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

I S S U E S OF 

M a y 2 0 0 6 M E R I T 

a publication of

the U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board,

Office of Policy

and Evaluation

W H A T ’ S

I N S I D E

Director’s Perspective 

Page 2 

A Look at 

Veterans Hiring

Page 4 

Understanding 

Due Process

Page 5 

Japan’s Take 

on Gender Equality 

Page 6 

COR Training and 

Contract Outcomes

Page 6 

Using USAJOBS to 

Proactively Recruit 

Page 7 

Supervisors More Satisfied and Better 

Informed Than Non-Supervisors 

Survey results indicate that there is a “satisfaction gap” when it comes to 

information sharing in the Federal workforce. 

The Merit Principles Survey 2005 

(MPS 2005) asked nearly 37,000 Federal 

employees about their attitudes toward 

their jobs, agencies, and motivations to 

work. Participants included members of 

the Senior Executive Service, managers, 

first-line supervisors, and employees with 

no supervisory duties. The survey findings 

highlight similarities and differences in 

how these groups see their work and, 

particularly, how they perceive information 

sharing in the workplace. 

There is a trend across many survey 

questions for supervisors, managers, 

and executives (from here, collectively 

referred to as supervisors) to view Federal 

employment more favorably than nonsupervisors. For instance, supervisors are 

consistently more positive about: 

• Job satisfaction: 79% of supervisors are 

satisfied versus 70% of non-supervisors; 

• Pay: 70% supervisors, 59% nonsupervisors; 

• Their supervisor: 71% supervisors, 63% 

non-supervisors; and 

• How their agency treats them in 

employment-related matters: 71% 

supervisors, 58% non-supervisors. 

While supervisors and nonsupervisors have their differences, they 

also agree on some issues. Just over a 

third in each group (37%) report that their 

agency’s organizational structure has been 

stable during the past 2 years. Only about 

40 percent of each group are satisfied with 

their organization’s performance appraisal 

system. 

On the other hand, there are a 

few—very few—questions in which the 

“supervisor-is-happier” trend reverses. As 

an example of when this does occur, fewer 

supervisors (60%) than non-supervisors 

(65%) agree that they have the resources 

needed to do their jobs. 

However, it appears that these 

resources may not include access to 

work-related information. Survey results 

reveal that there is a “satisfaction gap” 

with respect to information sharing in 

the Federal workplace. Supervisors tend 

to feel more well-informed than nonsupervisors, as illustrated by responses to 

several survey questions. 

More supervisors (78%, versus 

57% for non-supervisors) believe 

information is shared freely in their work 

continued, page 3 
i n s i g h t s & a n a l y s e s f o r F e d e r a l 

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

I S S U E S OF 

M E R I T

U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board

CHAIRMAN 

Neil A. G. McPhie 

VICE CHAIRMAN 

Mary M. Rose 

BOARD MEMBER 

Barbara J. Sapin 

Office of Policy and Evaluation 

DIRECTOR 

Steve Nelson 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

John Crum 

Our Mission 

The MSPB Office of Policy and 

Evaluation conducts studies to 

assess the health of Federal merit 

systems and to ensure they are free 

from prohibited personnel practices. 

Issues of Merit 

We offer insights and analyses on 

topics related to Federal human 

capital management, particularly 

findings and recommendations 

from our independent research. 

Reprint Permission 

We invite you to reprint any of our 

articles. If you do, please include 

the following attribution: Reprinted 

from Issues of Merit, a publication 

of the Office of Policy and Evaluation, U.S. Merit Systems Protection 

Board. 

For More Information 

Contact us at: 

www.mspb.gov 

(select STUDIES page) 

STUDIES@mspb.gov 

202-653-6772 x1350 

1-800-209-8960 

V/TDD: 202-653-8896 

(TTY users may use the Federal 

Relay Service, 800-877-8339) 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Office of Policy and Evaluation 

1615 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20419 

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

Supervisory Selection in the 

“New World” 

As agencies move toward pay for performance personnel systems, the 

way we select supervisors becomes even more important. 

In my September Director’s 

column, I highlighted the increasing 

importance that traditional managerial 

roles are likely to play as pay for 

performance systems are implemented 

at the Departments of Defense (DoD) 

and Homeland Security (DHS). The 

article urges Federal agencies to 

carefully examine how they select 

supervisors to ensure they focus on 

managerial capabilities rather than 

technical expertise, as is so often the 

case. 

In particular, supervisory 

candidates need to be adept at selecting 

employees, communicating with them, 

evaluating performance, and managing 

time. These facets of supervising 

become all the more important in a 

pay for performance environment 

where supervisors have more authority 

and their actions are even more 

consequential. The question is whether 

agencies are heeding this warning. 

To help answer this question, 

we recently reviewed a randomly 

selected set of DoD and DHS 

supervisory vacancy announcements. 

Specifically, we looked at whether 

supervisory candidates are being 

assessed on their technical expertise 

or on the skills needed to perform 

the supervisory roles outlined above. 

Our findings suggest that these 

agencies could be doing a better job 

at assessing for supervisory skills. 

Only a small percentage of the 

DoD announcements referenced 

experience in employee selection, 

communication, performance 

evaluation, or time management as 

being required or desirable. In contrast, 

over half of the DHS announcements 

asked applicants about their experience 

in at least one of these tasks. The 

most common qualifying experiences 

referenced in the DHS announcements 

dealt with evaluating performance and 

selecting employees for vacancies. 

The skills related to communicating 

organizational goals to employees and 

managing time were referenced the least 

by the announcements we reviewed. 

Surprisingly, only about onethird of the DoD announcements 

cited any type of supervisory skills as 

being required or even desirable for 

the position. This means that fully 

two-thirds of the announcements 

reviewed focused their selection 

criteria exclusively on demonstrated 

technical skills or experience. 

It is understandable why agencies 

focus their selection efforts on technical 

expertise. Simply put, it’s easier to 

measure. To get the best candidates, 

continued, page 3 

2 
Selecting Supervisors 

(continued from page 2) 

agencies may be selecting from applicants who have no 

previous supervisory experience. In that case, they must 

evaluate a candidate’s potential to be a good supervisor. 

Many agencies don’t do this well. Assessing an applicant’s 

demonstrated competence, training, or experience in a 

specific field is much less complicated than assessing their 

future potential in an unknown area. Unfortunately, there 

is little guidance for agencies to use in developing these 

types of assessments. In addition, these types of predictive 

assessments take time and money to develop. 

One type of assessment that could be useful in 

selecting for potential is the supervisory probationary 

period. As the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) 

pointed out in a recent study, the probationary period can 

be an effective tool in evaluating a candidate’s potential 

to do a job because it allows the agency to observe the 

person before the appointment becomes final. However, 

employment statistics indicate that few agencies separate 

Information Gap 

(continued from page 1) 

units. More supervisors (80%, contrasting with 63% of 

non-supervisors) report that a spirit of cooperation and 

teamwork conducive to information sharing exists in their 

work units. Supervisors have a moderate level of trust in 

their own supervisors (69%) and upper management (60%) 

to keep them informed. Non-supervisors are less likely to 

believe that they will be given important 

information by their supervisors (59%) 

and upper management (49%). 

Why do non-supervisory employees 

believe that they are less informed than do 

supervisory employees? There could be 

several explanations. It is possible that, 

as the data indicates, supervisors are not 

sharing information as effectively as they 

could. But we need to remember that 

our survey data comes from employee 

perceptions, not from strictly objective 

measures. Another reason could be that employees may 

worry when they do not have details about impending 

changes in organizational structure or policy. Often this 

information is not shared because it does not yet exist. 

Supervisors are not holding back—they just don’t know. 

Sometimes barriers to information sharing exist because 

new supervisors who are not a good fit for the position. This 

leads us to believe that the supervisory probationary period is 

not frequently being used as an effective assessment tool. 

When supervisors are selected solely on their technical 

ability, increased pressure is placed on the systems 

that develop and manage these supervisors. Under 

these circumstances, providing inadequate training or 

overburdening these supervisors with technical work will 

only exacerbate their lack of supervisory skills. DoD 

and DHS have committed to training their supervisors on 

how to implement their respective pay for performance 

systems. However, both agencies should work to achieve a 

better balance between technical expertise and supervisory 

capability in selecting those who will play such a vital role in 

realizing the promise of pay for performance. 

Steve Nelson 

Director, Policy and Evaluation 

some employees are “difficult” to talk with. Employees 

who are hard to engage in discussion will not experience the 

information benefits of frequent interaction with supervisors 

or coworkers. 

Whatever the reasons, it is important that agency 

leaders, from political appointees to first-level supervisors, 

realize that their front-line employees 

may need to feel—and even be—better 

informed. Note that fewer employees 

than supervisors believe they can 

openly express concerns (66% versus 

76%), or that their opinions count at 

work (52% versus 70%). Therefore, 

employees may be less likely to raise 

their information sharing concerns 

directly. Leaders should take the 

initiative to begin closing the information gap in their own organizations. 

Employees also have a responsibility to facilitate information 

sharing by reducing barriers to communication and having 

realistic expectations when information they want is not 

available. Cooperation on both sides of the supervisory 

“fence” will open the gate and allow information to pass 

freely in both directions. 

3 
Veterans and Hiring for Federal Jobs

A breakdown of which civil service occupations veterans are more and less likely to fill. 

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recently 

issued The Employment of Veterans in the Federal 

Government FY 2004, a report on the hiring of persons 

with veteran status for Federal jobs. The report found that 

veterans fill approximately one-quarter of all full-time 

positions in the Federal Government. Put another way, 

453,725 of the 1,810,852 full-time Federal employees 

in 2004 were veterans. By comparison, veterans only 

make up about 9 percent of the overall civilian workforce, 

which includes all working men and women at least 18 

years of age. Additionally, during 2004, slightly more 

than one-third of those hired into full-time Federal 

positions were veterans and almost 7 percent of these 

were filled with 30 percent or more disabled veterans. 

The employment of veterans did vary significantly 

by agency, with the Department of Defense (DoD) as the 

largest employer of veterans. In fact, DoD employed 

more than 50 percent of the veterans in the Federal 

workforce, and accounted for the hiring of 55 percent of 

all disabled veterans and 56 percent of all 30 percent or 

more disabled veterans. Other executive departments 

that hired a high percentage of veterans included 

the Departments of Transportation, Veterans Affairs, 

Homeland Security, and Energy. The Departments of the 

Treasury, Agriculture, Education, and Health and Human 

Services hired the lowest percentage of veterans. 

Although not discussed in the OPM report, our 

review of Federal hiring data revealed that there were 

also significant differences in the hiring of veterans by 

occupation.1 Table 1 shows the occupations in which 

at least 200 people were hired into full-time permanent 

positions during fiscal year 2004 and for which the 

highest percentage of veterans were hired. As shown, 

veterans were frequently hired into positions involving 

technical skills—many learned through military 

training—such as security, law enforcement, training, 

electronics, telecommunications, and the use of heavy 

equipment. 

In comparison, Table 2 shows occupations where 

again at least 200 people were hired during 2004 and, at 

the same time, were least likely to be filled by veterans. 

The chart excludes occupations involving student trainee 

hiring in which typically only about 2 percent of the new 

hires were veterans. Several of these occupations require 

specialized training, such as attorneys, pharmacists, 

computer engineers, and economists. However, other 

Table 1. Occupations Most Frequently Filled by Veterans 

in 2004 

Occupation Total # of Hires in 

the Occupation 

Percent Filled 

by Veterans 

Training Instructor 323 76.8 

Equipment Specialist 218 75.2 

Electronics 

Technician 

218 71.1 

Security 

Administration 

659 61.0 

Quality Assurance 330 60.0 

Security Guard 536 59.6 

Custodial Worker 1219 58.7 

Telecommunications 223 55.6 

Logistics 

Management 

501 48.9 

Police 1519 48.2 

occupations, such as social insurance specialists with the 

Social Security Administration, do not appear to have the 

same type of prerequisite requirements. 

These results suggest that veterans are often hired 

into positions that make use of skills acquired through 

military service and not into positions that require other 

specialized experience. There are exceptions to these 

generalizations, however, and it may be helpful to explore 

why these exceptions occur. 

Table 2. Occupations Least Frequently Filled by Veterans 

in 2004 

Occupation Total # of Hires in 

the Occupation 

Percent Filled by 

Veterans 

Patent Examining 426 0.7 

Economist 226 2.2 

General Biological 

Science 

441 3.3 

Computer 

Engineering 

294 4.1 

Foreign Affairs 220 4.5 

Pharmacist 350 5.1 

Forestry 

Technician 

542 5.6 

Legal/Attorney 1400 6.5 

Social Insurance 

Administration 

586 6.8 

Internal Revenue 

Agent 

822 7.0 

1

Data obtained from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File 

4 
Due Process: What You Need to Know 

An overview of what it means when a public employee holds a “property interest” in his or her job. 

Special Byline from Ray Angelo 

Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Due process has been described as the way lawyers 

say “fair play.” As with nearly everything else involving 

lawyers, however, it’s not that simple. This article 

explains what due process means in the context of an 

individual facing removal from the Federal service. 

The Fifth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution guarantees, among other things, that a 

Government entity cannot deprive an individual of her 

property without due process of law. The Supreme 

Court has held that, where a law or regulation supports a 

Government employee’s legitimate claim of entitlement 

to her job, the employee has a property interest in 

continued employment. Examples of the type of language 

that creates such a property interest include language 

that an employee may only be fired for “misfeasance, 

malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office.” Another example 

is language that the employee may only be separated 

for demonstrating a lack of good behavior and efficient 

service. The wording of section 7513 of Title 5 of 

the United States Code, which applies to many nonprobationary Federal employees, also creates such a 

property interest. That language states that employees 

may only be removed “for such cause as will promote the 

efficiency of the service.” 

Where an individual has a property interest 

in his job—in other words, he has completed his 

probationary period or meets the statutory definition of 

an “employee”—constitutional due process generally 

requires that, before he can be removed, he must be told 

of the reasons for the proposed removal and be provided 

an opportunity to respond to the decision-maker. The 

decision-maker at this stage need not be independent from 

the organization proposing the removal. Federal agencies 

comply with this requirement by providing a notice of 

proposed removal and affording the employee a chance to 

respond to a deciding official. 

After a non-probationary employee is removed by his 

employing agency, and is thus deprived of his property 

Government, the Merit Systems Protection Board is that 

neutral decision-maker. 

Pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 

MSPB succeeded the Civil Service Commission in that 

role. MSPB provides a bias-free and fair review for 

Federal employees who may only be removed “for such 

cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.” 

The Board does this by requiring the employing agency 

to submit evidence justifying the removal, holding 

evidentiary hearings, and issuing decisions addressing 

the reasons for the removal. This independent review of 

the removal of a non-probationary Federal employee is 

required by nothing less than the Constitution. 

. . . ANNOUNCING. . . 

MSPB Confirmation 

On December 17, 2005, Mary 

M. Rose was confirmed as 

the third Member of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board, for 

the balance of a 7-year term, 

expiring on March 1, 2011. In 

January 2006, the President 

designated her to be the Vice 

Chairman. 

Mrs. Rose previously served 

in a number of Governmental 

positions, including Vice Chairman of the Federal 

Salary Council, Chairman of the Federal Prevailing 

Rate Advisory Committee, and Deputy Undersecretary 

for Management at the Department of Education. She 

received an R.N. degree from the Bon Secours Hospital 

School of Nursing and completed the Maryland Registered Nurse Recertification Program in May 2000. 

interest in continued employment, additional due process 

is required. At this stage, the employee is entitled to Please join the employees of the Merit Systems Protecchallenge the agency action before a neutral and unbiased tion Board as we congratulate and welcome our new Vice 

decision-maker. For most employees of the Federal Chairman. 

5 
Observations by a Visiting Scholar 

Tadaaki Miyagawa works with the National Personnel Authority (NPA), an organization that develops, administers, and 

evaluates personnel management policy governing Japan’s national public employees. 

Through the International 

Visitor Leadership Program, I 

had a wonderful opportunity 

as a visiting analyst with 

MSPB for the past 5 

months. During this time, 

I conducted research into a 

number of issues, including 

gender equality which 

MSPB studied in its past 

report A Question of Equity: Women and the 

Glass Ceiling in the Federal Government. 

Achieving a “gender-equal society” is one of the most 

important social issues Japan faces in the 21st century, 

whether it is in the public sector or in the private sector. 

However, based on a 2005 National Personnel Authority 

(NPA) survey, women are widely underrepresented 

in Japan’s public service. The percentage of female 

employees under the NPA pay system is just 15.3 percent, 

and the percentage of female employees who hold senior 

level and senior executive positions is only 1.5 percent. 

Realizing gender-equal participation in the policy and 

decision-making processes of the national government 

is critical to achieving a truly gender-equal society. 

Therefore, at the request of the Cabinet Office, the NPA 

formulated Guidelines Concerning the Expansion of the 

Recruitment and Promotion of Female Public Employees. 

Based on these guidelines, each Office and Ministry 

has developed a Plan to Expand the Recruitment and 

Promotion of Female Public Employees and has taken 

active measures to put them into play. While there has 

been some progress, there is much more to be done. 

Today in the U.S. civil service, the merit system 

principles are in full operation in the recruitment and 

promotion of personnel due to the progressive efforts of 

the Federal Government. As a result, gender-equality 

has been achieved in the recruitment and promotion of 

women to a far higher degree than in Japan. Studying 

the policies, laws, Executive Orders, and other measures 

taken by the U.S. Government to address this issue has 

provided me with practical and useful suggestions to 

help achieve a gender-equal public service in Japan. 

It has been an interesting experience to work 

alongside my colleagues at MSPB’s Office of Policy 

and Evaluation. This group has 12 members with an 

equal number of men and women who share important 

positions. When I see these colleagues successfully 

balance both work and home responsibilities, I feel 

that the Japanese Government should aim for this 

ideal. I would like to express my appreciation to all 

the members of MSPB and to the U.S. Government 

for providing me with this opportunity. 

COR Training: It Really Matters

Various laws and regulations require that Contracting 

Officer Representatives (CORs) have training in 

Federal contracting prior to performing their duties as 

the technical monitors of contracts. There is guidance 

about what contracting topics should be covered in COR 

training, but historically, there has been no data to indicate 

whether training in certain topics has any relationship to 

improved contract outcomes. That is, until now. 

In our upcoming report on CORs, MSPB looks 

at how much training CORs receive in: 1) contracting 

topics, 2) technical or functional areas, and 3) general 

competencies. We compare this data to CORs’ ratings 

of contract outcomes in terms of the quality, timeliness, 

completeness, and cost of contract deliverables. Our 

findings indicate that more training in each of these three 

areas relates to more positive contract outcomes in one or 

more of the four contract outcome areas. In other words, 

there is a correlation between COR training and contract 

outcomes. 

For instance, when considering contracting topics, 

we find that CORs who reported more positive outcomes 

in contract quality, completeness, and cost also reported 

receiving more training in contracting topics such as the 

legal aspects of representing the Government, contracting 

ethics, processing contract actions, and contract close-out. 

Interestingly, COR training is often not focused on the 

contracting topics that are most directly related to contract 

outcomes. While many COR contracting courses focus 

heavily on documentation and the regulations concerning 

continued on page 7 

6 
T O O L S

 O F T H E

T R A D E

USAJOBS Resume Search: Another Way to Find 

Highly Qualified Applicants 

OPM created USAJOBS to serve as the central 

source for Federal job postings. But that doesn’t mean 

you should post a vacancy announcement and simply 

sit back and hope that highly qualified applicants come 

to you. Instead, you should be proactive and use the 

search capability of USAJOBS to “mine” resumes for 

prospective employees with the qualifications you seek. 

For example, you can search by keyword to identify 

specific qualifications in addition to seeking out any 

combination of the following candidate characteristics: 

• Most recent job title or description 

• Schools attended 

• Location (current or desired) 

• Education level 

• Work type (e.g., permanent, temporary) 

• Work schedule (e.g., full time) 

Once you’ve submitted a search, you can view the 

resumes that best match your criteria. Depending on the 

number and relevance of the resumes returned, you can 

refine your search terms to broaden or narrow the scope. 

Once you’ve identified candidates of interest, you can 

send them e-mail encouraging them to apply for your 

COR Training

continued from page 6 

competition and method of contracting, there is only a 

limited relationship between these topics and the four 

contract outcomes. 

Overall, we find that CORs who report more training 

in specific contracting topics, whether in their technical 

area or in other general competencies, also report more 

positive contract outcomes, especially in terms of quality 

and cost. Our report contains more detailed information 

about which training is related to which outcomes, 

about the CORs’ perception of their training, and about 

the usefulness of various training methods. Using this 

information can help agencies better focus their training 

resources on the areas that meet the CORs’ needs and that 

relate to more positive contract outcomes. 

For more information on these 

USAJOBS features, contact your 

Human Resources Specialist or 

go to www.usajobs.gov and click 

on “Employer Services” to view 

user-friendly tutorials on performing 

resume searches. 

vacancy announcement. 

If your search is ongoing, you can also save your lists 

of desired qualifications for each job to be filled. Then 

you have two options: 1) you can later re-run the same 

criteria or 2) you can have USAJOBS notify you via email when a candidate submits a resume that matches 

your search criteria. 

The USAJOBS website has other features that can 

help you reach a broader audience—that is, everyone who 

views the USAJOBS home page. You can advertise your 

opening under the “Featured Job” or “Featured Employer” 

sections. A little marketing of your organization can go 

a long way to help generate interest in your vacancies. 

By sharing information, you won’t simply increase the 

number of applicants, but you will also stand a better 

chance of narrowing the pool to those who would be bestsuited for the position. 

Bottom line—don’t just passively wait for good 

applicants to come to you. Instead, meet them halfway 

by searching for the candidates with the qualifications 

you seek, marketing the job opportunity, and letting 

prospective applicants know what you have to offer. 

Coming Soon...

Fair Treatment Focus Groups

The Office of Policy and Evaluation is conducting an 

update of the 1992 Glass Ceiling study and the 1996 Fair 

and Equitable Treatment study. These studies examined 

the representation of women and minorities in the Federal 

Government. As part of our current research agenda, we 

will convene focus groups at various locations within the 

U.S. to obtain the perspective of today’s Federal workforce 

on topics related to fair treatment. If you would be willing 

to assist us in organizing these focus groups, please send 

an e-mail to studies@mspb.gov and include your name, 

organizational affiliation (e.g., agency or employee group), 

work address, and phone number. 

7 
FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

MSPB 20419

PERMIT NO. G-113

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

1615 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20419 

I S S U E S OF 

M a y 2 0 0 6 M E R I T V o l u m e 1 1 I s s u e 2

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

Gap in Information Sharing. 

Survey results indicate that while 

supervisors and non-supervisors have 

some things in common, their feelings 

about information sharing in the 

organization is not one of them. 

(Page 1) 

Changing Supervisory Selection. 

With the coming of new pay for 

performance systems, OPE’s Director 

looks at whether agencies are making 

needed improvements to supervisory 

selection practices. (Page 2) 

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

Veteran Hiring in the Federal 

Government. Following on OPM’s 

recent study of veteran hiring in the 

Federal Government, MSPB looks at 

differences in veteran hiring based on 

occupation. (Page 4) 

Understanding Due Process. Ray 

Angelo, an MSPB attorney, provides 

an overview of due process and the 

impact it has when taking adverse actions against employees. (Page 5) 

Gender Equality in the Japanese 

Civil Service. A visiting scholar, 

Tadaaki Miyagawa, discusses the 

challenge of gender equality that 

Japan is currently facing. (Page 6) 

I N T H I S I S S U E 

Make Sure CORs are Getting the 

Right Training. An upcoming MSPB 

report demonstrates that there is a 

relationship between the type of training Contracting Offi cer Representatives receive and the outcomes of their 

contracts. (Page 6) 

Tools of the Trade: Using USAJOBS Effectively. USAJOBS is not 

just a place to post jobs. Find out 

how to use the Government employment website to expand outreach to 

qualified candidates. (Page 7)