U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Office of Policy and Evaluation Research Brief

Remedying Unacceptable Employee Performance in the Federal Civil Service

June 18, 2019

In Brief

For decades, the Federal Government has been seeking useful means to address the issue of

Federal employees whose performance at work is unacceptable.

1 This brief uses data from our 

2016 Merit Principles Survey (MPS) to discuss causes of unacceptable performance and the 

effectiveness of various methods to improve such performance.2 The overall findings are that 

poor performance has multiple causes, and that reducing its incidence is best accomplished by 

addressing not only performance management, but also recruitment and placement, supervisory 

competencies, and agency culture. Additionally:

(1) The most effective way to prevent unacceptable performance is to hire the right people 

in the first place. The two factors that supervisors perceived as playing the greatest roles in 

employee performance deficiencies were the employee’s disinterest in doing the necessary 

work to succeed and the employee not being suited for that particular job. These factors are 

often the result of poor selection choices. While it is important to address unacceptable

performance by an employee, investing resources to prevent errors in selection is a more 

efficient approach to ensuring an effective workforce. 

(2) No one method for addressing unacceptable performance is universally effective or 

ineffective. The MPS provided supervisors a list of 14 common methods for remedying

employee performance problems and asked supervisors of unacceptable performers how 

effective they found each method to be in addressing the problem. The most effective method 

was effective to “some extent” or a “great extent” 47 percent of the time, and the least 

effective method was seen as effective 28 percent of the time. This indicates that the best 

method to address an employee’s unacceptable performance will depend on the situation.

(3) When unacceptable performance exists, supervisors often expend notable effort to 

address it. Approximately three-quarters of supervisors of unacceptable performers reported 

attempting 10 or more different approaches for addressing the performance problem of their 

most recent poor performer. This likely represents a substantial investment of time and 

resources.

(4) Placement (demotion or reassignment) can be a viable alternative to removal if there is 

good reason to believe the employee will perform effectively in the new position. Sixtytwo percent of surveyed supervisors supported reassigning employees if they seem likely to

succeed elsewhere. This may be particularly appropriate when the unsuccessful performance 

is caused by poor job fit and the employee demonstrates a willingness to work to succeed.

 1 That search continues, as evidenced by Executive Order 13839, Promoting Accountability and Streamlining Removal Procedures Consistent 

with Merit System Principles, which was issued in May 2018 with the goal of advancing “the ability of supervisors in agencies to promote civil 

servant accountability consistent with merit system principles while simultaneously recognizing employees’ procedural rights and 

protections.”

2 5 U.S.C. § 4301(3) states that “ ‘unacceptable performance’ means performance of an employee which fails to meet established 

performance standards in one or more critical elements of such employee’s position.” Our 2016 Merit Principles Survey adopted that 

definition for our questions about “poor performance.”
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 2

Methodology

The 2016 MPS was divided into three versions (“paths”) to focus on different areas of study. The 

supervisory path asked 13,058 supervisors, managers, and executives questions about their 

experiences in those roles. An alternate path—“Path 2”—asked 14,473 employees at all levels of 

organizations questions about their experiences as employees.3Combined, the questions from 

these two paths allow a view of performance management from the perspectives of those being 

managed and those doing the managing. This research brief was also informed by a review of 16 

agency performance appraisal system designs and related performance management policies as 

well as conversations with 13 agencies about their performance management materials.

Causes of Unsuccessful Performance

In our 2016 MPS, we asked supervisors if they had employed a person who had failed at least one 

critical performance element. Sixty-three percent reported that they had, at some point in time, 

directly supervised one or more employees who met this definition. We then asked these officials 

to what extent each of nine factors played a role in the poor performance of their most recent poor 

performer.4 As shown in Table 1, multiple factors were seen as playing a role.

Table 1: Extent to which each factor was perceived as playing a role in the employee’s failure of a critical 

performance element.

5

 3 A more in-depth description of the 2016 MPS and its methodology is available on our website at 

https://www.mspb.gov/foia/e-foiareadingroom.htm. 

4 This data reports the perceptions of supervisors, who may not be completely objective or unbiased about the causes of 

unsuccessful performance in a subordinate.

5 Figures in this table and following tables are rounded and some rows may not total 100%. Factors are listed in order of 

combined percentage of respondents indicating “great extent” or “some extent.”

Great

Extent

Some

Extent

Little

Extent

No

Extent Factor

48% 26% 11% 14% Employee was not interested in doing the necessary work to 

succeed

35% 24% 15% 26% Employee was not suited for that particular type of job

30% 29% 19% 23% Employee was distracted by matters in his/her personal life

24% 20% 11% 46% Employee engaged in misconduct (e.g., AWOL, abusive 

treatment of customers or coworkers)

12% 17% 19% 52% Employee did not understand how to do the work

4% 11% 22% 64% Employee did not understand what was expected from 

him/her

2% 6% 14% 77% Employee was given more work than he/she could handle

2% 3% 6% 88% Employee was the target of an interpersonal work conflict

1% 4% 16% 79% Employee lacked needed resources or tools
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 3

Poor Hiring Practices

The two factors that supervisors perceived as playing the greatest role in performance deficiencies

were: (1) the employee’s disinterest in doing the necessary work to succeed; and (2) the employee 

not being suited for that particular job.

While both people and jobs evolve over time, these two causes of poor performance can often be 

a result of poor selection choices for the position. MPS 2016 responses from employees also 

illustrate why it is important to ensure that a job candidate is a good match for the position being 

filled. We asked employees if they agreed with the statement, “My job makes good use of my 

abilities.” We also asked if they agreed with the statement, “At my job, I am inspired to do my 

best work.” Of those who said the job made good use of their abilities, 84 percent agreed that they 

were inspired to do their best work. In contrast, of those who disagreed about the use of their 

abilities, only 24 percent agreed they were inspired to do their best work.6

If agencies are finding that they have employees who are not interested in doing the work to 

succeed, or do not fit well in their assigned jobs, this can be a sign that their recruitment and 

assessment processes need to be improved. The 2016 MPS supervisory questions included a list 

of 19 management tasks and a request that supervisory respondents rate the difficulty of each 

task. As discussed in our December 2016 publication, Addressing Misconduct in the Federal 

Civil Service: Management Perspectives, respondents reported that their most difficult task was 

getting a pool of quality candidates. Creating recruitment plans to identify the best candidates for 

particular jobs was also considered a relatively difficult task, more so than establishing 

performance standards for subordinates that cover all critical elements of the jobs; establishing 

clear measurements for success in subordinates’ performance elements; or addressing 

performance that does not improve.

One way to help ensure a better job fit can be to provide a realistic job preview to the employee.

In some cases, this preview is a formal test, in which the employee performs a task that is 

common to the job and that performance is scored against pre-established benchmarks. There can 

also be less formal previews that can help shape the applicant pool. For example, the vacancy 

announcement for a customer service position can state: “This job is a good match for you if you 

enjoy answering questions and working with the public. This job is not a good match for you if 

prefer to perform tasks without interruption.” Agencies should describe the job to applicants in a 

way that asks applicants to do their own, internal, assessment of how well their preferences and 

competencies are likely to match the position being filled. Applicants may not be eager to 

articulate their weaknesses to the assessor, but they can know themselves better than an agency 

may discover in just a few hours of testing. Agencies should encourage applicants to privately 

think about whether the job is a good fit and give them enough information about the job to 

effectively perform this silent self-assessment.7

 6 Other questions about job fit yielded similar results. For example, of those employees who agreed that their work supported a 

purpose, cause, or mission that was important to them, 76 percent agreed they felt inspired to do their best work, while those who 

disagreed about the work supporting something important to them had only 18 percent agree that they felt inspired to do their best work.

7 MSPB has issued a number of reports and articles on how agencies can improve their recruitment and selection practices, 

available at www.mspb.gov/studies. For example, Managing Federal Recruitment: Issues, Insights, and Illustrations (2004) offers recommendations 

for improving recruitment programs. Reforming Federal Hiring: Beyond Faster and Cheaper (2006) contains a discussion of different assessment 

methods. Job Simulations: Trying Out for a Federal Job (2009) discusses what makes a good assessment tool and the relative merits of different 

assessment methods such as work samples, situational judgment tests, assessment centers, and job tryout procedures.
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 4

The competencies that agencies prioritize when looking at candidates and how they assess for 

those competencies may also contribute to the problem. As discussed in our 2011 report, Making 

the Right Connections: Targeting the Best Competencies for Training, there are some 

competencies that do not respond well to training, and thus are particularly important to assess as 

part of the selection process. These include motivation competencies, such as employee 

willingness to perform work and resilience in the face of difficulty—both of which are difficult to 

create or increase on the job. Yet, these are highly pertinent to the factor that supervisors stated 

played the largest role in a poor performer’s poor performance: the willingness to do the work 

necessary to succeed. Thus, to truly address poor performance, agencies must identify and 

address weaknesses in the recruitment and assessment processes. Possible weaknesses include the

competencies that are emphasized in recruitment strategy, the vacancy announcement, and 

assessment criteria and methods.

Once the most important competencies are identified, it matters how the agency assesses for those 

competencies. Even the best assessment tools cannot always predict who will succeed in the job.

8

However, using good assessment procedures in succession can improve the ability of the 

assessments to predict job performance, adding to the quality and cost-effectiveness of the 

process.

Furthermore, the “assessment for hiring” process does not end when a selection is first made. Our 

2005 report, The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity, notes that agencies 

have the responsibility to use the probationary or trial period to assess new Federal hires and 

terminate the employment of those who are not proving themselves assets to the Government.

This would include not only those who do not wish to do the work to succeed, but also those who 

are willing to work hard but are simply a poor job fit. An appointment is not finalized until the 

probationary or trial period is completed. Yet MSPB found that supervisors are sometimes 

reluctant to remove a probationer who is not performing well in the position, even though it is 

easier to remove a probationer than an employee with a final appointment. Accordingly, the 

report contained recommendations that could help agencies to improve their use of the 

probationary period.

While a poor job fit can be the result of a flawed recruitment process (a pool of unfit candidates) 

or a flawed assessment process (emphasizing the wrong competencies or picking the wrong 

candidate), no recruitment or assessment process is perfect. When performance issues arise, staff 

involved in addressing performance difficulties should communicate with staff involved in 

recruitment to identify possible weaknesses and improvements in the hiring process to increase 

the potential for a better selection the next time.

However, while recruitment and assessment processes are crucial, they are not the entire solution. 

Jobs and people can evolve over time, and a good fit can become an indifferent or poor fit. A later 

section discusses what agencies can do with employees who are not a good fit, including when it 

may be appropriate to reassign employees to positions that are a better fit.

Non-Performance Issues that Affect Performance

The third most common factor in unsuccessful performance was distraction by matters in the 

employee’s personal life, while the fourth was the employee engaging in misconduct that affected 

performance. Effectively addressing these issues requires the ability to understand the underlying 

 8 See, for example, the MSPB report Reforming Federal Hiring: Beyond Faster and Cheaper (2006).
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 5

causes, identify possible solutions, and create an environment where those solutions can be 

effective. Hiring the right supervisors and training them to deal with human situations matters.

Balancing Support and Accountability

Employees are human beings, not just cogs in a machine. They can have loved ones who may fall 

ill; they may fall ill themselves; they may encounter financial difficulties through no fault of their 

own; or they may be distracted by other personal concerns. It is hard for everyone when an 

employee is not performing adequately for such reasons and it may appear heartless for the 

supervisor to add pressure to the situation by criticizing the employee’s job performance.

A supervisor must assess the situation, including how long the issue has gone on or will likely 

continue, before deciding what to do. Our data shows that supervisory support has a relationship 

to the quality of an employee’s performance, with the most supportive supervisors tending to 

have the best performers.9 There are resources available to help employees with personal 

concerns and it is often appropriate for the supervisor to provide the employee with contact 

information for the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). However, supervisors must also be 

sensitive to the fact that there is a mission to accomplish, taxpayer monies are being spent, and it 

can be unfair to expect coworkers to pick up the slack.

It is important that agencies ensure that supervisors and other decision-makers set the right 

balance between being supportive and demanding. A supervisor who is too empathetic may fail to 

address serious problems that can hinder mission accomplishment. Someone too forceful may 

drive away a valuable employee with a short-term problem and cause other employees to seek a 

more supportive environment.10 There are also legal issues and responsibilities if the employee 

has a disability.

11 Understanding those issues and responsibilities may require some training of 

supervisors and managers.

Addressing Conduct Issues

The fourth factor that supervisors perceived as a cause of poor performance was misconduct.

Agencies are able to remove employees for conduct that damages the efficiency of the service, 

including—but not limited to—the damage caused by the employee’s failure to successfully 

perform in a critical element of the job. The ability of the supervisor to address such conduct 

issues depends upon both the supervisor’s skills and support from the agency.

One example of such a conduct issue is being absent without leave (AWOL). We listed being 

AWOL in the survey item as an example of misconduct that could affect performance. If the 

employee is AWOL because of personal problems such as scheduling child care or difficulty 

 9 Employees who agreed that they feel comfortable talking to their supervisor about the things that matter to them at work and 

that their supervisor supports their need to balance work and family issues were more likely than others to report: (1) engaging in strong 

performance behaviors; and (2) that their performance had been rated at the highest level allowed in their appraisal system.

10 Responses to MPS questions about the respondent’s intent to leave the organization, the agency, and the Government were 

compressed into a single factor for analysis, which was then divided into three categories of approximately equal size based on the overall 

response score: (1) inclined to leave; (2) neutral; and (3) inclined to stay. Of those who strongly agreed that the supervisor was supportive 

of work/family balance, only 20 percent were inclined to leave, while for those who strongly disagreed, 63 percent were inclined to leave.

11 EEOC’s website (see U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Disability Discrimination, at 

www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm) explains that “Disability discrimination [occurs when an employer] treats an employee less 

favorably because [the employee] has a history of a disability (such as cancer that is controlled or in remission) or because [the employee] is 

believed to have a physical or mental impairment that is not transitory (lasting or expected to last six months or less) and minor (even if 

[the employee] does not have such an impairment).”
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 6

obtaining reliable transportation, then the ability of the supervisor to create an environment where 

the employee feels comfortable discussing those problems—and the supervisor being well 

educated about flexibilities and services he or she is permitted to offer—can be crucial to 

identifying potential solutions. If, however, the employee simply does not want to come to work, 

that is a different cause that would lead to a different approach to solutions. The supervisor needs 

the knowledge, skills, and abilities to elicit the necessary information on causes for the 

misconduct, consider potential solutions, and create a viable plan to address the situation.

In some cases, discipline—up to and including possible removal—may be the appropriate 

solution. The 2016 MPS asked supervisors, “If a subordinate employee engaged in serious 

misconduct, are you confident that you would be able to remove that employee?” While 41 

percent said yes, 42 percent said no, and 16 percent were not sure. We then asked those who said 

they were not confident that they could remove such a person about a variety of possible 

obstacles to such actions.

As shown in Chart 1, below, 53 percent reported that their agency’s cultural norms related to 

conduct and accountability posed a challenge to a “great extent” with another 28 percent 

reporting it was a challenge to “some extent.”12 A lack of support by managers and leaders was 

also seen as a great challenge, as was the quality of service by human resources. How well the 

person understood the process was less of a barrier, yet 63 percent of respondents who were not 

confident they could remove an employee for misconduct said their own lack of understanding 

was a challenge. Also, more than 40 percent of supervisors cited their discomfort with taking 

away a person’s job as a barrier.

Chart 1: Extent to which each factor was seen as a challenge to removing employees for misconduct.13

There are many resources available to help supervisors to address misconduct, including several 

MSPB publications.14 Supervisors with such issues should consult with their human resources 

advisors and agencies should ensure those advisors are skilled in management-employee 

 12 The data in the chart reflects the views of those who stated they did not think they could effect a removal and does not include 

those who were not sure if they could effect a removal.

13 Figures in this chart and following charts are rounded and may not total 100%.

14 MSPB publications on this subject include study reports, monographs, and newsletter articles, all available at 

www.mspb.gov/studies. Examples include: Adverse Actions: A Compilation of Articles; What is Due Process in Federal Civil Service Employment?;

Addressing Misconduct in the Federal Civil Service: Management Perspectives; and Alternative Discipline: Creative Solutions for Agencies to Effectively Address 

Misconduct.

53% 50% 44%

25%

13%

28% 29% 33%

38%

30%

11% 13% 14%

22%

28%

7% 8% 9% 15%

28%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Agency's

Culture

Management

Support

HR Quality Understanding

of the Process

My Comfort

Level

No Extent

A Little

Extent

Some Extent

A Great

Extent
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 7

relations. Given that misconduct was the fourth most-selected cause of unsuccessful performance, 

having supervisors who are both able and willing to address misconduct is an important part of 

the solution to having supervisors who can address unsuccessful performance.

Supervisors will have to decide how to handle each situation based on the facts before them. 

Thus, the selection and training of supervisors can be crucial. Our 2010 report, A Call to Action: 

Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees, extensively discusses issues related to 

the selection and training of supervisors. That report’s recommendations include: (1) emphasizing 

supervisory competencies when advertising and filling such positions; (2) providing realistic job 

previews for candidates; (3) using the most predictive assessment tools when filling such 

positions; (4) providing a comprehensive training and development program for supervisors; and 

(5) evaluating supervisors on both work group outcomes and supervisory competencies.

The 2010 report also recommends that current supervisors consider whether being a supervisor is 

a good fit for them. For agencies, it is important to use the supervisory and managerial 

probationary periods to ensure a good job fit, as the competencies needed to be successful in such 

positions can be quite different than the skills used in technical positions. Just as fit matters in the 

performance of non-supervisory employees, it is important that supervisors be a good fit for their 

own duties if they are to perform them successfully.

Employee Lack of Understanding

On the list of potential causes for poor performance (Table 1), the fifth factor (not understanding 

the work) had only 30 percent agreement to some or a great extent, and the sixth factor (not 

understanding expectations) had approximately 15 percent agreement. Yet, these factors are truly 

about what supervisors do to manage performance (i.e., providing guidance and establishing 

expectations) as opposed to other supervisory responsibilities (e.g., selection and managing 

conduct). Agencies may be able to reduce some poor performance by addressing these 

knowledge-based needs through better performance management practices. While many of the 

major causes for unsuccessful performance need to be addressed through recruitment, assessment, 

and supervisory management issues, employee performance management should not be ignored 

as one part of the solution.

Improving Unsuccessful Performance

The 2016 MPS asked supervisors who reported that they had supervised a person who failed a 

critical element which methods they had attempted to assist the employee to improve and to what 

extent the attempt was successful. As shown in Table 2, most supervisors tried multiple methods. 

Although no method was consistently very successful, every listed method was successful to some 

extent or more for at least a quarter of the supervisors who attempted it.

The decision to attempt a particular method—or group of methods—may be influenced by 

agency policies, collective bargaining agreements, advice from subject matter experts, legal 

concerns, human resources advisors, past experience, employee requests for a specific form of 

help, or other influences. Overall, 75 percent of supervisors reported attempting 10 or more 

different methods for their most recent poor performer. However, none of the listed approaches 

was considered effective to some extent or better by a majority of supervisors. Items ranged from 

28 to 47 percent of those respondents who tried a method reporting that it was effective to some 

or a great extent.
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 8

The most effective method to help a poor performer to become fully successful appeared to be 

monitoring the employee’s work more closely (47 percent of respondents agreeing to at least 

some extent). However, there was a general cluster of activities that were within a few percentage 

points of each other, such as: meeting more frequently to provide feedback and coaching 

(45 percent); providing additional written or oral communications about expectations (43 and 

42 percent, respectively); and discussing possible negative consequences for continued poor 

performance (42 percent).

Table 2: Perceived effectiveness of methods to improve a subordinate’s unsuccessful performance.

15

 15 Methods are listed in order of combined percentage of respondents indicating “great extent” or “some extent.”

Effectiveness of the Method Percentage of 

Respondents 

Attempting

the Method

Great 

Extent

Some 

Extent

Little 

Extent

No 

Extent

21% 26% 25% 28% Monitored the employee’s work more closely 98%

19% 25% 28% 28% Met more frequently to provide feedback and coaching 96%

18% 25% 27% 30% In writing, provided additional communication about 

expectations 94%

17% 25% 27% 31% Orally provided additional communication about 

expectations 99%

19% 24% 26% 32% Discussed with employee possible negative consequences 

if performance remained inadequate 95%

19% 21% 24% 36% Put employee under a formal performance improvement 

plan 55%

14% 26% 30% 31% Asked employee what you could do to help employee 

improve 98%

14% 24% 26% 36% Paired with a better performer to serve as a mentor 65%

13% 24% 28% 34% Put employee under an informal performance 

improvement plan 72%

11% 26% 31% 31% Discussed with employee possible reasons for poor 

performance 98%

10% 23% 29% 38% Changed employee’s work assignment to other, less 

needed work 53%

10% 23% 28% 40% Changed employee’s work assignment to other, equally or 

more needed work 48%

12% 20% 27% 41% Gave low performance appraisal rating 82%

8% 20% 29% 43% Reduced the work quality or quantity requirements 48%
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 9

Monitoring Work More Closely

Monitoring work more closely was seen as the most effective approach to addressing 

unsuccessful performance. It can require more time from supervisors, many of whom have a lot 

of different tasks to perform, often including some non-supervisory duties. This investment of 

time appears to be more productive than many other choices when seeking to improve the 

performance of an employee who is failing in a critical performance element. Even so, fewer than 

half of supervisors who attempted closer monitoring considered it effective to “some extent” or a 

“great extent.” When deciding which efforts to make in order to assist employees to improve, 

supervisors should consider the nature of the work and the employee in question as well as the 

investment of time and resources that a particular approach will require.

Providing Feedback and Coaching

It is not surprising that feedback and coaching would be among the more successful approaches 

to helping poor performers given how useful feedback is for enhancing the performance of most 

employees.

16 They may have a preventative as well as ameliorating effect.

To evaluate the effects of feedback, we asked 2016 MPS respondents (including non-supervisors) 

if the respondent’s supervisor provided timely feedback and if the supervisor provided 

constructive feedback.17 As shown in Table 3, employees who received weaker feedback were 

more likely to report that they had coworkers who: (1) were performing below expectations; and 

(2) performing so poorly that the respondent believed the coworkers should be removed.

Table 3: Perceptions of feedback and the presence of weak and poor performers in the work unit.

In your opinion, how many employees in your immediate work unit, 

if any, are performing below what should be reasonably expected 

from them on the job? None One

More

than

One

Weaker Feedback 29% 16% 55%

Moderate Feedback 41% 19% 40%

Stronger Feedback 46% 19% 35%

In your opinion, how many employees in your immediate work unit, 

if any, are performing so poorly that the agency should remove them 

from service? (This may include employees you included in the 

question above.) None One

More

than

One

Weaker Feedback 56% 18% 25%

Moderate Feedback 70% 15% 15%

Stronger Feedback 72% 15% 13%

 16 The research brief, The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors (2018), documented the 

strong relationship between timely and constructive feedback and reports of better performance behaviors and higher performance 

appraisal levels. Performance Management Is More than an Appraisal (2015) discussed how more frequent feedback was positively associated 

with an employee’s belief that feedback was helpful and that the supervisor understood the employee’s performance. However, frequency 

of feedback is not a substitute for timeliness or constructiveness of the feedback. Rather, it is timeliness and constructiveness that give 

feedback much of its value.

17 Because of how these two things interact, we combined responses to these two items into a single factor. Values assigned to 

that factor were then divided into three groups of approximately equal size (stronger feedback, moderate feedback, and weaker

feedback). We examined the relationship between these three feedback groups and perceptions that there were weak or poor performers 

in the work unit.
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 10

In other words, not only did supervisors find that feedback was one of the more effective methods 

for improving the poor performance of unsuccessful performers, but employees who perceived 

their supervisors as providing such feedback were less likely to perceive that there were weak or 

poor performers in the work unit. We did not ask if the respondent’s supervisor routinely 

provided timely and constructive feedback to other employees, as the respondent might not know 

what other employees are experiencing. However, it may be that supervisors providing timely and 

effective feedback as a routine matter for all employees could be helpful to prevent the 

development as well as the persistence of poor or weak performance in the workplace.

Communicating Expectations to the Employee

Slightly more than 40 percent of supervisors reported that providing additional guidance on

expectations was effective to at least some extent. Written and oral communication were seen as 

nearly equal in effectiveness. As with other methods to assist a poor performer to improve, the 

success of a method will vary based on the employee and the situation. Presumably, this approach 

is most likely to succeed when there is reason to suspect the employee may not understand what 

is expected of him or her. However, as discussed in the section on removing poor performers, 

there are also legal and administrative reasons to provide and document this guidance.18

Additionally, communicating expectations can be a matter of fairness as well as simply a sound 

investment of time. It is only fair to ensure that an employee knows what is expected of him or 

her. Furthermore, if an employee is skilled and merely misdirecting those skills because of a 

misunderstanding about what management expects the employee to do, helping the employee to 

redirect his or her efforts is far better than allowing the efforts to remain misdirected. It also may 

not be in the interest of the Government to remove a skilled employee who could have performed 

well with clearer direction, only to start over again with another employee who may also labor 

unsuccessfully under unclear direction.

Discussing Possible Negative Consequences

Forty-two percent of supervisors stated that discussing “possible negative consequences” with the 

employee was effective to at least some extent. However, the MPS did not define this term. To 

the respondent, this could have meant warnings of a potential demotion or removal, a denial of a 

within-grade increase (WIGI), or less severe actions such as a lower than average appraisal rating 

or smaller than average performance award. It is also possible that for some supervisors this 

included warnings of a future performance improvement period (PIP) if performance did not 

improve. A PIP, while intended to help an employee, could be seen as a potential negative 

consequence because such a period can be a precursor to a demotion or removal action.

We explored possible reasons why a discussion of negative consequences might have been 

among the more successful steps supervisors took. Results from the 2016 MPS suggested two 

possible reasons. The first reason is that a warning may correct an employee’s mistaken 

assumption that the organization overlooks or accepts poor performance. In the 2016 MPS, only 

32 percent of employees agreed with the statement “In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with 

 18 By law, agencies are required to ensure that employees are aware in advance of the performance standards and critical elements 

of their position. In a chapter 43 action, failure to provide this information is a violation of a substantive right and can therefore prevent an 

agency from being able to act on the employee’s failure to meet those standards. Cross v. Department of the Air Force, 25 M.S.P.R. 353, 357-58 

(1984), aff'd, 785 F.2d 320 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (explaining, among other things, that an agency’s failure to “communicate” to the appellant his 

standards violates this substantive right only if the appellant is not aware (and should not reasonably be aware) of his obligations). In a 

chapter 75 action, the extent to which the employee was on notice regarding expectations will be a factor in determining the appropriate 

penalty. Madison v. Defense Logistics Agency, 48 M.S.P.R. 234, 239 (1991).
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 11

a poor performer who cannot or will not improve.” This suggests that many employees believe 

that their organization will tolerate rather than confront poor performance—or, perhaps even 

worse, that their organization will not even notice it.

The second, related reason is that a warning may clarify or reinforce a previous message that was 

lacking in clarity or force. Merely communicating the presence of a problem (such as saying 

“I’m not happy about your performance”) does not necessarily communicate the seriousness of 

that problem. A warning—which goes further, saying “I’m not happy about your performance 

and I will not tolerate it”—makes the supervisor’s displeasure and determination clear, which 

might motivate the employee to improve.

Other Methods to Assist Employees to Improve

As shown in Table 2, there were several other methods that supervisors found effective to varying 

degrees when seeking to assist unsuccessful performers to become fully successful. These 

include: asking the employee how the supervisor can help; providing a mentor; and changing the 

work assignments or expectations for quality or quantity. While these approaches tended to be 

less successful, some supervisors found each of these successful to a great extent.

Therefore, a strategy of educating supervisors about options for addressing poor performance—

and then granting supervisors reasonable discretion to choose among those options—seems best. 

This strategy may seem inconsistent with the clearly-defined procedural requirements for 

performance-based adverse actions and the principle of treating similarly-situated employees in a 

similar manner, which appear to counsel (or mandate) a uniform or standardized approach. This 

strategy may also require agencies to modify their policies or negotiate changes to collective 

bargaining agreements. However, we note that “similar treatment of similarly-situated 

employees” does not mean “identical treatment of all poor-performing employees, regardless of 

the nature or causes of the poor performance.” Also, it is not in the interest of the workforce or 

the agency to require supervisors to use the same approach to different performance problems if 

those problems are better addressed with an approach tailored to the specific performance 

deficiencies.

Removing Unsuccessful Performers from Their Positions

Section 2301 of title 5 states that supervisors and managers with inadequate performers should act 

to improve the performance of those employees whose performance can be improved and remove 

those employees who cannot or will not improve to an adequate level.19 The previous sections

focused primarily on how agencies can improve employee performance, but agencies also have a 

responsibility to act when such efforts at improvement fail.

In the Federal Government, “removal” typically refers to ending the employment relationship. 

However, agencies should draw a distinction between removing the employee from the position 

and removing the employee from the Federal service. When job fit is the source of the problem, 

transfers and demotions can serve both the public interest and the employee’s interest better than 

termination.

 19 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(6) (“Employees should be retained on the basis of the 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”). This is one of the twelve merit system principles, which are guidance—set forth in statute—to ensure that the civil service is 

managed in a “competent, honest, and productive” manner. See Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-454), Statement of Purpose.
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 12

Reassigning Unsuccessful Performers

A reassignment is a personnel action in which an agency moves an employee from one position to 

another within the same agency without promotion or demotion.20 As has been noted by the U.S. 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM), “[t]he reassignment regulations give an agency 

extensive flexibility in reassigning an employee to a different position” so long as the agency has 

a “legitimate organizational reason for the reassignment[.]”21

This authority does not require that the agency show that employee has failed any critical 

elements or even has an established performance weakness. No documentation or other evidence 

of performance deficiencies is required because this authority can be applied to the reassignment 

of even successful employees. The employee’s past performance is irrelevant to the authority.

Our 2016 MPS asked supervisors whether they agreed with the statement, “I think that agencies 

should reassign poor performers to other positions if they seem more likely to succeed 

elsewhere.” For both those who had supervised a poor performer, and those who had never 

supervised one, 62 percent of respondents agreed with this statement.

Such reassignments may not always be possible for poor performers. There may be no vacant 

position available for which the poor performer is qualified. There may be no position in which 

the employee seems likely to succeed. However, we asked supervisors if they agreed with the 

statement, “A person who fails in one aspect of the job tends to fail in most aspects of the job.”

Only 28 percent of respondents agreed with this statement, while 56 percent disagreed (with the 

other 16 percent neither agreeing nor disagreeing). Thus, it appears that many poor performers 

can still be competent in needed skill areas.

Chart 2: Extent to which respondent agreed with the statement, “A person who fails in one aspect of the 

job tends to fail in most aspects of the job.”

The greatest challenge with such reassignments may be that positions in a single work unit might 

have duties that are too similar and a person who cannot perform in one position may be equally 

unable to perform in another in that same work unit. For example, a front-line personnel advisor 

who is deeply knowledgeable about personnel rules but lacks the tact needed to give good 

customer service may fail in that critical element. An agency might benefit from reassigning such 

 20 OPM, Guide to Processing Personnel Actions, Ch. 14-4.

21 OPM, Workforce Restructuring: Summary of Reassignment, available at www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/workforcerestructuring/summary-of-reassignment/.

21%

34%

16%

25%

3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor

Disagree

Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 13

a person to perform policy duties instead if the person seems likely to perform such duties well.

Yet, an office with front-line personnel advisors often would not need a policy person. In such a 

situation, it would be a different supervisor who would be able to offer a suitable job.

Agencies must decide to what extent they wish supervisors to focus solely on their own 

individual work units and to what extent the best interest of the agency as a whole should be the 

greater priority. Creating a mechanism for the reassignment of employees to another work unit if 

they are failing a critical element but are otherwise highly valuable could be in the overall best 

interest of the agency. Such a mechanism could also be useful for reassigning weak performers 

who are not failing in a critical element but are nevertheless not as successful as they could be 

elsewhere with a better fit.

The goal of such a program would not be to make one supervisor’s problem into a different 

supervisor’s problem, but rather to maximize the value of an employee who has strong potential 

to be a valuable asset. As a result, the success of any such reassignment program would likely 

depend heavily on the ability of the agency to trust in the assessment of the original supervisor 

who certifies that the employee is, in fact, competent in the necessary tasks with no conduct 

issues to detract from the value of the employee’s proven abilities.

Agencies and their subcomponents are in the best position know whether it is likely that the 

agency may have jobs in different work units that are simultaneously similar and distinct enough 

to offer the potential for likely matches for the competencies of poor performing employees.

Thus, we cannot recommend a competencies matching program be automatically implemented 

for any agency or bureau. But, agencies should consider the possibility of such a program given 

the views of the MPS supervisors that failure in one competency does not mean failure in all and 

that employees should be reassigned if they are likely to succeed elsewhere.

Such a program could also be used for demotions, and including demotions would greatly expand 

the potential to find a good match between vacancies and employee competencies. However, 

involuntary demotions operate under different rules and criteria than reassignments, as explained 

in the next section. In situations involving demotions, agencies would need to ensure their actions 

complied with these rules.

Performance-Based Demotions and Removals

The formal improvement plan was considered the sixth most effective solution for addressing 

unsuccessful performance, while the informal plan was in ninth place. However, if an agency 

chooses to use chapter 43 of title 5 to implement a demotion or removal, an improvement period 

may be necessary for legal and administrative reasons.

Chapters 43 and 75 of title 5 are two separate authorities that agencies can use to demote or 

remove employees for unacceptable performance. Under chapter 75, an agency must be able to 

prove by preponderant evidence that the personnel action advances the efficiency of the service.

In 1978, Congress was concerned that agencies were not taking necessary action to demote or 

remove poor performers and established chapter 43 as an alternative option.22

 22 On May 25, 2018, the President issued Executive Order 13839. This executive order states that “[t]he removal procedures set 

forth in chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code (chapter 75 procedures), should be used in appropriate cases to address instances of 

unacceptable performance.” However, it does not explicitly prohibit the use of chapter 43 procedures. Chapter 43 remains in statute and in 

effect, with executive orders and OPM regulations providing additional guidance as permitted by law. Accordingly, we discuss the 

provisions of chapter 43 and considerations for its use in this research brief.
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 14

Chapter 43 permits agencies to demote or remove employees if the agency can show, by 

substantial evidence, that the employee failed a critical performance element after being given an 

opportunity to improve. While preponderant evidence (chapter 75) means something is more 

likely to be true than not, substantial evidence only requires that a reasonable person could reach 

such a conclusion, even if other reasonable people might disagree. MSPB’s 2009 report, 

Addressing Poor Performers and the Law, discusses the rules for chapter 75 and 43 performancebased actions in depth.

As we explained in our 2009 report, although chapter 43 requires a lower standard of proof, 

agencies use chapter 43 less often than chapter 75 to implement performance-based actions. This 

remains true. In the period FY 2010 to FY 2017, of those removals taken purely for performancebased reasons, 44 percent were taken under chapter 43, while 56 percent occurred under the 

chapter 75 authority.

One reason why agencies may choose not to use chapter 43 more is the formal performance 

improvement period and the performance improvement plan that often accompanies it.

Chapter 43 of title 5 does not expressly state that an agency must offer a formal performance 

improvement period or plan before it proposes to demote or remove an employee for 

unacceptable performance. Rather, chapter 43 of the statute instructs OPM to create regulations to 

ensure that reassignments, demotions, and removals for unacceptable performance occur “only 

after an opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance.” Chapter 43 also states that OPM 

will create regulations to ensure that performance appraisal systems include provisions for 

“assisting employees in improving unacceptable performance[.]”

OPM’s regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 432.104, states that when an employee’s performance is 

unacceptable, the agency will inform the employee that he or she is failing in a critical element 

and provide: (1) appropriate assistance; (2) an opportunity to improve; and (3) a warning that 

demotion or removal may occur if performance does not improve.

This regulation does not state that an agency must create a formal (or even informal) performance 

improvement plan. The Board has held that the communications required by OPM’s regulation 

may occur in a formal performance improvement plan, in counseling sessions, in written 

instructions, or in any manner calculated to apprise the employee of the requirements against 

which he is to be measured.23 However, not only do many agencies have policies requiring formal 

improvement plans to ensure that the OPM requirement is met, but some agencies have chosen to 

add additional obligations beyond the OPM requirement, such as a minimum duration for the 

improvement plan’s period or even mandating that officials offer an informal performance 

improvement opportunity prior to the official improvement period.

These policies are not inherently bad. However, more surveyed supervisors agreed than disagreed 

that they wait longer than they should to begin a PIP. When asked if other supervisors waited 

longer than they should to put an employee on a PIP, 72 percent agreed while only 10 percent 

disagreed. It does appear that chapter 43 has worked less well than Congress envisioned. 

However, the possible limitations of chapter 43 should not prevent agencies from acting to 

demote or remove employees for unacceptable performance, as they may proceed under 

chapter 75 instead. The Board has held, and the Federal Circuit has agreed, that when an agency 

 23 Baker v. Defense Logistics Agency, 25 M.S.P.R. 614, 617 (1985), aff'd, 782 F.2d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 15

opts to use chapter 75 procedures, the agency is not required to provide the opportunity to 

improve that is a part of chapter 43 procedures.

Perceived Barriers to Performance-Based Removals

Earlier, we explained that only 41 percent of supervisors reported they were confident they could 

remove an employee for serious misconduct, while 42 percent said they were not confident and 

16 percent were not sure. We asked a similar question about removing an employee for poor 

performance: “If a subordinate employee was deficient in a critical performance element after 

completion of a PIP, are you confident that you would be able to remove that employee?” Only 

26 percent said yes, while 51 percent said no and 23 percent were not sure.24

We then asked those who did not think they could remove such an employee the extent to which 

they believed certain things would pose a challenge.25 As shown in Chart 3, agency culture and 

the support provided to supervisors are considered major contributors to the challenge of 

removing poor performers.

Chart 3: Extent to which each factor was seen as a challenge to removing employees for poor performance 

following a performance improvement period.

The general pattern of which items were obstacles, and to what extent, was very similar to the 

challenges expressed for removing an employee for misconduct, as illustrated in Chart 1. For both 

conduct and performance issues, approximately half of the supervisors who did not think they 

could act agreed to a great extent that agency culture and management support would pose a 

challenge.

 24 This does not automatically mean that the unsuccessful performer remains in the work unit. The MPS asked supervisors of 

unsuccessful performers what happened to their most recent unsuccessful performers. Only 21 percent reported that the employee 

remained unsuccessful and in the organization. (Another 21 percent reported the employee remained but performance was fully acceptable 

or better). For those who supervised such a person 4 or more years ago, less than 1 in 10 reported the employee remained and was 

unsuccessful.

25 The data in the chart reflects the views of those who stated they did not think they could effect a removal and does not include 

those who were not sure if they could effect a removal.

53% 49% 43%

23%

13%

30%

29% 32%

38%

30%

11%

14% 15%

23%

28%

6% 9% 9% 16%

29%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Agency's

Culture

Management

Support

HR Quality Understanding

of the Process

My Comfort

Level

No Extent

Little Extent

Some Extent

Great Extent
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 16

One cultural issue that may need attention is management priorities, in particular an emphasis on 

short-term production over long-term productivity. More than a quarter of supervisors from the 

2016 MPS agreed with the statement, “As long as my office succeeds overall, my supervisor does 

not care about the performance of individual employees.” We also asked supervisors if they 

agreed with the statement, “If a supervisor in my organization failed to address poor performance 

by a subordinate, there would be negative consequences for that supervisor.” Only 35 percent 

agreed that there would be negative consequences for that supervisor.

Additionally, the 2016 MPS asked supervisors if they agreed with the statement: “I am confident 

that I would be allowed to hire a new employee to replace someone removed for poor 

performance.” Only 47 percent agreed, while 42 percent disagreed and 12 percent were not sure.26

While it is understandable that budget concerns can cause an agency to decide not to fill vacant 

positions, an inability to hire behind a removed employee may serve to discourage some 

supervisors from removing an unsuccessful performer.

Among those supervisors who said that they thought they could remove a person for poor 

performance, 61 percent reported agreement that they were confident that they could replace a 

person removed for poor performance. In contrast, of those who were not confident that they 

could implement such a removal, only 39 percent agreed that they would be allowed to hire a 

replacement.27 The question supervisors are supposed to ask themselves when deciding whether 

to remove an employee is: “Is this person failing in a critical performance element?”28 However, 

if the supervisor does not think he or she will be permitted to replace the employee, the question 

may become: “Is this person failing in a manner that causes so much damage that I am better off 

with no employee at all?” These are two very different questions, which can lead to very different 

answers.

If agency managers do not take seriously the performance of individual employees, do not require 

supervisors to manage employee performance, and hinder the ability of supervisors to get the 

mission accomplished if the supervisors do remove unsuccessful performers, it is not surprising if 

removing unsuccessful performers occurs less often than some stakeholders may desire.

The data in Chart 3 also indicate that a lack of timely, expert human resources (HR) advice and 

support may deter or undermine supervisory efforts to address poor performers. Conversely, it 

appears to be easier to remove a poor performer when supervisors feel that they will receive 

quality services from human resources. We asked supervisors if, in the preceding 2 years, they 

had sought help from an HR person regarding a subordinate’s performance. For those who had 

sought such assistance, we asked if they agreed with a series of statements about the HR person 

most responsible for giving them assistance on performance-related matters. As shown in Chart 4, 

some traits and competencies for the HR person had a stronger relationship than others to the 

likelihood that the respondent would feel able to take a performance-related removal action, but 

all appeared to matter.

 26 Total does not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

27 For respondents who were not sure if they would be able to remove such an employee, 49 percent agreed they were confident 

they would be allowed to hire a replacement.

28 If the action will take place under chapter 75 procedures, an acceptable version of the question could be: “Is this person 

performing so badly that removing the person would promote the efficiency of the service?”
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 17

Chart 4: Relationship between agreement on HR service quality and perceived ability to remove poor 

performers.

Overall, the data show that an agency may be better able to remove poor performers if the agency 

has a culture that takes poor performance seriously, supports supervisors who seek to remove 

poor performers, has quality HR staff, and ensures that supervisors feel that they understand the 

process to remove poor performers. Selecting supervisors who can feel comfortable taking such 

actions may also help such actions to occur.

Making the attempt to help an employee to improve and then taking action to remove those who 

do not improve can take time. However, there are indications that supervisors sometimes permit a

poor performer to linger. We asked MPS supervisors who reported having a poor performer about 

the current status of their most recent poor performer. Among supervisors who had a poor 

performer in the preceding 4 to 6 years, 70 percent reported that the employee was no longer with 

the organization (e.g., resigned, removed, retired, or transferred) and 19 percent reported that the 

employee remained and was performing at the fully successful level or better. However, 

11 percent said that the employee “remained in the organization and performance is currently less 

than fully acceptable.” That approximately one in ten poor performers remained employed while 

not performing acceptably can be seen as a sign that poor performance is being addressed in 

many cases. It also shows, though, that agencies could be more timely and decisive when 

confronted with poor performance, both to help those employees who can improve and to remove 

those employees who cannot or will not improve.

89%

88%

85%

84%

82%

82%

79%

77%

71%

68%

67%

67%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Knowledgable (Laws, Rules, Regulations)

Knowledgable (Issues)

Hardworking

Effective as a Consultant

Responsive

Committed to Organizational Success

The HR person most responsible for helping me with performance-related issues is...

Repondents who were not confident they could remove

Respondents who were confident they could remove
Remedying Poor Performance in the Federal Civil Service

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 18

Conclusion

Addressing the problem posed by an employee’s poor performance in the Federal Government 

requires attention on multiple fronts. Because poor performance can be the result of different 

causes, and because no one method for addressing unsuccessful performance is universally 

effective, it is important to look beyond a single solution. 

Our data show that the most common causes of unsuccessful performance are linked to hiring 

practices. Agencies may be able to reduce incidences of poor and weak performance by ensuring 

that they: (1) hire employees with the right competencies (particularly those that are less 

trainable such as willingness to perform work and resilience in the face of difficulty); and 

(2) robustly use the probationary period as a try-out opportunity before the appointment is 

finalized. However, these measures alone cannot prevent all poor performance. 

When an attempt to aid an employee to improve is not adequately successful, agencies should 

consider reassignment or demotion as an alternative to removal if the employee has valuable 

skills and good prospects of success in a new position. In some situations, removal from service 

may be necessary. However, the ability of supervisors to take such personnel actions greatly 

depends upon the agency having a supportive culture and providing those supervisors with 

adequate training and resources.