September 2022

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Research Agenda

2022–2026
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 1/30

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Research Agenda 2022–2026

Introduction

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has the statutory responsibility to conduct 

objective, non-partisan studies that assess and evaluate Federal merit system policies, operations, and 

practices. See 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(3). Our studies are typically Governmentwide in scope and take a 

long-term perspective on merit and effective management of the Federal workforce. The 

prospective nature of the studies function, in conjunction with MSPB’s adjudication of individual 

appeals and its authority to review human resources (HR) regulations, enables MSPB to fulfill its 

role as guardian of Federal merit systems and ensure the workforce is managed in accordance with 

the merit system principles (MSPs) and free from prohibited personnel practices (PPPs). 

This document outlines topics of study for MSPB’s Office of Policy and Evaluation (OPE) over the 

next 4 years. It has three sections: 

1. A description of the research agenda development and organization;

2. A list of proposed research topics by category; and

3. A list and description of the 44 research topics included in the 2022–2026 research agenda.

Research Agenda Development and Organization

Development

The development process comprised several steps, following the general process used for previous 

research agendas. Those steps included:

• Solicitation of issues and ideas from stakeholders, the general public, and MSPB staff;

• Compilation and review of stakeholder and public input;

• Review of previous MSPB research and research agendas;

• Three staff workshops to discuss and evaluate research ideas; 

• Preparation of topic descriptions and possible lines of research and inquiry; 

• Final review and examination of topics and descriptions before submission to MSPB 

Board members; and

• Review and approval by MSPB Board members.
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 2/30

OPE evaluated research ideas using the four criteria outlined below.

Criterion Question

Centrality Is the topic consistent with MSPB’s mission as guardian of Federal merit 

systems, particularly promoting MSPs and preventing PPPs?

Timeliness Could a report on this topic inform or drive change in Federal workforce policy 

or management? Would MSPB research and findings unnecessarily duplicate the 

work of other organizations that also study the Federal workforce?

Ambition Does the study address a merit system issue, or an aspect of workforce 

management, that is overlooked or not well understood?

Practicality Does MSPB have the resources and expertise needed to make a meaningful 

contribution on the topic, by informing debate, shaping policy, or improving 

understanding and practice?

Organization

The proposed research agenda comprises 44 topics organized into six categories, as follows:

• Defending Merit—topics related to principles, issues, or practices that are fundamental to a 

merit system;

• Building an Effective Workforce—topics on the nature of work, workforce capacity, or 

selected segments of the workforce;

• Recruitment and Hiring—topics related to how employees are recruited, assessed, and 

selected;

• Pay and Performance Management—topics related to employee compensation and 

performance;

• Supervision and Leadership—topics related to the selection and management of leaders, and 

the practice of leadership or management; and

• Focus on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)—topics related to roles and 

initiatives of the Federal Government’s central personnel agency.

The research agenda is a list of topics that appear most promising and timely for MSPB study in the 

next 4 years. The topics are broadly defined. A topic may cover a single study or several, which may 

be consecutive (building on each other) or concurrent (looking at discrete issues). The table below 

lists the topics by category. A description of each topic and associated lines of inquiry follows.

As in the past, the proposed agenda contains more topics than OPE will be able to study, given 

current staffing and resource levels. Topics that remain will be considered for the following research 

agenda. It should also be kept in mind that the agenda is not exhaustive. Studies on a new topic may 

be initiated on OPE or Board recommendation at our discretion or at the suggestion of our 

stakeholders to address evolving policy on the management of the Federal workforce.
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 3/30

Board Priorities

In reviewing research agenda topics, the Board members identified and agreed on 20 priority items. 

These items are denoted by (*) below and will receive expedited attention in the work planning 

process as OPE considers staff capacity, capability, and available resources. 

Current Projects Underway

Pending Board member confirmations, OPE began work on several projects in anticipation of the 

members’ arrival. These projects are denoted by (†) below.

Proposed Research Topics by Category

Defending Merit

1. The Merit System Principles—A Health Check * †

2. Preventing and Redressing Prohibited Personnel Practices * †

3. Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: A Progress Report * †

4. Civil Service Employee Protections *

5. Protecting Whistleblowers in Law and Practice *

6. Fair and Equitable Treatment in the Federal Workforce: An Update *

7. Modernizing Federal Personnel Systems *

8. Aggression and Violence in the Federal Workplace †

9. Beyond KSAs—Employment Requirements and Their Implications

10. Individual Values Differences in the Workplace

Building an Effective Workforce

1. Aligning Workplace Flexibilities with the Future of Work *

2. How Does Technology Affect the Work of Federal Employees? *

3. Workforce Restructuring Rules and Merit-Based Principles *

4. HR Technology—Possibilities and Practices *

5. Preparing the HR Workforce for the Present and Future †

6. Identifying and Filling Employee Skills Gaps

7. Work at the Leading Edge—Recruiting and Managing the STEMM Workforce

8. A Closer Look at Employee Retention

9. Creating a Culture of Engagement to Drive Performance and Mission Success

10. An Evaluation of Traditional Workplace Benefit Programs

Recruitment and Hiring

1. Fair and Open Competition—Practices and Challenges *

2. How Do Hiring Officials Decide Who Gets the Job? *

3. Are Federal Vacancy Announcements Accurate and Effective? †
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 4/30

4. Hiring Authorities: Is Quantity Producing Quality?

5. Direct-Hire Authority

6. School-to-Service and the Pathways Programs

7. Reforming Federal Hiring

8. Recruitment—Attracting and Sourcing Candidates

9. Federal Job Applicants—Experiences and Insights

10. Applicant Assessment—Using the Right Tools for the Job

11. Selection Panels: Multiple Perspectives for Assessment

Pay and Performance Management

1. The Probationary Period: Ensuring Employees Meet Standards for Retention *

2. Correcting Employee Performance and Conduct *

3. Position Classification in the 21st Century

4. Federal Pay Systems: Experience Outside the General Schedule

5. Performance Appraisal Policies, Applications, and Systems

6. Achieving the Multiple Goals of Performance Feedback

7. Improving and Recognizing Employee Performance

Supervision and Leadership

1. Selection and Management of Federal Supervisors *

2. Understanding the Roles of Teams and Team Leaders *

3. Dual Career Paths for Supervisors and Technical Specialists *

4. Management of the Senior Executive Service

Focus on OPM

1. OPM Oversight of Delegated Authorities and Responsibilities *

2. The Role of a Central Human Resources Authority *
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 5/30

Defending Merit

1. The Merit System Principles—A Health Check * †

The merit system principles and the prohibited personnel practices provide standards and core 

values for the management of the Federal civil service. Using a survey of Federal supervisors and 

subordinate employees, this study would examine the degree to which agencies protect the MSPs at 

both the work unit and organizational levels. This study would build on measures introduced in the 

2013 MSPB report Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest to develop a balanced scorecard of 

Federal agency adherence to the MSPs (“merit system health”). Research questions to be answered 

may include:

• To what extent do employees believe their supervisors and their organizations observe the 

MSPs? Where are the strengths and weaknesses?

• How do the perceptions of supervisors and subordinates differ?

• What factors are associated with higher levels of “merit system health”?

• How do perceptions of merit system health relate to outcomes such as employee 

engagement, turnover and intention to quit, and indicators of organizational performance?

2. Preventing and Redressing Prohibited Personnel Practices * †

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) and subsequent legislation prohibits 14 personnel 

practices as they are contrary to a merit-based system and damaging to organizational productivity, 

employee morale, and the public interest. Past MSPB research has examined the perceived incidence 

of PPPs and looked more closely at issues and practices related to specific PPPs. Future MSPB 

research, on collective or individual PPPs, might examine topics such as:

• Employee perceptions of the prevalence of PPPs.

• The role of agency culture and policy in preventing and redressing PPPs.

• Education of employees and job applicants regarding the PPPs and procedures to report—

or seek redress for—a perceived PPP.

• How the Federal Government is structured to prevent, investigate, and redress PPPs.

• Challenges in preventing particular PPPs (such as the manipulation of recruitment actions to 

favor a particular individual) and how those challenges can be addressed.

• The steps agencies have taken to change policies, processes, or culture after they have been 

found by MSPB to be in violation of a PPP.

3. Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: A Progress Report * †

MSPB has studied sexual harassment in the Federal workplace since 1980. MSPB last collected data 

in 2016, preceding the 2017 #MeToo movement and the resulting renewed attention to sexual 

harassment. That attention—and the 2016 data showing that sexual harassment remains an all-toocommon occurrence—may have prompted Federal agencies to update their policies and preventive 

efforts. This study would follow up on prior research to examine questions such as:
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 6/30

• Has the prevalence of sexual harassment behaviors changed?

• Are Federal employees more knowledgeable about sexual harassment and their employers’ 

related policies and practices?

• Have employees who experience or observe sexual harassment become more likely to 

respond actively to discourage the behavior?

• What actions have Federal agencies taken to prevent and address sexual harassment?

• How do agencies create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, ensures that 

allegations of harassment are taken seriously, and educates the workforce about what actions 

are or are not acceptable?

4. Civil Service Employee Protections *

Federal employees are managed under civil service authorities and processes established in law (e.g.,

the Pendleton Act and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978) that attempt to defend against political

patronage and ensure that the civil service is merit-based. These processes and protections, such as

open competition for jobs and due process rights, have been perceived as increasing the time and

effort required to hire and fire Federal employees. As a result, they have come under scrutiny in

recent years.

This research would look at the advantages and disadvantages of civil service protections, including

questions such as:

• What are these civil service protections?

• How did they come about?

• What benefits do they provide the Federal Government as an employer and the American

people as stakeholders?

• What are the drawbacks to providing these protections?

• Is there a better way to balance fairness with efficiency?

5. Protecting Whistleblowers in Law and Practice *

The CSRA expressly prohibited retaliation for whistleblowing. Since then, civil service law has been 

repeatedly amended or augmented to better encourage employees to report wrongdoing and protect 

those who do. Our reports, Whistleblower Protections for Federal Employees and Blowing the Whistle: Barriers 

to Federal Employees Making Disclosures, discussed current law and employee perceptions of their ability 

to blow the whistle. Subsequent changes to law have addressed management of the supervisory 

workforce to support whistleblowing, expanded an employee’s right to refuse to commit 

wrongdoing, broadened the definition of whistleblowing, and specified consequences for reprisal. 

This study could explore:

• How the law operates to: (1) encourage disclosures of wrongdoing; (2) prevent retaliation; 

(3) provide redress when retaliation occurs; and (4) assign specific responsibilities to the head 

of an agency to prevent and redress retaliation;

• Agency culture and employee perceptions of: (1) the frequency of wrongdoing; (2) attitudes 

towards whistleblowers; (3) how whistleblower protections work; and (4) the effectiveness of 

whistleblower protections; and 
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 7/30

• Potential areas of improvement to law, regulation, or agency practice.

6. Fair and Equitable Treatment in the Federal Workforce: An Update *

The merit system principles state that Federal agencies shall recruit “qualified individuals...to 

achieve a work force from all segments of society,” select and advance employees “on the basis of 

relative ability, knowledge, and skills after fair and open competition,” and ensure that all employees 

receive “fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management.” Previous MSPB 

research has assessed the Government’s success in meeting these standards, concluding that 

progress has been made, but challenges remain. Study in this area would build on previous research 

to review progress in both workforce composition (e.g., the representation and advancement of 

historically underrepresented groups) and management (e.g., whether employees believe they are 

being treated fairly). Using workforce data, survey data, and focus groups, research would explore 

questions such as:

• To what extent is the Federal workforce representative of “all segments of society”? How 

does the Federal Government compare to U.S. civilian labor force? 

• How does representation differ by grade, occupation, and responsibilities (e.g., entry-level vs. 

decision-making levels)?

• How have workforce demographics and representation changed, particularly at higher levels 

of pay and responsibility?

• What have Federal agencies done to achieve a diverse workforce? What has worked, and 

what has not? What factors aid or impede progress?

• How do work experiences differ across demographic and occupational lines, in formal terms 

(e.g., promotions, awards, training, and discipline) and perceptual terms (e.g., engagement 

and inclusion)?

• How do Federal employees view the Government’s personnel practices? What contributes 

to employee perceptions of unfairness or misuse of personnel authority, and what measures 

could improve decision making and address those perceptions?

• What systemic issues exist that perpetuate inequities across the workforce?

• How does a more diverse Federal workforce affect equality of access, procedural fairness, 

and equal treatment for those needing Government services?

7. Modernizing Federal Personnel Systems *

Although workforce management in most Federal agencies is governed by Title 5 of the U.S. Code, 

there are exceptions. Some are broad; others are specific, to enable agencies to tailor HR strategies 

or policies to particular requirements while remaining merit-based. Some examples include 

classification (e.g., pay-banding systems); recruitment (e.g., medical positions in the Department of 

Veterans Affairs); and compensation and benefits (e.g., several financial regulatory agencies and 

Government corporations).

These exceptions have parallels in state and local governments. Some have pursued incremental 

improvements to HR policies and practices, while others have reconsidered the nature and scope of 

career employment and career tenure. Similarly, many private organizations tailor their workforce 

policies and practices to compete for talent and align employee skills and behaviors with 

organizational goals.
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 8/30

This study would look at personnel systems and practices outside of Title 5 in areas such as 

recruitment and selection, classification, compensation, performance management, diversity and

inclusion, awards, benefits, work-life programs, employee protections, and labor relations. By 

exploring systems and practices outside Title 5, this research will seek to learn how to better manage 

the Federal workforce while preserving merit and recognizing the distinctive aspects of public sector 

employment, such as transparency and accountability to the public.

8. Aggression and Violence in the Federal Workplace †

The 2012 MSPB report Employee Perceptions of Federal Workplace Violence examined the prevalence and 

impact of Federal workplace violence, from physical assaults to intimidation to bullying. This study 

would build on that work by collecting current data and taking a closer look at various forms of 

workplace aggression, such as physical, verbal, and relational types of aggression. Although such 

behaviors may not result in physical injuries, they too can harm employees and organizations.

A study could address research questions such as:

• How prevalent are violence and aggression, both physical and nonphysical, in Federal 

workplaces? How has that changed over time? 

• Who are the most common perpetrators and targets?

• How do workplace aggression and violence affect employees? 

• How do workplace aggression and violence affect organizational outcomes such as retention, 

motivation, engagement, job satisfaction, confidence in leadership, and public trust?

• What actions do employees and employers take to address workplace aggression and 

violence? Do Federal employees believe that agency prevention and response efforts are 

appropriate and effective?

9. Beyond KSAs—Employment Requirements and Their Implications

In recent years, Federal agencies have been sensitized to the ways in which Government systems or 

facilities may be compromised. Consequently, agencies have become more cautious and systematic 

about granting access to Government information and infrastructure. Today, many—and perhaps 

nearly all—Federal employees must meet high standards (such as being suitable to hold a public 

trust position) and be granted an array of privileges (such as access to agency information 

technology systems) to obtain and keep their jobs. These requirements differ from knowledge, skills, 

and abilities (KSAs) and on-the-job performance and conduct in important ways. First, from a legal 

perspective, they are generally viewed as privileges rather than rights. Second, they may hinge on 

factors and facts, such as indebtedness, that are clearly distinct from on-the-job competence and 

conduct. Finally, the power to decide whether an employee is able to do his or her job may rest with 

the agency, rather than the employee.

This study would look into the nature and scope of such employment requirements and their 

possible implications for merit. Through review of law and regulation, review of case law, and 

collection and analysis of agency policies and statistics, this study might address questions such as:

• What requirements must an employee meet to be hired or remain in Federal service?

• What is the scope and nature of these requirements? How do these requirements differ 

across agencies, functions, and occupations?
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 9/30

• How do these requirements affect hiring (e.g., pre-employment processes and time to hire), 

talent management, and retention?

• How do Federal agencies define and administer these requirements? What use is made of 

“off duty” information such as credit history and personal use of social media?

• What steps could agencies help prospective employees self-screen or prepare for these 

requirements?

• How might these requirements modify the nature or value of tenure, as a means of 

promoting competence, integrity, and political neutrality in the career Federal service?

10. Individual Values Differences in the Workplace

Some differences among employees are job-related, such as differences in leadership ability and level 

of technical skill. Other differences, such as protected group membership, political affiliation, and 

individual values or beliefs, are not an appropriate basis for employment decisions in a merit-based 

system—as the merit principles make clear. But they are a natural result of a workforce that is 

“representative of all segments of society.” They are also a means for Federal organizations to better 

address public interests; diversity of thought can yield a better understanding of challenges and a 

wider range of approaches. Employees’ values and experiences are part of the way they think and 

can contribute to workplace discussions and decisions. Yet there are indications that tolerance of 

differing values and beliefs may be declining in American society. How can supervisors and 

employees themselves effectively leverage employee differences to enhance mission performance in 

a respectful environment consistent with the merit principles?

This study will use surveys of employees and supervisors, reviews of literature and best practices, 

interviews with agency decision makers, and other sources to answer research questions such as:

• How do differences in agency culture and work processes promote or obstruct diversity of 

thought in the workplace?

• To what extent is diversity of viewpoint respected by employees, supervisors, and agency 

leadership?

• How do value differences among employees affect work accomplishment and work 

relationships?

• When might these differences lead to workplace conflict?

• What strategies do supervisors use to deal with the negative effects of these differences?

• How do supervisors leverage this type of diversity to improve the agency’s decisions, 

products, and services?

• What policy and guidance do agencies follow in managing this kind of diversity?
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 10/30

Building an Effective Workforce

1. Aligning Workplace Flexibilities with the Future of Work *

Workplace flexibilities played a significant role in ensuring employees were able to meet both their 

work and family responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many agencies turned to remote 

work and telework. In fact, OPM reported in the 2020 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

Governmentwide Management Report that 59 percent of Federal employees teleworked every day, up 

from 3 percent prior to the pandemic. In addition, employees were given more flexibility to use 

alternative work schedules and leave benefits. 

Two years later, agencies are starting to shift from maximum telework back to a measured return to 

the office. This is occurring in conjunction with the “Great Reshuffle,” an economic trend in which 

large numbers of employees have left their jobs in search of more fulfilling roles and additional 

flexibilities. This study will look at how agencies are aligning workplace flexibilities with the future of 

work to ensure they maintain a diverse, highly qualified workforce. The study could answer 

questions such as:

• What lessons did agencies learn about the use of workforce flexibilities like remote work, 

telework, and alternative work schedules during the pandemic?

• How are agencies integrating those lessons into their reentry plans?

• How do employees and managers view these workplace flexibilities? What are the similarities 

and differences in their viewpoints? 

• Are there other relevant workplace flexibilities that could support the future of work?

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of these workplace flexibilities? 

• What are the costs and benefits of these flexibilities, particularly highlighting lessons learned 

during the pandemic?

• What aspects of remote work, telework, alternative work schedules, and leave benefits are 

agencies maintaining? How will those decisions impact their agency’s ability to carry out their 

missions?

2. How Does Technology Affect the Work of Federal Employees? *

Advances in technology are changing the way work is performed, the required job-related abilities, 

and when and where people work. The Federal Government’s move to maximum telework at the 

height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and beyond, is a prime example of how technology is changing 

the way we work. Visionaries speculate about this technology and the automated workplace of 

tomorrow. Some warn that artificial intelligence and robotics may replace Federal knowledge 

workers—or at least require them to reskill, relocate, or reset their expectations about work. It is 

important to understand how emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, natural language 

processing, and virtual reality might enhance the work and work experience of Federal employees. It 

is also important to understand how widely-used technology, such as smartphones, email, video 

communications applications, and other software, is affecting work in the present. Studies could 

examine the immediate or future implications of technology for work and people through questions 

such as:
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 11/30

• How does existing technology affect how Federal employees manage their tasks, time, and 

attention? 

• What impact are legacy systems having on employee productivity?

• How might an infusion of new technology change the future of work and how employees 

get their jobs done? 

• What opportunities are presented by advances in technology and the greater availability of 

data? Do employees believe that these opportunities are understood and taken by agencies 

and employees?

• How does media multitasking—frequently switching tasks and modes of work—affect 

employee productivity?

• How does technology affect telework, alternative work schedules, and other flexibilities?

• Do agency strategic technology plans include adequate upskilling of their workforce and 

integrating new technology into existing work processes?

• Is employee career planning affected by concerns about being replaced by artificial 

intelligence or other emerging technology?

• Do employees believe their agency provides them with modern, functional technical 

solutions and adequate training and support to use them effectively?

3. Workforce Restructuring Rules and Merit-Based Principles *

Governmentwide rules establish a seemingly mechanical, impersonal system for determining who is 

retained and who is separated when an agency downsizes through reduction-in-force (RIF). 

Agencies and policymakers have questioned both the functionality and fairness of the system in light 

of the increasing pace of change and the need for organizations (and employees) who are flexible 

and broadly capable. Yet legal and regulatory change has been incremental, focusing on the ordering 

and weight of established retention factors such as performance ratings and length of service. That 

might imply that agencies have little discretion in matters of restructuring and retention.

In practice, however, agencies have considerable discretion because they have broad flexibility to 

determine which employees will compete for retention. For example, when an agency abolishes 

positions, it may limit competition for the remaining jobs to small, narrowly-drawn administrative 

units of the agency, even if the result is separation of high-performing employees with many years of 

service and retention of employees with fewer years of service in jobs for which the separated 

employees are qualified. Further, an agency has substantial authority to move employees across 

organizations, roles, and geographic locations without using reduction-in-force rules. For example, 

an agency may reassign an employee to any position at any location in the country, provided the 

employee is qualified and the grade is the same. The employee must then choose between relocation 

and separation. This study could explore:

• How Federal agencies view and use existing authorities and flexibilities related to workforce 

restructuring;

• How non-Federal organizations approach restructuring in policy and implementation; and

• Whether workforce restructuring tools need to be rethought to better balance management’s

ability to restructure organizations and redeploy staff with the principles of transparent, 

merit-based placement of staff and fair treatment of employees.
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 12/30

4. HR Technology—Possibilities and Practices *

As with other occupations, technology is driving change in the HR field. Technology makes it 

possible to innovate and transform HR processes, service delivery, compliance, and analytics. This 

study would look at how agencies are using technology to not only automate but reengineer HR 

processes like hiring, onboarding, classification, pay and benefits, performance management, 

employee development, and other HR areas.

Furthermore, it would evaluate the impact technology is having on the HR profession. While 

technology may replace some tasks and functions performed by HR specialists and assistants, it 

could also be used to expand the ability of HR to provide more strategic consulting services.

This study could examine the following:

• The opportunities and risks that artificial intelligence might present in areas such as 

developing hiring criteria, assessing applicants, and measuring and monitoring 

employee performance;

• How agencies are using technology to change HR processes and services and support 

strategic functions such as workforce planning;

• How technology solutions affect the HR workforce;

• Types of HR technology and applications that are available or in use;

• Advantages and disadvantages of HR technology solutions;

• Barriers to implementing HR technology solutions;

• Potential pitfalls and effective approaches to implementing HR technology; and

• Things to consider in vendor selection and working with vendors.

5. Preparing the HR Workforce for the Present and Future †

For the past 30 years, the hope has been that Federal HR offices would become “strategic partners,” 

moving from a focus on operations and legal compliance to a focus on solutions and organizational 

results. To that end, HR staff would transform from administrators to advisors, helping managers 

recruit and utilize people to accomplish organizational goals.

These transitions appear far from complete. First, efforts to rethink HR services and HR service 

delivery continue, both inside and outside Government. Second, concerns about Federal workforce 

capacity (reflected in GAO’s designation of human capital as a “high-risk” area) suggest that HR 

strategy or execution continue to fall short. Finally, survey results indicate concern about the ability 

of HR staff to serve as effective consultants and advisors. This study would build on MSPB’s 2020 

research brief The State of the Federal HR Workforce: Changes and Challenges on the state of the Federal 

HR workforce. Possible research questions may include:

• Should the HR specialist occupation be “professionalized” along the lines of the contracting 

function, with formal entry and education requirements?

• How are HR staff recruited and developed?

• What do managers and employees expect of HR staff? Are those expectations appropriate 

and achievable?
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 13/30

• How do HR staff training and competence affect outcomes such as managerial satisfaction, 

adherence to merit principles, strategic alignment of HR policies and practices, and 

organizational effectiveness?

• What are the attributes of successful HR specialists? Successful HR offices? If these differ 

across sectors, how?

• How can HR use technology more effectively?

• What barriers exist to HR specialists’ ability to recruit and hire a high-quality workforce?

6. Identifying and Filling Employee Skills Gaps

Workforce planning must include analysis of skills gaps: differences between the skills agencies need 

and the skills employees possess. This is challenging because of the continuing evolution of Federal 

work, driven by changes in mission, public expectations, technology, and employee skills and 

abilities. It is also challenging because responsibility for developing and deploying skills is shared 

across agency leadership, strategic planners, hiring managers and individual employees. The 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) has pursued an ongoing research program in this area, 

and OPM has worked with agencies to develop strategic plans to anticipate, identify, and correct 

skills gaps in critical occupations. Public sector, nonprofit, and private sector employers also face 

these challenges. Through literature and best practices reviews, agency interrogatories, and 

interviews with agency decision makers, this study would answer such research questions as:

• Where skills gaps exist, how did they emerge, and how might they have been foreseen, 

prevented, or closed?

• What strategies are agencies using explicitly to anticipate, identify, and correct skills gaps?

• How are agencies using upskilling or reskilling strategies or pilots to help fill gaps?

• How are these strategies shaped or constrained by other policies, especially in the areas of 

hiring, pay, employee development, and retention?

• What are the appropriate roles for agency decision makers and employees for anticipating 

and filling skills gaps? Do expectations differ between these two perspectives?

• Do employees believe their agencies are doing a good job preparing them to meet the 

demands of future work? Conversely, do agency decision makers believe employees are 

adequately preparing themselves?

• What general competencies are needed in the Federal workforce and how is this changing?

• What implications do the findings have for agency investment in employee development, 

Governmentwide training policy, and how employees approach career planning?

7. Work at the Leading Edge—Recruiting and Managing the STEMM Workforce

Employees in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medical (STEMM) occupations are 

central to many Federal organizations. For example, they conduct research at the Naval Research 

Laboratory, evaluate patent applications at the Patent and Trademark Office, develop environmental 

standards and monitor compliance at the Environmental Protection Agency, provide health care to 

veterans at the Veterans Health Administration, and work across Government to protect agencies 

and the public from cyber attacks. 

However, there is concern about whether the supply of STEMM employees is sufficient to meet 

demand, and whether the Federal Government can effectively compete for available talent. Beyond 
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 14/30

recruitment, there are also questions about the ability of Federal agencies to deliver the rewarding 

work and provide the professional development and competitive compensation needed to retain 

STEMM employees. This study could address questions such as:

• How do jobs and careers in STEMM vary, across and within STEMM occupations?

• Do particular occupations or types of work pose distinctive challenges in recruitment, 

management, or retention?

• What are successful practices to recruit and retain STEMM employees?

• How does the Federal Government use, develop, and maintain the talents of STEMM 

employees?

• What is the work experience of STEMM employees, particularly those employees in 

historically underrepresented groups?

• When and why do STEMM employees leave?

• What can be done, in policy or practice, to better attract, utilize, and retain a diverse cadre of 

STEMM employees?

8. A Closer Look at Employee Retention

Retention of competent, committed employees is vital to organizations. As Government becomes 

increasingly knowledge-based and technology-dependent, challenges in recruitment, retention, and 

motivation have increased. Younger workers (such as the “Millennials” born between 1980 and 

1994) may present a special challenge. The “Great Resignation,” an economic trend noted midpandemic in which employees began resigning from jobs in large numbers, has now been recast as

the “Great Reshuffle” where employees are looking for more fulfilling jobs with greater flexibility. 

These are examples of why retention research is important. This research would attempt to 

determine what intrinsic or extrinsic motivators influence the decision to stay or leave. This study 

could use workforce data and surveys or interviews of current or former employees to answer 

questions such as:

• How has the Federal Government been affected by the Great Reshuffle? Are there particular 

occupations or grade levels that have been affected and if so, why? 

• Do Federal agencies make any particular effort to identify, engage, or retain their highestperforming or most essential employees?

• How do demographic groups differ in retention factors and decisions?

• What organizational or individual characteristics are predictors of quitting?

• Can patterns of job quitting be categorized in ways that are useful for planning and action?

• To what extent do intrinsic and extrinsic motivators influence retention and turnover?

9. Creating a Culture of Engagement to Drive Performance and Mission Success

Recruiting and retaining high-quality talent, motivating employees, and supporting and obtaining 

high performance are essential to mission accomplishment. Yet factors such as impending 

retirements, reorganizations, budget constraints, and intensifying competition for talent are making 

these outcomes more difficult to achieve. Research suggests that employee engagement can address 

these challenges and drive agency performance. This study builds on previous research to address 
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 15/30

unanswered questions about the nature, causes, and consequences of engagement. Possible 

questions may include:

• The nature of engagement: What does employee engagement look like in cognitive, 

emotional, and behavioral terms?

• Drivers of engagement: Which job characteristics and aspects of the organizational culture 

are most likely to drive engagement? Do drivers differ across employees (e.g., age, tenure, 

supervisory status, telework status, location, and military status)? How do autonomy, 

purpose, and meaning affect engagement?

• Consequences of employee engagement: How does engagement affect individuals (e.g., 

retention, job satisfaction, and performance) and organizations (e.g., mission success)?

• Action planning and promising practices: What actions have Federal agencies taken to 

improve employee engagement? Which practices have succeeded? What steps can be taken 

to re-engage the disengaged? What challenges have agencies experienced?

10. An Evaluation of Traditional Workplace Benefit Programs

Traditional Federal employee benefit programs provide advantages when recruiting, hiring, and 

managing a diverse workforce. Annual and sick leave exist not only to make the Federal 

Government competitive in the job marketplace, but also to prevent employee burnout, limit the 

spread of illness, and promote recovery and the return to productive work. Retirement programs 

were first instituted in the Federal Government to address the issue of employees who had dedicated 

their lives to public service only to find that they could not afford to stop working, even when 

declining health made it appropriate. Health insurance not only fosters healthier—and therefore 

more productive—employees but also has become an expected benefit from any large employer. 

Access to exercise rooms, green spaces, influenza shots, and other wellness programs are similarly 

intended to enhance employee performance while also making the Government a more appealing 

competitor for in-demand talent. Yet, the Government rarely: (1) quantifies the cost of these 

programs; (2) measures their contribution to employee recruitment and retention, organizational 

productivity, or broader societal goals; or (3) reviews the structure of these programs to see if they 

can be better structured. Issues we may study include, but are not limited to:

• Which benefits programs do employees use? Which are most valued, and does this differ 

across dimensions such as occupation, stage of life or career, or pay level?

• What are the costs and benefits of a hybrid program of defined and contributory retirement 

benefits (Federal Employees Retirement System pension plus the Thrift Savings Plan) and 

what would best serve the goals of recruiting and retaining a high-quality workforce 

(including encouraging rotations into the private sector) while keeping commitments that 

have been made to the current workforce?

• What are the costs and benefits of the existing Federal employee leave system, and what are 

the goals and structures of other employers’ systems?

• What are the costs of the different wellness programs, which ones are valued most, and what 

would offer the greatest return on investment in such programs?

• Which benefit programs do Federal agencies tailor to specific human capital goals (such as 

employee recruitment or performance) or particular segments of their workforce?
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 16/30

Recruitment and Hiring

1. Fair and Open Competition—Practices and Challenges *

The merit principle of fair and open competition for filling jobs is a longstanding and fundamental 

element of the Federal civil service. Historically, that principle was implemented through a system of 

centralized job posting and examinations. With the confluence of a near-complete decentralization 

of the Federal hiring process and a proliferation of noncompetitive hiring authorities, that system is 

disappearing. What does that imply for the meaning and practice of “fair and open competition”? 

Questions this study could address include:

• Are there public policies and requirements that no longer work with a modern recruitment 

strategy? For example, how do requirements for fair and open competition and other public 

policies affect merit-based recruitment? 

• Does the requirement for public notice improve the ability to recruit qualified applicants?

• What commitments do other employers make to applicants and the public, and how do they 

balance open and targeted recruitment?

• Are there barriers, in policy or implementation, to recruiting and hiring a Federal workforce 

representative of society?

2. How Do Hiring Officials Decide Who Gets the Job? *

Selection tools are designed to give organizations and officials relevant and reliable information 

about applicants’ abilities to help them make hiring decisions. There is extensive research on these 

tools, but little research on how hiring officials use the tools or how they select among referred 

candidates. For example, we have little understanding of how Federal hiring officials: (1) consider 

and use different assessments, such as interviews and occupational questionnaires; (2) value specific 

skills and knowledge in relation to less trainable competencies; or (3) gauge and manage hiring risk 

(e.g., select a “safe choice” over a lesser-known applicant).

Insight into how hiring officials make decisions could help agencies design more effective hiring 

processes, help hiring officials make more fully-informed hiring decisions, and make hiring decisions 

more transparent to employees and other stakeholders. Through methods such as survey research, 

interviews, and review of agency practices, this study would explore research questions such as:

• What factors do hiring officials consider, what information do they seek, and what 

information do they use?

• Do selection criteria vary across jobs or organizational characteristics (such as occupation, 

criticality, staffing levels, and training resources)?

• How do hiring officials differ in how they evaluate and select among candidates?

• How much weight do hiring managers give to direct knowledge or observation of an 

applicant, compared to other sources or types of information, such as reference checks?

• Are hiring managers’ decision processes consistent with research on the validity and 

reliability of various assessments?

• Can selection decisions be improved by modifying criteria, changing the sources or 

presentation of information, or providing guidance or training to hiring officials?
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 17/30

3. Are Federal Vacancy Announcements Accurate and Effective? †

Vacancy announcements form an applicant’s first and sometimes only impression of the Federal 

Government as an employer. Applicants read them to learn about job requirements and gain insights 

about an agency’s workplace culture. An inaccurate picture of the skills and abilities needed for a job 

can fail to attract well-qualified applicants and clog the application pipeline with less-qualified job 

seekers who could have self-selected out if given accurate information. This can cost the applicants 

and the agency time, resources, and unnecessary frustration. In the worst case, the agency may hire a 

candidate who is well-qualified for the job on paper, but poorly qualified for the job in reality.

This study would examine Federal vacancy announcements, the information they include, and the 

steps agencies take to ensure their accuracy. Potential information sources include review of present 

and past vacancy announcements, survey responses, agency interrogatories, and interviews with 

agency decision makers and human resources specialists. Specific research questions include:

• Is job announcement information about skills and abilities accurate?

• Does accuracy vary across occupations or employment levels (e.g., entry-level through 

executives)?

• Do job announcements present an inviting picture of the workplace to applicants?

• How do job applicants, recent hires, and hiring managers feel about the accuracy of job 

announcement information?

• Does inaccuracy contribute to turnover, skills mismatch, or job dissatisfaction?

• What factors or practices, such as reuse of information, contribute to inaccurate or 

uninviting job announcements?

4. Hiring Authorities: Is Quantity Producing Quality?

It is a basic precept that entry into the Federal civil service should be based on merit. Individuals 

should be hired based on their competence, not their connections. Previous MSPB research 

documents a proliferation of hiring authorities for entry into the Federal civil service. That 

proliferation has been accompanied by a decrease in the use of traditional competitive examining. In 

this environment, how do agencies define and preserve merit in hiring? How well do agency HR 

staff understand the new authorities? Possible study questions include:

• What appointing authorities are being used the most? The least?

• What do these authorities do, or permit, that competitive examining does not?

• How are the authorities being used and possibly misused?

• Does the increase in authorities make the hiring process more flexible and responsive?

• Have there been any unintended outcomes from these authorities?

• Are HR staff being adequately trained to use these authorities properly and effectively?

• Has the quality of hires improved under the new authorities?
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 18/30

5. Direct-Hire Authority

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 provided agencies direct-hire authority to appoint candidates to 

competitive service positions in which OPM has determined there exists a severe shortage of 

candidates or a critical hiring need. More recently, several high-profile agencies have received 

additional direct-hire authority from OPM or Congress for mission-critical and support positions 

that are not covered by the provisions of the Homeland Security Act. Furthermore, many public 

policy advocates have opined that an expansion of direct hire could speed the hiring process and 

provide better opportunities to hire candidates with critical skills.

Direct-hire authority permits agencies to hire without regard to some key merit system and public 

policy provisions. In 2020, MSPB released the brief Direct-Hire Authority Under 5 U.S.C. § 3304: Usage 

and Outcomes that looked at the direct-hire authority covered under 5 U.S.C. § 3304. Given the 

increased interest in direct hire to solve agency hiring problems, it is a good time to examine, more 

in depth, how agencies are using direct-hire authorities, whether these authorities are doing what 

they are intended to do (e.g., shorten the time it takes to hire qualified applicants), and make 

recommendations on their use given the lessons learned. This study would assess the value of direct 

hire in meeting hiring needs as well as the implications it has for merit-based hiring.

6. School-to-Service and the Pathways Programs

FY 2020 Federal employment statistics indicate that only 7 percent of the permanent, full-time 

Federal workforce was under the age of 30. At the same time, 14 percent of the workforce was 60 

years or older. Furthermore, just over a quarter of new hires were under 30 years old.

In 2008, MSPB conducted a study on entry-level new hires and found that, contrary to popular 

belief, the typical new hire was not a recent college graduate. Instead, the average new hire was 33 

years old, with 1 to 5 years of full-time work experience. We identified several barriers to hiring 

younger employees, including recruitment strategies, assessment practices, and minimum education 

and occupational requirements.

To help the Federal Government improve its hiring of younger employees, OPM established the 

Pathways Programs in December 2010. The programs consist of three paths to Federal 

employment: the Internship Program, the Recent Graduates Program, and the Presidential 

Management Fellows Program. Nevertheless, the Government still employs relatively few employees 

under the age of 30. In response, OPM released regulations in 2021 for two new hiring authorities 

that target students and recent graduates.

This study could look at the following types of issues:

• What are the challenges to hiring a younger workforce?

• What advantages do younger employees bring into the workforce?

• What is the right balance between young and experienced workers?

• How can the Federal Government do a better job of hiring students and recent graduates?

• How well are the Pathways Programs, and other school-to-service programs, working?

• Does the Federal Government need new authorities or strategies to recruit, hire, and retain 

younger workers?

• How can we ensure that student hiring programs are merit-based?
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 19/30

7. Reforming Federal Hiring

A fair, effective, and efficient hiring process is essential to a merit-based, high-quality workforce. In 

the 2006 report, Reforming Federal Hiring: Beyond Faster and Cheaper, MSPB discussed ways to improve 

the hiring process and outlined areas for possible reform. This study would update that report in 

light of subsequent OPM and OMB-led initiatives and MSPB studies related to Federal hiring. This 

study could examine applicant and agency experience in more depth to answer questions such as:

• Has the applicant experience improved?

• Do selecting officials and HR staff believe that the recruitment process and quality of

referrals have improved?

• Have reform efforts, statutory changes, and technological advances had any unintended 

outcomes?

• Have “bottom line” results (e.g., turnover rates, percentages and levels of employee 

engagement) been affected?

• Are further administrative or statutory reforms needed to make Federal hiring more fair, 

effective, or efficient? Should changes be incremental or transformational?

• What is the status of the Federal HR staff and hiring manager relationship, and what should 

it be?

• What role should the merit system principles play in the future of Federal hiring?

• Are agencies consistently using valid applicant assessments and, if not, how can assessment 

procedures be improved?

• What are agencies’ perceptions of OPM’s leadership regarding hiring and hiring reform?

8. Recruitment—Attracting and Sourcing Candidates

The Federal Government is facing major human capital challenges as it competes for talent. As an 

increasing number of Federal employees are eligible for retirement, it seems that fewer applicants 

with critical skill sets are interested in Federal employment. MSPB explored the Government’s 

ability to market itself to potential applicants in a 2004 report, Managing Federal Recruitment: Issues, 

Insights, and Illustrations. Much has changed since then, including the skill sets needed to carry out 

agency missions, changing applicant expectations, the entry of the Millennials and Generation Z into 

the workforce, and where, when, and how people do work. In addition, with the advancement of 

technology and social media, there are new ways to search for, identify, and contact potential 

candidates. It is a good time to reevaluate how prepared Federal agencies are to recruit and source 

applicants for a variety of occupations. Using best practice reviews, agency interrogatories, and 

interviews, studies in this area would address questions such as:

• What are some best practices for recruiting and hiring diverse talent pools? 

• What strategies have been developed by hiring managers, HR specialists, and other agency 

personnel that should be more widely used in Federal recruiting?

• How do agencies build and maintain quality relationships with recruitment sources?

• How can recruiting barriers be removed while maintaining merit system principles?

• How can agencies recruit well-qualified candidates for hard-to-fill positions or occupations?

• What solutions are used in locations where all positions are hard-to-fill?
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 20/30

• How can the Government recruit candidates who developed their abilities from 

“nontraditional” career paths (such as work experience instead of college degree programs)?

• Can Federal recruiting make better use of sourcing—recruiting strong candidates who are 

currently employed and not actively seeking another job?

• How can the Federal Government foster an appealing brand for public service?

9. Federal Job Applicants—Experiences and Insights

The merit system principles state that applicants are to receive fair and equitable treatment, and 

selections should be based on knowledge, skills, and abilities. The applicant experience also matters 

for practical reasons, particularly when unemployment is low or competition with other sectors is 

intense. Assessment of the applicant experience might help Federal agencies improve a hiring 

process that can be long, complicated, and frustrating and reduce the loss of high-quality applicants.

MSPB has conducted a considerable amount of research on Federal new hires. That research helps 

us understand the perspective of those who successfully made it through the hiring process. 

However, we have not assessed the perceptions of those applicants who were not selected, or even 

those who did not think to apply for Federal jobs. This study would seek insight from these harderto-reach populations to gain insight into how applicants are treated and what barriers they face 

during the recruitment and hiring process.

10. Applicant Assessment—Using the Right Tools for the Job 

In a merit system, the universal criteria for applicant assessments are that they be job-related, 

predictive, and fair. Research shows that some types of assessment generally fare better than others 

on these criteria. But that research does not say what assessment tools or strategies are best-suited to 

a particular position or setting, how to balance practical considerations such as time and cost, or 

how to ensure that an assessment is properly developed or effectively used in practice. Yet those are 

the challenges that Federal agencies face each day, in a world of diverse and complex jobs and 

delegated, decentralized hiring.

Executive Order 13932, Modernizing and Reforming the Assessment and Hiring of Federal Job Candidates, 

reminded agencies to use valid, competency-based assessments and directed them to scale back 

reliance upon educational qualifications as a substitute for competencies in the hiring process. OPM 

and OMB are working with agencies to implement this order and improve their assessment 

practices, and research in this area could help agencies meet these challenges by providing agencies, 

HR staff, and hiring officials with guidance on how to choose and implement assessments and 

assessment strategies. A study could focus on particular assessment tools or applications to answer 

questions such as:

• How can Federal agencies identify selection criteria and develop assessment strategies when 

a job is new or otherwise difficult to define?

• How do agencies assess applicants for a particular occupation, function, or line of work?

• How do agencies or other employers use specific assessment tools, such as ability tests and 

reference checks? How valid and reliable are those assessments, in theory and in practice?

• How do agencies involve subject matter experts in applicant assessment, and does that 

involvement improve the quality of hire?
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 21/30

• What challenges do agencies encounter in assessment, and how might they be addressed?

• What insights does case law offer for how agencies assess job applicants?

• Beyond validity and reliability, what factors should agencies and their selecting officials 

consider when selecting assessments and developing assessments?

• What opportunities and challenges are presented by advances in technology, such as 

machine learning, gaming, social media, and “big data”?

11. Selection Panels: Multiple Perspectives for Assessment

In accord with the merit system principles, the Federal Government strives to implement fair and 

effective procedures for selecting and promoting qualified employees. Although attention is typically 

directed at ensuring that the assessment tools are job-related, valid, reliable, efficient and fair, it is 

also critical to consider the people who will be involved in the selection process because they serve a 

vital role in implementing the procedures so they function as intended. OPM guidance states that 

subject matter experts (SMEs) have a role in merit-based hiring, and MSPB research has discussed 

stages of the hiring process where SMEs can usefully contribute or participate. For example, a 

selection panel (a group of individuals with specified responsibility for assessing and recommending

applicants) might improve the quality of assessment and hiring decisions by adding their 

perspectives and areas of expertise to those of the selecting official. To examine the prevalence and 

efficacy of selection panels, this study would seek to answer questions such as:

• When and how do Federal agencies use selection panels?

• At what stage(s) of the process are selection panels being used?

• What types of work or positions benefit most from a selection panel?

• What are the roles of the members of a selection panel?

• How do agencies select, train, and guide panelists?

• What characteristics should a panelist have—or not have?

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of using selection panels?
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 22/30

Pay and Performance Management

1. The Probationary Period: Ensuring Employees Meet Standards for Retention *

The sixth merit system principle envisions that employees will meet specified performance standards 

and that those who “cannot or will not improve their performance to meet required standards” 

should be separated from service. For competitive service employees, the standard probationary 

period for a new hire is usually 1 year. During that period, termination of employment was designed 

to be relatively quick and easy. Nevertheless, MSPB has found that few employees are separated for 

failure to complete probation, and that Federal agencies sometimes retain an employee the 

supervisor would have preferred to terminate. Accordingly, policies have been proposed or 

implemented to extend the probationary period or encourage its use. This study, building on 

previous MSPB studies, could explore issues such as:

• If a supervisor concludes that a hire was a mistake, when does that happen and what actions 

do they take next?

• Are supervisors using the probationary period to remove new employees with deficient 

performance or conduct?

• How does use of the probationary period vary across organizations, occupations, and work 

environments?

• What challenges do supervisors perceive in acting on a probationary employee who is not 

meeting expectations?

• How have changes in policy or guidance affected use of the probationary period?

• What might more flexible probationary periods imply for: (1) recruitment and retention 

processes and (2) the public interest in a merit-based, nonpartisan career civil service?

• What policies or practices might improve use of the probationary period?

2. Correcting Employee Performance and Conduct *

Federal agencies are responsible for ensuring that the conduct and performance of their employees 

is acceptable. What actions do officials take when conduct or performance is not acceptable? How 

effective are those actions? Which actions work best, and under what circumstances? Topics this 

study may investigate include:

• The extent to which employees engage in repeat misconduct or unacceptable performance;

• Steps that agencies might take to reduce the potential for misconduct or unacceptable 

performance;

• The extent to which a change in conditions (e.g., supervisor, position, or agency) might 

improve an employee’s performance or conduct, and indicators of when such a change 

might be productive;

• How effective progressive discipline is and under what circumstances it may work best;

• Potential barriers to agencies taking appropriate conduct or performance-based actions; and

• Actions that agencies take (e.g., debarment) to protect the agency and the public interest 

when correction is not practical, and any associated barriers.
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 23/30

3. Position Classification in the 21st Century

The system and standards for classifying Federal positions and creating position descriptions were 

created decades ago in a work environment drastically different from today. At that time, the 

workspace could be cleanly partitioned into discrete jobs in a clearly defined—and structured—

fashion. Now, the integrated and cross-functional nature of much work may make such a 

regimented system obsolete. Regardless, a formal determination, documentation, and evaluation of a 

position’s responsibilities and requirements remains central to achieving the merit system principles

of providing “equal pay...for work of equal value,” selecting employees “on the basis of relative 

ability, knowledge, and skills,” and other positive aspects of workforce management.

Questions about the position classification system that could be examined in a study include:

• To what extent does the classification system help agencies manage work and the workforce?

• What problems exist with the design or implementation of the current classification system?

• How does the system support or hinder the movement of employees across roles, jobs, 

occupations, and organizations?

• What are the alternatives to the current classification system?

• What are the implications of pay systems that are less position-based, and more personbased or market-based?

• What is the current capacity of agencies to classify positions and manage pay systems?

• What should be the role of a central authority with respect to position classification within 

the Federal Government?

4. Federal Pay Systems: Experience Outside the General Schedule

Although the Governmentwide, multi-occupation General Schedule pay system covers the majority 

of Federal civilian employees, approximately 20 percent of employees are compensated according to 

agency- or occupation-specific pay plans, many of which were designed to give greater weight to 

individual performance or the market rate for their knowledge and skills. With encouragement from 

OPM, additional agencies have recently indicated an interest in developing alternative pay systems, 

particularly to improve the recruitment and retention of employees to fill critical positions.

The 2006 MSPB report Designing an Effective Pay for Performance Compensation System provided agencies 

with a roadmap of the options inherent in the design, implementation, and operation of an effective 

pay for performance system. A further inquiry into this topic may include a closer examination of 

alternative pay systems in the Federal Government, to include issues such as:

• What factors drove the adoption of an alternative pay system?

• How were the systems implemented, and how do they operate?

• How satisfied are employees and management with the design and administration of that 

alternative pay system?

• Have organizations evaluated how their pay systems affect employee recruitment, employee 

retention, cost management, and broader indicators of organizational health or performance?
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 24/30

5. Performance Appraisal Policies, Applications, and Systems

The process of creating performance plans, assessing performance under those plans, and assigning 

an annual rating level can be laborious and time-consuming and participants often question whether 

the exercise is beneficial. Such concerns are not unique to the Federal Government, as illustrated by 

some private sector employers claiming they are “doing away with” annual ratings. Federal agencies 

do not currently have that freedom: Federal law and regulations require agencies to establish and use 

performance appraisal systems with periodic appraisals. Beyond that, there is an expectation that 

personnel decisions, from promotion to pay to retention, are informed or determined by an 

employee’s past performance. 

Issues this study may examine include:

• What are the challenges to establishing relevant, measurable performance standards and 

reliable performance measures?

• What are the challenges to ensuring that ratings are reflective of employee performance? 

• Can these challenges in defining, measuring, and rating performance be overcome, and what 

are the potential consequences of error?

• What are the roles of appraisals and summary level ratings in the Federal HR system? Why is 

the system designed this way, and how else might those roles be fulfilled?

• What types of systems do agencies use to manage performance and how do they help or 

hinder performance management over time?

• What can the Federal Government learn from other employers’ efforts to improve or 

replace the performance appraisal?

• What is the role of technology in the appraisal process, and what are its benefits and risks?

6. Achieving the Multiple Goals of Performance Feedback

Performance feedback is a critical interaction between supervisors and employees. However, these 

discussions can and should accomplish goals beyond conveying an official evaluation of the 

employee’s work. For example, a performance discussion can prospectively clarify the supervisor’s 

expectations for the employee, as well as document when these expectations have not been met. 

Alternately, performance feedback can serve to coach and motivate employees to excel and to 

identify desired developmental opportunities. These goals are distinct and potentially conflicting, and 

their achievement may depend on factors including the supervisor’s skill, the sources and delivery of 

the feedback, and the employee’s willingness to speak candidly. This study will examine the various 

purposes of feedback and factors that may make it more effective by exploring issues such as:

• What are the different types of performance feedback?

• What do employees want from feedback and does that vary across job, organizational, or 

personal characteristics?

• How do work arrangements such as telework and teams affect feedback?

• How does feedback influence outcomes such as motivation, performance behaviors, and 

perceptions of fairness, retention, and whistleblowing?

• What are the different sources of feedback, what kind of information might each type 

provide, and what are the challenges in using those sources?
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 25/30

• What factors make feedback effective (e.g., timeliness, constructiveness, source credibility)?

• How skilled are supervisors at achieving the various goals of performance feedback 

discussions and how can this skill be improved?

• Can technology facilitate effective feedback?

7. Improving and Recognizing Employee Performance

Civil service law authorizes agencies to demote or remove an employee for “unacceptable 

performance” and prescribes standards and procedures for such action. However, MSPB research 

has found that supervisors typically view poor performance as something broader than unacceptable 

performance as defined in law. Employees make a similar distinction, and survey data suggests that 

weak performance is more common than unacceptable performance. There are also continuing 

concerns that good or exceptional performance is not adequately recognized. Issues that this study 

may examine include:

• The prevalence and patterns of unacceptable, weak, and exceptional performance;

• The extent to which laws, regulations, policies, and practices may help or hinder agencies in 

addressing unacceptable or weak performance;

• The ability of the Government to effectively acknowledge, encourage, and enhance the 

performance of good or exceptional employees;

• The ability of human resources staff to support supervisors in addressing low performance 

and rewarding high performance;

• How policies or actions may serve to motivate or demotivate employee performance; and

• Barriers to improving, motivating, or recognizing performance.
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 26/30

Supervision and Leadership

1. Selection and Management of Federal Supervisors *

Supervisors and managers are central to organizational performance and good management of 

employees. Research has shown that good supervisors can sustain or drive employee engagement 

and high performance, while incompetent or abusive supervisors can undermine productivity and 

drive unwanted turnover. Supervisors are also the primary candidate pool for higher-level managerial 

and executive positions. Therefore, it is essential that agencies select and train those who are most 

capable of effectively managing people. 

However, MSPB has found that supervisory selection practices often place too much emphasis on 

technical qualifications and too little emphasis on the competencies needed to lead people and 

programs. Accomplishing work through others requires special interpersonal skills that are much 

more difficult to assess than technical qualifications. Furthermore, the way supervisors do their work 

has changed, particularly in the last couple of years with remote work being so prevalent. However, 

there is no indication that there has been a change in the way supervisors are trained or otherwise 

supported in their role. This study would examine current challenges and seek ways forward through 

research questions such as:

• What non-technical competencies do supervisors need to be effective? Do these differ 

across lines of work or organizational settings?

• Are there opportunities for employees to develop non-technical competencies for 

supervisory positions (i.e., can good supervisors be “made” or are they “just born”)?

• What assessment tools could assist in evaluating the degree to which candidates for 

supervisory positions possess necessary non-technical competencies?

• If an agency expects a supervisor to perform technical work, how is that reflected in the 

selection process?

• What kind of training and support do supervisors receive in carrying out the non-technical 

aspects of their jobs?

• What case study examples demonstrate effective and efficient supervisory selection and 

training procedures, as well as other supervisory support mechanisms?

2. Understanding the Roles of Teams and Team Leaders *

In surveys conducted by both MSPB and OPM, approximately 12 percent of employees identified 

themselves as “team leaders,” far exceeding the percentage of employees officially classified as team 

leaders or work leaders. That implies that organizations are making considerable use of a 

nontraditional work structure and that many employees are serving in a role that receives little 

formal recognition from the personnel system. Yet MSPB survey data suggests that the roles and 

perspectives of team leaders are distinctive; their experiences and views are neither those of line 

employees, nor those of supervisors. Issues that may be studied include:

• Why do agencies establish team leader positions? What organizational needs or 

characteristics call for “teams” and people to lead them?

• What types of teams do organizations create? How are these teams like or unlike traditional 

work units?
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 27/30

• What are the responsibilities of “team leaders”? How do these differ in scope or duration 

from the responsibilities of supervisors?

• How do agencies recruit, select, train, and manage team leaders?

• What role do team leaders play in areas such as employee selection, performance 

management, and discipline?

• What are the potential implications of teams and team leaders for HR management 

(e.g., labor relations, performance management, and classification) and organizational 

effectiveness?

• What are the distinctive demands, challenges, and rewards of team leadership?

• What can the Government do to better select or support team leaders?

3. Dual Career Paths for Supervisors and Technical Specialists *

A dual career path provides a means for technical experts to receive higher pay for possessing 

advanced, specialized skills and taking on complex, higher-level nonsupervisory responsibilities. In 

2015, GAO recommended “using a dual career ladder structure as a way to advance employees who 

may have particular technical skills and/or education but who are not interested in or inclined to 

pursue a management or supervisory track.”1 This study could explore questions such as:

• Which organizations in the Federal Government or other sectors have successfully 

implemented dual career paths?

• How do the paths differ in selection, pay, incentives, training, and other aspects of human 

resources management?

• How might dual career paths affect the roles, selection, and accountability of supervisors?

• How might dual career paths for advancement affect recruitment, employee satisfaction, 

intention to stay, and employee and agency performance?

• What are the best ways to encourage employee interest in a track? What is involved in 

changing tracks later?

• Are there any barriers to implementing a dual career path?

4. Management of the Senior Executive Service

Numerous studies have shown effective leadership is critical to the performance and success of an 

organization. Leaders are not only expected to articulate a clear vision for the future, communicate 

expectations, and demonstrate commitment but also inspire confidence, motivation, and a sense of 

purpose. The Senior Executive Service was established by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 

1978. It was intended to be a mobile corps of executives that could serve across Government 

agencies to ensure productivity and efficiency. In addition, the CSRA intended to incentivize good 

performance by basing executives’ compensation on performance. 

In 1989, MSPB conducted a survey of the Senior Executive Service (SES) which was summarized in 

the report Senior Executive Service: Views of Former Federal Executives. Thirty years later, it is appropriate 

to revisit the issues of job satisfaction and effective management of the SES highlighted in this 

1 GAO, “Improved Supervision and Better Use of Probationary Periods Are Needed to Address Substandard Employee 

Performance,” March 2015.
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 28/30

study. This study would explore the experiences and concerns of current senior executives and well 

as those who have recently left the SES. A broader range of methods, including agency 

interrogatories and interviews, would supplement the survey-only approach of the 1989 study. 

Research questions to be addressed could include:

• Has implementation of the SES met the intent of the CSRA, particularly in terms of mobility 

and fair compensation?

• Are statutory authorities used appropriately to appoint and deploy members of the SES? 

• Do agencies have the right balance between political appointees and career SES?

• Are the Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs) an appropriate foundation for SES selection, 

development, and performance evaluation—or is an update needed?

• How do agencies build a pipeline into the SES? How are managers developed to meet the 

job demands of the SES?

• How do SES Career Development Programs help develop new executives? Do they generate 

candidates who are ready to hold SES jobs?

• How do Federal agencies evaluate the development, performance, and effectiveness of 

senior leaders? Which metrics do they use (e.g., turnover rates, agency goals, Federal 

Employee Viewpoint Survey scores)?

• What actions do Federal agencies take if a senior leader is not performing acceptably?

• Does the current system of compensation, bonuses, and nonmonetary rewards motivate 

members of the SES to remain in Government service and do their best work?

• Are personnel actions being used appropriately to develop senior executives and support 

high-priority or understaffed programs?
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 29/30

Focus on OPM

1. OPM Oversight of Delegated Authorities and Responsibilities *

The CSRA sought to balance delegation and flexibility with accountability. One component of that 

accountability is OPM oversight of how agencies manage their delegated responsibilities. 

Accordingly, 5 U.S.C. § 1104 requires OPM to “establish and maintain an oversight program” to 

ensure that activities under delegated authorities are in accordance with the MSPs and OPM 

standards. The staffing and focus of OPM and Federal agency oversight programs have varied 

greatly since the passage of the CSRA, in response to changes in OPM’s structure and finances, 

evolving views of compliance and accountability, and debate over the proper role and authority of a 

central personnel agency. During that time, personnel rules and practices have also changed, with 

agencies gaining more flexibility in areas such as hiring and pay, which OPM is to monitor. Possible 

research questions include:

• What human resources programs and decisions are subject to systematic compliance 

monitoring through OPM or agency review?

• How does OPM assess compliance with law and merit system principles in the excepted 

service, specifically hiring authorities and agencies outside of Title 5?

• As the role of OPM changes (e.g., in response to recommendations from the 2021 National 

Academy of Public Administration report on OPM and the 2019 transfer of the background 

investigation function), what is the impact to OPM’s accountability and oversight role?

• What effects have OPM oversight activities had on agency HR policies and practices?

• How do Federal agencies, Federal employees, and other stakeholders view OPM oversight?

• Does the CSRA provide adequate authority for OPM or other agencies to assess and enforce 

Federal agency adherence to merit system principles?

2. The Role of a Central Human Resources Authority *

The CSRA established OPM to be the Administration’s voice on HR matters as well as the 

Government’s leader in Federal HR management. Specifically, the CSRA enumerated a number of 

actions and roles for OPM, as follows:

• Delegate HR management authorities to Federal agencies;

• Operate an oversight program that would ensure that agencies’ use of those authorities was 

consistent with law and merit system principles; and

• Lead a functional, evolving civil service system through research and policy.

This study may examine:

• The changing roles of OPM and the extent to which its current operations fulfill the 

intentions of the CSRA.

• The extent to which Federal agencies, or other bodies, perform functions such as policy 

development, administration of complex HR programs, oversight, and delegation or 

withdrawal of personnel authority.

• Possible future roles of a central human resources authority with the Federal civil service in 

achieving a high-performing, merit-based workplace.
MSPB Research Agenda 2022–2026 30/30

• How best to balance potentially competing roles that a central human resources authority 

might have to fulfill. For example:

o To lead a nonpartisan Federal civil service rooted in MSPs while developing and 

advocating policies that reflect a particular Administration’s vision and priorities;

o To formulate policies that are grounded in professional practice and research, yet 

responsive to policymaker and citizen perspectives on how Federal employees 

should be managed;

o To maintain a centralized presence over Federal HR issues while decentralizing HR

authorities to afford agencies appropriate flexibility and discretion; and

o To lead the civil service’s human capital program and oversee agency practices while 

providing products and services to those agencies on a fee-for-service basis.