4.2%

Hispanic 3.6% 5.0% 6.1% 7.6% 7.9% 4.3%

White 76.6% 74.4% 71.1% 67.5% 66.5% -10.1%

Data from OPM reports provide a comparison between the Federal civilian workforce 

and the total civilian labor force in 1996 and 2008.60 While members of minority 

ethnic/racial groups overall have increased their representation in the Federal workforce, 

Hispanic employees remain underrepresented. As Table 2 shows, Federal employment 

59 Percentages do not total to 100% due to rounding.

60 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, The Fact Book, 1997 Edition, Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics and 

The Annual Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP) Report to Congress, FY 2008. These numbers 

differ slightly from data presented elsewhere in this report because OPM analyses are based on the total (full-time 

and part-time) permanent workforce, while MSPB analyses only cover the full-time permanent workforce. 

A Status Report on the 

Federal Workforce
18 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

A Status Report on the Federal Workforce

of Hispanics has not kept pace with their growth in the civilian labor force.61 That CLF 

growth is expected to continue, with Hispanics projected to account for 30 percent of 

the U.S. population by 2050.62 Consequently, the gap between the representation of 

Hispanics in the Federal workforce and the civilian labor force may actually widen in the 

near future.

Table 2. Comparison of the Federal Workforce and the Civilian Labor Force, by Ethnicity/Race, 

Fiscal Years 1996 and 200863

Ethnicity/Race

1996 2008

Federal 

Workforce CLF Difference

Federal 

Workforce CLF Difference

African American 17.0% 10.8% 6.2% 17.9% 10.0% 7.9%

American Indian 1.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.9% 0.7% 1.2%

Asian/Pacific Islander 4.0% 3.4% 0.6% 5.4% 4.3% 1.1%

Hispanic 6.0% 10.5% -4.5% 7.9% 13.2% -5.3%

White 71.3% 73.7% -2.4% 66.6% 70.7% -4.1%

Even if the percentage of Hispanics in the general population and the civilian labor force 

was stable, that gap would be difficult to close quickly or completely. Figure 1 shows 

how Hispanic representation in the Federal workforce would change under different 

scenarios for employee turnover and Hispanic hiring:64

61 Reasons for this underrepresentation, such as group differences in citizenship and educational attainment, have 

been discussed in the following reports: U.S. Government Accountability Office’s August 2006 report, The Federal 

Workforce: Additional Insights Could Enhance Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic Representation, GAO-06-832, and 

MSPB’s September 1997 report Achieving a Representative Federal Workforce: Addressing the Barriers to Hispanic 

Representation. 

62 U.S. Government Accountability Office, The Federal Workforce: Additional Insights Could Enhance Agency Efforts 

Related to Hispanic Representation, GAO-06-832, August, 2006, p. 25. 

63 Percentages do not total to 100% due to rounding. 

64 For these scenarios, we assumed that: (1) the total number of Federal employees is stable—that the Federal 

Government neither creates nor eliminates jobs but simply fills vacancies as they occur; (2) Hispanic representation 

in the civilian labor force remains unchanged; and (3) turnover rates are the same for current and for newly hired 

employees.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19

A Status Report on the Federal Workforce

Figure 1. Changes in Hispanic Representation in the Federal Workforce Under Different 

Scenarios, Fiscal Years 2008-2028

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

Scenario: 6% turnover, 

Hispanic hiring 9%

Scenario: 10% turnover, 

Hispanic hiring 9%

Scenario: 6% turnover, 

Hispanic hiring 13.2%

Scenario: 10% turnover, 

Hispanic hiring 13.2%

2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028

Year

We emphasize that these scenarios and their projections are not predictions. Yet, the 

scenarios provide some useful insights:

• The demographics of the Federal workforce change only gradually, without 

significant expansion or contraction of the workforce. Therefore, Hispanic 

representation in the Federal Government is a long-term issue;

• Given current—or even increased—levels of turnover, the gap between the 

representation of Hispanics in the Federal workforce and in the civilian labor force is 

unlikely to be eliminated in the immediate future; 

• Increased turnover alone will make little difference in both the short- and the longterm. The gap will close only slowly if Federal agencies are able to significantly 

increase Hispanic representation among new hires. Restated, action will be more 

helpful than attrition; and

• If improvements in Hispanic hiring are only marginal, the gap will close slowly, if at 

all, especially in light of projected changes in the population (and, by extension, the 

civilian labor force).

As shown in Table 3, Hispanic employees were selected for Federal jobs at a rate lower 

than their presence in the civilian labor force in 2008. As discussed later in this section, 

this most likely reflects the current occupational distribution of Hispanic employees 
20 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

A Status Report on the Federal Workforce

in the civilian labor force.65 Further, the percentage of Hispanics among new hires in 

2008 was actually slightly lower than their presence in the Federal workforce in that 

year. Hiring at a rate above or below overall representation may indicate fluctuations in 

the occupations hired for in a given year compared to the current levels onboard, but if 

a pattern of hiring below the status quo continues, no progress will be made. Moreover, 

as the scenarios in Figure 1 illustrate, progress will be gradual even if agencies succeed 

in increasing Hispanic representation among new hires by a few percentage points. As 

suggested above, in order to achieve more ambitious goals, a greater shift in hiring would 

be required.

Table 3. Federal New Hires and Comparison of Representation in the Federal Workforce and the 

Civilian Labor Force, FY 2008

Ethnicity/Race Federal Workforce New Hires Civilian Labor Force

African American 17.9% 18.0% 10.0%

American Indian 1.9% 1.8% 0.7%

Asian/Pacific Islander 5.4% 5.4% 4.3%

Hispanic 7.9% 7.1% 13.2%

White 66.6% 66.5% 70.7%

To better mirror the available workforce, agencies would have to follow a more 

comprehensive approach that would encompass measurement, workforce planning, and 

recruitment. Under such an approach, agencies should first evaluate the diversity of their 

new hires against the most recent data on the CLF (or the relevant civilian labor force 

when the area of consideration is limited geographically or if the level or nature of the job 

requires specialized experience or education). Second, agencies should consider whether 

they are defining staffing requirements, career paths, or job requirements in ways that may 

unnecessarily limit the applicant pool and reduce diversity among qualified applicants. 

Finally, agencies should ensure that their recruitment efforts produce an applicant pool 

that is both qualified and diverse, and that job opportunities are both attractive and 

accessible to that pool. Although representation within the relevant civilian labor force 

may make it more challenging to locate employees from certain groups, agencies should 

not rely upon this as an excuse for a lack of diversity in their workforce. 

65 In the civilian labor force, Hispanics are disproportionately represented in blue collar occupations (e.g., 

construction and agriculture) and service occupations (e.g., food preparation and maintenance), which are not 

prevalent in the Federal workforce. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2009, 

pp. 384-387.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 21

A Status Report on the Federal Workforce

Pay and Status

Overall, minorities have made considerable progress in the Federal Government but have 

yet to attain fully comparable pay or status. For example, as shown in Table 4, in 1991 

and in 2008, American Indian, African American, and Hispanic employees received 

significantly less pay than Asian/Pacific Islander and White employees.

Table 4. Median Salary of Federal Employees by Ethnicity/Race, Fiscal Years 1976-2008

Ethnicity/Race

1976 1991 2008

Median

Percent of 

Governmentwide Median

Percent of 

Governmentwide Median

Percent of 

Governmentwide

African American $11,309 83% $24,814 80% $55,172 85%

American Indian $13,931 103% $25,930 83% $51,300 79%

Asian/Pacific 

Islander

$14,810 109% $33,430 108% $70,362 109%

Hispanic $12,730 94% $27,164 87% $57,706 89%

White $14,358 106% $32,745 105% $68,875 106%

Governmentwide $13,562 100% $31,075 100% $64,704 100%

Shown another way, Figure 2 displays the representation by General Schedule (GS) 

grade level. Although a significant percentage of Federal employees are now covered by 

other pay systems, over half remain covered by the General Schedule (or a comparable 

pay system that can be equated with the GS). This bar graph makes it clear that White 

employees represent a larger percentage of the employees among the higher grades. In 

comparison, other groups decrease as they move up the pay scale.66 As we discuss in 

the following pages, these differences largely reflect occupational influences, as members 

of several minority groups tend to be concentrated in jobs whose career ladders top out 

at the middle of the pay scale (GS-10 to 12 or their equivalents). However, the reasons 

underlying the differences in occupational distribution are beyond the scope of this 

report as they are likely to reflect larger societal and cultural influences. 

66 We note, however, that Asian/Pacific Islander employees are well represented until the SES level. 
22 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

A Status Report on the Federal Workforce

Figure 2. Ethnic/Racial Representation in the Federal Workforce by Grade Levels, FY 200867

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

African American American Indian/Alaska Native Asian/Pacic Islander Hispanic White

GS-1/05 GS-6/10 GS-11/12 GS-13/15 SES/Similar

Occupational Distribution

As mentioned above, salary differences appear due, in large part, to differences in the 

representation of minorities across occupations within the Federal Government.68 It 

should be noted that similar differences in occupational distribution are found in the 

overall civilian labor force. In fact, in many cases, the Federal Government has achieved 

a greater degree of diversity than is available in the relevant civilian labor force for many 

occupations that are prevalent in the Federal workforce. For example, we examined the 

ethnicity/race of those employed by the Government in the most populous occupations 

compared to their counterparts in the civilian, noninstitutional population.69 Although 

not all occupations have a direct match, many do.70 Of those with a match, two findings 

stand out: (1) African Americans are frequently employed in the Federal Government’s 

most populous occupations at a rate above their presence in the overall civilian labor 

force and the relevant civilian labor force; and (2) Hispanics are less likely to be employed 

67 These figures represent GS and GS-equivalents.

68 Refer to Appendix E for descriptions of the Federal occupational categories. 

69 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2009 (128th Edition), http://www.census.gov/statab/, 

2009.

70 The most populous occupations with a reasonable match to Census data included: Information Technology, 

Nurse, Contract Specialist, Attorney, Human Resources Management, Electronics Engineer, Medical Officer, 

Accounting, Auditor, and Civil Engineer. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23

A Status Report on the Federal Workforce

in these occupations compared to their proportion in both the overall civilian labor force. 

Further, Hispanics are less likely to be employed in these occupations compared to their 

proportion in the relevant civilian labor force. Results for Asian/Pacific Islanders appear 

mixed. They tend to be more prevalent in the Government’s most populous occupations 

than their proportion in the overall civilian labor force, but comparison against the 

relevant civilian labor force varies from Federal representation being above or below the 

relevant civilian labor force, depending on occupation. 

These findings suggest that the Federal Government tends to offer employment in 

occupations that African Americans are concentrated in, and that the Government has 

been very effective in recruiting this segment of the population. In contrast, Hispanics 

overall tend not to be employed in occupations common in the Federal Government, but 

even their representation in the relevant civilian labor force is slightly higher than their 

representation in the Federal workforce. However, some of this may be due to factors 

such as educational differences and citizenship,71 which is typically a requirement for 

employment in the competitive service.72 

As shown in Table 5, overall, Federal employees are more likely to be found in 

professional and administrative occupations. However, there are differences by ethnic/

racial group as African American, Hispanic, and American Indian employees are 

less commonly found in the professional occupations. We discuss this pattern in the 

following section, and how it may be attributed to differential patterns of education as 

these groups are less likely to have earned a bachelor’s degree.73 Some groups of minority 

employees74 are also less likely to be found among the administrative occupations. Given 

that professional and administrative occupations represent the most financially lucrative 

Federal positions, the reduced likelihood of holding these types of positions translates 

into generally lower incomes for those not in these occupations. Minority employees 

(with the exception of Asian/Pacific Islanders) are somewhat more likely to be employed 

in the lower paying clerical and blue-collar series. Nevertheless, minorities have made 

gains in the higher paying white collar occupations compared to the past, particularly 

among administrative jobs.75 

71 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Additional Insights Could Enhance Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic 

Representation, GAO-06-832, August 2006. 

72 For more details, please see http://www.opm.gov/hr_practitioners/lawsregulations/citizenship/#policy.

73 According to OPM’s Introduction to the Position Classification Standards, “Professional work requires knowledge 

in a field of science or learning characteristically acquired through education or training equivalent to a bachelor’s 

or higher degree with major study in or pertinent to the specialized field, as distinguished from general education.,” 

1995, p. 9.

74 For Asian/Pacific Islander employees, this can be attributed to their prevalence among the professional 

occupations because they are close to parity for the other occupational groups. 

75 We compared 2008 representation in the PATCOB occupations with 1991 and 1996 in the CPDF. A copy of the 

PATCOB definitions can be found in Appendix E. 
24 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

A Status Report on the Federal Workforce

Table 5. Federal Workforce Representation Across Occupational Groups by Ethnic/Racial Group, 

FY 2008

Ethnicity/Race Professional Administrative Technical Clerical Other Blue-Collar

African American 14% 37% 25% 10% 3% 11%

American Indian 17% 28% 28% 11% 4% 13%

Asian/Pacific Islander 39% 29% 14% 5% 2% 11%

Hispanic 15% 37% 19% 8% 11% 11%

White 27% 39% 16% 5% 3% 10%

Governmentwide 24% 38% 18% 6% 4% 11%

Differences by occupational group have a very strong impact on median salary. As 

shown in Figure 3, median salary by occupational group varied dramatically in 2008 

from a high of $88,290 for those in professional occupations to a low of $34,677 for 

those in clerical occupations. 

Figure 3. Median Salary by Occupational Group, FY 2008

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

Professional Administrative Technical Clerical Other Blue-Collar

$88,290

$78,381

$44,792

$34,677

$47,541 $49,358

As a consequence, choice of occupation can severely restrict one’s starting pay. Although 

employees may change occupations to obtain better career opportunities, many of 

our discussion group participants described challenges in trying to move between 

occupations and occupational tracks, even when they felt they met the qualifications, 

because they had been stereotyped by their lower-paying jobs. In some cases, they 

reported that those from outside the Government were more likely to be selected because 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25

A Status Report on the Federal Workforce

they were not as stigmatized by their past job titles. It should be noted, however, that 

in the case of professional jobs—the category showing the greatest differences among 

ethnic/racial groups—the difficulty of entry into these types of jobs is resolved only when 

applicants meet the degree requirements. By comparison, the distribution of employees 

in administrative jobs is similar for all ethnic/racial groups, perhaps because entry into 

these groups is not as dependent on having obtained a higher level degree in a given field. 

Further, as shown in Figure 4, the occupational mix of the Federal workforce has 

changed over time in accordance with a shift in the nature of work from heavily clerical 

and manual labor to an emphasis on white-collar work. This “professionalization” of the 

Federal workforce has resulted in a growing percentage being employed in professional 

and administrative occupations, which as noted above, also have higher salaries. Yet, the 

lower likelihood of employment of minorities in the professional occupations translates 

into minorities not being able to make as much progress as might have been expected in 

terms of overall average salary. This pay gap is due to the higher salaries associated with 

the growth of the professional and administrative workforce. Although minorities were 

generally well represented among the administrative positions, they were also more likely 

than White employees to be found in the lower paying technical, clerical and blue-collar 

occupations. 

Figure 4. Composition of the Federal Workforce by Occupational Group, Fiscal Years 1976-2008

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2008

2006

1996

1986

1976

Professional Administrative Technical Clerical Other Blue-Collar

Employees who have their sights set on the highest ranks of the Federal civil 

service would be well-advised to prepare themselves for careers in the professional 
26 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

A Status Report on the Federal Workforce

and administrative tracks.76 And the Federal Government could assist employees 

through outreach programs that communicate the nature of Federal professional 

and administrative work to students at the college and high school levels. Sharing 

this information can serve to empower preemployment decision making that affects 

qualifications for subsequent employment.

Beyond being aware of the greater availability of certain occupations and higher median 

salaries for some occupational groups, it is important for employees to realize that there 

also exists a difference in long-term earnings potential associated with these jobs. Figure 

5 presents the average earnings for employees by length of service. These data show 

that experience pays off for all occupational groups, but for some, it pays off better than 

others. 

Figure 5. Impact of Occupational Group on Federal Salary Progression over Years of Tenure

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

<1 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26+

Professional Administrative Technical Clerical Other Blue-Collar

Years of Tenure

Level of Responsibility

Beyond issues of occupational distribution and tenure, differences in salary may also 

reflect trends in reduced diversity among the supervisory and senior executive ranks. As 

76 Prospective Federal employees can also learn about career growth areas by reviewing reports such as the 

Partnership for Public Service’s Where the Jobs Are 2009: Mission-Critical Opportunities for America which can be 

found at http://www.wherethejobsare.org. Funding legislation for Federal agencies, such as the annual funding bills 

as well as supplemental legislation such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act can also provide insight 

into occupations that are likely to expand due to increased funding.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27

A Status Report on the Federal Workforce

shown in Table 6, diversity wanes as level of responsibility increases. In other words, 

minority employees are less often found in higher level supervisory positions. This 

may reflect a variety of influences, such as occupational or educational background or 

differences in opportunities. It may also reflect the length of time required to move up 

the career pipeline since the Federal Government promotes primarily from within and 

therefore, the snapshot of the higher levels today reflects the reduced diversity present in 

the Federal Government 20 years ago. 

Table 6. Ethnic/Racial Diversity of the Federal Workforce by Level of Supervisory Level, FY 2008

Ethnicity/Race

Total Share of 

Workforce Supervisory

Senior Executive 

Service (SES)/

Similar

African American 18.0% 13.0% 8.1%

American Indian 1.9% 1.8% 1.0%

Asian/Pacific Islander 5.4% 3.7% 2.5%

Hispanic 7.9% 6.8% 3.6%

White 66.5% 74.5% 84.5%

Governmentwide 100.0% 13.4% 0.6%

Nevertheless, there has been improvement over time as minorities have increased their 

representation in supervisory positions (Table 7). Also, as reported in a recent report 

by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, progress has been made in the executive 

ranks, with the exception of a decrease of African American men in the SES between 

October 2000 and September 2007.77 

Table 7. Ethnic/Racial Representation of Federal Supervisors, Fiscal Years 1991-2008

 Ethnicity/Race 1991 1996 2001 2006 2008 Change

African American 10.3% 11.0% 11.8% 12.6% 13.0% 2.7%

American Indian 1.4% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 0.4%

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.5% 2.9% 3.1% 3.5% 3.7% 1.2%

Hispanic 3.9% 4.8% 5.5% 6.3% 6.8% 2.9%

White 82.0% 79.7% 77.7% 75.7% 74.5% -7.5%

77 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Diversity in the Federal SES and Processes for Selecting New Executives, 

November 2008. 
28 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

A Status Report on the Federal Workforce

Summary

To review, minorities, with the exception of Hispanic employees, are well represented in 

the total Federal workforce. However, American Indian, African American and Hispanic 

employees earn significantly lower salaries than Asian/Pacific Islander and White 

employees. This can be directly attributed to the uneven distribution of minorities across 

different occupational groups, with higher prevalence of some minority groups among 

lower-paying technical, clerical, and blue-collar jobs. It also reflects the lower percentage of 

minorities in the supervisory, managerial, and executive positions in the Federal workforce. 

Nonetheless, these statistics reflect continued progress for minorities. For example, the 

percentage of minorities employed in professional and administrative positions has risen, 

consistent with a shift in the Federal workforce toward “knowledge work.” Also, an 

increasing percentage of minority employees occupy supervisory/managerial positions, 

despite an overall reduction in the number of such positions.

Unfortunately, the data also show that significant gaps remain. With the exception of 

Asian/Pacific Islander employees, minorities are still employed less often in professional 

positions. Also, minority employees remain less likely to hold supervisory positions than 

nonminority employees. Consequently, median salaries for minority group members 

(other than Asian/Pacific Islander employees) remain lower than salaries for nonminority 

employees, and lower than the Governmentwide median. 

These results indicate that members of most minority groups do not, at present, 

occupy higher-graded or supervisory positions at a rate proportional to their overall 

representation in the Federal professional/administrative workforce. However, if 

minorities are hired, promoted, and retained at rates comparable to nonminorities, then 

the representation of minorities at higher grades should increase over time. Therefore, in 

the next section we examine promotion rates to determine how employees from different 

ethnic/racial groups compare in terms of career advancement. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29

Data in the previous section suggest that although progress has been made in 

achieving diversity throughout the various levels of Federal organizations, 

minorities remain underrepresented in achieving certain levels and/or 

roles. For example, American Indian, African American, and Hispanic employees 

remain less likely to be employed in the professional occupations than in other types 

of jobs and, correspondingly, have salary levels below the Governmentwide median. 

Additionally, these groups, as well as Asian/Pacific Islander employees, remain less 

likely than would be expected based on their proportion in the workforce to hold 

supervisory positions. In the following section, we examine differences in promotion 

rates that may help account for when and how different groups encounter difficulties 

in their career advancement.

Analysis of Promotion Rates

We analyzed promotion rates for several reasons. First, promotions are important for 

reasons other than pay. A promotion increases an employee’s level of responsibility 

and can lead to more challenging and “visible” assignments, projects, and roles for 

the employee. That, in turn, can help the employee qualify for higher level positions 

and increase the odds that the employee can compete successfully when additional 

opportunities for promotion arise. Second, promotion rates can provide insight 

into how promotion opportunities are allocated and whether employees are treated 

equitably in promotions and career advancement. Large differences among groups can 

help agencies identify patterns or practices—ranging from recruitment to promotion 

criteria to differential treatment or outright discrimination—that may limit employees’ 

advancement for reasons other than their performance and abilities. Third, promotion 

rates can provide insight into the future composition of the Federal workforce, helping 

policymakers and agency officials make informed judgments about the success and 

adequacy of efforts to achieve a diverse, representative workforce. Finally, promotion 

rates can influence behavior. For that reason, large differences in promotion rates, even 

if they can be explained by factors other than discrimination, can be problematic. If 

employees believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are not treated fairly in promotions, 

they may lose motivation (which is likely to reduce performance), be discouraged from 

pursuing valuable training or developmental opportunities, or choose not to compete for 

promotion, as discussed in a later section.

Fostering a Representative 

Workforce at All Levels
30 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Fostering a Representative Workforce at All Levels

However, it is important to keep in mind that Governmentwide analyses may not be as 

sensitive as agency analyses of promotion rates and may not reveal trends in promotion 

rates when they differ dramatically between agencies. For example, it would be possible 

for one group to be disadvantaged in some agencies and advantaged in others, resulting 

in apparently equitable promotion rates, when in reality, this is not true for all agencies. 

Despite this limitation, analyzing promotion rates Governmentwide and to more detailed 

levels within agencies can reveal patterns worth further investigation. 

Trends and Patterns in Overall Promotion Rates

We calculated promotion rates for 1993 through 2008 by tracking employees who held 

professional or administrative positions78 in General Schedule grades GS-5 through 

GS-14.79 We found three broad patterns in promotion rates. First, promotion rates for 

both professional and administrative positions at these grades have risen. This increase 

may reflect any of several factors, including increased hiring and promotion activity;80

changes in grade structure or occupational mix; new opportunities for promotion 

resulting from turnover, evolving missions, or increasing complexity of work; changes in 

agency promotion policies and practices; or increases in the ability and performance of 

Federal employees. Whatever the reasons, it appears that talented Federal employees will 

have considerable opportunity for advancement in coming years, especially if increasing 

numbers of experienced, long-tenured employees retire as part of the anticipated 

retirement trends.

Second, as shown in Table 8, promotion rates decline dramatically as grade level rises, 

reflecting the increasing scarcity of promotional opportunities at higher grade levels. 

Promotion rates are generally higher for professional occupations than for administrative 

occupations, consistent with the fact that professional occupations have, overall, higher grade 

structures than administrative occupations. However, promotion rates for professional and 

administrative employees are nearly equal at grades GS-12, GS-13, and GS-14.

78 We focused on professional and administrative occupations for two reasons. First, professional and 

administrative occupations now account for over 60 percent of the permanent Federal civil service.

Second, those occupations offer the greatest opportunities for pay, advancement, and influence in the 

civil service. To illustrate, approximately 99.7 percent of positions in the Senior Executive Service are in 

a professional or administrative occupation. Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, FedScope 

(www.fedscope.opm.gov). Distribution by occupational category of employees in the Senior Executive 

Service as of March 2009.

79 We tracked employees over a succession of 1-year periods, from the end of one fiscal year to the end of the next 

fiscal year. The tracking involved: (1) checking personnel actions to determine whether the employee received a 

permanent or temporary promotion which included career ladder and other promotions and (2) comparing the 

employee’s grade level at the beginning and at the end of the one-year period. Our calculations were limited to 

employees for whom data were available at both the beginning and the end of the one-year period. Thus, our figures 

exclude employees who left Federal service during a given one-year period.

80 The full-time permanent Federal workforce has varied in size over the 15-year period 1993-2008. After reaching 

a peak in 1992, downsizing and outsourcing resulted in a shrinking workforce until hiring surges associated with 

national security reversed the downward trend in 2002.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 31

Fostering a Representative Workforce at All Levels

Table 8. Federal Workforce Promotion Rates for Demographic Groups by Occupational Category 

and Grade Level at Start of the FY, FY 2007- FY 2008

Category Group GS-5 GS-7 GS-9 GS-11 GS-12 GS-13 GS-14

Professional American Indian 88% 79% 23% 13.3% 9.5% 7.5% 6.2%

Asian/Pacific Islander 84% 86% 55% 27.6% 13.1% 9.6% 7.0%

African American 88% 86% 49% 24.8% 13.5% 9.0% 7.6%

Hispanic 94% 91% 45% 21.8% 13.4% 8.2% 7.3%

White 94% 91% 45% 21.4% 12.8% 8.8% 7.9%

Women 92% 90% 42% 21.6% 13.9% 9.8% 8.2%

Men 92% 89% 48% 22.5% 12.2% 8.3% 7.6%

TOTAL 92% 89% 45% 22.0% 12.8% 8.8% 7.8%

Administrative American Indian 79% 58% 26% 15.7% 11.1% 9.6% 7.6%

Asian/Pacific Islander 86% 72% 40% 20.8% 14.1% 9.0% 7.4%

African American 81% 73% 31% 20.6% 13.5% 9.7% 8.2%

Hispanic 92% 80% 39% 15.3% 13.9% 9.4% 8.7%

White 90% 77% 34% 19.3% 13.6% 8.6% 8.5%

Women 86% 74% 32% 19.5% 13.2% 9.6% 8.5%

Men 90% 78% 36% 18.6% 13.9% 8.4% 8.3%

TOTAL 88% 76% 34% 19.1% 13.5% 8.9% 8.4%

Light shading indicates below-average promotion rates. (Other differences are not statistically significant.) 

For grades GS-5, GS-7, and GS-9, a rate is shown as below average if it is 5 percentage points or more below the 

Governmentwide average. For grades GS-11 through GS-14, the threshold was 2 percentage points.

Third, current promotion rates for minorities and women are generally comparable to 

Governmentwide averages, with the notable exception of American Indians, who have 

lower rates most likely because American Indians often work on or near reservations in 

lower paying occupations with fewer promotion opportunites. Although the absence 

of additional large disparities is reassuring, it is not conclusive evidence that promotion 

decisions are always made without regard to ethnicity and race and gender. 
32 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Fostering a Representative Workforce at All Levels

Therefore, we conducted a second analysis to better understand how agencies make 

promotion decisions by assessing the degree to which possible factors, which are captured 

in CPDF, affected promotion rates. The factors include occupation,81 grade level, 

sex, ethnicity and race, age, length of service, education, and supervisory status. Our 

analyses produced several insights, which we discuss in greater detail below. To briefly 

summarize, we found that occupation, grade level, education, and supervisory status play 

a significant role in promotion decisions. Length of experience exerts some influence, but 

quality of experience is likely to be more important than simply quantity of experience. 

Finally, race/ethnicity and gender appear to play a much smaller role, which may be 

linked to their correlation with other variables in the model, such as occupation, grade 

level, education, and supervisory status. 

Different occupations offer different opportunities for advancement. Professional 

occupations and administrative occupations vary greatly from one another in several 

respects. These include qualification requirements, relationship to agency mission, 

labor market conditions, and level of difficulty and responsibility. These differences 

are reflected, in part, in an occupation’s grade distribution and salary levels. To 

illustrate differences in grade distribution, promotional opportunities, and pay level, we 

calculated 2008 median salary and full-performance grade levels82 for professional and 

administrative occupations. Table 9 shows the median full-performance grade level and 

salary for selected populous professional and administrative occupations.

81 For practical reasons, we did not make direct use of OPM occupational series in our analysis. Instead, we used 

occupational category (professional or administrative) and variables indicating that an employee’s current grade level 

was above or below the modal grade for his or her occupational series. Those variables served as indicators of the 

promotion opportunities available in a given occupation and of whether the employee would have to compete for 

promotion.

82 A median is a midpoint: in a given population, half the population will be at or below the median, and half 

the population will be at or above the median. We used the median grade level of nonsupervisory positions from 

GS-9 through GS-15 (or equivalent) grade levels as our estimate of the median full performance level. We used the 

median instead of the more frequently used average (mean) because the median enabled us to group occupations and 

because the median is less sensitive to extreme (outlying) values. We excluded GS-5 and GS-7 positions from our 

median grade and salary calculations because the GS-5 and GS-7 levels are entry-level (developmental or trainee) 

grades in professional and administrative occupations. In many occupations, positions at higher grade levels may 

also be developmental; however, such positions cannot be easily identified in the Central Personnel Data File. 

Nevertheless, the median remains a useful indicator of an occupation’s inherent promotion potential.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33

Fostering a Representative Workforce at All Levels

Table 9. Median Grade and Salary Levels in Selected Professional and Administrative 

Occupations, FY 2008

Median Grade Occupation (Series) Median Salary

GS-14 Attorney (0905) $119,547

Aerospace Engineering (0861) $107,854

GS-13 Criminal Investigation (1811) $93,207

Mechanical Engineering (0855) $99,557

GS-12 Civil Engineering (0810) $84,913

Information Technology (2210) $83,720

GS-11 Paralegal Specialist (0950) $70,980

Social Work (0185) $65,393

GS-9 Medical Technologist (0644) $60,394

General Legal and Kindred (0901) $56,258

Source: CPDF, September 2008. Salary for nonsupervisory positions at and above GS-9 only; GS-5 and GS-7 

positions (trainee positions) are excluded.

Thus, promotion rates are determined not only by ability and performance, but also 

by initial choices in education and career field. An employee in an occupation with a 

limited career path may have to be truly outstanding or enterprising to attain a mid-level 

grade, while an employee in an occupation with a higher full-performance level is likely 

to find promotions to higher grades much easier to achieve. The differential nature of the 

challenge is even greater for employees who aspire to leadership positions. Employees in 

fields such as law and criminal investigation may gain their supervisory experience and 

appointment to the Senior Executive Service without ever changing their line of work. 

In contrast, employees who enter Federal service as paralegal specialists may find that 

advancement beyond the GS-12 or GS-13 level will require a major career change.

Upper level promotions differ from entry-level promotions. Promotion rates from 

entry-level grades are much higher than promotion rates from upper level grades.83 The 

difference in rates reflects important differences between the two types of promotion, 

which are briefly summarized in Table 10.

83 The grades that can be considered “entry level” and “upper level” vary by occupation and position. For 

professional and administrative occupations, grades GS-5 and GS-7 are typically entry-level (trainee) positions. 

Grades GS-13 through GS-15 are often, but not always, “upper level”—grade levels above the norm for the 

occupation, and which require competition and involve supervisory duties.
34 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Fostering a Representative Workforce at All Levels

Table 10. Differences Between Entry Level and Upper Level Promotions in the Federal Workforce

Area of Difference Entry Level Upper Level

Selection process Noncompetitive within the career 

ladder. No application is required and 

the employee can be promoted “in 

place” because the competition for 

advancement occurred when the vacancy 

was announced with a designated full 

performance level above the initial grade. 

Usually competitive. The employee must 

apply and be selected from a pool of 

candidates.

Selection decision Promotion is contingent on the ability to 

perform higher level work. The decision 

is usually based on recommendation of 

the employee’s supervisor, who has direct 

knowledge of the employee and his or her 

performance.

Promotion is contingent on identification 

as the best qualified candidate. The 

identification is usually based on 

formal assessments of the applicant’s 

competencies and the hiring manager’s 

judgment. The hiring manager may have 

no prior knowledge of the employee.

Change in role Incremental. Duties and responsibilities 

are generally similar, although 

assignments may be more difficult and 

require more independence and initiative.

Potentially substantial. Duties and 

responsibilities may change greatly, 

including new supervisory and managerial 

responsibilities.

Change in working 

conditions

Usually minimal. Generally, any significant 

changes will have been communicated to 

and accepted by the employee at the time 

of placement in the entry-level position.

Potentially substantial. Changes may 

include a new supervisor, transfer to 

another organization, geographic 

relocation, extended or less flexible 

working hours, and increased travel.

The differences between these two levels or promotions mean that education and 

experience, as well as demographic factors such as sex, and ethnicity and race, could have 

different effects on an employee’s prospects for promotion as he or she advances. Our 

statistical analysis suggested that this is, in fact, true.

Our findings have implications for both agencies and employees. For agencies, these 

differences in promotion levels mean that close attention should be paid to upper level 

promotion processes and outcomes. Because upper level promotions are competitive, the 

process is much more complex—and there are more risks for undesirable outcomes. For 

example, because competitive processes typically require interested individuals to apply 

to be considered, excellent candidates may be “lost” if opportunities are not appropriately 

publicized or if employees view the competitive process as unfair. Similarly, because 

competitive processes necessarily provide for considerable managerial discretion, and 

because managers must often exercise that discretion based on limited information about 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35

Fostering a Representative Workforce at All Levels

(and brief encounters with) candidates, there is more potential for unconscious biases, 

unwarranted assumptions, and initial impressions to affect promotion decisions—not to 

mention conscious favoritism or discrimination.

For employees, it is essential to realize that choices and strategies that support (or are 

at least compatible with) initial advancement may not aid subsequent advancement. In 

particular, as we discuss below, employees may need to broaden (and not merely deepen) 

their skills, pursue development and education, and seek leadership opportunities and 

positions to successfully compete for advancement. And, as we discuss later in this 

report, employees must take the initiative to identify and apply for opportunities and 

become adept at presenting and marketing their abilities and accomplishments. 

Quality of experience matters more than quantity of experience. In the Federal 

civil service, some experience is of course required for advancement. However, our 

analysis suggests that, beyond some point, more experience may not be better for 

purposes of advancement. Neither life experience (as measured by age) nor work 

experience (as measured by an employee’s length of service)84 enhanced an employee’s 

prospects for promotion. The absence of a positive relationship may reflect, in part, the 

limitations of our measure of work experience—but we believe that that absence is also 

a valid indication of the limitations of length of work experience. Employees should 

recognize that, although lengthy experience can lead to salary advancement,85 it will not 

automatically lead to promotion. For experience to improve prospects for promotion, 

it must convey positive information to the hiring manager. Experience can do that in 

two ways: it can indicate that the employee has acquired useful competencies, or it can 

indicate that the employee has desirable attributes such as initiative, an excellent “track 

record,” or good organizational citizenship.86 Employees should also understand that 

it is possible for the content and/or length of their experience to be irrelevant—or to be 

relevant in a way that harms rather than helps an applicant’s prospects. In summary, 

average performance may suffice for entry-level promotions and within-grade increases—

but not for upper level promotions, which requires the employee to distinguish himself or 

herself from a large pool of equally qualified competitors. 

Formal education can be beneficial, even when it is not mandatory. For professional 

occupations, formal education or credentials are a necessity.87 And employees in 

84 Length of service is the amount of an employee’s Federal service that is creditable (i.e., can be counted) for 

purposes of leave accrual. That amount may reflect service in the military and service in the legislative and judicial 

branches of the Federal Government, as well as civilian service in an Executive agency. It does not reflect nonFederal work experience, nor does it differentiate between job-related and non-job-related experience.

85 One example is the within-grade increase (WGI). Under the General Schedule pay system, an employee below 

the tenth and highest step of the grade will receive a WGI (step increase) if he or she has accumulated a specific 

amount of service and has a satisfactory or higher performance rating. Refer to 5 CFR 531.

86 “Organizational citizenship behaviors” are voluntary behaviors that facilitate organizational functioning, but 

aren’t explicitly demanded of employees. 

87 According to OPM’s Introduction to the Position Classification Standards, “Professional work requires knowledge 

in a field of science or learning characteristically acquired through education or training equivalent to a bachelor’s or 

higher degree with major study in or pertinent to the specialized field, as distinguished from general education.,” p. 9.
36 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Fostering a Representative Workforce at All Levels

professional occupations are, by definition, applying their knowledge and credentials in 

a specific field to projects and assignments that demand such preparation. In contrast, 

administrative occupations do not require a college degree, occupational certification, 

or similar credential for entry. Yet we found a positive relationship between formal 

education and promotion rates not only for professional occupations, but also for 

administrative ones. There are several possible explanations for this relationship.

First, education could provide competencies or perspectives that are useful on the job. 

Those competencies may be highly specific and directly applicable to particular tasks, 

or general and applicable to a wide variety of assignments and roles. In addition to 

improving task performance, education could also affect how an employee understands 

and defines his or her job, which could be helpful in competing for promotion and 

in carrying out roles and projects that require vision or innovation. Second, even if 

the knowledge acquired through education has little applicability to the job being 

filled, education could provide (or a prospective employer might believe that education 

indicates the presence of) desirable attributes such as conscientiousness, analytical ability, 

and an interest in learning. Third, an agency or hiring manager might prefer that 

candidates possess a particular degree or credential.88 That preference could be plausible 

or completely unfounded. For example, a manager filling a high-level supervisory 

engineering position could believe that possession of an advanced degree would give 

a selectee immediate or enhanced credibility when dealing with subordinates and 

stakeholders and in providing expert testimony. On the other hand, a manager might 

prefer or insist that candidates hold a particular degree or credential merely because he or 

she personally holds that degree or credential.

We also found that the effect of a given level of education varies with job level. The 

general pattern we observed is that possession of a bachelor’s degree was associated with 

higher promotion rates from entry-level and mid-level grades, while possession of a higher 

level (master’s or professional) degree tended to aid advancement at higher levels. That 

pattern almost certainly reflects differences in career progression between occupations 

such as attorney and medical officer. Yet, it may also reflect how different levels and 

types of education apply to different job levels (i.e., different stages of one’s career). For 

example, a master’s degree in electrical engineering might help an entry-level engineer 

advance rapidly—but that degree might be of less use in competing for a position that 

involved supervisory or project management responsibilities. 

Conversely, a master’s degree in business administration would give an entry-level 

staffing specialist no knowledge of the complex rules governing Federal hiring—but it 

might be very useful to the future mid-level staffing specialist who applies for a highlevel position focused on policy or program management. The value of a degree may 

also change as changes occur in the promotion process—and changes in the pool of 

88 We distinguish agencies and managers to make the point that this preference may be institutional or personal, 

and explicit or unstated.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 37

Fostering a Representative Workforce at All Levels

competitors—as job level increases. For example, a manager’s decision regarding a career 

ladder promotion, which is noncompetitive, is unlikely to be influenced by an employee’s 

college degree or lack thereof. But a manager filling a position through merit promotion 

or examination might. 

And a degree that is beneficial at one level might make little difference at another. For 

example, an employee with a bachelor’s degree might have an edge when competing for 

a mid-level HR position: in 2008, only 37 percent of HR specialists at grade GS-11 had 

such a degree. But that same employee would not stand out when competing for a GS-15 

position: 64 percent of GS-14 HR specialists held a bachelor’s or higher degree.

Whatever factors underlie the relationship between education level and advancement, this 

linkage has possible implications for the future shape of the Federal workforce. As shown 

in Figure 6, American Indian, Hispanic, and African American Federal employees are 

less likely than Asian/Pacific Islander or White employees to have a Bachelor’s degree or 

higher level of education, which most likely helps explain the prevalence of these latter 

groups of employees in the professional ranks. In addition, women currently employed 

by the Federal Government are very slightly less likely than men to have a Bachelor’s 

degree. And although Federal employees are more likely than employees in the civilian 

labor force to have 4-year college degrees, these patterns also reflect the distribution of 

education among the general population.89 

Figure 6. Prevalence of a Bachelor’s Degree or More Among Federal Employees, by Group, FY 2008 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Asian/ Hispanic White Women Men

Pacic Islander

American 

Indian/

Alaska Native

African

 American 

Therefore, although education may customarily convey useful skills and knowledge—and 

entry and advancement in the professional occupations may require competencies that 

89 U.S. Census Bureau, Educational Attainment: 2000, August 2003. 
38 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Fostering a Representative Workforce at All Levels

are more effectively developed through formal education than through coaching and 

on-the-job training, it should be used judiciously as a screen. Because of differences in 

educational patterns across groups, reliance on education as an indirect measure of ability 

can be harmful to both agencies and applicants. In particular, because educational 

attainment alone may not be a good predictor of job performance, using it as a screening 

or selection device may exclude excellent candidates. Instead, agencies should explicitly 

identify required and desired competencies, then use appropriate assessment tools to 

directly measure those competencies.

Yet, differences in educational patterns across groups may help explain reduced 

Governmentwide promotion rates for employees in some groups, reductions that have 

slowed progress toward their full representation at the highest levels of the Federal 

service. To ensure that employees have an equal opportunity to excel, agencies may 

want to consider the return on investment of assisting employees with obtaining their 

educational goals when furthering the employees’ education is also in the agency’s 

interest.90 By paying for or sharing expenses in terms of tuition and/or the employee’s 

time, agencies can enable employees to achieve levels of education they might not have 

been otherwise able to reach. Further, this development of inhouse talent provides a 

better developed employee who already possesses substantial expertise regarding his or 

her job. As a result, this can be a “win-win” situation for both sides. 

Nonetheless, education level does not either make or break a career. Our analysis 

showed that education has its limits. Notably, promotion rates for Asian/Pacific Islander 

employees at higher grades were not markedly different from rates for other employees 

even though as a group they have higher average education levels.

Supervisory experience becomes important at higher levels. At higher grade levels, 

we found that employees who held supervisory positions (and thus, were known to 

have supervisory experience) were more likely to be promoted.91 There are two obvious 

reasons for this relationship. First, many high-level positions are supervisory. Thus, 

employees with supervisory experience will usually have an advantage over competitors 

lacking such experience if that experience demonstrates their acceptable (or better) 

competence at supervisory roles and tasks.

Second, supervisory employees may differ from nonsupervisory employees in career 

interests, not just experience. It is possible that many high-level nonsupervisory 

employees have chosen not to pursue such positions because they prefer staff and 

90 Agencies may also want to ask employees to sign a “continued service agreement” so employees are committed to 

stay onboard long enough for the agency to reap the benefit gained from the additional training. 

91 In our analysis, supervisory experience was negatively correlated with likelihood of promotion at lower grade 

levels. The most likely explanation for this counterintuitive result is that lower-graded supervisory employees held 

positions that lacked promotion potential. We do not believe that it means that supervisory experience makes an 

employee in a developmental position “less promotable.”
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 39

Fostering a Representative Workforce at All Levels

technical work or because they do not want the responsibilities and stresses of 

supervision. Such a decision can be good for both the employee and the employer—but 

it does have consequences. At some point, employees who lack supervisory experience 

will almost certainly find that they have fewer advancement opportunities than peers 

who are willing to assume supervisory duties.

Gender and ethnicity/race are sometimes correlated with chances of promotion. 

Although we found promotion rates to be generally comparable across gender and 

ethnicity/race (with the exception of American Indians whose rates are lower than 

the other groups), our statistical analysis suggested these factors may play some 

role in promotions, although the analyses cannot determine whether this is due to 

discrimination or due to a correlation with other factors. For example, one of the factors 

contributing significantly to the relationship between gender or ethnicity/race and 

promotion rates is the uneven distribution of Federal employees by gender and ethnicity/

race across agencies and occupations. To determine whether occupational differences 

could be contributing to the statistical relationship between gender and ethnicity/race 

and an employee’s prospects for promotion, we clustered occupations by their grade 

structure. In particular, women and minorities in the Federal Government are generally 

more likely than men and nonminorities to be employed in occupations with relatively 

low grade structures, as illustrated in Table 11. That pattern may explain why an 

employee’s chances for promotion are correlated with sex and ethnicity/race.

Table 11. Demographic Group Representation in Professional and Administrative Occupations, 

by Median Grade and Salary, FY 2008

Median 

Grade *

Median 

Salary

Representation **

Women

American 

Indian

Asian/ Pacific 

Islander

African 

American Hispanic White

GS-09/10 $60,044 59% 2.4% 5.6% 25.6% 6.3% 59.4%

GS-11 $68,352 50% 2.2% 4.2% 15.3% 9.9% 68.1%

GS-12 $81,394 49% 1.5% 5.5% 19.5% 6.0% 67.2%

GS-13 $94,331 31% 0.9% 7.4% 9.5% 6.6% 75.3%

GS-14/15 $117,032 38% 1.1% 6.0% 8.4% 4.7% 79.6%

All $80,259 46% 1.6% 5.5% 16.5% 7.0% 69.0%

* Median grade and salary for positions at or above GS-9. Because few employees are in occupations with a 

median grade of GS-10 or GS-15, we combined those levels with more populous levels.

** Figures for employees with unspecified or multiple ethnicity and race identification are not shown.
40 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Fostering a Representative Workforce at All Levels

However, the result of our statistical analysis suggests that occupational differences are 

not the only reason for likelihood of promotion to be correlated with sex or ethnicity/

race. Agency, geographic location, and personal characteristics such as language fluency, 

geographic mobility, initiative and optimism, and family responsibilities may also play a 

role.92 Another possible factor is employee perceptions of agency promotion processes. 

As discussed later in this report, data from our Career Advancement Survey indicate that 

employee perceptions of agency promotion processes and hiring decisions differ across 

lines of ethnicity/race, and that such perceptions can affect whether an employee applies 

for promotion. 

In summary, we found promotion rates to be equitable, with the exception of those for 

American Indians. Nevertheless, the lower representation of women and minorities in 

the highest graded (and highest paying) occupations93 means that progress toward full 

representation of women and minorities at the highest levels of the civil service will be 

gradual at best. 

Current representation appears to reflect societal influences that may have constrained 

the educational and occupational options available to certain groups in the past. 

Although recent data indicate growth for women and minorities in terms of educational 

and employment opportunities, change is often slow, particularly in the absence of active 

efforts to advance those who are underrepresented. 

92 For example, approximately one-third of American Indian employees in professional and administrative 

occupations are employed in either the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Department 

of Health and Human Services’ Indian Health Service. (Source: Central Personnel Data File, September 2008.) 

The occupational mix and organizational structure of those agencies may explain why our analysis indicated that 

American Indian employees often had a lower likelihood of promotion than other employees.

93 The exception is Asian/Pacific Islander employees. However, although a high percentage of Asian/Pacific 

Islander employees are in high-graded occupations, comparatively few hold supervisory or managerial positions.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 41

Current Status

Due to limited opportunities for advancement into roles involving supervising and 

managing employees, especially at the highest executive ranks, those who aspire to these 

levels are often frustrated by their lack of progress. In response to a mismatch between 

the diversity of the Federal workforce and the executive ranks, Congress introduced 

the “Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act of 2009.”94 The objective of this 

legislation is to improve the Senior Executive Service by improving the human resources 

management of the SES and enhancing diversity within the SES corps. However, this 

legislation has not yet been passed.

Meanwhile, OPM continues to explore methods to improve the SES selection process, 

such as through a pilot project testing accomplishment-based and resume-based 

selection procedures.95 The pilot project—with the expressed goal of streamlining the 

application process (without negatively impacting the quality of the selections)—resulted 

in a 50 percent increase in applicants.96 OPM also offers the SES Federal Candidate 

Development Program (CDP) for current Federal employees at the GS-15 level (or 

equivalent). The outcomes of these selection procedures, including movement into the 

CDP, should be evaluated on an on-going basis to identify if adverse impact is occurring 

against any groups. 

 

Given that the number of those who aspire to rise to the SES level exceeds the number 

of openings, the Government must ensure that effective selection techniques are used 

to identify those best qualified for these important positions—and for the Candidate 

Development Program—and that discriminatory barriers do not impede the selection of 

members of any ethnic/racial groups. 

As we mentioned in an earlier section, employees from some ethnic/racial groups tend to 

be employed in lower numbers in the professional occupations. However, employment 

94 H.R. 2721 and S. 1180, 111th Congress. 

95 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Memorandum for Chief Human Capital Officers from Michael W. Hager, 

Acting Director, Subject: Results of SES Selection Pilot, January 12, 2009.

96 B.R. Ballenstedt, “OPM to Modify Senior Executive Selection Process,” Government Executive, printed from 

www.govexec.com on January 15, 2009. 

Advancement to 

Leadership Roles
42 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Advancement to Leadership Roles

in these occupational groups effectively serves as a prerequisite for further advancement. 

Very few career Federal executives attain their rank without a “track record” of success in 

a professional or administrative field and previous supervisory experience. 

Table 12 illustrates that ethnic/racial diversity in the Senior Executive Service has generally 

increased in the past 12 years but has not yet achieved parity. In part, this reflects 

occupational distribution of African Americans, American Indians and Hispanics as 

shown in Table 12 by the decreased representation among professional and administrative 

occupations. As discussed in prior sections, factors such as differential educational and 

employment patterns among population groups may drive some of these differences. 

Table 12. Ethnic/Racial Diversity in the Career Senior Executive Service Compared to the Federal 

Workforce, Fiscal Years 1996 and 2008

Ethnicity/Race

1996 2008

Federal 

Civilian 

Workforce

Professional & 

Administrative SES

Federal 

Civilian 

Workforce

Professional & 

Administrative SES

African American 17.0% 11.6% 7.0% 18.0% 15.0% 8.6%

American Indian 1.7% 1.3% 0.8% 1.9% 1.4% 1.3%

Asian/Pacific 

Islander

4.1% 4.4% 1.3% 5.4% 5.9% 2.4%

Hispanic 6.1% 4.8% 1.9% 7.9% 6.7% 3.6%

White 71.1% 78.0% 88.9% 66.5% 70.7% 83.9%

It is also noteworthy that in the relevant civilian labor force for managerial, professional, 

and related occupations, African American and Hispanic workers are significantly 

underrepresented—and Asian/Pacific Islander employees are to a lesser extent—

compared to their availability in the overall CLF as of 2007.97 This discrepancy makes 

it more difficult to raise representation by recruiting from outside the Government 

for professional and administrative positions that can lead to advancement to the top 

executive levels. This discrepancy also suggests that barriers encountered by members of 

certain minority groups are firmly entrenched in our society and, therefore, that the SES 

situation is not primarily an artifact of employment practices in the Federal Government. 

Even when societal-based causes account for disparities in the SES, agencies should 

attempt to provide developmental opportunities for employees in the lower ranks that 

ultimately become “feeder pools” for managerial and executive positions.

A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) offers some cause for 

optimism with data showing that from October 1, 2000, through September 2006, the 

97 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United State: 2009, p. 388. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 43

Advancement to Leadership Roles

number and percentage of all minority groups in the Senior Executive Service increased, 

with the exception of African American men.98 Further, at the GS-14 and GS-15 levels, 

representation increased or remained level for all minority groups. This suggests the 

feeder pools for the SES contain growing levels of diversity, development that will 

ultimately improve opportunities for increasing representation at these top levels as 

attrition occurs. 

As shown in Table 13, there is greater diversity in the grades immediately below the 

Senior Executive Service for Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic employees, with a 

slightly lower percentage at the GS-15 level for African Americans and American Indians. 

Therefore, if selections are proportionate, the SES should gradually become more 

diverse, at least with regard to Asian/Pacific Islanders and Hispanics, especially with 

expected increased retirements from the current SES pool. However, the comparison 

of the professional and administrative workforce to the overall workforce reveals that 

these occupations, which often serve as feeder pools for higher graded positions, are 

disproportionaly filled by White and Asian/Pacific Islander employees, which likely 

facilitates their representation at the higher grade levels. 

Table 13. Ethnic/Racial Diversity at the Federal Workforce Compared to Professional and 

Administrative Employees, and GS-14, GS-15 and SES Levels, FY 2008

Ethnic/Racial Group

Federal Civilian 

Workforce

Professional & 

Administrative GS-14 GS-15 SES

African American 18.0% 15.0% 13.0% 8.2% 8.6%

American Indian 1.9% 1.4% 1.1% 1.0% 1.3%

Asian/Pacific Islander 5.4% 5.9% 6.2% 8.3% 2.4%

Hispanic 7.9% 6.7% 4.8% 4.2% 3.6%

White 66.5% 70.7% 74.9% 78.2% 83.9%

By running retirement eligibility criteria against CPDF data, OPM determined that 

over half of the full-time permanent Federal workforce that was onboard as of October 

1, 2006, will be eligible to retire by the end of 2014.99 The proportion of retirementeligible employees among the SES ranks is even higher, given their higher average age and 

tenure. As a result, an enormous opportunity exists for agencies to implement employee 

development and succession planning strategies to ensure that the future executive ranks 

will better reflect the diversity of the Federal workforce.100

98 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Diversity in the Federal SES and the Senior Levels of the U.S. Postal 

Service, GAO-07-838T, May 10, 2007.

99 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, An Analysis of Federal Employee Retirement Data, March 2008.

100 Given that the majority of employees do not retire the first year they are eligible, but over half retire within 5 years 

of eligibility, factors other than eligibility drive retirement decisions under voluntary retirement policies so the window 

of opportunity extends beyond the initial date of retirement eligibility for the anticipated “retirement bubble.” 
44 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Advancement to Leadership Roles

In the report noted above and in a related report,101 the GAO provided detailed analyses 

of representation in the SES and feeder pools by demographic group, grade level, and 

agency to educate agencies regarding the current status of diversity at these levels. Once 

this understanding has been achieved, agencies can consider actions they can take to 

ensure that they will be better able to maintain an effective Federal workforce, in part by 

ensuring diversity at the highest levels where it is currently lacking. 

Career-Enhancing Opportunities 

As will be seen in the next section, approximately three-fourths of Federal employees 

viewed their willingness to take difficult assignments and the quality of their past 

performance to be positively impacting their career advancement. However, it also 

appeared that such opportunities to demonstrate one’s motivation and ability were not 

viewed as available to all. 

Being designated as acting supervisor for a significant period of time may provide a 

critical opportunity for employees who aspire to demonstrate that they can handle the 

responsibilities associated with the role.102 In fact, MSPB’s 1996 report revealed that 

serving as acting supervisor was a critical opportunity, and one that was not viewed as 

equally available to all. Analysis of promotion rates suggests that this was more than 

a perception, as those who had served as acting supervisory actually were more likely 

to have been promoted. Secondly, an employee serving as an acting supervisor also 

demonstrates that the supervisor has confidence in the employee and therefore signals 

to the employee who is acting, as well as to other employees and managers, that this 

employee would be under serious consideration for future promotions. Unfortunately, 

our survey results indicate that members of minority groups report that they have less 

opportunity to serve in an acting capacity than White employees (Table 14). Further, 

these discrepancies do not appear to be diminishing. While some employees may not be 

eligible to serve as acting supervisor due to their current grade, agencies should ensure 

that those who are eligible are considered for this career-enhancing opportunity.

101 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Diversity in the Federal SES and the Senior Levels of the U.S. Postal 

Service, GAO-07-838T, May 10, 2007; Diversity in the Federal SES and Processes for Selecting New Executives, GAO09-110, November 2008. 

102 As discussed in MSPB’s 1996 report, Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Progress Report on Minority Employment 

in the Federal Government, employees who had served in an acting supervisor capacity were “more likely to have 

received a greater number of promotions during the course of their Government careers.”, p. 34. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 45

Advancement to Leadership Roles

Table 14. Percentage of Employees Reporting That They Have Served as Acting Supervisor Almost 

Always or Regularly, by Ethnicity/Race, Fiscal Years 1993 and 2007

Ethnicity/Race 1993 2007

African American 10.1% 13.9%

American Indian 20.8% 15.3%

Asian/Pacific Islander 15.0% 13.8%

Hispanic 15.1% 15.2%

White 19.5% 22.3%

Total 17.8% 19.7%

To see if salary level could be impacting patterns of having opportunities to serve as an 

acting supervisor, we also reviewed the results by salary level. As would be expected, 

those at higher pay levels proved more likely to have the opportunity to serve in this 

temporary leadership role. However, we still saw differences within salary groupings, 

with Asian/Pacific Islander, African American, and Hispanic employees being less likely 

to have opportunities to act as supervisor. 

As with serving in an acting capacity, when asked about the likelihood of being assigned 

to a critical project members of minority groups reported being much less likely to have 

this opportunity compared to White employees. In this case, women also reported being 

less likely to have such a developmental opportunity. Since being selected for critical 

projects can provide a forum for employees to demonstrate their capabilities, not being 

selected for even relatively minor opportunities may keep them from being considered 

for future career-enhancing opportunities, such as serving in an acting supervisor role, or 

ultimately for higher level positions. 

Supervisors should examine their past selections to see if they have been limiting 

developmental assignments to a restricted pool without competition. When such 

patterns emerge, supervisors should challenge themselves to consider if unrecognized 

biases might be contributing to selecting individuals for acting supervisor or other 

critical assignments. For example, given that three-fourths of supervisors are White 

and over two-thirds are men, there might be an unconscious inclination to select others 

who are similar to the supervisor in terms of ethnicity/race or gender. Alternatively, 

the supervisor may harbor unconscious beliefs that certain types of people are more 

willing or able to perform well on the job. These stereotypes can be detrimental to the 

development of employees who do not fit the current mold of supervisors. Supervisors 

generally understand that non-merit factors such as ethnicity/race and gender should not 

be considered in selection for positions; however, these tendencies may not be as closely 

monitored in relation to giving out career-enhancing opportunities. Although the stakes 
46 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Advancement to Leadership Roles

are lower on the basis of selection for individual assignments, together they accumulate 

to provide some individuals with an unfair advantage over others who might be equally 

capable and deserving of the opportunity. 

To remedy limiting developmental opportunities to the favored few, we suggest that 

supervisors consider reviewing their entire staff for potential “actors” and rotate this 

responsibility as an alternative to designating the same person as acting supervisor in 

their absence. Supervisors should be careful to not assume that someone would not want 

this role based upon unverified perceptions of ambition level, family responsibilities, and 

so on. Although the supervisor should gain insight into employees’ career aspirations 

as part of performance management discussions, especially in the context of additional 

training and development that is needed, the supervisor should also keep in mind 

developmental assignments that may be available, within either the current office or 

other offices. In addition, while supervisors are often reluctant to let their best employees 

venture out, they should realize that it may be in the best interest of the agency and 

employees to let them broaden their experiences. And if the assignment is temporary, the 

employee will bring back valuable knowledge and contacts that may benefit the team. 

Employees also have a responsibility to demonstrate their capabilities and motivation by 

showing their supervisors their interest in opportunities. Not only should they volunteer 

and enthusiastically complete current assignments, but they need to be sure to voice their 

desire for future, as yet unknown, opportunities given that supervisors have the most 

awareness of available projects. Because supervisors directly assign work, they exercise an 

enormous amount of control over employees’ developmental opportunities. Supervisors 

need to consider the range of abilities within their staff when delegating projects, but 

also give employees “stretch” assignments to help them develop their skills. Although 

supervisors may find it easiest to go back to the same people they know to be good at 

certain tasks, it is better in the long run for employers and employees to provide everyone 

with developmental opportunities. Another advantage of this approach is that it develops 

a team with more depth and avoids the likelihood that only one or two people possess a 

critical talent since it is always possible that employees will move on, which could leave 

the office without essential areas of knowledge or skills.

Both supervisors and employees share responsibility for developing the agency’s human 

capital. Supervisors, by virtue of their position, need to be cognizant of the gate-keeping 

role that they play in terms of allocating developmental assignments. Concurrently, 

employees need to be sure to communicate their willingness to work for these 

opportunities to demonstrate their motivation and abilities. Through this collaboration, 

both sides are better able to develop the agency’s future leaders. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 47

As discussed earlier in this report, occupation, education, and experience 

represent three of the most powerful determinants of career advancement. 

However, survey respondents, interviewees, and discussion group participants 

cited many additional factors as essential to their movement upward through the 

ranks, as well as a number of possible impediments. Across ethnic/racial groups, 

employees believed the factors that they could improve through effort greatly 

outweighed the potentially negative influence of inherent personal characteristics 

that cannot be changed. 

Employee Strategies for Career Advancement

After collecting input from interviews and discussion groups, we compiled a list of likely 

career accelerators—actions, behaviors, and other factors that could help employees 

advance their careers. We then asked survey respondents to indicate first, if the factor 

applied to them, and secondly, whether the presence or absence of these factors had a 

positive, neutral, or negative impact.

A summary of our findings provides practical advice from a diverse group of Federal 

employees as to what behaviors or characteristics they viewed as able to facilitate 

career advancement or to seriously undermine efforts to progress. In terms of career 

accelerators, employees felt that the factors shown in Table 15 had the most positive 

impact.

Seizing Opportunities for 

Career Advancement 
48 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Seizing Opportunities for Career Advancement

Table 15. Top 10 Federal Career Accelerators, According to Respondents to the FY 2007 Career 

Advancement Survey

Career Accelerator

Percent Reporting 

Positive Impact

A supportive supervisor to encourage my development and advancement 85%

Senior person/mentor (other than my supervisor) looking out for my interests 85%

Ability/willingness to take on challenging work assignments 80%

High-quality past work experience 80%

Contacts who knew the selecting official and recommended me 78%

Extensive past work experience 78%

Specialized or technical training 78%

Formal educational qualifications 76%

Acting in a position prior to appointment 76%

Developmental assignments to improve the depth of my experience 75%

Clearly, one should not underestimate the power of personal connections in the 

workplace. Given their nearly absolute control over the developmental opportunities 

employees receive, supervisors play crucial roles in determining the fate of their 

employees. Therefore, it is essential that agencies ensure that they select supervisors who 

will treat employees fairly, educate supervisors on their responsibilities to all employees, 

and hold them accountable if they should ever misuse or abuse their authority. Similarly, 

it is incumbent on employees to be aware that they need to exercise initiative in working 

with their supervisors to develop their knowledge, skills, and abilities and explore 

opportunities for further advancement. Still, employees may encounter supervisors 

who lack the time to help employees or who are not interested in doing this. In these 

cases, employees need to consider whether they should look for another job or supervisor 

who would be better able to meet these needs. Given the equal importance attributed 

to having a mentor, it is possible that some employees find this support elsewhere in 

the organization, but it is also likely that employees simply benefit from having more 

than one person serving as their advisor and advocate. A large percentage of employees 

also mentioned the criticality of having contacts who knew the selecting official. Our 

comparative results from 1992 and 2007 indicate that having contacts who knew the 

selecting official has become significantly more important. Only 38 percent of the earlier 

group cited them as very or somewhat important, compared to 78 percent in 2007. 

And although it did not make the top 10 list, professional networking also increased 

substantially in terms of perceived importance. 

As shown in the next section of this report, a growing concern of employees relates to 

the perception that interpersonal relationships trump competence or hard work, but, 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 49

Seizing Opportunities for Career Advancement

as these survey responses demonstrate, many employees have found a way to manage 

work relationships to their advantage. This is not surprising given that social aspects 

play an increasingly important role in the work environment as it continues to evolve 

from production-based to knowledge-based. Hence, career progression more frequently 

hinges upon developing interpersonal connections that: (1) help employees develop their 

competence; and (2) provide a network to advertise their talents. 

Not surprisingly, good old-fashioned quality and quantity of work experience also 

appeared high on the list of career accelerators, but appropriately, these were accompanied 

by a factor relating to the willingness of employees to demonstrate initiative by taking 

responsibility for challenging assignments. The optimistic message inherent in the high 

placement of these factors is that employees who demonstrate competence, perseverance, 

and initiative believe that these actions are rewarded. It is important to note that merely 

serving time is insufficient. Although employees generally receive within-grade increases 

and career ladder promotions for doing what is expected of them, as one progresses 

to more competitive levels, it becomes essential for employees to seek out ways to 

distinguish themselves. 

Specialized training and formal education also often serve as prerequisites to success in 

the Federal Government. Specialized training enables employees to move upward within 

their career tracks, while formal education may not only help employees shine above the 

competition for promotions, it may also be a necessary prerequisite for entry into the 

Federal workforce, particularly among professional occupations. 

As we discussed in the prior section, the opportunity to act in a position can provide 

invaluable experience, but other developmental opportunities may also assist employees 

with developing their skills and gaining recognition of their capabilities. Interestingly, 

the opportunity to serve as acting supervisor has apparently gained importance over time 

as we have seen an increase in the percentage of employees who report that this confers a 

benefit on career advancement. 

Other actions, such as working long hours, traveling, taking leadership development 

courses, networking, relocating, and taking lateral transfers within or between agencies, 

were noted as having a positive impact for over half of those who had done them. And, 

as would be expected in accordance with the merit principles, employees rarely attributed 

a positive influence to any factors relating to personal characteristics. One possible 

exception related to family responsibilities, which 28 percent of employees reported as a 

positive, compared to 24 percent who viewed this as a negative. Additionally, members 

of minority groups tended to see a positive impact of family, while White employees 

expressed the contrasting view. In our conversations with employees, they suggested that 

employees may be driven to work harder to support a large family, but that, at times, 

family responsibilities can also be viewed as a limitation, so family can be a double-edged 

sword. A similar pattern was seen regarding ethnicity/race, which members of ethnic/
50 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Seizing Opportunities for Career Advancement

racial minority groups, particularly American Indians,103 sometimes viewed as a positive 

(13 percent) and sometimes as a negative (23 percent). Although ethnicity/race was 

relatively low on the list of potential negative impacts, it reveals that nearly one in four 

employees viewed their ethnicity/race as a possible threat to their career advancement, 

despite protections offered through a variety of civil rights laws and Federal regulations. 

However, comparison of responses in 1992 and 2007 regarding whether members of 

some minority groups receive preferential treatment shows consensus as all groups 

reported a decrease in perceptions that some ethnic/racial minority groups are granted 

special advantages because of ethnicity/race. 

Interestingly, the number one item on the list of career impediments (shown in Table 16) 

was the same as the number one item for top career accelerators but in reverse. In other 

words, employees most often viewed not having a supportive supervisor or other senior 

person to be a fatal flaw. A lack of formal education, developmental assignments, and 

leadership development programs appeared as the next most negative factors inhibiting 

career advancement. 

Table 16. Top 10 Federal Career Impediments, According to Respondents to the FY 2007 Career 

Advancement Survey

Career Impediment (Read “lack of” in front of each 

factor except disability and foreign accent)

Percent Reporting 

Negative Impact

A supportive supervisor to encourage my development and advancement 54%

Senior person/mentor (other than my supervisor) looking out for my interests 47%

Formal educational qualifications 40%

Developmental assignments to improve the depth of my experience 39%

Leadership development program or managerial training 36%

A disability 34%

A foreign accent 34%

Specialized or technical training 29%

Ability/willingness to relocate as needed 28%

Ability/willingness to travel 27%

Other factors also emerged, including ones that are related to personal characteristics 

and, therefore, much more difficult or impossible to change. For example, although only 

9 percent of employees reported having a disability, 34 percent viewed this as having a 

negative impact. For other factors, employees seemed more divided regarding the degree 

103 This can be attributed to the policy of providing Indian preference in certain organizations (e.g., the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service).
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 51

Seizing Opportunities for Career Advancement

of the impact. For example, 34 percent of employees viewed speaking with a foreign 

accent to have harmed their career advancement, though 24 percent inferred a positive 

impact. Looking specifically at ethnicity/race, survey results suggested that this factor 

plays less of a role than it has in the past, both in positive and negative terms. 

Optimism

Applying for jobs also requires confidence that you will be evaluated on your 

qualifications and not eliminated from consideration based on superficial characteristics, 

such as your ethnicity/race. Results from the 2007 Career Advancement Survey revealed 

that, overall, only 11 percent of employees reported that they chose not to apply for 

a promotion or developmental opportunity because they felt someone of their race/

ethnicity had no chance of being selected. However, members of ethnic/racial minority 

groups were much more likely to express this opinion (ranging from 16 percent to 

21 percent) compared to White (7 percent) employees. Nevertheless, these findings 

represent notable improvement from 1993,104 when 20 percent of employees cited their 

ethnicity/race as a reason not to apply, with 25 percent to 30 percent of minorities 

agreeing. While it is encouraging that improvement has occurred, agencies need to 

realize that simply placing an EEO statement on a vacancy announcement may not 

be sufficient to assure employees that they will be judged solely on their capabilities, 

especially when they believe there is evidence to the contrary. When employees lack 

confidence that everyone will be treated fairly and therefore do not apply, the applicant 

pool may actually decrease in diversity, with the end result being that agencies become 

less able to achieve diversity in their workforce, which runs counter to the goals of 

achieving representation.

Another survey item asked whether the employee’s organization is “reluctant to promote 

minorities into management.”105 Seventy-one percent disagreed, a modest (7 percent) 

improvement from the response in 1993. However, disagreement ranged from a low of 

41 percent for African American employees to 83 percent for White employees so there 

was a sizable difference between these perspectives. Clearly, African American employees 

have a much more pessimistic view and expect more limitations on their opportunities to 

be promoted compared to White employees. 

Ambition

In a related question, we asked employees about their ambitions for higher level positions, 

including specifically their aspirations to the SES. Interestingly, minority employees were 

104 Survey data collected in 1993 and reported in MSPB’s Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Progress Report on 

Minority Employment in the Federal Government. 

105 Question 19o from the 2007 Career Advancement Survey, p. 5.
52 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Seizing Opportunities for Career Advancement

significantly more likely than White employees to report an intention to apply for higher 

level and SES positions. This may reflect thwarted ambitions on the part of capable 

minorities who have not had opportunities available to other employees or underlying 

occupational differences which may have impeded opportunities for some groups, given 

the correlation between ethnicity/race and some occupational groupings. In other words, 

members of minority groups may not have had equal opportunities to progress so they 

are still yearning for advancement compared to others who have achieved these goals 

and are now satisfied. The survey also asked those who did not intend to apply for a 

higher level position to explain why they did not plan to apply for these advancement 

opportunities. White, Hispanic, and American Indian employees most frequently 

responded that they enjoyed their current job. African American employees frequently 

said that they planned to retire soon and Asian/Pacific Islander employees most often 

stated they were comfortable with their current level of responsibility. Responses 

regarding applying for the SES position were similar, but African American and Hispanic 

employees were more likely to express doubt that they would be selected. Therefore, it 

becomes clear that optimism and ambition may be closely linked and impact one’s career 

expectations and related actions regarding whether or not to apply for a promotion. By 

actively supporting equal opportunity for all, agencies can facilitate a broader pool of 

qualified applicants and not discourage anyone based on characteristics not linked to 

their ability to perform on the job. 

Summary

Results from our Career Advancement Survey indicate that Federal employees believe 

that there are strategies that they can actively pursue to improve their opportunities 

to be promoted. First of all, employees recognize the criticality of developing effective 

relationships in the workplace with supervisors, mentors, and other contacts. They also 

realize the importance of performing high-quality work and demonstrating initiative 

while also having the appropriate education and training as a foundation. In terms of 

negative impacts, some 23 percent viewed their ethnicity/race as a liability. Since such 

a concern can discourage employees from applying, the perceptions of possible unfair 

treatment can be just as damaging as the reality of discrimination. Therefore, agencies 

need to inspire employee confidence that all employees will receive fair consideration so 

everyone will feel free to pursue their career ambitions. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 53

S

everal of the prior sections presented an overview of how the Federal workforce 

has changed by offering snapshots capturing representation at different points 

in time as well as by examining differences in the events that shape careers, 

such as promotions. Yet, these data only tell part of the story. Although objective 

data reflected by CPDF addresses the accomplishments of individuals and groups, 

these data lack the critical explanations of why these events occurred and how 

people viewed them. To obtain insight into the more subjective perspectives of the 

workforce, analyses of factual data are complemented with perceptual data gained 

through survey research. This approach provides a more complete and more complex 

view of where the Federal workforce stands. In particular, the survey results further 

our understanding regarding how comfortable Federal employees are with the 

progress that has been made and how they view the challenges that remain to ensure 

the fulfillment of the merit system principles. 

Changing Perceptions of Discrimination

In the past 10 to 15 years, there has been a dramatic shift in the opinions of the Federal 

workforce regarding discrimination. As shown in Figure 7, perceptions of unfair 

treatment on the legally protected basis of race/national origin, sex, and age have 

plummeted.106 Perceptions of discrimination based on disability, religion, marital status, 

and political affiliation have remained very low. 

106 These results are further discussed in MSPB’s 2008 report, The Federal Government: A Model Employer or a Work 

In Progress?

Unifying Concerns and 

Distinct Challenges
54 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Unifying Concerns and Distinct Challenges

Figure 7. Perceived Bases of Discrimination in the Federal Workplace, Merit Principles Survey, 

Fiscal Years 1992-2007

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Political aliation

Marital status

Religion

Disability

Age

Sex

Race/national origin

1992 1996 2000 2005 2007

As shown in Figure 8, members of all groups have reported a decreased perception that 

they have been discriminated against based on their ethnicity/race. In the past decade, 

African American and Asian/Pacific Islander employees have reported a dramatic drop, 

while Hispanic employees have also reported a significant decrease. American Indian 

employees have reported substantial improvement since 2000. Yet, even as we applaud 

the improvements, we must acknowledge that minority employees still feel more 

susceptible to ethnic/racial discrimination compared to White employees. 

Figure 8. Percentage of Federal employees perceiving they had been denied a job, promotion, 

or other job benefit on the basis of race and national origin, by ethnicity and racial group, Merit 

Principles Survey, Fiscal Years 1992-2007

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

White

Hispanic

Asian/Paci
c 

Islander

American Indian/

Alaska Native

African American

1992 1996 2000 2005 2007
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 55

Unifying Concerns and Distinct Challenges

Different Perspectives on Discrimination

Although employees share a perception that discrimination based on ethnicity/race has 

decreased, some differences remain among groups. Despite the dramatic decrease in 

perceived discrimination based on ethnicity/race, perceptions of discrimination persist 

with African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic employees remaining the 

most likely to believe they have experienced discrimination based on their race/national 

origin.

Further, employees generally appear to be more sensitive to discrimination against 

their own ethnic/racial group than others. Although the data showed improvements 

in terms of how groups perceived they were treated, a disconnect still exists between 

how groups perceive their treatment and that of others. For example, in response to an 

item on the Career Advancement Survey, 56 percent of African American employees 

reported “great” or “moderate” discrimination against African Americans on the job.107 

While this represents an improvement compared to the percentage who perceived such 

discrimination in 1993, it is noteworthy that substantially fewer members of other 

groups agreed with this assessment. Overall, only 15 percent of employees stated African 

Americans face discrimination, a proportion fueled in large part by the tendency of 

White employees to not perceive discrimination. The same pattern holds true for Asian/

Pacific Islander employees. Interestingly, Hispanic and American Indian employees also 

are more likely to perceive discrimination than others do regarding those two groups, 

with the exception of African American employees, who are equally likely to agree that 

Hispanic and American Indian employees experience discrimination. 

When the Career Advancement Survey asked employees in 2007 about how much 

progress had been made by various groups, all groups reported continued improvement 

(or at least maintaining the same level of improvement), but groups proved less likely 

to report progress by their own group compared to others. For example, African 

American employees reported the greatest progress in achieving top-level positions 

(a gain of 15 percent). Yet only 54 percent of this group agreed that their group has 

made “considerable” or “some” progress in the past 10 years, which was well below 80 

percent agreement by all employees, led by White employees who were the most likely to 

perceive progress for all minority groups. Likewise, Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic 

employees noted progress for all minority groups but remained more skeptical than 

other groups regarding their own progress. Again, for Hispanic and American Indian 

employees, African American employees were more likely to concur that these groups 

had not made as much progress as other groups perceived them to have made. Based on 

107 Although similar in content, this item from the Career Advancement Survey differs substantially from the item 

from the MPS which is discussed earlier and featured in Figure 8. Employees are much more likely to report that 

members of their group have experienced discrimination than to report personally experiencing discrimination. This 

may be due to the fact that the sample they are observing is much larger, thereby providing more opportunities for 

discrimination compared to their own personal experience. 
56 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Unifying Concerns and Distinct Challenges

these results, it appears that African Americans differ from other groups in being more 

attuned—not only to their own treatment but also to the experiences of other groups 

who have a history of being disadvantaged. 

These findings illustrate that awareness of discrimination differs dramatically among 

ethnic/racial groups. This may make it difficult for these groups to understand each 

other’s perspective—despite their shared concerns (among African American, Asian/

Pacific Islander and Hispanic employees) regarding unfair treatment based on their 

ethnicity/race. For example, as we discussed earlier, Hispanic employees appear to be 

employed in lower numbers across a wide range of agencies, occupations, and pay levels, a 

pattern that warrants a broad spectrum approach to bring in more Hispanics at all levels 

and facilitate their development within the Federal workforce.108 American Indians 

perceive less discrimination than other groups although they tend to be in lower paying 

occupations with fewer promotion opportunites, a finding that most likely reflects the 

opportunities in these employees’ often remote locations. African Americans appear 

well represented in the Federal Government but are underrepresented in higher paying, 

professional occupations. In contrast, Asian/Pacific Islander employees are not only well 

represented in the Federal Government but are particularly well represented among the 

lucrative professional occupations. Therefore, the underrepresentation of Asian/Pacific 

Islander employees among the executive ranks calls attention to the need for specific 

remedies to remove the barriers preventing these employees from reaching the highest 

levels of management.109 

In summary, all groups perceived a decline in discrimination and increased progress 

over 1993 to 2007 in reaching the upper levels, but groups often maximized their own 

struggles and minimized those of others. This can lend itself to discord between groups 

when they differ on these perceptions and fail to empathize with others who share the 

same concerns. 

Concerns About Favoritism

Unfortunately, decreases in perceptions regarding ethnic/racial discrimination do not 

necessarily equate to fair and equitable treatment for all. Based on responses to several 

questions on our 2007 Career Advancement Survey, all members of the Federal workforce 

have not achieved full confidence that they are treated fairly and equitably. Suspicions 

regarding traditional/blatant forms of discrimination have been supplanted by a growing 

skepticism about managers making their decisions in accord with the merit principles.

108 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Report on the Hispanic Employment Challenge in the Federal 

Government,” January 2009.

109 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Asian American and Pacific Islander Work Group Report to 

the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, January 2009.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 57

Unifying Concerns and Distinct Challenges

For example, when employees were asked about reasons for promotions, the most popular 

response by far was neither competence (40 percent) nor hard work (36 percent), but 

rather “who they know” at 72 percent. These perceptions represent prevalent concerns 

about whether employees are advanced on “the basis of relative ability, knowledge and 

skills, after fair and open competition which ensures that all receive equal opportunity” 

(5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1)) and protected against “personal favoritism” (5 U.S.C. § 2301 (b)

(8)). Since personal relationships such as having a supportive supervisor or a mentor were 

noted in an earlier section as critical to career advancement, it is clear that some concern 

exists regarding the proper balance for supervisors between developing effective work 

relationships and the dangers of demonstrating favoritism. 

When asked about specific unfair practices on the 2007 Career Advancement Survey, 

over 70 percent of employees believed that some supervisors practiced favoritism. 

Although African American and American Indian employees were the most likely to hold 

this opinion, over two-thirds of Hispanic, White, and Asian/Pacific Islander employees 

concurred. In comparison, 31 percent of employees reported nepotism with American 

Indian, African American, and Hispanic employees the most likely to agree. Given 

prohibitions on the employment of relatives, 110 the percentage of employees who have 

perceived nepotism seems quite high; perhaps there has been lax enforcement of this 

regulation or perhaps employees believe nepotism is at work through indirect advantages 

that may be granted to relatives employed within agencies though not in a direct 

reporting relationship. 

In contrast, when survey questions are worded to ask about their perceived treatment 

within the past 2 years—as is done for the MPS—employees are much less likely 

to perceive unfair treatment. For example, in Figure 9, we present a longitudinal 

perspective on employees’ responses and see a marked decrease in perceptions of 

unfairness since 1996. 

110 5 U.S.C. § 3110 note. 
58 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Unifying Concerns and Distinct Challenges

Figure 9. Employee Perceptions of Having Experienced Unfair Competition, Merit Principles 

Survey, Fiscal Years 1992-2007

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Denied a job 

due to nepotism

Inuenced to 

withdraw

Discouraged 

from competing

Unfair advantage 

given to another

1992 1996 2000 2005 2007

The difference between these findings may reflect: (1) the lower likelihood of unfair 

treatment occurring within the past 2 years as opposed to anytime in the employee’s 

memory and (2) the lower likelihood of the respondent having personally experienced 

a prohibited personnel practice (PPP) as opposed to perceiving that one of their many 

colleagues experienced it. In other words, the more narrowly a question is limited in 

terms of time frame or who committed or experienced the PPP, the lower the probability 

of agreement. However, given that surveys are samples and not a census (given to 100 

percent of employees), it is important that we use both types of questions and examine 

the apparent differences beteen the two versions of these questions regarding fairness. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 59

We begin this section with a recap of key findings and recommendations from 

our previous Fair and Equitable Treatment report, published in 1996 and 

then provide a brief update on the situation today. This information provides 

a segue into our concluding sections that address what can be done to foster continued 

progress towards achieving the ideals of a workforce that is “reflective of the Nation’s 

diversity” and “treated in accord with the merit principles.” 111

Findings From the 1996 Fair and Equitable Treatment Report 

With Brief Updates112

1. Minorities have made substantial progress in gaining access to Federal jobs.

The progress noted in 1996 is ongoing as minorities have continued to increase their 

representation in the Federal Government. Despite progress in getting a foot in the 

door (diversity among new hires) and moving up (generally equivalent promotion rates), 

this has not yet translated into full representation at all levels or roles, or in all agencies 

or occupations. A multitude of challenges are likely to prevent this full saturation 

from occurring in the near future. Nevertheless, the Federal Government, agencies, 

and prospective and current employees can all take action to accelerate the timeframe 

required for the Federal workforce to fully represent the public that it serves.

2. Minorities are not evenly distributed across the white-collar workforce.

Minorities (with the exception of Asian/Pacific Islanders) continue to lag White 

employees in representation, particularly in professional occupations. This reflects many 

factors, such as availability in the relevant civilian labor force, educational requirements, 

and possibly discrimination. 

111 “The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,” (PL 95-454), Sec. 3.

112 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Progress Report on Minority Employment 

in the Federal Government, 1996.

Looking Back at Progress 

Made and Challenges 

That Remain
60 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Looking Back at Progress Made and Challenges That Remain

3. Minorities have lower [pay] grades even after controlling for education, experience, 

and other advancement-related factors that are statistically controlled.

Again, minorities (excluding Asian/Pacific Islander employees) still have lower pay levels 

than White employees. Regression analyses suggest that ethnicity/race are somewhat 

correlated with promotion rates, but it is relatively minor compared to job-related factors 

such as occupational group, education, and experience. Occupation was not included in 

the earlier analyses, but we found that it warrants inclusion in our study model because 

of its significant impact on advancement. 

4. Promotion rates for professional and administrative positions are generally 

comparable across ethnicity/race, although some differences remain. 

Current promotion rates for ethnic/racial minorities and women in professional and 

administrative occupations, with the notable exception of American Indians, are 

generally comparable to Governmentwide averages. However, generally equivalent 

promotion rates do not preclude the possibility that discrimination exists. Our statistical 

analyses suggest that ethnicity/race may play a minor role in promotion rates, but 

occupation, education, and experience exert a much stronger pull on career progress. 

Further, ability, job performance, career interests, and the initiative of individual 

employees proved even more influential than ethnicity/race. 

5. Minorities receive, on average, lower performance ratings and fewer cash awards 

than nonminorities.

In our current analyses, we statistically controlled for agency and occupation and found 

differences in performance ratings across ethnic/racial categories to be small. Yet our 

analysis suggests that some differences persist. For example, in nearly every agency 

and agency component organization, White employees in nonsupervisory professional 

and administrative positions received ratings slightly above the average for the agency 

or component. In contrast, ethnic/racial minority employees tended to receive ratings 

slightly below the average for the agency or component, although averages for individual 

minority groups sometimes exceeded the mean. These patterns suggest that performance 

ratings are influenced by characteristics or factors correlated with ethnicity or race. These 

characteristics or factors may be job related (e.g., lower ratings may be associated with 

certain types of work) or performance related (because of differences in factors such as 

education or years of experience) or they may reflect discrimination. 

In terms of cash awards (individual performance awards and quality step increases), our 

analyses revealed that a lower percentage of minorities received these awards compared 

to White employees. Additionally, the cash awards that minorities receive, on average, 

are smaller in amount. Given that award amounts tend to be linked to salary, this result 

might partially reflect the lower median salaries of African American, Hispanic, and 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 61

Looking Back at Progress Made and Challenges That Remain

American Indian employees. It may also be linked to different values placed on certain 

occupations since members of some minority groups tend to be underrepresented in 

professional occupations.

6. Minorities are not provided with the same opportunities to demonstrate their 

abilities as nonminorities (e.g., serve as acting supervisor). 

Members of ethnic/racial minorities remain at a substantial disadvantage when it comes 

to career-enhancing opportunities such as serving as acting supervisor. (In fact, because 

the perceived importance of serving in an acting capacity has increased, minorities 

who do not have the opportunity to act in a supervisory position may find themselves 

even more disadvantaged than in prior years.) Similarly, American Indian, Hispanic, 

and African American employees are less likely than White or Asian/Pacific Islander 

employees to report that they are assigned to “critical projects.”

7. Minorities and nonminorities have significantly different perceptions about the 

degree to which discrimination may be present in the workplace. 

Although the opinions of minorities and nonminorities regarding the prevalence of 

discrimination have converged in recent years, a large discrepancy still exists among 

perceptions of each group. In particular, each ethnic/racial group is more aware of 

discrimination directed at its own group than at other groups, except that African 

Americans agreed with Hispanic and American Indian employees’ perceptions of 

discrimination against Hispanic and American Indian employees. This may exacerbate 

feelings of resentment as groups feel that other groups are dismissing their concerns. 

Additionally, in order to remedy a problem, recognition of the existence of a problem is 

a prerequisite. When some employees do not recognize that some groups believe they 

are treated disparately, such employees lack the motivation to address the concerns of the 

disadvantaged group, a consequence that can lead to heightened conflict and potentially 

the filing of lawsuits and other undesirable actions.113

8. Minorities and nonminorities have different perspectives on what measures, if any, 

are needed to achieve a more diverse workforce.

Our current findings indicate that minority employees remain more likely than White 

employees to support the consideration of ethnicity/race when making selections in a 

work unit where minorities are underrepresented. However, African Americans are the 

only group where a greater percentage support rather than oppose considering ethnicity/

race. 

113 D.R. Avery, P.F. McKay, and D.C. Wilson, “What Are the Odds? How Demographic Similarity Affects the 

Prevalence of Perceived Employment Discrimination,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 2008, pp. 235-249. 
62 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Looking Back at Progress Made and Challenges That Remain

9. Substantial numbers of Federal employees lack confidence in their organization’s 

ability to ensure equal employment opportunity. 

We have seen great progress in the confidence that employees have in their organization’s 

commitment to and ability to ensure equal employment opportunity. Nevertheless, gaps 

remain that need to be closed through continued efforts to improve the HRM processes 

within agencies. 

Recommendations From the 1996 Fair and Equitable Treatment 

Report With Brief Updates

1. Agencies should conduct their own analysis of differences in promotion rates, 

performance rates, and other aspects of the personnel process.

Beginning in 2003, as part of the Management Directive 715 process, each Federal 

agency has been required by the EEOC to conduct extensive analyses of the composition 

of their workforce and the personnel actions that shape it. Unfortunately, not all agencies 

are completing their reports in a timely manner.114

2. Assessments of progress toward ensuring equal employment opportunity should 

include gathering and addressing employee perceptions. 

Starting in 2007, agencies have been required under Federal law to conduct an annual 

survey of their employees.115 Covered topics include whether employees believe 

promotions are based on merit and employee satisfaction with opportunities to get a 

better Federal job. As part of the survey, employees also complete a brief demographics 

section. Data from these surveys should be used by agencies to improve the effectiveness 

of their workforce management practices. Additionally, OPM and MSPB periodically 

conduct Governmentwide surveys to assess employee satisfaction with various aspects of 

the work environment and use the results for recommendations on needed actions and, 

also in the case of OPM, to initiate actions within its areas of responsibility. 

114 The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Annual Report on the Federal Work Force Fiscal Year 2008. 

115 5 C.F.R Part 250, and the Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 164, Aug. 24, 2006, pp. 49979-49983. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 63

Looking Back at Progress Made and Challenges That Remain

3. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Federal agencies should 

continue to work toward development of better and more “user-friendly” tools for 

assessing candidates, that allow supervisors to more accurately and objectively rate 

candidates on job-related characteristics. 

The MSPB has conducted research studies and published several reports to foster a hiring 

process that is more user-friendly, less labor-intensive, and produces hiring decisions that 

are timelier, merit-based, and rely upon improved assessments. In particular, MSPB 

has urged Federal agencies to reduce their reliance on training and experience (T & E) 

ratings. Although T & E ratings have a role in hiring, applicant-provided narratives 

(and the technology-based alternative of self-assessment questionnaires) do not provide a 

reliable basis for selecting officials to reliably make fine distinctions among applicants. 

We continue to encourage Federal agencies to explore and develop alternatives to T & 

E ratings, especially for distinguishing among applicants who meet basic (minimum) 

qualification requirements. Recommended alternatives include structured interviews, 

accomplishment records,116 job simulations, job knowledge tests, and ability tests.117 

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

promotions, agencies and selecting officials should actively pursue the concurrent 

goals of the merit system principles, which call for: (a) selection and advancement 

based solely on relative ability, knowledge, and skills combined with (b) efforts to 

achieve a “workforce from all segments of society.” 

These goals continue to be the foundation for Federal agencies’ management of their 

employees. Our survey data show that in terms of selection decisions, employees agree 

with the goals. Our 2007 Career Advancement Survey results suggest that most 

employees want to be assessed on their “relative ability, knowledge, and skills” rather 

than their ethnicity/race. When asked on the survey whether the underrepresentation 

of minorities in a work unit should be considered when making a selection, 22 percent 

agreed, while 54 percent disagreed. Further, even though minorities were more likely 

than White employees to agree, African Americans were the only demographic group 

with more people agreeing than disagreeing. 

116 “An accomplishment record is a competency assessment based on applicant descriptions of their past 

accomplishments that are similar to key duties of the new position.” U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 

Issues of Merit, July 2008, p. 6.

117 Refer to MSPB reports on this subject, including The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential, 2003, 

and Job Simulations: Trying Out for a Federal Job, 2009.
64 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Looking Back at Progress Made and Challenges That Remain

5. Supervisors should understand and be able to clearly articulate to employees the 

criteria for evaluating employees for appraisals and awards and candidates for 

vacancies and promotion opportunities.

 

The current situation is mixed. According to results from the MPS,118 most employees 

(85 percent) know what is expected of them on the job and nearly 60 percent reported 

that their supervisor kept them informed about their performance. Sixty-six percent felt 

that their performance standards are fair. This suggests that most employees understand 

what they are supposed to be doing on the job and how they will be evaluated. 

Unfortunately, a disconnect appears to exist between performance and rewards, such as 

cash awards and pay increases. Only about half of the MPS respondents (in 2007) felt 

confident that rewards are based on performance, while only 40 percent expected better 

performance to result in more pay. As might be expected from this mismatch between 

performance and desirable outcomes for the employee, fewer than 40 percent reported 

satisfaction with recognition. Similarly, fewer than 40 percent felt they had been treated 

fairly in terms of awards within the past 2 years and about half felt the performance 

appraisal process was fair. Further, results from our 2007 Career Advancement Survey 

showed that over one in five employees felt their most recent performance appraisal 

rating was too low, which suggests employees lacked an understanding of either their true 

performance levels or what they were expected to do. 

Regarding promotion opportunities, 37 percent of MPS respondents felt they had been 

treated unfairly in terms of career advancement opportunities within the past 2 years. 

Likewise, employees expressed serious reservations about supervisors’ ability to rate the 

qualifications of applicants for jobs and to select people for promotions (slightly fewer 

than 40 percent thought the supervisor would be fair to a “great” or “moderate” extent on 

both of these items, with minorities being slightly less optimistic than White employees 

regarding the fairness of their supervisors). 

These findings suggest that employees do not feel confident that they will be rewarded 

and promoted as a result of their performance or qualifications. Further, it appears that 

they are confident that they are performing in accordance with expectations, but the 

agency, supervisor or both do not hold up their end of the bargain. 

In terms of selections, our results from the Career Advancement Survey suggest that 

employees have serious reservations regarding how fairly they are evaluated for promotion 

opportunities. Although perceptions of discrimination based on ethnicity/race have 

substantially declined, employees still feel they are treated unfairly, believing that “who 

you know” greatly outweighs “what you know” in the selection process. 

118 These analyses were conducted in preparation for the September 2008 MSPB report, The Federal Government: A 

Model Employer or a Work In Progress? Results reported are from the 2005 MPS unless otherwise noted. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 65

Although the Federal Government has made substantial progress in becoming 

a “model employer” and being viewed as treating employees fairly and 

equitably—regardless of characteristics such as ethnicity/race and gender, it 

remains clear that it has not achieved total equality. Some of the discrepancies will 

require concerted, long-term efforts to give people from all backgrounds an equal 

opportunity to excel in the work place. Other issues require continued attention and 

perseverance to ensure that applicants and employees trust agencies to treat them in 

accord with the merit system principles and, in fact, are treated in this manner. 

Fostering Fairness and Transparency

With increasing reliance upon flexible hiring and promotion practices and more 

discretion to supervisors in terms of managing pay and awards, agencies need to ensure 

that supervisors are carefully selected and trained, and held accountable, so they will 

operate in accordance with the merit system principles. Although critical, it is not 

sufficient for supervisors to treat people fairly; they also need to act with sufficient 

transparency to provide employees with confidence that they are indeed being given a fair 

and equitable opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities and be treated accordingly. 

In terms of selection decisions, transparency not only gives employees more confidence 

that outcomes are fair because they can see the entire process and the results, but it 

also puts subtle pressure on the deciding official to select the best qualified applicant 

according to publicly vetted standards. Having a rigorous and fair selection process in 

place makes it much more difficult, if not impossible, for a selecting official to pass over 

more qualified applicants to select a “friend.” Given the benefits of selecting the best 

qualified applicants, attempting to disregard the results of a valid screening process would 

be likely to call into question not only the credibility but also the competence of such a 

manager. 

If there is any doubt as to the potential return on investment from developing valid and 

reliable selection tools or the effort invested in employee evaluations for determining 

performance ratings, awards, and pay increases, agencies need to consider the potential 

negative impact on the workforce whose members do not believe they are treated fairly. 

Addressing the 

Remaining Challenges
66 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Addressing the Remaining Challenges

In recent years, we have witnessed resistance to pay for performance systems as employees 

have feared being treated unfairly when supervisors gain increased authority to divide up 

funding for pay increases. Ideally, performance would be the sole driver to determine 

how the cash is allocated. Unfortunately, analyses of some recent efforts to implement 

performance-based pay systems in the Federal workforce have revealed inequities by 

ethnicity/race.119, 120, 121, 122 Unexplained differences between groups in ratings or pay 

increases cannot be relied upon in isolation as evidence of discrimination, but such patterns 

warrant another look by the agency to determine what may be underlying this variance.123 

Additionally, as discussed earlier, MSPB’s prior research into the impact of employee 

engagement found that highly engaged employees are more satisfied and their agencies 

are more productive.124 We found that the converse is also true—employees who feel 

they are treated unfairly are more likely to be dissatisfied and express their discontent 

through actions, such as filing EEO complaints, appeals, and OSHA claims, and 

increasing their sick leave usage. 

Because of the potentially significant impact on employee morale and organizational 

outcomes, agencies need to strive to create open work environments where employees feel 

valued and believe that they have the ability to make the most of their potential. 

Agencies also need to understand that perceptions can be more powerful than reality. 

Although the majority of employees of all ethnicities believe that they personally have 

been treated fairly,125 the perception of one person that he or she has been treated 

unfairly may heavily influence others’ perceptions regarding the practice of merit in the 

workplace. Therefore, if an employee believes that another employee is treated unfairly, 

that suspicion can taint the first persons’ trust of the organization and, subsequently, 

that person may feel vulnerable to being subjected to unfair treatment. Similarly, when 

there is doubt regarding whether someone has been treated fairly, it is human nature 

to look for logical explanations to resolve the ambiguity. Given our society’s history 

of racial discrimination, it is not surprising that one of the first attributions raised is 

discrimination based on ethnicity/race. 

119 S. Losey, “Is DoD’s New Pay System Fair?,” from www.federaltimes.com, Aug. 10, 2008, “Race Still a Factor in 

DoD Pay Raises,” from www.federaltimes.com, June 8, 2009. 

120 S. Barr, “Hitting Merit Pay with a Fair-Play Standard,” from www.washingtonpost.com, Feb. 14, 2008.

121 B. Ballenstedt, SEC Scales Back Pay-for-Performance Ambitions, from www.govexec.com, Feb. 15, 2008. 

122 The Ivy Planning Group, Government Accountability Office African American Performance Assessment Study, Final 

Report, Apr. 25, 2008. 

123 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Questions for the Record Related to the Implementation of the Department 

of Defense’s National Security Personnel System, May 18, 2009. 

124 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, September 2008.

125 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Government: A Model Employer or a Work In Progress?, 

September 2008.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 67

Addressing the Remaining Challenges

Safeguarding Equal Opportunities in Employment

The EEOC serves an invaluable role as a protector of employee rights from 

discrimination, but only if employees are not afraid to speak up when they believe 

their rights have been violated. The EEOC enforces a variety of laws that flesh out and 

supplement the requirements of the merit principle regarding fair treatment of employees 

regardless of non-merit factors, such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or 

disability. The Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation 

Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act) heightens Federal agency responsibilities for eliminating 

discrimination and retaliation. EEOC Management Directive 715 (MD 715) mandates 

agency analysis and reporting of workforce data to facilitate equal employment 

opportunity in employment.126 However, not all agencies filed these reports in a timely 

manner in FY 2008.127 Although improvements were made in meeting reporting 

requirements in FY 2007, it appears that agencies still need to devote more time and 

attention to the timely collection and use of MD 715 data. 

Although reporting requirements create a sometimes unwelcome burden on agencies 

already overwhelmed by demands on them,128 agencies also need to realize that requiring 

specific information is not an exercise to appease an external entity, but one that produces 

valuable data that can be used to not only facilitate equal employment opportunity in the 

Federal workforce but also to achieve a fully engaged and highly qualified workforce. In 

particular, the data can help agencies to more fully utilize all components of the available 

applicant pools and to remove barriers to the development and advancement of the 

current workforce. 

Sometimes it is useful to look at trend lines to examine whether an event of interest 

is increasing or decreasing, rather than only focusing on the volume of events in a 

particular year. For example, the EEOC reported that workplace discrimination charges 

among employees (other than Federal employees) reached an all-time high during 2008, 

with a 15 percent increase compared to 2007.129 This contradicts the current trend in 

the Federal workforce towards decreased complainants (as shown in Figure 10), but only 

time will tell if the Federal Government can maintain its reputation as holding itself to 

a higher standard than other sectors in treating employees fairly. One would hope that 

this trend reflects a reduced incidence of discrimination in the workplace, rather than 

increased employee cynicism regarding the effectivess of the EEO process. 

126 29 C.F.R. 1614.602(c).

127 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Annual Report on the Federal Workforce Fiscal Year 2008.

128 As discussed in a 2006 GAO report, this burden results in part from duplicative reporting requirements 

that could be reduced if EEOC and OPM worked jointly to streamline the reports. Refer to U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, Equal Employment Opportunity: Improved Coordination Needed between EEOC and OPM in 

Leading Federal Workplace EEO, GAO-06-214, June 2006. 

129 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Reports Job Bias Charges Hit Record High of Over 

95,000 in Fiscal Year 2008, Mar. 11, 2009 press release. These results cover the private sector and state and local 

governments. Federal Government employees are covered under a separate report, Annual Report on the Federal 

Work Force.
68 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Addressing the Remaining Challenges

Figure 10. EEO Discrimination Complainants in the Federal Workforce Compared to Other 

Sectors, Fiscal Years 2002-2008

0

15,000

30,000

45,000

60,000

75,000

90,000

105,000

120,000

Other Federal Government

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

Source: EEOC data from the Annual Report on the Federal Workforce. 

Although the number of Federal equal employment opportunity complainants has 

trended slightly downward over the past several years, complaints based on race and color 

remain the most common, with African American employees filing the majority of these 

complaints. Complaints filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act have 

increased, a trend that corresponds with the growing prevalence of older employees in the 

workforce.

Among Federal employees, retaliation remains a common basis for complaints, 

suggesting that many employees who file a complaint perceive that they risk serious 

repercussions for doing so. In response to our Career Advancement Survey, over half 

of employees responded that filing a grievance or an EEO complaint would harm their 

career. Such concerns might prevent employees from filing a complaint but also lead 

them to assume that there is no satisfactory remedy for unfair treatment. Moreover, 

opinions on this topic were consistent for all groups. Thus, a lack of trust in supervisors 

and the agency may create an environment in which unfair treatment is uncontested, and 

wrongs are never righted.

While the EEO complaint system provides a means for employees to seek a remedy for 

discrimination on prohibited bases, such as sex, race, and national origin, our Career 

Advancement Survey results reveal that Federal employees lack confidence in the EEO 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 69

Addressing the Remaining Challenges

complaint process.130 For example, only 57 percent trust that management would take 

appropriate action against a supervisor who discriminated. African American, American 

Indian, and Hispanic employees were the most likely to lack this trust, although the 

percentage of employees in these groups who agreed is substantially higher compared 

to 15 years ago. Similarly, only 44 percent of employees believed that a charge of 

discrimination would be resolved justly, with African American and American Indian 

employees being least likely to agree. These data reveal that the EEO process lacks 

credibility in the eyes of Federal employees to resolve problems. In view of this situation, 

agencies should review their EEO complaint processes against best practices and strive to 

improve the credibility of the process.131 By strengthening the EEO complaint process, 

agencies will foster not only the integrity of the merit systems, but also the confidence of 

Federal employees that they will be treated fairly and equitably, consistent with the vision 

established in the merit system principles.

130 Concerns about the process are not limited to Federal employees. For example, the preface to a recent 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) study of equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint processes in 

Federal agencies states that “Delays in processing federal EEO complaints, apparent or perceived lack of fairness 

and impartiality in complaint processing, and fear of retaliation in the workplace, have been long-standing concerns 

of the EEOC, other federal agencies, and Congress.” Refer to U.S. Government Accountability Office, Equal 

Employment Opportunity: Pilot Projects Could Help Test Solutions to Long-standing Concerns with the EEO Complaint 

Process, GAO-09-712, Washington, DC, August 2009. 

131 The aforementioned GAO report on EEO complaint processes offers many ideas for agencies to consider. 

Although GAO’s formal recommendations are directed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the 

report also discusses recommendations offered by EEO practitioners to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of 

the EEO complaint process. Many of those recommendations, such as strengthening accountability, improving the 

knowledge and skills of the EEO staff, and reinforcing leadership commitment to EEO, are directed primarily to 

Federal agencies. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 71

Conclusions

Overall, progress has been made. However, substantial differences across lines of 

ethnicity and race persist—both in quantitative measures such as representation and 

pay, and in qualitative measures such as the perceived prevalence of discrimination 

and unfair treatment. And progress in a few areas—most notably, achieving full 

representation of minorities at the top levels of the Federal Government and in the 

employment of Hispanics in the Federal workforce, as well as eliminating favoritism from 

personnel decisions—has been limited. Although we have identified some of the factors 

contributing to these differences, this does not necessarily assuage the intent stated in the 

Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 to achieve a workforce that is “reflective of the Nation’s 

diversity.”132 

Many of the issues faced by the Government are the result of inequities fueled by 

socioeconomic discrepancies across society as a whole. These differences can play out in 

many ways, such as differential access to education or encouragement to follow certain 

career paths which impact preparation for Federal careers. The Government’s hiring 

process operates within the legal mandate that employees be treated fairly and equitably 

without regard to race and color.133 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000e et seq.) also prohibits employment discrimination based on race or color. This 

precludes not only discrimination against minorities but also taking actions that would 

benefit minorities but not others. As a result, the Government cannot make hiring 

decisions in a way that would advantage some groups at the expense of others. However, 

this does not suggest that the Government cannot make concerted efforts to improve the 

diversity of the Federal workforce at all levels. In fact, the Government has, and should 

continue to make progress to achieve a workforce that fulfills the ideals of the Civil 

Service Reform Act of 1978. 

To summarize the findings of this report, the Federal Government has—

• Increased the diversity of its workforce. However, progress has been uneven as all 

groups are not yet represented at the level found in the civilian labor force. These 

differences also appear at the higher pay levels and among supervisory and executive 

132 5 U.S.C. § 1101 note.

133 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1).

Conclusions and 

Recommendations
72 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Conclusions and Recommendations

positions. However, we cannot determine through our analyses whether these 

differences are due to discrimination based on ethnicity/race or to other factors 

that correlate with ethnicity/race, such as agency, occupation, geographic location, 

or education. Regardless, it is clear that minorities are underrepresented in both 

supervisory and executive ranks. The cause is not a lack of ambition—minority 

employees expressed interest in applying for higher level positions, including the 

Senior Executive Service, at rates higher than nonminority employees. 

• Our research did identify some possible contributors to this continued 

underrepresentation. The first is inequity in how agencies allocate acting supervisor 

responsibilities and critical, high-visibility projects or roles. As in our 1996 study, 

minority employees are less likely than nonminority employees to report receiving 

such career-enhancing opportunities. The second is a lack of employee confidence 

in agency hiring processes and selecting officials’ ability or willingness to judge 

applicants on their merits. Minority employees were more likely than nonminority 

employees to report that they had chosen not to apply for a position, believing that 

they would not be selected because of their ethnicity or race.

• Reduced, but not eliminated, differences in pay across lines of sex and ethnicity 

and race. The reality of higher potential salaries associated with professional and 

administrative positions and the dearth of minorities in these jobs translate into 

lower earning for minorities, not only at the time of hire, but with pay levels between 

groups diverging over time so that the differences become greater. A variety of 

factors, such as market pressures, determine the salaries associated with specific jobs, 

and consequently, the Federal Government has set wages in accordance with the 

values society has assigned to types of work. Therefore, given that African American, 

Hispanic, and American Indian employees are disproportionately represented in the 

lower paid technical, clerical, and blue-collar occupational categories, their salaries 

also tend to lag those of other groups. These patterns can be partly, but not fully, 

explained by differences in occupation, education, and experience. 

• Reduced the perceived prevalence and severity of discrimination based on ethnicity 

and race, but struggled to gain employee trust in agency leadership, the integrity 

of personnel processes, and the efficacy of grievance and complaint procedures. 

Opinions expressed on the vast majority of survey items have become more positive, 

suggesting that more employees believe that nonmerit factors such as sex and 

ethnicity/race play no (or at least a greatly diminished) role in personnel decisions. 

Yet employees expressed increasing concern about the role of favoritism in promotion 

decisions within the Federal Government. Many employees also expressed a lack of 

confidence in the EEO complaint process as an avenue to pursue redress when facing 

discrimination.

As outlined below, future progress depends on efforts from both Federal agencies and 

Federal employees.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 73

Conclusions and Recommendations

Recommendations

Agencies should—

• Recognize the importance of treating all employees fairly. Agency responsibilities 

extend beyond statements of support for diversity and fairness, compliance with 

antidiscrimination laws, and avoidance of prohibited practices. As outlined below, 

those responsibilities include an affirmative duty to: (1) measure and strive for 

progress toward a representative workforce; and (2) develop and implement personnel 

practices that treat employees fairly and support merit principles.

• Collect and analyze workforce data to drive improvements in representation. As 

detailed in this report, the Federal Government has yet to attain a workforce that 

represents “all segments of society.” Yet one in five agencies neglected to submit 

a timely MD 715 report in FY 2008,134 suggesting that agencies are assigning 

insufficient importance (or resources) to a process intended to identify groups that 

may be under-represented and barriers that may be hindering full representation.

• Incorporate fair practices into every aspect of human resource management. Specific 

areas to review, and actions to consider, are outlined below.

Specifically to avoid creating employment barriers to recruitment and advancement, 

agencies should—

• Use a variety of recruitment strategies to ensure that recruitment is both active and 

open with the objective of achieving an applicant pool that is both high-quality and 

representative. 

• Understand the impact of using different hiring authorities since these may impact 

the diversity or depth of the candidate pool. 

• Facilitate transparency of the selection process by telling applicants in the vacancy 

announcement what will be expected of them on the job and providing them with 

accurate and timely feedback throughout the process, including after the selection 

has been made. 

• Encourage greater use of structured assessments and a systematic approach to 

selection decisions. Although managerial discretion is inherent in hiring decisions, 

unstructured assessments and informal judgments tend to be more susceptible to 

unconscious biases that can operate to the detriment of women and minorities. 

134 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Annual Report on the Federal Work Force Fiscal Year 2008.
74 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Conclusions and Recommendations

Agencies can promote better and fairer decision-making by helping managers 

understand and articulate job requirements, and by providing managers with tools 

and guidance to help them systematically assess how well candidates meet those 

requirements. 

• Avoid overly relying on educational requirements as a proxy for desired skills, such as 

analytical ability or writing ability, which can be measured directly. 

• Evaluate the diversity of the pools of applicants and new hires to determine the 

success of recruitment efforts and to identify any differential impact of assessment 

criteria and methods. 

• Appreciate the importance of work assignments, feedback, informal coaching, and 

mentoring to employees’ long-term development, and remind supervisors of their 

responsibility to (1) support the growth and development of their employees and (2) 

ensure that employees are treated equitably in both formal and informal training 

and development. Supervisors cannot and should not force every employee to seek 

advancement or take advantage of available opportunities—but they should also not 

reserve challenging assignments and growth opportunities for only a favored few.

• Collect and monitor data, such as employee opinions and turnover, to identify 

actions that the agency should take to enhance retention of valued employees. 

Finally, in terms of ensuring accountability, agencies should—

• Strengthen selection, training, and accountability for supervisors. As the “front line 

of management” and the individuals who translate personnel policies into personnel 

actions, supervisors are critical to the goals of a diverse workforce and fair treatment. 

Agencies should emphasize the HR aspects of supervision when advertising and 

filling supervisory positions, and train supervisors to improve their ability to make 

unbiased, merit-based personnel decisions. Supervisors should understand that the 

requirement to treat employees fairly and equitably goes beyond formal personnel 

actions (such as appointments, promotions, awards, and pay increases) to include 

training, development, and opportunities for growth, such as the allocation of acting 

supervisor duties and critical work assignments.

• Take steps to improve employee confidence in existing complaint and redress 

processes. Survey results indicate that employees have little confidence in the 

established mechanisms, such as the EEO complaint process, for raising and 

resolving concerns about discrimination or unfair treatment. Good HR policies 

and fair, competent supervisors must be complemented by complaint and dispute 

resolution processes that are trusted, timely, and effective.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 75

Conclusions and Recommendations

Employees should—

• Understand the long-term implications of their decisions in matters such as 

education, occupation, and geographic location and mobility. Initial career choices 

can greatly expand—or limit—an employee’s long-term options and opportunities.

• Actively seek opportunities to further their career advancement. Although education, 

training, and quality and quantity of work experience are important, initiative is 

indispensable. Employees who volunteer for difficult assignments, and who identify 

and pursue training, and the development and acknowledgement of their efforts, can 

distinguish themselves from their peers and increase their chances of success when 

competing for promotion.

• Request feedback on performance and nonselection in a way that demonstrates 

their understanding regarding the value of constructive feedback. When employees 

convey to supervisors that they intend to improve themselves and need assistance 

identifying the areas that can be addressed, they are more likely to receive honest 

feedback than when the supervisor feels defensive. 

• Appreciate the power and value of supervisor and mentors in career development. 

Employees who establish good working relationships with supervisors and mentors 

can enhance their access to developmental opportunities, communicate their interest 

in further advancement, and obtain valuable insight into their career options, 

strengths and developmental needs, and strategies for career growth.

Summary

Over the past 30 years, the Federal Government has made significant strides toward 

providing fair and equitable treatment to all its employees. Unfortunately, this progress 

has been uneven, which has served to frustrate many who hoped that the Federal 

workforce would already have achieved a greater diversity at all levels. Therefore, it is 

important for Federal employees, from agency heads to first-line employees, to continue 

to strive to achieve a fully representative workforce that provides fair and equitable 

treatment for all.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 77

This appendix lists the Federal merit system principles enumerated in 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b).

• Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an 

endeavor to achieve a workforce from all segments of society, and selection and 

advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, 

and skills, after fair and open competition which ensures that all receive equal 

opportunity.

• All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable 

treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political 

affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or disability, 

and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights. 

• Equal pay should be provided for work of equal value, with appropriate consideration 

of both national and local rates paid by employers in the private sector, and 

appropriate incentives and recognition should be provided for excellence in 

performance. 

• All employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for 

the public interest. 

• The Federal workforce should be used efficiently and effectively.

• Employees should be retained on the basis of adequacy of their performance, 

inadequate performance should be corrected, and employees should be separated who 

cannot or will not improve their performance to meet required standards. 

• Employees should be provided effective education and training in cases in which 

such education and training would result in better organizational and individual 

performance.135

135 This may include paying for employees’ training and education, such as through tuition reimbursement. For 

information on tuition reimbursement, refer to 5 U.S.C. § 4109(a)(2).

Appendix A. 

Merit System Principles
78 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

• Employees should be—

– protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan 

political purposes, and

– prohibited from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of 

interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for election. 

• Employees should be protected against reprisal for the lawful disclosure of 

information which the employees reasonably believe evidences—a violation of any 

law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of 

authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 79

This appendix summarizes the prohibited personnel practices enumerated in 

5 U.S.C. § 2302(b).

A Federal employee with authority over personnel actions may not: 

• Discriminate against an employee or applicant based on race, color, religion, sex, 

national origin, age, disability, marital status, or political affiliation; 

• Solicit or consider any recommendation that is not job-related and based on personal 

knowledge of the employee or applicant;

• Coerce the political activity of any person;

• Deceive or obstruct any person from competing for employment; 

• Influence anyone to withdraw from competition;

• Give an unauthorized preference or advantage to an employee or applicant;

• Give employment advantages to relatives (i.e., nepotism);

• Retaliate against employees or applicants for whistleblowing;

• Retaliate against employees or applicants for filing an appeal, complaint, or grievance;

• Discriminate based on personal conduct which is not job-related;

• Violate veterans’ preference requirements; or

• Violate merit principles as stated in Section 2301(b) of Title 5, United States Code.

Appendix B. 

Prohibited Personnel 

Practices 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 81

1. As noted in the merit principles, one of the ideals of the Federal service is a workforce 

that represents “all segments of society.” How close is your agency to that vision? How 

well has it recruited and managed a diverse workforce? Where is it lacking?

2. “Fair and equitable treatment” is also mandated by the merit system principles. 

• Despite this ideal, in your agency, do personal characteristics that are not job-related, 

(e.g., sex, race, national origin religion, age, marital status) create challenges for 

employees in the workplace? (In other words, does discrimination still occur?) 

• Which personal characteristics have created challenges? Do certain groups have 

unique challenges in specific areas?

• What kinds of challenges (e.g., recruitment, hiring, advancement, training, pay, 

awards, performance appraisal, discipline, retention) do you see? 

• Based on your own observations, do you think the amount of discrimination has 

remained the same, increased, or decreased over the past 10 years? Are things better, 

worse, or the same compared to 10 years ago? 

3. How can agencies better manage a diverse workforce? Will these strategies differ by 

particular group (e.g., race/national origin, sex)? 

• Recruit

• Hire

• Train/prepare

• Advance/promote

• Manage performance (pay, performance management, awards, discipline)

• Retain

4. Do you feel that changes in the Federal civil service systems (e.g. pay for performance, 

changes in appeals and labor relations, changes in job descriptions and classifications) 

will affect fairness in the workplace? How? If so, what do you recommend to preserve 

the merit principles and ensure that employees are managed efficiently and effectively? 

Appendix C. 

Discussion Group 

Questions
Executive Summary

82 Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

5. In the spring, we plan to administer a Fair and Equitable Treatment survey of Federal 

Government employees to cover a number of the topics we’ve discussed today. What 

topics would you recommend that we cover in this survey? 

6. What can we (MSPB) do to ensure fair and equitable treatment of a diverse 

workforce? 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 83

Career Advancement 

Survey

Appendix D. 

2007 CAREER ADVANCEMENT SURVEY 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

OMB Control No. 3124-0013 

RCS# MSPB-2007-002. Expires December 31, 2007 

Dear Federal Colleague: 

You are part of a small group of Federal employees who have been randomly selected to participate in a 

survey conducted by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). This survey is part of a study 

examining Federal employees’ career advancement strategies and work experiences. This study will also 

review whether career advancement opportunities vary for different groups of employees. For the survey 

to reflect the true thoughts and experiences of all groups of Federal employees, it is extremely important 

that you complete and return this survey. We value your opinions! 

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent Federal agency, is responsible for monitoring 

the health of Federal merit systems by conducting studies of the Federal civil service and other merit 

systems in the Executive Branch to ensure they are free of prohibited personnel practices. For example, 

the study supported by this survey examines how Federal employees move through their Government 

careers, and what factors may help or hinder their career advancement. This research has combined a 

variety of information sources, such as this survey and data from the Office of Personnel Management’s 

Central Personnel Data File, interviews of key management officials and representatives of employee 

groups, discussions with groups of Federal employees in a variety of locations, and data from other 

MSPB surveys. We will summarize our findings and recommendations in a report to the President and 

the Congress. 

Your responses to this survey are voluntary and will be kept strictly confidential. The survey should 

take about 30 minutes and may be completed at your worksite or from another computer with Internet 

access. If you have any questions about this survey, please send your question in an email to 

CareerSurvey@mspb.gov or call our survey hotline at 1-888-260-4798. Additional information on this 

survey is available by clicking on the "MSPB Studies" tab on MSPB's website (www.mspb.gov). 

Thank you in advance for answering this survey. Your input will help us make recommendations to 

improve the ability of the Federal Government to recruit, retain, and effectively manage a top quality 

workforce. 

Sincerely, 

John Crum, Ph.D. 

Acting Director, Policy and Evaluation 
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board - 1 - FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: 

The Career Advancement Survey is divided into different 

sections containing a variety of questions. We would 

appreciate your response to each question. Some of the 

questions ask for your opinion regarding sensitive topics. We 

assure you that your responses will be kept confidential. 

Please answer these questions as truthfully as possible. 

Thank you for participating in this very important survey. 

MARKING INSTRUCTIONS: 

Î Place an 8 in the box next to your response. 

Î Use a blue or black pen. Do not use a pencil or a felttipped pen. 

Î Please print where applicable. 

Î To change your answer, cross out the incorrect answer 

and put an 8 in the correct box. Also draw a circle 

around the correct answer. 

True False 

Î Sometimes you will be asked to Mark all that apply. 

When this instruction appears, you may mark more than 

one answer. 

Î Please follow any arrows or instructions that direct you 

to the next question. 

MAILING INSTRUCTIONS: 

Please return your completed survey in the business reply 

envelope. If you misplaced the envelope, mail the survey to: 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

c/o Westat 

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20850 

PRIVACY NOTICE: 

Collection of this information is authorized by Title 5, U.S. 

Code, Section 1204. This survey has been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget in accordance with 5 CFR 

1320. 

Only MSPB staff and our survey support contractor staff will 

have access to the individually completed surveys. In 

accordance with the Privacy Act (PL-93-579, Title 5 U.S. 

Code, Section 552a), no data will be disclosed that could be 

used to identify individual participants. 

A. WORK SATISFACTION 

1. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement 

with each of the following statements. 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree Nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

a. In general, I am satisfied with 

my job....................................................

b. I am satisfied with my career 

advancement so far...............................

c. Overall, I am satisfied with my 

supervisor..............................................

d. I would recommend my agency 

as a place to work .................................

e. I would recommend the Federal 

Government as a place to work.............

2. How many years have you been employed on a full-time 

permanent basis as a civilian (not military) with the 

Federal Government? 

Less than 1 year.

 NUMBER OF YEARS 

3. Thinking back to when you applied for your first job with 

the Federal Government, 

a. In the first column, what obstacles did you face 

when searching for a Federal job? 

 MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

b. If you encountered obstacles, which ONE was 

the worst? Mark the ONE worst obstacle in the 

second column. 

Finding out about job opportunities...............................

The complexity of the hiring process.............................

The length of the hiring process....................................

Qualifying for a Federal position ...................................

Finding a job offer with good pay and benefits .............

I don’t remember the application process for my first 

job...........................................................................

I didn’t face any obstacles.............................................

Other - Please specify: _________________________

8 8
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board - 2 - FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

B. CAREER EXPERIENCES 

4. For the items listed below, please indicate the following: 

Step 1. In the first column, mark whether or not you have this 

or have done this, and 

Step 2. The impact you think the presence or absence 

of each has had on your career advancement in 

the Federal Government. 

Not Applicable/Don’t Know

Very Negative

Somewhat Negative

Neutral 

HAVE Somewhat Positive 

(9) Very Positive 

a. Formal educational 

qualifications (e.g., a college 

degree or higher).......................

b. Specialized or technical 

training.....................................

c. Leadership development 

program or managerial 

training.....................................

d. Developmental assignments 

to improve the depth of my 

experience...............................

e. Taken a lateral transfer 

(at the same grade) within my 

agency.....................................

f. Taken a lateral transfer 

(at the same grade) to 

another agency........................

g. Extensive past work 

experience...............................

h. High quality past work 

performance ............................

i. Acting in a position prior to 

appointment.............................

j. Contacts who knew the 

selecting official and 

recommended me....................

k. A supportive supervisor to 

encourage my development 

and advancement....................

l. Senior person/mentor (other 

than my supervisor) looking 

out for my interests..................

m. Networking through a 

professional association or 

other formal network................

n. Ability/willingness to take on 

challenging assignments .........

o. Ability/willingness to work 

long hours................................

p. Ability/willingness to travel 

whenever needed....................

q. Ability/willingness to relocate as 

needed .....................................

r. Other – Please specify:

________________________

5. Listed below are some personal characteristics. 

Step 1. In the first column, mark whether or not you have 

this, and 

Step 2. For the remainder, rate only the impact on your 

career advancement. We’re not asking for the 

specific nature of these personal 

characteristics. 

Not Applicable/Don’t Know

Very Negative

Somewhat Negative

Neutral 

Somewhat Positive 

HAVE Very Positive 

 (9) 

a. A foreign accent......................

b. A disability...............................

c. Family responsibilities.............

d. My gender...............................

e. My race/national origin/ 

ethnicity...................................

f. My marital status.....................

g. My sexual orientation..............

h. My political affiliation...............

i. My religion ..............................

j. My age ....................................

k. Other – Please specify:

________________________

6. From the list of factors shown in Question 4 and 5, 

please indicate the one factor (by writing in the question 

number and letter) that has had the greatest positive

impact and the one factor that has had the greatest 

negative impact on your advancement. 

Please write the question number in the first box and 

the letter in the second box. 

GREATEST POSITIVE IMPACT 

GREATEST NEGATIVE IMPACT 

7. How many jobs within the Federal Government have you 

applied for within the past 3 years? 

 NUMBER OF JOBS APPLIED FOR 

 Not applicable – I’ve been with the Federal 

Government less than 3 years. 

SKIP TO QUESTION 10 ON THE NEXT PAGE 

IMPACT 

IMPACT
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board - 3 - FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

7a. How many of these jobs for which you applied in the 

past 3 years did you not receive a job offer? 

 JOB OFFER(S) NOT RECEIVED 

 Not applicable. I haven't applied for any jobs or I've 

been offered every job that I've applied for within 

the past 3 years. 

SKIP TO QUESTION 10 

8. How important do you believe the following factors were 

in explaining why you did not get the most recent job you 

applied for but did not receive? 

Not Applicable/Don’t know/Can’t judge

Of No Importance

Of Little Importance

Somewhat Important

Very Important 

a. Another candidate was equally or 

better qualified in terms of work 

experience .............................................

b. I did not have enough education ............

c. I don’t interview well ...............................

d. Someone else had already been 

“preselected”...........................................

e. I did not have great references...............

f. I was not a friend or relative of the 

selecting official ......................................

g. The selecting official did not like me.......

h. My past performance..............................

i. My past conduct .....................................

j. My gender...............................................

k. My ethnicity/race/national origin .............

l. My marital status.....................................

m. My family responsibilities........................

n. My sexual orientation..............................

o. My political affiliation...............................

p. My religion ..............................................

q. My age (too old)......................................

r. My age (too young).................................

s. My disability ............................................

t. Other – Please specify: 

________________________________

9. From the list of reasons shown in Question 8, which do 

you believe is the most important reason you did not get 

the job? 

Please write in the letter corresponding to the most 

important reason.

 MOST IMPORTANT REASON 

10. In the last 3 years, did you choose not to apply for any 

promotion or developmental opportunity (for example, 

assignment to a high visibility task force or group project) 

because you thought that someone of your ethnicity or 

race or national origin had no chance of being selected 

for the job or assignment? 

Yes

No

Not applicable – There were not any promotions or 

developmental opportunities available during this 

time frame. 

Not applicable – I’ve been with the Federal 

Government less than 3 years. 

11. In the last 3 years, did you choose not to apply for any 

promotion or developmental opportunity (for example, 

assignment to a high visibility task force or group project) 

because you thought that someone of your gender had 

no chance of being selected for the job or assignment? 

Yes 

No 

Not applicable – There were not any promotions or 

developmental opportunities available during this 

time frame. 

Not applicable – I’ve been with the Federal 

Government less than 3 years. 

12. How many times in your Federal civil service career 

have you been temporarily promoted or detailed to a 

higher graded job for at least 30 days? 

 # TIMES TEMPORARILY 

 PROMOTED OR DETAILED 

13. How often in your Federal civil service career have you 

voluntarily made a lateral transfer to advance your 

career; that is, moved from one permanent job to 

another permanent job without getting a raise in pay? 

 # TIMES VOLUNTARILY MADE 

 LATERAL TRANSFER 

14. How often in your Federal civil service career have you 

voluntarily taken a downgrade to advance your career; 

that is, moved from one permanent job to another 

permanent job at a lower grade or pay level? 

 # TIMES VOLUNTARILY 

 TAKEN DOWNGRADE 
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board - 4 - FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

15. When your supervisor is away for a short period of time, 

is the responsibility to serve as the “acting supervisor” 

always assigned to employees at a higher grade than 

yourself? 

Yes GO TO QUESTION 16

No GO TO QUESTION 15a

Not applicable – no one acts for my supervisor 

when he or she is away. GO TO QUESTION 16

15a. How often are you asked to serve as the “acting 

supervisor” when your supervisor is away for a 

short period of time? 

Almost always 

Regularly

Occasionally

Very rarely

Never

16. If your supervisor had a critical project, how likely is it 

that it would it be assigned to you? 

Very likely 

Somewhat likely 

Somewhat unlikely 

Very unlikely

17. Is it likely that you will apply for a higher level position 

within the next 5 years? 

Very likely GO TO QUESTION 18

Somewhat likely GO TO QUESTION 18

Somewhat unlikely 

Very unlikely 

Not applicable – I am already a member of the 

Senior Executive Service. GO TO QUESTION 19

17a. If somewhat unlikely or very unlikely, why? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

I enjoy my current job. 

I am comfortable with my current level of 

responsibility. 

I like working with my current supervisor. 

I don’t want the stress of working at that level. 

I don’t want supervisory responsibilities 

(if applicable). 

I don’t want to work more hours. 

I don’t want to relocate. 

I have family responsibilities that would conflict 

with job requirements (such as travel or longer 

work hours). 

I don’t have the qualifications/ability. 

I don’t think I would be selected. 

The application process is too burdensome. 

I plan to retire soon. 

Other – Please specify: 

__________________________________ 

18. Is it likely that you will strive to be a member of the 

Senior Executive Service during your career? 

Very likely GO TO QUESTION 19

Somewhat likely GO TO QUESTION 19

Somewhat unlikely

Very unlikely 

Not applicable – I am already a member of the 

Senior Executive Service. GO TO QUESTION 19

18a. If somewhat unlikely or very unlikely, why? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

I enjoy my current job. 

I am comfortable with my current level of 

responsibility. 

I like working with my current supervisor. 

I don’t want the stress of working at that level. 

I don’t want supervisory responsibilities. 

I don’t want to work more hours. 

I don’t want to relocate. 

I have family responsibilities that would 

conflict with job requirements (such as travel, 

or longer work hours). 

I don’t have the qualifications/ability. 

I don’t think I would be selected. 

The application process is too burdensome. 

I plan to retire soon. 

Other – Please specify:

___________________________________ 

 
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board - 5 - FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

C. PERCEPTION OF THE WORK ENVIRONMENT 

The following questions ask about your perceptions of the work environment in the Federal Government. 

19. Based on your experience in your current organization, please mark whether you agree or disagree with each of the 

following statements. 

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

 

a. People are promoted because of their competence ..................................................................

b. People are promoted because of how hard they work...............................................................

c. People are promoted because of the number of hours they work .............................................

d. People are promoted because of whom they know ...................................................................

e. Women and men are respected equally ....................................................................................

f. The viewpoint of a woman is often not heard at a meeting until it is repeated by a man...........

g. In selecting among well-qualified men and women job candidates, the selecting 

official should consider whether women are under-represented in the work unit as 

one of the important factors in his or her decision .....................................................................

h. Standards are higher for women than men................................................................................

i. My organization is reluctant to promote women to supervisory or managerial positions...........

j. Minorities and nonminorities are respected equally...................................................................

k. The opinions and insights of minority employees are often ignored or devalued ......................

l. In selecting among well-qualified minority and nonminority job candidates, the 

selecting official should consider whether minorities are under-represented in the 

work unit as one of the important factors in his or her decision .................................................

m. Standards are higher for minorities than nonminorities .............................................................

n. My organization is reluctant to promote minorities to supervisory or managerial 

positions.....................................................................................................................................

o. In my organization, members of some minority groups receive preferential treatment 

compared to other minority groups ............................................................................................

p. In my organization, nonminorities receive preferential treatment compared to 

minorities....................................................................................................................................

q. Minority women face extra obstacles in their careers because they are both minority 

and female .................................................................................................................................

r. My agency has been successful in recruiting a diverse workforce ............................................

s. My organization only pays lip service to actively supporting the goal of equal 

employment opportunity for all employees ................................................................................

t. If a supervisor or manager in my organization was found to have discriminated based 

on prohibited factors (e.g., race/national origin or gender), management would take 

appropriate action against that person.......................................................................................

u. If I filed an action charging discrimination, I am confident that it would be resolved in a 

fair and just manner by my organization ....................................................................................
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board - 6 - FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

20. In your organization, to what extent do you believe that 

employees from the following groups are subjected to 

flagrant or obviously discriminatory practices that hinder 

their career advancement? 

Don’t Know/ Can’t Judge 

To No Extent 

To a Minimal Extent 

To a Moderate Extent 

To a Great Extent 

a. African Americans/Blacks ...............

b. Asians/Pacific Islanders ..................

c. Hispanics/Latinos............................

d. American Indians ............................

e. Whites .............................................

f. Women............................................

g. Men .................................................

h. People with disabilities....................

i. People over age 40.........................

j. I have experienced flagrant 

discrimination (based on non-job 

related characteristics) that has 

hindered my career advancement ..

k. I have experienced subtle barriers 

based on non-job related 

characteristics that have hindered 

my career advancement .................

21. If you’ve been a Federal Government employee for at 

least 10 years, what is your general impression of the 

amount of progress each of the following groups has 

made in moving into top-level positions in the Federal 

Government in the last 10 years? 

Not Applicable/Don’t Know/Can’t Judge 

Negative Progress (Things are worse now.) 

No Progress 

Minimal Progress 

Some Progress 

Considerable Progress 

a. African Americans/Blacks ............

b. Asians/Pacific Islanders ...............

c. Hispanics/Latinos.........................

d. American Indians .........................

e. Minority Men ................................

f. Minority Women ...........................

g. Nonminority Men..........................

h. Nonminority Women ....................

i. People with disabilities.................

22. In your opinion, does discrimination against minorities in 

the Federal Government occur more or less often than it 

did 10 years ago? 

I wasn’t in the Federal Government 10 years ago. 

Discrimination occurs more often now. 

Discrimination occurs with about the same 

frequency. 

Discrimination occurs less often now. 

Not applicable – discrimination against minorities 

has not been a problem in the last 10 years. 

Don’t know/can’t judge. 

23. In your opinion, does discrimination against women in 

the Federal Government occur more or less often than it 

did 10 years ago? 

I wasn’t in the Federal Government 10 years ago. 

Discrimination occurs more often now. 

Discrimination occurs with about the same 

frequency. 

Discrimination occurs less often now. 

Not applicable – discrimination against women has 

not been a problem in the last 10 years. 

Don’t know/can’t judge. 

24. Do you agree or disagree with each of the following 

statements? 

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

a. Some supervisors in my agency 

practice favoritism (giving an 

unfair advantage to friends or 

favorite employees)..........................

b. Some supervisors in my agency 

practice nepotism (giving an unfair 

advantage to relatives).....................

c. Filing a grievance would harm my 

future career.....................................

d. Filing an equal employment 

opportunity (EEO) complaint 

would harm my future career............

e. I have been disadvantaged by the 

emphasis on diversity.......................

f. In my organization, it is a 

disadvantage to have family 

responsibilities when being 

considered for a job..........................

g. A diverse workforce produces 

better services and products than 

a workforce that is not diverse..........

h. Agencies should ensure that their 

workforce is representative of the 

public they serve ..............................
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board - 7 - FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

24. (Continued) Do you agree or disagree with each of the 

following statements? 

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

i. I try to get along with my 

supervisors and managers even if I 

don’t agree with their decisions .........

j. I speak up whenever I suspect that 

I’ve been treated unfairly ...................

k. I “tell it like it is” even if my supervisor doesn’t like what I have to say..

l. If I work hard, I will succeed in my 

organization.......................................

m. I volunteer for difficult assignments ...

n. To be successful in my 

organization, it’s important to 

maintain a physical appearance 

(e.g., dress, hairstyle) that is similar 

to others ............................................

o. If I want to advance my career, I will 

have to play down my own ethnic 

and cultural customs .........................

p. I have experienced frustration (such 

as due to communication problems) 

in the workplace while trying to deal 

with a coworker of another race or 

ethnicity .............................................

q. I have experienced frustration (such 

as due to communication problems) 

in the workplace when trying to deal 

with a coworker of the opposite sex ..

25. If you think people are treated less favorably based on 

their race/ethnicity, gender, or age of 40+, please mark 

off the ways in which they are treated less favorably. 

Age (40+) 

Gender 

Race/ethnicity 

 

a. Recruitment........................................................

b. Initial hiring.........................................................

c. Selection for assignments..................................

d. Advancement/promotion ....................................

e. Telework/flexible schedules ...............................

f. Training/developmental opportunities ................

g. Compensation/pay .............................................

h. Performance management/appraisals ...............

i. Awards ...............................................................

j. Discipline............................................................

k. Retention efforts.................................................

D. PAY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 

26. To what extent does your supervisor provide 

constructive feedback on your job performance? 

To a great extent 

To a moderate extent 

To a minimal extent 

To no extent 

27. Compared to what I deserved, the performance 

appraisal rating that I received during my last appraisal 

was: 

Too high 

About right 

Too low 

I have not received a performance appraisal 

28. Do you feel you are usually expected to do work that is 

above, at, or below your current pay level? 

Work that is above my pay level 

Work that is at my pay level 

Work that is below my pay level 

29. Do you feel that you are paid more, about the same, or 

less compared to other employees in your agency who 

do similar work? 

More 

About the same 

Less 

Don’t know 

E. WORK/LIFE ISSUES 

30. Did you relocate geographically to take your first job with 

the Federal civilian service? 

Yes 

No 

31. How many times have you voluntarily relocated (moved 

geographically) for the sake of your career since you 

have been employed as a civilian with the Federal 

Government? 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 or more times 

32. Have you ever relocated to follow the career of your 

spouse or significant other? 

Yes 

No 
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board - 8 - FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

33. For each of the following statements, indicate the extent 

to which each applies to you. 

Don’t Know/ Can’t Judge 

To No Extent 

To a Minimal Extent 

To a Moderate Extent 

To a Great Extent 

a. I am willing to relocate to advance 

my career ...........................................

b. I am willing to devote whatever time 

is necessary to my job to advance 

my career ...........................................

c. I am willing to develop myself 

professionally (e.g., attend 

classes/training) on my own time 

and/or money .....................................

34. How many days per month, on average, have you spent 

on Government travel during the past year? 

None 

1-2 days 

3-5 days 

6-10 days 

11-15 days 

16-20 days 

21 or more days 

35. How many hours, on average, have you worked each 

week during the past year? 

40 hours or less 

41-45 hours 

46-50 hours 

51-55 hours 

56-60 hours 

60+ hours 

36. Which option most closely reflects how frequently you 

telework from an office within your home or from a 

telework center? 

Five days a week 

Twice a week 

Once a week 

Once every two weeks 

Once a month 

Twice a year 

Never 

37. Have you ever done any of the following to help balance 

work and life/family responsibilities? Second, what 

impact did this have on your subsequent career? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

Not Applicable/Don’t Know

Very Negative

Somewhat Negative

Neutral 

Somewhat Positive 

HAVE Very Positive 

 (9) 

a. Used flexible work 

schedules (alternate work 

schedules).............................

b. Used flexi-place (telework or 

telecommute) options............

c. Took significant blocks of 

leave intermittently (as 

needed to handle family 

responsibilities). ....................

d. Took leave for more than 4 

consecutive weeks ................

e. Switched to a less than fulltime schedule (less than 40 

hours a week)........................

f. Quit Federal job, but 

returned after a break in 

service...................................

g. Changed jobs within my 

agency...................................

h. Changed jobs by going to 

another agency .....................

i. My spouse adjusted his/her 

schedule................................

j. Other: __________________

38. Which of these would you like to do (or do more 

frequently) to help balance work and life/family 

responsibilities? MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

a. Flexible work schedules .................................................

b. Telework (also known as telecommute or flexi-place)....

c. Take leave intermittently (as needed) ............................

d. Take leave for more than 4 consecutive weeks .............

e. Switch to a less than full-time schedule 

(less than 40 hours a week) ...........................................

f. Quit Federal job, but return after a break in service.......

g. Change jobs within my agency.......................................

h. Change jobs by going to another agency.......................

i. Have my spouse adjust his/her schedule.......................

j. Other: ______________________________________
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board - 9 - FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

39. If you were to be promoted, how many additional hours 

per week would you be willing to work in your new job? 

0 hours 

1-5 hours 

6-10 hours 

11-15 hours 

16-20 hours 

20+ hours 

40. Has caring for children significantly impacted your 

availability for work? 

Yes 

No GO TO QUESTION 41 

40a. If so, for how many years (combining time if it was 

intermittent)? 

One year or less 

2-3 years 

4-5 years 

6-7 years 

8-9 years 

10-15 years 

More than 15 years. 

41. Have you had children (under the age of 18) living with 

you at any time during your Federal career? 

Yes 

No GO TO QUESTION 42 

41a. What was the greatest number of children (under 

the age of 18) you had living with you (at one time) 

during your Federal career? 

# CHILDREN 

42. Has caring for elderly family members or other adult 

dependent family members significantly impacted your 

availability for work? 

Yes 

No GO TO QUESTION 43 

42a. If so, for how many years (combining time if it was 

intermittent)? 

One year or less 

2-3 years 

4-5 years 

6-7 years 

8-9 years 

10-15 years 

More than 15 years. 

43. If you have/had any dependents (e.g., children, elderly 

or disabled family members) requiring care, would you 

say that you have/had primary responsibility for their 

day-to-day care? 

I have not been responsible for caring for any 

dependents. 

My spouse or another adult in the household had 

primary responsibility for caring for dependents. 

Responsibility was/is split 50/50 with another adult. 

I have/had primary responsibility. 

F. ABOUT YOU 

44. Are you Hispanic/Latino? 

Yes 

No 

45. Are you: MARK ALL THAT APPLY

American Indian or Alaska Native 

Asian 

Black or African American 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

White 

46. What is your gender? 

Male 

Female 

47. Is your immediate supervisor the same gender as you? 

Yes 

No 

48. Is your immediate supervisor the same race/national 

origin/ethnicity as you? 

Yes 

No 

49. What is the highest level of education (a) that you had 

completed at the time you got your first, full-time, 

permanent, civilian job with the Government, and 

(b) that you have now? 

a. At the time hired for first, full-time permanent 

civilian Government job 

b. That you have now 

Less than high school ...................................................

High school diploma or equivalent (e.g., GED).............

Some college, no degree ..............................................

Completed associate’s degree (e.g., AA)......................

Completed bachelor’s degree (e.g., BA).......................

Some graduate school, no graduate degree.................

Completed master’s degree (e.g., MA, MS)..................

Completed professional degree (e.g., JD, MD, DDS) ...

Completed doctorate (e.g., PhD) ..................................
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board - 10 - FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS 

50. What advice would you offer to someone from a similar background as yours who is interested in a career with the 

Federal Government? 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

51. What does the Federal Government need to do to better recruit and hire a diverse workforce? 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

52. What does the Federal Government need to do to better retain a diverse workforce? 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

53. Excluding the legally protected areas of race/national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, marital status, political 

affiliation, and sexual orientation, are there other characteristics that are not related to job performance that impact 

the way employees are treated-either positively or negatively? 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

54. Please provide any additional comments that you have regarding the fairness of employment practices within the 

Federal Government. 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN OUR SURVEY! 

PLEASE MAIL YOUR COMPLETED SURVEY IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE. 

If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the MSPB Survey Support Center 

Toll-free: 1-888-260-4798 (Monday through Friday 8:00am – 5:00pm ET) 

Email: CareerSurvey@mspb.gov 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 95

Professional work requires knowledge in a field of science or learning characteristically 

acquired through education or training equivalent to a bachelor’s or higher degree with major 

study in or pertinent to the specialized field, as distinguished from general education. Work is 

professional when it requires the exercise of discretion, judgment, and personal responsibility 

for the application of an organized body of knowledge that is constantly studied to make new 

discoveries and interpretations, and to improve data, materials, and methods, e.g., mathematics 

or engineering.136

Administrative work involves the exercise of analytical ability, judgment, discretion, and 

personal responsibility, and the application of a substantial body of knowledge of principles, 

concepts, and practices applicable to one or more fields of administration or management. 

While these positions do not require specialized education, they do involve the type of skills 

(analytical, research, writing, judgment) typically gained through a college level education, or 

through progressively responsible experience.

Technical work is typically associated with and supportive of a professional or administrative 

field. It involves extensive practical knowledge, gained through experience and/or specific 

training less than that represented by college graduation. Work in these occupations may 

involve substantial elements of the work of the professional or administrative field, but requires 

less than full knowledge of the field involved.

Clerical occupations involve structured work in support of office, business, or fiscal operations. 

Clerical work is performed in accordance with established policies, procedures, or techniques; 

and requires training, experience, or working knowledge related to the tasks to be performed. 

Clerical occupational series follow a one-grade interval pattern.

Other white-collar occupations. There are some occupations in the General Schedule that 

do not clearly fit into one of the above groupings. Included among these are series such as the 

Fire Protection and Prevention Series, GS-081, and Police Series, GS-083. 

Blue-collar are occupations whose paramount requirements are trades, crafts, and labor 

experience and knowledge.137

136 This definition and that of the other white-collar occupations came from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 

“Introduction to the Position Classification Standards,” TS-134, July 1995. This document can be found at http://www.

opm.gov/fedclass/gsintro.pdf.

137 This definition came from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Introduction to the Federal Wage System Job 

Grading System,” TS-44, September 1981. The document can be found at http://www.opm.gov/fedclass/fwsintro.pdf.

Appendix E. 

Occupational Definitions
PRSRT STD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

WASHINGTON DC

PERMIT NO. G-113

Fair and Equitable Treatment:

Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20419

Official Business

Penalty For Private Use $300

PRSRT STD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

WASHINGTON DC

PERMIT NO. G-113