I OF 

M E R I T 

i n s i g h t s & a n a l y s e s f o r F e d e r a l h u m a n c a p i t a l m a n a g e m e n t 

S i l v e r 

A n n i v e r s a r y 

E d i t i o n 

S u m m e r 2 0 0 4 

a publication of 

the U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board, 

Office of Policy 

and Evaluation 

W ’ S 

I 

Bane of “Rule of Three” 

Page 3 

Health of the Civil Service 

Page 4 

Taking Steps to Prevent 

Sexual Harassment 

Page 5 

Lessons Learned on 

Poor Performers 

Page 6 

OPM’s Achievements, 

Challenges 

Page 6 

Vacancy Announcements 

Page 8 

From Intern to Fellow 

Page 9 

Halting Discrimination 

Page 10 

Whistleblower Fears 

Page 10 

Federal Personnel Offices: 

Change Still Needed 

Page 11 

continued, page 2 

D ‘ S P 

years of MSPB. It has been a quarter of 

a century since MSPB became the 

successor organization to the Civil 

Service Commission through the Civil 

Service Reform Act (CSRA). Our sister 

date as the anniversary of its birth, as do 

the Federal Labor Relations Authority 

and the Office of Special Counsel. The 

CSRA, signed into law by President 

the American public service. This 

edition of Issues of Merit is dedicated to 

looking back at this 25-year history and 

related issues.

 I enjoyed looking back with pride at 

the items we have highlighted in this 

issue from past MSPB studies that 

document our influence. The Congress 

created MSPB to accomplish a single 

mission through a dual role. The single 

mission – as reflected in our name – is 

Celebrating 25 Years

 In this time of change, it is important to reflect on past successes. This 

historical perspective on the Merit 

accomplishments commemorates 25 

years of service to the Federal workforce. I invite you to reflect with me 

as you peruse this Silver Anniversary 

edition of Issues of Merit.

 In addition to assuming the 

employee appeals function from the 

Civil Service Commission 25 years ago, 

MSPB was also given the new responsibilities of performing merit systems 

studies and reviewing the significant 

actions of the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). Since that time, 

MSPB has been working diligently to 

preserve merit in the Federal workplace.

 I recently accepted the challenge of 

leading MSPB through this time of 

great change in the human capital 

environment. As you read on, I think 

you will see the importance of the work 

we do in sustaining merit. 

also see the challenges we continue to 

face. I am proud of the work our staff 

has done over the past quarter century 

and look forward to continuing this 

legacy into the future. 

Neil A. G. McPhie 

Acting Chairman 

M F T C 

S S U E S 

H A T

N S I D E 

I R E C T O R E R S P E C T I V E

 Welcome to the celebration of 25 

agency, OPM, also celebrates this same 

Carter, has had a significant effect on 

tying this backward glance to today’s 

System Protection Board’s (MSPB) 

You will 

E S S A G E R O M H E H A I R M A N 
U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board 

ACTING CHAIRMAN 

Neil Anthony Gordon McPhie 

BOARD MEMBER 

Susanne T. Marshall 

Office of Policy and Evaluation 

DIRECTOR 

Steve Nelson 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

John Crum 

Our Mission 

The MSPB Office of Policy and 

Evaluation conducts studies to 

assess the health of Federal 

merit systems and to ensure they 

are free from prohibited 

personnel practices. 

Issues of Merit 

We offer insights and analyses 

on topics related to Federal 

human capital management, 

particularly findings and 

recommendations from our 

independent research. 

Reprint Permission 

We invite you to reprint any of 

our articles. If you do so, please 

include the following attribution: 

Reprinted from Issues of Merit, a 

publication of the Office of 

Policy and Evaluation, U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board. 

For More Information 

Contact us through the web, 

e-mail, or phone: 

www.mspb.gov 

(select STUDIES page) 

STUDIES@mspb.gov 

202-653-6772 x1350 

1-800-209-8960 

V/TDD: 202-653-8896 

(TTY users may use the Federal 

Relay Service,800-877-8339) 

I OF 

M E R I T 

i n s i g h t s & a n a l y s e s f o r F e d e r a l 

h u m a n c a p i t a l m a n a g e m e n t 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Office of Policy and Evaluation 

1615 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20419 

S S U E S 

Retrospective on Accomplishments

(continued from page 1) 

to protect Federal merit systems 

overall, the merit principles in particular, and to exercise specific corrective 

authorities in instances involving 

prohibited personnel practices. Our 

dual role is to carry out this mission by 

adjudicating disputes over specific 

personnel actions and by conducting 

studies, analyzing data and reporting 

to the President and to the Congress – 

influencing both the Executive and 

Legislative branches.

 The outcomes for our agency are 

not easily measured within a fiscal 

year when the mission is specifically 

designed to take a long term approach 

to help guide, improve and influence 

the direction of the civil service. 

However, in looking through this 

issue, it is clear that our governmentwide studies have been successful in 

assessing the health of Federal merit 

systems and influencing the discussion about how to protect merit and 

improve the civil service.

 Consistent with recommendations 

we have made over the past 25 years, 

many improvements are taking place. 

For instance, the Congress and OPM 

have made category rating available 

to all agencies. The Presidential 

Management Fellows program is 

being expanded to improve its 

ability to recruit, select, and develop 

outstanding Federal leaders. 

Additionally, OPM is working with 

agencies to improve the way the 

government markets itself and its job 

opportunities to the public. These 

advances were achieved through a 

collaborative partnership among 

Federal agencies, OPM, and stakeholders. We believe that our research 

has helped shape those results as well.

 It is also clear, though, that there is 

still room for improvement. For 

example, there are still challenges in 

dealing with poor performers and 

strategically changing the way that 

personnel offices do business. Although there is more attention being 

devoted to the issue of sexual harassment and a greater awareness of the 

issue, the number of employees who 

feel they have been sexually harassed 

has remained unchanged over time. 

And employees continue to fear 

inaction and retaliation in response to 

whistleblowing. As part of our 

statutory responsibility, MSPB will 

continue to draw attention to these 

issues and identify ways in which 

agencies, and the government as a 

whole, can solve these enduring 

problems.

 The MSPB role is also to evaluate 

the effectiveness of OPM policies over 

time, and the articles in this issue show 

that often our recommendations have 

manifested themselves in improved 

policies and guidance by OPM. Our 

research shows that in its 25-year 

history, OPM has faced and met many 

challenges.

 OPM was created to better address 

the need for a central personnel agency 

to act for the Chief Executive and to 

align personnel systems with the 

strategic direction of the Administration. The fact that this change can 

result in a large improvement in 

responsiveness can be clearly seen 

in the current Administration. The 

OPM Director is integrally involved in 

achieving the President’s Management 

Agenda. The number one item on the 

President’s Management Agenda is 

Human Capital Management, and this 

continued, page 3 

2 
Merit-Based Hiring Undercut, Rather than 

Upheld, by Antiquated “Rule of Three” 

Category rating, a far better alternative, is finally available to agencies 

In December 1995, the Board released a report, “The 

Rule of Three in Federal Hiring: Boon or Bane?” questioning the need for the rule of three. Originating in the 

1870s during the Grant administration, the rule of three 

required managers to select their new hires from the top 

three available candidates referred to them. 

Our study found that the rule of three undermined, 

rather than supported, merit-based hiring. Thus, we 

advocated the elimination of the antiquated rule, and 

instead encouraged selection from among as large a 

number of well-qualified candidates as is reasonable and 

feasible. We also supported retaining “three” as the 

minimum number of candidates below which managers 

should be able to request referral of additional candidates. 

We specifically expressed support for replacing the 

rule of three with category rating, which replaces 

individual numerical scores with two or more broad 

categories. At the time of our study, parts of the 

Department of Agriculture were using this alternate 

assessment system under a demonstration project. 

Demonstration project evaluations and our own study 

analysis found that this alternative to numerically scoring 

applicants worked well. We also found that category 

rating led to hiring people eligible for veterans’ preference 

at about the same rate that they were hired through case 

Looking Forward 

(continued from page 2) 

agenda is successfully affecting operations in most of the 

major Departments and agencies. OPM still faces many 

future challenges, but today we remember the progress it 

has made.

 As we commemorate MSPB’s 25th anniversary, we 

celebrate our agency’s contributions to the human capital 

policy arena and are proud to share with you some highlights of our work. We also recognize that we are only 

one piece of the system of checks and balances that 

has been established to ensure that the American public 

is well served by its civil service. Therefore, as we look 

examining procedures. In addition, a higher proportion of 

veterans were hired through category rating than from 

certificates prepared from standing registers using the 

rule of three. 

MSPB was one of several organizations planting the 

seeds for changes to the rule of three in 1995. Other 

advocates for change included GAO and the National 

Advisory Council on the Public Service. OPM even 

drafted proposed legislation. However, it was not until 

January 2003, when the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

became effective, that all agencies were given this 

flexibility. A provision of that Act allows all Federal 

agencies to develop and implement a category rating 

system as an alternative to numerical scores and applying 

the rule of three. To ensure that managers get real 

choices, the law also allows a manager with fewer than 

three candidates in the top category to select from a 

merged category made up of the highest and second 

highest categories. 

We don’t know yet how many organizations have 

taken advantage of this assessment option, but we expect 

that most eventually will. When they do we’ll see an end 

to artificial devices such as random numbers to identify 

the “top three” candidates when there are many tied 

scores, and managers often will be able to select from a 

larger group of equally qualified applicants. �

toward the future, we look forward to a continued 

collaboration with other agencies, such as OPM and the 

Government Accountability Office, that has worked well 

to protect the culture of merit in the Federal Government 

over the past 25 years. 

Steve Nelson 

Director, Policy and Evaluation 

3 
MSPB Merit Principles Surveys:

Checking the Health of Federal Civil Service

One of MSPB’s important missions is to monitor the 

“health” of our Federal civil service and to ensure that the 

American public is served by a workforce that is both free 

from prohibited personnel practices and governed by 

merit principles. 

One tool that helps MSPB to carry out this 

responsibility is the Merit Principles Survey (MPS). Since 

the first MPS in 1983, this “thermometer” of the civil 

service has given us 

insights into the 

perceptions of the 

workforce and issues that 

need to be addressed. 

MSPB has 

administered six of the 

surveys: in 1983, 1986, 

1989, 1992, 1996, and 

2000. Each MPS was 

distributed 

governmentwide to large 

random samples of 

employees and each 

asked questions related 

to prohibited personnel 

practices, fair treatment, 

supervision, productivity, 

and other related 

workforce management 

issues. 

While the core issues 

tended to remain the 

same, each survey also 

included questions related to issues of particular 

importance at the time. For example, merit pay was a 

major focus of the 1983 survey, the 1986 survey examined 

job satisfaction, the 1992 survey revisited earlier studies 

of whistleblowing, and the 2000 survey examined the 

effects of downsizing in the 1990s and the reasons 

employees stay or leave Federal service. 

While selected questions have highlighted specific 

issues to be addressed over the years, some perceptions 

have remained quite stable over time, even though there 

can be substantial subgroup or agency differences. 

Generally, less than 5 percent of employees perceived 

unlawful partisan political pressures, nepotism in hiring, 

or denials of jobs because of disability, marital status, or 

religion. 

Perceptions of retaliation range from 5 to 10 percent, 

while perceived job denials based on RNO, sex, and age 

range from 10 to 15 percent of survey respondents. 

Around 60 percent are satisfied with their supervisor, and 

about 70 percent report general satisfaction with their job. 

Trends in Job Satisfaction 

in the Federal Civil Service 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Surveys, 1989, 1992, 1996, and 2000. 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

job. 

j

1989 

1992 

1996 

2000 

In general, I am satisfied 

with my

The work I do on my ob is 

meaningful to me. 

I would recommend the 

Federal Government as a 

place to work. 

(See the table above for a closer look at trends in job 

satisfaction measures, drawn from surveys in 1989, 1992, 

1996 and 2000.) 

Overall, the governmentwide results provide 

benchmarks against which managers can compare their 

views and compare themselves to other organizations. 

Inevitably, the survey findings flag critical problem areas 

that need to be addressed and other areas where we can 

do better, but generally, some two-thirds of the indicators 

tend to be positive. To understand more about the 

current health of the Federal civil service, MSPB plans to 

issue another MPS in the near future. �

4 
Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workforce

Problems Persist Despite 

Increased Awareness 

At the request of Congress, MSPB conducted a 

landmark study of sexual harassment in the Federal 

workplace in 1980, with follow up studies in 1987 and 

1995. In the first survey, an alarming 42% of women 

and 15% of men reported that they had experienced 

some form of unwanted sexual attention during the 

preceding two years. Perhaps even more surprisingly, 

these numbers remained consistent over the 

subsequent fifteen years. Given the extensive efforts 

within the Federal Government to address this issue, it 

is a bit discouraging that so many employees still 

experience harassment. 

Although the incidence rate for sexual harassment 

has remained constant, it is quite probable the nature 

of what is considered harassment has changed. To 

combat sexual harassment, many Federal agencies have 

implemented widespread training for supervisors and 

employees (although they haven’t necessarily 

evaluated the effectiveness of these efforts in 

preventing sexual harassment). Most have also 

publicized policies prohibiting sexual harassment and 

informed employees regarding how to report 

harassment. As a result, the continued high levels of 

sexual harassment may reflect that more incidents are 

now viewed as harassment due to greater awareness of 

what constitutes sexual harassment and more 

were more likely than men to view some of these 

behaviors as off-limits in the workplace. 

Training and policies are essential steps in the right 

direction. But Federal agencies can and should do 

more to combat sexual harassment. First, agencies 

need to understand the extent and nature of sexual 

harassment in their organizations to help identify 

where to focus their efforts and to select the 

appropriate remedies. Second, agencies need to 

implement the most effective strategies to prevent 

sexual harassment. Training should raise awareness 

about sexual harassment by supervisors and 

coworkers, while encouraging employees to consider 

direct actions, such as confronting harassers and 

telling them to stop. Agencies also need to continue 

publicizing policies and penalties. In fact, the 2002 

Notification and Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination 

and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act requires agencies to 

make employees aware of discrimination laws and to 

summarize complaint statistics on their websites. 

Finally, managers and supervisors must be firm and 

consistent with these penalties for proven harassers, 

regardless of rank or position. 

Although eradicating sexual harassment in the 

Federal workforce requires an investment of resources, 

it greatly outweighs the potential costs to the morale 

and productivity of Federal agencies and their 

employees. Progress has been made, but more remains 

to be accomplished to achieve a workplace that 

confidence that these complaints will be handled maintains the high level of ethical behavior required of 

properly, rather than the more discouraging conclusion all Federal employees. �

that the same level of sexual harassment 

persists in the workplace. 

Another finding from the studies 

was that Federal employees didn’t yet 

share a common definition of sexual 

harassment. Responses to the MSPB 

surveys revealed that a majority of men 

and women viewed uninvited 

behaviors, such as pressure for sexual 

favors, deliberate touching, suggestive 

calls and letters, pressure for dates, 

suggestive looks, and sexual teasing, 

jokes and remarks to be sexual 

harassment. However, the results also 

indicated a gender gap because women 

What is Sexual Harassment? 

EEOC’s guidelines (29 C.F.R. Part 1604.11) define sexual 

harassment as “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for 

sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual 

nature...when (1) submission to such conduct is made either 

explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s 

employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by 

an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions 

affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose 

or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work 

performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive 

working environment.” 

5 
Lessons Learned on Removing Poor Performers

A primary goal of the Civil Service Reform Act 

(CSRA) was to enable Federal managers to remove poor 

performers. It is clear, 25 years after the CSRA, that this 

goal has not been fully achieved: Federal employees do 

not believe that their supervisors deal effectively with 

poor performance; the procedures established by CSRA 

for correcting poor performance are little-used; and 

current personnel reform initiatives – notably those in the 

Departments of Homeland Security and Defense – 

emphasize the need to strengthen employee 

accountability for both performance and conduct. In this 

article, we outline “lessons learned” from over 20 years of 

MSPB research on this topic. 

Poor performers are relatively rare but highly 

harmful. MSPB estimates that less than four percent of 

Federal employees are truly poor performers. Yet such 

employees materially reduce organizational productivity. 

In our 2000 Merit Principles Survey, employees who 

indicated that their work unit had one or more poor 

performers were only half as likely to rate their work unit 

as highly productive as employees whose work units had 

no such employees. Also, poor performers – especially if 

tolerated by management – can make their coworkers 

resentful and less inclined to “go the extra mile.” 

The most prominent barriers to dealing with poor 

performance are based in organizational culture, not in 

procedures. In our 2000 Merit Principles Survey, 

supervisors who reported difficulty in dealing with a poor 

performer cited organizational culture factors as a problem 

more often than they cited procedural factors. For 

example, 63% percent of supervisors cited a lack of 

confidence in the agency’s performance management 

process, and 60% percent cited a lack of support from 

higher level management – more than cited concerns such 

as subjectivity of performance standards (31%) or a lack 

of training (35%). 

A long-term view is necessary. Supervisors report 

that removing a poor performer entails significant shortterm pain, which may include delivering bad news to an 

unreceptive or hostile employee; documenting and 

defending an adverse action; lost productivity; and the 

job stress associated with affecting someone’s livelihood. 

So it’s particularly important that agency supervisors and 

continued, page 7 

The Office of Personnel Management was 

established by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 

1978 to provide the Federal civil service system with 

leadership, guidance and oversight. MSPB was also 

created by the CSRA and given the responsibility to 

review and report on the significant actions of OPM. 

The first report, “U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management and the Merit System: A Retrospective 

Assessment,” was published in 1989 and reviewed the 

MSPB 

personnel examining authorities. The report also noted 

that OPM had renewed its emphasis of this 

responsibility after retreating from it for some years. 

OPM also indirectly “delegated” responsibility to 

agencies for assuring that their hiring procedures were 

free of prohibited personnel practices. 

oversight efforts during these years seemed narrowly 

focused on agency use of specific authorities. MSPB 

did not find OPM oversight effective in identifying and 

addressing systemic problems in the larger body of 

personnel regulations and procedures. 

Personnel Management in Retrospect: Achievements 

delegating personnel authorities to agencies, and 

recognized new achievements in encouraging diversity 

and family-friendly workplace flexibilities. MSPB was 

oversight of agency HR practices. Nevertheless, the 

leadership in creating effective staffing and 

compensation systems. 

the “wealth of experience, professionalism, and 

�

MSPB Reports on OPM’s Achievements and Challenges 

MSPB’s formal studies of OPM have included two 

summary reports that examine OPM’s impact. 

first ten years of OPM’s significant actions. 

praised OPM’s work with agencies to delegate 

However, MSPB expressed concern that merit principles 

were not adequately protected in OPM’s delegation of 

Schedule B excepted service hiring authority. 

OPM’s 

MSPB’s second report, “The U.S. Office of 

and Challenges After Two Decades,” was published in 

2001 and highlighted OPM’s continued successes in 

pleased to note OPM’s progress in strengthening 

second report also expressed concerns about OPM’s 

OPM’s new director expressed 

appreciation for this report, echoing MSPB’s praise for 

wisdom” of OPM’s career civil servants. 

6 
Understanding the Problem of Poor Performers

(continued from page 6) 

leaders emphasize long-term 

considerations of morale and 

productivity when making decisions 

concerning a poor performer. 

Otherwise, it is very tempting to 

ignore or “work around” the poor 

performance, at significant cost to 

organizational effectiveness. 

Two tracks may be one too many. 

CSRA created separate procedures for 

adverse actions based on poor 

performance (“Chapter 43”) and 

adverse actions based on conduct 

(“Chapter 75”). The accompanying 

table outlines the most important 

differences between these two 

procedures. CSRA’s goal was to make 

it easier for Federal supervisors to 

improve or remove a poor performer. 

Yet Chapter 43 procedures are littleused and may confuse supervisors 

more than they help them. For this 

reason, in our 1995 issue paper 

“Removing Poor Performers in the 

Federal Service,” we stated that “it is 

time to ask whether the Chapter 43 

provisions that were intended to 

An Overview of Title 5’s “Dual Track” 

for Dealing with Poor Performers 

Chapter 43 

Actions covered 

Chapter 43 covers actions based 

on unacceptable performance. 

Chapter 75 

Actions covered 

Chapter 75 covers actions taken to 

promote the “efficiency of the 

service.” Such actions are usually 

based on misconduct, but can also 

be based on poor performance. 

Showing “nexus” 

The agency does not have to show 

“nexus” – that its action will 

promote the efficiency of the 

service. 

Showing “nexus” 

The agency must show nexus. 

Standard of evidence 

The standard of evidence is 

“substantial” – the agency’s case 

must be plausible. 

Standard of evidence 

The standard of evidence is 

“preponderant” – the agency’s 

case must be supported by the 

balance of the evidence. 

Mitigation 

MSPB may mitigate the penalty. 

Mitigation 

MSPB may not mitigate the 

penalty. 

simplify matters have themselves proven so complex that 

they are now a part of the removal system’s problems.” 

Removing a poor performer is not a “do it yourself” 

job. Supervisors will be reluctant to attempt to remove a 

poor performer when they receive unclear or 

contradictory advice. Supportive leaders and simplified 

procedures can do much to “empower” supervisors to 

deal with poor performers. Nevertheless, the supervisors 

cannot be expected to document and defend a removal for 

poor performance entirely on their own. The legal 

requirements and potential ramifications of such an action 

are simply too complex. Assistance from competent HR 

professionals and legal counsel remain essential, for both 

technical and moral support. 

Removing a poor performer is possible. The 

challenges and barriers discussed above should not 

overshadow the fact that agencies can and do remove 

poor performers. And data shows that such actions 

usually succeed. In our 1999 report “Federal Supervisors 

and Poor Performers,” we noted that “most employees 

whose removal or demotion is proposed do not challenge 

management’s action and do not appeal to the MSPB, the 

EEOC, or other third parties.” Those who do appeal to 

the MSPB are unlikely to succeed: over the years, MSPB 

has sustained agencies’ actions much more often than it 

has reversed them. 

The Future. Changes are coming. The Department of 

Homeland Security has proposed significant changes to 

adverse action processes, including the elimination of the 

“dual track.” Similar changes are likely to appear in the 

Department of Defense’s new personnel system. Time 

will tell whether these changes make it easier to address 

poor performance. However, one thing is already clear: 

that changes to rules and regulations are, at best, only 

one piece of the puzzle. Leadership support, 

determination, and evenhandedness are also essential 

pieces of the puzzle – and ones that cannot be created by 

legislation alone. �

7 
Federal Vacancy Announcements: Help Needed

Our April 2003 report on the quality of Federal 

vacancy announcements was timely: the aging of the 

Federal workforce and the retirements that will follow 

mean that the Federal Government will need to issue quite 

a few of them in the near future. Our review of Federal 

vacancy announcements, however, suggests that 

agencies aren’t quite ready to wage a successful war for 

talent. 

The Board found much room for improvement in 

Federal vacancy announcements. Most were poorly 

written; few attempted to “sell” the government, the 

agency, or the job being announced. Many 

announcements were so bureaucratic and obscure that 

they were more likely to repel applicants than to attract 

Highlights of Common Problems Plaguing 

Vacancy Announcements 

Jargon and acronyms are prevalent 

Undefined terms such as “career/career-conditional appointment” and “PCS” 

may suggest a closed process geared to insiders rather than thoughtful 

consideration of all applicants. 

Templates and “canned” language are used ineffectively 

One announcement for a GS 6/7 administrative program assistant included 

the following: “Veterans Preference is not a factor for Senior Executive 

Service jobs ....” 

Job titles and duties are unclear 

An announcement for an Assistant Crossing and Trespasser Regional Manager 

sounds as if the agency is looking for someone to manage assistant crossings 

(whatever they might be) and trespassers. 

Minimum qualification requirements are vague 

Many times, the requirements language in the announcements presuppose 

that applicants know about the Federal classification and qualification 

standards, as well as the organization’s line of advancement. 

Announcements are negative and even threatening 

One announcement for a laborer grade 2 position said, “If you make a false 

statement in any part of your application, you may not be hired; you may be 

fired after you begin work; or you may be subject to fine, imprisonment, or 

other disciplinary action.” 

Poor service and limited methods to apply 

Common statements in vacancy announcements include, “Don’t call,” “We 

WILL NOT accept FAX,” “If you fail to submit a COMPLETE on-line resume, 

you WILL NOT be considered,” and “Paper applications WILL NOT be 

accepted.” 

them. This does not bode well for agencies’ quests for 

talent, because vacancy announcements are the main 

source, and often the only source, of public information 

on Federal employment opportunities. 

However, our research revealed that the poor quality 

of Federal vacancy announcements we noted is actually 

an indication of larger problems in agency staffing 

programs. Two of these problems are the use of flawed 

assessment strategies and deficient recruiting strategies. 

Assessment Strategy 

Ideally, agencies should tailor their assessment 

methods to the job being filled so that they can identify 

and select the most competent candidates. 

Unfortunately, such 

tailoring is infrequent. Too 

often, agencies take a “one 

size fits all” approach, 

relying heavily on training 

and experience to assess 

applicants. Evaluation of 

training and experience is 

convenient; it demands less 

of agencies than other 

assessment tools such as 

written tests, work samples, 

or assessment centers. 

And evaluation of training 

and experience is 

appropriate for jobs that 

require a “track record.” 

However, the use of training 

and experience is 

problematic for jobs where 

high potential applicants 

may have the competencies 

to do the job well, yet lack 

the required experience or 

education. 

Recruiting Strategy 

Agencies’ lack of a 

comprehensive recruiting 

strategy is apparent in how 

they publicize job 

continued, page 9 

8 
From Intern to Fellow, PMI Grows Up

After 27 years, the Presidential Management Intern 

(PMI) program has apparently “grown up.” By executive 

order in November 2003, the President renamed it the 

Presidential Management Fellows Program. The new 

name distinguishes it from other government intern 

programs, such as the Federal Career Intern Program and 

student intern programs. This is no mere name change, 

however. The executive order eliminates the 400 limit that 

can be hired, allows excepted service agencies to use the 

program, and creates two distinct components: a Fellows 

program for those fresh out of graduate school and a 

Senior Fellows program for those with extensive 

managerial or professional experience. Depending on 

their qualifications, Fellows may now be appointed at 

grades up to grade GS-12 (compared to only GS-9 before), 

and Senior Fellows at grades GS-13 to GS-15. These 

changes strengthen the program’s status as one of the 

government’s premier mechanisms to recruit, select, and 

develop outstanding future leaders and managers. 

The PMI program has not always been viewed this 

way. In our August 2001 study, we found that while the 

program was thought of highly, it lacked focus. More 

than one out of every five supervisors of PMIs viewed 

the program simply as a method for hiring individuals 

with graduate degrees and rather than selecting and 

hiring people for their managerial and leadership 

potential. The Board recommended that OPM: (1) refocus 

and strengthen the program as a tool for attracting those 

with exceptional management potential; and (2) ensure 

that people selected have the competencies needed to 

lead and manage and are provided the training and 

developmental opportunities necessary to succeed. 

Consistent with this recommendation, the new executive 

order set the groundwork for this by stating that the 

program’s purpose is to attract outstanding individuals 

who “have a clear interest in, and commitment to, 

excellence in leadership and management of public 

policies and programs.” 

Our report also cited some inflexibility in the program 

that could potentially jeopardize continued interest in the 

program. The old PMI program only allowed agencies to 

hire PMIs at grade GS-9, although some candidates 

possessed qualifications (e.g., doctoral degrees or 

extensive higher-graded work experience) that qualified 

them for appointment at GS-11 or above. The new 

Fellows program corrects this weakness. 

Given that candidates can be directly appointed to 

senior positions, up to and including GS-15, thorough 

assessment is critical to ensure good selection. Time and 

money spent on proper assessment is an excellent 

investment; indeed, studies have shown that selecting 

the wrong person for a Federal job can cost many 

thousands of dollars, estimated at up to three times the 

employee’s annual salary. According to OPM’s proposed 

regulations, the assessment process for the Fellows and 

Senior Fellows programs will include an “evaluation of 

each candidate’s experience and accomplishments” and 

“a rigorous structured assessment process.” We 

encourage OPM to ensure the assessment process is not 

only rigorous, but also valid, reliable, and efficient. �

Federal Vacancy Announcements Show Need for Improvement

(continued from page 8) 

opportunities. Our survey of HR specialists showed that 

agencies rely almost exclusively on USAJOBS, the 

government’s central career opportunity site, to advertise 

their jobs. Unfortunately, the announcements posted 

here are rarely attractive, well-written and clear. Further, 

relying on USAJOBS alone may not be sufficient to reach 

all potential applicants, especially those unfamiliar with 

Federal Government hiring procedures. 

Improvement is Possible 

At the time of our review, USAJOBS was visually 

unattractive and its search feature was difficult to use. 

But since the publication of our report, OPM has 

overseen major improvements in USAJOBS. Consistent 

with our recommendation to improve USAJOBS, OPM, 

through its Recruitment One-Stop e-gov initiative, has 

enhanced the site to make it more appealing and easier to 

use. These enhancements appear to be well-received: 

since its re-launch in August 2003, USAJOBS has had 42 

million visitors, according to OPM. 

However, not all improvements to vacancy 

announcements can be accomplished through 

technology. The problems we noted above are 

substantive ones that simply revamping USAJOBS won’t 

fix. Only by addressing assessment and recruitment can 

these problems be solved effectively. �

9 
Report Updates Planned for the Near Future 

Halting Discrimination Against Women

and Minorities in the Federal Workforce

Recent class action lawsuits against Wal-Mart, 

Morgan Stanley, and other companies illustrate the 

American expectation that businesses hire, reward, and 

promote based on merit, as opposed to personal 

characteristics unrelated to job performance. Certainly 

Americans would expect at least as much from their 

government. Undoubtedly the law requires it; the Federal 

civil service is supposed to be blind to personal 

characteristics unrelated to job performance and in fact 

should reflect our nation’s diversity. How does the 

Federal Government stack up? 

Almost decade ago, MSPB asked this question in two 

landmark reports that examined to what extent gender and 

race marred hiring, awards, and promotions in the Federal 

Government: “A Question of Equity: Women and the 

Glass Ceiling in the Federal Government” (1992) and “Fair 

and Equitable Treatment: A Progress Report on Minority 

Employment in the Federal Government” (1996). In these 

reports, we found that both women and minorities were 

more heavily concentrated in lower-graded jobs – and 

this unequal concentration could not be fully explained 

by varying education and experience levels. 

Women were particularly hampered by the fact that 

they were not promoted to the critical grades of 9 and 11 

at the same rate that men were, meaning fewer women 

would be available for higher-graded jobs. While many 

minority groups were employed at a rate roughly equal to 

their representation in the civilian labor force, Hispanics 

remained underrepresented. 

In addition, significant percentages of women and 

minorities believed they had been overlooked for awards 

and/or promotions, as well as subjected to subtle 

discrimination, because of their gender or race. All told, 

while progress had been made from the 1970s, much work 

remained to be done. 

To examine whether and to what extent such 

inequitable treatment still exists today, MSPB plans to 

update both reports in the near future. �

Potential Whistleblowers Fear Inaction, Retaliation

In a 1981 report entitled “Whistleblowing and the 

Federal Employee: Blowing the Whistle on Fraud, Waste, 

and Mismanagement,” MSPB noted that while employees 

feared retaliation for blowing the whistle, a greater 

hindrance to whistleblowing was the belief that nothing 

would be done to correct the problem. 

In a 1984 follow-up report, “Blowing the Whistle in 

the Federal Government: A Comparative Analysis of 1980 

and 1983 Survey Findings,” we noted that this remained 

the greatest stumbling block in the minds of Federal 

employees. In fact, employees expressed even more fear 

that a report of fraud, waste, or abuse would place them at 

risk. 

To help whistleblowers, in 1989 Congress enacted the 

Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) which led to the 

creation of the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) as a 

separate independent agency. (Prior to the WPA, the 

Special Counsel was an autonomous entity within MSPB.) 

The WPA was intended to both strengthen protections 

for whistleblowers and enhance the ability of the OSC to 

enforce those protections. 

In 1996, we conducted a survey to discover if the 

passage of 10 years (and the WPA) had changed the way 

Federal employees responded to suspicions of fraud, 

waste and abuse. We found only minor indications of 

change. The most common reason for not taking action 

remained a belief that “nothing would be done.” 

Employees also still believed that blowing the whistle 

would put them at risk. (In 1996 we offered “a fear of 

workplace retaliation” as separate response option from 

“too great a risk for me” and 33% indicated retaliation 

fears were a factor in their decision not to blow the 

whistle.) 

Today, encouraging employees to report fraud, waste, 

and abuse remains a challenge for the Federal 

Government. The OSC faces the challenge of convincing 

employees that they can and will be protected from 

retaliation. However, the greater responsibility still rests 

with the employing agencies, who must not only take 

measures to prevent retaliation, but also must find a way 

to convince employees that if they speak up, they can 

make a difference. �

10 
Federal Personnel Offices: It’s Still Time for Change

Federal personnel laws, rules, and regulations are 

too complex. It takes too long to hire. It is difficult to 

attract quality candidates. Personnel forms and 

processes are not user-friendly and deter candidates 

from wanting to apply for jobs. There are too few 

personnel staff to do the work. 

Are these the conclusions from a new MSPB 

publication? No, they’re the findings from a 1993 

Board study, “Federal Personnel Offices: Time for 

Change?” Some of the problems cited in the study are 

eerily similar to many of the human capital challenges 

agencies face today. Other problems identified at that 

time include: 

� The need for better personnel program 

indicators; 

� A focus on personnel process rather than on 

substantive management issues; 

� Concerns about personnelists’ capabilities 

and effectiveness; 

� The reluctance of managers to take on 

additional personnel delegations; 

� Lack of managerial and personnelist training 

to effectively perform their duties. 

The report found that to address these problems, 

we would need to attack the problems on three fronts: 

the personnel system and its rigid rules and 

regulations, the personnel office staff, and agency 

managers. On the system side, MSPB recommended 

reducing personnel rules and regulations, delegating 

more personnel authorities and accountability to 

agencies and managers while preserving merit, and 

improving personnel evaluation and accountability. 

Regarding the personnel office, the report 

recommended increasing personnel staff capabilities 

through better recruitment, selection, and development 

processes. Finally, the report recommended increasing 

manager involvement, accountability, and training in 

personnel management responsibilities 

Since the report was published, some important 

advances have taken place. For instance: 

� Each major agency has established a Chief 

Human Capital Officer to ensure that human 

resources (HR) receives top leadership 

attention; 

� The Federal Personnel Manual was abolished, 

giving HR specialists the ability to develop 

their own work processes; 

� Examining authority was delegated to agencies 

to help them develop their staffing strategies 

to meet mission needs; 

� A number of HR flexibilities were established 

to allow for better, targeted recruitment and 

streamlined hiring processes, including 

category rating as a substitute to the 

restrictive rule of three; 

� Many HR processes, such as job applications, 

are being automated to make them more userfriendly and efficient. 

However, many challenges still remain. Rather than 

increasing HR staff capacity, government has 

downsized this workforce, leading to a loss of expertise 

and institutional knowledge. Not enough has been 

done to train and develop personnel specialists, their 

supervisors, and line supervisors to handle their HR 

responsibilities. Automation often occurs without reengineering or improving the actual HR processes. 

Selection procedures are still stymied by slow or 

questionable assessment approaches. Government is 

still struggling to identify performance measures that 

demonstrate HR’s impact on mission accomplishment. 

Finally, instead of strategically changing the way 

we do business, many of the new flexibilities have 

incrementally added processes onto the already 

complex structure of HR rules and regulations, making 

the system even more difficult to understand and 

navigate than before. 

While these existing challenges seem daunting, the 

Federal Government may be on the verge of human 

capital management reforms that could redefine how we 

do business. The Department of Homeland Security 

and the Department of Defense are in the process of 

implementing new HR systems designed to better meet 

their mission needs while also protecting merit 

If the new systems deliver what is promised, the 

human captial rules and regulations will be more 

flexible, managers will be more involved in and 

accountable for decisions, and HR staffs will receive 

the resources and support they need. If the new 

systems don’t deliver, we may miss an opportune “time 

for change.” �

11 
U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20419 

S i l v e r I S S U E S OF

A n n i v e r s a r y

S u m m e r 2 0 0 4 

E d i t i o n M E R I T V o l u m e 9 I s s u e 3 

I N T H I S I S S U E * I N T H I S I S S U E * I N T H I S I S S U E 

Over the past 25 years, MSPB has studied many pressing issues facing the 

Federal civil service. In this Silver Anniversary Edition, we highlight some of our reports 

and update you on the critical issues we still face today. 

Introductions. MSPB’s Chairman 

and Director of OPE celebrate 25 

years of MSPB’s influence on the 

civil service. (Page 1) 

Bane of “Rule of Three.” This 

antiquated rule is no longer 

required. (Page 3) 

Civil Service’s Thermometer. 

Our surveys check the health of the 

civil service. (Page 4) 

Sexual Harassment in the 

Federal Workplace. Why does it 

happen, and what progress have we 

made? (Page 5) 

Lessons Learned on Removing 

Poor Performers. MSPB research 

shows you really can do something 

about poor performers. (Page 6) 

OPM’s Progress. MSPB reports on 

OPM’s achievements, challenges. 

(Page 6) 

Federal Vacancy Announcements. 

Our review shows that help is 

neeeded not only for Federal 

vacancy announcements, but also 

the assessment and recruitment 

strategies that underpin them . 

(Page 8) 

From Intern to Fellow. Changes 

to the PMI program. (Page 9) 

Understanding Discrimination. 

MSPB’s ground-breaking research 

on discrimination against women 

and minorities will be updated soon. 

(Page 10) 

Why Not Blow the Whistle? 

MSPB found that fear of nothing 

changing is what keeps many from 

blowing the whistle. (Page 10) 

Federal Personnel Offices. 

Despite progress, changes are still 

needed. (Page 11)