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

I S S U E S OF

M E R I T

a publication of

the U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board,

Office of Policy

and Evaluation

W H A T ’ S

I N S I D E

The Trial Period: A Missing Link

Your newly hired intern may already have appeal rights. 

continued, page 3 

If you read the Merit Systems 

Protection Board’s (MSPB) recently 

published report, The Probationary Period: 

A Critical Assessment Opportunity, you’ll 

note that the probationary period can be a 

highly effective assessment tool when used 

to assess candidates’ abilities on the job 

and to separate those who are not a good 

fit for the position. Unfortunately, the 

study found that the probationary period is 

rarely used for this purpose. Another new 

Board report on the Federal Career Intern 

Program (FCIP) found the same problem 

with the trial period—the excepted service 

equivalent of the probationary period. 

Building a High-Quality Workforce: 

The Federal Career Intern Program 

explores how agencies are using this 

excepted service hiring authority to meet 

their workforce needs. One advantage of 

the FCIP is that interns serve a 2-year trial 

period. During this time, interns are to 

be provided developmental opportunities 

and assessed for skills fit before they are 

converted to competitive service positions. 

Trial periods are also the time during 

which new employees earn employment 

rights, such as the right to appeal adverse 

actions to MSPB. This ensures that 

conversions are in the public’s best interest. 

But what we found is that for some FCIP 

interns, there may be no trial period at all. 

Most Federal regulations related 

to hiring authorities state that there will 

be a probationary or trial period during 

which an employee can be separated 

quickly and without appeal rights if found 

unfit for the job. However, both the 

Executive Order establishing the FCIP 

(E.O. 13162) and the Office of Personnel 

Management’s (OPM) implementing 

regulations [5 C.F.R. 213.3202(o)] are 

silent on this matter for FCIP interns. 

OPM’s decision not to mention the 

trial period in its regulations means that 

agencies are left to address the issue. If 

an agency’s excepted service employment 

policy and FCIP plan do not mention a 

trial period for interns, then there may not 

be one. While trial periods may be set 

by agencies, appeal rights are set in law. 

Title 5 U.S.C. 7511 explains who 

does—and does not—have the right to 

appeal an adverse action, such as removal. 

Particular to this case, it defines an 

“employee” who has appeal rights as:

 (C) an individual in the excepted service 

(other than a preference eligible)—

(i) who is not serving a probationary 

or trial period under an initial appointment 

pending conversion to the competitive 

service. [Title 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)]

It is therefore possible to interpret 

this provision as meaning that if the 

Director’s Perspective

Page 2

Moving to Better 

Reference Checks

Page 4

 Merit Principles Survey 

2005 Data Is Here

Page 5

Help Wanted for 

Vacancy 

Announcements

Page 6

Can Targeted 

Recruitment 

Be Fair and Open?

Page 7

J a n u a r y 2 0 0 6
I S S U E S OF

M E R I T

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

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

U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board

CHAIRMAN

Neil A.G. McPhie

BOARD MEMBER

Barbara J. Sapin

Office of Policy and Evaluation

DIRECTOR

Steve Nelson

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

John Crum 

Our Mission

The MSPB Office of Policy and 

Evaluation conducts studies to 

assess the health of Federal merit 

systems and to ensure they are free 

from prohibited personnel practices.

Issues of Merit

We offer insights and analyses on 

topics related to Federal human 

capital management, particularly 

findings and recommendations 

from our independent research.

Reprint Permission

We invite you to reprint any of our 

articles. If you do, please include 

the following attribution: Reprinted 

from Issues of Merit, a publication 

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

Board.

For More Information

Contact us at:

www.mspb.gov

(select STUDIES page)

STUDIES@mspb.gov

202-653-6772 x1350

1-800-209-8960

V/TDD: 202-653-8896

(TTY users may use the Federal 

Relay Service, 800-877-8339)

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Office of Policy and Evaluation

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419

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

2

continued, page 3 

Employee Surveys: 

Don’t Let Your Good 

Surveys Go Bad

in calendar year 2006, and the first 

administration will be accomplished 

for many agencies via OPM’s 2006 

Federal Human Capital Survey. 

The strength of a good survey is 

not in its administration but in using 

the information gathered to make 

meaningful changes in the organization. 

We’ve all seen good surveys go bad. 

An employee is contacted to fill out 

a survey concerning job satisfaction. 

She thoughtfully responds to the 

questions and offers constructive 

ideas for change, but never hears what 

happened with the survey results. After 

a few of these experiences, she gets 

frustrated. The next survey to pass her 

desk ends up in the “revolving file.” 

As this example demonstrates, 

management inaction is a key threat 

to survey success. If employees are 

expected to take the time to complete 

surveys, then the expectation is for 

something to be done with the collected 

information. However, an annual 

requirement may not allow sufficient 

time to administer, analyze, and act 

on the results between surveys. 

Furthermore, when agencies 

evaluate survey data, they typically 

implement improvement strategies to 

address problem areas. However, it may 

take more than one year to experience 

change as a result of these strategies. 

Subsequently, if agencies try to judge the 

results based on annual survey responses, 

they could reach misleading conclusions. 

With a new annual survey requirement, the Federal 

Government needs to focus on keeping employees engaged. 

Employee surveys are a popular way 

to measure a variety of workforce-related 

issues. Surveys help organizations 

explore what they are doing well 

and not doing well and help map out 

needed improvements. They also give 

employees the opportunity to express 

their opinions about the workplace, 

which can foster a greater sense of 

employee engagement. If employee 

surveys are to remain a valuable 

tool to improve agency operations, 

however, the Government needs to 

minimize negative consequences.

As an adjudicatory and research 

agency, MSPB relies greatly on surveys 

for its studies. We recently completed 

the Merit Principles Survey 2005—a 

Governmentwide survey periodically 

conducted since 1983 to track a variety 

of workforce issues of interest to the 

Congress and President. In addition, 

we conduct smaller-scale surveys that 

address specific topics of interest to get a 

closer look at how well the Government 

is managing its workforce in adherence 

with the merit system principles. 

Congress has also recognized the 

value of employee surveys. As part of 

the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2004, each executive 

agency is required to conduct an annual 

employee survey and post the results on 

its agency website. OPM has identified 

28 core questions to be included on 

all agency surveys administered as 

part of the annual requirement. This 

annual requirement will take effect 
3

Survey fatigue is another potential consequence. Some 

Federal employees receive several surveys per year on a 

variety of topics. Recently, Federal survey response rates 

have been respectable—though lower than was typically 

seen 5–10 years ago—with both MSPB and OPM exceeding 

50 percent on recent Governmentwide surveys. With 

an annual survey requirement there is a risk that Federal 

employees will tire of filling them out. This is particularly 

true for small agencies. To meet the annual requirement, 

many will have to survey every employee every year—rather 

than surveying smaller, representative samples that larger 

Departments can use—to achieve samples large enough to 

confidently analyze. 

Finally, many agencies are not equipped with the 

resources and expertise needed to carry out an annual 

survey. While MSPB and OPM can assist in administering 

the survey—through the Merit Principles Survey and the 

Federal Human Capital Survey, respectively—the analysis of 

the responses and corresponding action needs to come from 

within the agency. Steve Nelson 

Director, Policy and Evaluation

Surveys

(continued from page 2)

Help Wanted 

 MSPB’s Office of Policy and Evaluation is looking for 

a GS-13 or 14 research analyst to join our team. We study 

human capital issues and report our findings to the President 

and Congress. The ideal candidate has strong analytical 

and writing skills and is able to work comfortably both 

independently and as a member of a team. We provide a 

collegial, flexible work environment in a desirable Washington, 

DC location. The position will be announced in early January 

and filled as a personnel specialist (201), management 

analyst (343), or psychologist (180). If this sounds like a job 

for you, look for the announcement on www.usajobs.gov.

New Research

Welcome to a special edition of Issues of Merit in which 

MSPB proudly highlights some of our recently completed 

research. As you can see from this issue, MSPB has 

published a number of new reports which are currently 

available on our website. To download these publications 

and/or join our LISTSERV for notification of new reports, 

visit our website at www.mspb.gov and click on “Studies.”

. . . A N N O U N C E M E N T S . . . agency has not established a trial period through its 

internal policies, then the intern has full appeal rights 

immediately. This would make it more difficult to 

separate interns that are found unfit for conversion—

undermining a key advantage of the program.

As problematic as it seems to grant immediate appeal 

rights to interns, the issue gets murkier when contrasted 

with how the law affects veterans. For example, by 

law, veterans who have preference and are employed in 

the excepted service receive appeal rights after 1 year 

of continuous service. This cannot be changed through 

agency policy. So, an FCIP intern with no military service 

and whose agency has no established trial period could 

receive appeal rights immediately while a preference 

eligible hired for a similar position at the same time 

has to wait a full year. This is not as intended.

MSPB’s FCIP report encourages OPM and agencies 

to take steps to establish and use a trial period for all FCIP 

hires. This will ensure that agencies have the opportunity to 

assess interns’ performance for the entire 2-year period. And 

if judged unfit for the job, they can be separated efficiently 

without appeal rights. 

Trial Period

(continued from page 1 )

There are ways to minimize these potential negative 

consequences. The two most important steps are 

communication and action. Agencies should continuously 

communicate with employees about the survey and what 

is being done to use the results. This will help keep 

employees engaged in the survey process. Involving 

employees in identifying and implementing change 

processes is another key strategy to raise engagement.

There are many reasons to conduct employee surveys, 

but these purposes can be undermined with each negative 

survey experience an employee has. The key to ensuring 

that a survey is taken seriously by employees is for those 

employees to see change as a result of their participation. 

A survey cycle involves administration, analysis, action, 

and evaluation with consistent communication. As we 

move forward with the new annual survey requirement, 

we need to give each of these phases appropriate attention 

and evaluate the impact the new requirement has on the 

Government’s ability to effectively use surveys. 
4

Reference Checking: Moving From Good to Better

MSPB has repeatedly encouraged agencies to identify 

and adopt valid selection tools. The use of such tools 

supports merit in hiring by helping to identify the best 

candidates for each job opening. A 2003 MSPB report, 

The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential, 

observed that structuring employment interviews 

according to research-based principles improves the 

validity of this oft-used hiring hurdle. Our most recent 

report, Reference Checking in Federal Hiring: Making 

the Call, takes a similar approach by highlighting best 

practices for another frequently-used hiring tool.

MSPB’s Merit Principles Survey 2000 found that 

77 percent of supervisors use reference checking in their 

selection decisions. However, Making the Call reveals 

wide variation in the quality and consistency of reference 

checks. Unfortunately, formal measurement validity 

research has not yet incorporated a distinction between 

high-quality, structured reference checking and less 

formal, ad hoc discussions with an applicant’s former 

employers. As this distinction is recognized, the value of 

carefully conducted reference checks will become more 

apparent.

Increased standardization of reference checking and 

effective training in its implementation are needed to 

realize the full potential of this assessment tool. A 2004 

survey of mostly private sector organizations found that 

81 percent of those that do reference checking employ 

standardized questions.1 While this level of 

standardization is commendable, this data also 

means that one-fifth of these organizations do not 

have a structured questioning process. Without 

standardizing core reference checking questions, it 

becomes a more difficult and more subjective task 

to compare information obtained from different 

reference providers. The value of this information 

is thereby reduced.

Of greater concern is that only half of the 

surveyed organizations offer reference checkers 

training in best practices. Under conditions of low 

standardization and training, reference checkers 

are less likely to obtain useful information that 

contributes to effective hiring, and the potential of 

reference checking is then not fully realized. 

In a self-fulfilling, downward spiral, this low 

information yield can lead to reference checking 

becoming a low priority. As this occurs, reference 

checking is even more likely to be done in a perfunctory 

and ineffective manner. Unfortunately, increasingly 

unstructured, inconsistent, and unreflective reference 

checks are even less likely to produce useful information. 

To practitioners unfamiliar with best practices, this 

poor result may seem intrinsic to reference checking 

as an assessment tool, rather than simply the result of 

poor implementation. This downward spiral is partially 

responsible for differences in reference checking practice 

and for some employer dissatisfaction with information 

obtained from reference checking.

The solution requires addressing the root problem—

many reference checks are not conducted consistently or 

effectively. Increased standardization and training can 

have two important effects. First, the overall quality of 

information obtained from reference checking should 

increase. Second, hiring professionals should become 

more attuned to the distinction between well-designed 

reference checks and casual, informally conducted 

reference checks. This understanding can foster more 

useful discussion of the strengths and potential of 

reference checking as an assessment. 

Reference checking best practices can help agencies improve applicant assessment.

1

Mary Elizabeth Burke, 2004 Reference and Background 

Checking Survey Report, Alexandria, VA: Society for 

Human Resource Management, 2004.

We’ve heard a lot about the human capital 

changes taking place at the Department of 

Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. But they’re 

not the only agencies who have faced change. MSPB is organizing 

a symposium to highlight how agencies with alternative personnel 

systems continue to uphold the merit system principles. 

Where: Washington, DC

When: April 20, 2006

Why: To provide policymakers with relevant information useful in 

their efforts to reform the civil service. 

Mark Your Calendar!

A Symposium on the Practice of Merit
5

MSPB appreciates the time and thoughtful reflection of the nearly 

37,000 full-time civilian Federal employees who completed this year’s Merit 

Principles Survey (MPS 2005). These employees were randomly sampled 

from 24 agencies and represented viewpoints of employees at the nonsupervisor, team leader/supervisor, and manager/senior executive levels. 

We will examine the perceptions of prospective retirees, supervisors, and 

other specific groups of Federal employees in future Issues of Merit articles 

and in MSPB’s formal report to the President and Congress. This article 

presents some initial findings that will guide the direction of those analyses.

MPS 2005 results show that Federal employees are committed public 

servants. They understand the missions of their respective agencies 

(95%) and the overwhelming majority believe that their agency’s mission 

is important (94%). On an individual level, employees understand how 

their work contributes to the agency’s overall mission (92%) and find the 

work they do to be meaningful (86%). Most also believe that their work 

teams provide high-quality products and services to the public (80%). 

Although Federal employees are committed to their public service 

roles, they are less satisfied with how well they are supported in 

these roles. They are less certain that their jobs are secure (60%) or 

that they have the resources they need to do their work (64%). 

In spite of this lower level of satisfaction, our results indicate that many 

Federal employees like their jobs (71%). Almost all are motivated by pride 

in their work (98%) and most by their duties as public employees (90%). 

Significantly fewer are motivated by direct rewards, such as a hypothetical cash 

award of $1,000 (71%) or increased chances of promotion (70%). Slightly 

fewer employees are satisfied with their pay (61%), or with the recognition 

and awards they receive (40%). These findings reinforce a picture of a 

Federal workforce that is motivated by personal factors, but is somewhat less 

satisfied with the support and rewards received from their organizations.

The MPS 2005 also gathered information about employee 

training needs. Although most survey participants report that they 

receive sufficient training to do their jobs (64%), a sizeable proportion 

would like additional training to improve their job performance 

(46%). Also, they clearly expect that development of these skills 

should be funded by their agencies and provided through formal 

training (81%) and on-the-job developmental experiences (77%). 

Unfortunately, only one-third (33%) of the respondents have 

communicated their training expectations to their supervisors through career 

development plans, and only half (48%) see their supervisors as a source of 

opportunities to improve their skills and performance. These results suggest 

that better communication between employees and their agencies may be 

necessary if Federal employees are to receive the training they need. 

Merit Principles Survey 2005: 

The Results Are In

An early look at what Federal employees say about 

Government service.

Fast Facts from the 

MPS 2005

Some of our Strengths:

• Federal employees 

are committed public 

servants.

• They like their jobs.

• They are motivated 

more by their work 

than by external 

rewards.

Some Improvement 

Opportunities:

• Just over half of 

Federal employees

are satisfied with how 

well they are supported in their public 

service role.

• Just over half are 

satisfied with pay and 

fewer than half are 

satisfied with rewards.

• They would like more 

training but have not 

formally communicated their expectations.
6

Help Wanted for Vacancy Announcements

The Federal vacancy announcement is one of the 

most important tools we have to attract high-quality 

applicants and provide them the information they need 

to determine if they are interested in and qualified for a 

job. In 2003, MSPB released the study Help Wanted: 

A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements. This 

study found that announcements are often poorly 

written; fail to adequately market the position, the 

agency, or the Government to job seekers; and need 

to be improved considerably to appeal to job seekers 

while also complying with legal and regulatory 

requirements. In 2005, we conducted a new review 

of a set of randomly selected vacancy announcements 

from the USAJOBS website. This review revealed 

that many of the problems outlined in our 2003 report 

persist. In particular, agencies still need to do a better job 

of crafting vacancy announcements 

to appeal to job seekers.

Announcements remain 

weak recruiting tools. In our 

recent review, only one-third of 

the announcements attempted to 

market the job or the agency in a 

manner that would entice applicants 

to apply. The announcements that 

did so effectively described why the 

agency’s mission is important, how 

the incumbent would contribute to 

the mission, or the advantages of working in a specific 

location. The remaining announcements made little 

attempt to portray the job as interesting. The description 

of duties in most of the announcements appeared to be 

verbatim excerpts of position descriptions or classification 

standards. These descriptions were typically wordy 

yet vague, and filled with jargon and acronyms that 

many applicants (particularly those outside of the 

agency or the civil service) might find confusing.

Announcements are poorly written. Unfortunately, 

many announcements continue to use negative or 

unfriendly language that could deter many qualified 

applicants from applying. For example, we found this 

and similar statements in announcements we reviewed: 

“DO NOT contact our office asking if your application 

has been received. We will not provide verification 

of application receipt.” If this type of information 

must be conveyed in a vacancy announcement, a 

more courteous way should be found to do so. 

Also, the vacancy announcements we reviewed 

often contained statements that could confuse job 

applicants. For example, applicants were advised: 

• To submit a separate application for each location in 

which they were interested, when the announcement 

only listed one vacancy at one location; 

• To submit responses to knowledge, skills, and abilities 

when none were referenced in the announcement; and 

• That identification of promotion potential does not 

constitute an obligation to promote the employee, 

when no such promotion potential was identified.

Improvements to the USAJOBS website. One 

of the recommendations of our 2003 study was that 

OPM make the USAJOBS website more attractive, 

more welcoming, and easier to use. 

OPM has made great strides in doing 

so through multiple enhancements 

to the site, including: a faster jobsearch engine, a tabbed vacancy 

announcement display, greater access 

for disabled users, the ability to store 

up to five online resumes, a resumemining option for agency recruiters, 

and the opportunity to create and save 

application letters. These and other 

improvements have resulted in over 

150 million unique users visiting USAJOBS in the last 2 

years and over 1 million online applications being posted.

 However, it is evident from our review that the 

full technological benefits of USAJOBS are not being 

realized because many announcements continue to 

be geared toward paper. OPM should work with 

agencies to improve issues such as: eliminating 

page number references within announcements, 

hyperlinking Government forms that are presently 

reproduced in the text of the announcements, and 

eliminating information from the actual announcement 

that is included in the USAJOBS vacancy template 

(e.g., each vacancy announcement has automatic 

links to information on EEO policy, reasonable 

accommodation policy, veterans information). Still, 

the current improvements and enhancements of 

USAJOBS are steps in the right direction. 

There’s still much work to be done in terms of improving this crucial recruitment tool.
7

Targeting Openness 

Can targeted recruiting and fair and open competition coexist in a merit system?

In the June edition of Issues of Merit, the Director’s 

column looked at whether it is possible to achieve 

both openness and efficiency under a merit system. In 

our recent report on the FCIP, we explore the issue 

of balancing targeted recruitment and openness.

The guiding principle for Federal hiring is to recruit 

from all segments of society and select based on relative 

ability after fair and open competition. This principle 

applies to the competitive service and to most of the 

excepted service. It requires agencies to be inclusive in 

their hiring process, and agencies have a variety of tools 

to accomplish this task, including targeted recruiting. 

But what is targeted recruiting, and what is 

its place in a merit system? Targeted recruiting 

is a process in which agencies identify and attract 

candidates who will likely have the particular 

qualifications and other characteristics needed for the 

job. It can be used by itself or in conjunction with 

other broader recruitment strategies, and is a proactive 

approach that can effectively increase or diversify 

the applicant pool and target hard-to-find skills. 

Targeted recruiting has many promising benefits. It 

can increase the quality of the applicant pool by focusing 

on those candidates most likely to have the skills or traits 

sought for the position. Because it is proactive, targeted 

recruiting communicates opportunities to candidates who 

may not otherwise have become aware of them. Finally, 

it can be cost-effective by eliminating the time wasted 

wading through applications from ill-matched applicants. 

There are situations, however, in which targeted 

recruiting could be viewed as conflicting with the ideals 

of “recruitment from all segments of society” and “fair 

and open competition.” This is particularly true for jobs 

with no posting requirements, such as the FCIP. For 

example, targeting the same engineering schools for 

every vacancy would leave out of competition students 

who do not attend those schools or who have already 

graduated. Such a practice, if it becomes routine 

or exclusive, gives the appearance of preferential 

treatment. Therefore, agencies should have other 

avenues open to applicants who were not targeted so 

that they can apply and receive consideration for jobs.

Targeted recruiting can be a valuable recruitment 

strategy. However, agencies must not practice it so 

exclusively as to create a “closed” system of employment where only “handpicked” groups or individuals 

are provided access to Federal jobs. This is contrary to 

the merit principles and can weaken the civil service. 

Instead, agencies should analyze when targeted 

recruiting is appropriate. They should ask what skills are 

needed for the job, how they can best attract candidates 

with those skills, and how targeting recruitment can 

help obtain those applicants. The public interest is 

best served when agencies thoughtfully reflect on what 

recruitment strategies will help them attract the most 

diverse, highest-quality applicant pool possible. 

. . . C O M I N G S O O N . . .

Contracting—also known as acquisition or 

procurement—is an appropriate and effective way to 

accomplish a portion of the Government’s work. The 

ultimate goal of a contract is to ensure that the Government’s 

needs are met. Given that the amount of contracting 

has grown by 87 percent—from $175 billion in fiscal year 

1997 to $328 billion in 2004—this is not a trivial matter. 

The contracting officer representatives (CORs) are 

responsible for developing and managing the technical 

aspects of contracts. In MPSB’s soon-to-be-released 

study of CORs, we found that the way in which CORs are 

managed has a strong relationship to contract outcomes. 

The report will include findings on the regulatory 

requirements for managing CORs, including formal 

delegation, training, and strategic management of the 

COR workforce. It will also include findings on dayto-day management issues related to CORs, such 

as selection and assignment, contract tasks, time 

for contracting work, and rating the performance of 

contracting work. Our recommendations will identify 

actions that CORs, agencies, and policymakers can 

take to improve the management of CORs so they can 

help ensure positive contract outcomes— ultimately 

improving agencies’ ability to accomplish their missions. 

Contracting Officer Representatives: Managing the Government’s Technical Experts to Achieve Positive Outcomes
I S S U E S OF

M E R I T

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

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

MSPB 20419

PERMIT NO. G-113

Help Wanted for Vacancy 

Announcements. Many improvements have been made to Federal 

vacancy announcements and USAJOBS, but more work needs to be 

done. (Page 6)

Can Targeted Recruitment Be 

Fair and Open? The merit system 

principles stress recruiting from 

all segments of society and making 

selections based on relative ability 

after fair and open competition. So 

where does targeted recruiting fit into 

a merit-based recruitment strategy? 

(Page 7)

Do Your Interns Have Appeal 

Rights? Find out how to ensure that 

your agency’s Federal Career Interns 

are not unintentionally given immediate appeal rights. (Page 1)

Getting Ready for the New Annual 

Survey Requirement. Our Director 

shares his thoughts on how to keep 

good employee surveys from going 

bad. (Page 2)

J a n u a r y 2 0 0 6 V o l u m e 1 1 I s s u e 1

Moving to Better Reference 

Checks. Reference checking is a 

fairly standard assessment practice. 

We look at how you can make it an 

even more effective assessment tool. 

(Page 4)

Merit Principles Survey 2005 

Data Is Here. We offer some preliminary findings from MSPB’s Governmentwide survey. (Page 5)