In Search of Highly 

Skilled Workers

A Study on the Hiring of 

Upper Level Employees From 

Outside the Federal Government

A Report to the President and the Congress 

of the United States by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
THE CHAIRMAN

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

February 2008 

The President

President of the Senate

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Dear Sirs and Madam:

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

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) report, “In Search of Highly Skilled Workers: A 

Study on the Hiring of Upper Level Employees from Outside the Federal Government.” This 

report presents the findings of a study the MSPB conducted on the hiring of new employees at 

the upper level grades 12, 13, 14 and 15 in the General Schedule (GS) or similar pay plans in 

fiscal year 2005. 

Each year, the Government hires tens of thousands of new employees. Traditionally, 

the vast majority of these new employees were appointed at grades GS-11 and below. However, 

the number of new hires at grades GS-12 and above has been increasing, especially since 

FY 2000. This trend is likely to continue as more employees retire, many of whom must be 

replaced to ensure that the Government has the expertise it needs to achieve its missions. 

In addition, as the needs of the American people become more complex, new programs often 

require the influx of new expertise at higher levels in the organization. 

As the senior or journeyman-level specialists, analysts, supervisors and managers, 

these new upper level employees have critical roles in the effective and efficient operation 

of the Government. MSPB studied this group of new employees to determine whether 

the Government is hiring the best applicants for these jobs in accord with the merit system 

principles and to find ways to improve the hiring of these highly skilled and experienced 

personnel.

I believe that you will find this report useful as you consider issues regarding the 

future of the Federal civil service.

Respectfully,

Neil A. G. McPhie
In Search of Highly

Skilled Workers

A Study on the Hiring of 

Upper Level Employees From 

Outside the Federal Government

A Report to the President and the Congress 

of the United States by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

In Search of Highly

Skilled Workers
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Neil A. G. McPhie, Chairman

Mary M. Rose, Vice Chairman

Barbara J. Sapin, Member

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Acting Director

John Crum, Ph.D.

Project Manager

Ligaya J. Fernandez

Project Analyst

James Tsugawa
In Search of Highly Skilled Workers

Attracting and Hiring New Employees 

in the Federal Government: A Series

Attracting and Hiring New Employees 

in the Federal Government: A Series

This report is part of a three-study series that explores how the Federal 

Government attracts and hires new employees. The purpose of the series 

is to identify potential improvements to recruiting and selecting applicants 

from all segments of society based on relative ability after fair and open competition, 

as prescribed by the merit system principles. Specifically, the series addresses the 

following topics: 

Attracting entry-level employees. Many fear that the Federal Government 

is facing a “brain drain” as the result of an aging workforce and high retirement 

eligibility rates. Using input from new entry-level employees about why they chose 

to work for the Federal Government and what obstacles they faced in the job search, 

this study assesses how agencies can better attract and select qualified applicants for 

entry-level opportunities to build a sufficient pipeline for journey-level positions. 

Attracting upper level employees. Employees at the upper level grades in 

Government are critical to the efficient and effective operation of Government 

programs. They are the senior level specialists, analysts, and managers who develop, 

implement, and carry out Government- or agency-wide policies and programs. 

This study explores how agencies hire highly skilled or experienced workers from 

outside the Government and how agencies can improve these hiring practices. 

Agencies’ use of hiring authorities. As more hiring authorities become 

available to agencies, the use of competitive examining through the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management or a Delegated Examining Unit is decreasing. In response 

to this trend, this study examines the extent to which certain hiring authorities 

are being used, how they are used, and how well supervisors understand the 

responsibilities and consequences that come with their decision to use a 

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

Table of Contents Table of Contents

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

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Purpose and Focus of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.

Scope and Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Why Supervisors Hire From Outside. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Who Were the Upper Level New Hires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Average Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Educational Attainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Supervisory Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Work Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Women and Minorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

How They Were Hired. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Excepted Service Hiring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Competitive Service Hiring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

. . Competitive Examining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

. . Direct Hire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

. . Veterans Hiring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Achieving a Representative Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

How They Learned About Job Vacancies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Why They Applied for Their Jobs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Reasons for Applying for Federal Jobs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

. . Job Security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

. . Mission of Agency and Public Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

. . Desire to Fully Utilize Talents and Have a Better Job. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

	 	 Government’s Benefits and Pay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Strengths of Federal Employment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Recruitment Incentives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Importance of Knowing Applicants’ Motivations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
In Search of Highly Skilled Workers

How They Were Assessed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

	 Meeting Minimum Qualification Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

	 	 Evaluating Applicants for Minimum Qualifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

. . Using Selective Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

HR Staff Expertise and Managers’ Involvement. 

Barriers and Challenges Encountered by Supervisors 

and New Hires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Length of the Hiring Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Complexity of the Application Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Conclusions and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Appendix. PATCOB Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table of Contents
Executive Summary Executive Summary

This report presents the findings of a study on the hiring of new employees from outside 

the Federal Government at the upper level grades 12, 13, 14 and 15 in the General 

Schedule (GS) or similar pay plans in fiscal year 2005. As the senior or journeyman-level 

specialists, analysts, supervisors and managers, these new upper level employees have critical roles 

in the effective and efficient operation of the Government. The U.S. Merit Systems Protection 

Board (MSPB) studied this group of new employees to determine whether the Government is 

hiring the best applicants for these jobs in accordance with the merit system principles. MSPB 

also conducted this study to identify how best to attract highly skilled workers in a competitive 

labor market and to determine whether there were barriers to bringing in external applicants at 

the upper level grades.

Each year, the Government hires tens of thousands of new employees. Traditionally, 

these new employees were appointed at grades GS-11 and below. However, the 

number of new hires at the upper level grades has trended upward since fiscal year 

(FY) 1990 and especially since FY 2000. This trend is likely to continue as more 

employees retire, many of whom must be replaced to ensure that the Government 

has the expertise it needs to achieve its missions. In addition, as the needs of the 

American people become more complex, new programs have to be staffed and/or 

expertise in a new field or specialty must be acquired.

Since most of the upper level new hires were appointed to professional and 

administrative positions—positions that require the exercise of a high degree of 

discretion, judgment, and personal responsibility—this study is limited to these 

categories of employees. To complete the study, MSPB examined aggregate, 

Governmentwide personnel data for upper level new hires over the 16-year period, 

fiscal years 1990-2005. We also surveyed a random sample of new upper level 

employees hired in FY 2005 and their supervisors to learn more about their views 

and experiences with the Government’s hiring process.

This study of the hiring process for upper level new employees focused on the 

following issues:

• Why did selecting supervisors choose to hire from outside the Government at 

upper level grades instead of selecting from within? And, why did they hire at 

the upper level instead of at entry-level grades?

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
ii In Search of Highly Skilled Workers

• Who were the upper level new hires? What factors influenced their hiring?

• What attracted these new hires to Federal service? Can the Government 

compete for highly skilled workers in a competitive labor market? If so, how?

• What were the barriers, if any, to hiring external applicants (i.e., persons outside 

the Government) at upper levels?

Another purpose of this study was to determine whether the hiring of new upper 

level employees was in accordance with the first merit system principle, which 

requires that (a) competition for Federal jobs be fair and open, (b) selection be 

based solely on merit, and (c) the Federal workforce be reflective of the public it 

serves. The report discusses the study findings and where appropriate, suggests steps 

to improve the hiring process and help ensure that the Government hires the right 

people for the right job.

The study’s main findings include the following:

Since FY 1990, the number of new upper level employees 

hired has steadily increased.

In FY 2005, the Government hired more than 12,000 new upper level employees. 

This number is 39 percent more than the 8,600 new upper level employees hired 

in FY 1990—the year preceding the downsizing and restructuring that occurred in 

the 1990s.

The Government’s hiring pattern largely follows its 

overall priorities. 

Homeland security, national defense, and the need to deliver services to the 

American public through the use of technology were three of the many Government 

priorities in FY 2005. These priorities were mirrored in who was hired in the 

Government, the types of upper level positions filled, and the agencies that did 

most of the hiring.

• Eighty percent of the new upper level employees were hired by 10 agencies, with 

the Department of Defense (DoD) and its major components (i.e., Air Force, 

Army, Navy and Marines) accounting for about half (47 percent) of the new 

hires. However, the hiring of new upper level employees did not occur equally 

across a department or agency. Rather, this hiring was concentrated in a few 

subordinate agencies of a department, or in a certain office or division of an 

agency, with responsibility to carry out priority programs.

• Although the new hires were appointed in 219 occupations, more than half 

(53 percent) were appointed in only 10 occupations. Many of the occupations 

support homeland security and national defense. Nevertheless, the number one 

occupation filled was information technology management, which is common 

to virtually all agencies.

Executive Summary
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board iii

Executive Summary

• Many of the new hires had Government-related experience, which was gained 

either as employees of Federal contractors or members of the military service. 

Former employees of Federal contractors and former military members 

comprised almost half (48 percent) of FY 2005’s upper level new hires. 

The hiring processes agencies used influenced 

who was hired.

• Although agencies relied on USAJOBS to advertise job vacancies, this was 

not the survey respondents’ primary source of job information. More new 

hires relied on their network of friends, their relatives, and their new Federal 

supervisors and co-workers to learn about job opportunities. Word of mouth 

is effective not only for some applicants, but also for agencies trying to find 

high-quality applicants. However, this approach has a limited reach and cannot 

be relied upon to ensure a diverse applicant pool.

• Assessment methods were sometimes used that unnecessarily limited who can 

qualify for vacant jobs. To ensure they get the person they believe is right for the 

job, agencies sometimes restrict competition through the use of selective factors. 

Although selective factors can ensure that only those with the right qualifications 

are hired for the job, they can also limit the pool of applicants who can qualify 

and, ultimately, the number of applicants referred for selection. Furthermore, 

agencies sometimes use selective factors inappropriately. Selective factors that 

are too restrictive can act as artificial barriers to open competition, eliminating 

qualified applicants from further consideration. 

• The use of competitive examining—the traditional method of filling competitive 

service jobs—decreased from 64 percent in FY 1999 to 39 percent in FY 2005 

for hiring new upper level employees. This decrease corresponded with the 

implementation of the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act of 1998. Since 

its implementation in FY 2000, hiring of new upper level employees under the 

Act increased from 6 percent of all the Government’s new upper level employees 

to 26 percent in FY 2005. The proportion of former military members hired 

under the Act has had considerable influence on the composition of the upper 

level new hires.

The upper level new hires tended to be nonminority males.

Overall, the percentage of women and minorities in upper level professional and 

administrative occupations increased over fiscal years 1990-2005. However, a vast 

majority of the upper level new hires were nonminority males. Various factors 

have affected the composition of upper level new hires. These include the types of 

upper level positions the Government has filled, as dictated by the Government’s 

priorities and missions. Many of these positions are typically male-dominated. 

Another factor is the hiring authorities agencies used to appoint new employees. 

For example, there has been a significant increase in the hiring of former military 

members through the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act. An overwhelming 
iv In Search of Highly Skilled Workers

majority of upper level new hires hired under the Act were nonminority males. This 

is not an indictment of this special program meant to hire veterans because it serves 

an important purpose, but a significant factor that agencies need to address in their 

strategic recruitment plans.

The upper level new hires were highly educated.

Seventy-five percent of the upper level new hires had at least a bachelor’s degree. 

The higher the grade the larger the proportion of new hires with at least a bachelor’s 

degree—93 percent of the GS-15s held at least a bachelor’s degree compared with 83 

percent of the GS-14s, 76 percent of the GS-13s, and 66 percent of the GS-12s. 

Job security was the most common reason upper level 

new hires applied for their Federal jobs.

Of a list of 16 possible reasons respondents were offered, by far the most common 

reason new hires applied for their upper level jobs was job security, selected by about 

half of them. The mission of the agency and the opportunity to serve the public 

were also popular reasons. Other frequently cited reasons included the desire to fully 

utilize their talents and find a better job.

Generally, upper level new hires hold favorable views 

of their agencies.

When asked to compare their agency to their last employer in 17 discrete areas, 

the new hires rated their new agency better, not worse, in almost all areas except 

in dealing effectively with poor performers. For example, they viewed their 

agency’s workplace flexibilities, such as telework and alternative work schedule, 

as better. They also perceived their agency as a place where people can find more 

challenging work and better opportunities for training and development. Agencies 

were also viewed as having better ethical practices and as being better at providing 

opportunities to make a difference. 

The Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) television 

campaign has had some positive impact.

OPM ran a television recruitment campaign in its attempt to make more 

people aware of USAJOBS, the Government’s central repository of vacancy 

announcements, and of the many exciting and rewarding careers available in the 

Federal Government. The ads have appeared in various strategic areas across the 

country. The campaign appears to be a move in the right direction. OPM has 

noted an increase in the number of visits to its USAJOBS Web site from people in 

the areas where the ad appeared. However, we note that agencies must also do their 

part to make this campaign truly successful. In particular, agencies need to issue 

vacancy announcements that are engaging, concise, and clear. Potential applicants 

can be turned off when vacancy announcements are too lengthy or poorly written, 

problems that occur all too often.

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

Selecting supervisors and new hires experienced challenges 

and barriers during the hiring process.

• Supervisors and upper level new employees believed that the hiring process was 

too complex and took too long.

• About a third of the new hires did not apply for other Federal jobs they were 

interested in because they would have had to write new essays or revise their 

existing essays describing their knowledge, skills and abilities; while about a 

fourth did not apply because they would have needed to rewrite or reformat 

their résumé.

• Finding someone with the right technical experience was the number one 

challenge supervisors faced when hiring at the upper level grades. Even so, 

some human resources specialists apparently employed a passive approach to 

recruiting for upper level jobs, given that more than half of the upper level new 

hires said they were not informed of the status of their applications until being 

called for interviews or offered their jobs.

To improve the hiring of upper level new employees and ensure that the civil 

service maintains a highly qualified diverse workforce, we offer the following 

recommendations.

Agencies should:

1. Develop a hiring strategy to fill upper level jobs that uses a comprehensive 

recruiting plan that— 

• Does not limit public notice to USAJOBS. Recruitment efforts should 

include other announcement and publicity tools to attract a diverse pool of 

qualified applicants with the skills and expertise agencies need.

• Does more to highlight their missions in vacancy announcements and 

ads to appeal to potential applicants who have the passion and personal 

commitment to their agencies’ missions.

• Includes job marketing programs that emphasize positives that are 

important to people whom they want to attract. For example, many of the 

new hires indicated that they would have accepted their job offers even with 

a reduction in pay because of the Government’s workplace flexibilities and 

benefits package, so these should be stressed.

• Includes well written vacancy announcements.

2. Improve their assessment methods by—

• Avoiding the use of restrictive selective factors that do not enhance 

minimum qualification requirements to screen applicants. 

Executive Summary
vi In Search of Highly Skilled Workers

Executive Summary

• Ensuring that automated questionnaires are not so long that they become 

burdensome, defeating the purpose of “automation.” Agencies should also 

ensure the accuracy of online assessment ratings by at least verifying the 

lack of qualifications of those who were rated unqualified and/or verifying 

the quality of the experience of those candidates who may be referred 

for selection before giving a certified list of candidates to the selecting 

supervisor.

3. Involve the supervisor (or other selecting officials) in the pre-selection phases of 

the hiring process—determining the hiring authorities or methods to be used, 

recruiting, developing assessment tools, and assessing qualifications. 

4. Continuously review their application process and eliminate steps that do 

not add value. Agencies should endeavor to review applications and assess 

qualifications in a timely manner to minimize the time applicants have to wait 

for hiring decisions.

5. Ensure that the human resources staffs responsible for recruiting applicants for 

upper level positions provide meaningful feedback to job applicants. Feedback, 

which puts some personal touch to an impersonal process, can help maintain 

applicants’ interest throughout a hiring process that can be lengthy at times.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Introduction Introduction

This report examines Federal agencies’ hiring of highly skilled and experienced 

workers from outside the Federal Government.1 Specifically, this report 

focuses on the hiring of new employees at the upper level grades 12, 13, 14 

and 15 in the General Schedule (GS) and GS-equivalent pay plans.2 The U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board studied the hiring of these new employees because they 

are the senior or journeyman-level specialists, analysts, supervisors and managers 

who develop, implement and manage Government- or agency-wide policies and 

programs.3 As such, they are critical to the efficient and effective operation of the 

Government. 

Purpose and Focus of the Study

MSPB conducted this study as part of its statutory mandate to report to the 

President and Congress on whether Federal agencies are protecting the public 

interest in a merit-based Federal civil service.4 This study is designed to find ways 

to improve the hiring of highly skilled and experienced personnel for upper level 

jobs. Our examination of the hiring of upper level new employees focused on the 

following issues:

• Why did selecting supervisors choose to hire from outside the Government at 

upper level grades instead of selecting from within? 

• Why did selecting supervisors choose to hire at upper level grades instead of at 

lower level grades? 

• Who were the upper level new hires? What factors influenced their hiring?

1 Applicants from outside the Federal Government are commonly referred to as “external” applicants. 

2 In the early 1970s, nearly all white-collar Federal employees were governed by the GS pay plan, 

which is divided into 15 grades. Since then, many new pay plans have been created, some of which are 

similar to the GS in structure. In FY 2005, 74 percent of all full-time permanent new hires were in the 

GS or in GS-equivalent pay plans. For this study, “upper level” collectively denotes grades 12, 13, 14 

and 15 in the GS or GS-equivalent pay plans.

3 In this report, the terms “new employees” and “new hires” are used interchangeably to denote 

employees who joined the civil service for the first time.

4 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(3).
 In Search of Highly Skilled Workers

• What attracted these new hires to Federal service? Can the Government 

compete for highly skilled workers in a competitive labor market? If so, how?

• What were the barriers, if any, to hiring external applicants at upper level grades?

Another purpose of this study was to determine whether the hiring of new upper 

level employees was in accord with the first merit system principle, which requires 

that (a) competition for Federal jobs be fair and open, (b) selection be based solely 

on merit, and (c) the Federal workforce be reflective of the public it serves. 

Scope and Methodology

This study covers the hiring of new upper level employees into permanent full-time 

positions in the competitive and excepted service.5 For this study, “new hires” do 

not include employees who transferred between agencies or converted from one 

service to another (for example, from excepted to competitive service and vice 

versa). Table 1 shows that most employees at the upper level grades are in either the 

professional or the administrative occupations.6 For this reason, this study is limited 

to these categories of employees. 

Table 1. GS and GS Equivalent Grades of Upper Level

New Hires Employed in Various Occupational Categories 

(in Percent), FY 200

Grade

Occupational Category

Professional Administrative All other 

GS 12 35 62 3

GS 13 37 59 4

GS 14 43 57 —

GS 15 71 29 —

Source: OPM, Central Personnel Data File.

Introduction

5 The executive branch of Government is composed of the competitive service, the excepted service 

and the Senior Executive Service. Most positions in the executive branch are in the competitive civil 

service, where positions are typically filled through competitive examining procedures controlled by 

OPM. Some positions—and even all positions in some agencies—are specifically excepted from the 

competitive service by statute, the President, or OPM. The competitive examining procedures are not 

used to fill excepted service jobs. The Senior Executive Service is not included in this study.

6 Federal jobs are classified into six broad occupational categories, five of which are in white-collar 

occupations; i.e., professional (P), administrative (A), technical (T), clerical (C) and other whitecollar (O) positions. The sixth category captures all blue-collar (B) occupations. These occupational 

categories are commonly known as PATCOB. See the appendix for brief definitions of the PATCOB 

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

This study relied heavily on the following sources of information:

1. Office of Personnel Management’s Central Personnel Data File

(CPDF).7 The CPDF is a database that contains personnel information 

on Federal nonpostal civilian employees in the executive branch of the 

Government. We used the CPDF to examine aggregate, Government-wide 

data about the upper level employees over a period of 16 years (fiscal years 

1990-2005), with special focus on FY 2005. Data gathered were the number 

of new employees hired, their demographics, the agencies that hired them, and 

the appointment authorities used.

2. Surveys of new hires and their supervisors.8 The first survey was sent

to a random sample of 1,815 upper level new hires across the Government who 

started working for the civil service in FY 2005. The sample was composed 

of 1,000 nonsupervisory and 815 supervisory new hires and included only 

nonseasonal, full-time permanent employees. The second survey was sent to the 

supervisors of these new hires. Fifty percent of the new hires and 47 percent 

of the supervisors that we contacted returned their surveys. The surveys were 

paper-based and were conducted during February and June 2006. Participation 

in the surveys was voluntary and responses were confidential. To ensure 

confidentiality, we report only aggregate data. 

The new employees’ views and experiences discussed in this report are those of 

individuals hired in FY 2005. Because who gets hired in any given year is influenced 

by a variety of factors (such as the Government’s program priorities and the hiring 

process used), it is possible that individuals hired in one year will have different 

experiences and views from those of individuals hired in another year.

Introduction

7 The CPDF includes data on employees in the executive branch except in agencies exempt from 

personnel reporting requirements; e.g., the Postal Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

8 To obtain a copy of the surveys, call (202) 653-6772, ext. 1350; send an e-mail to studies@mspb.gov; 

or send a letter to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation, 

Washington, DC, 20419.

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

Why Supervisors Hire From Outside Why Supervisors Hire From Outside

Each year, the Federal Government fills a substantial number of professional 

and administrative positions with new employees. For example, in FY 2005, 

the Government hired more than 41,000 new employees in professional and 

administrative positions at various grade levels. Traditionally, most of the new hires 

were appointed at the GS-11 and below, a hiring practice that has tended to decline 

over the last 16 years, as Figure 1 shows.9 In contrast, Figure 1 also shows that the 

hiring of new employees at the upper level grades has steadily increased, from about 

25 percent in FY 1990 to 33 percent in FY 2005. 

Figure 1. Percent of Professional and Administrative Full-Time

Permanent New Hires by Grade Levels, FY 1990-FY 20

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

0%

GS 5-11 GS 12-15

1990199119921993

19941995

1996

1997

19981999200020012002200320042005

Source: OPM, Central Personnel Data File.

9 For a more detailed discussion on entry level hiring, see MSPB’s report Attracting the Next 

Generation: A Look at Federal Entry Level New Hires, Washington, DC, February 2008.
 In Search of Highly Skilled Workers

Why Supervisors Hire From Outside

Some professional and administrative occupations have a full-performance or 

journeyman level that starts at GS-12 or above. However, GS-9 normally represents 

the first full-performance level for professional and administrative occupations. 

Thus, many professional and administrative new employees at GS-9 or -11 may 

already have been hired at their full-performance level. Many of these lower 

graded employees are interested in moving up in their careers and are likely to seek 

promotion to upper level positions. To do so, they have to compete for promotion 

to upper level jobs with other Federal employees under internal merit promotion 

processes. Oftentimes, however, supervisors also consider applicants from outside 

the Federal Government to fill upper level jobs. Still, many of the upper level 

positions are filled through internal merit promotions. For example, the Partnership 

for Public Service, a nonprofit organization that promotes public service, reported 

that 58,181 (or 85 percent) of the 68,676 selections in 2003 at the GS-12 to -15 

level were internal hires. Only 15 percent were filled with external applicants.10

Because a larger number of upper level positions are filled with internal applicants, 

many might think supervisors give Federal employees undue preference when filling 

such positions. Our data, however, suggest that most supervisors are committed to 

hiring the best qualified applicant with the right skills whatever the source.

Almost all supervisors (99 percent) surveyed for this study would like to see their 

own employees advance in their careers. Do they give undue preference to their 

own employees? Survey data suggest that this is not the case. While slightly less 

than half (48 percent) of supervisors agreed they prefer to consider internal merit 

promotion candidates first, which may include their own employees, before external 

applicants (38 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, while 14 percent disagreed), this 

does not necessarily mean that even these supervisors will select internal applicants 

every time. In fact, 63 percent of these supervisors agreed that they would select 

internal applicants only when they are at least as qualified as the external candidates 

(6 percent disagreed while 31 percent neither agreed nor disagreed).

Why then hire externally? Figure 2 shows that the top reason supervisors selected an 

external applicant for their upper level position was that they believed the applicant 

was clearly better qualified than other candidates, including internal applicants 

(selected by 68 percent of supervisors). That supervisors selected candidates who 

were “clearly better qualified” is as it should be. This finding shows that supervisors 

were committed to the principle of merit and selected the candidate who was best 

qualified for the job regardless of whether the candidate was a Federal employee or 

not. Their need to improve the quality of their workforce, selected by 47 percent of 

supervisors, may also have influenced supervisors to select “clearly better qualified” 

candidates for their upper level positions.

10 Partnership for Public Service, Mid-Career Hiring: Revisiting the Search for Seasoned Talent in the 

Federal Government, Washington, DC, September 2004, p. 6.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Why Supervisors Hire From Outside

Figure 2. Reasons Given by Supervisors for Hiring External

Candidates (in Percent)

Felt pressured by higher management

To meet succession planning goals

To improve the diversity of my workforce

To get someone with new or fresh perspective

 There were no, or very few,

well-qualified internal applicants

I have previously observed the employee perform on the job

(e.g., employee was a contractor or military personnel)

To improve the quality of my workforce

To fill a skill gap

This particular applicant was clearly better qualified

than the others, including internal applicants 68%

64%

47%

34%

32%

19%

17%

15%

0.3%

0 10 20

Percent

30 40 50 60 70

Source: MSPB Supervisory Upper Level New Hires Survey, question 5a-i.

An almost equally important reason they selected an applicant from outside the 

Federal Government was to fill a skills gap, as selected by 64 percent of supervisors. 

Skills gaps occurred for various reasons, including:

• Curtailment of entry-level hiring in the 1990s when the Government downsized 

and restructured its workforce. This curtailment disrupted the internal pipeline 

of qualified candidates who can be promoted to upper level positions as more 

of these positions were vacated due to an increasing number of retirements. 

OPM’s most recent retirement statistics showed that 55,848 Federal employees 

retired in FY 2004, a 23-percent increase from the 45,137 who retired in 

FY 2000.11 

• Establishment of new programs brought about by new missions or mandates. 

For example, homeland security and national defense became more pressing 

after the terrorists attacks in 2001. To support these missions, the Department 

of Homeland Security was created. That department and others—particularly 

the Department of Defense and its major components—that support these 

missions acquired more employees with expertise in security management, 

logistics and intelligence.

11 Retirement data available from http://www.opm.gov/feddata/retire/rs2004.pdf, Jun. 25, 2007. 

Retirement of Federal employees is projected to increase during the period FY 2006 through FY 2010. 

OPM has projected that about 18.5 percent of retirement eligible employees will retire during that 5-year 

period. This rate is 3.8 percent higher than the 14.7 percent retirement during FY 2000-FY 2004.
 In Search of Highly Skilled Workers

Why Supervisors Hire From Outside

• The Government’s increasing reliance on technology to deliver services to 

the American people. This reliance coupled with fast-changing technology 

necessitated the hiring of new employees with expertise in this field. 

• The public’s increasing and changing needs for Government services that 

necessitated the hiring of more employees with expertise in specific areas 

gained only through extensive education and training, such as expertise in 

medicine or law.

With 95 percent of supervisors having hired the candidate they believed to be the 

best qualified, it is not surprising that a majority of these supervisors (67 percent) 

indicated that the overall quality of the external applicant they hired was better than 

that of other Federal employees they knew in similar positions. Furthermore, an 

overwhelming majority of supervisors (95 percent) indicated that the individual they 

hired had the talent they needed to accomplish their mission.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Who Were the Upper Level

New Hires

Who Were the Upper Level

New Hires

I

n FY 2005, the Government filled more than 12,000 professional and 

administrative positions at the GS-12 to -15 grade levels with external 

applicants. Table 2 shows that more hiring occurred at the GS-12 and -13 

than at the GS-14 and -15 levels. The table also shows that a higher percentage 

of administrative than professional positions were filled at the GS-12 level, while 

relatively more professional positions were filled at the GS-15 level. About an 

equal percentage of professional and administrative positions were filled at the 

GS-13 and -14 levels.

Table 2. Percent of Upper Level New Hires in Professional

and Administrative Occupations by Grade, FY 200

Grade Professional Administrative

GS 12 36 46

GS 13 30 34

GS 14 14 14

GS 15 20 6

Source: OPM, Central Personnel Data File.

The Government’s hiring pattern largely followed its overall priorities. Priority 

programs are likely to receive the best funding, and agencies responsible for carrying 

out these programs will concentrate their hiring efforts to support these programs. 

For example, the Government’s two major priorities since 9/11 have been homeland 

security and national defense. Table 3 shows that agencies whose mission is in 

homeland security or national defense did proportionately more of the upper level 

hiring compared to their share of the upper level workforce. For example, the 

Department of Homeland Security employed 1.9 percent of all the upper level 

workforce in FY 2005, but hired 5.3 percent of all the upper level new hires. The 

Departments of Air Force, Army and Navy also hired proportionately more upper 

level new hires than their share of the upper level workforce.
10 In Search of Highly Skilled Worker

Who Were the Upper Level New Hires

Table 3. Percent of Upper Level New Hires

and Upper Level Workforce by Agency, FY 200

Agency New Hires

Upper Level 

Workforce

Department of the Army 18.2 12.2

Department of the Navy 12.2 12.0

Department of the Air Force 10.9 7.1

Department of Veterans Affairs 10.1 6.2

Department of Health & Human Services 8.0 4.8

Department of Homeland Security 5.3 1.9

Department of Defense (Other) 5.2 5.3

Department of Treasury 3.9 8.2

Social Security Administration 3.1 2.3

Department of Agriculture 2.9 4.8

All others 20.2 35.2

Source: OPM, Central Personnel Data File.

Moreover, a closer review of CPDF data showed that the level of hiring did not 

occur equally across the departments. The hiring of new upper level employees was 

often concentrated in a few subordinate agencies of a department or in a certain 

office or division in an agency. For example, although the Department of the Army 

hired 18 percent of all of the new upper level employees in FY 2005, they were 

concentrated in a few subordinate commands, such as the Intelligence and Security 

Command, Medical Command and Training and Doctrine Command. This hiring 

pattern was also reflected at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). VA hired 

10 percent of the new upper level employees, but the increase in upper level hiring 

mostly occurred at the Veterans Health Administration, the agency responsible for 

providing health-care services to veterans.

Agencies given new mandates or programs also did much of the upper level hiring. 

For example, the Department of Health and Human Services hired 8 percent of 

all of the upper level new employees although it employed just 4.8 percent of the 

upper level workforce. Most of this increase occurred at the Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid Services, the agency responsible for implementing the Medicare 

Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

The Government’s priorities also influenced the types of positions filled. For 

example, the technological revolution that allowed the Government to integrate 

technology with analysis, strategy and decisionmaking has played a major part in 

how the Government operates and delivers services to the public. In the last two 

decades, the Government has procured billions of dollars worth of technology12 to 

automate systems. Additionally, the President’s Management Agenda, which called 

for an expanded electronic Government (e-Gov) to provide greater services to the 

12 David Perera, Piling Up, Government Executive, Aug. 15, 2006, p. 62.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Who Were the Upper Level New Hires

public at lower cost, has further increased the use of technology in the workplace.13 

These initiatives have necessitated the hiring of new employees capable of operating, 

administering and managing the technology. Thus, as Table 4 shows, information 

technology (IT) management was the most commonly filled type of occupation 

because it cuts across all agencies whether or not they are involved in defense or 

homeland security. The Social Security Administration, for example, hired 19 

percent of all IT personnel, followed by the Army at 13 percent. 

Table 4. Percent of Upper Level New Hires 

by Occupation, FY 200

Occupation Percent

Information technology management 12.4

General management & administration 9.0

Medical officer 7.1

Program and management analysis 6.1

Attorney 5.4

Intelligence 4.4

Security administration 2.6

Logistics management 2.4

General engineering 2.2

Internal revenue agent 1.6

Source: OPM, Central Personnel Data File.

Table 4 also shows that many of the occupations filled reflected the Government’s 

priorities in homeland security or national defense. Agencies involved in these 

priorities increased the hiring of new employees with expertise in intelligence and 

security management, for example. The Departments of the Army, Air Force, Navy 

and Homeland Security hired 93 percent of the upper level new hires involved in 

intelligence. This group of agencies also hired 64 percent of the new hires involved 

in security administration and 94 percent of those involved in logistics management. 

Not surprisingly, about 70 percent of new medical officers were hired by the 

Department of Veterans Affairs for its medical centers. 

Average Age

The average age of upper level new hires in FY 2005 was 43.5 years. This group is 

slightly older than new employees hired at similar grade levels in FY 1990, whose 

average age was then 39.7 years. Table 5 shows that in FY 2005 many more new 

hires were 45 years or older than was the case in FY 1990. Although older workers, 

defined as any worker age 55 or older,14 stay employed longer now than they did in 

the past, agencies need to be aware that many of these new hires could have shorter 

13 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, The President’s Management 

Agenda, Fiscal Year 2002, pp. 23-25.

14 James J. Kirk and Robert Belovics, Recommendations and Resources for Counseling Older Workers, 

Journal of Employment Counseling, vol. 42, Iss. 2, June 2005, pp. 50-59.
12 In Search of Highly Skilled Worke

Who Were the Upper Level New Hires

Government careers. New upper level employees who are 55 or older become 

retirement eligible with 7 years or less of Federal service. 

Table 5. Percent of Upper Level New Hires 

by Age Group, FY 1990 and FY 20

Age Group FY 1990 FY 20

24 and younger — —

25-34 34 18

35-44 39 35

45-54 20 35

55 and older 7 12

Source: OPM, Central Personnel Data File.

Educational Attainment 

The FY 2005 upper level new hires were highly educated. Seventy-five percent 

of the new hires had at least bachelor’s degrees. The higher the grade, the more 

educated the new hires were: 93 percent of GS-15 new hires had at least a bachelor’s 

degree, while 83 percent of GS-14s, 76 percent of GS-13s and 66 percent of 

GS-12s did so. As expected, more new hires in professional occupations had at 

least a bachelor’s degree (94 percent) than new hires in administrative occupations 

(61 percent).

Supervisory Level

About 13 percent of FY 2005’s upper level new hires were appointed to managerial 

or supervisory positions. This is a small proportion of the more than 120,000 

upper level supervisors and managers who were on board in FY 2005. Even so, 

how prepared these new supervisors are for their supervisory or managerial role may 

be an issue. An MSPB study on supervisory selection found that agencies more 

often select supervisors based on technical expertise than on supervisory potential.15 

Coming from the outside and not being familiar with Government processes 

mean that new supervisors and managers like those in our study may require more 

assistance than agencies usually expect to provide. An effective orientation program 

and comprehensive training in supervision and management may be particularly 

critical for new supervisors and managers who were hired from outside the 

Government.16 

15 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal First-Line Supervisors: How Good Are They?, 

Washington, DC, March 1992.

16 To address the inconsistencies and inadequacies of training for new supervisors, Senator Daniel 

Akaka offered in the Senate the Federal Supervisor Training Act (S-967) in March 2007. The proposed 

bill requires agencies to train new supervisors within 1 year of being appointed and to retrain them 

every 3 years.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Who Were the Upper Level New Hires

Work Background 

Survey data show that the upper level new employees are highly experienced. When 

asked how many years of work experience they had before joining the Federal civil 

service, more than half (53 percent) of our respondents indicated 20 or more years 

and 35 percent had 6 to 20 years. Figure 3 shows that the new hires had gained 

their prior work experience in various sectors of the economy, working for private 

sector firms, schools, state and local governments, or nonprofits. 

Figure 3. Respondents’ Work Background (in Percent

Other

Attending school

Working for nonprofit

Self-employed

Working for a school, college, or university

Working for state/local government

Serving in the military/CG

Working in the private sector

Working for a federal contractor

2%

2%

3%

4%

5%

8%

16%

23%

32%

0 5 10

Percent

15 20 25 30 35

Source: MSPB Upper Level New Hires Survey, question 8.

Figure 3 also shows that about half of the new hires responding to our survey had 

some Government-related experience, not as Federal civilian employees, but either 

as former Federal contractors or members of the military. Either kind of experience 

can give them advantages—especially for those who worked alongside civilian 

Federal employees—over applicants without this experience, such as:

• Familiarity with the various positions available, which can help them determine 

what types of jobs they can qualify for.

• Better access to job information through personal contacts with people who 

have knowledge of job vacancies.

• Better understanding of the culture of the agency to which they are applying.

• Better knowledge of the Federal hiring process, which can help them strategize 

their job search.

• Already being known to hiring officials.
14 In Search of Highly Skilled Worker

Who Were the Upper Level New Hires

That Government-related experience can provide former Federal contractors and 

military personnel with advantages that can influence selection is supported by 

results of an MSPB survey of Federal supervisors and managers in FY 1997. Some 

76 percent of respondents selected job-related experience as the most important 

factor when hiring from outside the Federal workforce.17 Furthermore, we believe 

that when the experience was gained in a Federal setting, the external candidate 

can closely resemble an internal candidate and can easily be found “clearly better 

qualified” for selection. If the experience is truly relevant to the job being filled, the 

Government has gained an experienced worker who “can hit the ground running.” 

However, if the experience simply provided the applicant with familiarity with the 

work environment but not with the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to 

perform the work, then the Government may have acquired a poor hire.

Women and Minorities

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 codified the merit system principles that 

require the Government to have a workforce that is reflective of America, usually 

understood as comparable to the makeup of the Nation’s Civilian Labor Force 

(CLF). To ensure that the Federal workforce is reflective of America, OPM annually 

reports to Congress on the progress being made in the employment of women and 

minorities. In its FY 2006 report, OPM noted that the Government “continues to 

be a leader in providing employment opportunities to minorities” but that Hispanics 

and women remained underrepresented in the Federal workforce when compared to 

their representation in the CLF.18 

Table 6. Gender, Race and National Origin Distribution

of Upper Level New Hires, FY 2005 (in Percent

Gender, Race and National Origin Percent

Men 71.2

Women 28.7

Asian/Pacific Islander 6.6

Black 10.5

Hispanic 4.0

Native American 0.8

White 78.1

All minority 21.9

Source: OPM, Central Personnel Data File.

Our research reveals that the hiring of professional and administrative new 

employees at the upper level grades may have contributed, in some measure, to 

this under-representation. Table 6 shows that in FY 2005 the vast majority of 

the new hires in the upper level professional and administrative occupations were 

17 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements, 

Washington, DC, April 2003, p. 15.

18 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Annual Report to the Congress: Federal Employment 

Recruitment Program FY 2006, http://www.opm.gov/feorpreports/2006/feorp2006.pdf, as of Mar. 13, 2007.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1

Who Were the Upper Level New Hires

nonminority men. While the hiring of women and minorities increased in 16 

years (FY 1990-FY 2005), agencies were more successful in hiring women and 

minorities at the lower grades than at the upper level grades, as Figure 4 shows. 

Hiring proportionately fewer women and minorities at the upper levels has had 

a negative effect on the overall representation of women and minorities in the 

professional and administrative occupations and reduced the amount of progress 

women and Hispanics have made in achieving parity. This disproportionate hiring 

of nonminority males at the upper level grades will also make it difficult to achieve 

parity within each higher level grade.

Figure 4. Women and Minorities as a Percent of Overall 

Professional and Administrative Workforce and Upper and 

Lower Level New Hires, FY 1990-FY 20

Percent Women

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Overall P/A Workforce

GS 12-15 New Hires

GS 5-11 New Hires

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

1990199119921993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

200020012002

20032004

2005

19901991

19921993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000200120022003

2004

2005

Percent Minorities

Source: OPM, Central Personnel Data File.
16 In Search of Highly Skilled Worke

Who Were the Upper Level New Hires

Did women and minorities encounter barriers during selection for upper level jobs? 

While a definitive answer to this question is beyond the scope of this study, it is 

clear that the hiring of women and minorities is influenced both by the grades of the 

positions and by the types of occupations being filled. It is also influenced by the 

methods of hiring used, which will be discussed in the next section of this report.

Generally, in FY 2005, there were fewer women and minorities at the upper level 

positions compared to their share in the overall Federal workforce. However, a 

review of a sampling of occupations shows that for some, but not all, occupations, 

the proportions of female and minority applicants hired exceeded Relevant 

Civilian Labor Force (RCLF) figures.19 Men have traditionally dominated the law 

enforcement, engineering, information technology, legal and medical professions. 

However, Table 7 shows that there were occupations in which the Government 

exceeded RCLF figures for women and minorities, such as in law and medicine. 

The Government also exceeded RCLF figures for Blacks in all other occupations 

(an equal share in engineering) except for detectives and criminal investigation 

and tax examining. Nonetheless, Table 7 also shows that for other occupations, 

Government statistics for women and other minorities compare unfavorably with 

RCLF figures. Therefore, the Government has more work to do towards obtaining 

a workforce reflective of the public it serves.

Ideally, equally qualified women and men, minorities and nonminorities should 

have the same job opportunities and chances of being hired. Why were agencies 

more successful in hiring women and minorities in upper level grades in certain 

occupations and not others? It is unclear whether this resulted from agencies doing 

targeted recruiting, or from women and minorities exercising individual choice 

in applying for and accepting jobs. It is possible that women and minorities are 

attracted to certain occupations in the Federal Government because of the desire to 

serve the public.20 Or, the Federal Government may hold special appeal to women 

and minorities in certain occupations because they perceive the Government as 

having more commitment to fairness and equal opportunity. It could also be that 

agencies have exerted more effort in attracting women and minorities in hard-to-fill 

occupations, such as medicine and law. MSPB has just begun a more detailed study 

on the hiring of women and minorities that we hope will shed more light on this 

issue. The report is projected to be released in 2008.

19 The Relevant Civilian Labor Force is the Civilian Labor Force data that are directly comparable 

(or relevant) to the occupational population being considered in the Federal workforce. To make the 

Federal workforce data comparable to the RCLF, we used earnings as the control variable. For this 

study, those whose earnings were $35,000 or more were considered to be the likely applicant pool for 

upper level positions. 

20 Stella Perrott, Gender, Professions and Management in the Public Sector, Public Money & 

Management, January-March 2002, pp. 21-24.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Who Were the Upper Level New Hires

Table 7. Percent Employed in the Relevant Civilian Labor Force

Earning $35,000 or More and Upper Level New Hires

by Occupations, Race and Hispanic Origin

Occupation

Relevant Civilian Labor Force* Upper Level New Hires#

Women

Native 

American Asian& Black Hispanic Women

Native 

American Asian& Black Hispanic

Accountants 

and Auditors 45.3 0.3 7.6 6.5 3.9 45.5 — 7.3 16.4 

Computer 

Scientists 

and Systems 

Analysts

31.1 0.3 10.7 6.8 3.9 23.7 1.8 9.4 14.0 

Detectives 

and Criminal 

Investigators

16.7 0.5 1.5 10.1 9.5 14.0 1.1 2.2 6.5

Electrical and 

Electronics 

Engineers

7.5 0.2 12.0 4.0 3.8 9.9 0.6 5.5 4.4 2.

Lawyers 26.3 0.2 2.1 3.5 3.1 46.7 0.3 5.3 7.

Logisticians 27.0 0.3 3.4 8.9 5.7 7.0 — 1.0 11.0 4

Management 

Analysts 34.2 0.2 5.6 5.2 3.2 27.4 0.7 3.2 9.8 2.

Physicians and 

Surgeons 24.3 0.1 14.4 4.2 4.9 32.0 1.6 19.

Tax Examiners, 

Collectors 

and Revenue 

Agents

47.3 0.3 4.8 15.3 7.5 49.0 — 12.0 7.0 3

Note: Numbers in bold indicate where the Government hired an equal or a higher percentage than is reflected in the RCLF.

* From U.S. Census Bureau, “Census 2000 EEO Data Tool,” at http://www.census.gov/eeo2000/index.html.

# From OPM, Central Personnel Data File, FY 2005.

& Includes Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander.

Beyond these occupational differences, there is additional room for improvement in 

the hiring of women and minorities in the upper level grades. (Although MSPB has 

no basis to say definitively that there have been no discriminatory practices involved 

in the hiring of upper level personnel, neither can we say that none has occurred.) 

The first merit system principle calls for a Government that reflects all segments of 

society. Given the findings of this study, agencies must be especially mindful of this 

principle when filling their upper level jobs. Increasing the overall representation 

of women and minorities at these levels may be challenging because women and/or 

minorities are underrepresented in many of the occupations covered by the upper 

level Government positions. However, success is not impossible. The authorities 

or programs agencies use to appoint new hires have an important impact on who 

they hire since these authorities or programs help determine the recruiting strategies 

and assessment methods that can be used, as well as the population that is eligible 

for consideration. Ensuring that all involved have full knowledge of the hiring 

authorities and making improvements in recruiting and assessing applicants can 

address some of the issues in the hiring of women and minorities. These topics are 

discussed in more detail later in this report.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1

How They Were Hired How They Were Hired

Both competitive and excepted appointments can be made from sources 

outside the Government. New employees are appointed to their jobs under 

various authorities or methods, each of which has certain requirements. 

Here we look at the four most commonly used authorities or methods for hiring 

new upper level employees.

Excepted Service Hiring

Figure 5 shows that 29 percent of all new upper level employees hired in 

FY 2005 were in the excepted service. After peaking in FY 1997 at 49 percent, 

the proportion of excepted service hiring has remained relatively steady, ranging 

from 29 to 33 percent. 

Figure 5. Methods Used to Hire New Upper Level Employees, 

FY 1990-FY 2005 (in Percen

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

0% 1990

199119921993

19941995

1996

1997

19981999200020012002

20032004

2005

Competitive Examining

Direct Hire

VEOA

Source: OPM, Central Personnel Data File. Excepted Service
20 In Search of Highly Skilled Worker

How They Were Hired

Agencies filling excepted service positions apply their own hiring process to appoint 

new upper level employees, but they must adhere to the first merit system principle, 

which requires them to recruit from all segments of society and select employees 

solely on merit after fair and open competition. In addition, agencies must follow 

equal employment and veterans’ preference rules. The excepted appointments 

shown in Figure 5 were made either by excepted service agencies (e.g., the Federal 

Aviation Administration and the intelligence agencies) or in defined excepted service 

positions in other agencies. Because many excepted service positions in agencies 

whose positions are not generally excluded from the competitive service are in fields 

that require certification or licensing beyond the Government’s control, such as law 

or medicine, it is not practicable to hold a competitive examination for them or to 

apply the usual competitive examining procedures to them. 

Competitive Service Hiring

Agencies can use a variety of hiring authorities or methods to appoint new upper 

level employees into competitive service positions. The three most commonly used 

authorities are the competitive examining process, direct hire authority, and the 

Veterans Employment Opportunity Act (VEOA).

Competitive Examining

Upper level positions in the competitive service are traditionally filled through 

the competitive examining procedure established and controlled by the Office of 

Personnel Management. Under competitive examining:

• Positions are open to the public.21 Public notice is required, which means that 

vacancies must be announced and posted on USAJOBS, the Government’s 

central repository of job information.22

• Applicants are rated against set criteria.

• Veterans’ preference rules are applied.23

21 Executive Order 11935 requires that only a U.S. citizen or national may be appointed to the 

competitive service. However, in specific cases, OPM may authorize the appointment of aliens to 

competitive service jobs to promote the efficiency of the service, as an exception to the Order and to 

the extent permitted by law.

22 USAJOBS can be accessed through http://www.usajobs.gov, http://www.usajobs.com, or 

http://www.usajobs.opm.gov on the World Wide Web and by telephone at (703) 724-1850 or 

TDD (978) 461-8404.

23 Veterans’ preference provides entitled individuals an advantage over non-veterans in hiring. When 

numerical scores are given, applicants who are entitled to veterans’ preference have 5 or 10 points added 

to their passing numerical scores and are listed ahead of those without veterans’ preference with equal 

or lower scores. When quality groupings are used instead of numerical scores, applicants with veterans’ 

preference are placed on top of their quality group. Note that not all veterans are eligible for veterans’ 

preference. Veterans are entitled to veterans’ preference if they have a compensable disability or served 

on active duty in the armed forces during certain specified time periods or in military campaigns. 

Those who retired with a rank of major or above are not eligible for veterans’ preference unless they 

have a compensable disability. Also, some family members of deceased or totally disabled veterans 

receive veterans’ preference even though they have not served in the military.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

How They Were Hired

• Candidates are ranked and referred in score order or quality order, i.e., highest 

scoring candidates or candidates in the highest quality group are referred first for 

selection. However, compensably disabled veterans “float” to the top, except for 

scientific and professional upper level positions.24

Figure 5 shows that competitive examining was the most commonly used method 

to appoint new employees at grades GS-12 to -15 in the competitive service in 

FY 2005. In that year, non-Defense agencies, except the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, relied heavily on competitive examining to hire new employees for their 

upper level jobs. However, Figure 5 also shows that the use of competitive 

examining has been decreasing from its peak in FY 1999, when it was used 

64 percent of the time. By FY 2005, the proportion had declined to 39 percent 

of all new upper level hires. This decrease corresponded with the creation of the 

Veterans Employment Opportunity Act in 1998, which we will discuss following 

the discussion on direct hire.

Direct Hire

Agencies use this method of hiring when there is a shortage of qualified candidates; 

i.e., an agency is unable to identify qualified candidates despite extensive recruitment 

or extended announcement periods; or an agency has a critical hiring need, such 

as one caused by an emergency or unanticipated events, or changed mission 

requirements. 

Direct hire provides a quick way to hire individuals in the competitive service. 

Although it requires agencies to publicly post their vacancies on USAJOBS, they do 

not need to apply veterans’ preference or rate and rank qualified candidates. Once a 

qualified candidate is found, agencies may offer the job on the spot and may appoint 

the candidate immediately. OPM has allowed the Governmentwide use of direct 

hire for the following occupations: 

• Information technology management related to security;

• X-ray technicians;

• Medical officers, nurses and pharmacists; and

• Positions involved in Iraqi reconstruction efforts that require fluency in Arabic.

An agency may also request OPM approval to have direct hire authority for specific 

positions in which it has demonstrated a severe shortage or critical need exists. In 

FY 2005, 7 agencies appointed 377 new upper level employees using direct hire 

authority specifically approved for their own use.

24 There are two methods in which rated and ranked candidates can be referred for selection. 

(1) The Rule of Three is a method of referral that refers—based on their numerical scores—the three 

top ranked candidates first, except that compensably disabled veterans are placed above all others. 

(2) Category Rating is a method that groups qualified candidates in two or more quality categories 

instead of ranking them by numerical scores. All candidates within a quality group are treated as 

equally qualified and all are referred for selection although candidates with veterans’ preference are 

placed above nonveterans. 
22 In Search of Highly Skilled Worke

How They Were Hired

Figure 5 shows that the use of direct hire has declined from its peak of 3,676 in 

FY 1991. In 2005, the Federal Government hired 837 new upper level employees 

using direct hire authority, which is less than one-quarter of those hired in FY 1991. 

Twenty-three agencies used direct hire authority in FY 2005, but the overwhelming 

majority of the new employees (83 percent) were hired by five agencies (the 

Departments of Health and Human Services, the Army, the Navy and Homeland 

Security and the Social Security Administration). In keeping with the intent of 

the authority, and as reflective of the top users of the authority, 73 percent of the 

837 new hires were appointed in 4 types of occupations: information technology 

management, medicine, nursing and health insurance administration.25

Veterans Hiring

In FY 2005, 42 percent of all upper level new hires were former military members, 

a 12-percent increase in hiring since FY 2001.26 Although former military members 

were hired in both the excepted and the competitive service, the overwhelming 

majority (77 percent) were appointed in the competitive service. Of those appointed 

in the competitive service, 71 percent were appointed through the VEOA,27 a 

quarter were appointed under competitive examining, and the remaining 4 percent 

under direct hire.

The VEOA was enacted in October 1998 to give former military members the 

opportunity to compete for jobs that are normally open only to internal candidates. 

That is, when agencies decide to open their internal merit promotion vacancies to 

Federal employees other than their own, they must also accept applications from 

VEOA-eligible veterans. Both military officers and enlisted personnel are eligible for 

VEOA appointments if they were separated from the armed forces under honorable 

conditions after completing 3 or more years of active service. To be selected, the 

veteran must be found to be among the best qualified. Because internal merit 

promotion procedures are used, veterans’ preference rules do not apply. That is, 

veterans who are preference-eligible do not receive additional points to their rating 

score or “float” to the top of the list of referred candidates.

25 The direct hire authority to appoint outside applicants for the health insurance administration 

positions was approved for the Department of Health and Human Services to staff its Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services. The Centers are responsible for implementing the new Medicare 

prescription drug program.

26 Unless otherwise noted, veterans hiring as discussed in this report pertains to the hiring of 

individuals who served on active duty in the armed forces and was released or discharged under other 

than dishonorable conditions. They may or may not have veterans’ preference.

27 Initially, appointments under the VEOA were only in the excepted service. Congress amended 

the VEOA in 1999 (P.L. 106-117), providing that if an eligible veteran competes under an agency’s 

merit promotion procedures and is selected, the veteran will be given a career or career-conditional 

appointment in the competitive service. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

How They Were Hired

Since its implementation, the use of the VEOA has grown considerably. In FY 2000, 

520 veterans (equal to 6 percent of all upper level new hires) were hired under this 

method to fill upper level jobs. By FY 2005, the number had grown to 3,132 

(equal to 26 percent of all upper level new hires). Notably in FY 2005, DoD and 

its components hired 86 percent of all VEOA selections made that year. 

As stated, the hiring of former military members to fill upper level vacancies has 

been increasing, especially after 9/11. Among the various reasons for the increase 

is that VEOA has made hiring of former military members without veterans’ 

preference easier for agencies. Since veterans’ preference rules do not apply under 

the VEOA, former military officers who are not eligible for preference can easily 

be selected so long as they are rated one of the best qualified candidates. Veterans, 

especially officers, typically have the education, training and leadership experience 

that make them strong candidates for upper level positions. Additionally, the 

Government’s increased emphasis on homeland security and national defense makes 

many veterans ideal candidates for upper level jobs. Given these positives, it is not 

surprising that in FY 2005 former military members comprised the majority of 

upper level new hires in security (74 percent), logistics (90 percent), contracting 

(66 percent) and intelligence (70 percent). They were also strong candidates for 

supervisory or managerial positions, in keeping with a study conducted by Korn/

Ferry International in which researchers found that “military training offers lessons 

in leadership that can prove invaluable in the boardroom.”28 That this can also be 

true in the Federal Government is demonstrated by FY 2005 data showing that 18 

percent of the veterans hired in upper level positions were appointed in supervisory/

managerial positions, compared with only 8 percent of nonveterans. Another 

reason former military members are attractive as potential civilian employees is that 

they often possess security clearances. Many positions, especially those involved in 

national defense or homeland security, require security clearances that can be very 

difficult and take a long time to obtain. Because many military personnel have 

current or easily updatable security clearances, they can have a significant advantage 

over candidates who do not have security clearances. 

28 Tim Duffy, Military Experience & CEOs: Is There a Link?, Korn/Ferry International in cooperation 

with the Economist Intelligence, 2006. 
24 In Search of Highly Skilled Worker

How They Were Hired

Achieving a Representative Workforce

Earlier we discussed the fact that the types of positions filled at these upper levels 

affect the demographic composition of the upper level workforce. Table 8 shows 

that the hiring method used also affects this composition. 

Table 8. Demographics of Upper Level New Hires

by Hiring Method, Fy 2005 (In Percent

Demographics

Hiring Method

Competitive 

Examining

Direct 

Hire VEOA Excepted

Men 63.8 53.8 89.2 69.7

Women 36.2 46.2 10.8 30.3

All minority 24.0 25.6 17.6 22.0

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 8.0 7.9 2.3 8.0

Black 11.6 12.5 10.7 8.4

Hispanic 3.7 4.4 4.2 4.0

Native American 0.7 0.7 0.4 1.5

White 75.4 73.8 82.0 77.5

Source: OPM, Central Personnel Data File.

Table 8 shows that disproportionately more men were hired under all the hiring 

methods, especially the VEOA. Almost 9 in 10 of the VEOA hires were men. 

As also shown in the table, the different minority groups did not fare equally across 

the hiring methods. Hispanics did comparatively poorly under all of the hiring 

methods. While there is no evidence that the disparate hiring of various groups 

is a result of discriminatory practices, it is clear that the hiring methods used 

have an impact on the demographic composition of the new hires, especially 

under the VEOA. 

It is important to note that as a matter of public policy, former military members 

have hiring preferences that are dictated by laws that provide them those benefits. 

Furthermore, many of these former military members are highly qualified for their 

upper level jobs. Under veterans’ preference laws, disabled veterans only have to 

meet minimum qualifications to be referred for selection. Other veterans, however, 

must be found best qualified or rated among the top to be referred under veterans’ 

preference laws or VEOA. Thus, for these highly qualified veterans, their selection 

is based on merit. 

While the hiring of veterans complies with the law, it would be difficult for the 

Government to achieve a workforce reflective of America at the higher grade levels 

if the current composition of the military and the agencies’ hiring practices remain 

unchanged. As Table 9 shows, in FY 2004, the commissioned officer corps—the 

group most likely to qualify for the upper level jobs—of the various armed services 

(Coast Guard, Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines) was primarily comprised of 

nonminority males. The proportion of minorities in the commissioned officer corps 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 2

How They Were Hired

of the various armed services ranged from 16 percent in the Coast Guard to 25 

percent in the Army, and the proportion of women ranged from 6 percent in the 

Marines to 18 percent in the Air Force.29 The table also shows that these percentages 

somewhat reflect the demographics of former military members hired in FY 2005 in 

upper level jobs: 19 percent were minorities, while 12 percent were women. These 

demographics for the commissioned officer corps make clear how difficult it would 

be for the Government to increase the participation of minorities and women in the 

workforce if the current hiring trends at the upper level grades continue. The hiring 

of women and Hispanics into upper level positions will not significantly increase 

unless agencies make a special effort to attract and hire more qualified women and 

Hispanics under the VEOA or through the use of other hiring authorities. 

Table 9. Demographics of FY 2005 Upper Level New Hires

Who Were Former Military Members and of Active-Duty Members 

of the Commissioned Officer Corps in FY 2004 (in Percent

Demographics

New 

Hires, 

FY 2005

Commissioned Officer Corps, FY 2004

Air Force Army

Coast 

Guard Marines Navy

Men 88.0 81.7 83.3 85.1 94.2 84.8

Women 12.0 18.3 16.7 14.9 5.8 15.2

Black 11.6 6.5 12.3 4.7 5.6 7.2

Hispanic 4.4 3.7 5.0 5.1 6.2 5.2

Other minority* 3.0 8.4 7.3 6.0 11.2 7.2

All minority 19.0 18.6 24.6 15.8 23.0 19.6

White 80.5 81.4 75.4 84.2 77.0 80.4

#Source: OPM, Central Personnel Data File.

@Source: http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics.asp.

* Includes Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native.

Veterans’ rights and the first merit principle need not be an either/or proposition. 

We believe agencies can meet their obligations to veterans and achieve a workforce 

that is representative of all segments of society by addressing both in their strategic 

recruitment plans. Moreover, military data MSPB obtained from the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense show that the composition of the various armed 

services is changing. In fact, the proportion of women and minorities—for both 

commissioned officers and enlisted personnel—increased from FY 2000 to FY 

2005. We have no reason to believe that this trend will not continue. As more 

military occupations open up to women, women will find a military career a viable 

option, which can encourage more women to join the military. An increase in the 

proportion of women and minorities in the military would mean an increase of 

women and minority veterans in the labor pool from which agencies can potentially 

select to fill upper level positions under VEOA. Additionally, agencies should make 

strategic use of other hiring authorities available to them to ensure that they have a 

representative workforce at all grade levels.

29 Profiles of active duty commissioned officers in the Coast Guard, Army, Air Force and Navy are 

available at http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics.asp.

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

How They Learned About

Job Vacancies

How They Learned About

Job Vacancies

To have a workforce that is reflective of America, agencies must develop 

and use recruitment strategies that attract a qualified and diverse pool of 

applicants. Potential applicants must have ready access to information 

about job vacancies and be given adequate opportunity to apply. However, upper 

level new hires’ responses to our survey indicate that information about many upper 

level job vacancies may be limited, hard to find, or both. When asked whether 

Federal job vacancies open to external applicants can be found easily, 21 percent 

of our respondents said they could not. 

Agencies filling competitive service positions through competitive examining, 

direct hire, and the VEOA are required to post their vacancy announcements on 

USAJOBS, but may also employ other recruitment strategies, such as placing paid 

advertising in trade journals, newspapers, or magazines; participating in job fairs; 

or contracting recruiting support from commercial firms. Even so, responses to 

our survey suggest that applicants for upper level positions rely heavily on word 

of mouth for job information. Some 45 percent of the new hires had first learned 

about their new Federal job from their friends and relatives (17 percent), their new 

Federal supervisors (15 percent), or their new Federal co-workers (13 percent). In 

comparison, only about a quarter (23 percent) of our respondents first learned about 

their Federal job through USAJOBS. Even fewer new hires first learned about their 

jobs through newspaper, journal, or magazine ads (2 percent) or from a Federal 

recruiter (1 percent). Friends and relatives were especially useful to new hires who 

previously were self-employed, unemployed, or working for a nonprofit or private 

company. Respondents who were former military personnel or employees of Federal 

contractors were more likely to have first learned about their jobs from their new 

Federal supervisors or co-workers than from other sources.

To widen the reach of USAJOBS and to attract new talent to Federal service, 

OPM recently instituted a television recruitment campaign. The campaign 

highlights the breadth of work opportunities available in the Federal Government 

and encourages viewers to visit USAJOBS.30 The ads have run in a variety of media 

markets, including Columbus, OH, Pittsburgh, PA, Waco, TX, and Fresno, CA. 

In every market where the ads were aired, OPM noted a significant spike in the 

30 See footnote 22 for the World Wide Web addresses.
28 In Search of Highly Skilled Worke

How They Learned About Job Vacancies

number of people from those areas who visited the USAJOBS website.31 The ad 

campaign appears to be a move in the right direction. Based on comments received 

from survey respondents, USAJOBS is not well known. (Note that only about a 

quarter of the upper-level new hires first learned about their Federal job through 

USAJOBS.) However, OPM’s general ad campaign can be double-edged. While 

it can make more people aware of Federal job opportunities, which could lead to 

more potential applicants, a general ad campaign can create false expectations 

from people who are not strong candidates or whose skills do not match what 

agencies are seeking. Additionally, potential applicants can be turned off if they 

find vacancy announcements that are overly lengthy or poorly written. Although we 

have noted some improvements in the quality of vacancy announcements posted on 

USAJOBS since our vacancy announcement study in 2003, many announcements 

still have the problems we reported there (e.g., they are poorly written, confusing, 

or overly long).32

31 U.S. Office of Personnel Management news releases, “Federal Recruiting Campaign Airing in 

Kansas City,” Mar. 2, 2007, and “Three New Fed Recruiting Ads Premiere in Raleigh,” Mar. 22, 2007.

32 See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy 

Announcements, Washington, DC, April 2003, and “Help Wanted for Vacancy Announcements,” Issues 

of Merit, January 2006.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 2

Why They Applied for Their Jobs Why They Applied for Their Jobs

There are many reasons applicants apply for and accept employment with the 

Federal Government, and understanding those reasons is critical in finding 

high-quality applicants. To find the reasons for applying, we asked the new 

hires to select all possible reasons—from a list of 16 possible reasons—they applied 

for their Federal jobs. Information about applicant motivation can help agencies, 

in search of highly skilled workers, to develop recruiting strategies that will attract 

a diverse pool of applicants with the skills and other qualities agencies need. 

While the first key decision influencing who is ultimately hired is the choice of 

hiring authority to use to make the appointment, the ensuing recruitment strategy 

is also key.33

Figure 6. Reasons Upper Level New Hires Apply for

Their Federal Job (in Percent)

33 The hiring authority will determine the necessary steps in the recruitment process and is thus 

inseparable from the recruitment strategy.

Source: MSPB Upper Level New Hires Survey, question 10a-p.

Agency’s cutting-edge technology

Was unemployed/underemployed

Wanted a shorter commute

Government’s rules on ethics in the workplace

Gain Federal experience to enhance career 

opportunities outside Government

Wanted less stressful work conditions

Retired; wanted a second career

Government’s pay

More opportunities for advancement

Better balance work & family

Government’s benefits

Wanted a better job/career

Chance to serve the public/to do good

Wanted to fully utilize my talents

Mission of the agency appealed to me

Wanted more job security

4%

5%

6%

8%

10%

15%

18%

20%

24%

26%

34%

35%

35%

36%

39%

47%

0 10 20

Percent

30 40 50
30 In Search of Highly Skilled Worker

Why They Applied for Their Jobs

Reasons for Applying for Federal Jobs

Job Security

Much like entry level new hires,34 job security was the number one reason upper 

level new hires applied for their Federal jobs (see Figure 6). Job security was 

especially critical among respondents whose preceding job was with a Government 

contractor (73 percent) and those who had been laid off (83 percent). 

Obtaining a stable and secure job is a strong motivation for applicants to apply for 

Federal jobs and can be emphasized in efforts to attract high-quality applicants. 

However, in doing so, agencies must take care to ensure that applicants understand 

that the Government can only offer employment that is relatively stable and 

governed by employment practices that are fair. The Government does not 

guarantee a job for life. As with OPM’s new general ad campaign, agencies should 

realize that job security motivation can be double-edged. People who accept Federal 

employment in search of security may remain committed to and highly motivated 

about their work. However, they may also expect this security to continue even 

when the need for their skills has disappeared. 

Mission of Agency and Public Service

About 4 in 10 respondents indicated that the mission of the agency was a reason 

they applied for their jobs. Some agencies have missions that appeal to individuals 

in particular occupations. NASA’s space mission, naturally, has special appeal to 

aerospace engineers and physicists. The Veterans Affairs’ mission to take care of 

wounded veterans has a special appeal to health care professionals who would like to 

give back to the men and women who fought to preserve America’s freedom. In like 

manner, the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the air we 

breathe or the water we drink has special appeal to environmental scientists. Many 

other Federal agencies may also have unique missions that may appeal to certain 

segments of the labor pool. In fact, applicants sometimes accept substantial pay 

cuts to enter Government service because of the agency’s missions or reputation.35 

Thus, it is important that agencies highlight their missions in their vacancy 

announcements. Some agencies already do this in their job announcements posted 

on USAJOBS; however, others do not.

In addition to having interest in an agency’s particular mission, many of the new 

hires in the survey said that they applied because a job with the Government would 

give them a chance to serve the public. This reason was selected by 35 percent 

of respondents. The desire to serve the public or to do good is a component of 

what is termed “public service motivation,” which has been found to have some 

34 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Attracting the Next Generation: A Look at Federal Entry Level 

New Hires, Washington, DC, February 2008.

35 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Practice of Merit: A Symposium, Washington, DC, 

September 2006, pp. 42-44.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Why They Applied for Their Jobs

value in the recruitment and selection of new employees.36 The MSPB encourages 

agencies to use public service motivation in their recruitment efforts to attract 

applicants with the passion and commitment to carry out the work of the agency. 

The most important reason is that it would improve the quality of their workforces. 

Employees with high public service motivation have been found to be better 

performers than those with lower public service motivation.37

Desire to Fully Utilize Talents and Have a Better Job 

Another common reason for applying for Federal jobs is that applicants want to 

utilize their talents fully. This response—selected by 36 percent of our survey 

respondents—appeared across the various groups of respondents. Respondents 

who were unemployed desired it, as well as those who were employed. In addition 

to wanting to utilize their talents fully, many new hires applied for their Federal 

jobs because they wanted a better job or career (35 percent). Wanting a better 

job or career was particularly significant among respondents who had worked in 

schools (56 percent) or in the private sector (52 percent). In addition, 24 percent of 

respondents applied because they believed that the Government can offer them more 

opportunities for advancement.

Table 10. Number of Full-Time Permanent Professional and

Administrative Positions by Grade as of September 200

Grade Number

GS 12 211,208

GS 13 195,968

GS 14 98,314

GS 15 61,654

Source: http://www.fedscope.opm.gov.

These findings have both positive and negative implications. On the positive side, 

many respondents believe that the Federal Government is a place where they can 

find a better job and fully utilize their talents, hopes that are certainly realistic. 

However, the expectation that the Government will have better opportunities for 

advancement may cause problems for the 24 percent of new upper level employees 

who cited this, when they discover that they actually have rather limited room for 

advancement. Table 10 shows that as grade level increases, the number of positions 

decreases, confirming that the potential for advancement may be considerably less 

than many believed. To ensure that new employees have clear expectations about 

advancement, agencies should respond unequivocally to inquiries and honestly 

portray career paths during selection interviews. Furthermore, agencies may need 

to use a variety of other tools to maintain new employees’ engagement and interest 

once they are faced with the reality of limited opportunities for advancement. These 

36 Gregory A. Mann, A Motive to Serve: Public Service Motivation in Human Resource Management 

and the Role of PSM in the Nonprofit Sector, Public Personnel Management, Spring 2006, vol. 35, Iss. 1, 

pp. 33-48.

37 Katherine C. Naff and John Crum, Working for America: Does Public Service Motivation Make a 

Difference?, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 1999, vol. 19, Iss. 4, pp. 5-16.
32 In Search of Highly Skilled Worke

Why They Applied for Their Jobs

tools include programs that allow employees to better balance their work and family 

responsibilities (selected by 26 percent of respondents as one reason they applied for 

their job) as well as assignments to special projects. Agencies must also do all they 

can to ensure that the new hires receive high-quality supervision. Good supervisors 

can develop a work environment that will fully utilize the new hires’ talents and keep 

them fully engaged in their work.

Government’s Benefits and Pay

While pay was also a reason for applying for Federal jobs, it ranked only ninth 

among the 16 items listed on the survey. As Figure 6 shows, the Government’s 

benefits were more likely to entice new hires to apply for a Federal job than was 

pay. Benefits, such as medical insurance and retirement coverage, have become an 

important employment consideration for an aging labor force. This is particularly 

true since retiree medical coverage is becoming less common in the private sector. 

Additionally, the number of private sector companies that provide defined benefit 

pension plans has declined in the last decade and, in many cases, these pension plans 

are less generous than the plan available to new Federal employees.38 All of these 

things make the Government’s benefit package, especially its retirement and health 

insurance coverage, a big draw, as this new hire wrote:

“During the interview, 5 out of 6 interviewers indicated that I appeared 

to be over-qualified. Yet when the job offer was made, the salary offered 

was at the bottom of the salary range....With a reduction of pay and

[rate of] accrued leave, I accepted the job offer only because of the 

health care coverage.”

Strengths of Federal Employment

To gauge the Government’s ability to compete in the labor marketplace, we asked 

the new hires to compare their current Federal agencies with their last employer in 

17 discrete areas. It is quite notable that, as shown in Table 11, the new hires rated 

their new Federal agencies better or the same than their last employers in most areas 

except dealing effectively with poor performers.39 Notably, formerly self-employed 

new hires were especially critical of their agencies’ dealings with poor performers. 

Table 11 shows that many upper level new hires view their agencies as better, not 

worse, than their former employers in important areas concerning the work itself, 

38 John A. McDonald, Survey Finds Federal Workers Share Poor Retirement Planning With All Workers, 

but Have More Savings, Employee Benefit Research Institute, vol. 27, No. 12, December 2006, pp. 

2-7.

39 Our survey did not define “dealing effectively with poor performers.” It is likely that the new 

hires, based on their experience, such as in business, have a broader definition of “poor performer” to 

include marginal or even “average” employees and “dealing effectively” means removal. This definition 

may partly explain why agencies received the lowest mark on this item. In the Federal Government, 

however, an employee has to be rated unacceptable in one critical element in an approved performance 

plan to warrant removal. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Why They Applied for Their Jobs

not just the areas concerning the benefits of Federal employment. For example, 

many new hires rated their agencies better than their last employer in providing 

challenging work, and providing opportunities for training and development. 

A great many also saw the Government as better in giving them a chance to make 

a difference and treating employees with respect.

Table 11  Upper Level New Hires’ Views Comparing Their Agencie

and Last Employers (in Percent)

Areas

My Current Agency Is...

Better

About the 

Same Worse

Not Sure/ 

Don’t Know

Job security 60 34 3 4

Workplace flexibility (e.g., telework, 

alternative work schedule) 44 36 15 5

Chance to make a difference 42 45 9 4

Opportunities for training and 

development 41 40 16 4

Retirement program 40 33 20 6

Opportunities for advancement 38 35 17 10

Leave benefits (annual, sick and 

holidays) 36 28 35 1

Pay 33 34 32 1

Challenging work 32 58 9 1

Quality of managers/supervisors 29 56 12 3

Treating employees with respect 29 60 8 2

Physical work environment/conditions 25 61 13 1

Using employees’ skills and abilities 

effectively 24 57 15 4

Ethical practices 24 69 2 5

Quality of co-workers 21 68 10 2

Providing feedback on performance 21 58 15 6

Dealing effectively with poor 

performers 7 36 42 15

Source: MSPB Upper Level New Hires Survey, question 17a-q.

 The new hires’ ratings on leave benefits and pay were mixed. In pay, where we 

expected Federal agencies to do poorly, many new hires indicated that Government 

pay is either better (33 percent) or about the same (34 percent); only 32 percent 

said it is worse. Former private sector employees (who were not previously Federal 

contractors) as well as previously self-employed new hires were more likely to say 

Federal pay is worse (45 percent and 67 percent, respectively). Not surprisingly, 

many of the new hires who indicated that the Government’s pay is worse joined 

the civil service for quality of life issues. That is, they entered Government service 

because they wanted less stressful work conditions or to better balance their work 

responsibilities and family needs. Also, how new hires viewed pay depended on 

their grade level. That is, new hires appointed at GS-12 were more likely to say 

the Government’s pay was better than that of their last employers, while those at 
34 In Search of Highly Skilled Worker

Why They Applied for Their Jobs

GS-15 were more likely to say it was worse. This was not surprising. Many new 

hires at the GS-15 level were medical doctors who earned more in private practice or 

were supervisors and managers who commanded higher pay, especially if they had 

been in technical fields. However, they typically had to put in long hours in their 

former positions. Workplace flexibility can counterbalance lower pay, especially 

for people with family obligations. Therefore, it is in agencies’ best interests to 

highlight their workplace flexibility programs in their vacancy announcements to 

attract highly qualified applicants who seek balance between their family needs and 

work responsibilities.

Recruitment Incentives

The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA) established 

compensation flexibilities that were intended to enable agencies to compete for 

talent in a tight labor market. The Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 

amended the flexibilities established by FEPCA and provided additional flexibilities 

that give agencies more tools to use to fill positions that would otherwise be difficult 

to fill. The compensation flexibilities permit agencies the authority to:

• Pay recruitment bonuses and relocation allowances.

• Set initial salary at a higher rate than the lowest rate for a given grade based on 

superior qualifications.

• Pay off some or all of the employee’s student loan debt.

• Allow new employees to accrue leave at a higher rate by crediting directly related 

work experience gained elsewhere. 

Perhaps because agencies were able to hire someone they wanted without incentives, 

or because of the stringent requirements for using these flexibilities, or because of 

limited funds, a majority of the upper level new hires in this study (64 percent) 

did not receive any of these incentives when hired. For those who did, the most 

common incentive was setting their starting pay above the minimum rate for the 

grade of the position based on superior qualifications (70 percent). A distant 

second was recruitment bonuses, which were given to 16 percent of the new hires. 

Moreover, perhaps because many of the upper level new hires may no longer have 

student loan debt, only a handful of the upper level new hires received the student 

loan debt relief incentive (3 percent).

At the time of the survey, the authority to credit outside experience for leave accrual 

purposes was newly implemented. Perhaps for this reason, only a few (5 percent) of 

the new hires were given this incentive. Judging from comments respondents wrote 

on their surveys, this benefit appears to be especially important to attract former 

military personnel, as this respondent wrote:
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3

Why They Applied for Their Jobs

“Stop ignoring the 20+ years served by retiring military when calculating 

leave. Going from 30 days per year to 13 is tough and not equitable. 

I work side by side with CIA civilians who got credit for their retired 

military time and earn 8 hours of leave per pay period! We constantly 

hear how the civilian ranks are losing experience. Changing this rule 

would attract more military retirees to the civilian ranks, bringing the 

20+ years experience back to the Federal Government.”

It appears that using hiring incentives to fill upper level positions can sometimes be 

critical, based on responses of our upper level new hires. When asked whether they 

would still accept the job had no incentives been offered, a majority (68 percent) of 

those who had received incentives said “No.” However, a significant minority (32 

percent) said “Yes.” This 32 percent may indicate that incentives are an unnecessary 

expenditure in a tight budget era. Using hiring incentives is discretionary, meaning 

that agencies may offer them or not, but only in positions individual agencies deem 

hard to fill. When offered, the incentives are implemented based on the agency’s 

established recruitment incentive plan and must apply uniformly across the agency 

unless the head of the agency determines otherwise.40 Therefore, it is important 

that when agencies develop their incentive plans they consider not only what they 

would like to accomplish by using these incentives, but equally important, the 

financial implications of the incentive plan.

The Importance of Knowing Applicants’ Motivations

Survey data show that the Federal Government has strengths that can enable 

agencies to compete for highly qualified applicants for upper level jobs. For 

example, the Government has an advantage over other employers when it comes 

to job security. It has an excellent benefits package. Its pay can be competitive. 

It is seen as a place where people can find challenging work and can realize their 

potential. Overall, the positives outweigh the negatives. It is not surprising, 

therefore, that an overwhelming majority of the new hires (89 percent) intend to 

stay in Federal service, at least for the year following the survey. For those who 

intend to leave, the major reason they gave was that their talents were not being used 

effectively (82 percent). A distant second was that they felt they were bogged down 

by too much paperwork or red tape (59 percent).

What does this all mean to agencies? It means that agencies must be fully cognizant 

of the range and depth of the challenges they face in hiring highly qualified, diverse, 

upper level employees. These challenges are surmountable with carefully developed 

hiring strategies that capitalize on the strong attractions of Federal employment, 

the great variety and appeal of agencies’ missions, and the involvement of the 

right people in the many required steps in the recruitment process. Perhaps one 

of the most significant challenges is for agencies to be more creative and proactive 

40 5 CFR 575.107(c).
36 In Search of Highly Skilled Worke

Why They Applied for Their Jobs

recruiters. For example, agencies need to attract not only the active but also the 

passive jobseekers through persuasive messages about the good things agencies have 

to offer, such as the Government’s benefit package, the chance to serve the public, or 

the chance to make a difference. A second pressing challenge is for agencies to have 

a well-designed hiring program that maintains applicants’ interest throughout the 

process, especially when the process is overly lengthy. Later in this report, we discuss 

in more detail the challenges and barriers supervisors and new hires faced during the 

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

How They Were Assessed How They Were Assessed

Assessment is the phase in the hiring process during which the distinctions

among applicants are made; i.e., whether they are qualified for the job

and, if so, the extent to which they possess the knowledge, skills and

abilities (KSAs) required to do the job. As part of its employment policy, t

Government has to use assessment tools that are not discriminatory or affected

by other nonmerit factors.  These assessment tools must be practical and fai

test the capacity and fitness of applicants and should result in the selection of the

best qualified candidates.41 In addition, the Government is subject to the Unifo

Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, which require that assessment tools

be valid (i.e., measure the competencies appropriate for the job being filled), reliable

(i.e., consistent or stable in measuring a person’s competence over time), free 

bias, and fair to all applicants

42

Meeting Minimum Qualification Requirements

Minimum qualification requirements are usually expressed in terms of education

or years of experience needed to satisfactorily perform the duties of the position

to be filled. Applicants for upper level jobs must meet the minimum qualificati

requirements for the job they applied for to receive further consideration.

Applicants who are not found to have met minimum qualification requirements

are rated not qualified and are dropped from the competition.

Each upper level professional and administrative position has a minimum

qualification requirement. To be found minimally qualified, applicants mu

possess the level and type of education and the quantity of experience specified in

OPM’s qualification standards, and must meet any license requirements of those

standards. For upper level positions, OPM’s qualification standards require 1 ye

of specialized experience defined as “experience that is typically in or related to the

work of the position being filled.”43

41 5 C.F.R. § 300.102.

42 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of 

Labor and Department of Justice, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, Washington, 

DC, 1978.

43 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Qualification Standards for General Schedule Positions: 

General Policies and Instructions,” Part E.3. at http://www.opm.gov/qualifications/SEC-II/s2-e1.asp. Note: 

For research positions, a doctorate degree is qualifying at the GS-12 level. GS-13 and above research 

positions require at least 1 year of specialized experience equivalent to the next lower grade. 
38 In Search of Highly Skilled Worke

How They Were Assessed

Evaluating Applicants for Minimum Qualifications

In making minimum qualification determinations, the quality of the experience is as

important as the amount of experience. OPM’s qualifications standards require th

specialized experience be equivalent to the next lower grade in level of difficulty and

responsibility.  For example, applicants for GS-12 must have 1 year of speciali

experience equivalent to a GS-11. Making correct minimum qualificati

determinations entails a thorough knowledge of the qualification standards and

the standards for classifying and grading Federal jobs.

Determining whether an applicant has the required minimum qualification is a

complex, detailed task.  Usually, human resources (HR) specialists make mini

qualification determinations. However, in some instances, agencies rely 

applicants themselves to certify that they meet the minimum qualification standards.

This practice is commonplace in agencies that use online assessments in which

applicants self-certify that they possess the “1 year of specialized experience

equivalent to the next lower grade.” There is serious risk to this practice sin

applicants are seldom knowledgeable about qualifications or job grading standards.

Furthermore, agencies sometimes fail to define or describe what they mean when

they refer to “specialized experience equivalent to the next lower grade” in their

vacancy announcements. An unexplained reference to this “specialized experienc

may confuse applicants who do not understand the term. It is possible that qualifi

applicants can be eliminated from further consideration or unqualified applicants

can certify themselves qualified and be referred for selection. Either situation is n

acceptable; thus, human resources specialists need to at least review the applications

and verify the ratings given to applicants who were found unqualified or who rated

high enough to be referred for selection

Using Selective Factors

Agencies can make minimum qualification requirements more specific by including

selective factors. OPM defines selective factor as “knowledge, skills, abilitie

or special qualifications that are in addition to the minimum requirements in a

qualification standard, but are determined to be essential to perform the duties and

responsibilities of a particular position.  Applicants who do not meet a select

factor are ineligible for further consideration.”44 Selective factors are helpful

include with the minimum qualification requirements when agencies need specific

knowledge or skills that cannot be learned within a reasonable period of orientation

in the job. For example, if facility in German is necessary to review and analy

documents written in German, it is appropriate to restrict competition to applicants

fluent in this language. OPM’s policies and instructions further state that “selecti

factors cannot (1) be so narrow that they preclude from consideration applicants

who could perform the duties of the position, (2) require KSAs that could be

learned readily during the normal period of orientation to the position, [or]

(3) be so specific as to exclude from consideration applicants without prior

Federal experience....”45

44 Ibid., Part E.6.

45 Ibid.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3

How They Were Assessed

Unfortunately, some agencies occasionally use selective factors that are

inappropriate.  The boxed example shows a selective factor for a Supervis

Information Technology Specialist, GS-14 vacancy posted on USAJOBS.  Altho

the announcement was “open to the public,” the selective factor described clearly

limits consideration to applicants who have experience providing information

technology services for the Federal Government, such as employees of the Federal

Government, Federal contractors, or military personnel.  While other informat

technology specialists who have not provided such service for the Federal

Government could conceivably qualify for the job, they would be eliminated from

further consideration because they would not meet the minimum qualifications

required. It is possible that the selective factor was just badly worded. Even

the effect is the same: it inappropriately narrowed the minimum qualificati

requirements considerably.

Example. Selective factor for a Supervisory 

Information Technology Specialist, GS-14 vacanc

QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED: 

Selective Factor:

• Experience managing a staff supporting an enterprise data network, 

server platform and IT helpdesk for the Federal Government.

Agencies have the responsibility of finding the right candidates for their jobs.

Sometimes, agencies may have to restrict competition to find the right candidates

efficiently. But, agencies have to realize that there are consequences to the

decision to restrict competition.  Adding selective factors limits the pool

applicants who can qualify and, hence, the number of applicants from whom they

may select.  Selective factors can also become so inappropriately restrictive that t

can eliminate qualified applicants from further competition, thereby undermining

the principle of open competition.  Thus, agencies should be very careful w

they create restrictive minimum qualification requirements. Minimum qualificati

requirements (including selective factors) are the lowest bar every applicant must

meet to be rated “qualified” for the position to be filled. They are not quali

ranking factors that will identify who among the basically qualified applicants are

likely to be “better qualified.” Minimum qualification requirements, therefor

should not create artificial barriers that could unnecessarily exclude applicants who

are otherwise qualified to do the work.
40 In Search of Highly Skilled Workers

How They Were Assessed

HR Staff Expertise and Managers’ Involvement

HR specialists are the first guard in ensuring that agencies win the war for talent; but

they can also be a barrier. Most of the occupations that are filled at the upper leve

are highly specialized. Usually, HR specialists do the first evaluation of applicant

qualifications, which determines whether they meet OPM’s minimum qualification

standards. Many of the standards are broad and general, requiring HR specialis

to exercise considerable judgment. For a variety of reasons, such as lack 

training, inadequate guidance, or insufficient knowledge and understanding of the

occupation, some HR specialists make erroneous determinations about minimum

qualifications, as these new hires can attest:

“...[S]everal times I was assessed by HR personnel as not qualified at a 

level for a position for which I was well-qualified. When I inquired 

why, I was informed that the HR staff was either new or didn’t 

understand the position. This type of issue will turn well-qualified 

applicants off because they are treated better by non-Government 

recruiters who respect the time of these applicants. 

Qualification review process needs work. I applied for a GS-7 (in 

my retired military career field) and came up not qualified; but then 

I applied for a GS-12 (same field) and came up qualified. This is the 

job I have now. Make sense to anyone?” 

To be fair, HR specialists are attempting to do complex work under trying

circumstances. HR offices lost many of their senior specialists during t

downsizing of the 1990s, and this expertise has not yet been fully restored

Problems such as the ones just described can happen. To minimize erroneo

minimum qualification determinations, HR can solicit assistance from subject-matter

experts or input from supervisors or other selecting officials who can make better

minimum qualification determinations, especially for highly technical jobs.

The HR staff members are not the only ones responsible for making the hiring

process a success.  Also responsible are the supervisors and managers who n

their upper level jobs filled. Yet, some supervisors do not get involved in the hiri

process, before and during selection.  Table 12 shows that, while the majority

supervisors were personally involved in the many phases of hiring their new upper

level employees, a significant minority were not involved during the pre-selection

phase.  Additionally, some 21 percent of supervisors indicated they did not sel

(or recommend the selection of) their new hire
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 4

How They Were Assessed

Table 12  Extent Supervisors Agree or Disagree They Wer

Personally Involved in The Following Tasks (in Percent)

Tasks Agree Disagree

Developing the assessment tools/rating instruments 

used to identify the best qualified applicant

79 12

Reviewing applications 91 6

Interviewing applicants 90 6

Checking references 78 12

Note: “Neither agree nor disagree” responses are not shown.

Source: MSPB Supervisory Upper Level New Hires Survey, question 13i.

Supervisory involvement is crucial in hiring new employees with the right talent

For example, of the supervisors who were involved in developing the assessment

tools used to identify the best qualified applicant, 98 percent said they got the talent

they need to accomplish their mission.  For supervisors who were not involv

the percentage went down to 82 percent.  Supervisors’ involvement in review

applications, interviewing applicants, or checking references revealed similar trends

In sum, supervisors who were involved in the pre-selection phases of the hiring

process were more likely to have a positive view of their hiring decisions than those

who were not involved

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 4

Barriers and Challenges Encountered 

by Supervisors and New Hires 

Barriers and Challenges Encountered 

by Supervisors and New Hires 

Finding someone with the right technical experience was the number one

challenge supervisors of upper level new hires said they faced when they

hired their new employee.  This is consistent with results from MSP

Governmentwide Merit Principles Survey (MPS) conducted in 2005.  Supervis

responding to the MPS indicated that the greatest obstacle they faced when hiring

employees was the shortage of qualified applicants.46 Because most vac

positions at the upper level grades are highly specialized, and many are hard to fill,

it is expected that many supervisors will find it challenging to find applicants with

the right kind of skill.  Unfortunately, the way agencies recruit and assess applica

may contribute to this difficulty.

Length of the Hiring Process

The length of the hiring process is one major complaint of new hires and

supervisors alike.  Many supervisors (45 percent) indicated that the leng

hiring process is their main concern when hiring their new employee.  This

understandable: when a position is vacant, supervisors face difficulty in completi

assigned tasks, which ultimately can adversely affect mission accomplishment

For about half (46 percent) of the new hires, it took less than 2 months from the

time they applied until they received their job offers. For a third of the new hire

it took 3 to 4 months, while the rest waited for 5 months or more.  Comparing th

Federal experience with their experience with their last employer, 75 percent of the

new hires indicated that it took longer to be hired for their current civil service jobs

than it did for their previous position.  Because applicants for positions like the o

filled by our respondents have work experience that they can sell somewhere else,

making them wait without a reasonable explanation could result in agencies’ losing

them, as this new hire wrote:

“The hiring process can be simpler and quicker. I had other offers from 

the private sector that were finalized about 1-2 weeks from when they 

initially talked to me on the phone! I preferred to work for the Federal 

46 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles 

Survey 2005, Washington, DC, February 2007, p. 14.
44 In Search of Highly Skilled Workers

Barriers and Challenges Encountered by Supervisors and New Hires

Government, but it took [the agency] about 4 months to get me an offer! 

I was extremely close to giving up working for the Federal Government 

because I just couldn’t afford to wait any longer. Then, when I finally 

got the Government’s job offer, I couldn’t start for another 3-4 weeks. 

I had to wait for the beginning of the next pay period to actually start 

work. I’m sure the Government is missing out on well-experienced and 

great employees because of the problems I described above.” 

47

About half (47 percent) of the new hires agreed that the time it took from

application to job offer was reasonable. However, this view was affected by h

soon they got the job offers. The sooner they got the job offer, the more likely th

were to think that the timeliness of the hiring process was reasonable (see Table 13)

Of those who got their job offer in less than a month, an overwhelming majority

agreed the time was reasonable. Although a majority of new hires still thought

wait of 1 to 2 months was reasonable, the percentage dropped dramatically after

2 months

Table 13  Upper Level New Hires’ Vie

on the Reasonableness of the Time to Hire Them

Time From Application to Job Offer Percent Who Agreed Time was 

Reasonable

<1 month 91

1-2 months 66

3-4 months 33

5-6 months 15

>6 months 10

Source: MSPB Upper Level New Hires Survey, question 12c

Unfortunately, the long wait does not necessarily end with the job offer. Aft

the job offer, there are often pre-employment requirements that still need to

be completed before the selected candidate reports to work.  Some upper le

positions may only require a limited record check, which does not preclude the

selectee from reporting to work.  But, for other positions, such as intelligence

security management, whose selectees may have access to sensitive information,

a security clearance must be completed before they can begin work.  A f

background check for a security clearance can take months to complete.  Th

applicants with security clearances (or updatable clearances), such as former military

members, can have a great advantage in selection.  Fortunately, OPM, the age

responsible for conducting most of the Government’s background investigations,

reports that it has reduced the time in which it adjudicates requests for background

checks

48 This improvement should help speed up the time before the employee c

begin work

47 There are no regulatory prohibitions to appointing new employees other than at the start of a pay 

period. When all preappointment requirements have been met, requiring a new employee to wait until 

the start of a new pay period is an unnecessary administrative practice that lengthens the hiring process.

48 U.S. Office of Personnel Management news release, “OPM Leads by Example, Improving 

Timeliness of Internal Security Clearances,” Mar. 2, 2007.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 45

Barriers and Challenges Encountered by Supervisors and New Hires

The waiting period cannot be eliminated entirely.  However, agencies can minim

the frustration of waiting and the possibility of dropouts by keeping applicants

informed of the status of their application.  A cost-effective way to keep applica

informed is a short phone call, e-mail, or post card from HR or the hiring

organization updating them of their status as they move through the process.  Th

simple devices can add a personal touch to a very impersonal process and can keep

applicants interested in and committed to getting the job. In addition, selecti

officials can help speed up the process, as this new hire wrote:

“I found my hiring experience to be very good and very speedy. I think 

what made the process so good was having a motivated supervisor who 

wanted to get the position filled quickly. By not taking a long time to 

schedule interviews and make the hiring decision, potential hires don’t 

have to wait so long and there is less risk of accepting a different job.”

While an attitude of “If we post it, they will come” may work for some positions,

it is highly unlikely that it will work if coupled with poor HR customer service,

which is happening more often than many would like to admit.  In a 2000 study

the job search experiences of new hires, MSPB found that feedback on the status

of their application was late or nonexistent

49 A majority of our upper level n

hires had the same experience.  When asked whether they had been informed

the status of their applications other than being called for interviews and offered

their jobs, 56 percent said “No.” It appears that the quality of customer servi

as applied to job applicants has not improved since our 2000 report in which we

called agencies’ attention to the need to treat applicants as customers in accord

with agencies’ customer service standards.  Agencies were cautioned that

times of fierce competition for good workers, they cannot afford to cut corners

in their recruiting efforts

50 That caution is reiterated here.  Some new hir

the present study warned that agencies could lose good candidates by failing to

provide feedback. High applicant dropout rates can significantly reduce the pool 

qualified applicants.

Despite the challenges, agency leadership must ensure that they have an adequate

number of knowledgeable specialists. Numerous studies have pointed out the ne

to improve the quality of HR systems and of HR specialists who work within those

systems

51 The HR specialist is often the first face that applicants see when th

apply for Federal jobs. Their expertise and professionalism can draw in or rep

potential applicants

49 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Competing for Federal Jobs: Job Search Experiences of New 

Hires, Washington, DC, February 2000, p. 14.

50 Ibid., p. 18.

51 See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board reports, Reforming Federal Hiring: Beyond Faster and 

Cheaper, July 2006; Federal Personnel Offices: Time for Change?, August 1993; and Help Wanted: A 

Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements, April 2003. See also the National Academy of Public 

Administration, A Competency Model for Human Resources Professionals, Washington, DC, June 1996; 

and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Human Capital: Federal Workforce Challenges in the 21st 

Century, GAO-07-556T, Mar. 6, 2007.
46 In Search of Highly Skilled Worker

Barriers and Challenges Encountered by Supervisors and New Hires

Complexity of the Application Process

With each agency being responsible for its own hiring, each agency has established

its own application process.  Thus, there is no standard way to apply for Fede

jobs, making it complex and frustrating for applicants to pursue multiple job

opportunities.  For example, some agencies ask applicants to submit th

applications electronically, others by mail or facsimile.  Some agencies acc

applications through USAJOBS, while others only accept applications submitted

through their own Web sites.  Additionally, some agencies ask applicants to sub

written descriptions of their knowledge, skills and abilities, while other agencies ask

applicants to respond to occupational questionnaires online. With such a varie

of application methods, often with differing requirements, applicants often find the

application process complex, confusing and burdensome.  Even more regrettab

much of the complexity of agencies’ application and hiring processes is selfinflicted. All too often, agencies create steps that can unnecessarily complicate a

cause delays in the hiring process, as this supervisor wrote:

“The Federal hiring process is too complicated. My organization’s has 

more than 60 steps: 45 are OPM required; 15 are my agency’s. Some 

take a week to complete. No one seems to care as they think nothing of 

adding an extra step.... I enclose a check-list of the possible steps in our 

hiring process, which usually takes 6 to 15 months to complete.” 

A burdensome and complicated application process can discourage potential

applicants from applying for Federal jobs. When asked whether they did not purs

applying for some jobs they were interested in, 39 percent of new hires said “Yes.”

Table 14. Reasons Upper Level New Hires

Did Not Pursue Applying for Other Federal Jobs

 They Were Interested In (in Percent)

Reasons Percent

Had to write/re-write descriptions of my knowledge, 

skills and abilities

32

I decided I was not qualified or a strong candidate 23

Had to re-write or re-format my résumé 22

I learned there was someone lined up for the job 22

Had to respond to a lengthy questionnaire 18

Required too much of my time 13

Off-putting vacancy announcements 9

HR wasn’t helpful when asked for more information 8

Had to submit supporting documentation 4

Source: MSPB Upper Level New Hires Survey, question 11b.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 4

Barriers and Challenges Encountered by Supervisors and New Hires

There are various reasons why applicants give up applying for Federal jobs. 

Table 14 shows, the most common reason for upper level new hires to give up is

the requirement to write or re-write narratives describing their knowledge, skills and

abilities. Agencies generally require descriptions for multiple KSAs. Even on

questionnaires can include multiple essay questions that can become too long, thus

defeating the purpose of “automation.” Whether they are to be done online 

on paper, the writing and rewriting of KSAs can become burdensome when done

and redone for every job of interest, as was the case for this new hire who did not

pursue other Federal jobs he or she would have liked to apply for:

“Required too much of my time—this is compounded by the numerous 

stovepiped processes found in each agency—takes too long to fill out 

individual résumés and KSAs for each agency, each job.”

MSPB understands that writing essays in response to the required KSAs takes

time and serious effort from applicants.  However, to conduct a fair and effect

evaluation of applicants’ qualifications, agencies have to have detailed information

about applicants’ KSAs.  Unfortunately, agencies sometimes get carried aw

requiring write-ups for far too many KSAs, of which many are too closely related.

For example, one vacancy announcement posted “open to the public” required

applicants to give “a complete and detailed answer” to any of the 14 “yes/no”

questions they responded to affirmatively. Out of the 14 questions, 9 were relat

to supervision or management of subordinate staff.  In an attempt to elicit m

substantive information to ensure a good assessment, the agency failed to consider

the burden its questions placed on applicants who responded to some or all of

the related questions affirmatively. Agencies have the responsibility to ma

good assessments and to require interested applicants to submit the necessary

information.  However, they should balance their need for good assessment with 

need to reduce the burden they place on applicants where possible.  Agencies sho

realize that they might attract many more highly qualified applicants if jobseekers

find that the application process is not unreasonably burdensome.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 49

Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions and Recommendations

The Federal Government, as the largest employer in the Nation, hires a

substantial number of new employees every year. The majority of t

new hires are GS-11 and below.  However, the Government also hire

substantial number of new employees at the GS-12 to -15 levels, often to staff new

programs, to obtain new skills, or to fill skills gaps. These upper level new hires a

the senior specialists, analysts, managers, or supervisors who have critical roles in the

effective and efficient operation of Government. They are usually experts in the

fields and are highly sought after by the Government and by other employers.

The hiring of new employees at the upper level grades has been 

increasing, especially in recent years. There are a variety of reasons for

the increase, but this study shows that the most influential have been changes in

the Government’s priorities and missions, such as homeland security and national

defense, and the public’s increasing demands for more complex services.  Th

there has been an increasing demand to hire individuals with expertise in certain

areas, such as information technology, security, logistics, medicine and law.  T

trend of increased upper level hiring is likely to continue.  The Federal workforce

aging and many of those who are or will become eligible to retire in the next decade

will leave the civil service.  Because hiring freezes during the early 1990s curtai

entry-level hiring and led to the shortage of qualified applicants in the internal

pipeline, the Government will need to fill skills gaps through outside hiring.

The main sources of new upper level hires have been former 

employees of Federal contractors and military members. Their

experience in areas related to information technology, homeland security and

national defense has made former employees of Federal contractors and military

members good candidates for upper level positions in these areas.  Furthermo

the VEOA, the special program created to hire former military members, has had a

significant effect on the hiring of former military members for upper level jobs.

Overall, upper level new hires have tended to be predominantly male 

and nonminority. Various factors have affected the composition of upper

level new hires.  These include the types of upper level positions the Governm

has filled, which are often dictated by the Government’s priorities and missions.

Many of these positions are typically male-dominated.  Another factor has b

the increased hiring of former military members through the VEOA.  For

military officers, the most likely group to qualify for upper level jobs based on

their education, training and leadership experience, are predominantly male and
50 In Search of Highly Skilled Workers

nonminority.  Without increased efforts by agencies to hire more women 

minority veterans—especially Hispanic veterans—at the upper levels, it will be

difficult for these groups to achieve parity at these grade levels. This is not 

indictment of special programs meant to hire veterans because these programs

serve an important purpose, but a consequence that needs to be addressed in

agency strategic recruitment plans

The Federal Government can compete for talent. There is no doubt that

the Government is faced with strong competition to get the talent it needs for its

upper level jobs, but it can successfully compete. Many upper level new hires ha

a favorable view of the Government, although this positive view may reflect both

their desire for Federal employment in general and their success in landing a Federal

job. Even so, survey data show that the Federal Government has great strengt

that should enable agencies to compete for highly qualified applicants for upper

level jobs. For example, many upper level new hires indicate that the Governme

has an advantage over other employers when it comes to job security. They al

indicate that the Government has an excellent benefits package that is becoming

more important to mature workers.  Often, new hires view pay as competit

when considered in the context of the benefits that are offered. They also see t

Government as a place where people can find challenging work and realize their

potential. New hires also think that it is a place that offers more opportuniti

for development and advancement.  Overall, new hires view the Governm

quite positively as an employer. Unfortunately, many of the good things a

overshadowed by a variety of issues that need to be resolved

Generally, agencies lack a comprehensive strategy for attracting 

highly skilled applicants. Based on our study results, agencies do not use

variety of recruiting tools to attract a diverse pool of qualified applicants. Althou

the most common challenge supervisors encounter when hiring upper level

employees is the scarcity of applicants with the right skills, seldom do agencies use

a range of recruitment tools available to them, relying instead on USAJOBS to

advertise their vacant jobs. However, our findings show that USAJOBS is not t

primary source of job information for upper level new hires. Many more of t

survey participants used their network of friends, relatives and their now current

supervisors and co-workers to learn about Federal job opportunities. Althou

word-of-mouth is an effective tool, it can have a limited reach that may not ensure

a diverse pool of qualified applicants.

Agencies sometimes unnecessarily add selective factors to the 

minimum qualification requirements. Applicants for upper level jobs mu

meet minimum qualification requirements that OPM prescribes for each position.

Agencies may sometimes add selective factors to the minimum qualifications to

restrict competition to those applicants who have the knowledge, skills, abilities

and special requirements to perform satisfactorily on the job. Unfortunatel

agencies sometimes use narrow selective factors that unnecessarily limit the pool of

applicants who can qualify for the job, thus inadvertently undermining the principle

of open competition

Conclusions and Recommendations
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5

There are barriers to hiring. Based on the responses of the supervisors we

surveyed, finding someone with the right technical experience is the number one

challenge supervisors face when hiring upper level employees.  For some upper le

jobs, such as healthcare professionals, there is a shortage of qualified personnel

throughout the industry; hence, finding qualified applicants is naturally difficult.

However, in some occupations, the “shortage” may be influenced by how the hiring

is conducted.  For example, new hires and supervisors alike noted the considera

amount of time it takes to be hired or to fill a vacancy. For many applicants wi

skills that they can sell somewhere else, waiting 3 months or more for a job is simply

not an option.  Keeping applicants informed of the status of their application as

slowly moves along the process can help.  Unfortunately, many applicants do not 

any feedback at all

The complexity of the hiring process also unnecessarily frustrates applicants

Hoped-for improvements resulting from the use of technology have been slow to

materialize. Application requirements that take too much time to complete are

major complaint. Because agencies do not use a single process, applicants c

spend a considerable amount of time applying for the same type of job with

different agencies

Another problem with current hiring efforts is agencies’ passive approach to

recruiting applicants for upper level jobs. Many upper level positions are high

technical and/or hard to fill. Even so, the survey results suggest that agenci

use the same recruiting strategy to fill upper level jobs that they use to fill lower

level jobs.

It is clear that there are aspects in the hiring of upper level employees that need

improvement. This study on the hiring of upper level employees has identifi

many of the same weaknesses that MSPB has identified in numerous studies we

have conducted over the years

52 For example, complexity of the applicati

process and lack of a comprehensive recruitment strategy are problems that

come up regularly in these studies.  Many of these problems or barriers can

resolved without regulatory or statutory changes.  Agencies can make necess

improvements on their own to ensure that they attract and select high-quality

upper level employees

To improve the hiring of upper level new employees and ensure that the civil service

has the highly qualified diverse workforce it needs, MSPB offers the following

recommendations

52 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Reforming Federal Hiring: Beyond Faster and Cheaper, 

Washington, DC, September 2006. This report summarizes findings and recommendations of 

numerous studies on Federal hiring that MSPB has conducted over the years.

Conclusions and Recommendations
52 In Search of Highly Skilled Worker

Agencies Should:

1. Develop a hiring strategy to fill upper level jobs that uses a comprehensive 

recruiting plan that— 

• Does not limit public notice to USAJOBS. Recruitment efforts should 

include other announcement and publicity tools to attract a diverse pool of 

qualified applicants with the skills and expertise agencies need.

• Does more to highlight their missions in vacancy announcements and 

ads to appeal to potential applicants who have the passion and personal 

commitment to their agencies’ missions.

• Includes job marketing programs that emphasize positives that are 

important to people whom they want to attract. For example, the new 

hires indicated that they would have accepted their job offers even with a 

reduction in pay because of the Government’s workplace flexibilities and 

benefits package, so these should be stressed.

• Includes well written vacancy announcements.

2. Improve their assessment methods by—

• Avoiding the use of restrictive selective factors that do not enhance 

minimum qualification requirements to screen applicants. 

• Ensuring that automated questionnaires are not so long that they become 

burdensome, defeating the purpose of “automation.” Agencies should also 

ensure the accuracy of online assessment ratings by at least verifying the lack 

of qualifications of those who were rated unqualified and/or verifying the 

quality of experience of candidates who may be referred for selection before 

giving a certified list of candidates to the selecting supervisor.

3. Involve the supervisor (or other selecting officials) in the pre-selection phases of 

the hiring process—determining the hiring authorities or methods to be used, 

recruiting, developing assessment tools, and assessing qualifications. 

4. Continuously review their application process and eliminate steps that do 

not add value. Agencies should endeavor to review applications and assess 

qualifications in a timely manner to minimize the time applicants have to wait 

for hiring decisions.

5. Ensure that the human resources staffs responsible for recruiting applicants 

for upper level positions provide some meaningful feedback to job applicants. 

Feedback, which puts some personal touch to an impersonal process, can help 

maintain applicants’ interest throughout a hiring process that can be lengthy 

at times.

Conclusions and Recommendations
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5

Appendix. PATCOB Definitions Appendix. PATCOB Definitions

Professional work requires knowledge in a field of science or learning characteristically 

acquired through education or training equivalent to a bachelor’s or higher degree 

with major study in or pertinent to the specialized field, as distinguished from general 

education. Work is professional when it requires the exercise of discretion, judgment 

and personal responsibility for the application of an organized body of knowledge 

that is constantly studied to make new discoveries and interpretations, and to improve 

data, materials, and methods, e.g., mathematics or engineering.53

Administrative work involves the exercise of analytical ability, judgment, discretion 

and personal responsibility, and the application of a substantial body of knowledge of 

principles, concepts and practices applicable to one or more fields of administration 

or management. While these positions do not require specialized education, they do 

involve the type of skills (analytical, research, writing, judgment) typically gained 

through a college level education, or through progressively responsible experience.

Technical work is typically associated with and supportive of a professional or 

administrative field. It involves extensive practical knowledge, gained through 

experience and/or specific training less than that represented by college graduation. 

Work in these occupations may involve substantial elements of the work of the 

professional or administrative field, but requires less than full knowledge of the 

field involved.

Clerical occupations involve structured work in support of office, business, or 

fiscal operations. Clerical work is performed in accordance with established policies, 

procedures, or techniques; and requires training, experience, or working knowledge 

related to the tasks to be performed. Clerical occupational series follow a one-grade 

interval pattern.

Other white-collar occupations. There are some occupations in the General 

Schedule that do not clearly fit into one of the above groupings. Included among 

these are series such as the Fire Protection and Prevention Series, GS-081 and Police 

Series, GS-083. These occupations are collectively called “Other White-Collar.”

Blue-collar are occupations whose paramount requirements are trades, crafts and 

labor experience and knowledge.54

53 This definition and that of the other white-collar occupations came from the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management, “Introduction to the Position Classification Standards,” TS-134, July 1995. This 

document can be found at http://www.opm.gov/fedclass/gsintro.pdf.

54 This definition came from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Introduction to the Federal 

Wage System Job Grading System,” TS-44, September 1981. The document can be found at http://www.

opm.gov/fedclass/fwsintro.pdf.
PRST STD

PERMIT NO. G-113

WASHINGTON, DC

US POSTAGE PAID

Washington DC 204191615 M Street, N.W.U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

from Outside the Federal GovernmentA Study on the Hiring of Upper-Level EmployeesIn Search of Highly Skilled Workers