Women and the GLASS CEILING 

A Reportto he President nd the Con ress of the U ited States 

by the U.S. erit Systems rotection B ard 
Sirs: 

Transmittal Letter 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

Washington, D.C. 20419 

October 1992 

In accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, it 

is an honor to submit this Merit Systems Protection Board report entitled "A Question of 

Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling in the Federal Government." · 

While almost half of white-collar employees in the executive branch are women, 

only about one in ten senior executives is a woman. This report examines the reasons 

that so few women are in top-level positions in the Civil Service. 

Only some of the imbalance between men and women in higher grades can be 

explained by differences in the amount of education and years of Government service. 

Women also face unfounded stereotypes and assumptions about their abilities and job 

commitment that serve as subtle barriers to their advancement. The report discusses 

these barriers and offers recommendations for ways to achieve greater equity for women. 

We believe you will find this report useful as you consider issues concerning the 

effective management of Federal employees. 

~Qr 

Antonio C. Amador 

Vice Chairman 

The President 

President of the Senate 

Respectfully, 

Daniel R. Levinson 

Chairman 

Speaker of the House of Representatives 

Jessica L. Parks 

Member 
A Special Study 

A QUESTION OF EQUITY: 

Women and the Glass Ceiling in the 

Federal Government 
U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board 

DANIEL R. LEVINSON, Chairman 

ANTONIO C. AMADOR, Vice Chairman 

JESSICA L. PARKS, Member 

LUCRETIA F. MYERS, Executive Director 

Office of Policy and Evaluation 

Director 

Evangeline W. Swift 

Deputy Director 

John M. Palguta 

Assistant Director 

Bruce C. Mayor 

Project Manager 

Katherine C. Naff 

Project Analyst 

John Crum, Ph.D. 
The findings of this study are based on survey data and analyses of workforce statistics. The findings are not legal conclusions and do not 

establish or suggest legal violations by, or create legal rights or liabilities against, any officer or entity of the Federal Government. 
r::Jl:: J:~:~·::.t~: 

:.n·•··•·•·: ;;t ..... ,• .. 1.:., .• \: .. rf.A.BLE· ()F CCIDNTENTS 

[f,.~ti::/fr!l:i~q;)::.~[,?:;}1ULi"1•.~::t}'..~;: :·}.i ·····0.~.~ .. ·~ .. ·· .•. · /·.::::./1:;•F.:L .. ..•. •·········· . . . .· ... · . 

EXECUTIVE S~Y ............................................................... ix 

Findings .................................................................... x 

Recommendations ........................................................... xi 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1 

Prior Research ............................................................... 1 

Focusing on the Barriers ...................................................... 3 

METHOOOLOCY ................................................................ .5 

Central Personnel Data File ................................................... .5 

Focus Groups ................................................................ 6 

Survey ...................................................................... 6 

WHERE MEN AND WOMEN ARE IN THE WORKFORCE ............................ 7 

Distribution by Occupational Category .......................................... 7 

Distribution by Grade Level ................................................... 8 

Projections for the Future ...................................................... 9 

CAREER ADVANCEMENT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ...................... 13 

Experience and Education .................................................... 13 

Mobility ................................................................... 15 

Job Commitment ............................................................ 17 

Expectations of Work and Family Requirements ................................ 19 

Employees' Views of Their Career Advancement ................................ 23 

The Importance of Mentors ................................................... 24 

Making Use of Networks ..................................................... 24 

STEREOTYPES, EXPECTATIONS, AND PERCEPTIONS .............................. 29 

Holding Women to Higher Standards ......................................... 29 

Limits on Career Choices ..................................................... 30 

How Important Are Perceptions? ............................................. 31 

MINORITY WOMEN ............................................................. 33 

Demographic Differences .................................................... 33 

Career Advancement Factors ................................................. 33 

Perceptions ................................................................. 35 

Summary .................................................................. 36 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board vii 
·----------~------· --"""• 

TABLE OF CONTENTS -----·---······-·-····---··- -·······-·--··-.. -······· 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 37 

Conclusion ................................................................. 37 

Recommendations .......................................................... 39 

Appendix 1: Survey .............................................................. 41 

Appendix 2: Percent of PATCO Categories Filled by Women, by Agency, FY 1990 ....... .53 

Appendix 3: Percent of Each Grade Range Filled by Women, by Agency, FY1990 ......... 55 

viii A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
' ' ' ' :' \ ', -

', ;,i'!i ,\,' > 

EXECUTIVJ):siJMMARY 

Women are an integral part of the Federal workforce, holding nearly half of white-collar jobs in the 

Government. Yet they still hold a small percentage of senior-level and executive positions in the 

executive branch. Is the poor representation of women in higher graded jobs due to the existence of a 

glass ceiling? That is, are there subtle barriers, bearing no relationship to women's career decisions or 

qualifications, which limit their advancement? Or do men continue to dominate senior positions 

because they have more experience, more formal education, and greater commitment to career advancement than women? The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board sought to answer these questions in 

this study of career advancement in the Federal Government. 

The Board found that barriers do exist that have resulted in women, overall, being promoted less often 

over the course of their Government careers than men with comparable education and experience. 

Women are promoted at a lower rate than men in grade levels and occupations that are important 

gateways to advancement. The women we surveyed express the same level of commitment to their jobs 

and careers as men, and women receive the same or better performance ratings as men, but their 

potential for advancement is often underestimated by managers using criteria which they traditionally 

have seen as a way to measure job commitment and advancement potential. A significant minority of 

women also believe they are confronted by stereotypes which cast doubts on their competence. 

The Board suggests that because advancement to senior levels is a slow process, the imbalance in the 

percentage of women in high grades can be corrected within a reasonable timeframe only through 

concerted action. Recommended actions include a reaffirmation of the Government's commitment to 

equal opportunity, including ensuring that recruitment for senior positions is broad enough to encompass sufficient numbers of qualified women. The Board further recommends that managers make 

opportunities available for women to increase their competitiveness and demonstrate their abilities, 

actively discourage expressions of stereotypes of women at work, and reassess the validity of the criteria 

they use to evaluate an employee's potential for advancement. 

Almost as many women as men are now employed in white-collar jobs in the Federal executive 

branch, yet only about 1 out of every 4 supervisors 

and 1 out of every 10 executives are women. 

Studies outside of the Federal Government have 

shown that women at work often face subtle 

barrier~r what has come to be known as a 

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

"glass ceiling"-which constrain their career 

advancement. If such barriers exist in the Federal 

sector, the Government is paying a cost. It is 

underutilizing a major segment of its human 

resources and delaying attainment of an important 

goal of the Civil Service Reform Act; i.e., full 

representation of all segments of society at all 

grade levels in Government. 

ix 
X 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or 

the Board) has the statutory responsibility to report 

periodically to Congress and the President on the 

health of the Civil Service and other merit systems. 

In partial fulfillment of this responsibility, MSPB 

undertook an analysis of career advarn:ement in the 

executive branch workforce. The study described 

in this report was designed to examine the process 

for career progression in the white-collar 

workforce, and the nature and extent of any barriers women may confront in that process. It included data from three sources: the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management's Central Personnel Data 

File; focus groups of senior level (GS/GM 13-15) 

and senior executive (Senior Executive Service or 

SES) men and women; and a Govemrnentwide 

survey mailed to a sample of 13,000 employees in 

grades GS/ GM 9-15 and the SES. A subsequent 

study will address any barriers which may 

confront minorities in the executive branch 

workforce. 

Findings 

• Women do confront inequitable barriers to 

advancement in their Federal careers. These 

barriers take the form of subtle assumptions, 

attitudes, and stereotypes which affect how 

managers sometimes view women's potential 

for advancement and, in some cases, their 

effectiveness on the job. 

• Contrary to conventional wisdom, women are 

not promoted at a lower rate than men at the 

GS/GM 13 level and above, but rather face 

obstacles to advancement at lower levels in 

the pipeline. Women in Professional occupations are promoted at a lower rate than men at 

two critical grades, GS 9 and GS 11. As 

these grades are the gateway through which 

one must pass in moving from the entry level 

to the senior level, this disparity has the effect 

of reducing the number of women eligible for 

promotion in higher graded jobs. Results 

from a Govemrnentwide survey of employees 

currently in grades GS 9-15 and the SES 

confirm that women at these levels have been 

promoted, on average, less often over the 

course of their Government careers than men 

who have comparable amounts of formal 

education and experience, and who entered 

Government at the same grade levels as the 

women. 

• Given current trends, the percentage of Professional and Administrative jobs held by women 

will grow from 34 percent in 1990 to 42 percent 

by 2017. But even by 2017 women will remain 

significantly underrepresented in senior levels, 

holding less than one-third of senior executive 

positions. Unless action is taken, a dramatic 

increase in the representation of women in 

higher graded jobs will be precluded both by 

the slow process of advancement into higher 

graded jobs in general, and by the lower rate 

of promotion encountered by women. 

• Women receive performance appraisals that 

are as good as or better than men's, and 

women surveyed expressed just as much 

commitment to their jobs and career advancement as men·. However, there is evidence to 

suggest that women are often perceived to be 

less committed to their jobs than men. Particularly susceptible to this misperception are 

women in the first 5 years of their careers and, 

throughout their careers, women with children, who are promoted at an even lower rate 

than women without children. 

• A significant minority of women in grades 

GS 9 and above believe they often encounter 

stereotypes that cast doubts on their competence, and that attribute their advancement to 

factors other than their qualifications. 

• Minority women appear to face a double 

disadvantage. Their representation at top 

levels is even less than that of nonminority 

women, and minority women currently in 

grades GS 9 and above have been, on average, promoted less often than nonminority 

women with the same qualifications. 

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

1. The Government should reaffirm its 

commitment to equal employment opportunity and agencies should make special 

efforts to increase the representation of 

women in senior positions in the civil 

service. Because women are found in a 

minority of Professional and Administrative 

jobs above the midlevel, and because career 

advancement is slow above this level, agencies should make special efforts to ensure that 

women and, in particular, minority women, 

are included in the applicant pool. 

2. Managers should evaluate the formal and 

informal criteria they may be using to 

evaluate employees' potential for advancement, especially when these criteria are used 

in making selections for developmental 

training, career-enhancing work assignments, and promotions. Managers should 

consider whether they are using criteria for 

evaluating employees' commitment to the job 

and potential for advancement that have little 

or no relationship to the quality of the employees' work or actual job requirements. 

Decisions about whom to develop should be 

based on an employee's qualifications, performance, and expressed desire for advancement. 

Managers need to recognize that results 

obtained are more important than the numbers of hours of overtime worked. 

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

3. Managers should seek to curtail, within 

themselves and their organizations, any 

expressions of stereotypes or attitudes which 

may create an environment hostile to the 

advancement of women. Managers should 

encourage an environment conducive to the 

advancement of women by reexamining their 

own and their subordinates' attitudes and 

deportment, and actively discouraging 

expressions of stereotypes or behavior that 

reinforce negative stereotypes of women at 

work. Managers can further help to allay 

these stereotypes by giving qualified women 

opportunities to demonstrate their abilities in 

assignments traditionally thought to require 

male attributes. 

4. Women should take full advantage of 

opportunities to increase their 

competitiveness and demonstrate their 

abilities, and agencies should make these 

opportunities available. Women, individually, can increase their potential for advancement by pursuing additional education and 

developmental programs available within the 

Government. Agencies should also actively 

ensure that women have access to developmental programs and other opportunities to 

augment their qualifications and demonstrate 

their abilities. 

5. Agencies should conduct their own assessment of barriers to advancement for women. 

The results of this study are based on a 

Govemmentwide view of the career advancement process and do not capture the diversity 

that is certain to occur among agencies. 

Agencies should use the broad findings of 

this report to develop specific assessments of 

barriers which may be impeding the advancement of women within their own organizations. 

xi 
INTRODUCl'ION 

Over the past two decades, there has been a 

significant growth in the number of women 

employed by the Federal Government. The 

percentage of white-collar, executive branch jobs 

held by women grew from 41 percent in 1974 to 48 

percent in 1990. The importance of women in the 

Federal workforce will continue to grow. The U.S. 

Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics 

projects that the number of women in the national 

workforce will increase by 26 percent between 1990 

and 20051 and women's representation in the 

Federal workforce has been increasing at a faster 

rate than their representation in the national 

workforce. 

But while women now comprise nearly half of the 

Federal white-collar workforce, their distribution 

by grade level and occupation remains disproportionate. Although the numbers of women in 

midlevel and upper level jobs are increasing, 

women continue to hold almost two-thirds of 

lower graded jobs (GS 1-8). While women hold 

more of the Government's Professional and Administrative jobs than ever before, they also continue to hold 86 percent of the nearly 300,000 

Clerical jobs. More importantly, women are only 

one-quarter of the Government's supervisors and 

only 11 percent of its senior executives. 

The relatively small numbers of women in 

midlevel and upper level jobs in the Government 

are a concern for a number of reasons. In 1978, the 

Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) set as a standard 

the recruitment of a representative workforce--an 

objective which, given the extremely low percentages of women in high-level jobs, the Government 

almost certainly is not meeting. A perception on 

the part of a group of citizens that they do not have 

equal access to jobs which affect the development 

and implementation of policy can damage the 

credibility of the Government in the eyes of those 

citizens. Furthermore, if women are being denied 

the opportunity for advancement in the Federal 

Civil Service, the Government is underutilizing the 

potential skills of a significant portion of its 

workforce. Of course, all of these concerns also · 

apply to minorities, who appear to be underrepresented in midlevel and upper l~vel jobs, as well. 

That is the subject of another MSPB report, to be 

released in 1993. 

Determining the reason for the apparent underrepresentation of women in higher graded jobs and 

their overrepresentation in lower grades and lower 

graded occupations is a complex task. Should the 

rnaldistribution be attributed to illegal discrimination based on sex, or to women not choosing to 

take the steps required to advance in the Federal 

Civil Service system? Have women not progressed 

as far as men because they have fewer years of 

Government service and less formal education, or 

are less committed to a career than their male 

colleagues? Or are there externally imposed 

barriers that block the advancement of women into 

supervisory and management levels? These are 

the questions that this study was designed to 

answer. 

Prior Research 

Several studies have examined the issue of whether 

women have the same opportunities as men for 

advancement into management positions in the 

public and private sectors. Some of these studies 

have indicated that the issue is not one of overt 

1 Howard N. Fullerton, "Labor Force Projections: The Baby Boom Moves On," Monthly Labor Review, November 1991, p. 36. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1 
2 

INTRODUCTION 

discrimination, but that women face real, yet very 

subtle barriers that men do not. Several years ago, 

the term "glass ceiling" was coined to describe 

these barriers; women can see their way to the top 

of the career ladder, but bump into an invisible 

barricade when they try to make the climb. 

Outside the Federal Government. In September of 

1988, the Canadian Public Service Commission 

established the Task Force on Barriers to Women in 

the Public Service to analyze the poor representation of women in the senior ranks of the Canadian 

civil service. The comprehensive analysis by the 

task force, completed in 1990, identified policies. 

and practices that were having an adverse impact 

on women and their opportunities for advancement. The task force also determined that the 

nature of the barriers a woman encounters and the 

extent to which these barriers are a factor varies 

depending on the type of work she does. But, the 

report concluded, "It is clear, however, that the 

most significant barriers derive from attitudes."2 

These attitudes include stereotyping of women and 

"their place" in the public service, skepticism about 

their abilities, and a tendency on the part of women 

to underreport their own accomplishments.3 

In August of 1991, the U.S. Department of Labor 

released the results of its pilot study of the recruitment and promotion practices of nine Fortune 500 

companies. The study indicated that women and 

minorities are not getting to the top in the corporate world because of informal policies and practices which have the inadvertent effect of excluding 

them from consideration for top-level jobs. Furthermore, the report said that practices which have 

the effect of reducing the promotion potential of 

women and minorities begin early in their careers. 

For example, women and minorities are more 

often steered into staff rather than line positions 

when line positions are those which provide the 

"fast track" to the top.4 

The Federal Civil Service. Providing a "Federal 

work force reflective of the Nation's diversity" 

became the official policy of the United States with 

the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act in 

1978. The act also called for eliminating the 

underrepresentation of women and minorities in 

all occupations and at all grade levels in the Federal Government.5 The issue of whether these 

objectives have been reached, and if not, why not, 

has been the subject of several studies since that 

time. 

Some of the studies have analyzed differences in 

promotion rates between meri and women using 

data from the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) 

maintained by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). One such study concluded that the 

number of women employed in grades GS 9-12 

had remained largely unchanged since passage of 

the CSRA, but there had been a significant increase 

in the number of women employed in grades GS/ 

GM 13-15.6 Another researcher concluded that, 

for the most part, the scarcity of women in upper 

level jobs could be attributed to their having less 

formal education and fewer years of Government 

service and being concentrated inlower graded 

occupations than men.7 Although there was a gap 

between the grades of men and women with the 

same amount of formal education, the gap had 

declined during the 1970's.8 However, an analysis 

of the increase in employment of women since 

2 "Beneath the Veneer: The Report of the Task Force on Barriers to Women in the Public Service," Canadian Government Publishing Centre, 

vol. 1, Ottawa, 1990, p. 61. 3 Ibid., p. 61-73. 4 U.S. Department of Labor, "A Report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative," Washington, DC, 1991. 5 5 u.s.c. 7201. 6 J. Edward Kellough, "The 1978 Civil Service Reform and Federal Equal Opportunity," American Review of Public Administration, vol. 19, 

December 1989, pp. 313-324. 7 See, for example, Gregory Lewis, "Gender and Promotions: Promotion Chances of the White Men and Women in Federal White-Collar 

Occupations," The Journal of Human Resources, vol. XXI, 1986, pp. 406-419, and Gregory Lewis, "Men and Woman Toward the Top: Backgrounds, Careers, and Potential of Federal Middle Managers," Public Personnel Management (Forthcoming). 8 Gregory B. Lewis, "Changing Patterns of Sexual Discrimination in Federal Employment," Review of Public Personnel Administration, 

vol. 7, Spring 1987, pp. 1-13. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
1978 in grades GS/GM 13 and above shows that if 

the rate of increase was unchanged, it would take 

45 years for women to be fully represented in those 

grades.9 

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has 

also examined the effectiveness of affirmative· 

employment policies, in response to requests from 

Members of Congress. Over the last several years, 

GAO has issued a number of reports concerning 

the underrepresentation of women and minorities 

in specific agencies. More recently, its Govemmentwide analysis identified weaknesses in the 

oversight of Federal agency affirmative action 

programs performed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) .. 

Complicating analysis of whether women are fully 

represented in a particular occupation or specific 

grade level is the issue of what constitutes "full 

representation." Is it fair to say that since women 

are nearly half of the workforce, they should make 

up half of senior managers? What if there are not 

sufficient numbers of women qualified to be senior 

managers? 

One of the tasks GAO undertook was to find an 

adequate benchmark by which to measure representation. The EEOC requires Federal agencies to 

compare representation of women and minorities 

in their own workforces to decennial census data 

regarding where women and minorities are 

employed in the nationwide civilian workforce. 

But GAO noted in its testimony to Congress in 

October 1991 that different ways of measuring 

representation in the comparable civilian labor 

force can produce different representation indexes. 

For example, using 1980 census data based on 

broad occupational categories shows that white 

women are severely underrepresented as criminal 

investigators in the Department of Justice, while 

1980 census-based, occupation-specific data 

showed women as fully represented as criminal 

investigators at the same department.10 

In other words, there is no one way to adequately 

and uniformly determine whether the representation of women at upper grade levels or in specific 

occupations is as it should be. Despite these 

limitations, however, GAO agreed with a statement by the then director of OPM, Constance 

Newman, who said,"*** the percentages of 

women and minorities in the [senior executive 

service] and the pipeline to the SES are unacceptable."11 

Focusing on the Barriers 

Rather than enter the debate as to what the percentage of women in upper grades should be, we 

chose to focus on whether there are barriers confronting women who are trying to advance in the 

Government. Prior research has indicated that 

these barriers exist and that they can be complex 

and varied, ranging from differences in qualifications such as education and experience to subtle 

attitudes, stereotypes and expectations. Our study 

was designed to examine the range of possible 

barriers in an effort to identify those which most 

restrict the advancement of women in the Federal 

civil service. 

9 J. Edward Kellough, "The 1978 Civil Service Reform and Federal Equal Opportunity," American Review of Public Administration, 

vol. 19, No. 4, December 1989, p. 320. 10 Ungar, Bernard L., "Federal Affirmative Employment: Status of Women and Minority Representation in the Federal Workforce," 

GAO/T-GGD-92-2, Washington, DC, October 23, 1991. 11 General Accounting Office, "Federal Workforce: Continuing Need for Federal Affirmative Employment," GAO/GGD-92-27BR, 

November1991,p.3. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3 
METH()IJ()LOGY 

All of the reasons why women are not as frequently found in upper management as men may 

not be immediately obvious. By definition, if a 

glass ceiling exists, it is invisible and therefore 

difficult to establish. A look at the occupational 

and grade distribution of Federal employees 

suggests that women may be underrepresented in 

certain occupations and at upper grade levels, but 

not why this would be so. Is it because women 

have chosen not to move into those occupations or 

grade levels, or because their movement is 

blocked? A look at how the distribution has 

changed over time shows that more women are at 

higher grade levels than in the past, but not 

whether their movement into these levels is 

occurring as fast as it could or should be. An 

analysis of promotion rates may tell us whether 

women are being promoted as often as men, but 

not when, if ever, women will hold a share of 

management-level jobs proportionate to their 

participation in the workforce. Rapid promotion 

of women, for example, might be offset by an 

equally rapid turnover rate among women. 

Answering the question as to whether women 

have equal opportunity for advancement in the 

Federal Government requires an understanding of 

the factors which account for successful career 

advancement in Federal agencies. Are women 

and men affected differently by these factors? 

What slows down or stops the progress of an 

upwardly mobile employee? Is the scarcity of 

women in management in the Government 

explained by discrimination or by demographic 

differences, or are there more subtle biases that act 

to discourage their advancement? 

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

Because of the complexity of issues related to 

career advancement, we determined that no single 

source of data would be sufficient for a thorough 

analysis of whether women face a glass ceiling in 

Government. Therefore, this study is based on 

three sources of information: 

• Data from OPM' s Central Personnel Data 

File; 

• Focus groups of mid- and senior-level 

Federal employees; and 

• A Governmentwide employee survey. 

The scope of this analysis is limited to executive 

branch employees in white-collar occupations. 

Central Personnel Data File 

The CPDF is a computerized data base with 

information on approximately 2 million civilian 

employees. Employees of the U.S. Postal Service 

and other agencies exempt from personnel reporting requirements, such as the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, are not included in the data base. 

We asked OPM to give us two kinds of information from the CPDF: 

• The numbers of men and women by grade 

level and occupational group for various 

times beginning with FY 1974. These "snapshots" show how men and women are 

distributed in the workforce, and how the 

distribution has changed since 197 4. 

5 
6 

METHODOLOGY 

• Promotion rates, turnover rates, and transfer 

rates by occupational category for men and 

women, averaged for two 3-year periodsfiscal years 1978-80 and 1988-90. We used" 

these average rates to develop a workforce 

planning model which projects how the 

representation of women by grade level will 

change over the next 25 years if the observed 

rates of change remain constant. 

Focus Groups 

In order to obtain a general understanding of the 

factors which affect the career advancement process in the Federal Government, we arranged for 

focus groups at seven departments and agencies.12 

Some 144 people participated in 19 focus groups in 

the summer of 1991. Participants were men and 

women in grades.GS/GM 13-15 and members of 

the Senior Executive Service. It was not our intention to draw firm conclusions about the career 

development process Governmentwide from the 

views expressed by focus group participants. 

Rather, we were interested in learning about the 

experiences and perspectives of a variety of individuals in an assortment of occupations and 

agencies. 

In the focus groups we asked participants openended questions about their own careers, ·their 

perceptions of factors which may affect advancement, and their views as to how the experiences of 

men and women might differ. 

Survey 

While focus group participants gave us valwible 

information about their own experiences and 

perceptions, we did not know to what extent these 

experiences and perceptions were common among 

Federal employees. To broaden our perspi2ctive, 

we developed a written questionnaire (see app. 1) 

after the focus group discussions were completed. 

Many of the issues explored in the questionnaire 

came from the observations made by focus group 

participants. The questionnaire was administered 

in the fall of 1991 to a sample of about 13,000 fulltime, permanent, white-collar Federal employees in 

grades GS/GM 9-15 and in the SES. We used a 

stratified random sampling technique to ensure 

representation by grade range, agency, and sex. 

Some 8,408 surveys were returned (4,827 from 

men, 3,443 from women, and 138 from respondents 

who did not state their gender), for a very satisfactory response rate of 66 percent. 

The survey was designed to address questions 

such as the following: 

• What factors predict greater career 

advancement? 

• Are there meaningful differences in the 

qualifications of men and women at the 

same grade level? 

• Do men and women share the same level of 

commitment to their jobs and interest in 

advancement? 

• To what extent do employees believe that 

they are treated unfairly or differently than 

colleagues of the opposite sex? 

We believe that collectively, the quantitative and 

qualitative data assembled from these three sources 

provide us with a comprehensive understanding of 

the career advancement process in the Federal 

Government, and the nature of barriers, if any, 

which impede the progress of women. 

12 We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Edith Berkowitz Needleman, doctoral candidate at Virginia Polytechnic and State 

University, with the focus group portion of this study. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
WHEREMEN AlNIJ:'.wOMEN ARE 

IN THE WiiiKFORCFf ........ . 

'I:\;::, ,, _,:; ",, 

,__,o,,~,o,"-~"''''-- ~-",-~•- ""~~.-<""-•-a-~--~ ', ',~ ;: T'~ 0: •;'.,;~ ~,•,\ ::;, ~ ;; :d,:1i,"•l: ~•y~ ',,':, '"''"'"•> , <,<>,-.-,W,,' ,' •' ,,' > 

As of the end of FY 1990, there were over 1,500,000 

people employed in full-time, permanent, whitecollar jobs in the executive branch of the Federal 

Government. Of these employees, about 735,000, 

or 48 percent, were women. Federal white collar 

positions are grouped into specific job series within 

five broad occupational categories, and by grade 

level. This section discusses the distribution of 

men and women by occupational category and 

grade, and how the distribution changed from 

1974 to 1990. 

Distribution by 

Occupational Category 

The five occupational categories into which Federal 

occupations are grouped are Professional, Administrative, Technical, Clerical, and Other, otherwise 

known as P ATCO categories. Figure 1 shows the 

percentage of the workforce in each of these 

categories for 1974 and 1990. The 1990 data show 

that over half of Federal employees are designated 

as Professional or Administrative, about one-fifth 

of employees are in Clerical occupations, another 

fifth are in Technical occupations, and less than 3 

percent are in Other occupations. Since 1974 there 

has been an increase in the percentage of employees in Professional and Administrative occupations 

and a dramatic decline in the percentage of employees in Clerical occupations. The proportion of 

employees in Technical and Other jobs has remained about the same. 

In order to understand the current potential of 

women to rise in the ranks, we must look at how 

women are distributed by PATCO category. This 

is important, because generally only those who are 

in occupations classified as Professional or 

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

Figure 1: Distribution of Federal Workforce by 

PATCO Category, 1974 and 1990 

Percent 

35 

•1974 

31 

0 

Professional Technical Other 

Administrative Clerical 

Administrative become managers or executives. 

With few exceptions, unless they can qualify for, 

and be selected for, a Professional or Administrative job, employees in Technical, Clerical, or Other 

occupations will not typically advance beyond the 

GS-12 level. 

Figure 2 shows the percentage of jobs in each 

PATCO category held by women in 1974 and 1990. 

Women have doubled their representation in 

Professional and Administrative categories, but 

7 
8 

, WHERE MEN AND WOMEN ARE IN THE WORKFORCE 

Figure 2: Representation of Women Within fu 

Each PATCO Category, 1974 and 1990 1,, ~ 

Percent 

100 -

80 _ 1 • 1974 iiill11990 1 

60 -

40 -

0 

Professional Technical 

86 

Administrative Clerical 

Other 

nearly two-thirds of these positions are still held by 

men. Women's overwhelming domination of 

Clerical jobs has not changed since 1974. Appendix 2 shows the percentage of jobs by P ATCO 

category held by women for the 22 largest 

agencies. 

Distribution by Grade Level 

In 197 4, Federal jobs were still classified in the 

General Schedule into 18 grade levels. The Civil 

Service Reform Act of 1978 created the SES, covering most of the managerial and policymaking 

positions which had previously been held by 

employees in grades GS 16-18. Figure 3 shows 

how Federal employees were distributed by gradelevel grouping in 1974 and 1990. There has been 

an increase in the percentage of employees in 

higher level jobs and a decrease in the percentage 

of employees in lower level jobs. In 197 4, one-fifth 

of the workforce was in grades GS 1-4; in.1990 ~he 

share was only one-tenth. The percentage of 

employees in grades GS 13-1513 increased from 14 

percent in 1974 to 18 percent in 1990, but the 

percentage of employees in the Senior Executive 

Service and equivalent jobs has remained at no · 

more than .5 percent. 

Although women continue to dominate lower 

graded jobs, there has also been a marked increase 

in the percentage of mid- and upper-level jobs held 

by women. Figure 4 shows the percentage of jobs 

in each grade level group held by women in 197 4 

and 1990. Women continue to hold three-quarters 

of GS 1-4 jobs. The percentage of women in 

grades 9-12 doubled, going from 19 to 38 percent 

while the percentage of women in grades GS 13-15 

has more than tripled, going from 5 percent to 18 

percent. The percentage of women in the SES has 

risen even more, going from 2 percent to 11 percent. But men still hold the majority of jobs graded 

Figure 3: Distribution of Federal Workforce by 

Grade Level Grouping, 1974 and 1990 

SES & 

Equivalent 

GS 13-15 

GS 9-12 

GS 5-8 

GS 1-4 

0 10 

I 

20 

Percent 

• 1974 

m ' 

I 

30 

1990 

I 

40 

42 

I 

50 

13 References in this section to jobs in grades GS 13-15 include those classified as GM 13-15, a subset of GS 13-15 jobs created by the CSRA 

in 1978. 

A Report by erit Systems Protection Board 
WHERE MEN AND WOMEN ARE IN THE WORKFORCE i 

GS 9 and above. The average grade for women in 

white-collar jobs (7.3) remains 3 points below the 

average grade for men in white-collar jobs (10.3). 

Appendix 3 shows the percentage of jobs in each 

grade group held by women for the 22 largest 

Federal agencies. 

Although the occupational and grade-level distribution of women has changed since 1974, women 

on the whole continue to face a dual bind with 

regard to their potential for rapid advancement. 

They occupy a minority of Professional and Administrative occupations and, where they are in 

those occupations, they are frequently found in the 

lower graded jobs. Figure 5 shows the portion of 

each grade group held by women for Professional 

and Administrative occupations, combined. 

The fact that women represent over half of those in 

the entry-level jobs (GS 5-7) in Professional and 

Administrative occupations means that lack of 

recruitment of women for these occupations is 

Figure 4: Representation of Women Within 

Each Grade Level Grouping, 1974 and 1990 

SES& 

Equivalent 

GS 13-15 

GS 9-12 

GSS-8 

GS 1-4 

0 

I 

40 60 

Percent 

•1974 

m llifilj 1990 

78 

100 

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

'.~,:\::, \ \', 

Figure 5: Representation of Women Within Each 

Grade Level Grouping, Professional and 

Administrative Jobs 

55% 

45% 

GS5-8 

81% 

GS 13-15 

41% 

59% 

GS 9-12 

89% 

SES and equivalent 

Women 

•Men 

probably no longer a barrier to their advancement 

into upper level jobs. The important issue to 

address now, then, is whether once in these occupations, women are moving at the rate they 

should be through the pipeline, or whether their 

progress is hindered. 

Projections for the Future 

Women have made progress during the 1970's and 

1980's, and are expected to continue to make 

progress, in moving into Professional and Administrative occupations and higher graded jobs. 

Given the movement during this timeframe, we 

were interested in knowing how much the distribution of women by occupational group and grade 

level would change in the next two decades, if 

current trends continue. Will any change in the 

relative distribution of women be rapid enough, 

given current trends, to make concern about 

underrepresentation unwarranted? Or is the 

movement of women within the Civil Service 

occurring so slowly, that left unheeded, there will 

be little change within the next 25 years? 

9 
WHERE MEN AND WOMEN ARE IN THE WORKFORCE 

Twenty-five years from now, if 

current trends continue, women will 

still hold less than one-third of 

senior executive jobs. 

This kind of analysis requires examining whether 

promotion rates for women equal those of men, 

and also the effect of hiring, separation, retirement, 

and transfer rates among occupational categories in 

the Government. We asked OPM to give us CPDF 

data which averaged these rates, for each PATCO 

category, over two 3-year periods, fiscal years 1978-

80 and 1988-90. Averaging over a 3-year period 

dilutes the effect of any aberration in the pattern of 

these rates that may occur in any one year. Comparison of the two 3-year periods allows us to 

determine if the rates have changed. 

In comparing data obtained for the two 3-year 

periods, we found_;_as we expected-that women 

are now entering Professional and Administrative 

occupations, both through transfers from Technical 

and Clerical occupations, and from the outside, at a 

much greater rate than they were during 1978-80. 

The average rate of employees leaving Government 

service is also considerably higher (by 30 to 50 

percent) than it was then. As a result, the rates of 

new hire and promotion have grown as well. In 

other words, the opportunity for women to move 

into and up through the pipeline is significantly 

greater now than it was in 1978-80. 

To estimate the effect that current patterns of 

advancement will have on the distribution of 

women by grade level in the Federal workforce of 

the future, we developed a mathematical forecasting model. Since a variety of factors can affect the 

distribution of women and men by grade, the 

model included estimates of the rates at which men 

and women will enter Government service, retire 

or resign from Government service, transfer among 

occupational (P ATCO) categories, and rates at 

which they will be promoted from one grade to the 

next. In order to take into.account occupational 

differences, separate projections were made for men 

and women for each grade level in each P ATCO 

category, and then the rates were combined. In all 

cases the model used estimates that were based 

upon the actual rates at which men and women 

entered, retired from, and separated from the 

Government. It also considered the rates at which 

employees transfered among occupational groups, 

and were promoted from each grade level, within 

each PATCO category, for 1988-90. 

Using this mathematical forecasting model, projections were made to show the rate at which the 

composition of the Federal workforce can be expected to change over the next 25 years. The 

model assumes that these rates will remain 

constant over the next 25 years. It does not try to· 

account for the effects of any major changes in the 

overall size or composition of the Federal 

workforce, as such an exercise would necessarily be 

based only on speculation. 

The projections also may be somewhat optimi~tic. 

For example, the number of higher graded Government jobs increased during 1988-90, as it did from 

1974-90. If this growth does not continue, there 

may be less opportunity for the advancement of 

women. The model assumes that the rate of increase from 1988-90 will continue, which it may not. 

Nevertheless, we believe the model, though imperfect, serves a useful purpose in giving us some 

understanding of how the grade level distribution 

of women relative to men will change over the next 

25 years, if current trends continue. 14 

Table 1 shows the results of the application of the 

model to white-collar, executive branch jobs. It 

shows that by the year 2017, women will comprise 

over half of the workforce, but will continue to hold 

considerably less than half of the jobs in grades 

above GS 12. Twenty-five years from now, if 

current trends continue, women ,vill still hold less 

than one-third of senior executive jobs, and only 

slightly more than one-third of GS/GM 13-15 jobs. 

14 In January 1991, senior executives received a long anticipated pay raise which will substantially increase pe~sions for those who retir~ 

after January 1, 1994. As a result, most Federal agencies are anticipating more retirements than usual in 1994. This was taken mto account m 

the model. 

10 A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
I • ' ' 

WHERE MEN ANQ WOMEN ARE.IN THE WORKFORCE. 

Table 1: Percentage of each grade held by women, 1990 and projected 1992-2017 

Year GS-lGS-2 GSc3 GS-4 GS-5 GS-6 GS-7 GS-8 GS-9 GS-lOGS-11 GS-12 GS-13 GS-14 GS-15 SES TOTAL 

1990 59 ... 62 71 78 76 78 64 60 47 

1992 .77 77 ·:67 • 76 76 79 65 59 50 

1997 76 77 69 75 71, 77 67 .. 63 53 ... 

.. 2002 76 77 69 75 69 75 67 65 56 

2007 76 77 69 · 75 68 73 65 64 57 

2012 76 77 '§? 75 68 73 64, 61 ·57 

2017 ..• 76 77 69. 75 68 73 63 59 

This is a vast improvement over the 11 percent of 

senior executive jobs they held in 1990 and the 2 

percent they held in 1974. Nevertheless, by this 

measure, in 25 years, women will still be underrepresented at top management levels. As noted 

in the introduction to this report, comparing the 

percentage of women in top-level positions to the 

percentage of women in the Federal workforce 

overall can be misleading, since women are more 

often found in jobs which are not in the pipeline tb 

management. The majority of women in Government (currently 58 percent) are in Technical and 

Clerical occupations. As long as this is the case, 

the percentage of women at the management level 

will probably never match the percentage of 

women in the Federal workforce as a whole. 

56 

29 .40. · 29 ' 21 · 16 13 . 11 48 

26 42 31 24 18 14 12 48 

35 .45 34 28 24 19 16 48 

44 47 37 3.2 28 24 20 49 

50 48 38 34 31 28 24 49 

53 49, 40 36 33 31 27 50 

53 49 40 37 35 34 30 so 

To account for the effects of occupational differences, we also projected the percentage of women 

at each grade level in Professional and Administrative occupations. (See table 2.) These occupations, 

in general, are in the pipeline to management 

levels. The result showed that over half of those in 

the lower grades of these occupations will be 

women, just as is true now. 

Given current entry rates from outside Government, and transfer rates into Professional and 

Administrative positions from other occupations, 

the overall percentage of women in these positions 

will grow from about 34 percent in 1990 to 42 

percent by the year 2017. But, as table 1 showed, 

the percentage of women in the senior executive 

Table 2: Percentage of each grade held by women in Professional 

and Administrative jobs, 1990 and Projected 1992-2017 

Year GS-5 GS-7 GS-9 GS-11 GS-12 GS-13 GS-14 GS-15 SES TOTAL ., 

•· 

1990 ;SY 55 54 44 .. 31 22 )6 13 11 34 

··: '" >> 

1992 . 54. 53 . 55 46 33 24 18 14 12 35 

, ___ , ,~ 

1997 5.4 54 . 55 48 36 . 29 24'· . 19 16' 38 , '"'=' '"" 

2002 ·54 54 55 49 39 .. 32 28 24 , 20 39 

2007 54··• 54 56 49 .. 40 34 .. 32 28 24. 41 

2012 ~4 54 56 49 40 36 ,• 34 31 27 42 

2017 54: 54 56 49 41 ·. · 36 35 34 30 42 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11 
WHERE MEN AND WOMEN ARE IN THE WORKFORCE 

Figure 6: Actual and Projected Percentage of o 

Professional and Adminis~rative Jobs and SES Li 

Jobs Held by Women, 1990 and Projected 

1992-2017 

Percent 

100 -

80 -

60 -

40 -

0 

34 

I • Total lllillJ SES I 

41 42 42 

38 39 

35 

30 

27 

1990 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 

Year 

service will be about 30 percent, still below the 

projected percentage of women in Professional and 

Administrative jobs. (See figure 6) 

An examination of promotion rates reveals why 

correcting the imbalance of men and women in 

management is such a long process. One reason is 

that women in Professional occupations are promoted much less often from grades GS 9 and 

GS 11 than men, based on data for 1988-90. While 

an average of 44 percent of men in GS 9 jobs are 

promoted each year, only 33 percent of women in 

GS 9 jobs are. Similarly, 21 percent of men in 

GS 11 jobs are promoted each year, versus only 15 

percent of women. Thus, men are promoted at a 

rate nearly 33 percent greater than women at the 

GS 9 level, and 44 percent greater than women at 

the GS 11 level. Men had the same advantage at 

these two grade levels durink"the other period 

examined, 1978-80. 

12 

The difference in promotion rates at grades GS 9 

and GS 11 is especially important for several 

reasons. First, these two grade levels account for a 

significant part (one-third) of the Professional 

workforce. Second, the difference in promotion 

rates at these grade levels has a dramatic effect on 

the distribution of women at higher grades in that 

these grade levels represent a gateway to higher 

graded jobs. Fifty-eight percent of new hires enter 

Professional occupations at or below the GS 9 

level, and 75 percent of new hires enter at or below 

GS 11, and all of these new hires, except those 

entering at GS 11 must be promoted to the GS 9 

and/ or GS 11 levels before they can be promoted 

into supervisory and management jobs. Furthermore, even though promotion rates for women 

from grades above GS 11 in Professional occupations are approximately the same as for men, the 

number of women eligible for promotion to higher 

grades has already been reduced by the time they 

reach grade GS 12. 

Another reason for the slow progression of women 

is that promotion rates for both men and women · 

are much lower in higher graded jobs than in lower 

graded ones. For example, on average, only about 

1 in 8 GS 12 employees of either sex is promoted 

each year, and 1 in 100 GS 15 employees. As a 

result, it typically takes many years for an employee, whether male or female, to progress from 

the GS 12 level to more senior positions. 

The model, then, shows the same pattern as the 

data from 1974 and 1990 presented in tables 1 and 

2. Women will continue to move into Professional 

and Administrative occupations and into higher 

graded jobs. But progress is slow, and, if current 

trends continue, women will continue to be 

underrepresented in upper level jobs in 2017. 

Men are promoted at a rate nearly 33 

percent greater than women at the GS 9 

level, and 44 percent greater than women 

at the GS 11 level. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
, CAREER ADVANCEMENT , 

IN THE FEDERAL:GOVERNMENT 

What determines who gets ahead and who doesn't 

in the Government? A number of factors may 

affect employees' potential for advancement, 

including their tenure in the Federal workforce, 

amount of formal education, commitment to the 

job, and desire for advancement. In addition, 

studies of private sector promotion processes, such 

as the one done by the Department of Labor (see 

footnote 4), have found that an individual's prospect for advancement can be affected by a host of 

organizational factors such as access to developmental opportunities, significant work assignments, mentors, and networks. Judging from 

evidence from studies outside the Federal Government, women may often face barriers ranging from 

overt discrimination to more subtle attitudes and 

stereotyping that slow their rate of advancement. 

The focus group and written questionnaire portions 

of this study looked at the career advancement 

process in the Federal Government. The statistics 

reported in this section are based on a representative sample of 8,400 survey responses from executive branch employees, primarily in Professional 

and Administrative occupations, in grades GS/ 

GM 9-15, and in the SES. To clarify and illustrate 

some of the patterns found in the survey data, we 

also referred to the transcripts of our focus group 

discussions. 

We have already discussed how the distribution of 

women in Government is skewed toward the lower 

end of the grade structure. We would expect, then, 

that the women in our survey population would, 

on average, be lower graded than men. In fact, the 

average grade of women in that population is 

11.25, which is significantly lower than the 12.05 

average grade of the men we surveyed. Another 

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

way to look at advancement is to count the number 

of promotions beyond GS 7 received by survey 

respondents who entered Government at the same 

grade. Out of the maximum possible number of 

promotions of seven that a survey respondent 

could have received using this formula, the men 

have received an average of 3.92 promotions 

during their Federal career, while the women have 

received an average of only 3.15 promotions; again 

a significant difference. 

What experiences are shared by those who have 

attained the highest grades, or the greatest number 

of promotions? Do differences between the experiences of men as a group and women as a group 

explain why women are less often found in high 

grades in the Government? 

Experience and Education 

An analysis of survey data shows that experience 

and education are two of the most important 

factors in career advancement in the Federal 

Government. Those at the highest grade levels, or 

with the greatest number of promotions during 

their Federal careers, tend to be those with the 

greatest length of Federal service, and those with 

the most formal education. 

For most employees, it takes a long time to move 

up the career ladder. Three-quarters of survey 

respondents currently in GS 13 positions have 

been in the Government at least 12 years. Similarly, about the same proportion of senior executives started their Federal careers 20 or more years 

ago. To the extent that advancement depends on 

experience, women in the Government are at a 

13 
CAREER ADVANCEMENT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

disadvantage. According to CPDF data, the. 

average length of Government service for men is 

15.1 years and for women, 13.7 years, in Professional and Administrative jobs. 

We also found a positive relationship between high 

grade levels and education. This is not to say that 

completing levels of education is always a necessary or sufficient condition for advancement. There 

are senior executives who don't have college 

degrees, just as there are employees in lower 

graded jobs who have advanced degrees. Nevertheless, on average, Governmentwide, there is a 

tendency for those in top-level jobs to have more 

formal education than those in lower level jobs. 

Table 3 shows the average grade by highest degree 

earned, for survey respondents; i.e., those who 

have reached at least the GS 9 level, and are 

primarily in Professional and Administrative 

occupations. · 

Survey data indicate that amount of formal education has been more important for advancement for 

those empioyees with a longer length of Government service than those with less service. This is 

probably because the workforce is attaining higher 

levels of education, so education has become less of 

a distinguishing factor among applicants for 

promotions. 

While men and women who have worked for the 

Government for 10 or fewer years have about the 

same amount of education, this is not .true for those 

with more service. (See table 4.) Only about half of 

the women with 10 to 20 years of Government 

service, and only one-quarter of the women with 

more than 20 years of service have a bachelor's 

degree. 

Thus, another reason fewer women are seen at top 

levels in Government is because overall, they have 

less formal education. Not only are there fewer 

women in the pool of those with the greatest 

Table 3: Average grade of survey respondents, 

by highest degree earned 

Degree Average Grade 

High School Diploma or Associate of Arts 11.08 

Bachelor's Degree 11.94 

Master's Degree 12.45 

Doctorate 13.40 

Professional (e.g., M.D., J.D.) 13.62 

amount of Government experience, but those 

women who are in that pool have less formal 

education than men. 

But education and experience only account for a 

portion of the difference between the average 

grade of men and women. Table 5 shows the 

average grades of men and women with the same 

amount of experience, accounting for differences in 

education.15 

While these differences in average grade may not 

seem large, they demonstrate that women have not 

been treated equitably with regard to promotions 

during their Federal careers. If women had been 

Table 4: Percent of survey respondents with at 

least a 4-year degree, by length of Government 

service, and sex 

Length of Service Women Men 

Under 5 years 89 84 

5-10 years 74 74 

10-20 years 48 71 

More than 20 years 23 68 

f\W ''I ~ '. *>1⁄4·=WJ ~ ,:t * ' 

15 It is possible to use statistical techniques to calculate the degree to which one variable; e.g., amount of education, affects a second 

variable; e.g., the average grade of men and women in the Federal Workforce. It is then possible to remove the effect of the first variable 

(education) to determine whether men and women would still differ in terms of their average grade. For example, in this report, the term 

"accounting for education" means that we removed the effect that education has on the difference between men's and women's average grade 

or number of promotions when we calculated the averages. Once the effect of education has been "accounted for," any remaining difference in 

average grades or number of promotions must be explained by factors other than education. 

14 A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
·cAREERADVANCEMENTINTHEFEDERAEGO.VERNMENT.· 11 '•·: ,, "1':(J:'_'{: '.'{-(\~•\i\,lli,iJ:,,, I "' ,~.....-'"'" "''' \_,_"•, ', '_ "< ' ,u " I 

treated equitably, there should be no significant 

difference in the average grades shown in table 5. 

Over the course of their careers, women currently 

employed in the Government have received fewer 

promotions than men with the same length of 

Government service and the same amount of 

formal education. 

Figure 7 illustrates this point in another way. It 

shows the distribution of survey participants, by 

sex, who entered Government at entry-level grades 

GS 5 or GS 7 with comparable levels of formal 

education, and who had no more than ten years of 

Government service at the time of the survey. 

Overall, the concentration of women is greater at 

the lower grade levels, and the concentration of 

men is higher at the upper grade levels. Twice as 

many men as women have progressed to the 

GS 13 level. Twenty-one percent of women are in 

GS 9 jobs, while only 13 percent of men have not 

yet been promoted beyond that level. 

Based upon differences in the number of promotions, it is clear that differences in educational 

attainment and length of service do not account for 

all of the difference in the distribution of men and 

women in the Government. We need to look 

further to explain more of the reason so few 

women are atthe top. 

Table 5: Average grade of survey respondents, 

by length of Government service, and sex, 

accounting for educational differences 

~· Length of Service .. Women Men 

Under 5 years 10.80 . 11.34 ,,,., 

5-10 years .11.23 11.61 

10-20 years .. · 11.58 11.85 

More than 20 years ~· ,,' 11.71. 12.50 'V•' .. 

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

Figure 7: Differences in Grade Distribution of 

Comparable Survey Respondents, by Sex* 

Percent 

50 -

I • Women II Men I 

40 -

GS9 GS11 GS12 GS/GM13 GS/GM14 

• Chart includes only survey respondents with 10 or fewer years 

of Government service and at least a 4-year degree, and who 

entered Government at the GS 5 or GS 7 level. 

Mobility 

People in high grades or with more promotions 

also tend to have relocated geographically more 

often than those in lower grades or with fewer 

promotions. This is not surprising, as many 

agencies have informal or formal requirements for 

promotion that include experience in both the field 

and at headquarters. A number of survey respondents commented that they saw requirements for 

mobility to be a major barrier for themselves or 

many others who are seeking to advance. The 

following comment is illustrative: 

15 
, CAREER ADVANCEMENT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

It is clear that differences in educational 

attainment and length of service do not 

account for all of the difference 

in the distribution of men and 

women in the Government. 

While I plan to pursue promotional opportunities in the future, I believe my limited or 

lack of mobility will have a significant negative impact on my success. 

Table 6 shows the average number of relocations 

made by men and women for the sake of their own 

careers by grade range. The number of relocations 

increases as grade level increases. But at any level, 

women have clearly relocated less often than men. 

Table 6: Average number of relocations by survey 

respondents, by grade range and sex 

Grade Range Women Men 

GS 9-12 .60 1.01 

GS 13-15 :65 1.26 

SES .97 1.58 

Overall, survey responses indicate that men are 

somewhat more likely to be willing to relocate than 

women. Fifty-eight percent of men and 48 percent 

of women said they would be willing, at least to 

some extent, to relocate in order to advance their 

careers. There are a variety of reasons why fewer 

women than men are willing to relocate, including 

that some women have subordinated their own 

careers to their husbands' careers. 

But comments made during the focus groups 

indicate that in many cases, women are not less 

career oriented but rather have not been asked to 

relocate, or encouraged to pursue careers that may 

require relocation, because it was assumed that their 

careers were subordinate to their husbands'. For 

example, one focus group participant said: 

16 

Relocations have always been a problem in 

many agencies, the concept of career advancement being associated with taking different 

geographical locations. And I think it's very 

widespread in most agencies. And there's 

been an assumption that wives will follow 

husbands but husbands will not follow wives, 

and I don't know if it's changing. 

The possibility that women are less often asked to 

relocate is to some degree substantiated by the fact 

that there was no practical difference in the percentage of women (4 percent) and the percentage ·of 

men (7 percent) who reported that they had refused to relocate during their Federal career. 

There is also some evidence that those who are 

unable or unwilling to relocate may be perceived as 

having less commitment to their careers and less 

desire for advancement. As we will discuss in 

more depth in the next section, the degree of 

commitment to the job that an employee is perceived to have can have a significant impact on her 

or his prospects for advancement. The following 

comment by a survey respondent gives a clue as to 

the relationship between mobility and ambition: 

Mobility plays too great a role in advancement. Top performing women who cannot 

move are hindered in the promotion process. 

They must go to great lengths to explain lack 

of mobility so that when a job is open locally 

they will not be passed over for failure to have 

applied for jobs outside their locale. 

Nonmobile women have high ambitions, too! 

We don't know the extent to which women have 

hindered their own career advancement by an 

unwillingness to relocate, nor the extent to which 

their career advancement has been limited by an 

expectation that they will not relocate. We do know 

that, on average, those with fewer geographic 

relocations have not progressed as far in their 

careers. 

A question which must be addressed, if we are to 

bring more women into higher ranks, is whether 

mobility should be as important a criteria for 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
advancement as it is. For some high level jobs, 

experience. in more than one location is undoubtedly essential. Where it is, women must decide 

whether resisting relocation is more important than 

meeting prerequisites for one of those jobs. 

But there are also many organizations where mobility has become a proforma requirement for advancement without a demonstrated link between 

such a requirement and job performance. In these 

situations the best candidate for the job may be 

bypassed simply because his or her background 

does not include one or more relocations. Given the 

reality that a greater proportion of women than men 

are not mobile, pro forma relocation requirements 

will have a disproportionately adverse impact on 

the advancement of women. 

Regardless, even if we remove the effect of relocations on their careers, women still have a lower 

average grade and have received, on average, fewer 

promotions than men. Table 7 shows the average 

number of promotions received by men and women 

who entered Government at the same grade, by 

length of service, and accounting for education and 

the number of relocations. The differences between 

men and women are significant. 

Job Commitment 

It is also reasonable to assume that organizations 

more often promote those who demonstrate a 

strong level of commitment to their job and interest 

Given the reality that a greater proportion of women than men are not mobile, 

pro Jonna relocation requirements will 

have a disproportionately adverse impact on the advancement of women. 

in advancement. Are women promoted less often 

because they are less committed to their jobs or 

less ambitious or merely because they are perceived to be this way? 

With regard to the first question, evidence from 

the survey indicates that women certainly believe 

themselves to be as ambitious and committed to 

their jobs as men. Table 8 shows the percentages 

of men and women responding to three statements included on the survey which asked them 

to indicate the extent to which they believed each 

of the statements applied to themselves. 

Clearly, these results indicate that women and 

men are equally likely to express a strong commitment to their jobs. 

We also asked survey participants about their 

career-related plans. A slightly higher percentage 

of women (64 percent) than men (57 percent) said 

they were planning to apply for promotion within 

or outside of the agency within the next 3 to 5 

years. Based upon these responses, women 

appear to be as ambitious as men. 

Table 7: Average number of promotions received by survey 

respondents entering at comparable grades, by length of service 

and sex, accounting for education and number of relocations 

Average number Difference between 

of promotions men and women 

Length of Service Women Men 

Under 5 years 2.33 2.77 .44 

h 

5-10 years 3.00. 3.40 .40 

10-20 years · 3.49 3.68 .19 

.. , '"• 

More than 20 years 3.72 4.33 .61 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17 
18 

CAREER ADVANCEMENT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

Table 8: Percent of survey respondents responding that statements 

about job commitment apply to them "to some extent" or "to a 

great extent," by sex 

.. Statement 

I am very committed to my job. 

I am always enthusiastic about my job .. 

I am willing to devote whatever time 

is necessary to my job in order to 

advance my career. 

Another indication that women are just as earnest 

about their jobs as men comes from performance 

appraisal data. Annual performance appraisals 

are designed to evaluate the quality of employees' 

performance, which is certainly related to the 

seriousness with which they approach their jobs. 

Although not by any means a perfect evaluation of 

the work of Federal employees, these ratings at 

least provide an indication of how employees are 

doing relative to each other. 

According to CPDF data, there was no practical 

difference in the average performance rating for 

women and men in Professional and Administrative jobs as of December 1991. The average rating 

for women was 4.03 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is 

the highest ("outstanding") rating, and for men 

was 3.99. A profile of Federal employees using FY 

1990 data from OPM reported that women in the 

white-collar workforce in general received 40 

percent more "outstanding" ratings than men, and 

female managers receive one-third more top 

ratings than male managers. 16 Clearly, these data 

support the notion that women are as serious and 

as capable as their male peers and they are performing their jobs just as well, if not better, than 

men. 

But even employees who say they are committed 

to their jobs and careers, and who receive high 

performance appraisals, may not be seen as committed to their jobs by the managers and superviWomen Men 

9~ . 93 

89 88 

· 78 74 

sors who make decisions which affect their careers. 

A Wall Street Journal article noted recently, for 

example: 

No matter how individual women approach 

their jobs, research shows women as a group 

are still widely seen as lacking in career 

commitment.17 

Promotion rate data shown previously in table 7 

provide one indication that promotion rates may 

be affected by perceived job commitment rather 

than actual commitment. The difference in average 

number of promotions received is greatest between 

men and women with more than 20 years of 

Government service. This is not surprising, as 

there is widespread agreement that women faced 

more overt discrimination in the workplace prior to 

the 1970's than they have more recently. 

What is most interesting, however, is that the 

difference between average number of promotions 

received by men and women is less for those with 

between 10 and 20 years of experience than it is for 

those with 10 or fewer years of experience. This 

could be a function of a resurgence of discrimination against women during the 1980's. Another, 

more likely, explanation is that women who have 

proven their commitment to the job by remaining 

in the workforce for at least 10 years do better 

relative to men than women who have been in the 

workforce 10 or fewer years and have not had the 

16 "Profile 1992," special supplement in the Federal Times, June 15, 1992, p. P12. 17 Sue Shellenberger, "Flexible Policies May Slow Women's Careers," Wall Street Journal, Apr. 22, 1992. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
CAREERADVANCEMENT'INTHE FEDERALGOVERNMENT 

time to demonstrate their commitment. Men, on 

the other hand, are more likely to be presumed to 

have a commitment. 

Expectations of Work and 

Family Requirements 

Time Spent on the lob. Our analysis of factors 

related to career success in the Government showed 

that the number of promotions received by employees is very much related to the average amount of 

time spent on the job each week. The importance of 

how much time an employee spends at work is 

reinforced by comments made during the focus 

groups, such as the following: 

I think there's an ethic in this department 

[that] if you're in the SES, you really better be 

available from 7:00 to 7:00. 

and: 

I'm not going to have a [manager] at the [GS] 

15 level or an SES [manager]*** who can only 

work 7:00 to 3:30 and when 3:30 rolls around 

they're out of here. If you want to start work 

at 7:00 a.m., God bless you, but if I need you at . 

6:00 p.m. you should be here. 

As shown previously in table 8, women are not, 

overall, less willing to devote the time necessary to 

advance their career. But the childcare responsibilities which are traditionally handled by women 

apparently do have the effect of limiting their 

careers. Survey responses show that women 

without children, on average, devote the same 

amount of time to their jobs each week as men 

without children. But women with young children 

(elementary or preschool age) devote less time to 

their jobs, on average, than men with or without 

children. 

This is not meant to imply that women with children work less than 40 hours per week, as only 2 

percent of them do. Forty-three percent of women 

with children reported that they work 40 hours per 

week, 37 percent work 41-45 hours per week and 

the remaining 18 percent work more than 45 hours 

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

per yVeek. Unfortunately, the limits faced by 

women with children in their ability to devote the 

same amount of time as men to their jobs, above 

and beyond the standard 40 hour work week, may 

also result in the perception that they are less 

committed to their jobs than men, and unable to do 

their jobs as well. 

The Impact of Family Responsibilities. The Wall 

Street Journal article mentioned in the previous 

section went on to quote the Families and Work 

Institute as saying that in companies where fasttrackers are pushed to work long hours, 

work and family programs may allow 

women to work fewer hours, perhaps inadvertently creating a "mommy track" where 

women are seen as less committed and less 

worthy of promotion. 

Women, who usually bear more responsibility for 

child rearing than men do, are in a bind. While 

they may be very committed to their jobs and want 

to advance, they may in fact be seen as less than 

fully committed because, owing to childcare 

responsibilities, they do not have the flexibility to 

work extra hours. Women who take maternity 

leave are often perceived in the same way. 

This point is illustrated by a senior executive focus 

group participant who described a subordinate 

who had requested extended maternity leave. He 

said: 

She's clearly made a priority decision, there's 

nothing irrational about the decision , but * * * 

it's much less likely she'll get a managerial 

shot orcritical-deadline-driven assignment 

shot. That's much less likely. 

When pressed on the issue by another participant, 

he explained that his boss won't "trust her to take 

serious, intense projects, time driven, and finish 

them." 

Even where having a family does not limit the 

number of hours a woman is available to work, 

women in focus groups reported that there often is 

a perception on the part of supervisors that they 

will be limited by family. For example, several 

19 
20 

. CAREER ADVANCEMENT INTIIE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

This suggests that women who have 

spent relatively little time in the 

workforce are less likely to be viewed as 

committed to their jobs, whether or not 

they have children. 

women in focus groups noted that assumptions 

are made that women won't be able to complete 

certain assignments because they have children. 

Senior executive women described situations 

where women, after having children were told, 

"Well now you won't want to travel and you won't 

want this assignment." Others talked about how 

women with children were told that particular jobs 

were not the "right job for them" because they 

required late hours. The following comment by 

another participant is illustrative: 

There is this business that as a successful 

senior executive you come in at 7:00 and you 

stay longer and work harder than anybody 

else and you really don't start your rumination about really important things until 10:00 

or so at night. And the effect of this was that 

the only people who [they] wanted to discuss 

the job [ vacancy with] were men of any age, 

single women, and older women with no 

kids. I mean there were two or three names 

in the hat and they said, "I don't want to talk 

to her because she has children who are still 

home in these hours." Now they don't pose 

that thing about men on the list, many of 

whom also have children in that age group. 

Another executive noted: 

I have one example of a very competent 

woman who I'm sure if she had not had a 

family would now be promoted several grade 

levels into a different organization. 

Although childcare responsibilities may affect the 

amount of time that a woman can devote to her job 

and thus also affect her perceived job commitment, 

there is also evidence suggesting that women 

without children may also be seen as less than fully 

committed to their jobs because they may one day 

decide to have children. The evidence comes from 

an examination of advancement rates for survey 

participants with and without children at various 

stages during their careers. 

During the first five years of their careers, women 

with and without children advance at approximately the same rate, while both groups of women 

have received significantly fewer promotions than 

men with and without children during the same 5 

years. The difference in number of promotions 

between women without children and men without 

children declines as women remain for longer 

periods of time in the Federal workforce. This 

suggests that women who have spent relatively 

little time in the workforce are less likely to be 

viewed as committed to their jobs, whether or not 

they have children. 

This is not meant to imply that Federal managers 

consciously discriminate against women with 

children, or women who are at an early stage in 

their careers. It may be that to the extent that 

working overtime or on the weekends serves as a 

proxy for job commitment, women with children 

(or with the potential to have children) are seen as 

less committed since childcare limits their flexibility 

to work extra hours. 

The intangibility of this factor is demonstrated by 

the range of responses we received in asking 

survey participants to agree or disagree with the 

following statement: "In general, in my organization it is a disadvantage to have family responsibilities when being considered for a job." One-third of 

women (33 percent) and one-quarter of men (23 

percent) agreed with the statement; 28 percent of 

women and 39 percent of men disagreed; and the 

remaining 38 percent of men and women neither 

agreed nor disagreed. 

Family responsibilities can also affect men, particularly now that more men are taking more responsibility for childcare. But our survey data show that 

more women than men continue to have primary 

responsibility for children. Of survey respondents 

who have dependents now, more than twice as 

many women (56 percent) as men (24 percent) 

reported that they have primary responsibility for 

the care of those dependents. 

A Report by. the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
CAREER ADVAN1⁄2E~~ IN THE FEDERALGO\lE.~~:iJ ,_~, ,_ ,,,: k\: :,,\,,,,''.:',c., ,: , ,,, "'1\,,,i.\:.::i.\i,.i,;;;.1 

As shown in table 9, it is clear that women with 

children pay a greater price in terms of career 

advancement than do men. Overall, women with 

children have received fewer promotions than 

women without children and than men regardless 

of whether they had children. In calculating these 

averages, we also controlled for length of Government service, amount of education, the number of 

relocations, and any extended leaves of absence 

that were taken. 

Similarly, while 86 percent of men who succeeded 

in reaching the SES had children living with them 

during their Federal careers, only 54 percent of 

women senior executives did. 

Table 9: Average number of promotions for survey 

respondents with and without children, by sex, 

accounting for length of Government service, 

education, the number of relocations, and leaves 

of absence 

With Children Without Children 

Women 3.37 3.51 

Men 3.88 3.57 

One other obvious point raised by table 9 is that 

men with children have been promoted more 

often, on average, than men without children. We 

can only speculate on the reasons for this. One 

possibility is that men with families have a greater 

motivation to advance. Another reason may be 

related to an old issue raised anew by a focus 

group participant: 

Where people's bonuses, grades, salaries 

were being discussed, it was literally mentioned by the other men that '1ook, he's a 

male, and he has a family to support-if 

anybody should get a promotion it should be 

hi m. " 

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

Since this issue was raised a number of times 

during the focus groups, we decided to use the 

survey to see how widespread this perception is. 

We asked those surveyed to indicate the extent to 

which they agreed with the statement: "In general, 

I think that managers in my organization believe 

men are the primary income providers, and so are 

more deserving of promotions than women." 

While a majority of men and women did not find 

much merit in this statement, a sizable minority of 

women (33 percent) believed it to be true at least to 

some extent. 

Time Spent at Work as a Criterion for Promotion. 

Based upon our survey and focus group results, it 

is apparent that women, and especially women 

with children are sometimes seen as being less 

committed to their jobs. This perception may be a 

significant barrier to advancement for women. The 

issue is not whether choosing to give one's family 

equal or more importance than the job is a wise or 

appropriate decision for a Federal employee to 

make. The issue is whether a parent's real or 

perceived lack of flexibility because of family 

should affect, to the degree it does, the evaluation 

of her or his commitment to the job and potential 

for advancement. 

Few would disagree that an incorrect perception 

about an employee should not be the basis for a 

decision affecting his or her career advancement. 

But are managers too quick to assume that employees who can't work longer hours are inferior 

candidates for promotion or career-enhancing 

assignments? Should not the quantity and quality 

of an employee's work be the primary determining 

factor? 

Like the issue of mobility, the time that 

an employee has available to devote to 

the job is often considered as a key component in evaluating his or her 

suitability for advancement. 

21 
CAREER ADVANCEMENT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT· 

Like the issue of mobility, the time that an employee has available to devote to the job is often 

considered as a key component in evaluating his or 

her suitability for advancement. Many jobs undoubtedly do require a substantial commitment of 

time beyond the standard 40-hour work week. As 

long as women are more likely to have primary 

responsibility for childcare, these women may find 

themselves unable to be competitive for these jobs 

because they do not have the flexibility to make that 

time commitment. However, managers should 

ensure that time availability is only considered as a 

criterion where it is indeed necessary for successful 

performance of a particular job or work assignment 

so that those who may be among the best 

candidates, including women with children or the 

potential to have children, are not overlooked. 

We have already noted that women, on average, 

receive the same performance ratings as men and a 

higher percentage of the "outstanding" ratings, and 

women managers receive more of the top ratings 

than male managers. This is evidence that women's 

work is of equal or even higher quality than men's, 

and further suggests that there may be better 

criteria for judging an employee's potential for 

advancement than her or his ability to work long 

hours. 

For example, some of the women who participated 

in our focus groups talked about the fact that 

competing demands on their time during the 

period they were raising children actually helped 

them to be as or more productive than they would 

have been otherwise. A comment by a woman 

reflecting on her own career illustrates this point: 

I tended to work much harder during the 

working day and my attention was more 

focused on what I was doing than some of my 

male colleagues' was. This was in part because they would stay later than I did, or they 

tended to have much more in the way of 

informal interactions that I didn't have the 

time to do in anything other than a focused 

way. 

Some private-sector companies are also beginning 

to question whether the number of hours per week 

spent on the job should play such an important 

role in an employee's potential for advancement. 

For example, according to the director of benefits 

for Xerox, that corporation urges managers to 

stress results rather than time spent in the office, 

relocations, and other "corporate rituals" in determining who is the best candidate for a job.18 

In a 1991 report, MSPB called for greater expansion 

of programs which help employees to balance 

work and family responsibilities, including expanding part-time job opportunities and using 

workplace flexibilities. The report also noted that: 

[T]raditional business values (including the 

Government's) taught employees that their 

careers would be hurt if 'personal' issues 

interfered with their job*** [M]anagement 

must go beyond ensuring that work environments are not hostile to work and family 

concerns, but rather must create environments which are proactively supportive. 

Otherwise, work and family benefit programs 

will not achieve their desired results-losing 

the potential benefits to both employees and 

the Government.19 

If the Government wants to go beyond helping 

employees to meet their needs and providing a 

better quality and productive workforce, to ensuring that representation by women at top levels 

increases, then even more should be asked of 

managers. Agency heads should ask their managers not just to support work and family programs, 

but to reexamine the criteria on which they and 

supervisors give employees career-enhancing 

work assignments and promotions. Managers 

should ensure that responsibility for children, or 

the possibility that a woman will have children in 

the future, does not play an inordinate role in their 

decisions. 

18 "Averting Career Damage From Family Policies," Wall Street Journal, June 24, 1992. 

22 

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

November 1991, p. 81. 

A Report by ·the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
Employees' Views of 

Their Career Advancement 

We were also interested in knowing what Federal 

employees themselves believe has helped their 

career advancement. Table 10 shows some of the 

items which men and women were asked to rate in 

terms of the effect of each on their Federal careers. 

Survey respondents are very aware of the importance of work experience and education in their 

career advancement. Over 80 percent of both men 

and women reported that their previous work 

experience helped them in their careers. But men 

are more likely than women to say that formal 

educational qualifications helped them. 

Table 10: Responses of survey respondents about the effect of various items on their career . 

advancement, by sex 

Percent responding: 

Helped a lot Helped a little No effect 

Item Women Men Women Men Women Men 

Formal educational qualifications 44 50 30 31 15. 15 

Previous work experience 60 58 24 26 13 15 

My perlormance or "track" record 79 67 16 23 3 9 

Opportunity to act in a position(s) prior to 

appointment 44 30 . 27 29 . 27. 38 

Completion of specialized or technical training 44 38 35 35 20 27 

Completion of formal developmental program or 

managerial training 26 15 . 31 34 42 .. 50 

Developmental assignments 42 26 37 39 20 33 

Having a senior person/mentor looking out for 

my interests 28 12 37 32 31 52 

Social/informal contacts with managers in the 

organization 8 6 32 27 53· 61 ~,,, 

Social/informal contacts with personnel office staff. 4 2 19 12 72 83 

Contacts through professional association or other 

formal network 8 5 24 19 67 74 

Recommendations of friends or acquaintances who 

knew the selecting official 17 10 30 24 · 51 65 ,_,,>, ,_.,,. 

Having friends or acquaintances on the staff of the . 

organization(s) where I applied 11 7 3Q 22 58 70 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23 
CAREER ADVANCEMENT IN THE FEDERAL GO~RNMENT ______ _ 

In the Federal Government, women 

actually derive more benefit from 

mentors than men do. 

Ten percent of women, mostly at the level of 

GS 9-12, reported that educational qualifications 

(or, more likely, a lack of educational qualifications) 

had actually hindered their career advancement. 

Women in this grade range, overall, have less 

formal education than men, and those who believe 

formal educational qualifications were a hindrance 

in their careers were, for the most part, those 

without college degrees. 

Women, on the other hand, are more likely than 

men to believe that the opportunity to act in a 

position(s) prior to appointment, carry out developmental assignments, and complete a formal 

developmental program or managerial training has 

helped them in their careers. This finding may 

imply that these kinds of assignments and training 

programs have been particularly effective for 

advancing women, perhaps in giving them an 

additional opportunity to demonstrate their 

commitment and competence. It also may imply 

that women require more opportunities to demonstrate their abilities than do men in order to break 

down traditional stereotypes of women as less 

competent as managers than men. (These kinds of 

pe!'ceptions will be discussed in more detail in a 

later section.) In either case, it would seem that 

women's career opportunities could be further 

enhanced through continuation or expansion of 

these kinds of programs. 

The Importance of Mentors 

Table 10 also shows that women are somewhat 

more likely than men to have been helped by 

"having a senior person/mentor looking out for 

my interests." This is somewhat surprising since 

according to conventional wisdom, bolstered by 

evidence from studies of the private sector,20 

women are less likely to have mentors than men. 

These studies have shown that people tend to have 

mentors of their own gender, and there are fewer 

women in senior positions available to mentor 

other women. Our survey responses do indicate 

that men are more likely to mentor men and 

women are more likely to mentor women. However, as great a percentage of women (48 percent) 

as men (45 percent) reported that they have had 

male mentors and more women (41 percent) than 

men (19 percent) have had female mentors. In the 

Federal Government, then, it appears that rather 

than being disadvantaged by a lack of access to 

mentors, women actually derive more benefit from 

them than men do. 

Making Use of Networks 

Networking can also enhance one's potential for 

advancement. Networking is a broad concept 

which can include anything from calling upon a 

colleague for work-related information to developing long-term relationships with present or former 

work associates. Contacts with a network can be 

on the job or in the context of social activities. 

Studies in the private sector have found evidence 

that women are often excluded from networks 

dominated by men, and therefore have less access 

to information and contacts which could enhance 

their advancement potential.21 We were interested 

in knowing the extent to which a lack of access to 

networks may contribute to fewer promotions of 

women in the Federal Government. 

Access to Job Opportunities. One way networking 

aids career advancement is by helping employees 

make a job change. Often employees, particularly 

at higher levels, learn about job openings fro~, or 

are recommended for jobs by, members of therr 

networks. For example, one woman focus group 

participant said she found out about opportunities 

for advancement this way: 

Most of [my advancement opportunities] 

have been found through networking. I 

mean when I was ready for a change I would 

20 See, for example, "On the Line: Women's Career Advancement," Catalyst, New York, 1992, p. 27. 21 Ibid., p. 24-27. 

24 A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
call people, and in the interim sometimes 

people would call me and I would go on 

interviews. * * * The last job that I got was just 

totally out of the blue. Someone called me, 

and it was a promotion, and I decided it made 

sense. 

Nonetheless, focus group discussions indicate that 

many women believe they are undermined by not 

being included in the kinds of informal relationships that men have with each other. Many 

women cited sports activities as a medium through 

which men can develop career-enhancing, informal 

relationships that women are not privy to. An 

example of the role sports can play here is given 

the following comment: 

We have a [high official], his subordinate 

supervisor, and several of their subordinates 

who go jogging together. And I'm hearing 

rumblings from some of the women in the 

branch that if one of those male subordinates 

gets an advancement, they're going to see it 

as quid pro quo for having jogged with their 

supervisor and their supervisor's supervisor, 

regardless of whether they discuss business. 

We asked men and women in focus group sessions 

how they had learned about promotional opportunities during their career, and if they thought the 

process was any different for those of the other 

gender. 

We found, in general, that both men and women 

had a wide range of experiences in learning about 

opportunities for advancement, ranging from 

responding on their own to a vacancy announcement to being recommended for, or referred to, a 

job by a member of their network. In general, most 

men and women believe the process is the same 

for colleagues of the opposite gender. 

To try to assess differences in access to jobs on a 

broader scale, we asked survey participants three 

questions about how they acquired the job they 

currently hold. These were: (1) Did you know the 

A Report b-y the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

person who occupied your current position before 

you applied for the position? (2) Did you know the 

supervisor of your current position before you 

applied for the position? (3) To the best of your 

knowledge, were other candidates formally 

considered for your current position at the time 

you applied? 

In general, men and women did not differ significantly in their responses to these questions. for 

both men and women overall, about half knew the 

supervisor of the current position, half knew the 

occupant, and three-quarters said that other 

candidates were considered at the time they 

applied. At the GS 9-12 level, women were more 

likely than men to have known the occupant of the 

position; i.e., 51 percent of women and only 39 

percent of men knew the occupant. At the 

GS 9-12 level women were also more likely to 

have known the supervisor of the position before 

applying; 55 percent of women and 43 percent of 

men reported that they knew the supervisor. 

We also asked survey participants whether the 

recommendations of friends or acquaintances who 

knew the selecting official or having friends or 

acquaintances on the staff of the organizations 

where they applied had helped their career advancement (see table 10). Women were slightly 

more likely than men to report that these relationships helped their careers. 

We asked those surveyed who had been denied a 

promotion or developmental opportunity for 

which they had applied in the last 5 years about 

why they think they were turned down. As 

shown in table 11, there is a substantial percentage 

of respondents who believe that not being "part of 

the group" was an important reason for being 

turned down for the promotion or developmental 

opportunity. However, men are just as likely as 

women to say that not being "part of the group" 

was an important reason for their having been 

denied a developmental opportunity, and men.are 

even more likely to say this was an important ' 

reason for having been denied a promotion. 

25 
26 

CAREER ADVANCEMENT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

Table 11: How important survey respondents believe not being 

"part of the group" was when they were denied a promotional 

opportunity or developmental assignment, by sex 

Percent responding: 

Somewhat or Of little or 

very important no importance 

Importance in being-- Women Men Women Men 

Denied a promotion 37 44 .56 · 50 

Denied a 

developmental .,. 

opportunity 41 41 52 50 

Not shown are those responding "Don't know." 

We asked survey participants to agree or disagree 

with the following statement: "Those who participate in social activities (e.g., sports, card games, 

after-work cocktails) are more likely to be promoted than those who don't." Again, while more 

than one-third of respondents (37 percent) agreed 

with the statement, just as great a percentage of 

men as women were in agreement. 

There is, then, a substantial minority of men and 

women who believe that exclusion from a particular group or network can hinder their promotion 

potential. We cannot evaluate the extent to which 

this perception is justified. But what is important 

for the purposes of this study is that women are no 

more likely to believe they have been impeded by 

this process than men. 

The Indirect Effects of Networking on Career 

Advancement. Direct access to a promotion is not 

the only benefit that a network can provide, in the 

long run, to career advancement. Discussions 

during the focus groups indicated that many 

women believe men are able to take advantage of 

the informal relationships they develop with other 

men to gain access to information or superiors in 

the chain of command. It is possible that greater 

access can help the man do a better job or gain 

recognition that may ultimately indirectly enhance 

his potential for advancement. For this reason 

some women believe they are disadvantaged, 

relative to men, in pursuing thekcareer objectives. 

The following comments from focus group participants express this viewpoint: 

While the competition must be fairly equal for 

men and women entering the executive 

levels, once the male and female executives 

are in place then their potential for growth 

and advancement changes because of the 

[tendency for] the males in the organization to 

favor the other male executives and help 

them along. And this is where the old boys 

network really revs up and where men begin 

to find opportunities for other men, point out 

to them other options, and [as a result the 

men] move more rapidly once they enter than 

women have a tendency to. 

And: 

When new men come on board oftentimes 

they are brought into the fold, told things, 

they are guided along, and this doesn't 

happen with a woman. She is brought in and 

she's greeted and everything, but she's not 

necessarily brought into the fold and told 

everything about it and given all these helpful 

little hints. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
CAREER ADVANCE~N'TIN THE-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

Some of the men who participated in focus groups 

acknowledged that men tend to form informal 

relationships with each other in which women may 

not be included. The following comment from a 

senior executive participant is an example: 

It's just easier to talk to a guy even if you don't 

know him, compared to a woman. I mean 

there are just certain things that you automatically think that you and the other guy have in 

common, and you automatically think that 

you and the woman do not have in common. 

It could be the basketball game the night 

before*** or something of that nature and [by 

talking to him about it] you get to know the 

guy***. You tend not to do that with a 

female. 

Certainly, there are men as well as women who 

believe they are excluded from informal networks, 

as some of the responses to the survey questions 

presented previously in table 11 demonstrate. But 

are these networks gender-based? When asked on 

the survey about whom they rely on for informal 

help with work projects or information about the 

organization, only 21 percent of men said they rely 

more on men than women, to at least some extent. 

The same percentage of women said they rely on 

women more than men for informal hPlp or information. Men were slightly more likely (28 percent) 

than women (21 percent) to say that they rely on 

colleagues of their own gender for career advice. 

Still, these responses do not support the notion that 

either men or women are isolated in gender-based 

groups which serve as the primary source for workrelated information and advice. 

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

It is reasonable to believe, as many women do, that 

people are often more comfortable asking infor-

-mally for information from people with whom 

they have friendly relationships than from those 

with whom they are less well-acquainted. And, to 

the extent that men feel more comfortable developing friendly relationships with other men, and to 

the extent that more men are in senior positions, 

women may have less access to that information 

and may be at a disadvantage. 

However, there is little evidence to suggest that 

this is a significant or widespread disadvantage 

which would account to any great degree for 

women getting fewer promotions than men. 

Nevertheless, managers should be aware that 

many Federal employees (including those in 

management ranks) believe that informal relationships play an inordinate role in the career advancement process. This appears to be an issue which 

troubles as many men as women. 

Survey responses do not support the 

notion that either men or women are 

isolated in gender-based groups which 

serve as the primary source for workrelated infonnation and advice. 

27 
STEREOTYPES!'/iIE:kPECTATIONS. 

. r ,'{.;;;\:• .. •·• . . . , r 

AND PERC7EPTIONS 

While men and women apparently have a 

common impression of the disadvantages of being 

excluded from informal work relationships, men 

and women do not always share the same perception of dynamics operating in the work environment. During the focus group discussions, many 

women reported their beliefs about how they are 

perceived at work. 

Many women think that certain stereotypes, 

attitudes, and expectations operate to make it more 

difficult for them to do their jobs. If their observations are correct, it is possible that these attitudes 

toward women can work as subtle barriers which 

limit recognition of their abilities and potential and 

their effectiveness on the job. Even if these observations are not correct, they can have an impact on 

the women who hold them, and thus indirectly 

affect their morale and their confidence in their 

ability to succeed. 

Holding Women to 

Higher Standards 

One of the most commonly held beliefs by women 

is that they must jump over higher hurdles in 

proving their ability than their male peers. The 

following statement made by a woman senior 

executive during a focus group conveys this 

impression: 

I still think that women have to prove 

through their dealing with people that they 

are competent and reliable. With men, I 

think, it is assumed [they are competent] and 

they have to prove they are not. 

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

On the survey, we asked men and women to 

express the extent to which they thought that 

managers in their organizations believe that 

women are incompetent until they prove themselves competent. Thirty-four percent of women 

and 7 percent of men thought that this was true to 

some or a great extent. When we asked survey 

participants for their opinion on the same issue 

with regard to men, only 5 percent of women and 

8 percent of men thought men were presumed 

incompetent to some or a great extent. 

Similarly, many women also believe that they are 

held to a higher standard of performance than men 

and that an error made by a woman receives much 

more notice than would the same error made by a 

man. The following comment by a focus group 

participant represents this perception: 

You're allowed fewer mistakes if you're a 

woman. You can only blow it once. You 

don't get to blow it again and again the way 

men do so you must constantly weigh every 

step. 

Related to this perception is the belief held by 

many women in high-level jobs that they are 

viewed by their male peers as having advanced 

because they are women rather than because of 

their qualifications. There was unanimous agreement in one focus group of women when one 

participant made the following comment: 

When I was hired, I was the first woman. 

They were looking for a woman and they 

hired me. So when you get to that situation, 

you are perceived differently because you're 

immediately discounted [because they think] 

that the only reason you got there is because 

you are a woman. 

29 
30 

STEREOTYPES, EXPECTATIONS, AND PERCEPTIONS 

If a woman lacks the full respect of her peers and 

subordinates, or even thinks she lacks that respect, 

it can make her job much more difficult, and place 

limits on her effectiveness. To try to assess how 

much justification there may be for a perception of 

lack of respect we asked survey participants to 

indicate their level of agreement or disagreement 

with the following statement: "In general, in my 

organization women have been placed in positions 

beyond their level of competence because of affirmative employment programs." Nearly half of 

men (41 percent) and one-fifth (20 percent) of 

women agreed with the statement. That so many 

employees believe that women are not competent 

to hold their positions is evidence that there is some 

justification for the perception by many women 

that they are not fully respected. 

Another barrier reported over and over by women, 

both inside and outside of the Government, is a 

phenomenon that occurs at meetings. Specifically, 

women believe that points they raise in meetings 

are often discounted or even ignored. A female 

focus group participant made the following observation: 

It doesn't happen to me as much anymore, 

but I've seen it happen to other women in my 

organization. They can sit around the table 

and then say something and nobody 

comments on [what they say] and then, a 

minute later, some man will say exactly the 

same thing and everyone will say, that's a 

great idea. 

This is a perception on the part of many women 

which men don't necessarily accept. A male focus 

group participant offered this explanation: 

I can't think of a man around this table who 

hasn't had an idea picked up by someone else 

at the table and fed back and adopted. That's 

just part of the game and, in fact, there's a little 

management trick * * * where you try to tempt 

your supervisor into doing exactly that so that 

your supervisor will do what you want to do. 

You basically make it their idea. ***I can't 

picture a GS 14 or 15 or SES woman who 

wouldn't speak up at a meeting-at least in 

the Civil Service.*** It goes with the job and 

they can't hold back. If they hold back, they 

won't be GS 14's or 15's or SES'ers. 

We were interested in knowing the extent to which 

these kirids of perceptions about the respect 

women receive at work are held by women and 

men Governmentwide at the GS 9-15 and senior 

executive levels. Therefore, we included several 

statements in our survey that we asked participants to agree or disagree with. Figure 8 shows 

the percentage of men and women agreeing with 

each statement. As is apparent, in each case there 

is at least a substantial minority of women who 

share the observations of the female focus group 

participants quoted above. While some men agree 

with the women, for the most part, they have a 

very different view of these workplace interactions. 

Limits on Career Choices 

Many women also believe they are encouraged by 

mentors and supervisors to stay in staff positions 

rather than move to line positions. Then, when 

they apply for promotions they are not as 

competitive as men who have line experience. 

Studies of employment practices of men and 

women in the private sector, including the Department of Labor's glass ceiling study, have found 

that women are more often found in staff positions. 

One focus group participant said the following: 

Women are programmed into staff positions 

because it's assumed those are more 

nurturing kinds of position, and more suitable for women and they're directed away 

from the line positions. Then they get to a 

certain point in their careers where they need 

line experience in order to move up, they look 

back, and find they don't have that experience 

because they had been programmed into 

these staff positions. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
. STEREOTYPES,'EXPECTATIONS, AND PERCEPTIONS 

Survey responses indicate that 25 percent of women 

(and 9 percent of men) believe that managers expect 

women to be better suited to staff positions to at 

least some extent, and about 22 percent of men and 

women do not know if managers believe this or 

not. While just over half of women surveyed do 

not perceive these limited managerial expectations 

of their career potential, the 25 percent who do 

believe they face such constraints is a significant 

minority whose views deserve consideration. 

How Important 

Are Perceptions? 

Research has shown that men and women often 

see the world through different lenses; i.e., they 

have different expectations and interpretations of 

circumstances and events.22 We don't know the 

extent to which women's perceptions, as reported 

Figure 8: Perceptions of Female and Male Survey Respondents 

In general, in my organization ... 

A woman must perform better 

than a man to be promoted. 

Standards are higher for women 

than men. 

The viewpoint of a woman. is 

often not heard at a meeting 

until it is repeated by a man. 

Women and men are respected 

equally. 

10 

55 

• Women 

Men 

20 30 40 50 60 

Percent who agree 

22See, for example, Deborah Tannen, "You Just Don't Understand," Ballentine Books, New York, 1990. 

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

70 

31 
1 STEROETYPES, EXPECTATIONS, AND.PERCEPTIONS 

32 

If a woman assumes a job which is 

thought of as requiring male attributes, 

she is often expected to fail both by 

herself and others. 

in this section, stem from real differences in the 

way they are treated by colleagues and the extent 

to which they result from differing orientations that 

men and women bring to the workplace. 

For a number of reasons, women's perceptions as 

to how they are regarded at work should be taken 

seriously. First, a number of studies have shown 

that stereotyping is a real phenomenon which acts 

as a barrier to women at work. 23 Research has 

shown that jobs are commonly sex-typed as male 

or female, depending on which sex has traditionally dominated the job. If a woman assumes a job 

which is thought of as requiring male attributes, 

she is often expected to fail both by herself and 

others. 

Second, this kind of stereotyping is magnified in a 

situation where a particular group, in this case 

women, is in the minority. Studies have shown 

that women are judged to be even less qualified 

and have less potential when they are few in 

number. They are more visible, and so are their 

mistakes. When women are recognized for their 

work when they are in the minority, the recognition is more likely to be attributed to their gender 

than to their own accomplishments. When many 

women are present in a given situation, the diversity among them is much more likely to be obvious. 24 

Finally, we do know that women have been less 

successful at moving into senior levels than men, 

and that not all of the limitations on their success 

can be explained by demographic factors such as 

education, length of service, and mobility. To the 

extent that women are aware of the constraints 

they are facing, their productivity, confidence, and 

likelihood of applying for promotions may be 

diminished. While some women see these 

constraints as a challenge to be overcome, many 

more women want to avoid putting themselves in 

a position where their mistakes rather than their 

accomplishments may be recognized, and where 

the expectation is that they will fail. 

What is most important is the effect these perceptions and ostensible stereotypes have on women's 

effectiveness on the job and their job satisfaction. 

One senior executive focus group participant 

observed that although he did not believe women 

operated within such constraints, "It doesn't 

matter, the perception is there. You've got a 

fundamentally unhappy employee who feels that 

she is limited." 

Because of such effects, managers should look for 

expressions of unsupportable attitudes and stereotypes that may serve to constrain women, and 

work to curtail these beliefs. Also, managers 

should examine their own practices and ensure 

that they themselves are giving women, as well as 

men, assignments which will highlight their 

abilities, rather than reinforce stereotypes (an 

example of the latter being to always assign a 

woman responsibility for the office Christmas 

party). 

Managers should be aware that appointing one 

woman to an all-male task force may strengthen 

stereotypes, while appointing several women can 

help to weaken stereotypes and help women to 

feel less isolated. But managers should also be 

aware that even if stereotypes and constraints are 

not operating, women may believe they are. As 

these perceptions can be just as damaging, managers should address the perceptions as well. 

23 See, for example, Madeline E. Heilman, "Sex bias in work settings: the lack of a fit model," in L.L. Cummings and Barry M. Staw, eds., 

"Research in Organizational Behavior," vol. 5, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1983, pp. 269-298. . 

2' Ibid. Also see Rosabeth Moss Kanter, "Men and Women of the Corporation," Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1977; and Jennifer Crocker and 

Kathleen M. McGraw, "What's Good for the Goose is Not Good for the Gander," American Behavioral Scientists, vol. 27, No. 3, January/ 

February 1984, pp. 357-369. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
Although there is evidence that members of 

minority groups also face barriers in career advancement, the focus of this study is on women. 

That is because we believe that the obstacles to 

advancement are complex in nature, probably not 

the same for women and minorities, and that a 

single study focusing on both women and minorities would not be able to provide enough depth. 

Therefore, MSPB has a separate study in progress 

to analyze the glass ceiling as it affects minorities in 

the Government. For the purposes of this study, 

however, we will discuss our findings as to how 

the experience of minority women25 may be 

different from that of nonminority women. 

Demographic Differences 

In a previous section of this report, we noted that 

women overall are underrepresented in Federal 

senior-level jobs in that the percentage of women at 

this level is significantly lower than the percentage 

of women in Professional and Administrative 

occupations in the Government. But how does the 

representation of minority women compare to the 

representation of nonminority women? 

Nonminority women hold about 26 percent, and 

minority women 10 percent, of Professional and 

Administrative jobs in the Government. While 

nonminority women hold about 10 percent of 

senior executive and 16 percent of GS/GM 13-15 

jobs, minority women hold less than 2 percent of 

senior executive jobs and only 4 percent of 

GS/GM 13-15 jobs. That nonminority women 

hold 2 times as many Professional and Administrative jobs but hold 3 times as many GS/GM 13-

15 jobs and five times as many SES jobs indicates 

that minority women are even more poorly represented in top-level jobs in the Government than are 

nonminority women. 

Career Advancement Factors 

Data from our survey suggest that minority 

women have had less opportunity for advancement than nonminority women. Table 12 shows 

the average number of promotions received by 

minority ®d nonminority women who entered the 

Government at the same grade level, accounting 

for length of Government service and amount of 

formal education. Not only is the average number 

of promotions for women lower than the average 

number received by men, but the average number 

of promotions received by minority women is also 

less than the average number received by 

nonminority women. The differences are significant. 

Table 12: Average number of promotions for 

minority and nonminority survey respondents, 

by sex, accounting for length of Government service 

and education 

Women Men 

Minority 3.2.2 3.63 

Nonminority 3.41 3.85 

25 "Minorities," in this report, are those employees who identified themselves as American Indian/ Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, 

Black, or Hispanic. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33 
34 

MINORITY WOMEN 

Survey data suggest that minority 

women have had less 

opportunity for advancement than 

nonminority women. 

Examination of the factors that we found to be 

related to the attainment of high grades reveals 

little difference between minority and nonminority 

women in the survey population. According to the 

CPDF, minority women in Professional and 

Administrative jobs have a slightly longer average 

length of Federal service (14.4 years) than . 

nonminority women (13.5 years). Our survey data 

show that both groups have about the same 

amount of education, devote the same amount of 

time to their jobs, have relocated as often, and have 

taken about the same number of leaves of absence. 

One way the two groups do differ is that more 

minority women have had children during their 

career (77 percent of minority women and 65 

percent of nonrninority women.) But even this 

does not explain the discrepancy in probability of 

promotion. Even minority women without children have been promoted, on average, fewer times 

than nonminority women without children. 

Neither does a lack of commitment to the job 

explain the discrepancy in promotion rates for 

minority women. Table 13 shows the responses of 

minority and nonminority women to statements 

indicative of commitment to the job. Minority 

women are even more willing than nonminority 

women to devote whatever time is necessary to 

advance their careers, and express equal 

commitment to, and enthusiasm about, their jobs as 

nonminority women. As great a percentage of 

minority women as nonminority women are 

planning to apply for promotion within the next 3 

to 5 years. 

Women, on average, receive fewer promotions 

during their careers than men, and we know that 

all of this difference cannot be explained by their 

relative qualifications. However, survey data show 

minority women are promoted even less often than 

nonminority women, a difference which cannot be 

accounted for either by qualifications or by gender 

alone. 

Table 13: Percent of female survey participants responding to 

statements about job commitment and future plans, by minority 

and nonminority status 

Percent responding to some or a great extent: 

Statement Minority Women Nonminority Women 

I am willing to devote whatever time 

is necessary to my job in order to 

advance my career. 86 75 

I am very committed to my job. 96 95 

I am always enthusiastic about my job. 89 90 

Percent who are planning to apply for 

promotion within the next three to 

five years. 74 70 

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

Minority women are as likely to perceive discrimination based on gender as are nonminority 

women. But a significant portion of minority 

women also believe they face discrimination based 

on race or national origin. 

For example, nearly the same percentage of minority and nonminority women said that gender has 

hindered their career advancement in the Government (29 percent of minority women and 21 

percent of nonminority women), but 29 percent of 

minority women also said that race or national origin 

has hindered their career advancement. 

A slightly higher percentage of minority women 

than. nonminority women thought that their 

gender would have a negative effect on their 

chances of being selected for promotion (33 percent 

of minority and 25 percent of nonminority 

MINORITY WOMEN 

More than half of minority women surveyed do not believe they receive the 

same amount of respect as men 

in their organizations. 

women), but 34 percent of minority women also 

thought that race or national origin would have a 

negative effect on their chances for promotion. 

Table 14 shows the percentages of minority and 

nonminority women who disagreed with various 

statements about their experiences with fair treatment within organizations and by managers in 

their organizations. Responses to these statements 

indicate that minority women are less likely than 

nonminority women to believe that equitable 

treatment is accorded men and women at work. 

More than half of minority women surveyed do 

not believe they receive the same amount of 

respect as men in their organizations. 

Table 14: Percent of female survey respondents disagreeing with 

statements about equitable treatment in the workplace, by minority 

and nonminority status 

Percent disagreeing: 

Statement Minority Women, Nonminority Women 

In general, in my organization. . . 

Women and men are respected equally 60 51 

People are promoted based on their 

competence 35 20 

Percent responding to little or no extent: 

Statement Minority Women Nonminority Women 

In general, I think that managers in my 

organization believe ... 

People should be rewarded based on 

their performance, regardless of 

whether they are men or women 25 16 

Women and men can perform the 

same work equally well 32 25 

. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35 
36 

MINORITY WOMEN 

Summary 

Although our study was not designed to provide 

for indepth examination of the barriers to advancement as they affect minority women, there is some 

evidence that minority women are disadvantaged 

both by their gender and their race or national 

origin. 

Minority women are promoted less often than 

nonrninority women, even when they have the 

same amount of formal education and Government experience. Minority women are also less 

likely than nonrninority women to believe that 

they receive the same respect as men, that promotions are based on competence, and that rewards 

are based on performance. 

We don't know the extent to which the perceptions 

of minority women are justified, but it is likely that 

at least some minority women may be discouraged 

from contributing their maximum effort to their 

organizations. The result is a cost to the Government in terms of lost productivity and credibility as 

an employer that is apparently even more severe 

than the cost with respect to nonrninority women. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
CONCLUSION AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Conclusion 

A glass ceiling does exist in the Federal Government. It consists, in part, of factors that women 

can control, such as their education, experience, 

and mobility. It also consists of factors outside of 

women's control such as unfounded judgments 

about their lack of job commihnent and their ability 

to do their jobs well. 

Increasing the representation of women in higher 

graded jobs is a slow process. Only a small percentage of employees in higher graded jobs ~re 

promoted to the next level each yea~. More rmportantly, promotion rates for women m GS 9 and 

GS 11 jobs in Professional occupations are lower 

than for men in those jobs. This disparity has a 

significant impact on the number of women in 

higher graded jobs, as the GS 9-11 grades are the 

gateway between entry-level jobs and senior-level 

jobs for most employees. 

Managers have traditionally relied on both formal 

and informal criteria in evaluating a candidate for a 

promotion, developmental program, ?r significa~~ 

work assignment. In addition to looking at qualifications such as experience and education, many 

managers consider an employee's commitment to 

his or her career and desire for advancement. 

While it is certainly useful to consider these factors, 

care must be taken to use valid indicators reasonably related to future job success. 

Assumptions are often made, for example, that an 

employee who devotes extra time to the job each 

week, above and beyond 40 hours, is automatically 

more committed, more career-oriented, and 

generally a better employee than one who devotes 

"only'' 40 hours a week. Without tying in producA Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

A glass ceiling does exist in the Federal 

Government. 

tivity and output, however, this could easily be a 

wrong assumption in any given situation. It's 

certainly possible for a well-organized, highly 

capable 40-hour-a-week employee to consistently 

outproduce a less capable, less organized 

SO-hour-a-week employee. Stated another way, 

productivity and contributions to the organization 

are better indicators of job commitment than mere 

time spent on the job. 

Similarly, assumptions are often made that an 

employee who has relocated geographically for 

job-related reasons is a better candidate for promotion than one who has_,not. In some cases this may 

be true, but in others it is probably not. Without a 

demonstrated link between geographic mobility 

and the ability to perform a particular job, this 

assumption may be invalid and can have negative 

consequences for women. Women often bear a . 

greater share of family responsibilities and, for this 

reason, some women have less flexibility than men 

with regard to their personal time and mobility, 

(while still others are simply assumed to have less 

flexibility). Therefore, the use of this criterion, . 

when it is not appropriate, can improperly result m 

fewer women being promoted. This can occur 

despite the fact that women are as interested as 

men in advancing their careers and, on average, 

receive performance ratings equal to those obtained by men. 

A significant number of women believe that_ they 

confront other attitudes and stereotypes which 

make it more difficult for them to do their jobs and 

advance in their careers. These include assump--

37 
38 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Government is dedicated to 

ensuring it has a diverse workforce, and 

equal opportunity for advancement for 

all employees. These objectives are not 

being met in full, largely because of a 

subtle, almost invisible, glass ceiling. 

tions that women, in general, don't have the 

necessary qualifications for their jobs and have 

been advanced only to achieve affirmative action 

goals. Women's perceptions are not without basis, 

as our survey results and other studies have 

shown that such stereotypes often do exist. And 

some research shows that such impressions of 

women are even more likely to occur when women 

are few in number in a particular job or situation. 

These kinds of stereotypes can create an environment that curtails women's effectiveness, selfconfidence, and job satisfaction. To the extent that 

perceptions or stereotypes have such an effect, 

some women may be reluctant to pursue promotional opportunities, thereby increasing the probability that women will remain few in number in 

top-level jobs. 

Our data also suggest that minority women face a 

double disadvantage. They are promoted even 

less often than nonrninority women with the same 

amount of formal education and Government 

experience. In many cases, minority women feel 

the effects of what they perceive to be genderbased disparate treatment at work even more 

acutely than nonrninority women. 

The extent to which these factors operate almost 

certainly varies from agency to agency and among 

organizations within each agency. The results 

presented in this study represent effects occurring, 

m general, across Government. While we did not 

find isolation from informal networks of men to be 

a barrier to women's advancement in Government 

overall, for example, such exclusionary networks 

could well exist in some organizations. Similarly, 

it is highly unlikely that all organizations value 

geographic relocations equally. 

The Government is dedicated to ensuring it has a 

diverse workforce, and equal opportunity for 

advancement for all employees. These objectives 

are not being met in full, largely because of a 

subtle, almost invisible, glass ceiling. The opportunity to eliminate the underrepresentation of 

women in top-level jobs exists now, more than 

ever, as more women than men are entering the 

Federal workforce. Given the slow process of 

career advancement, all Federal agencies need to 

begin now to make a determined effort to eliminate barriers and ensure that women have opportunities to advance in their careers. 

If women entering Government today are to see 

parity in senior-level jobs by the time they retire 

from their Federal careers, agencies must take 

concerted action to break the glass ceiling. Our 

forecasting model shows that given current trends, 

women will continue to represent less than onethird of the Government's senior executives 25 

years into the future. As long as women are in the 

minority in top-level jobs, stereotypes that limit 

their effectiveness and make it more difficult for 

them to advance are likely to remain in force. 

Traditional criteria for evaluating commitment to 

the job and advancement potential have helped to 

perpetuate this cycle. Unless efforts are made to 

reexamine these criteria and to reduce the effect of 

stereotypes, women will continue to be 

constrained in their efforts to advance, and the 

Government will continue to underutilize a 

valuable resource. 

As long as women are in the minority in 

top-level jobs, stereotypes that limit 

their effectiveness and make it more 

difficult for them to advance are 

likely to remain in force. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' " , , ~, 

Recommendations 

• The Government should reaffirm its 

commitment to equal employment opportunity in the Civil Service and each Federal 

agency should make special efforts to 

increase the representation of women in 

senior positions. 

In accordance with the objectives set forth in the 

Civil Service Reform Act, agencies should ensure 

that women are actively recruited to apply for 

higher graded job vacancies; Concerted efforts 

involving all managers and supervisors, personnel 

and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) 

officers, and Federal Women's Program Managers, 

will be required. 

Women hold less than half of all Professional and 

Administrative jobs above grade GS 9, and less 

than one-quarter of these jobs above grade GS 12. 

In addition, promotions above the midlevel into 

supervisory and management levels do not occur 

very often. For these reasons, recruitment for 

higher graded jobs may need to be expanded 

beyond the usual area of consideration in order to 

ensure that the applicant pool includes a sufficient 

number of women. 

Without an active effort to increase the representation of women at senior levels, women are likely to 

remain in the minority in these jobs for many years 

to come. Even greater efforts need to be made to 

increase the representation of minority women at 

senior levels. 

• Managers should reexamine the formal and 

informal criteria they use to evaluate employees' potential for advancement, especially when these criteria are used in making 

selections for developmental training, 

career-enhancing work assignments, and 

promotions. 

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

Managers should reexamine the assumptions that 

may be underlying their decisions as to whom to 

develop. They should ensure they are evaluating 

employees' promotion potential based on the 

quality and quantity of their work, and ~tated_ . 

interest in advancement, rather than therr availability to work overtime or to relocate, unless there is a 

specific reason to do so. Managers should ensure 

that they are not making unwarranted assumptions that career advancement is incompatible with 

family responsibilities, thereby forcing employees 

to choose between the two. 

• Managers should seek to curtail, within 

themselves and their organizations, any 

expressions of stereotypes or attitudes which 

create an environment hostile to the advancement of women. 

A substantial minority of women believe that their 

competence is unfairly doubted by those they 

work with. Previous research on stereotypes and 

sex-typing of jobs demonstrates the pervasiveness 

and detrimental effects of these perceptions. 

Managers should look for, and work to preclude, 

in themselves and throughout their organizations, 

expression of these stereotypes and other behavior 

which may fuel women's perceptions that they are 

not valued or respected. 

Managers should give qualified women opportunities to demonstrate their abilities in jobs and 

assignments traditionally associated with me1:, as 

well as ensuring that women are not always given 

assignments or roles traditionally associated with 

women. They should be aware that in situations 

where women are very few in number, they are 

often viewed as "tokens," and stereotypes may be 

reinforced. Assuring participation by several 

women on a task force or in a meeting can highlight the diversity among women and help to 

diminish stereotypes. 

39 
40 

: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

• Women should take full advantage of 

opportunities to increase their 

competitiveness and demonstrate their 

abilities, and agencies should make these 

opportunities available. 

Women should increase their own advancement 

potential by taking advantage of opportunities to 

do so within and outside the Government. Education is an important factor in career advancement, 

and, where possible, women should consider 

pursuing additional education. 

A majority of women who responded to the 

survey also reported that specialized or technical 

training, formal developmental programs or 

managerial training, developmental assignments, 

the opportunity to act in a position prior to appointment, and/ or having a mentor had helped 

them in their career advancement. Agencies 

should make these programs and opportunities 

available to women wherever possible, and 

women who wish to advance should seek them 

out. Some of these programs provide opportunities for women to demonstrate their abilities and 

thus reduce their own and others' perceptions that 

women are not as competent as men. 

• Agencies should conduct their own assessment of barriers to advancement for 

women. 

The conclusions stated in this report are based on a 

Govemmentwide assessment of the career advancement process. In recognition of the diversity 

of Federal agencies, and subunits within agencies, 

the Board recommends that each agency and/ or 

agency subunit use the broad findings outlined in 

this report to develop studies of the career advancement process and the effects of any glass 

ceiling that may exist in their organization. 

Agencies and subunits, in consultation with their 

Federal Women's Program Managers, should 

develop their own means for \'l.Ssessing barriers 

within their organizations. But we recommend in 

addition that they analyze their accession, promotion and separation rates to see whether significantly different rates exist between men and 

women at any grade level, and, if so, why. They 

should evaluate the climate within their agencies 

to determine the extent to which women may be 

working in an environment which they perceive as 

hostile to their productivity or advancement. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
Dear Colleague: 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

Washington. D.C. 20419 

We need your help with a study of career development in the Federal 

Government. You're part of a relatively small group of Federal employees selected 

randomly to participate in the survey. Results from this survey will be reported to 

Congress and the President and made available to the public. Your views will represent 

those of over 900,000 employees at grades 9 and above. Your answers are important! 

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent Federal agency, is 

responsible for monitoring the health of the Federal personnel system. One of our 

studies this year involves looking at how employees at upper grade levels have managed 

their careers, and what factors may aid or impede career advancement. For the survey 

to reflect the true thoughts and experiences of Federal employees, it is extremely 

important that all people in this scientific sample complete, and return their 

questionnaires. 

Your answers will be kept strictly confidential. All answers will be combined so 

that individual responses cannot be identified. It is essential that you do not put your 

name' anywhere on this booklet and do not ask anyone else to fill it out. 

Please return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed postpaid envelope 

within 5 days after you receive it. It should take about 20 to 30 minutes to complete. 

If you would like a copy or' the report to be published about the survey, please write to 

us at the address shown on the next page. If you have any questions about the survey, 

please contact Katherine Naff on (202 or FTS) 653-7833. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

Sincerely, 

1~~~ Evangeline W. Swift 

Director, Policy and Evaluation 

~} The Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution 1787-1987 

c• o•• Oll•••• OOGOOOQOOOGOO DO NOT WRITE IN TKIS SKADED AREA " 02010. 

-

--

-

-

-

-

--

--

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

-

--

--

--

--

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

--

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

-

--

- • • • • •••• •-

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 41 
42 

·APPENDIXl I 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

--

--

-

-

-

--

--

-

-----

-

-

-

--

-

-

-

----

-

-

-

--

-

--

-

-

--

-

-

--

-- [: ---

-• 

- "o---~-" -•-"-----"--~-•-•--- ••--•••-• _j 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Washington. DC 20419 

SURVEY ON CAREER DEVELOPMENT IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE 

I 

PRIVACY ACT NOTICE 

Collection of the requested information is authorized by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 

(5 U.S.C. 1205a). The information you provide will be used to evaluate and improve Federal 

personnel policies and practices. Your participation in this survey is voluntary and none of the 

information you choose to supply will be associated with you individually. 

I 

REPORT REQUEST ADDRESS 

If you would like a copy of the report published about the survey. please address your request to: 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Office of Policy and Evaluation 

11 20 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington. DC 20419 

Note: The report will be available approximately September 1992. 

General Directions: Please read the survey Marking Instructions carefully and answer each 

question in the way that best reflects your personal opinions and experiences. There are no right 

or wrong answers. 

I 

MARKING INSTRUCTIONS 

• Make heavy black marks that completely fill the circle. 

• Erase any changes cleanly and completely. 

• Do not make any stray marks in this booklet. 

• Please do not fold this document. 

• Answer each question except when directed to skip a 

section. 

• Read the questions carefully before selecting an answer. 

• If you select an answer that is not identified in the list 

of options. write only in the space provided. 

USE NO. 2 PENCIL ONLY 

CORRECT MARK INCORRECT MARKS 

oeoo G'@00 

You will be asked to give numbers for 

some answers. 

• Write the number in the 

boxes. making sure the 

LAST NUMBER is always 

placed in the RIGHT-HAND 

BOX. 

• Fill in the UNUSED boxes 

with ZEROES. 

• Then mark the matching 

circle below each box. 

DC>. NOT. WRITE >1N Ti41S AREA 

•••• •• • • -2-

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
: ·. A:J>P.EN1JlX1 1 

SECTION 1: WORK EXPERIENCE 

1. What was the pay plan and grade of your first full-time, 

permanent, civilian position in the Federal 

Government? 

a. Pay Plan: 

GS .................. . ...................... 0 

GM .................... . ..: ............... 0 

ES(SES)'. ............... , ... . ... : ......... 0 

VM, VN, VP or other Title 38 pay plan ... ·o 

FP or Foreign Service plan............ . . 0 

WG or other blue-collar plan ....... , ............. 0 

Don't know . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... 0 

Other (Please specify) 7 . . . . ................. 0 

I I 

b. Pay Grade or Level: 

01 06 

02 07 

03 Os 

04 09 

05 010 

2. What year did you 

enter Federal 

service at the 

grade indicated 

in question 1? 

011 

0 12 

0 13 

0 14 

0 15 

016 

017 

018 

OOther 

0 Don't know 

Write the year 1 9 in the boxes. -

Then, darken 

the matching 

circles. ____,. 

3. What was the job classification series of your first 

full-time, permanent, civilian job with the Federal 

Government (e.g .. 0334 for computer specialists, 

0810 for civil engineers, 0610 for nurses)? Please 

indicate your job classification series below, placing 

O's in front of the number if necessary, to make it 

four digits. 

0 Don't know/Can't remember 

Then, darken 

the matching 

circles. -----I• 

4. What is your current job classification series? 

Please indicate your job classification series below, 

placing O's in front of the number if necessary, to 

make it four digits. 

5. What year did 

you enter your 

current job 

classification 

series? 

Write the number I I I in the boxes. - 1-::1⁄2c'--::c'--::c'i 

Then, darken 

the matching 

circles. 

®©®© 

(D0(D0 

®®@@ 

@@@® 

©©@@ 

®@®@ 

@@@© 

Czf0G0 

@@@© 

@@@@ 

Write the year 1 9 in the boxes. -

Then. darken 

the matching 

circles. ----

6. What is your current pay plan and grade? 

a. Pay Plan: 

GS ................................ . ...... 0 

GM................. . ............... 0 

ES(SES)................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 

VM, VN, VP or other Title 38 pay plan ............ 0 

FP or Foreign Service plan . . . . . . . . . . ........ 0 

WG or other blue-collar plan........... . ...... 0 

Don't know ....... . 

Other /Please specify) 7 

b. Pay Grade or Level: 

01 06 

02 07 

03 OB 

04 09 

05 010 

011 

012 

0 13 

014 

0 15 

..o ................. 0 

016 

017 

018 

0 Other 

0 Don't know 

•• 0 •• 0 ••••• 0000600000000 02010 . DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SHADED AREA 

-

-

---

--

---

---

---

-

--

-

-

--

-

-

--

---

---

--

---

---

---

------

--

-

-

--

-

---

- -3- - • • • • •••• •-

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 43 
44 

, APPENDIXl 

--

-----

-----

--

--

--

7. Which one of the following best describes the nature 

of your move into your current position? 

Entry into Government from outside ................ 0 

Lateral re%signment or transfer initiated 

by management ................................ 0 

Lateral reassignment or transfer initiated 

by YQ.l! ......................................... 0 

Career ladder promotion ........................... 0 

Temporary promotion ............................. 0 

Permanent promotion (other than career ladder) ..... 0 

Downgrade initiated by management ............... 0 

Downgrade you took voluntarily .................... 0 

Other (Please specify) :J .......................... 0 

I I 

- 8. To the best of your knowledge, were other candidates 

- formally considered for your current position at the 

- time you applied? 

- Yes .............................................. 0 - No ............................................... 0 - Don·t know/Can·t remember . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 - Does not apply .................................... 0 

---

---

----

--

----

9. When you got your current position, was it a: 

Change to a different agency? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 

Change to a different organization within 

the same agency? ............................... 0 

Change within the same organization 

within the same agency? ........................ 0 

Entry into Government from outside ................ 0 

Other (Please specify) 7 .......................... 0 

I I 

- 10. Did you know the person who occupied your current 

- position before you applied? 

- Yes .............................................. 0 - No ............................................... Q - Not sure/Don't remember ......................... 0 - Does not apply .................................... 0 

-

--- 11. Did you know the supervisor of your current position 

- before you applied for the position? 

- Yes .............................................. 0 - No ............................................... 0 - Not sure/Don't remember ......................... 0 - Does not apply .................................... 0 

-

--

---

12. What was the highest level of education that you 

had completed (al at the time you got your first 

full-time, permanent, civilian job with the Government 

and (b) that you have completed now? 

Mark one response in each column. 

(a) Highest lavel completed when I got my first Job 

(b) Highest level of education completed at the present time 

Less than high school .......................... . 

High school diploma or 

equivalent (e.g., GED) ........................... 0 0 

Completed assoc,ate·s degree 

(e.g., AA) ....................................... 0 

Some college, no degree .............. . 00 

Completed bachelor's degree 

(e.g., BA, BS) .................................. . 00 

Some graduate school, 

no graduate degree ............................ . 00 

Completed master's degree 

(e.g., MA, MS) .................................. 0 

Completed professional degree 

(e.g., JD, MD, DDS) ............................ . 00 

Completed doctorate (e.g .. PhD) .................. 00 

-• •••• •• -4-

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

\APPENDIX:i 

SECTION 2: CAREER DEVELOPMENT 

13. For the items listed below. please indicate the effect 

you think each has had on your career advancement 

in the Federal Government. Please use the lo!low,ng 

scale for each item listed: 

_____ ·-- Largely Hindered 

!,_.Somewhat Hindered 1 

No Effect 

f _ Helped a Little : 

Helped a Lot j I 

i l 

~ '. : : 1. Formal educational ; • I I 

qualifications .................... OD;0:00Pi 

2. Previous work experience ......... oo,o.o:oP, 

3. Opportunity to act in a I 1 1 , : 1 

position(s) prior to appointment .... 0010010:0i , I I j I i 

4. Completion of specialized j I i I [ 1

. 

or technical tra1n1ng....... 00100100 

5. Developmental assignments ....... ob:oo:o:oj 

6. My gender ....................... 0p;oppo; 

7. My race/national origin .......... OP:00001 I I I ' I 

8. Social/informal contacts with ! I I I i ; 

managers in the organization ...... 0000001 9. Having a senior person/mentor i 1 ;. 1 i i 

looking out for my interests ....... ooto:oio:01 

10. Social/informal contacts with I i i I : I 

personnel office staff........... 0,()j0K);QQI 

11. Contacts through professional I ! I j J i 

association or other formal / / I ! I I 

network ........................ 00!0Pi0PJ 

12. Completion of formal ! I . i .. / 

developmental program I I I J ! I 

or managerial training ............ o

1

010,00P1 

13. My performance or ··track" 1 i I l i I 

record ........................... opoppp1 

14. Recommendation of friends j I i I ! 

or acquaintances who ! I I I f 

knew the selecting official ........ OPOPPPi 

15 Having friends or acquaintances I I I i I • I on the staff of the organization(s) 1 l I 

j j l 

where I applied .................. 000.0001 

Ob10010 10 1 

16. Other (Please specify) , . . . . . . . . . L-J L='.J ~j 

I I 

14. From the list of factors shown in question 13, 

please mark the number of the one most important 

factor in your advancement. 

0@00®©0@®@@@@@@@ 

15. How many days per month, on average, have you 

spent on Government travel in the past 2 years? 

0·5 days/month ................ . 

6-10 days/month . . . .......... . 

11 · 1 5 days/month . 

16·20 days/month ... 

More than 20 days/month 

··········o .... 0 

.. 0 . .. 0 

0 

16. How many hours, en average, have you worked 

each week during the past 2 years? 

Less than 40 hours/week ......................... 0 

40 hours/week....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 

41-45 hours/week . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 0 

46-50 hours/week ........ . ······· ........ O 

51 - 60 hours/week .......... 0 

More than 60 hours/week .............. . 

17. As a Federal employee, have you applied for a 

promotion in the last 5 years which you did not 

receive? 

.... 0 

No - Go to question 20 . ............ . 

Yes .............. . 

....... 0 ....... 0 

Please continue on next page 

c• o•• o••••• 000O0Q0000000 02010 DO NOT WAITE IN .THIS SHADED AflEA I 

---

-

--

----

--

-

--

---

----

---

----

---

-

--

--

-----

-

--

-

-

-

-

--

-

--

-

------ -5- - ••• . . .... •-

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 45 
46 

;APPENDIXl 

- 18. 

-

-

-

-

-----

----

----

--

------

--

--

-

-

----

----

------

--

-

-

-

If yes, how important do you believe each of the 

following factors were in explaining why you did 

not get the most recent promotion you applied for? 

Please use the following scale for each item listed 

below: 

Don't Know -~---~--~-----, Of No Importance/Doesn't Apply 

~--~ , -~ .uttJe Importance 

Somewhat Important 

Very Important ~----.L'---'---'"'--'--,; 0 

i 00010 I I 

1. I was not qualified ............. . 

2. There were other, more 

qualified candidates ........... . 

3. I did not get along with 

4. I did not want to work more 

than 40 hours per week ............. K)iOP 0 1 

5. My gender·_ .. · ....... · · .......... · ...... EbiOP op. 6. My race/national origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . OIC>OOI 7. I wanted a Job which E 

normally goes to a woman ........ · ·. o

1

_ 0 00 

8. I wanted a Job which I 

normally goes to a man . . . ......... 0

1

00

1 

OE 

9. I could not change my schedule E to accommodate the new posItIon . 0000 

10 Someone else had already l.:J I 

been ··preselected" ............... ~0 op 

11. I could not relocate... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00(. oob. 

12. I was pregnant or planning 1 to become pregnant ................ . 

13. I had taken maternity/ 

paternity leave ..................... . 

14. I had taken leave to care 

for a disabled/ill relative ....... , ... . 

15. I had taken leave to pursue 

my education ...................... . 

16. I was not "part of the group" ........ . 

17. I was unable to travel .......... . 

18. My responsibility for my family 

was viewed as interfering 

with my ability to do the job ... 

19. I had poor references., ..... ,.,., ... , 

20. My age ................. ,,, ... , ... ,. 

21. I did not have enough education ... , . 0 0 

22. I did not have enough experience 

relevant to the job , .... , , .......... , 

23. Other (Please specify/ J ........... . 

I - 19. From the list of reasons shown in question 18, which 

- do you believe was the one most important reason 

----

-

----

you did not get the promotion? 

0000©©0®®@@@ 

@®@®@®®@@@@ 

-• ..... . • •• 

20, 

21. 

-6-

As a Federal employee, have you applied for a 

developmental opportunity; (e.g., detail, training, 

special assignment) in the last 5 years which 'i.Q!!. 

did not receive 7 

No - Go to question 23 ........................... 0 

Yes ........................................... , .. 0 

If yes, how important do you believe each of the 

following factors were in explaining why you did not 

get the most recent developmental opportunity you 

applied for? Please use the following scale for each 

item listed below: 

[ ' · Don't Know I 

Of No Importance/Doesn't Apply 

L_ Of Littl_EJ lmportanc~ 

Somewhat Important 11 

I · Very Important j I 

I I I 

1. I was not qual1f1ed..... . ....... 0 10PiOP 

2. There were other, more [ I I I . ) 

qualified .candidates ....... ,., ...... 100P100 

3 My manager/supervisor would I I I not support my application .......... ;oo;oolb 

4. I did not want to work more I , J 

than 40 hours per week ............ P!OP:OP 

5. My gender ......................... popop 

6. My race/national origin ......... , .. poloool 

7. I applied 1or a developmental I 

opportunity which normally i I 1 

goes to a WO. man .................. 0

1 

op100 

8. I applied for a developmental I JI 

opportunity which normally 

goes to a man ........ , ............ pop op 

9. Someone else had already been I [· b 

10. ;·:::e~~:~~:-~; ·~,- ~;~~~.i~~· ......... Fof 01_ 

to become pregnant ............... · 1oopob 

11. :e~:~ '.~k~~. ~a~~r.~,'.~~~~'.~'."'.tY ...... ~obob 

12. I had taken leave to care for / f f 

a d1sabled/1II relative ......... , ..... iQI op op 

13. I had taken leave to pursue j j 

my education ... , ............... , .. P10P op 

14. I was not "part of the group' ..... , .. p10 100 10 

15. I was unable to travel .............. 01 lop op 

16. My respons1b1l1ty for my family f I was viewed as 1nterfer1ng with my • I 

ability to complete the assignment ... :o:op0 1Q 

17. I had poor references ............... 0

1 

1,_'00

1

._ 10.0I 

18. I was not seen as having enough , 

commitment to my career ........... P\Opop 

19. My age....................... opp op 

20. I did not have enough experience 1",1,,Q['Oj:Ol,_Q relevant to the assignment .......... [':::::' 

21. Other (Please specify} 7 ........... μ,O,OtO,Qi 

I I 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
22. From the list of reasons shown in question 21, which 

do you believe was the one most important reason 

you did not get the developmental opportunity? 

000©©©0©©@@ 

@@§)@@@@@@@ 

23. How many times have you relocated geographically 

for the sake of your own career since you have been 

employed as a civilian with the Federal Government? 

Nooe ........................................ 0 

Once................... . ...................... 0 

Twice ............. _..... . ...................... 0 

Three times ..................................... 0 

Four times ...................................... ·O 

Five or more times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 

24. Have you ever refused to relocate geographically 

while employed as a civilian with the Federal 

Government? 

No - Go 10 question 25 . .......................... 0 

Yes .............................................. 0 

a. If yes, did it have a negative effect on your career? 

Yes ........................................... 0 ~ ............................................ o 

Don·t know/Can·t judge . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 0 

b. If you refused to relocate, what was the most 

important reason for your refusal? 

Family ........................................ 0 

Lifestyle ........................................ 0 

Didn·t want to move to the new location ......... 0 

Didn·t want the job ............ · ................. 0 

Didn·t want to leave headquarters ............... 0 

Didn't want to leave the field ................... 0 

D1dn·t want to leave my current job ............. 0 

Other (Please specify) , ....................... 0 

25 a. Since entering Federal service, how many absences 

(paid or unpaid) of more than 6 consecutive weeks 

have you taken? 

None - Go to question 26 ...................... 0 

One ............................................ 0 

Two .......................... - .. • ....... 0 ... 0 ... 0 

ThrN ..................................... . 

Four or more .............................. . 

APPENDIXl 

25 b. If you have taken one or more absences of more 

than 6 consecutive weeks while employed by - the Federal Government, please mark the reasons 

for these absences. Mark all that apply. 

Birth/adoption of a child ..... . 

To pursue education or training ...... . 

Personal illness..... . .......... . 

To care for a spouse or other relative 

Change in spouse's career .. . 

Military reserve duty .............. . 

Other (Please specify) 7 ...... . 

.. 0 

0 ... 0 

.o 

.. 0 " ... o .... 0 

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

-

-- 26. For the items listed below, please indicate the effect - you believe each would have on your chances of 

being selected for a promotion. 

-

--

27. 

Please· use the following scale for each item: 

Not Applicable ] -- -~,--,·-; , 

Very Negative Effect -

:· . Somewhat. Negative Effect -

No Effect -

,- Somewhat Positive Effect! 

1--,·"v;ry Positive Effect 7 \ i i ~ 

j ~ I I : , I 

Hard work ................ . .. 00,00;0:Q 

Ambition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0;0:0!QO:Oi 

Gender.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000:Q'0:0 

Willingness to work extra hours ... '' .. 0:010:0:00; 

Being with the organization a l i 1 

: I· : 

long time ......................... 0i0:0:0:0Pf 

Willingness to travel . . . . . . . . ...... qqoolo:0i 

Educational background . . . . . ..... 0,010 0i0,Q, 

Technical expertise............. . 0;00000 

- · Race/national origin ............... • 0'0'o•o'oo' I I : , ! I 

........... oqopo,0; ....... o:ooQ;o:g Being a good "networker" 

Other (Please specify) , 

How likely do you think it is that you will be 

promoted to a higher grade level in the next 

5 years? 

Very likely ....... . 

Somewhat likely ..... . 

Neither likely nor unlikely .. . 

Somewhat unlikely .......... . 

Very unlikely ... 

...... 0 

.o .. .............. 0 ............... 0 .. .......... 0 

-

-

------

--

--

---

--

-

----

--

---

---

-

-- DO NOTWRITE IN-'lHJSAREA -

I -

- -7- • - • • • •••• •-

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 47 
48 

,APPENDIXl 

- SECTION 3: FUTURE PLANS 

-- 28. Which of the following best describes your plans 

- aifecting your career for the next 3 to 5 years? 

- Mark all lhat apply. 

- No change planned - Go lo question 31 ........... 0 - Seek promotion within this agency ................. 0 -

--

-

-

-

--

-

-

----

--

-

-

----

--

---

-

-----

--

-

-

--

----

--

-

-----

-

-

-

-

Seek promotion within Federal Government 

but in another agency/department ............... 0 

Leave the Federal service to work outside 

the Federal Government ......................... 0 

Retire from the Federal service .................... 0 

Seek reassignment outside this agency at 

same grade level ................................ 0 

Seek reassignment within this agency at 

same grade level ................................ O 

Take a leave of absence ........................... 0 

Resign from my current job ........................ 0 

Other /Please specify) J .......................... 0 

I I 

29. If you plan to make a change in your current job 

situation in the next 3 to 5 years, how important is 

each of the following factors in your decision to 

seek such a change? Please use the following scale 

for each item: 

Of'NO t, ~ fl! '.t-ApplV 

Of Little Importance 

Very Important 

1. To get a higher salary ................. 0 

2. To gain more experience .............. 0 

3. To have more responsib'1lity ............ 0 

4. To have a job with more challenge ...... 0 

5. To meet family responsibilities ........ , 0 

6. To alleviate problems with child care .... 0 

7. To find a job I like better ............... 0 

8. To pursue the next logical step 

in my career plan ..................... O 

9. To get away from a d1scnm1natory 

10. 

11 

12. 

work environment. .................... 0 

30. Of the reasons given in question 29, which one is 

your most important reason for planning a change? 

31. If you are not planning a change in your job situation, 

how important is each of the following in your 

decision not to change? Please use the following 

scale for each item: 

Of No lmpor;tance/Ooesn't Apply 

Of Little Importance [ 

Somewht,t Important 

Very Important 

1. I am satisfied with my current I 

2. ~~::i;:~·r~·;i~~ ·t~· ~~;~·~·~i~ ......... OEOJ 

experience ........................... 0JO10E 

3. I do not have the education to _- [ 

make a change ....................... opoE 

4. I have reached the highest level I 

for my skills .......................... 0100/ 

5. I cannot take time away from 

family responsibilities to /,..... 

devote to a new job ................... Qi() Or-1 

6. I do not want added work E 1 

responsibilities ........................ 0 ob 

7. I can't find a job with appropriate 

hours ................................ 0 0 

8. I don't think there are other jobs 

available for which I'm qualified ........ 0 

9. I don't want to relocate 

geographically ......... , .............. 0 

10. I have not thought about my plans 

11. 

12. 

for the next 3 to 5 years ............... Q~Q 

I don't think I would get a 

promotion if I applied for one ........... 0 0 

Other {Please specify}::) .............. Oe'.10 

I 

32. Of the reasons given in question 31, which is your 

one most important reason for not seeking a change? 

0®@©®©0®®@@@ 

-• ..... . • • -8-

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
SECTION 4: GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 

33. For the following statements, indicate the extent to 

which each applies to you. Please use the following 

scale for each item: 

,-,.---·--~-----,,.,,, ,""s'~'\1""·---

. . ___ To_s·ome.Extenq 

To a Great Extent 

r· .. ·: ;"./1 

I am willing to relocate to advance [' j f.·,; 

my career .............................. 0:qopl 

I am willing to devote whatever time /· ,j /· . ! 

is necessary to my job in order to ! •• 1 I·· 1 

advance my career ...................... 0;q0Q; . . 0'0'0b1 I am very committed to my Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ; i I 

I am always enthusiastic about my job ...... 0;0:0P: 

I am, or have been, a mentor for women .... o:o:o:o; 

I am, or have been, a mentor for men ....... 0iQoo: 

I have, or have had, a male mentor(s) ....... 0[0:0;0: 

I have, or have had, a female mentor(s) ..... old0[0! 

I rely more on colleagues of my own . i i" "i sex rather than different-sex 11 I· .. ·( 

colleagues for career advice .............. 0.Q,0Q. 

i ' .i 

i /. i I ·l 

I rely more on colleagues of my own sex 

rather than different-sex colleagues 

for informal help with work projects - I i, . I 

0 I t 1 or information about the organization ..... Q0O: 

34. In your experience in your organization, who are 

more likely to get each of the following? 

Mark one response for each. 

· · .' · Oon't know/Can't ~lie ·'1 

Ne_ither is more likely than the other 1. __ •. 

. · Women are mOJe likely to ·receive [ 

Men are more likely to receive . I\·:' 

a. Promotions ........ .' .................... 0IQ10P 

b. S,gn,f,cant work a_ss1gnments ............ op,opl C. Training opportun,t,es ................... oiqopl 

d. Formal recogn1t1on or rewards ........... 0,O0Q 

35. The following are some general statements about 

worklife in the Federal Government. Based on your 

experience in your current organization, please mark 

your level of agreement or disagreement with each 

statement, using the following scale for each item: 

ltt!cingly _Disagr~e . 

, .... _ -·-Dis.agree ! 

; ~~.eith~~ ':A.9.re8:"no~ 1D i~~ree'-

Agree,\ 

'. ~ S~•oigly:Ag~eej f I i 

In general, in my organization . .. r. • i I i i ., r 

Having a mentor is an important part I I ~. i i. I 

of advancement ..... , ............... . ,0 .. i0iQ0!Q 

It is a disadvantage to have family ·f 1 ! ! ! J 

responsibilities when being j [ i [ I : 

considered for a job .................. ;Q0p;0;0; 

Women and men are respected equally ... 10;010i0;QI 

A woman must perform better than i ·i I . ( f .1 

a man to be promoted ................ q:0O0O 

People are promoted because of j ) i · 1 ! ! 

whom they know ............. , ....... ,O0QJ0O 

People are promoted based on their j i I· j 1 · i 

competence .......................... qo;oo:01 

Women have been placed in positions 

beyond their level of competence 

because of affirmative employment 

i t ' ; ' , 

I ; I '. 

: i ! ! ii ·1 i 1 I",] 1 

i 1

0 10 10 10·01 programs ............................. ; , 1 1 1 i 

A person of the opposite sex could [ · :J l .! I .

1 

not do my job as well as I can ......... f~J0:0)0101 

Standards are higher for women : · [ t' ·i i ! 

than men ............ , ............... ,OI0PJ°i°! 

Women have made considerable · [ f • ! f, .! 

progress in moving into higher /eve/ I ! !. i 1 . ; 

positions in the last 10 years ........... ,0:0J0;0IO 

I 1' I I r l Those who participate in social ; . I I , I 

activities !e.g., sports, card games. t . ! I ·· : ) 1 

after-work cocktails) are more likely 1,- I I· 1 : I 

to be promoted than those who don't ... !0:O:0I0O[ 

The viewpoint of a woman is often r ··1 i / i •1 

not heard at a meeting until it is ; ·: I . ) I ! 

repeated by a man .................... 100,Q0,Qi 

i,. ~ ! 1 1 l Once a woman assumes a top . . I • 

management pos1t1on, that pos1t1on r : ~' ,: l ,J 

often loses much of its power l I I ·, . :. I 

and prestige ................. , ... • • • • .;Q0lQD:Q: 

-

-

-

--

-

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

---

-

-

---

-

-

-

--

--

--

-

-

-

-

--

-

--

-

-

- -9- - • • • • • •••• •-

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 49 
50 

APPENDIXl 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

--

-

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

----

--

----

-

-

---

-

-

-

-

-

36. The following are perceptions reported by some 

people in the Federal Government. Based on your 

own experiences, to what extent do you believe that 

managers in your organization hold the following 

perceptions? Please use this scale for each item: 

\---~·know/Can't judge 

To No Extent I 

To Little Extent i 

To Some Extent 

l To a Great Extent7 

In general, I think that managers 

in my organization believe . .. 

! [ 

l I i . 

People should be rewarded based l I on their performance, regardless j i 

of whether they are men or women . /q0j0[0[0 

Men are the primary income providers, j i I ,

1

. II I 

and so are more deserving of , 1 I 

promotions than women ............ · 10,q01010i 

Women are incompetent until they I ] , i j 

prove themselves competent ........ j00010/0i 

Men are incompetent until they t I ! b 

prove themselves competent ......... io,oolq 

Women are more suited to staff J j 

than line positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . · · 10100j0p 

Men are more suited to staff than I j [ 

line positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... [OIOIO'°p 

Women and men can perform the I \ (,..,.i same work equally well . . . . . . . . . . QOQO;Qj 

SECTION 5: GENERAL 

INFORMATION 

37. Which of the following are you? Mark one response only. 

Nonsupervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 

First-line supervisor (i.e .. you sign performance 

appraisals of other employees) .................. 0 

Second or higher level supervisor ................. 0 

38. What is your sex? 

Male ............................................ 0 

Female ..................................... • ... . 0 

- 39. What is your race/national origin? 

- American Indian/Alaskan Native .................. 0 - Asian/Pacific Islander .. .......................... 0 - Black ........................................... 0 - Hispanic ........................................ 0 - White/non-Hispanic ................ , ............ 0 - Other ........................................... 0 

-- 40. What is the sex of your immediate supervisor? 

- Male. ··········································o 

- Female ............................ . . ...... o -

-

41. Who do you work with during a normal day, excluding 

support staff? 

All men .......................................... 0 

More men than women ..................... , ..... 0 

About the same numbers of men and women ....... 0 

More women than men ................ · ........... 0 

All women ....................................... 0 

42. Where do you currently work7 

Headquarters . . . . . ............................... 0 

Regional office .................................... 0 

Field location ..................................... 0 

43. Where have you spent most of your career? 

Headquarters ..................................... 0 

Regional office .................................... 0 

Field location ..................................... 0 

Outside of Federal service (e.g., State/local 

government, private sector) ...................... 0 

About the same amount of time in two or 

more of the above .............................. 0 

44. What is your age? 

45. 

Under 20 .......... 0 50-54 ............. 0 

20-29 ............. 0 55.59 ............. 0 

30-39 ............. 0 60-64 ............. 0 

40-49 ............. 0 65 or older . . . . . . . . . 0 

How many years of (civilian) Federal Government 

experience do you have? 

Less than 1 year ... . 

1-5 years ......... . 

5-10 years ........ . 

0 

0 

0 

10-15 years ........ 0 

15-20years ........ 0 

20-25 years ........ 0 

25-30 years ........ 0 

More than 30 years .. 0 

46. How many years of employment experience do you 

have in your current profession outside of the Federal 

Government? 

No experience outside Federal Government ........ 0 

Less than 1 year .... 0 15-20years ........ 0 

1-5 years .......... 0 20-25 years ........ 0 

5 - 1 0 years ......... 0 25-30 years ........ 0 

10-15 years ........ 0 More than 30 years .. 0 

47. What was your most recent performance rating? 

Level 1 (e.g., Unacceptable or Unsatisfactory) ....... 0 

Level 2 (e.g., Minimally Successful or 

Minimally Satisfactory) .................... 0 

Level 3 (e.g, Fully Successful) ...................... 0 

Level 4 (e.g., Exceeds Fully Successful or 

Exceeds Fully Satisfactory) ................. 0 

Level 5 (e.g., Outstanding) ......................... 0 

Have not had rating/Don't remember .............. 0 

- I •• 0 •• 0 ••••• 0000000000000 

- DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SHADED AREA 

--• ..... . • • • - 10 -

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
48. Which agency do you currently work for? 

Agriculture ....................................... 0 

Commerce ....................................... 0 

Defense 

Air Force ....................................... 0 

Army .......................................... 0 

Navy ..................................... • ... •. 0 

Other DoD .................................... · 0 

Education ........................................ 0 

Energy ........................................... 0 

Environmental Protection Agency .................. 0 

General Services Administration ................... 0 

Health and Human Services ....................... 0 

Housing and Urban Development .................. 0 

Interior ........................................... 0 

Justice- ........................................... 0 

Labor ............................................ 0 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration ..... 0 

Office of Personnel Management ....... .' .......... 0 

Small Business Administration ..................... 0 

State ............................................. 0 

Transportation .................................... 0 

Treasury ......................................... 0 

Veterans Affairs .................................. 0 

Other ............................................ 0 

49. Which agency have you worked for the longest? 

Agriculture ....................................... 0 

Commerce ....................................... 0 

Defense 

Air Force ....................................... 0 

Army .......................................... Q 

Navy ........................................... 0 

Other DoD ..................................... Q 

Education ........................................ 0 

Energy ........................................... 0 

Environmental Protection Agency .................. 0 

General Services Administration ................... 0 

Health and Human Services ....................... 0 

Housing and Urban Development .................. 0 

Interior ........................................... 0 

Justice ........................................... 0 

Labor ............................................ 0 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration ..... 0 

Office of Personnel Management .................. 0 

Small Business Administration ..................... 0 

State ............................................. 0 

Transportation .................................... 0 

Treasury ......................................... 0 

Veterans Affairs .................................. 0 

Other ............................................ 0 

About the same amount of time in two 

or more of the above ............................ 0 

50. To your knowledge, does your agency currently 

have a Federal Women's Program? 

Yes .......... . 

No .............. . 

Don't know/Not sure ... 

0 

0 

0 

51. Have you completed, or are you in the process of 

completing, an SES candidate development program? 

Yes - I have completed an SES candidate 

development program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 

Yes - I am in the process of completing an 

SES candidate development program . . . . . . . . 0 

No - I never completed an SES candidate 

development program ..... . ............... 0 

><\f/ > '> :, • • '': ,·, < '>0 > 

Research hes shown that1iving arrangen,_.ents can have 

aii" impact on people's career development. We would 

-appreciate your 'answering the following questions about. 

]your living arrangements at home durlng your Federai 

career. 

52. Have you had children living with you at any time 

during your Federal career? 

No - Go to question 56 . ......................... 0 

Yes ............................................. 0 

53. If yes, what was the greatest number of children 

you had living with you during your Federal -career, 

and how many are living with you now? 

Mark one resp(lnse in each column. 

r At the __ Present ., ,., Time • 7 I 

During my Federal Career i : 

i ·I 

No children .................................... Q,Q 

One or two children ............................ Old 

Three or four children .......................... 0/Q' 

More than four children ........................ Q~ 

54. During your Federal career, which age group(s) of 

children have lived with you? Mark all that apply. 

I have had living with me: 

Pre-school age children .......................... 0 

Elementary school age children ................... 0 

Secondary school age children .................... 0 

College age children ............................. 0 

55. Right now, which age group(s) of children live with 

you? Mark all char apply. 

I have currently living with me: 

Pre-school age children ......................... 0 

Elementary school age children .................. . 

Secondary school age children ................. . 

College age children ................... . 

0 

0 

0 

. DO NOT WRITE )N THIS AR.EA0 

,· 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

--

--

-

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

---

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

--

-

- - 11 - - •• • ...... 

•-

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 51 
52 

APPENDIXl 

-

-

-

--

-

-

--

-

56. Did you have elderly or disabled persons living with 

you requiring your care during most of your Federal 

career and do you now? Mark one response in each 

column. 

. At the Present Time 

During most of my Federal Ca;:;;;7 . 

I 

~:s.::::::::::: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 862 - 57. Have you lived with a spouse or other adult durir:,g 

- most of your Federal career and do you now? 

- Mark one response in each column. 

-

- At the Present Time 

-

-

- During most of my Federal CareeJ 

Living with spouse or other adult ............... 00 

- Living without spouse or other adult ............ 0 

-- 58. If you have dependents requiring care, would you 

- say that you had or have primary responsibility 

- for their care on a day-to-day basis? Mark one 

- response in each column. 

-

- _ At the ~ Timt 

- During most of my Federal Career 

-

- I had no/have no dependents to care for ........ 0 

- I had/have primary responsibility ............... 0 

- Responsibility was/is split 50/50 between 

- myself and another adult ..................... 0 

- No - my spouse or another adult had/has 

- primary responsibility ........................ 0 

-

-- SECTION 6: COMMENTS 

---

-

-

-

--

-

--

-

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

-

Do you have any comments on barriers to advancement 

for men and women in the Federal service? 

When you have completed the questionnaire. please seal 

it in the prepaid envelope and return it to the private 

contractor who is processing the results. 

Return to: Research Applications, Incorporated 

414 Hungerford Drive, Suite 210 

Rockville, MD 20850-4125 

Thank you for taking the time to 

complete this questionnaire! 

-• ..... . • • • -12- P4797-PFl-54321 

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

Percent.of PATC::O.Categories Filled by Women, by Agency, FY 1990 

Governmentwide 

Agriculture 

Commerce 

DOD: 

Air Force 

Army 

Navy 

Other DOD 

Education 

Energy 

EPA 

GSA 

HHS 

HUD 

Interior 

Justice 

Labor 

NASA 

OPM 

SBA 

State 

Transportation 

Treasury 

Veterans Affairs 

All Other Agencies 

*Less than 1 percent 

Source: CPDF 

·Professional Administrative 

31 38 

17 46 

19 43 

26 36 

26 37 

19 42 

33 33 

45 55 

18 39 

30 51 

41 40 

46 58 

28 47 

16 36 

35 27 

31 39 

16 45 

42 47 

30 35 

25 42 

18 19 

35 25 

64 39 

30 41 

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

Technical Clerical Other 

54 86 12 

37 94 59 

42 89 25 

49 88 7 

51 83 7 

43 85 8 

68 87 8 

80 89 100 

63 95 13 

72 95 57 

66 86 9 

81 89 46 

85 90 * 

43 91 29 

64 87 8 

38 90 64 

28 98 35 

77 87 46 

87 88 * 

33 92 * 

25 94 35 

74 86 18 

64 77 5 

69 87 18 

53 
APPENDIX3 

Percent of Each Grade Range.Filled by Women, by Agency, FY 1990 

SES 

GSl-4 GS 5-8. GS 9-12 GS 13-15 (and equivalent) 

Govemmentwide 76 71 38 18 11 

Agriculture 81 60 23 15 10 

Commerce 78 75 33 17 9 

. DOD: 

Air Force 82 72 32 12 6 

Army 75 68 34 14 5 

Navy 72 68 29 13 3 

Other DOD 77 79 34 22 8 

Education 77 86 62 41 25 

Energy 74 81 43 16 9 

EPA 84 87 48 28 16 

GSA 80 69 45 27 16 

HHS 85 85 63 31 21 

HUD 84 88 50 30 15 

Interior 75 66 26 13 10 

Justice 79 62 32 15 7 

Labor 82 83 36 25 18 

NASA 55 78 34 12 5 

OPM 83 75 51 33 31 

SBA 83 88 41 21 22 

State 79 82 44 23 14 

Transportation 71 72 21 11 12 

Treasury 83 78 47 22 10 

Veterans Affairs 70 70 65 22 8 

All Other Agencies 72 76 52 26 14 

Source: CPDF 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 55 
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

11 20 Vermont Avenue, NW. 

Washington, DC 2041 9 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 

Women and the GLASS CEILING 

BULK RATE 

U.S.POSTAGE PAID 

WASHINGTON, DC 

PERMITNO.G-113 
1883 

CIVIL SERVICE EVALUATION: 

THE ROLE OF THE 

U.S. OFFICE OF 

.PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

A Report Concerning Significant Actions 

. of the Office of PersonnelManagement 

' A Report to the President and the 

Congress of the United States by the 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board