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

I s s u e s of

M  R I 

a publication of

the U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board,

Office of Policy

and Evaluation

W h a  ’ 

I n s d 

continued, page 5 

People like choice. Whether it’s 

selecting friends, picking out a new 

car, or selecting a type of cereal at the 

grocery store, individuals appreciate the 

opportunity to choose among alternatives. 

This preference for choice occurs in the 

workplace as well. Individuals self-select 

into certain jobs or careers and typically 

want autonomy in how they do their work 

tasks. Despite this desire to make tailored 

decisions, individuals often have little 

say in how they are rewarded for their 

performance. This is especially true in the 

Federal Government which has historically 

relied on monetary rewards of a modest 

nature, delivered once a year at performance 

appraisal time. There are several challenges 

with this approach.

First, while monetary incentives may 

be desirable for some individuals, others 

may not find them very motivating. Second, 

to the extent that such rewards are given 

only once a year, individuals may not 

see the connection between their efforts 

and such outcomes. Third, given budget 

constraints and shortages across many 

Federal agencies, the availability of funds 

to serve as worthwhile rewards has been 

and may become increasingly limited. 

Therefore, it is not surprising that the 2010 

Merit Principles Survey results indicate 

that only 51 percent of Federal employees 

agreed with the statement, “I am satisfied 

with the recognition and rewards I receive 

for my work.”1

 

In light of these challenges, agencies 

may want to consider alternative 

approaches to rewarding employee 

performance. One way is to design a 

reward system that appeals to individuals’ 

demonstrated desire for choice. This could 

include widening the range of available 

rewards and offering non-monetary 

options to supplement traditional 

monetary rewards. These rewards could 

include items such as time-off, public 

recognition, lunch with a leader, or gift 

certificates to local businesses. 

Having a wider range of rewards and 

allowing employees to make personalized 

decisions about the rewards they would 

like to receive for their performance will 

help ensure such rewards are actually 

meaningful. Further, the availability of 

non-monetary rewards not tied to yearlong performance could help supervisors 

Director’s Perspective

Page 2

Merit System Principles 

Education

Page 3

Determining Who Should 

Telework

Page 4

OPM’s Training Evaluation 

Field Guide

Page 5

The Role Performance 

Plays in 

Conduct-Based Actions

Page 6

Perceptions of Prohibited 

Personnel Practices 

Page 7

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 1 

Incorporating Choice into 

Performance Reward Systems

Improve the impact and timeliness of awards by involving employees in 

designing the reward and recognition program. 

1

In addition to the 51 percent who agreed, 27 percent 

of respondents disagreed with the statement and 22 

percent neither agreed nor disagreed.
I s s u e s of

M  R I 

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

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

U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board

CHAIRMAN

Susan Tsui Grundmann 

VICE CHAIRMAN

Anne M. Wagner

BOARD MEMBER

Mary M. Rose

Office of Policy and Evaluation

DIRECTOR

John Crum, Ph.D.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Laura Shugrue

Our Mission

The MSPB Office of Policy and 

Evaluation conducts studies to 

assess the health of Federal merit 

systems and to ensure they are free 

from prohibited personnel practices.

Issues of Merit

We offer insights and analyses on 

topics related to Federal human 

capital management, particularly 

findings and recommendations 

from our independent research.

Reprint Permission

We invite you to reprint any of our 

articles. If you do, please include 

the following attribution: Reprinted 

from Issues of Merit, a publication 

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

Board.

For More Information

Contact us at:

www.mspb.gov/studies

STUDIES@mspb.gov

202-254-4802, ext. 4802

1-800-209-8960

V/TDD: 202-653-8896

(TTY users may use the Federal 

Relay Service, 800-877-8339)

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Office of Policy and Evaluation

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419

D r e to r s    e r s p c 

2

continued, page 3 

2000s, there was a steep learning curve for 

some HR staffs.

For this reason, careful thought needs 

to go into what positions are critical to the 

agency’s performance. While retaining 

expertise is important, so too is building 

bench strength for the future. While 

cutting support positions often seems to 

be the easiest cuts to make in a resourcedeprived environment, agencies need to 

plan for how they will fill the voids left by 

those reductions.

A second important lesson is that 

selection processes matter. When hiring 

officials are approved to fill a vacancy 

during a period of downsizing, it is critical 

to fill it with someone who will be highly 

successful. If a bad selection is made, 

hiring officials may not get a second 

chance to rectify the situation. There are 

several steps agencies can take to improve 

the effectiveness of their recruitment and 

selection processes. 

A good recruitment and selection 

process starts with having a good 

understanding of the job. Prior to 

advertising the vacancy, hiring officials 

should identify what they expect from 

the person filling the position and ensure 

that the job description accurately reflects 

the expectation and requirements of the 

job. This information will convey a clear 

description of the job duties and talent 

requirements for successful performance. 

Based on this input, hiring officials 

can work with their HR specialist to 

develop a recruitment strategy that targets 

qualified applicants. This strategy will 

likely differ depending on the type of 

In a downsizing environment, there are steps you can take to ensure your 

organization is positioned well to carry out its responsibilities.

In the 1990s, the Federal 

Government downsized a considerable 

portion of its workforce using such 

strategies as attrition, buy-outs, earlyout retirements, and some reductionsin-force. It then went through a period 

of limited hiring during which agencies 

were not able to develop much bench 

strength in their key mission-critical 

and support occupations. As the 

Government likely faces another period 

of downsizing, we need to take a look at 

the lessons we can learn from the 1990s 

experience.

First, organizations have to make 

more strategic decisions about what 

positions they will fill and at what 

levels. In the 1990s, a popular reduction 

strategy was “last in, first out” in 

which agencies focused on retaining 

their most experienced employees and 

de-emphasized the need to fill lowergraded training positions. This strategy 

contributed to an aging workforce 

with a limited pipeline of talent and 

predictions of a “retirement tsunami” 

in which critical Government functions 

would not have been able to keep up 

with mission requirements. 

In addition, many critical support 

occupations were ultimately pretty well 

decimated and had to be rebuilt in the 

early 2000s. For instance, the number 

of Federal Human Resource (HR) 

professionals was reduced by 20 percent 

between 1991 and 1998. Both HR and 

line managers complained that the 

expertise of HR Specialists had eroded. 

Therefore, when agencies did start to 

increase hiring in the early- to midLessons Learned: Making 

Strategic Hiring Decisions

Issues of Merit July 2011
Issues of Merit September 2011 3

Director, Policy and Evaluation

(continued from page 2)

Director’s Perspective

Merit System Principles Education and Awareness

Are you familiar with the merit system principles? The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) thinks you should 

be. The merit system principles are nine basic standards that govern the management of the Executive Branch 

workforce and form the basis of Federal merit systems. The principles were codified in the Civil Service Reform Act 

of 1978 and can be found at 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b). In addition to conducting merit systems studies, MSPB’s proposed 

2012-2016 Strategic Plan emphasizes our responsibility to educate the public and Federal employees about the

fundamental characteristics of a merit system. We have already taken some steps in support of this initiative.

In January of 2011, MSPB launched a new series, “The Merit System Principle of the Month,” which can be found 

at www.mspb.gov/mspm.htm. You will find a page devoted to information about each principle and their purpose in 

a “Frequently Asked Questions” format, along with other relevant information. We will follow this series with another 

monthly series on the prohibited personnel practices. So be sure to visit our website at 

www.mspb.gov. 

The MSPB is also offering a free educational session to EEO practitioners on October 19, 2011 at MSPB’s 

headquarters in Washington, DC. This session will provide an overview of agency jurisdiction, mixed cases, 

prohibited personnel practices, and recently issued studies. Participants will also learn about MSPB’s appeals and 

hearing process and have an opportunity to speak directly to an MSPB Administrative Judge. We have already 

received positive feedback on previous educational sessions held. Any Federal Sector EEO practitioner interested 

in attending the October session should contact Jerry Beat, MSPB’s EEO Director on (202) 254-4405 or at 

Jerry.Beat@mspb.gov.

job. For general skills, a more broad-based recruitment 

approach might work, or alternatively you may need 

to target your recruitment sources for more specialized 

occupations. Providing potential job applicants with a 

realistic job preview of what will be required in the job 

and the conditions under which they will work (e.g., 

position telework eligible, amount of travel required, 

night work only) may help narrow the applicant pool to 

those who are a good match for the organization. 

The most critical step is choosing assessments 

that will best identify high potential employees. Our 

research has demonstrated that agencies have historically 

often used ineffective assessment tools, such as low 

level training and experience measures. The Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) has been working with 

agencies to improve these assessments. Ultimately, 

hiring officials and HR specialists need to have a better 

grasp of what assessments are better predictors of 

future performance and use those instruments to assess 

candidates. For instance, structured interviews are much 

more predictive than unstructured interviews and provide 

more in-depth detail about the applicant’s competencies 

for the job. 

We have also found that, when performed correctly, 

reference checks can be a valid and useful component 

of the assessment process (see our report Reference 

Checking in Federal Hiring: Making the Call, 2005). 

Since many assessment tools rely on information reported 

by applicants (e.g., resumes, occupational questionnaires, 

interviews), reference checks may be needed to verify 

the information provided, as well as to assess job-related 

competencies not adequately assessed through other 

means. 

Although a well-planned recruitment strategy 

and careful use of multiple assessment tools can go a 

long way in providing hiring officials with valuable 

information about candidates, they do not guarantee a 

good selection. For this reason, it is important for hiring 

officials to monitor the performance of a new employee 

during the probationary period to assess how well the 

employee performs the job. If there are any concerns 

about performance, the probationary period is the time to 

address and resolve them. 

While staff reductions are generally a painful 

experience, this focus on strategic workforce decisions 

and good assessment strategies will help minimize the 

shrinking pains. 

I~ 
4 Issues of Merit September 2011

Successful telework requires organizations to identify 

and implement the approach that is most appropriate 

for their situation. Therefore, organizations and their 

leaders need to make judicious decisions that take into 

account anticipated telework benefits, concerns, and 

implementation considerations. One such decision is 

determining criteria for teleworker eligibility. While 

criteria must be consistent with the law, the specific 

details fall under the purview of each organization. 

Although an organization may determine that 

telework is appropriate for a specific work unit, that does 

not mean it is appropriate for every employee in that 

work unit. Supervisors are probably in the best position 

to make good decisions about who should and should 

not be allowed to telework, and they should base those 

decisions on job-related information obtained through 

good performance management practices. 

Dovetailed with good supervisor decisions about 

telework eligibility criteria is the personal readiness of 

an employee to be an effective teleworker. Participation 

in a telework arrangement is voluntary, and not everyone 

is right for or interested in teleworking. Therefore, 

it is important for employees to conduct an honest 

self-assessment to determine whether or not they are 

personally prepared to telework. 

Interestingly, the kinds of questions supervisors need 

to ask about their employees’ preparedness for telework 

are the same types of questions that telework-eligible 

employees should ask themselves, as shown in the 

accompanying box. Supervisors’ use of sound telework 

eligibility criteria can work in concert with employees’ 

honest self-assessments to ensure that those who are 

teleworking can—and should be—teleworking. Good 

eligibility criteria and good self assessments should result 

in good teleworkers who will support the organization’s 

ability to accomplish its mission. 

For more information on how to make effective 

decisions about telework for your organization, see 

MSPB’s upcoming report, Telework: Weighing the 

Information, Determining an Appropriate Approach. In 

addition, two valuable resources to help you make the 

most of telework in your organization are:

Want Successful Telework? Choose Good 

Teleworkers

There are certain factors that supervisors and telework-eligible employees should consider when 

making decisions about who should and should not telework.

•	 Independently plan and organize the necessary work to 

fill telework days?

•	 Reliably meet performance expectations from a nonduty station location?

•	 Maintain discipline, focus, and self-motivation in the 

absence of direct supervision?

•	 Work effectively without the structure of the daily office

routine?

•	 Use technology to effectively maintain communication, 

teamwork, and work relationships while teleworking?

•	 Be available and responsive for timely contact and 

other work unit needs such as remote participation in 

meetings and contribution to unexpected assignments?

•	 Be flexible in the scheduling of telework days and

willing to come to the office to meet work unit or office

coverage needs or supervisor requests?

•	 Abide by standards for information and data integrity, 

privacy, and security?

•	 Resist temptation to engage in non-work or personal 

tasks while teleworking at home?

•	 Ignore or prevent distractions that could stem from the 

home environment or family members?

Is my employee able to... Am I able to...

Questions supervisors and employees 

should consider when making telework 

eligibility determinations

•	 The Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 available 

at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ292/pdf/

PLAW-111publ292.pdf 

•	 The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s April 

2010 Guide to Telework in the Federal Government

available at www.telework.gov/guidance_and_

legislation/telework_guide/telework_guide.pdf. 
Issues of Merit September 2011 5

Federal agencies are required to evaluate their 

training programs each year to show that these programs 

meet the agency’s goals and contribute to its long-term 

mission.1 Training officers, HR specialists, and others 

tasked with this reporting responsibility now have 

an additional resource. This year, the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) released the Training 

Evaluation Field Guide that describes best practices from 

15 Federal agencies.2

OPM’s guidance is consistent with a widely-used 

training evaluation model that distinguishes between four 

levels of information: satisfaction with training, learning 

from training, transfer of learning to job performance, and 

positive impact of that performance on the organization.3

 

It also draws upon evaluation guidance from the training 

profession.4 

The guide presents case studies and example 

materials from several agencies. Information for the guide 

was gathered from participants in a cross-agency working 

group hosted by OPM in 2010. These participants 

contributed important materials and perspective. This 

emphasis on best practices in Federal agencies makes 

the guide’s advice accessible to Federal employees, even 

if they are new to training evaluation. It allows them 

to focus on establishing the “return on expectation” of 

training in their public sector setting rather than try to 

adapt “return on investment” strategies designed for 

business environments.

The guide’s value to Federal training professionals 

is its focus on evaluating training specifically in Federal 

agencies. For example, it describes how to document 

a chain of evidence about training effectiveness that 

communicates training impact to agency leaders. There 

are also suggestions about how to divide responsibility for 

training effectiveness among agency personnel and how 

to create a “dashboard” of measures that monitors training 

effectiveness over time.

MSPB’s 2010 report, Making the Right Connections: 

Targeting the Best Competencies for Training, highlights 

the role of effective training evaluation in developing a 

high-performing Federal workforce. In this report, and in 

previous Issues of Merit articles5

, MSPB has encouraged 

agencies to evaluate training and to use this information 

to improve the training options available to Federal 

employees. The Training Evaluation Field Guide is an 

informative resource that may help agencies improve their 

practice of training evaluation. 

5

 “10-Minute Training Evaluation for Busy Supervisors,” (April, 2009). 

Issues of Merit, 14(2).

New from OPM: Training Evaluation Field Guide

OPM provides a new resource to help agencies evaluate the effectiveness of their training programs.

Rewarding Employees

(continued from page 1)

1

5 CFR 410.202

2

 Available at www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/trnginfo/trnginfo.asp 

3

 Kirkpatrick, J.D., & Kirkpatrick, W.K. (2010). Training on Trial. New 

York, NY: AMACOM.

4

 American Society for Training and Development. (2009). The Value of 

Evaluation: Making Training Evaluations More Effective. Alexandria, 

VA: ASTD.

make more timely and continuous decisions regarding 

recognition. Together, these features could engender more 

employee satisfaction with the reward system.

There are various approaches to customizing a 

reward system. As an example, managers could ask their 

employees to work together to develop a list of costsensitive, non-monetary rewards that would be desirable. 

These items—once approved by the manager—could then 

be organized into “reward tiers” that would designate 

different levels of performance to be recognized. 

As appropriate, employees could then be rewarded 

throughout the year in a more personalized and “on-thespot” fashion by choosing from the reward list. This could 

help supervisors better link rewards to performance as it 

occurs, albeit in a non-monetary manner. 

Naturally, managers would need to exercise 

discretion in determining who gets rewards and when. 

Fair treatment of employees is paramount for the success 

of any reward system. Although attractive, it is important 

to note that such a reward system may not be appropriate 

in every situation. However, it underscores that employees 

can be involved in determining the rewards that would be 

meaningful and motivating to them. Further, it highlights 

that a reward system can complement employees’ desire 

to make personalized decisions. Finally, it acknowledges 

that achievement-oriented rewards may enable managers 

to be more timely and continuous in recognizing and 

reinforcing good performance when it occurs. 
6 Issues of Merit September 2011

Conduct-Based Actions: Why Performance Matters

In 2009, MSPB surveyed proposing and deciding 

officials who were involved in enacting suspensions 

of 14 days or less and removal actions to get a better 

sense of the factors impacting management’s decision to 

discipline an employee for misconduct. The result? The 

employee’s performance may not matter in the decision 

to take a conduct-based action, but even in cases where 

performance was not one of the charges, performance 

does matter when it comes to determining the penalty.

Survey results show that of those employees who 

had a conduct-based action taken against them, poor 

performers were no more likely to be disciplined than 

average or above average performers. Twenty-two percent 

of respondents indicated that the performance level of the 

employee they disciplined was above average, 23 percent 

reported a level of less than average, and the rest reported 

a performance level of average. 

While employees of all performance levels were 

disciplined for misconduct, respondents’ estimation of 

the employee’s performance level had an apparent impact 

on the penalty implemented. For those employees who 

received short suspensions, there was little difference 

in performance level—24 percent were categorized as 

better than average performers and 22 percent as less 

than average. But, there was a large difference in the 

performance level among those employees who were 

removed—only 14 percent were considered better than 

average and 31 percent were worse than average. 

One possible reason why there are fewer above 

average performers in the removal category than in the 

short suspension category is that agencies do not want 

to do without the employees’ services. Their removal 

would be the permanent loss of good performance, even if 

retention increases the risk of more misconduct.

Considering an employee’s performance when 

determining the penalty for a conduct-based action is 

encouraged under the Douglas Factors. The Douglas 

Factors are a list of 12 items that agencies are expected 

to consider when determining what penalty is most 

appropriate for a particular situation. Specifically, officials 

must consider whether “the employee’s past work 

record, including... performance on the job” is relevant 

to the penalty, and to what extent it is an aggravating or 

mitigating factor.1

Our data also show that good performance is more 

likely to matter to the proposing and deciding officials 

than bad performance. Forty percent of respondents 

whose employees were in the above average performance 

category reported that the quality of the employee’s 

performance was very important when deciding the 

penalty. However, only 28 percent of respondents for the 

less than average performance category reported that the 

quality of the employee’s performance was important. 

Thus, performance is more likely to be a mitigating factor 

than an aggravating factor in the selection of a penalty.

Not surprisingly, an employee’s performance level 

also played a role in the predicted quality of the employee 

in the future. We asked respondents if they thought that 

the employee in question would be a “good Federal 

employee in the future.” Respondents predicted that 77 

percent of employees who were considered better than 

average performers would be good Federal employees 

in the future, compared with only 6 percent of below 

average performers.2 

For removal actions, respondents were even less 

likely to predict the individual would be a good Federal 

employee if given another chance elsewhere. Of those 

respondents who removed a below average performer, 

not one indicated that the individual was likely to be 

a good Federal employee if given another chance.3 Of 

those whose performance was average, 54 percent were 

considered unlikely to be a good Federal employee 

elsewhere. However, only 27 percent of better than 

average performers were considered unlikely to be a good 

Federal employee elsewhere. These results indicate that 

respondents consider their employees’ performance to be 

a critical factor in whether someone is a good employee, 

even when there is an act of misconduct so severe that it 

results in removal. This may be because they think poor 

conduct is easier to rectify than poor performance. 

Management officials should continue to consider 

the extent to which an employee’s performance is 

an aggravating or a mitigating factor and to inform 

employees that this will be taken into consideration 

when considering the appropriate penalty.4

 In the end, 

if an employee engages in misconduct, a history of good 

performance may be the best defense available. 

1

Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305 

(1981).

2

For employees with average performance, 42 percent were 

predicted to be good and 30 percent to not be good. 3

83 percent of respondents disagreed that the below average performer 

would be a good employee if given another chance elsewhere. 

4

Ward v. U.S. Postal Service, 634 F.3d 1274, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 

2011).
Issues of Merit September 2011 7

Avoiding Prohibited Personnel Practices Is 

Good Business

The prohibited personnel practices (PPPs) are 

codified in 5 U.S.C. § 2302 and are a list of prohibited 

motives for taking a personnel action. As a part of our 

statutory responsibility to assess the health of Federal 

merit systems, MSPB regularly conducts Governmentwide surveys in which we ask about employee perceptions 

regarding whether PPPs are—or are not—occurring in the 

workplace. 

In our upcoming report, Prohibited Personnel 

Practices: Employee Perceptions, we provide an 

explanation of what each PPP means and the frequency 

with which the PPPs have been observed from 1992 to the 

present. 

Our survey results show that perceptions of 

occurrences of PPPs have declined dramatically since 

1992. For instance, the percentage of employees reporting 

that they were discriminated against based on race/

national origin decreased from 13.4 percent in 1992 to 

5 percent in 2010; sex-based discrimination perceptions 

went from 12.2 to 3.9 percent; perceptions of interference 

with the right to compete have steadily dropped since 

1996, from 17.6 to 4.8 percent; and perceptions that 

a management official has granted an unauthorized 

advantage to an individual in a recruitment action also 

dropped dramatically from 25.3 percent in 1996 to 

7 percent in 2010. PPPs in the Federal Government 

are serious, but they also appear to be increasingly 

uncommon.

However, our 2010 survey data also show that there 

may be a business case for continued efforts to reduce the 

frequency with which employees perceive occurrences 

of PPPs. As can be seen in the chart below, employees 

who perceived a PPP, whether observed or personally 

experienced, were less likely to be engaged at work, as 

measured by MSPB’s engagement index.1

 In addition, 

the more PPPs an employee reported observing, the less 

likely the employee was to be engaged. In fact, as shown 

in the chart below, those employees who observed two 

PPPs had a lower level of engagement than those who 

personally experienced one. Thus, while avoiding PPPs is 

a legal requirement, it can also be argued that it is a good 

business practice. 

Employee Perceptions of PPPs and Levels of Engagement

1

For more on the engagement index, see MSPB’s report The Power of 

Federal Employee Engagement, available at www.mpsb.gov/studies.

Perceptions of the prohibited personnel practices have declined dramatically in the last 18 years, 

and avoiding these practices can be important to ensuring good business practices.

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

% 

Engaged Somewhat Engaged Not Engaged 

• None observed or experienced • Observed 1, but not affected • Observed 2+, but not affected 

• Affected by 1 • Affected by 2+ 
I s s u e s of

M  R I 

I n T h s I s s u e * I n T hi   I s s u     I   T  i   I s s 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

MSPB 20419

PERMIT NO. G-113

Conduct-Based Actions. Does 

performance play a role in conductbased disciplinary actions? (Page 6)

Prohibited Personnel Practices. 

What do Federal employees think? 

(Page 7)

Incorporating Choice into Reward 

Systems. Explore how agencies can 

better use performance and reward 

systems to motivate employees in 

tough times. (Page 1)

Director’s Perspective. With 

potential downsizing on the horizon, 

agencies need to think strategically 

about what positions they will fill and 

how they will select the best people 

for those positions. (Page 2)

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 1 V o l u m e 1 6 I s s u e 4

Merit System Principles 

Education. Find out more about 

MSPB’s efforts to increase awareness 

of the merit system principles. 

(Page 3)

Deciding Who Teleworks. Both 

supervisors and employees play an 

important role in determining who 

can effectively telework. (Page 4)

OPM’s Training Evaluation Field 

Guide. A look at a new resource that 

helps agencies evaluate the 

effectiveness of their training 

programs. (Page 5)