Preserving the 

Integrity of 

the 

Federal Merit Systems:

Understanding and Addressing

Perceptions of Favoritism

A Report to the President and the Congress

of the United States by the 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

December 2013

preserving the integrity of the federal merit systems: understanding and addressing perceptions of favoritism preserving the integrity 

of the federal merit systems understanding and 

addressing perceptions of favoritism

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

The President

President of the Senate

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Dear Sirs:

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

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) report, Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Understanding and 

Addressing Perceptions of Favoritism. To sustain a competent, effectively managed Federal workforce that serves the 

public interest, civil service statute has established merit systems and governing principles for those systems—the 

merit system principles and prohibited personnel practices. In addition to selection and advancement “solely on 

the basis of relative ability,” those principles require that Federal employees be “protected from arbitrary action 

[and] personal favoritism.” Favoritism occurs when an official grants an advantage to an employee or applicant 

based on non-merit factors such as personal feelings or relationships.

Much progress has been made in achieving the vision outlined in the merit system principles. Previous MSPB 

studies document a marked decrease in the proportion of employees who believe that they have experienced 

discrimination on bases such as sex and ethnicity or race. Nevertheless, many Federal employees continue to 

perceive that personnel decisions are often influenced by favoritism. For example, 28 percent of Federal employees 

believe that their supervisor demonstrates favoritism by treating some employees better than others. Our analysis 

reveals that such beliefs—regardless of their basis in fact—are damaging to morale, leadership credibility, and 

productivity.

This report discusses factors that can contribute to perceptions of favoritism and outlines how Federal agencies 

can take, and communicate, merit-based personnel decisions. In particular, this report emphasizes to Federal 

officials the need to distinguish their personal preferences from job-related criteria, and to distinguish personal 

rapport with an employee or applicant from proven ability to develop effective working relationships. The report 

also emphasizes to Federal employees the value of understanding the factors that agencies may properly consider 

when making personnel decisions, and seeking developmental feedback to help them compete for advancement 

and recognition on their individual merits.

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

agency performance.

Respectfully,

Susan Tsui Grundmann 

Enclosure

Preserving the 

Integrity of 

the 

Federal Merit Systems:

Understanding and Addressing

Perceptions of Favoritism

A Report to the President and the Congress

of the United States by the 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

December 2013

preserving the integrity of the federal merit systems: understanding and addressing perceptions of favoritism preserving the integrity of the federal merit systems understanding and addressing perceptions of favoritism

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Director

James M. Read

Deputy Director

James J. Tsugawa

Project Manager

Cynthia H. Ferentinos, Ph.D.

Project Analyst

Julie K. Osowski, Ph.D.

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

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

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

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

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

Recommendations................................................................................................................................................... iii

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

Background .............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Method..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Purpose..................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Federal Employee Perceptions of Favoritism and Nepotism .......................................................................................7

How Prevalent Are Perceptions of Favoritism and Nepotism?.................................................................................. 7

How Do Employees Perceive That They Are Affected by Favoritism? ................................................................... 10

What Supervisory Actions Do Employees Perceive as Evidencing Favoritism? ...................................................... 10

What Factors Influence Promotion Decisions (And Are They Fair)?........................................................................17

Comparing Perceptions of Appropriate and Actual Selection Criteria.....................................................................17

Cautions Regarding Selection Criteria ................................................................................................................... 20

Possible Manifestations of Favoritism in the Selection Process................................................................................23

Perspective from Federal Employees....................................................................................................................... 23

Perspective from Human Resources Management Employees ............................................................................... 24

Selected Cases Involving Issues Related to Favoritism............................................................................................ 26

Potential Explanations for Perceptions of Favoritism...............................................................................................31

Intentional Favoritism: The Influence of Relationships over Merit....................................................................... 32

Unintentional Favoritism........................................................................................................................................ 34

Professional Relationships That Do Not Conflict with the Merit System Principles ............................................. 35

Assessing Adherence to the Merit System Principles and Taking Appropriate Action............................................ 36

The Critical Role of Supervisors in the Federal Merit Systems ................................................................................41

Supervisors’ Responsibilities to Mission and Staff ................................................................................................. 41

Supervisory Behaviors and Perceptions of Favoritism............................................................................................. 42

Consequences of Employee Perceptions of Favoritism..............................................................................................49

Conclusions and Recommendations..........................................................................................................................55

Why Agencies Should Be Concerned about Perceptions of Favoritism....................................................................55

Prevalence of Perceptions of Favoritism in the Federal Workplace..........................................................................55

Role of Supervisors ................................................................................................................................................. 56

Recommendations.................................................................................................................................................. 57

Appendix A: Merit System Principles........................................................................................................................59

Appendix B: Prohibited Personnel Practices............................................................................................................61

Appendix C: Federal Merit Systems Survey Methodology.......................................................................................63

Appendix D: Federal Merit Systems Survey Email Request.....................................................................................65

Appendix E: Federal Merit Systems Survey..............................................................................................................67

Appendix F: Seeking Redress for Favoritism from the Office of Special Counsel...................................................87

Appendix G: Correlations Between Perceptions of the Supervisor’s Behavior and Perceptions of Favoritism .......89

Appendix H: Correlations Between Perceived Favoritism and Aspects of Employee Engagement .........................91

TABLE oF CONTENTS

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

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

Executive Summary

Overview

The Merit System Principles (MSPs) promote an effective Federal workforce free of Prohibited Personnel 

Practices (PPPs). Summarized under nine aspirational goals, the MSPs serve as the foundation of Federal 

employment policy and practice, workplace fairness, and the Federal Government’s ability to effectively 

accomplish its goals. As codified at 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1), the first merit system principle demands 

that Federal employees be recruited “from all segments of society” and selected and advanced “solely 

on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition.” Further, under 

5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(8)(A), Federal employees are to be protected against “personal favoritism.”

The Merit System Principles guide Federal supervisors to base their workforce decisions (e.g., hiring, 

promoting, giving awards, and distributing assignments) on objective criteria, such as assessments of 

ability or performance, rather than personal feelings and/or relationships, lest they be viewed as practicing 

personal favoritism. In brief, “personal favoritism” occurs when a supervisor or selecting official grants an 

advantage to one employee or applicant but not another similarly situated employee or applicant based 

on friendship or other affinity rather than a legitimate merit-based reason. Favoritism is distinct from 

discrimination on legally protected bases and is frequently more difficult to clearly identify when it is 

occurring given the absence of visible cues on which the preference is made. However, like discrimination, 

favoritism is contrary to the ideals of the Federal merit systems.

This report summarizes the findings of MSPB’s research into employee perspectives regarding the extent 

to which they believe that favoritism occurs within the Federal merit systems and its potential effects. The 

results of our surveys and in-depth discussions with groups of employees indicate that the majority of 

Federal employees believe that discrimination based on the legally protected classes of race/ethnicity, sex 

and age has decreased over the past 15 years. However, many employees remain unconvinced that they 

are treated fairly in all aspects of their careers. In particular, a significant percentage of Federal employees 

believe that personal favoritism undermines merit-based decision making.

Eliminating perceptions of favoritism has proven extremely challenging. Supervisors and employees often 

have conflicting opinions as to the influence of favoritism on the supervisor’s decisions, which may result 

from their differing perspectives or due to differential access to varying types and amounts of information 

about their supervisors’ decisions.

Therefore, the purpose of this report is to reduce the likelihood that favoritism is occurring (or believed 

to be occurring) by providing recommendations for strengthening supervisory and managerial practices 

while also identifying steps that employees can take to improve their understanding of the merit systems 

and their ability to advance within them. 
ii Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Executive Summary

Findings

The workplace is a complex social environment. Multiple parties view situations from different perspectives 

and interpret actions based on their own experiences and expectations. Supervision is a demanding role 

that requires a careful balancing of responsibilities to ensure the effective and efficient management of 

employees while accomplishing the organization’s mission. As part of their critical role, supervisors must 

allocate work responsibilities and limited resources according to necessarily subjective evaluations. In an 

ideal world, the supervisor’s actions are truly merit-based, and this is readily apparent to all observers, 

including employees and human resources management (HRM) staff. 

Unfortunately, the typical work environment features ambiguity that precludes full confidence in supervisors 

making merit-based decisions. For example, supervisors may be unable to exercise adequate transparency 

so others feel confident in the propriety of these decisions. On other occasions, supervisors may intend to 

abide by the MSPs, but lack the knowledge, experience or tools to make merit-based decisions or may be 

inadvertently influenced by nonmerit factors due to a lack of awareness. And finally, not all supervisors 

fully embrace the merit system principles and seek to circumvent them by intentionally favoring some 

employees based on factors unrelated to merit. 

According to MSPB survey results, about one in four Federal employees believe that their supervisor 

practices favoritism and over half suspect that other supervisors in their organization practice favoritism. 

Three out of ten HRM employees agreed that favoritism occurs in the organizations that they service.

Although virtually every interaction between a supervisor and employee can involve perceptions of 

favoritism, employees were most likely to report witnessing favoritism through social interactions (27 

percent agreed their supervisor demonstrated favoritism through social interactions). Almost as frequent 

were perceptions of favoritism regarding traditional benefits that supervisors may bestow upon employees: 

desirable work assignments (26 percent), awards (23 percent), performance appraisal ratings (21 percent), 

promotions (21 percent), and acting supervisor opportunities (21 percent).

Employees may also suspect favoritism when they are not selected for promotions within their organizations, 

particularly if they do not receive feedback when they were not selected. Honest feedback from the selecting 

official can serve two vital purposes: 1) to help employees improve their readiness for future opportunities 

and 2) to provide transparency to decrease perceptions of favoritism.

Likely causes of perceived favoritism include:

1. Intentional favoritism, where the supervisor intends to make decisions based on personal 

connections rather than merit;

2. Unintentional favoritism, where the supervisor’s decisions have been influenced by interpersonal 

relationships without the supervisor’s conscious awareness or a lack of knowledge or tools to help 

the supervisor make merit-based decisions; and

3. A misperception by employees, such as when professional relationships exist that do not conflict 

with the merit systems, or when a mentor or supervisor provides more opportunities to those who 

demonstrate the ability and motivation to take on new roles.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board iii

Executive Summary

Regardless of the underlying reasons, perceptions of workplace favoritism can have harmful consequences 

for employees and the organization, to include—

•	 Decreased employee satisfaction and engagement;

•	 Decreased capability to recruit and retain highly qualified employees;

•	 Increased conflict between employees and between employees and management; and

•	 Decreased agency performance.

Recommendations

To achieve the goals of fair and effective management of the Federal workforce, organizations must establish 

clear expectations for supervisors, ranging from first-line supervisors to top executives. Supervisors must be 

aware of employees’ perceptions and exercise sound judgment when making a variety of decisions such as 

selections, work assignments, training, performance management, and providing workplace flexibilities. In 

addition, selecting officials greatly influence hiring actions through a myriad of determinations regarding 

the recruitment and hiring process. Those with the responsibility for making these decisions must recognize 

the potential cumulative effect of their actions—not only on their direct reports and those not selected 

for vacancies—but also those at a greater distance who hear of decisions made by supervisors within their 

organizations.

In order to foster the respect of their employees and maintain the integrity of the Federal merit systems—

both of which have substantial impact on outcomes for individuals and organizations—supervisors need 

to hold themselves accountable (and be held accountable by their agency leadership) for making the best 

possible decisions. This can be accomplished through the following strategies.

Agency leaders should:

• Communicate strong support of the MSPs and avoidance of the PPPs.

• Select supervisors based on their ability and willingness to manage employees fairly and effectively.

• Provide supervisors with the necessary training so they understand—not only the content of the merit 

system principles and the prohibited personnel practices—but also practical examples of actions that 

might be perceived as favoritism.

• Hold supervisors accountable for violating the prohibited personnel practices.

• Provide employees with information regarding the merit system principles and prohibited personnel 

practices and their relevance to decisions made within the organization. 

Supervisors should:

• Honor the spirit and intent of the merit system principles and strive to avoid any actions that might 

cause employees to suspect a violation of a prohibited personnel practice.
iv Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Executive Summary

• Make appropriate use of management flexibilities and seek the advice of HRM experts when needed. 

• Make decisions (e.g., regarding selections for promotions, career-enhancing work assignments, training opportunities, and awards) that are objective and based on work-related criteria, rather than relying 

upon more subjective feelings.

• Assess the needs of the work group in terms of competencies and actively strive to fill these gaps 

through selection and/or training.

• Document decisions carefully and exercise transparency, whenever possible, such as by providing feedback to employees.

• Rotate acting supervisor responsibilities among those who are qualified and interested as this is a key 

developmental opportunity. 

• Treat all employees with respect.

• Facilitate two-way discussions with all employees.

• Maintain awareness of employees’ abilities, goals and interests and distribute opportunities in a manner that considers both employee and organizational needs.

• Exercise supervisory duties with care, such as by providing ongoing feedback to employees regarding 

their performance.

Human resources management staff should:

• Appropriately advise supervisors to support the merit system principles and avoid prohibited personnel practices. 

• Work with supervisors to identify job-related criteria and incorporate these into all of the steps of the 

recruitment, selection and performance management processes.

• Take appropriate action when they witness violations of the merit system principles and prohibited 

personnel practices. 

Employees should:

• Seek honest feedback and strive to improve in preparation for future opportunities.

• Understand that there may be alternative explanations for decisions that may appear to involve personal favoritism.

• Consider options (e.g., discussing with the supervisor how to achieve a more favorable outcome in the 

future, seeking employment elsewhere or filing a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel) when 

they suspect personal favoritism is occurring to determine what would be the best course of action.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board v

Executive Summary

Given responsibilities for test security and confidentiality, supervisors cannot always exercise the level of 

transparency that applicants and employees might want regarding certain human resources management 

processes, such as selections, performance appraisals, and disciplinary actions. However, organizations 

owe it to themselves, their employees, and the public to strive to achieve the highest levels of fairness, 

efficiency and effectiveness. By working together to eradicate actual and perceived favoritism, agency 

leaders, supervisors, HRM staff and employees can foster a Federal workplace that successfully embodies 

the ideals of the merit system principles.
vi Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

Background

Merit System Principles and Prohibited Personnel Practices

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) serves to protect the Merit System Principles (MSPs) 

and to promote an effective Federal workforce free of Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPPs). To support 

this mission, MSPB conducts studies to assess how fairly and effectively Federal agencies are managing 

their employees and to make recommendations for improvements. By examining trends over time, MSPB 

can promote an understanding of gains that have been achieved over time, as well as areas needing further 

attention.

To understand the context for this study, it is useful to keep in mind that the Federal civil service started 

as a patronage system in which people were granted jobs largely due to political loyalty, rather than 

qualifications. To remedy the problems created by this process,1 Congress passed the Pendleton Civil 

Service Reform Act in 1883, establishing the principle that appointment to the civil service should be on 

the basis of merit rather than political affiliation or other nonmerit reasons. Nearly a century later, as part 

of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Congress codified the MSPs and PPPs in 5 U.S.C. § 23012 and 

5 U.S.C. § 23023 to clarify expectations for a merit-based Federal civil service. While the MSPs provide 

aspirational goals for managing Federal employees, they alone cannot serve as the basis for a legal action by 

an employee or agency.4

 Concurrently, PPPs were developed to work in concert with the MSPs and spell 

out specific actions that agencies may not take.

The MSPs and PPPs state clearly what should be considered (e.g., “relative ability, knowledge, and skills”) 

and what should not be considered (e.g., “political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, 

marital status, age,” and disability) when making decisions that impact prospective and current Federal 

employees. They also indicate that basing these decisions on “personal favoritism” or nepotism (favoring 

1

 The “spoils system” likely resulted in a higher percentage of less qualified people occupying Federal positions, turmoil associated 

with turnover during changes of Administration, as well as distractions caused by individuals lobbying for Federal employment. 

However, the assassination of President Garfield by a frustrated job seeker who expected a Federal job in return for campaigning on 

behalf of the President became the precipitating event for this significant change to the Federal personnel system. Although the initial 

coverage in the competitive service was limited, this authority expanded greatly over time. For more information, see Biography of an 

Ideal: A History of the Federal Civil Service, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, from http://archive.opm.gov/biographyofanideal/ as of 

September 12, 2013.

2

 For the text of the Merit System Principles, see Appendix A.

3

 For the text of the Prohibited Personnel Practices, see Appendix B.

4

 H.R. Rep. No. 95-1717, at 128 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2860, 2861.

Introduction
2 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Introduction

relatives)5 is not proper (even in the absence of discrimination on the legally protected bases mentioned 

above). Although the regulations on nepotism6 specify the types of familial relationships that are prohibited 

between supervisors and employees, the MSP regarding favoritism requires more interpretation of the 

circumstances, and consequently, greater potential for differing opinions.

Favoritism occurs when supervisors or managers base decisions regarding current or prospective 

employees on personal feelings and/or relationships and not on objective criteria, such as 

assessments of ability, knowledge, and skills. Since the MSPs do not define the term favoritism, 

we base our definition on the corollary prohibited personnel practice in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)

(6), which forbids the granting of “any preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, or 

regulation to any employee or applicant for employment (including defining the scope or manner 

of competition for any position) for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any 

particular person for employment.”

In other words, a selecting official or a supervisor is prohibited from granting a benefit to one employee 

or applicant but not another similarly situated employee or applicant for reasons other than a legitimate 

merit-based reason. Examples of favoritism might include:

•	 If a selecting official asked human resources management (HRM) staff to find a way to hire a person 

(such as a friend or political ally) into a position for which the person was unqualified or clearly 

less qualified than other applicants;

•	 If a supervisor granted a career ladder promotion to a favorite employee but denied it to a similar 

employee who performed at the same level;

•	 If a supervisor took disciplinary action against one employee but not a similarly situated employee 

(who had a similar history and demonstrated identical performance or conduct).

Further, in the process of providing an unauthorized preference to one applicant or employee, other PPPs 

may also be committed. For example, if a supervisor sought to favor an applicant or employee based on shared 

political affiliation (or to disadvantage an individual based on dissimilar political views), the supervisor 

would be wrongfully considering information unrelated to work-related factors by discriminating for or 

against an employee based political affiliation7

 or on conduct unrelated to work performance8 or by taking 

“action against any employee or applicant for employment as a reprisal for the refusal of any person to 

5

 As discussed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(7) and 5 U.S.C. § 3110, serving in a supervisory capacity with an individual who is related by 

blood, marriage or other familial relationship, which allows relatives to grant each other employment-related advantages, has clearly been 

defined as counter to the Federal merit systems. The definition of nepotism does not include other types of relationships that would also 

likely represent a conflict of interest, such as unmarried partners in an intimate relationship (e.g., unmarried couples or those engaged in 

extramarital affairs). However, remedy for unfair treatment caused by these circumstances could be pursued under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)

(6).

6

 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(7) and 5 U.S.C. § 3110.

7

 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1)(e).

8

 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(10).
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3

Introduction

engage in such political activity.”9 In order to favor a certain employee, the supervisor might commit PPPs 

by deceiving or obstructing the right to compete for employment10 to keep otherwise qualified candidates 

from being (fully) considered or by encouraging an applicant to withdraw from competition with the 

intent of improving the chances for the preferred applicant.11

Method

For the purposes of this study, we have defined the context of favoritism broadly to include any actions 

by the supervisor which may impact employees, such as in selection for promotions, work assignments, 

telework, flexible work schedules, reassignments, geographic relocations, training or developmental 

opportunities, pay, performance appraisal ratings, awards, discipline, and retention efforts, as well as more 

informal interactions. This enables us to capture perspectives regarding a comprehensive scope of behaviors 

that may be viewed as providing differential treatment. 

The findings and recommendations in this report are based on:

•	 A literature review of topics related to fairness (particularly favoritism and nepotism), justice (e.g., 

procedural, distributive), decision-making, leadership, etc.

•	 A review of the relevant legislative history (e.g., the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the merit 

system principles and the prohibited personnel practices, and more recent efforts to improve 

supervisory and managerial training). 

•	 A review of selected cases involving allegations of favoritism and related prohibited personnel 

practices.

•	 Results from the 2011 Federal Merit Systems Survey,12 a Governmentwide survey which included 

questions regarding when, how and why Federal employees perceive that some applicants or 

employees receive an unfair advantage, their opinions regarding their supervisor’s effectiveness and 

what supervisors should do to improve their adherence to the merit system principles. A subset of 

questions was directed at supervisors to obtain their perspectives.13

•	 Results from the 2011 Fair and Open Competition Survey,14 administered to HRM employees 

because of their role in advising managers regarding personnel decisions.

9

 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(3).

10 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(4).

11 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(5).

12 Appendices C, D and E include an overview of the Federal Merit Systems Survey methodology, the text of the email invitation 

accompanying the Federal Merit Systems Survey, and a copy of the Federal Merit Systems Survey.

13 Supervisors were defined in the Federal Merit Systems Survey as “the person who is responsible for an employee’s performance 

appraisal and approval of his/her leave.”

14 The methodology of the Fair and Open Competition Survey will be described in more detail in an upcoming report.
4 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Introduction

•	 Results from the 2007 Career Advancement Survey,15 a Governmentwide survey which was focused 

on issues related to fairness.

•	 Results from the Merit Principles Survey16 which MSPB periodically administers to Federal 

Government employees to assess their perceptions of the Federal merit systems, monitor trends 

over time, as well as to provide insights into current topics of research. Some questions are 

repeated over multiple years to enable the assessment of trends in opinions over time.

•	 Input from Federal supervisors and employees during formal group discussions. To obtain 

representative perspectives, we selected participants based on geographic location, agency, 

ethnicity/race, sex, occupation and grade.17

•	 Input from conference attendees who participated in informal group discussions during 

presentations of research findings.

•	 Interviews and interrogatories with a variety of employee affinity groups.18

Purpose

The goals of this study are to:

1. Better define favoritism based on the laws that govern the Federal civil service and provide insights 

from various perspectives into what is perceived to be favoritism. Understanding of what actions 

may be perceived as favoritism can help establish a baseline of shared terminology;

2. Assess the prevalence of and contributors to perceptions of favoritism within the Federal workforce. 

Perceptions of favoritism can permeate the workplace through a variety of supervisory actions. 

Although it is unlikely that any organization can eradicate skepticism regarding the fairness of all 

decisions, supervisors should strive to decrease these negative perceptions whenever possible;

3. Provide recommendations for agencies (through managers, supervisors, and human resources 

employees) to reduce the potential for employee perceptions of favoritism. Even if supervisors are 

confident that their actions do not constitute a PPP, they must understand the risks when employees 

believe that they are not being treated fairly. Additionally, management decisions may elicit varying 

degrees of scrutiny by observers. Decisions to allocate highly valued and scarce resources are much 

more likely to receive close examination than lower-stakes decisions. Further, decisions that are 

15 These survey results are discussed in the MSPB reports Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining,

2009 and Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements, 2011.

16 The results from this survey were most recently discussed in Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives 

on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces, 2013.

17 These discussion groups also provided input for prior studies (e.g., Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges 

Remaining, 2009 and Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements, 2011) related to fair treatment on the basis of 

ethnicity, race, and sex.

18 We received input from the employee affinity groups Blacks in Government, the Federal Asian Pacific American Council, 

Federally Employed Women, National IMAGE, and the Society of American Indian Government Employees.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5

Introduction

made with transparency and in line with generally accepted decision criteria typically evoke less 

consternation than those made in secret or based upon unknown or controversial criteria;

4. Help applicants and employees understand when actions may (or may not) indicate the presence of 

biased treatment. Given the ambiguity inherent in many human resources management decisions, 

coupled with the common lack of transparency, a serious challenge exists for employees to be able 

to accurately assess whether or not a decision is fairly based on the supervisor’s objective evaluation 

of merit or reflects clouded judgment rooted in personal biases. This determination remains difficult 

since supervisors and employees often possess different information based on their own unique 

perspectives; and

5. Examine the consequences of perceptions of favoritism for individual and organizational outcomes, 

including employee engagement, performance, and turnover intentions, to highlight the substantial 

benefits that can be achieved by improving management practices. Although favoritism is frequently 

dismissed as a matter of employee dissatisfaction, the consequences of these perceptions can be 

substantial. Accordingly, it is in the best interest of agencies to understand and address employees’ 

concerns about favoritism.
6 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 7

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

Federal Employee 

Perceptions of Favoritism 

and Nepotism

How Prevalent are Perceptions of Favoritism and Nepotism?

As noted in earlier MSPB reports,19 results from our surveys of Federal employees over the past twenty 

years suggest that perceptions of discrimination on legally protected bases, such as ethnicity, race, and 

sex, have decreased. Likewise, as shown in Figure 1, perceptions of the frequency of prohibited personnel 

practices relating to unfair competition have substantially declined.20 These results indicate that in 2007 

about 1 in 7 employees reported personally experiencing unfair competition within the past two years, 

with about 1 in 10 saying they were discouraged from competing21 so some employees still suspect that 

managers make selection decisions based upon their personal feelings or alliances rather than a more objective evaluation of qualifications.

Figure 1. Employee Perceptions of Having Personally Experienced Unfair Competition within the Past Two 

Years, Merit Principles Survey, Fiscal Years 1992-2007

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1992 1996 2000 2005 2007

Unfair advantage given

to another

Discouraged from

competing

Inuenced to withdraw

Denied a job due to

nepotism

19 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining, 2009 and 

Prohibited Personnel Practices: Employee Perceptions, 2011.

20 Ibid.

21 As discussed in the 2011 MSPB report Prohibited Personnel Practices: Employee Perceptions, the wording of these items was 

changed in the 2010 Merit Principles Survey, which prevents direct comparison of these items. Therefore, to improve interpretability, the 

data presented here was collected with the consistently worded items from 1992 to 2007.
8 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Federal Employee Perceptions of Favoritism and Nepotism

Similarly, responses to MSPB’s Career Advancement Survey, which was administered in 2007, indicate 

that employees frequently attribute their nonselection to factors such as someone else being preselected22

(84 percent), not being a friend or relative of the selecting official (43 percent), or that the selecting 

official didn’t like them (29 percent) compared to the merit based reason that another candidate was better 

qualified (63 percent).23 This perception of unearned benefits being endowed upon applicants by virtue of 

family or social ties fuels the wide-spread belief that promotions aren’t driven as much by competence (39 

percent) or hard work (36 percent), but rather by “who they know” (72 percent).24

These findings were further buttressed by results from the 2010 Merit Principles Survey, which revealed 

that on measures of adherence to the merit principles, employees were most likely to agree (66 percent) 

that their organization “prevents prohibited discrimination,” but fewer express (28 percent agreeing) that 

it “does not engage in favoritism.”25

For the rest of the report, we present data primarily obtained through the Federal Merit Systems Survey. 

These results are occasionally supplemented with additional information from the perspective of human 

resources management employees as gathered through the Fair and Open Competition Survey.

As shown in Figure 2, just over 25 percent of Federal employees believe their supervisors show favoritism, 

but about half suspect other supervisors in their organization do so. This doubling in suspicion of favoritism may simply result from combining across a large number of supervisors so that one high profile case 

can taint the entire pool of supervisors. An alternative explanation could be that employees, by virtue of 

their distance from the situation, have less information on which to base their opinions regarding favoritism in the broader organization. As a result, they are more skeptical about the fairness of selection procedures and other management decisions outside their work unit compared to their closer experience with 

their own supervisor. And while employees may be most directly impacted by favoritism exercised by their 

immediate supervisor, biased treatment by other supervisors in their organization can influence their feelings about their agency. Additionally, given that responses vary across agencies, it appears that some agencies have achieved more success than others in reducing suspicion of favoritism in their organizations.26

22 The term “preselected” implies that the competition is not “fair and open” because the selecting official has decided who to select 

in advance and regardless of the qualifications of other applicants.

23 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2007 Career Advancement Survey. The question was completed only by respondents who 

had applied for a job in the past 3 years and did not receive a job offer.

24 As reported in the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining,

2009, p. 57. 

25 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles 

in Federal Workplaces, 2012, p. 79. 

26 Perceptions of the employee’s own supervisor showing favoritism ranged from 17 percent to 37 percent among Departments and 

large independent agencies, while the perception of other supervisors (a broader category) showing favoritism ranged from 32 percent to 

66 percent.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 9

Federal Employee Perceptions of Favoritism and Nepotism

Figure 2. Percentage of Federal Employees and Human Resources Management Employees Who Believe that 

Supervisors Engage in Favoritism or Nepotism

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Favoritism Nepotism

28%

5%

53%

27%

30%

16%

My supervisor

(Employees)

Other supervisors

(Employees)

HRM Professionals' View

of Supervisors

Regarding nepotism, Figure 2 illustrates that a significantly smaller percentage of employees believe that 

relatives of agency officials are provided with prohibited advantages. This can likely be attributed to the 

clear nature of the regulations27 that explicitly define what relationships are prohibited between those in 

the supervisory chain. In addition, due to the typical breadth of social networks compared to familial ties, 

there exists a greater likelihood of having friends or acquaintances who are seeking jobs, compared to relatives.

Similarly, Federal employees report that having relatives or other connections within the agency can provide unfair advantages. Nearly 30 percent of employees indicate that supervisors in their agency have practiced favoritism toward agency officials’ relatives, which suggests family ties may provide a benefit, even if 

indirectly conveyed. Just over 40 percent indicate that applicants who have connections also receive unfair 

advantages. 

Given their involvement in personnel actions across the organization, HRM employees typically have 

a broader view across their agency’s practices compared to employees in individual line organizations. 

Figure 2 demonstrates that their estimations of favoritism and nepotism proved substantially lower than 

employees’ assessments across the organization. Nevertheless, with 30 percent of HRM employees agreeing that favoritism occurs and 16 percent reporting nepotism, it seems apparent that there is room for 

improvement in these areas. When HRM employees report that wrongdoing has occurred in spite of their 

presumed efforts to uphold the merit system principles, there needs to be a closer examination of how and 

why this is happening.

27 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(7) and 5 U.S.C. § 3110.
10 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Federal Employee Perceptions of Favoritism and Nepotism

How Do Employees Perceive That They Are Affected by Favoritism?

When employees believe they have witnessed favoritism by their supervisor or others within their organization, they automatically calculate the potential personal impact. Most fundamentally, they assess whether 

the action might potentially help them or harm them. As displayed in Figure 3, employees were much 

more likely to believe that others had benefited from favoritism than to believe that they personally benefited from favoritism. This result is consistent with research showing that people tend to attribute success 

to internal factors (e.g., one’s skill and effort) and tend to attribute failures as due to external factors (e.g., 

bad luck and others’ unfair decisions).28 Another factor that may be contributing to this difference is information; employees are usually well aware of their own accomplishments and qualifications, but may have 

limited knowledge or a flawed understanding of how they compare to others.

Figure 3. Employee Perceptions of Impact of Favoritism by the Supervisor

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Helped Harmed

4%

15%

25%

17%

Self

Others

Employees may also be harmed by a supervisor who either takes punitive action based on negative personal 

feelings or who harms them less directly by favoring others. For example, in the case of limited resources 

or opportunities, a supervisor who unfairly allocates desirable outcomes to favored employees decreases 

the available benefits for others. 

What Supervisory Actions Do Employees Perceive as Evidencing Favoritism? 

As shown in Figure 4, Federal employees report that favoritism affects a wide variety of actions within the 

workplace: from formal actions that should be made in a structured manner and carefully documented, 

such as selection decisions (e.g., initial hiring and advancement/promotion), performance recognition, 

28 For example, see A.H. Mezulis, L.Y. Abramson, J.S. Hyde and B.L. Hankin, “Is There a Universal Positivity Bias in Attributions? 

A Meta-Analytic Review of Individual, Developmental and Cultural Differences in the Self-Serving Attributional Bias,” Psychological 

Bulletin, 130(5), 2004.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11

Federal Employee Perceptions of Favoritism and Nepotism

and discipline, to activities that are less structured, such as social interactions, and providing work assignments and training opportunities. Given that social interactions and distribution of work assignments are 

often made informally, it is not surprising that these topped the list in terms of perceptions of favoritism. 

Yet even formal, high-stakes actions, such as distributing awards, performance appraisal ratings, promotions, and career-enhancing opportunities, were viewed skeptically as about 1 in 5 employees saw these as 

areas where their supervisors had unfairly allocated resources. In the following pages, we present possible 

reasons for these results and discuss implications for the organization and ways that supervisors might 

improve how they make or communicate decisions.

Figure 4. Percentage of Employees Who Agreed “My Supervisor Has Demonstrated Favoritism” Through the 

Following Actions

7%

9%

12%

12%

13%

14%

16%

16%

19%

19%

21%

21%

21%

23%

26%

27%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Geographic location

Telework

Networking opportunities

Retention eorts

Pay

Flexible work schedules

Recruitment

Initial hiring

Training/developmental opportunities

Discipline

Acting supervisor

Advancement/promotion

Performance appraisals

Awards

Work assignments

Social interactions

Supervisors should be aware that employees pay attention to the entire range of actions that supervisors take 

during the day, from formal decisions to informal interactions, and may attribute even slight differences 

to demonstrations of favoritism. Such scrutiny should not lead supervisors to avoid interaction and 

substantive discussions with employees nor to shirk their responsibilities to make decisions based on merit 

and exercise transparency so employees understand the rationale behind these decisions. Nevertheless, 

supervisors must be mindful that employees are attentive to their supervisor’s actions, including those that 

may seem insignificant to the supervisor, and make inferences—which may be correct or incorrect—about 

the supervisor’s motivations and integrity.

Social Interactions. As shown in Figure 4, about a quarter of Federal employees believe that their supervisor 

has demonstrated favoritism in interactions with employees, spending more time with some employees 

or demonstrating friendlier behavior to some. Supervisors may not realize that their conversations in the 
12 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Federal Employee Perceptions of Favoritism and Nepotism

office may be viewed as evidence of favoritism. This finding underscores one of the many values of talking 

with all employees, and not just the ones with whom the supervisor has a natural affinity, whether due 

to similarities in terms of interests, personality, or other factors. While supervisors need not avoid talking with their employees (and in fact have much to gain from maintaining two-way conversations with 

all employees), they should be aware of the signals that they send by having a friendlier relationship with 

some employees and not others.

Not only does this create an appearance of differential treatment, it may contribute to actual differences as 

the “in group” has more opportunities to obtain information about the organization or the work, as well 

as more time to impress upon the supervisor their accomplishments. Further, developing an interpersonal 

relationship may predispose the supervisor to having a more positive attitude regarding certain employees, 

which may carry over to ratings of the employee’s performance if the supervisor is not cautious about 

the possibility of a positive “halo effect.”29 It is a natural human tendency for people to feel an affinity 

for those with whom they share personal characteristics or interests,30 and supervisors, by virtue of the 

responsibilities of their position, must guard against the inclination to act on these feelings.

Career Enhancing Opportunities. Although 26 percent of employees cited work assignments and 21 percent 

mentioned acting supervisor opportunities as sources of favoritism, responses to another set of questions 

revealed a more comprehensive view of the potential drivers behind these managerial decisions.

As shown in Figure 5, some survey respondents felt that favoritism played a role in determining who was 

selected for a career-enhancing project, but this was overshadowed by factors such as having the best skills, 

time available, and the most interest. Factors driving selection for acting supervisor assignments followed 

the same general pattern, with skills being the most important factor.

29 For example, see R.L. Cardy & G.H. Dobbins, (1986), Affect and Appraisal Accuracy: Liking as an Integral Dimension in 

Evaluating Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 672-678.

30 For example, see J.P. Strauss, M.R. Barrick, and M.L. Connerly, (2001), An Investigation of Personality Similarity Effects 

(Relational and Perceived) on Peer and Supervisor Ratings and the Role of Familiarity and Liking, Journal of Occupational and 

Organizational Psychology, 74(5), p. 637-657 or J. Lefkowitz, (2000), The Role of Interpersonal Affective Regard in Supervisory 

Performance Ratings: A Literature Review and Proposed Causal Model, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(1), p. 

67-85.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13

Federal Employee Perceptions of Favoritism and Nepotism

Figure 5. Percentage of Employees Who Agreed These Factors Drive Selection for Career-Enhancing Projects

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Developmental need

Favorite

Most interest

Time available

Best skills

20%

21%

37%

31%

53%

Most interest

Even though merit based factors were more frequently thought to drive selection for a career-enhancing 

project, supervisors should keep in mind that 1 in 5 employees thought favoritism also played a role. 

Some work assignments are inherently more career-enhancing or more enjoyable than others. If certain 

employees appear to repeatedly receive desirable assignments while other employees are consistently 

burdened with less appealing assignments or a greater volume of work, perceptions of favoritism can 

result. Although supervisors may believe that they are allocating opportunities based on talent, aptitude 

and interest, they should understand that employees may view matters differently. Even when they have 

well-founded reasons for their assignment of opportunities, supervisors need to articulate the reasons to 

employees rather than assume employees understand their rationale. 

Supervisors and employees may both benefit from regular, ongoing conversations about current and future 

roles and assignments. At a minimum, these should be conducted periodically as part of the performance 

management process, but more frequent discussions may improve—

•	 Supervisory decision making, by helping supervisors be aware of employees’ abilities, interests and 

goals, which may shift over time depending on their personal circumstances as employees may 

want to change either the content or challenge level of their work as their careers evolve. 

•	 Retention of employees, by reducing the likelihood that they will feel overlooked and seek 

developmental opportunities elsewhere; and

•	 Transparency, by communicating to employees what opportunities may be available and what is 

required to earn them.
14 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Federal Employee Perceptions of Favoritism and Nepotism

In addition to desirable or high-profile work assignments, our research identified two areas warranting 

particular attention to ensure equity: the designation of acting supervisor and access to training. In earlier 

research, we found that employees viewed serving as acting supervisor to be very career-enhancing, yet this 

opportunity wasn’t necessarily afforded to all who were interested.31 Serving as acting supervisor provides 

the employee with a chance to demonstrate that the employee can perform effectively in this role, which 

can provide an extremely compelling case for later selection into a supervisory role. Supervisors might 

consider the value of rotating acting supervisor responsibilities instead of falling into the habit of selecting 

the same person to fill in during their absences. While having a single designated acting supervisor provides 

the comfort level of having an experienced person fulfill these responsibilities, it denies the opportunity 

for others to have this developmental experience, as well as the chance to demonstrate their capabilities. 

The tendency to provide one employee (or a very limited number of employees) with greater opportunities 

can easily evolve into a situation where these favored employees have a substantial advantage when a 

promotion opportunity becomes available. When this occurs, other employees often question whether or 

not the competition has truly been “fair and open” or if the selectee has actually been “preselected.”

Likewise, differential access to training and development opportunities can result in some employees 

feeling held back while others are helped to become better prepared to compete for future promotions. 

Supervisors need to ensure that they assess all employees’ strengths and areas for development relative to 

their unique job requirements and to the current and future needs of the agency. About 20 percent of 

employees reported favoritism in the area of training, which points to a need to better identify individual 

and organizational training and development needs and meet them with sufficient training budgets, while 

communicating with employees to help them understand how priorities are established in the event of 

limited training resources.

Performance Appraisal Ratings and Awards. Opportunities for employees to demonstrate their value are 

often closely linked to performance appraisal ratings and corresponding awards so it is understandable 

that employees are attentive to the potential for favoritism in these areas. Performance ratings and awards 

send a clear message about what accomplishments—and which employees—are most valued. Supervisors 

may be seen as having “favorites” who can do no wrong, and receive top ratings and awards regardless of 

effort while others feel that their accomplishments are routinely overlooked. That situation can undermine 

organizational performance not only by demotivating under-rewarded excellent performers, but also by 

communicating that employees should emulate the behavior demonstrated by the favored lower performers. 

Clearly, agencies would be better served by aligning pay and rewards with outstanding performance to 

encourage employees to put forth their best efforts.32 

Further, a finite pool of resources funds awards, which means that competition will exist. Given that 

the merit system principles create an expectation that appropriate awards will be provided for excellent 

performance, employees naturally compare their contributions and rewards against others, although it is 

difficult for them to have truly objective opinions or accurate information about their relative standing.

31 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Progress Report on Minority Employment, 1996, p. 34, U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining, 2009, p. 44, U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board, Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements, 2011, p. 94.

32 For more information on effective supervisory practices, please see the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board reports: A Call 

to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees, 2010; Managing for Engagement — Communication, Connection, and 

Courage, 2009; and Designing an Effective Pay for Performance Compensation System, 2006.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15

Federal Employee Perceptions of Favoritism and Nepotism

Recruitment, Hiring and Advancement. Figure 4 reveals that slightly more employees perceive fairness with 

recruitment and initial hiring, compared to internal advancement. This difference may reflect the often 

more rigorous screening that is done at the point of entry into an agency, as well as the fact that employees are more likely to know more (or think they know more) about the qualifications of other internal 

candidates with whom they competed. Given the criticality of fair and effective hiring and advancement 

to the quality of the Federal workforce and employees’ satisfaction with their Federal careers, the next sections delve into these processes in more detail. By shedding light on these processes and the perceptions 

of where it breaks down, this report seeks to identify strategies for improving Federal hiring and to bridge 

the potential gap between perceptions of fairness held by supervisors, employees, and human resources 

management employees.
16 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

Comparing Perceptions of Appropriate and Actual Selection Criteria

In a merit-based system, the criteria for selection and the process used to select an employee for 

promotion should be job-related, valid and reliable, carefully developed and implemented, well-defined 

and transparent. These characteristics will contribute to a selection process that is legally defensible and 

reaffirm the confidence of those who were not selected. Without this confidence, even the most sound 

selection procedures will likely be subjected to scrutiny and skepticism.

Our survey results shown in Figure 6 provide employees’ views on the propriety of a variety of possible 

influences on promotion decisions. Employees report widespread support for criteria such as quality of experience and technical competence, recognized potential, education and training, dedication, performance 

in the selection process and length of experience. Professional relationships earned a cautionary range of 

acceptance from 14 to 47 percent, with more comfort regarding the use of references and contacts. Factors 

viewed appropriate by fewer than 5 percent are clearly considered unacceptable (e.g., physical attractiveness and personal relationship with the selecting officials). Below we discuss for selected factors what may 

be underlying these survey results, and what the results suggest for whether and how agencies use those 

factors to make selection decisions. 

Figure 6. Factors Employees View as Appropriate Influences on Promotion Decisions

What Factors Influence 

Promotion Decisions 

(And Are they Fair)?

2%

3%

14%

18%

33%

35%

47%

67%

79%

84%

90%

93%

98%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Personal relationship - selecting ocial

Physical attractiveness

Professional relationship - selecting ocial

Professional relationships - higher level

Professional relationships - lower level

Professional relationships - peer

References/contacts

Length of experience

Performance in process

Dedication

Education/training

Recognized potential

Quality of experience/technical competence
18 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

What Factors Influence Promotion Decisions (And Are they Fair)?

Table 1 compares employees’ views on (1) what is considered in selection decisions and (2) what should be

considered by selecting officials. Notably, there is often a sizable gap between factors that employees believe 

are considered in promotion decisions and those that should be, suggesting that some employees believe 

selecting officials neglect some appropriate criteria and instead use inappropriate criteria. Specifically, more 

employees believe that factors towards the top of Table 1 (e.g., quality of experience/technical competence, 

recognized potential, education/training, and dedication) are appropriate to be factored into promotion 

decisions than actually are considered. In contrast, employees reported that factors, such as personal and 

professional relationships with the selecting official and professional relationships with higher level officials, were much more likely to influence promotion decisions than was viewed as acceptable. 

Table 1. Factors Employees View as Influencing Promotion Decisions, Their Propriety, and the Difference

Considered? Appropriate? Difference

Quality of experience/technical competence 58% 98% -40%

Recognized potential 51% 93% -42%

Education/training 50% 90% -40%

Dedication 45% 84% -39%

Performance in process 50% 79% -29%

Length of experience 45% 67% -22%

References/contacts 44% 47% -3%

Professional relationships - peer 34% 35% -1%

Professional relationships - lower level 18% 33% -15%

Professional relationships - higher level 49% 18% 31%

Professional relationship - selecting official 47% 14% 33%

Physical attractiveness 15% 3% 12%

Personal relationship - selecting official 40% 2% 38%

Traditionally Measured Factors. Factors such as quality of experience/technical competence, education/

training, and length of experience that the majority of employees said they viewed as appropriate have 

traditionally been evaluated as part of the selection process because they have been viewed as measurable 

predictors of job performance. However, in spite of the high agreement about the importance of quality 

of experience, there may be less agreement around how to validly and reliably measure it. The training 

and experience rating method frequently serves as an imperfect proxy for more direct measurement of 

competencies (due to the expense of full-fledged job simulations for assessment purposes and the problems 

introduced by using written tests to assess competencies). Structured interviews with questions and rating 

criteria that are closely linked to the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to be successful in the job can 

serve as effective assessment tools, but also require a substantial investment of time and energy to develop 

them. 

Education and training and length of experience received wide acceptance as they are likely viewed as fairly 

objective measures of an employee’s ability to perform on the job. Yet both need to be considered with the 

caution that merely having spent time in a class or even on the job does not necessarily substitute for having 

obtained job-essential knowledge or skills. Quantity of education, training or service do not necessarily 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19

What Factors Influence Promotion Decisions (And Are they Fair)?

equate to quality. The education and training needs to be specific to the vacancy and the employee must 

have successfully learned the material and be able to apply it on the job. 

Subjective Evaluations of Potential and Dedication. Recognized potential and dedication to the organization/

mission were also mentioned by over 80 percent of respondents as appropriate to consider in the promotion 

process. Yet it seems unlikely that there would be consensus about how to measure these concepts. These 

qualities require more subjective evaluation and are often assessed through references and other contacts 

who are familiar with the applicant’s past performance and likely future performance. While people tend to 

believe that they “know it when they see it,” evaluations of potential and dedication often vary due to the 

generally subjective nature of the assessment. Although evaluating potential may be similar to evaluating 

job performance, it requires allowing for growth over time while assessing the performance of someone 

who has not yet had the opportunity to perform the job. Therefore, it would still require a thorough job 

analysis and careful evaluation of the ability to perform in the future.

Another challenge with assessing dedication and determining how much of a role it should play in a 

selection decision relates to the difficulty in distinguishing between loyalty to the service of the country, 

the agency, or those to whom they report. While dedication to each of these might produce desirable 

outcomes, when commitment rests largely with people rather than the mission, there may be concerns 

about maintaining these personal relationships that overshadow other mission-related outcomes, including 

public service motivation.

Therefore, when assessing difficult-to-measure concepts such as potential and dedication, agencies need 

to be very careful. Although these assessments can be tied to measurable, job-related competencies or 

behaviors, they also require a substantial degree of subjective evaluation. 

Performance in the Selection Process. Interestingly, although a candidate’s performance in the selection 

process was viewed as appropriate by nearly 80 percent of respondents, it ranked fifth in popularity. 

This may suggest reservations that employees maintain regarding the current selection processes, which 

may need to be strengthened to gain credibility with employees. Employees voiced even less confidence 

in reference checks, which have demonstrated some value as a predictor of future performance but lag 

behind many other commonly used assessment practices.33 Particularly with reference checks where the 

prospective supervisor contacts former supervisors or others, employees may fear that references would 

provide artificially inflated evaluations regarding those they favor (or provide undeserved low ratings of 

employees who were not in favor) or that the current supervisor may not be forthcoming if trying to 

offload a poor performer (or perhaps hold on to a stellar performer).

Professional Relationships. The large discrepancy between the perceived influence on promotion decisions 

compared to the appropriate influence of professional relationships with the selecting official or other 

higher level managers or a personal relationship with the selecting official suggests that these factors 

33 For example, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Reference Checking in Federal Hiring: Making the Call, 2005; F.L. Schmidt 

and J.E. Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications 

of 85 Years of Research Findings,” Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), pp. 262-274; or P.J. Taylor, K. Pajo, G. Cheung, and P. Stringfield, 

Dimensionality and Validity of a Structured Telephone Reference Check Procedure, Personnel Psychology, 57, pp. 745-772.
20 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

What Factors Influence Promotion Decisions (And Are they Fair)?

are viewed by employees with great suspicion. The mere presence of a pre-existing relationship creates 

vulnerability in the selection process. 

Results from past research are relevant to the discussion of whether or not professional relationships or 

personal contacts should be considered. In fact, employees demonstrate somewhat contradictory opinions 

regarding the proper role of professional relationships on career advancement. While prior research clearly 

indicates that most Federal employees (85 percent) view relationships with a supportive supervisor or 

mentor as having a positive impact on their career advancement,34 employees often report less comfort with 

the impact of professional relationships on promotion decisions.

As shown earlier in Figure 6, there was a modest level of support for considering professional relationships 

with peers and lower level employees, presumably given the value of building and maintaining effective 

working relationships. However, employees expressed skepticism regarding the propriety of considering 

professional or personal relationships with higher level officials or the selecting official although they felt 

these were fairly common occurrences. This could suggest that relationships with peers and subordinates 

are viewed as measures of interpersonal skills, while relationships with higher ranking officials could 

reflect an employee’s attempts to gain favor based on factors other than merit. In relation to professional 

relationships with higher level officials/the selection official, as well as personal relationships with the 

selecting official, there were large gaps between what employees believe is and should be factored into 

selection decisions, with employees believing these relationships carry more weight than they should.

Cautions Regarding Selection Criteria

Although there may be debates about how to evaluate some of these factors that may influence promotion 

decisions, quality of work experience, recognized potential, education/training, dedication, performance 

in the selection process, and length of work experience were viewed as acceptable by the majority of 

Federal employees, in contrast to personal relationship with the selecting official or physical attractiveness. 

However, there were mixed views among Federal employees regarding the propriety of various professional 

relationships as a factor influencing promotion decisions. This lack of consensus makes these areas ripe 

for differing perceptions of whether or not these professional relationships can be fairly leveraged when 

seeking opportunities as an employee or for supervisors who seek to make appropriate decisions when 

distributing resources, such as promotions or developmental opportunities.

Figure 7 shows interpersonal factors to be strongly positively correlated with perceptions of favoritism.35

Not surprisingly, employees who respond that favoritism is a problem in their organization are also more 

likely to believe that personal and professional relationships with the selecting official (or a higher level 

official) influence selection for a promotion. Similarly, employees who view the candidate’s physical 

34 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining, 2009, p. 48.

35 A correlation (r) indicates whether or not two measures are related, to what degree and whether they trend in the same or opposite 

directions. Correlations of 0.5 or more (regardless of whether in a positive or negative direction) are considered large, 0.3 moderate, 

and 0.1 small. Positive correlations indicate the measures move in the same direction, while negative correlations mean they diverge. 

Therefore, as a group, employees who thought favoritism was a problem in their organization were more likely to think personal and 

professional relationships and physical attractiveness weighed on the decision. In contrast, when employees viewed favoritism not to be 

a problem, they felt factors such as quality of experience, recognized potential, education/training, performance in the selection process, 

and tenure influenced the promotion decision.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 21

What Factors Influence Promotion Decisions (And Are they Fair)?

attractiveness as playing a role in the selection decision are also more likely to view favoritism as a problem. 

Conversely, given the widespread support for the top six factors influencing promotion decisions (as shown 

in Figure 6), it is understandable that these are negatively correlated with perceptions of favoritism as 

shown in Figure 7.

36

Figure 7. Correlations between Perceived Role of Factor in Promotions and Perception of Favoritism as a 

Problem

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

Quality of experience/technical...

Recognized potential

Education/training

Dedication

Performance in process

Length of experience

Professional relationships - lower level

References/contacts

Professional relationships - peer

Physical attractiveness

Professional relationships - higher level

Professional relationship - selecting...

Personal relationship - selecting ocial

A comparison between the opinions of supervisors and employees reveals that these two groups are 

generally in agreement about the factors that should (and should not) be considered when awarding 

promotions. Interestingly, the only factors with even a slight difference of opinion between supervisors 

and employees relate to length of experience and references. Employees are slightly more likely than 

supervisors to give weight to tenure, while slightly more supervisors than employees tend to value 

references.

To better understand how supervisors make their selection decisions, we specifically asked them to rate the 

importance of the candidate’s skills and personality. Although 95 percent rated skills that are a “good fit 

36 In this context, factors that are negatively correlated with favoritism would be positively associated with the opposite of 

favoritism—treating employees fairly.

Is Favoritism a Problem?

NO YES
22 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

What Factors Influence Promotion Decisions (And Are they Fair)?

with the work unit” as important, two-thirds thought personality fit with the work unit is important, while 

one-third said personality fit with them is critical. In contrast, when talking more generically about what 

supervisors should do, supervisors (and employees) were less likely to agree that selections should be made 

based on personality fit with the work unit (only 12% of groups of supervisors or employees) or selecting 

based on having an enjoyable working relationship over qualifications (only 3% of supervisors agreed and 

4% of employees).

Selecting officials need to carefully consider the propriety of “fit.” Objectively assessing skills against team 

needs can provide vital information about an applicant’s potential contributions to the team, but selecting 

based on personality match can result in a lack of team diversity. Selecting officials need to be aware that 

trying to select a homogeneous staff may be a misguided effort resulting in a team without complementary 

strengths. To overcome this tendency towards perpetuating the status quo, they should focus on jobessential skills, rather than matching the personality of the team or the selecting official. 

Supervisors should also be cautious about relying upon their general impressions of candidates rather than 

specifically comparing the qualifications of each candidate against the critical work-related criteria. Twentythree percent of supervisors indicate that they rely upon their overall impressions or “gut instincts” when 

selecting employees. Unfortunately, such global assessments or reliance on subjective impressions can be 

highly susceptible to unconscious biases, even among those who pride themselves upon treating everyone 

fairly.37 Further, 22 percent of supervisors believe that they are better able to select the best qualified 

applicants by their judgments than by relying upon the current hiring process. Therefore, agencies need 

not only design and implement valid selection tools and effective selection procedures, but all selecting 

officials must also be convinced of the benefits of using them properly. HRM staff often plays a role in 

developing selection tools, while agency leadership must set the expectation that supervisors will do their 

best to use these tools effectively, which includes using them to treat applicants fairly and achieve meritbased outcomes.

To reduce the perception or reality of favoritism, supervisors must emphasize good hiring practices that are 

based on merit. They must also take care with selection criteria and assessments to make sure that they are 

adhering to the merit systems. To achieve this, they must work with HRM staff to:

1. Conduct a job analysis to ensure the selection criteria are job-related and measurable;

2. Carefully select valid and reliable assessment (measurement) tools and to use the information 

collected to make a legally defensible decision;38 and

3. Exercise transparency to inform applicants what will be measured and how, and if possible, share 

feedback to help the applicant to understand the selection decision and how to improve for future 

competitions.

37 For example, see A.G. Greenwald, T.A. Poehlman, E. Uhlmann and M.R. Benaji, (2009), Understanding and Using the Implicit 

Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17-41 or A.J. Lee (2005), 

Unconscious Bias Theory in Employment Discrimination Litigation, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 40, 481-503.

38 For example, see the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s Assessment Decision Guide at http://apps.opm.gov/adt/Content.

aspx?page=TOC
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

Possible Manifestations of 

Favoritism in the Selection 

Process

As discussed earlier, while the merit system principles establish expectations for fair and open competition 

and avoiding favoritism, the prohibited personnel practices spell out certain actions that Federal employees 

are specifically directed not to take. In many situations, there is ambiguity as to whether decisions are merit 

based or not. Below we outline certain practices that are either PPPs or inconsistent with merit system 

principles of fair and open competition and selection based on merit. We discuss the prevalence of these 

practices according to Federal employees and Federal HRM employees. These varied perspectives provide 

valuable insight into their perceptions of how frequently these activities occur in their organizations. 

However, it is important to note that survey responses are not definitive evidence that a PPP or improper 

action has occurred. 

Perspective from Federal Employees

As shown in Figure 8, a sizable minority of Federal employees believe that selection practices that are 

inconsistent with fair and open competition and selection based on ability occur “always” or “most of the 

time.” Specifically, 32 percent of employees believe friendship or connections trump qualifications and 

36 percent of employees think selecting officials frequently practice “preselection,” which is defined as 

knowing in advance who they are going to select and following through regardless of the qualifications of 

other applicants.

Figure 8. Employee Perceptions That Event Occurs “Always” or “Most of the Time”

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Selection criteria are tailored to a

particular candidate.

Vacancy announcements are designed to

favor or disfavor a particular person.

Individuals are selected over more

qualied candidates based on friendship

or connections.

Vacancies are lled through

"preselection."

30%

36%

32%

32%
24 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Possible Manifestations of Favoritism in the Selection Process

Perspective from Human Resources Management Employees

When asked about the potential threats to fair and open competition for Federal jobs, HRM employees 

most frequently selected “managers who base hiring on favoritism” with 41 percent agreeing that this 

occurs to a great extent. They viewed favoritism as a greater threat to fair and open competition than 

challenges such as “hiring managers don’t understand the requirements for fair and open competition,” 

“amount of time it takes to hire someone,” and “difficulty in managing a high volume of applicants.”39

The survey of HRM employees asked them to indicate how often they believed agency officials took 

particular actions that are prohibited or otherwise inconsistent with fair and open competition.40 As 

shown in Figure 9, the frequency of behaviors seems to correspond with the associated risk. For example, 

according to HRM employees, influencing an applicant to withdraw from competition (clearly defined 

as a prohibited personnel practice) occurs very infrequently, at least to their knowledge. Similarly, from 

the HRM perspective, selecting officials were unlikely to obviously attempt to circumvent veterans’ hiring 

preference. 

Figure 9. HRM Perspective on Frequency of Actions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Selecting ocial has someone in mind prior to advertising

Asked to readvertise because someone was not

on the certicate

Area of consideration intended to provide an unfair advantage

Grade level chosen to provide an unfair advantage

Qualications crafted to provide an unfair advantage

Duties crafted to provide an unfair advantage

Open period of vacancy announcement intended

to provide an unfair advantage

Selective factor provided an unfair advantage

Hiring process seemed to circumvent veterans preference

Applicant inuenced to withdraw from

competition

Rarely/never

Sometimes

Always/most of the time

39 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Open Competition Survey, 2011. For more information on these results, see the 

upcoming MSPB report regarding Fair and Open Competition.

40 Ibid.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25

Possible Manifestations of Favoritism in the Selection Process

Compared to the actions that were more clearly linked with actions likely to be PPPs, more HRM 

employees believe that aspects of the selection process are sometimes manipulated to improperly advantage 

certain applicants. Such manipulation included specifying job requirements or recruitment approaches 

(e.g., the selective factor or other qualifications, grade level, description of duties, area of consideration, 

and the open period of the vacancy announcement) or as re-advertising a position because a particular 

person was not on the certificate. These actions constitute a gray area for HRM because these decisions are 

appropriately left largely to the selecting official’s discretion, and can be used to screen out less qualified 

applicants. These decisions can be made for legitimate as well as illegitimate reasons. HRM staff may have 

limited ability to distinguish a reasoned exercise of managerial judgment from abuse of the merit system, 

if agency officials articulate rational reasons for their requests.

Over the past twenty years, Federal human resources employees have experienced dramatic changes in the 

roles they are expected to play. Prior to reinvention initiatives in the 1990’s which included abolishing the 

Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) to provide more flexibility to agencies in establishing personnel policy 

to manage their workforces,41 human resources staff primarily served what might be best described as a 

policing role. Human resources staff consulted the FPM (and/or agency-specific policy manuals known as 

Departmental Personnel Manuals or DPMs) to determine what actions the managers could take. Therefore, 

options were somewhat limited to those that had been specified by the authors of the FPM or DPM or 

those that HRM staff felt comfortable offering as interpretations of the existing policy. 

However, over time, the role of human resources has evolved to emphasize exploring options and providing 

customer service to help managers accomplish their goals within a wide range of options. Success in the 

HR role shifted from following the letter of the law to accommodating managers’ requests. Although there 

was certainly value gained in allowing for innovation and flexibilities, some HRM staff experienced a new 

challenge in turning down managers’ requests that they felt threatened the merit system principles without 

the structured guidance that previously provided them with more support. 

Survey data indicate that HRM concerns remain about maintaining a sometimes delicate balance between 

pleasing the customer and supporting the spirit and intent of the merit system principles. For example, 

nearly 20 percent of human resources employees indicated that their supervisors would consider it to be 

bad customer service if they reported that one of their customers had committed a prohibited personnel 

practice.42 Only 74 percent of HR employees reported that their supervisor would support them if they 

refused to help a customer commit a PPP leaving others who were unsure (13 percent) or disagreed (14 

percent).43 HRM employees can be dissuaded from performing one of their key roles if they fear that 

disagreeing with the supervisor will have negative repercussions for them, even if they believe they are trying 

to help the manager avoid committing a PPP. Without confidence in support from their managers, HR 

staff may be intimidated into not giving appropriate advice and not elevating an issue when a supervisor 

intends to proceed against their advice. Further, after they believe a PPP has occurred, they may refrain 

from reporting it, even though they are in the best position to know what truly occurred. 

41 As part of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, one of the recommendations sought to “Eliminate Excessive 

Red Tape and Automate Functions and Information,” (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/reports/hrm12.html as accessed on 

February 26, 2013).

42 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Open Competition Survey, 2011.

43 Ibid.
26 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Possible Manifestations of Favoritism in the Selection Process

Although managers are ultimately responsible for their actions, they do not operate in a vacuum. Human 

resources employees (or those who are performing this role in line organizations) play a critical role in 

ensuring that managers use flexibilities appropriately to make wise, merit-based staffing decisions. HR 

employees should understand and accept responsibility for appropriately advising supervisors, or they 

risk being held accountable. Even when serving in this advisory role results in conflict, such as when the 

supervisor wants to achieve an outcome that threatens the integrity of the merit systems, human resources 

employees have a responsibility to educate managers regarding not only what is possible, but also what has 

credibility with outside observers. 

In summary, it is prudent for managers and supervisors to forge partnerships with HR, to make decisions 

that are consistent with the MSPs and avoid the PPPs. Such partnerships will help ensure the underlying 

intent of such actions are grounded in merit, and operate in accord with the Federal merit system principles.

Selected Cases Involving Issues Related to Favoritism

Supervisors and selecting officials make decisions on a daily basis that are evaluated against the merit 

system principles and the prohibited personnel practices. Understanding the implications of these decisions 

offers an opportunity to carefully consider various courses of action before embarking upon a potentially 

risky course of action that may be interpreted as a violation of the MSPs and perhaps as evidencing the 

commission of one or more PPPs.

Whether an act constitutes a prohibited personnel practice generally hinges upon the intent. Absent 

wrongful intent, an action may be permissible, while with intent to subvert the merit system principles, it 

is a prohibited personnel practice. For example, it may be appropriate to re-advertise a position when there 

aren’t sufficient qualified applicants, but doing so to get a specific name on the certificate creates both the 

appearance and reality of impropriety. However, simply having someone in mind prior to advertising is not 

a prohibited personnel practice, as long as the selecting official doesn’t bias the selection process in favor of 

the prospective selectee and honestly considers all applicants prior to making a selection. 

Management decisions may fall anywhere on a spectrum of suspicion regarding having committed 

a prohibited personnel practice. At one extreme are blatant prohibited personnel practices, where the 

evidence shows that an official clearly intended to take a personnel action despite knowledge that it was 

not permitted. At the opposite end of the spectrum are the cases where the supervisor made a merit-based 

decision and this is readily apparent to all observers.

A review of cases can help agency leaders, supervisors, and HRM employees learn from others’ experiences 

and suggest better future courses of action. For example, in Special Counsel v. Lee and Beatrez, 114 M.S.P.R. 

393 (2010), many opportunities existed for human resources management staff to advise the supervisors 

regarding the propriety of numerous decisions during a selection process. The Office of Special Counsel 

viewed these failures as violations of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6) since they involved unauthorized hiring 

preferences and consequently, filed a complaint with MSPB. 

In this case, the evidence indicated that the selecting official intended to select a current employee for 

a promotion regardless of the availability of other qualified applicants. For example, after the employee 

failed to qualify under the merit promotion announcement, the selecting official requested that human 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27

Possible Manifestations of Favoritism in the Selection Process

resources management reissue the delegated examining unit announcement (and limit it to the GS-11 

level), for the stated reason that there weren’t enough well-qualified applicants.44 To persuade HR to readvertise the position, the selecting official received help from Lee, an HR Specialist working as an advisor 

in the line organization. However, the selecting official also communicated to HR that the intent was 

to select a particular employee. At this point, the staffing action was transferred to Beatrez who found 

that the target employee did not qualify at the GS-11 level. Then Lee advised re-advertising the position 

under merit promotion as a GS-9/11. The selecting official agreed to this, along with narrowing the area 

of consideration geographically and to current and former Federal employees, while limiting the vacancy 

open period to the minimum required. After re-advertising the vacancy and restricting who could be 

considered, the intended employee was selected. 

Agencies may revise vacancy announcements and re-advertise positions when adequate pools of qualified 

applicants cannot be found. However, in this case, evidence of underlying intent to circumvent the merit 

system belied claims of a shortage of acceptable candidates. Narrowing the geographic area of consideration 

and open period for the vacancy announcement further undermined the argument that the agency’s actions 

were meant to augment the applicant pool, suggesting instead that the intent was to recruit and select a 

particular employee.

The Merit Systems Protection Board ordered the employing agency to suspend Lee for forty-five days 

without pay and Beatrez for ten days without pay, due to her lesser involvement. However, Beatrez’s 

suspension was later overturned on appeal as the United States Court of Appeals ruled that her explanations 

for her actions were credible.45 This highlights one of the greatest challenges for supervisors, HRM staff 

and employees. Whether management decisions are proper or improper often hinge on the intent behind 

them. In this case, the manager revealed the underlying intent to manipulate the hiring process to hire 

a specific person and thereby commit a PPP. The first HR specialist willingly aided and abetted this act, 

and suggested strategies that were inconsistent with the stated problem of an inadequate pool of qualified 

applicants. In comparison, the second HR specialist was able to justify her actions.

Given their critical role in upholding the merit system principles, human resources management specialists 

(or those who are performing this role in line organizations) should understand and accept responsibility 

for appropriately advising supervisors, even when this results in conflict, such as when the supervisor 

wants to achieve an outcome that may involve the commission of a PPP. In these instances, the HR 

representatives can and should be held accountable if they do not fulfill their responsibilities. For example, 

in Special Counsel v. Ross, 34 M.S.P.R. 197 (1987), Ross was the Personnel Officer and Catledge reported 

to her as a Personnel Management Specialist. At the request of the director of the facility, they worked to 

hire a particular applicant, first by tailoring the position description to fit the applicant’s qualifications and 

then by discouraging or otherwise removing the more qualified applicants from consideration. The Board 

ordered the employing agency to reduce Ross by one grade and Catledge by two grades for a minimum of 

one year.

44 Agencies may advertise vacancies through merit promotion, which is only open to current or former permanent Federal 

competitive service employees or veterans under certain conditions, and/or delegated examining, which is also open to applicants from 

outside the Federal competitive service.

45 Beatrez v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 413 F. Appx. 298 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
28 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Possible Manifestations of Favoritism in the Selection Process

In another case, Special Counsel v. Brown, 61 M.S.P.R. 559 (1994), the Office of Special Counsel requested 

disciplinary action against Brown, who was responsible for human resources management in the region, 

and Nelson, who was his supervisor, for their involvement in a hiring action that the Board found involved 

a violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(5), to “influence a person to withdraw from competition for the purpose 

of improving or injuring the prospects of any other person for employment,” including misleading 

a candidate about his right to priority consideration as a displaced employee, as well as violations of 

5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6), regarding granting unauthorized hiring preferences. Nelson and Brown conducted 

a panel interview with the priority candidate and rated him as failing the interview and selected two 

nonpriority candidates. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) noted that these selections violated 

the displaced employee regulations and ordered corrective action, which Brown and Nelson did not 

take in a timely manner. Further, Nelson violated 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6) and provided Brown with an 

unauthorized preference by improperly reclassifying a GM-201-14 position to a GM-301-14 position to 

improve Brown’s chances for selection. An HR specialist notified Nelson verbally and in writing that this 

action was not permissible. As a result of these actions and refusal to correct the problems identified by 

OPM, the Board ordered the employing agency to suspend Nelson for 90 days without pay and for Brown 

to pay a $1,000 fine in lieu of a 60-day suspension, given his retirement.

In Special Counsel v. Byrd and Rubinstein, 59 M.S.P.R. 561 (1993), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1196, the Board described 

this case as “one of the clearest possible examples of abuse of the merit system.” They concluded that 

Byrd, an Area District Director and Rubinstein, a regional branch chief responsible for personnel matters, 

conspired to violate 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6) by giving an applicant unauthorized preference because she 

had ties to the White House and Congress. In order to hire the desired applicant from outside the agency, 

they misused a temporary hiring authority, narrowly restricted the public notice by geography, grade level, 

and time the vacancy announcement was open, selected the target employee without interviewing any of 

the other applicants to assess their qualifications, and questionably invalidated a veteran’s application. As a 

consequence, the Board ordered Byrd to pay a fine of $1,000 (since he had retired) and for the employing 

agency to suspend Rubinstein for 60 days without pay. 

Special Counsel v. DeFord, 28 M.S.P.R., 98 (1985), is similar to the cases described above as it involved a 

violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6) by giving one employee an advantage through retroactively promoting 

her. However, a key difference from the previously mentioned cases is that the underlying intent was to 

advantage her in the event of a proposed reduction in force (which never occurred) by placing her in a 

grade where her chances for retention were better. Additionally, DeFord, the supervisor, attempted to 

absolve himself of guilt by claiming that Julian, his subordinate who was the Personnel Officer, had failed 

to inform him that the promotion was improper, despite testimony from other witnesses to whom Julian 

indicated he had been ordered to process the promotion action by DeFord. The Board found DeFord 

responsible for violating 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6) and ordered that he pay a fine of $750 since he had 

recently retired.

In each these cases, supervisors sought to ignore the merit system principles, Federal regulations, and/or 

OPM guidance, in order to select outside of the Federal merit system procedures. Unfortunately, some 

of the HR staff who were involved failed to properly play their appropriate advisory role to keep their 

agencies, their management, and themselves out of legal trouble.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29

Possible Manifestations of Favoritism in the Selection Process

Selecting officials and supervisors must exercise careful judgment when dealing with individuals with 

whom they have a personal or close professional relationship. It is not necessarily a prohibited practice 

to hire, promote, or reward such individuals. Indeed, it may be quite proper do so, when merited by 

the individual’s skills or accomplishments. Nevertheless, such decisions are likely to be scrutinized for 

preferential treatment Case law reinforces all these points, illustrating the need to both make personnel 

decisions, and evaluate their legality and propriety, on a case-by-case basis.46

The shared thread among each of these cases involves the flexibility with which supervisors and HR staff 

can rightfully (or wrongfully) work to achieve a desired outcome. When used properly, these flexibilities 

can serve to help management choose well-qualified employees in accord with the merit system principles. 

However, when these flexibilities are manipulated in order to hire a specific person based on personal 

relationships rather than job-related qualifications, there can be many who suffer the consequences—the 

agency, human resources management staff, the supervisors, subordinates and/or colleagues of the selectee, 

as well as the applicants who were not selected.

Various reforms to human resources management practices over the past 25 years have provided selecting 

officials with greater flexibility, which may have made it easier to select the desired candidate. Perhaps 

most notably, the change from the “rule of three” to “category rating” under delegated examining has 

provided selecting officials with more freedom to select from a potentially broader pool of applicants.47 Yet, 

by shifting from HR to the supervisors the responsibility for sifting through application materials and for 

deciding which (if any) candidates to interview, there may be less documentation to explain to candidates 

why they did not make the final cut. The changes in HRM practices to give agencies more flexibility 

are not inherently susceptible to PPPs. However, they highlight the need for changing accompanying 

procedures to facilitate accountability for decisions that are made using this greater discretion.

46 For example, in Special Counsel v. Nichols, 36 M.S.P.R. 445 (1988), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) sought disciplinary 

action against the defendant (Nichols), alleging that Nichols had violated 5 U.SC. § 2302(b)(6) by orchestrating the selection and 

subsequent promotion of a friend. The Board held that there was insufficient evidence to support OSC’s charge, noting that (1) the 

hiring of a friend is not necessarily a PPP; and (2) the record included considerable evidence of legitimate reasons, rather than improper 

intent, for the decisions that culminated in the friend’s hiring.

47 For background, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Rule of Three in Federal Hiring: Boon or Bane?, 1995.
30 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 31

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

It is clear that supervisors and employees still grapple with how to handle the interpersonal element that is 

inherent in the workplace. Supervisors observe employee performance based on regular interactions. These 

observations guide their future decisions regarding whom to provide career-enhancing opportunities and 

perhaps to promote. For selecting officials, personal connections may serve as valuable sources of candidates, but they cannot substitute for open competition. Likewise, recommendations of applicants from 

references or personal past experience with an applicant may serve as an appropriate source of insight, but 

should not replace rigorous assessment. 

Through survey questions, we sought to identify more precisely why employees believe that favoritism 

occurs. As shown in Figure 10, our survey results suggest that employees are more likely to attribute favoritism to a conscious choice to favor certain applicants or employees based on nonmerit reasons (e.g., 

friendship and connections) rather than inadequate knowledge or a lack of decision-making tools. These 

findings suggest a greater challenge to change behavior that supervisors know is not in accord with the 

merit system principles, rather than simply providing needed support. 

Figure 10. Employee Perceptions of Why Favoritism Occurs

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Lack of good decision-making tools

Supervisors lack knowledge or understanding

Supervisors value friendship/loyalty over

competence

32%

38%

59%

Potential Explanations 

for Perceptions of 

Favoritism
32 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Potential Explanations for Perceptions of Favoritism 

Results of MSPB surveys suggest that employees have somewhat mixed opinions regarding the potential 

influence of professional relationships on career advancement.48 Although some employees may disagree 

with supervisors giving weight to work relationships when making personnel decisions, a fuller discussion 

of the issue reveals that professional relationships may serve legitimate roles in the Federal merit systems. 

Therefore, it is essential to distinguish between the reality of professional relationships serving as the 

context for accomplishing work and developing employees, as opposed to allowing personal preferences 

and prejudices to trump merit-based human resources management decisions. This becomes particularly 

relevant when identifying strategies for decreasing perceptions of favoritism. Although education can help 

managers who are lacking needed knowledge or tools, situations involving willful disregard of the MSPs 

typically require different approaches to remedy the problem.

Intentional Favoritism: The Influence of Relationships over Merit

According to results from the Federal Merit Systems Survey, about half of Federal employees believe that 

favoritism influences selection decisions made by supervisors in their organizations. The majority believe 

this is intentional, motivated by the supervisor’s intent to value friendship or loyalty over competence.

Why would a supervisor intentionally give more weight to personal factors than to job-related 

characteristics? This situation may occur when there is an existing personal relationship or comfort level 

between the supervisor and the employee. This may result from rapport that has evolved in the office 

where the supervisor likes the employee and as a result, may make decisions that provide the employee 

with advantages. Sometimes, the supervisor simply feels more comfortable with those who share (or 

profess to share) the supervisor’s opinions or those who approach work in a similar way due to personal 

characteristics, such as work ethic or thinking styles. Supervisors may also consciously reward employees 

who share common interests and affiliations in an attempt to promote their shared goals.

Similarly, supervisors may favor certain employees who reflect their personal preferences. Although they 

may not fall into the legally prohibited categories that would define discrimination,49 supervisors may 

simply prefer working with certain types of people. For example, supervisors may feel more comfortable 

with those who are like them in terms of culture, class, background, and experiences. However, they 

should realize that as supervisors, they possess substantial influence over employees’ careers. Therefore, 

they must hold themselves to a higher standard to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and that personal 

comfort is not substituted for an objective evaluation of performance. 

On other occasions, the supervisor may approach relationships in a more transactional manner and the 

supervisor may use positional power to “trade favors” with other supervisors or with employees. For 

example, one Federal organization recently uncovered multiple violations of the prohibition on nepotism 

as the selecting officials attempted to skirt the rules by hiring the relatives of other managers in exchange 

48 For example, results from the Federal Merit System Survey which are presented in this report and the Career Advancement 

Survey which was discussed in the 2009 MSPB report Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining.

49 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1) and 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(2), relating to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33

Potential Explanations for Perceptions of FavoritiSM

for those managers hiring their relatives.50 In other cases, the supervisor may implement a quid pro quo51

arrangement in which the supervisor gives preferential treatment to employees who actively advance or at 

least tolerate the supervisor’s inappropriate goals or objectives. 

These scenarios present hazards to the work environment. Giving preferences to employees based on affinity 

or other nonmerit reasons undermines trust in the supervisor and in the reward structure that implies good 

performance will produce better personal outcomes. Even when employees are not personally affected, 

when they see other employees being unfairly advantaged, this undermines their faith in the Federal merit 

systems and negatively influences how they interpret future situations that may be ambiguous. Likewise, 

rewarding employees based on non-work related roles similarly jeopardizes the understanding between 

supervisors and employees that they are evaluated based on their work performance, rather than who 

they are (or whom they know). Although supervisors may find it easier to work with employees who 

consistently support their opinions and never challenge them to rethink their position, this can stifle the 

discussion that might otherwise produce better solutions. 

Unfortunately, it can be very challenging to convince supervisors to change behavior that they know is 

wrong. Therefore, organizations cannot rely solely on education regarding standards, such as the merit 

system principles and training on better decision-making, although these are also necessary. They must 

take additional steps to warn decision-makers that there are consequences for abuse and careless use of 

authority and hold them accountable.

A more proactive strategy would involve building an assessment of integrity into supervisory, managerial, 

and executive selection systems to increase the likelihood that those who are selected for leadership 

roles will take their ethical responsibilities seriously and strive to act in accord with the merit system 

principles. Although integrity can be challenging to assess since those who lack integrity often prove to be 

skillful at deception, it is possible to evaluate an applicant’s integrity and potentially related competencies 

such as workforce management and public service motivation.52 OPM has noted the criticality of these 

characteristics by including them in their leadership competency model, which is applicable to supervisors53

and senior executives.54

50 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Report Regarding Investigation of Improper Hiring Practices in the 

Justice Management Division, July 2012.

51 The Merriam-Webster online dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary) defines quid pro quo is a legal term 

from Latin that translates as “something for something.” It is often used within the context of sexual harassment as described in 29 

C.F.R. § 1604.11 (a)(1)-(2).

52 For example, see R.B. Kaiser and R. Hogan, How To (And How Not To) Assess the Integrity of Managers, Consulting Psychology 

Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 216-234.

53 For OPM’s Supervisory Qualification Guide, see http://www.opm.gov/qualifications/standards/Specialty-stds/gs-supv.asp, printed 

November 23, 2012.

54 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Guide to Senior Executive Service Qualifications, September 2012, pp. 32-34.
34 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Potential Explanations for Perceptions of Favoritism 

Unintentional Favoritism

Substantial percentages of Federal employees attributed favoritism to unintentional causes, such as a lack 

of knowledge or tools. If this perception is correct, supervisors would likely make better decisions if provided with additional support. 

To provide further information from the perspective of supervisors and employees regarding expectations 

for the Federal merit systems, we directly queried employees regarding their knowledge of the MSPs and 

PPPs. As shown in Figure 11, the vast majority of supervisors claim familiarity with the merit system principles (89 percent) and the prohibited personnel practices (92 percent). HRM employees report somewhat 

less confidence in supervisors’ familiarity with the PPPs as only about three-fourths report that supervisors in their agency have a good understanding of the PPPs.55 Given their advisory role, HRM employees 

provide supervisors with more detailed information regarding how the MSPs and PPPs affect their daily 

decision making, which requires more tailored guidance than the broad proscriptions contained in the 

MSPs and PPPs. Supervisors may also need to understand that employees may perceive wrongdoing in the 

absence of evidence to the contrary and should strive to make their actions more transparent, whenever 

possible.

Figure 11. Employee Self-Assessment of Familiarity with the Merit System Principles and the Prohibited 

Personnel Practices

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All Supervisor Nonsupervisor

77%

89%

74%

80%

92%

77%

Familiar with the Merit

System Principles

Familiar with the

Prohibited Personnel

Practices

55 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Open Competition Survey, 2011. More information on these results will be 

presented in an upcoming MSPB report.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35

Potential Explanations for Perceptions of FavoritiSM

New supervisors are required to be trained for their new roles and receive refresher training at least once 

every three years,56 but this may not be sufficient. Although it has not been signed into law, Congress has 

proposed legislation to expand this requirement to include “a program to provide training to supervisors 

on the prohibited personnel practices under section 2302.”57 To help fill this gap, OPM has provided 

additional guidance to agencies regarding supervisory training that may spur more attention to the critical 

lessons that are necessary to effective, merit-based supervision.58

Employees reported somewhat lower familiarity than supervisors, so greater information on the merit 

system principles and prohibited personnel practices, and practical applications to the current hiring 

procedures and other human resources management practices, may help them understand what is and 

is not allowed under the Federal civil service regulations.59 This knowledge may serve to clarify whether 

or not the actions they observe are permissible, and provide guidance to help them better understand 

what they need to do to succeed in their careers. Therefore, agencies should provide more information on 

the practical applications of the MSPs and PPPs (i.e., what they require and permit), to help employees 

understand how human resources management practices align with the MSPs.

Professional Relationships That Do Not Conflict with the Merit System Principles

While the concept of favoritism centers upon the illegitimate influence of relationships on management 

decisions, we should not overlook the appropriate role that professional relationships may play in the work 

environment. As we discussed in a prior report,60 85 percent of Federal employees identified “A supportive 

supervisor to encourage my development and advancement” and a “Senior person/mentor (other than 

my supervisor) looking out for my interests” as the top two factors with the most positive impact on 

their career advancement. The fifth most popular response, which was expressed by 78 percent of the 

respondents, involved “Contacts who knew the selecting official and recommended me.” As a result, three 

of the top five reported influences on career advancement involved professional relationships between 

employees and another party who provided individualized attention and assistance.

It is critical for supervisors and employees to understand the influence and importance of work relationships. 

Supervisors exercise nearly absolute control over many of the positive and negative experiences that 

their employees have in the workplace. The supervisor typically has authority for hiring and promoting, 

assigning work, distributing training and developmental opportunities, conducting performance appraisals, 

allocating awards, and managing behavior through disciplinary action, when required. The supervisor 

56 5 C.F.R. § 412.202(b).

57 H.R. 1492: and S. 790: Federal Supervisor Training Act of 2011, 112th Congress, 2011-2012. Text as of April 12, 2011. For the 

text of H.R. 1492 (112th): Federal Supervisor Training Act, see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1492/text, as of November 

23, 2012.

58 For the memorandum to Human Resources Directors regarding OPM’s supervisory training guidance and framework, see http://

www.chcoc.gov/transmittals/TransmittalDetails.aspx?TransmittalID=5185, as of December 28, 2012.

59 Free training and resources on the merit system principles and prohibited personnel practices are available from sources such as 

the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board at http://www.mspb.gov/meritsystemsprinciples.htm and http://www.mspb.gov/ppp/ppp.htm. 

The Office of Personnel Management also offers free online training regarding the MSPs and PPPs through HR University at http://

www.hru.gov/.

60 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining, 2009, p. 47-50.
36 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Potential Explanations for Perceptions of Favoritism 

also makes daily micro-decisions that can help or hinder the career advancement of staff. For example, a 

supervisor can shine the spotlight on superior performance of subordinates or take the credit personally; 

advocate for an employee to take leadership roles or let these opportunities pass by, and encourage an 

employee to take new risks with coaching support or leave the employee alone.

Ideally, an employee will have a supportive supervisor, as well as other senior staff who are willing to mentor 

the employee. Mentors can greatly expand an employee’s network and provide advice on areas in which 

the supervisor lacks expertise. A mentor may also have less of a vested interest in retaining the employee 

and consequently may provide the employee with advice that better serves the employee’s long-term goals.

By observing first hand an employee’s strengths (and weaknesses), the supervisor and/or mentor will 

gain substantial information about an employee’s capabilities. This knowledge gives the supervisor or 

mentor greater confidence when deciding whether to advance the employee or advocate for the employee’s 

placement in another organization. Similarly, contacts who recommend an employee to the selecting 

official can serve valuable roles by providing insight into the qualifications of an employee or applicant, 

and sharing this information does not violate the PPP given that it is job-related.

It is important to realize that professional relationships need not be viewed automatically with suspicion. 

In fact, developing and maintaining professional relationships can greatly increase the odds of success for 

employees as they progress through their careers. This success can involve the development of job-critical 

skills and can aid in the identification of qualified applicants without compromising the integrity of the 

Federal merit systems. 

However, supervisors should be aware of possible cynicism regarding the fairness of their decisions, 

particularly when dealing with applicants who are known to them through personal or professional networks 

or when distributing limited resources among employees. In these instances, they should exercise caution 

during the evaluation process to ensure that all candidates are being fairly considered in the selection 

process. Greater transparency before and after the selection may serve to reduce suspicion that the process 

was merely a cover for a preselection.

Assessing Adherence to the Merit System Principles and Taking Appropriate Action

Reviewing these scenarios together, it becomes apparent that different perspectives on a supervisor’s actions 

can lead to different explanations: intentional favoritism; unintentional favoritism; based on merit, but 

with suspicions of favoritism, particularly when there is an existing professional or personal connection; 

or simply be viewed as merit-based. It is critical, therefore, for supervisors and the observers to strive for 

a shared perspective that conforms to the high expectations of the merit system principles. Although 

this may be difficult, it can be achieved through increased transparency, shared decision criteria, and a 

commitment to make decisions based on merit.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 37

Potential Explanations for Perceptions of FavoritiSM

Supervisors’ Role

As summarized in Table 2, there are multiple perspectives on favoritism and multiple scenarios as to 

whether favoritism is intentionally or unintentionally occurring. To avoid perceptions of favoritism, supervisors need to:

1. Make decisions that are best for the organization—not just for the supervisor which could lead the 

supervisor to intentionally commit favoritism;

2. Develop and maintain the expertise to make appropriate management decisions and seek guidance 

when uncertain to avoid unintentionally committing favoritism;

3. Be as transparent as possible (without violating confidentiality) when making merit-based decisions 

to ensure that others will perceive these decisions as being free of favoritism; and

4. Strive to demonstrate the desirable behaviors and avoid the behaviors associated with perceptions of 

favoritism, as discussed in the following section.

These actions should reduce supervisors’ susceptibility to suspicions of favoritism (whether accurate or not) 

and help them gain employees’ confidence. Combined with the needed tools and assistance from human 

resources management employees, supervisors will also become better able to perform their critical role 

effectively.

Table 2. Multiple Perspectives on Favoritism: Is Favoritism Occurring?

Yes-Intentional Yes-Unintentional No

Supervisor Willful Violation Ignorance Merit-Based

Possible Responses • 

• 

Accountability

Education-MSPs/PPPs

• 

• 

Education-Biases, 

Supervisory behavior

HR Guidance

• Transparency

Human Resources 

Management Willful Violation Gray Area No problems

Possible Responses

• 

• 

Selection and 

Accountability of 

Supervisors

Provide Education—

MSPs/PPPs

• 

• 

Provide Education—

MSPs/PPPs/Biases, 

Supervisory behavior

HR Guidance

• No action needed

Employee Recognizes Favoritism Suspects Favoritism Other person is 

more qualified

Possible Responses

• 

• 

• 

Discussion with 

supervisor or HRM

Change supervisors 

or organizations

Contact the Office of 

Special Counsel

• 

• 

• 

• 

Discussion with 

supervisor or HRM

Network

Self-Development

Education-MSPs/PPPs

• 

• 

Discussion with 

supervisor or HRM

Self-Development
38 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Potential Explanations for Perceptions of Favoritism 

In an ideal world, with the requisite information and tools and guidance from HR, supervisors would 

be well-equipped to act in accord with the merit system principles. Unfortunately, in reality, not all 

supervisors place the merit system principles above their personal goals. Therefore, in the cases where 

supervisors seek to commit a prohibited personnel practice, there are additional strategies that human 

resources management employees and agency employees should consider to protect the Federal merit 

systems and their individual rights. 

Human Resources Management’s Role

HR staff can provide critical expertise to guide managers through difficult decisions. By working together 

throughout the process, they can facilitate legally defensible decisions, whether regarding selections, 

performance management, or any less weighty decisions that impact employees’ careers and work lives. 

For example, during the recruitment and selection process, they can help the selecting official identify the 

essential selection criteria through a careful job analysis, classify the job according to the proper grade, draft 

a description of the job’s primary duties, prepare the vacancy announcement, and provide advice regarding 

the appropriate open period for the vacancy announcement, as well as the area of consideration. HR staff 

can also advise managers on the availability and proper use of staffing flexibilities and how to comply with 

the letter and spirit of public policy, such as providing veterans’ preference, and alert managers regarding 

how to avoid potential biases.

In situations where HRM employees believe that their advice is being disregarded and they are being 

pressured to commit a PPP, they may have no options other than to elevate the issue to their managers, 

and hope they are supported. HRM employees can also serve a valuable role in educating supervisors 

and employees regarding the MSPs and PPPs. More proactively, HRM employees can advocate for the 

selection of supervisors who truly support the MSPs. Once the organizational culture thoroughly supports 

the MSPs, it becomes much easier to sustain high expectations as articulated by the MSPs.

Federal Employees’ Role

When Federal employees encounter favoritism in the Federal workplace, they have several options that 

present varying degrees of challenge. The first step may be to seek more information from the supervisor 

or selecting official or HRM to better understand how the decision was made and how they might get a 

more favorable outcome in the future. Depending upon the transferability of their skills, they may apply 

for a job elsewhere in their organization or in another agency, thereby avoiding the problem by removing 

themselves from a bad situation. Or, if they feel strongly about righting wrongs or fighting for their job, 

they can file a grievance within their agency or a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel.61

Employees may face situations that are sufficiently ambiguous to make them uncertain of whether the 

supervisor has actually engaged in favoritism and whether their case is strong enough to obtain redress 

through a formal complaint or grievance. That uncertainty is understandable: given the criticality of 

intent, a supervisor who appears to have unintentionally committed favoritism may be excused or lightly 

reprimanded and provided with remedial education on proper management decisions. In these cases, 

61 See Appendix F for a summary of how employees can seek redress when they perceive that they have been harmed by favoritism as 

a result of a prohibited personnel practice. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 39

Potential Explanations for Perceptions of FavoritiSM

employees might focus on networking or improving their qualifications to better their chances during the 

next opportunity. And under the optimal conditions, employees recognize that the person selected was 

truly better qualified, so the most appropriate solution is to pursue additional self-development or a better 

match to the selection criteria.
40 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 41

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

Supervisors’ Responsibilities to Mission and Staff 

Effective supervision requires excellence in both mission-related and staff-related responsibilities. Strategic, 

value-based management of people is integral to long-term mission accomplishment. However, when we 

asked employees about perceptions of their supervisors’ priorities compared to supervisors’ stated priorities, our survey results (shown in Figure 12) suggest Federal supervisors may have achieved far greater 

success in communicating their commitment to outcome-related goals, such as producing high quality 

products and services, instead of functions that are critical to building an engaged workforce, such as by 

making employees feel valued and respected.

Figure 12. Employee and Supervisor Perceptions of Supervisors’ Priorities

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Obtaining a promotion

Supporting employees' careers

Treating employees fairly

Building relationships with direct reports

Building relationships with peers

Building relationships with higher level ocials

Supporting the agency's mission

Producing high quality products and services

28%

40%

46%

42%

45%

55%

61%

68%

20%

86%

93%

83%

71%

62%

91%

95%

Supervisor

Employee

While there are sizable gaps on all priorities, with the supervisors reporting more high priorities, looking 

at the discrepancies between the perceived priorities can be even more revealing. Figure 12 reveals that 

substantially more supervisors viewed some items as very important priorities compared to employees’ 

perceptions of their supervisors’ priorities. Unfortunately, the largest differences appear in the areas that 

often affect employees’ engagement and their trust of their supervisors. The magnitude of differences in 

opinions is sizable: treating employees fairly (47 percent gap), supporting employees’ careers (46 percent 

The Critical Role of 

Supervisors in the Federal 

Merit Systems 
42 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

The Critical Role of Supervisors in the Federal Merit Systems

gap), and building relationships with direct reports (41 percent gap). This suggests that supervisors have 

a lot of work to do if they intend to convince employees that they truly value these behaviors, which 

are critical to employees trusting their supervisors to make fair decisions and to value and support their 

employees.

This discrepancy between what supervisors and employees view as supervisory priorities may be due to 

the different perspectives. Although supervisors may believe they are emphasizing the mission and peoplerelated aspects of work to a comparable amount, employees may be more sensitive to some behaviors than 

others. As a result, supervisors need to anticipate how employees will interpret their actions and behave 

accordingly.

Supervisory Behaviors and Perceptions of Favoritism

To excel as a supervisor, one must be aware of how others view and evaluate even the most seemingly 

insignificant behaviors because these add up in the eyes of employees as evidence of fairness and unfairness. 

Additionally, research has demonstrated that it is human nature to primarily “see” evidence confirming 

what you believe and discount other evidence that doesn’t fit your existing beliefs.62 This has relevance 

beyond the supervisors needing to guard against viewing employees in accord with their expectations 

rather than seeing actual performance (whether positive or negative). It also applies to employees who 

may suspect a supervisor to harbor preferences for certain employees (or against others) and then tend to 

see subsequent behavior as favoring (or disfavoring) these employees, whether the supervisor is actually 

showing favoritism or not.

For supervisors who aspire to be viewed as fair to all of their employees and not practicing favoritism, 

there are certain behaviors that they should demonstrate and others that they should avoid. While these 

supervisory behaviors are likely to remain open to subjective interpretation, supervisors should keep in 

mind that the behaviors shown towards the top of Table 363 are negatively correlated with perceptions 

of favoritism (suggesting that supervisors who practice these behaviors are less likely to be viewed as 

demonstrating favoritism) and those at the bottom are positively correlated, meaning that supervisors who 

are viewed as taking these actions tend to be seen as practicing favoritism.64

62 This tendency to screen out information that conflicts with one’s beliefs and focus on input that corresponds with one’s 

beliefs has been called “congeniality bias” or “confirmation bias.” See, for example, W. Hart, D. Albarracin, A.H. Eagly, I. Brechan, 

M.J. Lindberg, and L. Merrill, 2009, “Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information,” 

Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 555-588.

63 The actual correlations are show in the table in Appendix G.

64 A correlation (r) expresses the degree of relationship between two sets of numbers and ranges between 0 and |1| with a correlation 

of 0.5 considered to be large, 0.3 moderate, and 0.1 small. Therefore, as a group, employees who thought their supervisor treated 

everyone in their work unit with the same amount of respect were unlikely to view their supervisor as demonstrating favoritism since this 

item was strongly negatively correlated with perceptions of favoritism (r = -.8). In contrast, supervisors who were viewed as providing 

better treatment to employees who were a “personality fit” or ingratiated themselves with the supervisor were viewed as highly likely to 

practice favoritism, given the strong positive correlation of r = .8.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 43

The Critical Role of Supervisors in the Federal Merit Systems

Table 3. Recommendations for the Supervisor’s Behavior Based on Correlations with Perceptions of the 

Supervisor’s Favoritism

Item Recommendation

My supervisor treats everyone in my work unit with the same amount of respect.

Do

My supervisor uses fair standards for praise for everyone in the office.

My supervisor uses fair standards for criticism for everyone in the office.

My supervisor values input from all employees.

(My supervisor and) I have developed a good working relationship.

My supervisor provides appropriate rewards for excellent performance in my work unit.

My supervisor provides me with constructive and timely feedback on my job performance.

(My supervisor provides) the information that I need to perform my job well.

My supervisor avoids communicating with some employees.

Don’t

My supervisor demonstrates favoritism by spending more time 

talking with favorite employees about work-related topics.

My supervisor demonstrates favoritism by spending more time talking 

with favorite employees about non-work-related topics.

My supervisor provides better treatment to employees 

who ingratiate themselves to the supervisor.

My supervisor provides better treatment to employees 

who are a “personality fit” with the supervisor.

Employees expect all supervisors to fairly perform the basic functions of their role, such as by using 

fair standards for both praise and criticism, providing appropriate rewards, and constructive and timely 

performance feedback. However, as shown in Table 3, the interpersonal aspect of the supervisor-employee 

relationship is perhaps even more important to being viewed as treating employees fairly. Employees 

closely associate universal respect and valuing of everyone’s input with supervisors who do not demonstrate 

favoritism. In contrast, supervisors who provide better treatment to certain employees based on “personality 

fit” and ingratiation attempts and spend more time talking about work-related or personal matters with 

select employees, are viewed with much more suspicion.

As a result, supervisors who perform the basic supervisory responsibilities well, but do not establish and 

maintain a respectful relationship with all employees, will not be able to achieve the highest levels of 

effectiveness in managing their employees. Perhaps more than supervisors realize, employees develop 

opinions regarding who are the “favorite” employees based on such simple factors as to whom the supervisors 

spend time talking. Interestingly, whether the conversation is work-related or not seems less relevant than 

the fact that the supervisor invests time and energy in the relationship. 

Time the supervisor spends with an employee can readily translate into a number of practical benefits 

for the employees. When discussions are work-related, the employee may receive additional information 

about critical events and priorities in the organization, more feedback and direction on assignments, 

and additional opportunities to inform the supervisor about progress. This creates a situation where the 

employee has a competitive advantage to actually perform better on the job and ensure that the supervisor 

is aware of the employee’s accomplishments. 
44 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

The Critical Role of Supervisors in the Federal Merit Systems

When the supervisor and employee discuss matters that are not work-related (e.g., hobbies, vacations, 

and popular culture), these create a bonding opportunity that may predispose the supervisor to feel more 

connected to employees with whom the supervisor shares interests and could potentially create a barrier 

with those who do not share the same interests or views. Although supervisors need not avoid talking with 

employees to discourage the perception of “playing favorites,” they should be mindful of appearances if 

some employees receive substantially more time and attention than others. 

The majority of Federal employees are skeptical regarding actions by the supervisor that could be construed 

as building personal relationships with some employees, but not all. For example, only 15 percent of 

employees viewed it as acceptable to socialize at work with some employees more than others, while 25 

percent of employees thought it acceptable to socialize with some employees more than others outside of 

work. Clearly, supervisors should be wary of the impression it will make on employees if they are seen 

as having a close relationship with some employees and not others. A supervisor may believe that he is 

treating employees fairly—based on merit and not friendship—and may actually be doing so, but the 

existence of personal ties can generate suspicions, which are difficult to overcome.

Supervisory behaviors that involve a high level of discretion, in terms of evaluating performance and 

allocating rewards and corrective action, attract scrutiny from employees. These areas may also evidence 

some tension resulting from differences of opinions regarding how employees should be treated based on 

their performance. As shown in Table 4, slightly over half of survey respondents agreed that employees 

should be treated differently on the basis of performance, in terms of outcomes such as receiving better 

assignments and greater autonomy (55 percent), although 18 percent disagreed (and the rest were neutral). 

The majority of employees and supervisors felt it inappropriate to “go easier” on a high performing 

employee who made a mistake.65 Opinions were more divided regarding provision of opportunities relating 

to training and development, networking and mentoring.

Table 4. Employees Opinions Regarding Appropriate Supervisory Behaviors

A supervisor should... Agree Disagree

...give better assignments to employees who perform well. 57% 18%

...grant greater autonomy to employees who perform well. 55% 19%

...give more training and developmental opportunities 

to employees who perform well. 43% 28%

...provide more networking opportunities to employees who perform well. 43% 25%

...spend more time mentoring employees who perform well. 26% 41%

...”go easier” on a high-performing employee who makes a mistake. 8% 71%

65 While employees tended to disagree that management should “go easier” on a high-performer who makes a mistake during 

the course of normal work, for more serious mistakes (i.e., justifying formal discipline), agencies must consider the employee’s past 

performance and disciplinary record before reaching a decision to implement an appealable adverse action. If a deciding official fails to 

consider the potential relevance of these factors, the Board may modify the agency’s penalty determination. For more information, see 

Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (1981) regarding factors to consider when reaching a penalty.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 45

The Critical Role of Supervisors in the Federal Merit Systems

These results suggest that supervisors may find it difficult to make decisions regarding when it will be 

viewed as acceptable to treat employees differently. While most Federal employees advocate holding people 

accountable to the same standards, they have divided opinions regarding providing certain benefits to 

those who are viewed as top performers. Explanations for this may include concerns about how these 

contributions are evaluated or perhaps a higher value placed on equity in outcomes among Federal 

employees. It’s worth noting that supervisors and employees are generally comparable in their responses. 

In contrast with the MSPs’ expectation that agencies reward excellence, these data suggest some discomfort 

with better treatment for employees who perform well. Supervisors should keep in mind that equitable, 

merit-based treatment of employees should not be confused with uniform treatment. The merit system 

principles explicitly expect Federal agencies and managers to make distinctions among applicants and 

employees. For example, the merit system principles specifically state that “selection and advancement 

should be on the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skills” and “appropriate rewards and incentives 

should be provided for excellence in performance.” Yet, these responses suggest that Federal employees and 

supervisors remain cautious about distinguishing among employees based on their performance. 

Perhaps as a consequence of this conflict in expectations and practices, survey results from the 2010 

Merit Principles Survey66 reveal only about half of Federal employees believe that their organization treats 

employees fairly or that excellent performance is recognized or rewarded.67 Additionally, fewer than 40 

percent of Federal employees agree that the organization selects the best-qualified candidates when filling 

jobs and just under a quarter of employees agreed that their organization deals effectively with poor 

performers.68 

These results suggest room for improvement in applying the merit system principles to the management 

of the Federal workforce. One aspect of merit-based management that appears particularly challenging is 

making and acting on distinctions in performance, which will be covered in the next section.

Performance Feedback. Another challenge in differentiating among employees based on performance relates 

to the discomfort that many selecting officials and supervisors feel when providing performance-specific 

feedback, whether in response to performance in a selection process or on the job. Unfortunately, employees 

tend to fill in these gaps with suspicions of preferential treatment providing an advantage to others rather 

than accurately assessing their own shortcomings. This may be due in part to the attribution error, whereby 

employees seek to blame others or external events for their failures.69 These misunderstandings can also 

be due to the discomfort that supervisors may feel which leads some of them to provide incomplete or 

66 For a description of the methodology of the 2010 Merit Principles Survey, please see the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 

Managing Federal Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces, January 2013, pp. 49-

51.

67 Ibid.

68 Ibid.

69 For example, see B. Weiner, (1985), An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation and Emotion, Psychological Review,

92(4), 548-573; A.H. Mezulis, L.Y. Abramson, J.S. Hyde, and B.L. Hankin, (2004), Is There a Universal Positivity Bias in Attributions? 

A Meta-Analytic Review of Individual, Developmental, and Cultural Differences in the Self-Serving Attributional Bias, Psychological 

Bulletin, 130(5), 711-747; and J.A. Basgall and C.R. Snyder, (1988), Excuses in Waiting: External Locus of Control and Reactions to 

Success-Failure Feedback, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 656-662.
46 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

The Critical Role of Supervisors in the Federal Merit Systems

misleading feedback that further confuses the disappointed applicants or employees. Instead of telling the 

employee what the supervisor perceives to be the truth (and what was calculated into the actual decision 

process), the supervisor may soften the feedback to avoid hurt feelings, though this short-term gain only 

postpones longer-term pain. By tactfully providing accurate developmental feedback, suggestions about 

how to improve, and expressing confidence in the employee, the supervisor could discourage self-serving 

rationalizations and enable employees to improve in areas that need remediation.70

It isn’t surprising, therefore, given that one of the most challenging and stress-inducing responsibilities 

for a supervisor is to provide employees with accurate feedback that can be used to improve performance. 

Past MSPB studies have demonstrated that Federal supervisors have substantial room for improvement 

in this area and a couple of recent MSPB reports have provided specific guidance on how to address these 

deficits.71

As shown in Figure 13, Federal performance management systems, as implemented, may be contributing to employees’ perceptions that they are not being granted the merit-based rewards warranted by their 

performance. In other words, although Federal employees tend to report that their performance is above 

average72 (a belief that is often reinforced by skewed performance ratings73), when they compare themselves 

to their peers, the majority of the employees believe that their supervisor is treating them comparably to 

others.74 This perception of similar treatment may be true, given the limited financial resources in most 

Federal Government agencies which impede the ability to significantly differentiate between levels of 

performance. As a result, employees may believe that they are not being rewarded in accord with their 

performance and that they are getting the same rewards as everyone else, regardless of performance. In 

the absence of transparency about how resources are allocated to employees and why, employees may not 

truly know how they compare in terms of either performance or rewards and may simply assume the worst 

case scenario: that they are performing better, but receiving no distinction in terms of rewards. They may 

then harbor doubts as to whether their performance management system operates in accord with the merit 

system principles that promise rewards that are commensurate with performance.

70 For example, see T.S. Duval and P.J. Silvia, (2002), Self-Awareness, Probability of Improvement, and the Self-Serving Bias, 

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 49-61.

71 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection and Courage, 2009 and U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board, A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees, 2010.

72 According to the Federal Merit Systems Survey, 69 percent of employees report that their performance is better than average.

73 Analyses of the FY 2011 Central Personnel Data File for full-time permanent employees of performance appraisal ratings which 

utilize a 5-point scale, revealed that 69 percent of employees were rated above “fully successful” in the “outstanding” or “exceed” 

categories, or similar nomenclature.

74 According to the Federal Merit Systems Survey, 74 percent of employees feel they are treated the same as other employees at their 

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

The Critical Role of Supervisors in the Federal Merit Systems

Figure 13: Employee Perceptions of Treatment by Supervisor Compared to Self-Reported Performance and 

Overall Distribution of Federal Employee Performance Ratings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Treatment by

Supervisor

Self-Reported

Performance

Performance Ratings

These patterns may also be driven by a proclivity for managers to use performance management appraisals 

in ways other than to objectively evaluate performance against a set standard.75 For example, supervisors 

may fail to distinguish between levels of performance and provide uniformly high ratings to all employees 

when they want to pursue a “harmony goal” because they assume this will make most employees happy 

and not demotivate the poor performers (i.e., those with lower performance ratings.76 A hazard of this 

strategy is that the true top performers may resent sharing a rating (and resulting benefits) with those who 

have not performed at the same level.

Selection Feedback. Similarly, a failure to provide credible feedback can undermine perceptions of merit 

and equity in the allocation of career-enhancing opportunities. For example, when employees apply for 

internal vacancies (promotions or lateral transfers) and are not selected,77 providing feedback to these 

employees can help to: 1) to identify areas for development that could potentially improve the employee’s 

prospects for future advancement opportunities and 2) to provide transparency in the selection process, 

which can facilitate perceptions of fairness—as long as the selecting official’s decision was based on a valid 

assessment of job-related criteria

75 X.M. Wang, K.F.E. Wong, and J.Y.Y. Kwong, (2010), The Roles of Rater Goals and Ratee Performance Levels in the Distortion 

of Performance Ratings, Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), pp. 546-561. 

76 K.F.E. Wong and J.Y.Y. Kwong, (2007), Effects of Rater Goal on Rating Patterns: Evidence from an Experimental Field Study, 

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 577-585.

77 Results from the 2011 Federal Merit Systems Survey indicated that approximately one out of three employees applied, but was not 

selected for an internal vacancy, within the past two years. Therefore, this scenario is a fairly common occurrence that deserves further 

consideration.
48 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

The Critical Role of Supervisors in the Federal Merit Systems

When not selected for a vacancy that they applied for in their agency within the past two years, slightly 

over half of the employees (58 percent) reported that they requested feedback, but only 19 percent of these 

employees said they received helpful feedback. Although some selecting officials fear negative repercussions 

from an open and honest discussion about what the employee lacked in an employment competition, 

it could actually be riskier not to share this information as this represents a missed opportunity and the 

increased likelihood that employees grow frustrated with the lack of advancement opportunities and a lack 

of information to guide them to success in the future.

Further, when employees lack accurate information regarding the bases for selection decisions, they may 

attribute the decision to personal biases that are not job-related. Our results show that employees who 

were not selected for a job were more likely to view their supervisor as having demonstrated favoritism and 

that favoritism is a problem in their organization. Similarly, although only one out of five employees who 

requested feedback reported receiving helpful feedback explaining why they were not selected for the job, 

these employees were more likely to be engaged and less likely to suspect their supervisors or others in the 

organization of practicing favoritism. 

As discussed extensively in the 2009 MSPB report Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection 

and Courage,

78 providing feedback is a critical, though often overlooked role of the supervisor. And while 

feedback on performance in the current job is important, selecting officials can take a more proactive role 

by providing internal applicants with feedback regarding how well they match the roles that they aspire 

to and how they can improve their competitiveness for future vacancies—not only helping the employee 

with assessing developmental needs, but also assisting the organization in the cultivation of talent for 

future openings. More broadly, providing helpful feedback to all job applicants can greatly enhance the 

perceived fairness of a selection process, and provide a greater return on investment for applicants who are 

not selected, but may receive helpful guidance about how to continue their self-development.

78 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection and Courage, 2009, pp. 25-27.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 49

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

It may be tempting for managers to dismiss employee concerns about favoritism as complaints from 

uninformed or unhappy employees. Indeed, accusations of unfair treatment may reflect a lack of employee 

understanding regarding the process and merits behind promotion and awards decisions. They may also 

reflect resentment among employees who have not received—because they have not earned—the pay, 

recognition, or positions that they desire. Yet agencies must also recognize that employee concerns about 

favoritism are widespread and that such perceptions, regardless of the validity of the causes, can have a wide 

range of harmful effects.

Nearly half of employees responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether favoritism is a problem 

in their organizations so there is value in exploring in more detail the outcomes that employees report 

from the presence of favoritism in the agency. As shown in Figure 14, most employees who believed their 

supervisor demonstrated favoritism also perceived a variety of negative consequences, the most common 

being a reduction in respect for the supervisor. We discuss these consequences in greater detail below. 

Figure 14: Employee Perceptions of the Impact of Favoritism

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Reduced my motivation

Increased employees leaving the organization

Harmed the agency's performance

Resulted in resentment toward recipient(s)

Reduced camaraderie

Reduced my work satisfaction

Reduced respect for supervisor

64%

65%

69%

71%

78%

79%

83%

Consequences of Employee 

Perceptions of Favoritism
50 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Consequences of Employee Perceptions of Favoritism

Employee Satisfaction and Engagement

As might be expected, employees who perceive their supervisors as demonstrating favoritism are much 

less likely to report being engaged. Figure 15 shows that of employees who perceived their supervisors as 

demonstrating favoritism only 16 percent were highly engaged. Of employees who said their supervisors 

did not demonstrate favoritism, over 70 percent were highly engaged. 

Figure 15. Distribution of Levels of Employee Engagement by Employees’ Opinion Regarding Whether 

Supervisor Demonstrates Favoritism

33%

2%

51%

26%

16%

71%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

High

Medium

Low

Analysis of items from the employee engagement scale79 reveals that perceptions the supervisor demonstrates favoritism are much more likely to be correlated with negative opinions on items such as:

•	 Overall, I am satisfied with my supervisor.

•	 I am treated with respect at work.

•	 My opinions count at work. 

In contrast, other items are not strongly correlated with perceptions of favoritism by the supervisor:

•	 The work I do is meaningful to me.

79 Correlations between the item “My supervisor demonstrates favoritism by treating some employees better than others” and each 

item from MSPB’s Employee Engagement scale are shown in Appendix H. 

Supervisor Demonstrates Favoritism?
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 51

Consequences of Employee Perceptions of Favoritism

•	 My agency is successful in accomplishing its mission.

•	 I have the resources to do my job well. 

This suggests that the employees’ views of the work and agency are relatively unaffected by perceptions of 

favoritism, while attitudes towards the supervisor and the decisions closely controlled by the supervisor are 

more susceptible. However, as suggested by the implications of some of these items, the potential damage 

can easily go beyond the employee’s affective response and into the realm of results, which can have a 

cumulative effect of degrading individual (and organizational) performance. 

Agency Performance

Damage to the agency’s performance can occur through a variety of mechanisms. First, by virtue of the 

negative association between favoritism and employee engagement, we can infer that the discretionary 

effort will also be undermined.80 Employees who believed that their supervisor engages in favoritism were 

considerably less likely to agree that they were inspired to do their best work.81 Second, by definition, 

favoritism provides unlawful advantages to favored employees, which violates employee trust in a meritbased process and results in selecting on a basis other than merit, so the agency suffers from not having 

the most capable person performing the work. Finally, this negative impact is compounded when selecting 

supervisors because having a less capable supervisor can also impede the effective performance of a broader 

group of employees who report to the supervisor.

Interpersonal Relationships

The harmful effects of perceptions of favoritism extend to teamwork and cooperation. Most notably, 

survey results indicate that employees lose respect for supervisors who are perceived to practice favoritism. 

Additionally, an employee who believes that a new coworker or supervisor gained a position through 

connections rather than competence is less likely to work cooperatively with that individual or to view the 

supervisor’s authority as legitimate.

The practice of favoritism can also sabotage interpersonal dynamics within the organization. When 

employees are confident that they will be evaluated and rewarded based on their merits, they are more 

likely to trust their supervisors and their peers. High trust cultures foster a pleasant work environment 

where people help each other perform at their highest levels.

In contrast, when the supervisor creates a situation where rewards are doled out based on non-work 

related bases, such as personal relationships, ingratiation, or quid pro quo, then the work environment can 

become counterproductive. Those who are correctly (or incorrectly) viewed as favorites may face a penalty 

from their peers, who seek to undermine their future success. Further, while employees may be fearful of 

broaching the issue of favoritism because of the supervisor’s greater authority and power, they often report 

losing respect for a supervisor who practices favoritism. 

80 For more information on the relationship of employee engagement to discretionary effort, see the 2008 MSPB report, The Power 

of Federal Employee Engagement, p. 2.

81 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2011 Federal Merit Systems Survey. Of those who agreed they are inspired to do their best 

work, only 16 percent believed their supervisor practiced favoritism compared to 67 percent who did not.
52 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Consequences of Employee Perceptions of Favoritism

Recruitment and Retention

Employees who believe that their organization engages in favoritism are much less likely to recommend 

their agency as a place to work.82 This skepticism regarding fairness could undermine agency recruitment 

and retention initiatives. Although rewarding work and recognition are important to recruitment 

and retention,83 fairness matters, too. Even when employees are not formally enlisted as recruiters or 

“agency ambassadors,” their opinions can be quite influential. Further, the deterrent effect of negative 

recommendations is likely to be greater on accomplished, highly-qualified applicants who are sought by, 

and can choose among, competing employers.

Many factors that influence an organization’s ability to attract high quality applicants also influence employees’ interest in staying with their employer. One such factor is perceived fairness. As shown in Figure 

16, results from the Federal Merit Systems Survey showed that employees who believed that favoritism is a 

problem in their organization were more likely to report intentions to leave their work unit or their agency, 

particularly when they attributed the favoritism to their immediate supervisor.

Figure 16. Separation Intentions by Perceptions of Favoritism

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Plan to retire

Plan to leave Federal service and

work elsewhere

Plan to transfer to another

Federal agency

Plan to transfer to another work

unit within my agency

8%

6%

11%

13%

9%

8%

16%

18%

8%

9%

21%

24%

8%

8%

18%

20%

Favoritism is a problem in my

organization.

My supervisor practices favoritism.

Other supervisors demonstrate

favoritism.

All Employees

82 Of employees who felt that favoritism was a problem in their organization, only about half would recommend their agency as a 

place to work. Of those who responded that they did not think favoritism was a problem in their organization, approximately 90 percent 

would recommend their agency.

83 For more information on factors employees view as important to seeking or continuing employment with their organizations, see 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Rewards, 2012, p. 

21.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 53

Consequences of Employee Perceptions of Favoritism

Turnover is not always bad; an agency can gain when a disengaged or dissatisfied employee moves on. 

However, Federal agencies and Federal managers would face serious challenges if all the employees who 

indicated an intention to leave were to suddenly act on that intention. The damage would be magnified if 

those who left were the highest-performing employees. This danger is quite real, given Federal employees’ 

concerns about the Federal Government’s ability to retain its best employees and the likelihood that 

competing employers will be eager to hire high-performing employees should they choose to seek 

employment elsewhere.

Utilization of the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Process

Data further indicate that perceptions of favoritism may result in increased conflict and cost as measured 

through utilization of the equal employment opportunity (EEO) process. Figure 17 shows that there is a 

positive relationship,84 at the agency level, between the proportion of employees who perceive favoritism 

to be a problem and the proportion of employees who file EEO complaints.85 In other words, in agencies 

where favoritism is more widely viewed as a problem, there also tends to be a higher percentage of employees who file EEO complaints. 

Figure 17. Correlation between Perceptions that Favoritism is a Problem and Agency Rate of EEO 

Complainants

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Rate of EEO Complainants

Agreed Favoritism is a Problem

84 Correlations provide an indication of the strength of the relationship between two paired sets of numbers. A line that is 

drawn between the center of points created by graphing each pair of data points is called a regression line and reflects the direction 

of the relationship. This graph demonstrates a strong positive relationship between perceptions of favoritism and agency rate of EEO 

complainants meaning that these two measures are likely to be of similar magnitude in an agency, whether high, low or medium.

85 Data on agency rate of EEO complainants was derived from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, FY 2011 

Annual Report on the Federal Workforce.
54 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Consequences of Employee Perceptions of Favoritism

EEO complaint and other grievance and appeal processes serve a valuable purpose: they provide a means 

to surface problems in the workplace, rectify wrongs, and hold agencies and managers accountable for 

their employment practices and decisions. However, complaints, grievances, and appeals also have direct 

and indirect costs. The direct costs include the time and resources needed to investigate and resolve a 

complaint; the indirect costs include the deterrent effect that complaints may have on open and honest 

communication between supervisors and employees and on a supervisor’s willingness to make difficult 

merit-based human resources management decisions.

Summary

Employee perceptions of favoritism within the work environment can undermine employee morale, 

productivity, teamwork, recruitment and retention, and increase conflict. Given these negative consequences 

of actual or perceived favoritism, agencies would be well-served by ensuring all supervisors act in accord 

with the merit system principles and that all employees are confident in this practice.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 55

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

Conclusions and 

Recommendations

As envisioned by the authors of the guiding principles for the Federal merit systems, the Federal Government 

strives to hold itself accountable for the fair treatment of Federal employees while efficiently and effectively 

generating mission critical products and services for the public. In this report, we seek to strengthen the 

Federal merit systems by clarifying what favoritism is, what leads to the circumstances under which it is 

perceived to occur, and summarize recommendations for improving the merit-based management of the 

Federal Workforce.

Why Agencies Should Be Concerned about Perceptions of Favoritism

Making decisions based on merit is critical to upholding the values of the merit system principles and 

avoiding prohibited personnel practices. Although the PPPs define unacceptable behavior in organizations, 

intent drives the determination of whether or not a PPP occurred, and it’s not always easy to assess the true 

intent (particularly given the motivation to hide this when the intent actually is to commit a PPP). 

Although PPPs are generally defined by intent, even questionable behaviors undermine the MSPs. While the 

motive behind a personnel action drives whether or not that action is a PPP, it is often the manner in which 

officials achieve their goals that sets off alarms regarding the underlying intent, which might otherwise 

be concealed. For example, skipping through the usual hiring steps, repeating some steps or modifying 

steps could simply indicate managers exercising flexibilities for well-founded reasons or it could serve as 

circumstantial evidence to support a theory of intent for committing a PPP. Nevertheless, even behaviors 

that do not meet the threshold clearly defined for PPPs, but that leave the supervisor (or by association, the 

agency and the Federal Government) open to perceptions of wrong-doing, should be avoided.

Actual or perceived favoritism can have a dramatic impact on the agency’s bottom line, and must therefore 

be taken seriously. Fair, merit-based human resources management practices—and minimizing the reality 

and appearance of favoritism in the workplace—must be maintained and supervisors need to operate in 

as transparent a manner as possible in order to sustain an effective and efficient Federal workforce. In 

addition to the negative impact on employee satisfaction and engagement, perceptions of favoritism can 

also degrade agency performance through a variety of mechanisms, such as decreased employee effort and 

the employment of less capable employees, especially when in leadership positions. Favoritism can also 

impair teamwork and increase the likelihood that employees will voluntarily separate. 

Prevalence of Perceptions of Favoritism in the Federal Workplace

About half of employees view favoritism to be a problem in their organization. Twenty-eight percent of Federal 

employees agreed with the statement “My supervisor demonstrates favoritism by treating some employees 

better than others.” Fifty-three percent of Federal employees viewed other supervisors (excluding their 

own) as practicing favoritism. It’s not surprising, therefore, that nearly half of employees said favoritism is 

a problem in their organization. 
56 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Conclusions and Recommendations

Perceptions of favoritism have several possible causes, including:

1. Intentional favoritism. A supervisor providing an advantage to an applicant or employee based on a 

personal connection rather than merit;

2. Unintentional favoritism. A supervisor takes an ill-advised action or makes a flawed decision 

because of a lack of understanding or information, a lack of guidance or tools to support better 

decisions, or both; and

3. Misinterpretation or misinformation. Employees or other observers may perceive favoritism even 

when a decision is truly merit-based, for reasons such as a lack of transparency or the presence of 

a legitimate professional relationships that leads to suspicion that a supervisor was influenced by 

nonmerit factors.

Role of Supervisors

The MSPs dictate commitment to the mission and the people of the organization. Under an ideal scenario, 

supervisors understand the criticality of balancing mission-related needs with managing their employees. 

Fairly and effectively managing employees involves attention to all aspects of the merit system principles, 

with the bottom line being a commitment to basing decisions upon merit. This encompasses all human 

resources management decisions, including ones cited in the merit system principles (e.g., recruitment, 

selection, pay, rewards, training, retention and separation), as well as additional areas where supervisors 

have discretion (e.g., granting telework or flexible work schedules).

Many employees believe that supervisors care more about the mission than the workforce. Based on survey 

results, it appears that supervisors have effectively impressed upon employees their emphasis on missionrelated goals. However, supervisors also need to attend to the fact that their work is completed through 

their employees. Survey results suggested that employees do not feel that their supervisors are as committed 

to employees as to the mission. In contrast, supervisors felt that they were equally committed to the people 

side of the equation as to the mission-related outcomes.

Supervisors must hold themselves to a higher standard for fair treatment of employees. Supervisors and 

selecting officials make decisions on a daily basis that impact the morale and performance of their 

employees, which subsequently impact their ability to accomplish organizational goals. In order to help 

agencies effectively accomplish their missions, we have identified a number of strategies that can be taken 

to decrease the appearance and/or reality of favoritism to avoid tainting the Federal merit systems.

Formal supervisory decisions must be based on merit. Distributing limited resources (whether selecting 

among employees for a job or any career enhancing experiences that can facilitate advancement) creates a 

situation where employees may be predisposed to view selecting officials or supervisors as favoring some 

employees and not others. Therefore, when it’s time to choose among applicants or employees, supervisors 

should ensure that they focus primarily on the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the job, perhaps 

relative to the skills mix of the current work group. However, selecting officials should exercise caution 

regarding selecting based on comfort level with particular candidates, especially when the selecting official 

has prior knowledge of the applicant based on a personal connection. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 57

Conclusions and Recommendations

Employees suspect that relationships often outweigh more objective criteria in selections. Employees believe 

that selecting officials don’t give enough weight to some factors and give disproportionate weight to other 

factors in selection decisions. For example, employees view quality of experience, recognized potential, and 

education/training to be appropriate rating criteria. Yet, they suspect selecting officials give undue weight 

to personal and professional relationships. These perceptions that favoritism trumps merit may be partly 

due to the fact that they are not privy to rating mechanisms, performance of candidates, and deliberations. 

Although there is general agreement that appropriate factors (e.g., quality of experience) are usually taken 

into account and that inappropriate factors, such as physical attractiveness are rarely considered, some 

employees express concern that interpersonal factors may receive inappropriate weight, either consciously 

or unconsciously.

Recommendations

Facilitate merit-based management of the Federal workforce through education and effort. Management of 

the Federal workforce is guided by the merit system principles. To achieve the vision of the MSPs, including 

avoidance of favoritism, agency leadership—from the first line supervisors to top level executives—must 

base their decisions on a careful determination of merit, regardless of extraneous factors such as personal 

relationships. However, the actual basis on which decisions are made is often open to interpretation—

given the multiple perspectives on workforce management decisions. Understanding what constitutes 

favoritism and when it is perceived to occur can help agency executives, managers, supervisors, human 

resources employees, and employees take steps to prevent and avoid it, supporting a merit-based and 

effective Federal workforce.

Key Recommendations for Agencies and Supervisors

To support the MSPs and discourage PPPs, agencies must:

•	 Select supervisors who are committed to supporting the MSPs. 

•	 Provide in-depth training to all supervisors at the time of hire and on a regularly recurring basis.

•	 Hold supervisors accountable for adhering to the merit system principles and avoiding the 

appearance and reality of prohibited personnel practices.

•	 To bolster selecting officials' confidence in the results from these assessments, agencies should strive 

to achieve three goals in the assessment process:

1. Identify key competencies through job analysis;

2. Develop and implement valid and reliable assessments for critical competencies; and

3. Ensure transparency by communicating to applicants what will be measured (selection criteria) 

and how they will measure it (assessment methods).
58 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Conclusions and Recommendations

Key Recommendations for Human Resources Management Staff

HRM employees play a critical role in helping agencies and managers prevent and address favoritism. To 

that end, they should—

•	 Provide expert advice on merit-based workforce management, including best practices for 

recruiting, hiring (including promoting), evaluating performance, determining awards, 

distributing work assignments and training and development opportunities, and administering 

discipline.

Key Recommendations for Employees

Employees should take the following steps to manage their performance and careers:

•	 Seek honest feedback and strive to improve in preparation for future opportunities.

•	 Learn more about the merit system principles and the prohibited personnel practices.

•	 Recognize that professional relationships have an appropriate and essential role in the 

workplace, as they (1) afford opportunities for supervisors or mentors to help the employees 

develop skills and seek competence; and (2) provide a network for employees to market their 

talents and learn of career opportunities.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 59

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

Appendix A: 

Merit System Principles

This appendix lists the Federal merit system principles enumerated at Section 2301(b) of Title 5, United 

States Code.

(1) Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve 

a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely 

on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition which assures 

that all receive equal opportunity.

(2) All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects 

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

sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and 

constitutional rights. 

(3) Equal pay should be provided for work of equal value, with appropriate consideration of both national 

and local rates paid by employers in the private sector, and appropriate incentives and recognition 

should be provided for excellence in performance. 

(4) All employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public 

interest. 

(5) The Federal work force should be used efficiently and effectively.

(6) Employees should be retained on the basis of adequacy of their performance, inadequate performance 

should be corrected, and employees should be separated who cannot or will not improve their 

performance to meet required standards. 

(7) Employees should be provided effective education and training in cases in which such education and 

training would result in better organizational and individual performance. 

(8) Employees should be—

(A) protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes, 

and

(B) prohibited from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or 

affecting the result of an election or a nomination for election. 

(9) Employees should be protected against reprisal for the lawful disclosure of information which the 

employees reasonably believe evidences—

(A) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or 

(B) mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific 

danger to public health or safety.
60 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 61

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

This appendix summarizes the prohibited personnel practices enumerated in Section 2302(b) of Title 5, 

United States Code (U.S.C.).

A Federal employee with authority over personnel actions may not: 

(1) Discriminate against an employee or applicant based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, 

disability, marital status, or political affiliation; 

(2) Solicit or consider any recommendation that is not job-related and based on personal knowledge of the 

employee or applicant;

(3) Coerce the political activity of any person;

(4) Deceive or obstruct any person from competing for employment; 

(5) Influence anyone to withdraw from competition;

(6) Give an unauthorized preference or advantage to an employee or applicant;

(7) Give employment advantages to relatives (i.e., nepotism);

(8) Retaliate against employees or applicants for whistleblowing;

(9) Retaliate against employees or applicants for filing an appeal, complaint, or grievance;

(10) Discriminate based on personal conduct which is not job-related;

(11) Violate veterans’ preference requirements; 

(12) Violate merit principles as stated in Section 2301(b) of title 5, United States Code; or

(13) Implement or enforce any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement, if such policy, form, or agreement 

does not contain the following statement: ‘’These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, 

conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or 

Executive order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting 

to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of 

funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other 

whistleblower protection. 

Appendix B: Prohibited 

Personnel Practices
62 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 63

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

The Federal Merit Systems Survey (FMSS) was distributed to approximately 53,000 permanent full-time 

Federal employees from the following departments and independent agencies:

Departments Independent Agencies

Department of the Air Force

Department of the Army

Department of the Navy

Department of Defense

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Justice

Department of Labor

Department of Energy

Department of Education

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of the Interior

Department of State

Department of Transportation

Department of the Treasury

Department of Veterans Affairs

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

General Services Administration

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Office of Personnel Management

Social Security Administration

Employees were selected to participate in the survey through stratified random sampling of records in 

OPM’s Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 2009. However, a lack of funding prevented 

administration of the survey at that time. In the summer of 2011, we compared the sample against the 

June 2011 CPDF and deleted those employees who were no longer employed in their sampled agency at 

that time.

We administered the survey via SurveyMonkey, an online survey tool between July and October of 2011. 

After an initial attempt to deliver surveys, we subtracted out those that appeared to have invalid email 

addresses and those who had opted out of SurveyMonkey surveys. 

Upon receiving the survey results, we also subtracted out approximately 100 respondents who completed 

less than 19 items. Therefore, we ended up with 17,339 usable survey responses out of 52,620 surveyed 

for a response rate of 33 percent.

For the analysis of the FMSS results, we generally excluded the “don’t know/not applicable” responses to 

focus on those who reported an opinion in response to each question. 

Appendix C: Federal 

Merit Systems Survey 

Methodology
64 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 65

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

Dear Federal Colleague—

We request your assistance in a study of the Federal merit systems.

What does the survey cover?

The survey asks about your experiences and opinions related to fairness and merit system principles in your workplace. 

The merit system principles, which are the foundation of the Federal civil service, include: 

•	 Fair and open competition for filling jobs; 

•	 Fair and equitable treatment of all employees; and 

•	 Protection against favoritism.

Here is a link to the survey: (survey link)

Who is conducting this survey?

This survey is being conducted by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). MSPB is a Federal Government 

agency that serves as guardian of Federal merit systems. In that role, MSPB periodically administers surveys to assess 

the health of the Federal merit systems and to recommend improvements to the President, the Congress, and Federal 

agency leaders. Information about MSPB and MSPB’s research is available by visiting http://www.mspb.gov or 

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/. We are using SurveyMonkey, an online survey tool, to administer the survey.

Has this survey been authorized?

Yes. MSPB is authorized to collect this information by Section 1204 of Title 5, United States Code and your agency 

has been informed of this survey. You may complete the survey during work hours at your work site or at home. You 

should be able to complete the survey in approximately 30 minutes.

Is my participation important?

Yes. Fewer than 3% of Federal employees were invited to complete this survey. Your response will allow your voice 

to be heard and ensure that we have a representative sample of your agency and the Federal Government. Your 

responses to this survey are voluntary and will be kept strictly confidential.

What if I have additional questions?

A fact sheet with more questions and answers is posted at http://www.mspb.gov/studies/surveys.htm or you may 

contact our survey help desk by emailing FederalMeritSystems@mspb.gov.

Thank you for your assistance!

Sincerely, 

John Crum, Ph.D.

Appendix D: Federal 

Merit Systems Survey 

Email Request
66 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 67

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

Appendix E: Federal 

Merit Systems Survey
68 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Appendix E: Federal Merit Systems Survey
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 69

Appendix E: Federal Merit Systems Survey
70 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Appendix E: Federal Merit Systems Survey
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 71

Appendix E: Federal Merit Systems Survey
72 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Appendix E: Federal Merit Systems Survey
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 73

Appendix E: Federal Merit Systems Survey
74 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Appendix E: Federal Merit Systems Survey
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 75

Appendix E: Federal Merit Systems Survey
76 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Appendix E: Federal Merit Systems Survey
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 77
78 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Appendix E: Federal Merit Systems Survey
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 79
80 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Appendix E: Federal Merit Systems Survey
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 81
82 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Appendix E: Federal Merit Systems Survey
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 83
84 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism

Appendix E: Federal Merit Systems Survey
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 85
86 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 87

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

Appendix F: Seeking Redress 

for Favoritism from the 

Office of Special Counsel

When Federal employees believe that favoritism has occurred as a result of a prohibited personnel practice, 

they can seek redress within their agency through internal mechanisms such as the employee grievance 

process. However, since employees may feel they are at a disadvantage when contesting a decision made 

by a supervisor or manager, an employee has the option to file a complaint externally with the Office 

of Special Counsel (OSC). The authors of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 designed this process 

to provide employees with a route to raise and resolve complaints that are not covered by other entities 

(e.g., discrimination complaints that would be handled by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission) outside of their own agency.86

Upon request, OSC will investigate the complaint and decide whether or not to take up the issue with the 

employing agency.87 If the situation cannot be resolved within the agency, OSC can file a complaint with 

MSPB seeking disciplinary action against an employee who committed a prohibited personnel practice. 

If the Board finds a PPP has been committed, it may impose penalties including reprimand, suspension, 

demotion, removal from Federal employment, restriction from future Federal employment for up to 5 

years, and a fine up to $1,000.88 Corrective action for the employee who was disadvantaged by the PPP can 

include: job restoration, reversal of suspensions and other adverse actions, reimbursement of attorney’s 

fees, back pay, medical and other costs and damages.89

Similarly, employees may report nepotism to OSC when they believe advantages have been granted to 

relatives as discussed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(7) and 5 U.S.C. § 3110. 

86 Some cases could be handled by OSC or EEOC. For example, in situations where the supervisor demonstrates favoritism based 

on an intimate relationship with subordinate(s), this situation could be addressed by the OSC under 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(6), or by the 

EEOC if the behavior constitutes quid pro quo harassment or hostile work environment harassment, which are violations of Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

87 For a full description of the OSC investigative process, see 5 U.S.C. § 1214 and visit www.osc.gov.

88 5 U.S.C. § 1215(a)(3).

89 5 U.S.C. § 1214(g)(2).
88 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 89

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

Behavior (Survey Item) Correlation

My supervisor treats everyone in my work unit with the same amount of respect. -0.776

My supervisor uses fair standards for praise for everyone in the office. -0.749

My supervisor uses fair standards for criticism for everyone in the office. -0.737

My supervisor values input from all employees. -0.723

I’ve developed a good working relationship with my supervisor. -0.663

My supervisor provides appropriate rewards for excellent performance in my work unit. -0.659

My supervisor provides me with constructive and 

timely feedback on my job performance. -0.648

I receive the information that I need to perform my job well. -0.508

My supervisor provides appropriate negative consequences 

for poor performance in my work unit. -0.486

My supervisor provides better treatment to the better performers in the work unit. 0.375

My supervisor avoids communicating with some employees. 0.618

My supervisor demonstrates favoritism by spending more time 

talking with favorite employees about work-related topics. 0.813

My supervisor demonstrates favoritism by spending more time talking 

with favorite employees about non-work-related topics. 0.816

My supervisor provides better treatment to employees 

who ingratiate themselves to the supervisor. 0.817

My supervisor provides better treatment to employees 

who are a “personality fit” with the supervisor. 0.818

Appendix G: Correlations 

Between Perceptions of the 

Supervisor’s Behavior and 

Perceptions of Favoritism
90 Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Perceptions of Favoritism
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 91

merit systems: understanding and addr

perceptions of favorit

preserving the integr

of the federal meri

systems understan

and addressing

perceptions of 

favoritism

Engagement Item Correlation

Overall, I am satisfied with my supervisor. -0.682

I am treated with respect at work. -0.578

My opinions count at work. -0.576

Recognition and rewards are based on performance in my work unit. -0.552

I am satisfied with the recognition and rewards I receive for my work. -0.526

A spirit of cooperation and teamwork exists in my work unit. -0.518

I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization. -0.499

I have sufficient opportunities (such a challenging work 

assignments or projects) to earn a high performance rating. -0.465

Overall, I am satisfied with managers above my supervisor. -0.412

I would recommend my agency as a place to work. -0.41

My job makes good use of my skills and abilities. -0.402

My work unit produces high quality products and services. -0.349

I know what is expected of me on the job. -0.321

I have the resources to do my job well. -0.294

My agency is successful in accomplishing its mission. -0.293

The work I do is meaningful to me. -0.191

Appendix H: Correlations 

Between Perceived Favoritism 

and Aspects of Employee 

Engagement

Perceptions of Favoritism by the Supervisor
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20419

Official Business

Penalty For Private Use $300

PRSRT STD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

WASHINGTON DC

PERMIT NO. G-113

preserving the integrity of the federal merit systems: understanding and addressing perceptions of favoritism

preserving the integrity of the federal merit 

systems understanding and addressing

perceptions of favoritism

Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems:

Understanding and Addressing Perceptions of Favoritism