Office of Policy and Evaluation 

Perspectives

Reforming Federal Hiring

A Report to the President and 

the Congress of the United States 

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Beyond Faster and Cheaper 

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Perspectives

Reforming Federal Hiring:

Beyond Faster and Cheaper

A REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND 

THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

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 

Director 

Steve Nelson 

Deputy Director 

John Crum, Ph.D. 

Project Manager 

Laura Shugrue 

Table of Contents 

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

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Merit-Based Hiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Competitive Examining Proces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Evolution of the Federal Hiring System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Recruiting a Quality Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 

Hiring Process is Long . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Hiring Process is Not Applicant-Friendly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Government Recruitment and Marketing are Often Ineffective . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Assessing a Quality Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Qualification Standards Have Limited Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Assessment of Relative Qualifications is Often Inadequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Ensuring Merit in Federal Hiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Excepted Service Appointments Often Reduce Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Merit Promotion Procedures Often Waste Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Luevano, Rule of Three Can Inhibit Hiring and Merit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Managing the Hiring Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Hiring is Often Seen as Solely an HR Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Supervisors Lack Human Resources Skills and Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

HR Expertise is Eroding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Automation is Not Always Used Effectively . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Governmentwide Reforms Lack Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Related MSPB Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

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

Executive Summary 

Today, organizations face intense competition for skilled workers. To compete in this environment, 

Federal agencies need a hiring system that: (1) is responsive to managers’ needs and the needs of 

their applicants, (2) produces high-quality applicants, (3) supports timely decisions, and (4) results 

in competitive job offers. Over the years, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board has published numerous 

studies that explore discrete aspects of the Federal hiring system. This perspectives report brings together 

the core findings and recommendations from those individual studies to inform potential reform efforts in 

this area. MSPB concludes that reform is necessary to improve Federal hiring efforts. Specifically, the 

Government needs to achieve a better balance between the often-competing goals of efficiency and quality. 

Background 

In November 2003, Congress granted the Department of Defense (DoD) the 

authority to establish a new civilian human resources management (HRM) system. 

While the pay for performance aspect of this new system has received the vast 

majority of attention, the legislation also allows DoD to virtually redefine its 

hiring process to better meet its mission needs. DoD’s progress could even set the 

precedent for Governmentwide reform. 

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has conducted numerous studies 

over the years that address various pieces of the Federal hiring system. Given 

that reform of the Federal hiring process is nearing the forefront of civil service 

discussion, this perspectives report brings together some of the key issues presented 

in these past reports. Specifically, the purpose of this report is to inform reform 

efforts by: (1) summarizing key findings of recent MSPB research on hiring issues, 

(2) articulating the Board’s perspective regarding the strengths and weaknesses of 

the Federal hiring system, and (3) identifying and promoting hiring practices that 

support merit-based selection. 

Findings 

The Federal Government operates a merit-based hiring system. The key purpose 

of the system is to identify, attract, and hire the candidates who can best meet 

the needs of the organization and support the public’s interests. Not only is this 

good public policy, but making good selections can also lead to higher productivity, 

increased employee morale, improved teamwork, and reduced turnover—all of 

which contribute to organizational performance. 

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

The Pendleton Act of 1883 formed the basis of the Federal competitive, meritbased hiring system and was meant to combat the evils of the “spoils system.” 

Over the past 120 years, the Government has incrementally added rules, regulations, 

and shortcuts to the system to make it faster, cheaper, and in some cases, more 

effective. While these are worthy goals, what has resulted is a long, complex process 

that too often makes it difficult to hire the best person for the job. Ultimately, the 

current hiring system frequently does not work in the best interests of applicants, 

mission accomplishment, or the public. 

The time may be right to achieve significant reform—to not only attempt to meet 

the objectives of “faster” and “cheaper,” but also to balance those objectives with 

a strategy toward “better” processes and outcomes. 

Better Recruitment. The length and complexity of the hiring process already 

detract from the Government’s ability to attract quality candidates. Therefore, 

agencies need to be able to market their jobs to applicants. Unfortunately, this is 

not one of Government’s strong points. The Government too often uses poorly 

written vacancy announcements and passive recruitment strategies, and it focuses 

recruitment efforts primarily on short-term workforce needs 

Better Assessment. The quality of employee selection depends on the criteria 

and methods used to distinguish the high-potential applicants from the rest. 

Currently, the Federal Government tends to rely on assessment tools that are not 

good predictors of performance. For instance, Government has gravitated toward 

the use of training and experience assessments that are not rigorously applied. 

These tools may help save time or money, but they are less likely to result in quality 

selections than tools that are better predictors but more costly to develop. 

Better Management of the Process. Managing the hiring process well is as 

important as the process itself. Unfortunately, increasing mission demands and 

dwindling resources make it difficult for selecting officials and HR staffs to carry 

out this responsibility. Agency leaders tend to view hiring as an HR function, rather 

than a business function. Automation could be used more effectively to manage the 

hiring process. Finally, fragmented reform efforts are creating a system of “have” 

and “have-not” agencies—some receiving increased funding or flexibilities for 

human capital initiatives while others do not. 

Better Merit-Based Decisions. To address inefficiencies and inequities in 

the Federal hiring system, the Government has created a number of sanctioned 

alternatives to the competitive examining process. For instance, the Federal Career 

Intern Program and other excepted service hiring authorities do not require 

traditional competition in which applicants are rated and ranked. However, some 

of these alternatives can impede fair and open competition and advancement based 

solely on relative ability. In addition, they can result in unsound hiring decisions 

and can actually create disincentives to invest resources in good recruitment and 

assessment practices. 

ii Reforming Federal Hiring 
Executive Summary 

Recommendations 

It is time to look at hiring reforms in a systematic, rather than incremental, way. If 

the Government is to reform the hiring system, it needs to get back to the basics. 

That means preserving the original values behind merit-based hiring and divesting 

the system of rules and processes that are superfluous to those values. Reform 

should therefore seek to accomplish three goals: 

1. Provide agencies the flexibilities they need to effectively manage; 

2. Ensure employees and applicants receive the protections promised by the 

merit system principles; and 

3. Provide the public a high-quality Federal workforce working toward their 

interests. 

Many of the recommendations in this report do not require regulatory change, but 

they will require that agencies look at hiring with a greater focus on quality. 

Federal departments and agencies should— 

Manage hiring as a critical business process, not an administrative 

function. This means integrating discussions of hiring needs, methods, and 

outcomes into the business planning process. 

Evaluate their own internal hiring processes, procedures, and policies 

to identify barriers to quality, timely, and cost-effective hires. Agencies 

will probably be surprised to see that many of the barriers they face are selfimposed. 

Employ rigorous assessment strategies that emphasize selection 

quality, not just cost and speed. In particular, use assessment instruments that 

have a relatively good ability to predict future performance. Using assessment tools 

in succession can make the assessment process even more effective in managing the 

candidate pool and narrowing the field of qualified candidates. 

Improve efforts to manage the applicant pool while making the 

process manageable for applicants. This means better recruitment strategies, 

improved vacancy announcements, more communication with applicants, and a 

timely, understandable application and assessment process. 

Properly prepare HR staff and selecting officials for their hiring 

responsibilities. Ensure they have the training and expertise to carry out their 

hiring responsibilities in a timely, high-quality manner, and hold them accountable 

for those responsibilities. 

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

Plan carefully when implementing automated tools designed to 

support the hiring process. Do not assume that technology alone will fix 

already-broken processes. For instance, automating an assessment tool that is a low 

predictor of job success will not improve the tool’s predictive ability. 

Evaluate success. Continually evaluate the hiring process to ensure it is meeting 

organizational long-term and short-term needs. 

The Office of Personnel Management should— 

Work with agency Chief Human Capital Officers, Congress, and the 

Administration to develop a Governmentwide framework for Federal 

hiring reform. This framework should provide agencies with the flexibilities 

necessary to address agency needs while also preserving selection quality and 

employee and applicant protections. 

As part of Governmentwide reform, streamline and consolidate 

appointing authorities to simplify hiring procedures. A smaller number 

of flexible authorities will make the process more transparent and understandable. 

Coupled with valid assessment processes, they can speed the process while still 

ensuring merit. 

Better assist agencies to develop and implement valid and practical 

assessment tools. Agencies should have better access to the best selection tools, 

regardless of internal expertise or financial capability to develop them. 

Work with the Attorney General to petition the district court to sunset 

the Luevano consent decree and its related special hiring programs. 

The decree and its “temporary” hiring authorities have had many negative effects 

on Federal recruitment and assessment. It is time to establish a sunset date for the 

decree and focus on developing valid and practicable assessment tools for entrylevel positions covered by the decree that better predict performance and reduce 

adverse impact on minorities. 

Expand efforts to develop competency-based qualification standards. 

A competency-based qualification system will help agencies make better 

determinations on whether applicants are a good fit for the job by emphasizing 

performance, potential, and quality of experience rather than just length of 

experience. 

iv Reforming Federal Hiring 
Introduction 

Purpose 

I

s the Federal hiring system broken? Many applicants, hiring managers, and 

Federal human resources (HR) professionals would shout out a resounding 

“yes” in answer to this question. They would say that the hiring process is 

confusing, takes too long, and is a barrier to attracting and hiring high-quality 

candidates. 

Most of us have heard at least some of the distressing stories. Promising candidates 

interested in public service turn away from careers with the Federal Government 

because they cannot decipher the application process, cannot wait 6 to 9 months for 

a hiring decision, or cannot find a job offer that is competitive with other employers. 

Today, organizations everywhere face intense competition for skilled workers. 

Federal managers are competing with the private sector, other public organizations, 

and even other Federal agencies for a share of the labor market. In many cases, this 

comes after years of downsizing and workplace changes that have affected the skills 

their organizations need. To help managers compete, they need a hiring system 

that: (1) is responsive to their needs and the needs of their applicants, (2) produces 

high-quality applicants, (3) supports timely decisions, and (4) results in competitive 

job offers. 

In November 2003, Congress granted the Department of Defense (DoD) the 

authority to establish a new civilian HR system. While the pay for performance 

aspect of this new system has received the vast majority of attention, the legislation 

also allows DoD to, in effect, redefine its hiring process to better meet its mission 

needs. DoD’s progress could even set the precedent for Governmentwide reform.1 

In recent years, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has conducted 

several in-depth studies that address discrete aspects of the Federal hiring system, 

including recruitment, automation, assessment practices, and merit promotion.2 

1 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has also been authorized to reform much of 

its personnel system, including its pay and rewards. DHS, however, was not authorized to reform 

its staffing authorities and therefore does not have the same types of flexibilities available to DoD 

in this area. 

2 Note that these reports are products of the Office of Policy and Evaluation’s (OPE) studies 

function. While OPE takes into account the adjudicatory decisions of the Board, the studies are 

not based on those proceedings. They are based on independent research conducted separate 

and apart from the adjudicatory process. 

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

Given that reform of the Federal hiring process is nearing the forefront of civil 

service discussion, this perspectives report brings together some of the “big 

picture” issues that cut across all of these topic areas. Specifically, the purpose of 

this report is to inform reform efforts by: (1) summarizing key findings of recent 

MSPB research on hiring issues, (2) articulating the Board’s perspective regarding 

the strengths and weaknesses of the Federal hiring system, and (3) identifying and 

promoting hiring practices that support merit-based selection. 

Merit-Based Hiring 

Hiring highly qualified people is one of the most important factors in developing 

a successful organization. Accordingly, the overall purpose of a hiring system 

is to identify, attract, and hire the candidates who can best meet the needs of 

the organization. Because the Federal Government must be answerable to the 

American public, it is particularly important that its hiring decisions be based on 

merit and support the public’s interests. 

For that reason, the Federal Government’s merit-based hiring system is rooted in 

laws, regulations, and processes that govern who can be considered for a job and 

how applicants are assessed, referred, and selected. The purpose of these laws 

and regulations is to ensure that appointments are based on qualifications and not 

favoritism, that hiring practices conform to the values set forth in the merit system 

principles, and that these practices do not result in prohibited personnel practices. 

Specifically, a merit-based hiring process seeks to ensure that qualified individuals 

are recruited from all segments of society through fair and open competition, 

selection is based on relative ability, and applicants and employees receive fair and 

equitable treatment.3 

A merit-based system can result in a number of benefits. In particular, studies have 

shown that making selections based on candidates’ ability to do the work can lead 

to higher organizational performance and increased financial benefits.

4 In addition, 

merit-based hiring can increase the Government’s credibility. The public will be 

more likely to believe its tax dollars are being used wisely if the most qualified 

employees fill Federal jobs. 

On the other hand, making selections that are influenced by non-merit factors can 

result in hiring candidates who do not possess the skills necessary to perform the 

job. Poor selections can result from taking shortcuts in: defining the needs of the 

job; recruiting from the best sources; or assessing candidates. These poor selections 

can then ultimately increase costs and decrease productivity. 

3 Merit Principles No. 1 and 2 (5 U.S.C. §2301). 

4 For instance, see David E. Terpstra and Elizabeth J. Rozell, “The Relationship of Staffing 

Practices to Organizational Level Measures of Performance,” Personnel Psychology, Spring 1993, 

p. 46 and Watson Wyatt Worldwide, The Human Capital Index: Linking Human Capital and Shareholder 

Value, 1999. 

2 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Introduction 

The actual cost of hiring the wrong person for a job—including wasted salary, 

benefits, severance pay, training costs, and hiring time—can be up to three times 

the employee’s salary.

5 Poor selections can also result in lost productivity due to the 

time it takes to carry out an adverse action. A recent study found that U.S. managers 

spend about 34 days per year tending to performance issues, and senior executives 

spend an average of one hour per day managing poor performers.

6 In addition, 

poor selection can lead to increased turnover and absenteeism.7 To reduce the 

associated business costs, it is important to employ hiring procedures that are 

based on merit and result in high-quality hires. 

Competitive Examining Process 

Federal managers can hire new employees using a variety of methods. However, 

the competitive examining process was designed to be the primary vehicle. Table 1 

summarizes the basic steps required by this process. 

Table 1. Major Steps in the Competitive Service Hiring Process8 

Step Action(s) 

1 Define the job and identify job requirements. 

2 Select assessment tools. 

3 Develop a rating procedure—a method for distinguishing among qualified applicants. 

4 Recruit, publicize the job, and receive applications. 

5 Determine if applicants are eligible to hold the position—meet applicable age, citizenship, 

tenure, and other requirements. 

6 Assess minimum qualifications—whether applicants meet minimum requirements to perform 

satisfactorily on the job. 

7 Assess relative qualifications by making distinctions among qualified applicants. 

8 Issue a list of applicants (or a “certificate of eligibles”) to the selecting official. 

9 Continue to assess the qualifications of the top applicants. 

10 Select applicant(s). 

11 Evaluate new hire(s) during probationary period and finalize appointment or terminate. 

While this list outlines the basic steps in the hiring process, a number of variations 

exist. In addition, an increasing number of hiring flexibilities and appointing 

authorities simplify or eliminate some of the steps. 

5 Corporate Leadership Council, Literature Review, “Employee Selection Tests,” Catalog No 

070-198-213, Washington, DC, Mar. 1998, p. 2. 

6 Laurence Karsh, “The Hidden Costs of Poor People Management,” Inc.com, Dec. 2004, 

downloaded on June 14, 2005 from http://pf.inc.com/articles/2004/12/karsh.html. 

7 The Partnership for Public Service, Asking the Wrong Questions: A Look at How the Federal 

Government Assesses and Select Its Workforce, Washington, DC, Oct. 2004, p. 3. 

8 As adapted from the Office of Personnel Management’s Delegated Examining Operations 

Handbook: A Guide for Federal Agency Examining Offices, Washington, DC, 2003. 

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

Evolution of the Federal Hiring System 

When first established, the Federal merit-based hiring system was a simple process 

that covered a small portion of the civil service. It has grown in both complexity 

and scope over the past 120 years. Understanding how the system has evolved over 

time is important to identifying where it needs to go in the future. Table 2, as well 

as the discussion below, provides a brief chronology of the evolution of the Federal 

merit-based hiring system. 

The Spoils System. From 1829-1883, Federal hiring was predominantly based 

on partisan loyalty, with little regard to competence and qualifications. This “spoils 

system” led to problems with corruption in Government, incompetence in the 

workforce, and excessive civil service turnover after each election. The era 

culminated in the assassination of President Garfield by a disappointed officeseeker. 

Protecting Against the Spoils System. The Federal civil service system as we 

know it was created with the passage of the Pendleton Act of 1883. The Act was 

a response to growing concern over the spoils system. It required that civil service 

positions be filled through competitive examinations open to all citizens and that 

selections be made from the best-qualified applicants without regard to political 

considerations. This merit-based process originally covered only about 10 percent 

of Government employees—most of whom were low-graded clerical staff with 

little need for specialized technical qualifications—but grew over time to include 

a majority of civil service employees.

9 

Standardization. The first half of the 20th century brought with it a focus on 

efficiency and standardization. Personnel processes, including classification and 

selection, were highly influenced by scientific management theories. These theories 

suggested that scientific analysis could identify the one best and most efficient 

way of carrying out management practices. Given that Government work was 

still largely straightforward, routine, and low-graded, one size did seem to fit all. 

Therefore, it made sense to develop standardized systems to facilitate equity among 

civil service employees. 

Flexibility. As the civil service makes its way through the information age, routine 

work is declining, knowledge-based work is increasing, and technology is redefining 

the work we do and how we do it. Jobs are less easily standardized, and the skills 

needed by the workforce are more technical, specialized, and require the ability to 

continually learn and innovate. These changes have caused a trend toward more 

flexibility in the hiring process, resulting in decentralization, delegation, deregulation, 

and the proliferation of HR flexibilities and appointing authorities. 

9 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “The First Fifty-five Years,” Biography of an Ideal, 

Washington, DC, downloaded on Dec. 10, 2005 from www.opm.gov. 

4 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Introduction 

Many public administration researchers note that the civil service 

system has evolved primarily through “tinkering” with the existing 

system and that the Government is using “short-term remedies 

for long-term problems.”10 This is especially true of the hiring 

system. In a desire to eliminate perceived barriers, reduce the time 

to hire, and lower costs, agencies are opting out of the typical hiring 

process. This “opting out” appears to indicate fundamental problems 

with the system, yet no systematic reform has been implemented. 

Instead, agencies are increasingly turning to a collection of new 

appointing authorities and flexibilities that are replacing the standard, 

Governmentwide hiring system. 

Some of these flexibilities provide many benefits, such as shortening the hiring 

process. However, they are short-term remedies that often result in emphasizing 

speed and cost over quality and merit. The Government needs to develop longerterm, strategic reform that balances responsiveness and results with principles of 

merit. This report attempts to identify where reform efforts should focus. 

10 Patricia Wallace Ingraham, Sally Coleman Selden, and Donald P. Moynihan, “People 

and Performance: Challenge for the Future Public Service—the Report from the Wye River 

Conference,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 60, No 1, Jan./Feb. 2000, p. 55. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5 
Introduction 

Table 2. Significant Events in Federal Hiring: 1883–Present 

1829-

1883 Spoils System Federal hiring was based largely on partisan loyalty rather than 

competence. 

1883 Pendleton Act 

After a disappointed office-seeker assassinated President Garfield, 

the Pendleton Act established a competitive civil service that 

removed 10 percent of Federal jobs from the “spoils system.” 

1888 “Rule of three” 

A civil service rule directing personnel officials to provide selecting 

officials only the top three names from a list of qualified eligibles 

to ensure merit-based employee selection. It was made law in the 

Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944. 

1923 Classification Act 

Sought to establish equity in recruitment, promotion, and pay 

practices by using scientific methods to evaluate and categorize 

jobs and assign salary scales. 

1944 Veterans’ 

Preference Act 

Incorporated previous laws and regulations dating back to the 

Civil War to provide certain veterans with preference in the Federal 

appointment process. 

Mid1950s 

Merit system 

incrementalism 

Through decades of presidential directives, the competitive service 

came to cover almost 85 percent of Federal workforce.11 

1978 Civil Service Reform 

Act 

Established the merit system principles and prohibited personnel 

practices to improve the quality of public service. These principles 

and practices create the framework for Federal merit-based hiring. 

1978 Uniform Guidelines 

issued 

The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures 

establish a uniform basis for “determining the proper use of tests 

and other selection procedures.” 

1981 Luevano consent 

decree approved 

A Federal court approved an agreement to settle a claim that 

the Federal Professional and Administrative Careers Examination 

resulted in adverse impact. The Administrative Careers With 

America examination and the Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/ 

Bicultural hiring authorities were created in an attempt to remedy 

the adverse impact. 

1995 

Standard application 

requirement 

abolished 

On January 1, 1995, Federal agencies were instructed to no longer 

require the use of the SF-171 for applications. 

Mid1990s 

Rise of legislated 

alternative 

personnel systems 

that provide hiring 

flexibilities 

The mid-1990s saw the rise of agency-specific legislation to reform 

personnel systems to better meet mission requirements and provide 

“relief” from Title 5 constraints. This trend continues today. For 

example: 

-1995—Federal Aviation Administration 

-1998—Internal Revenue Service 

-1998—Department of Agriculture permanent demonstration project 

-2003—Department of Defense 

1996 Competitive examining decentralized 

Pursuant to Public Law 104-52, OPM delegated most competitive 

examining to agencies and began charging for examination services. 

Late 

1990s 

Automated hiring 

systems 

The late 1990s brought technology to hiring practices as agencies 

began testing and implementing on-line hiring systems capable of 

recruiting and assessing candidate applications. 

2000 

Rise of flexibilities 

that aid 

recruitment & hiring 

For example: 

-2000—Federal Career Intern Program 

-2002—Direct hire and category rating 

-2004—Federal Workforce Flexibility Act 

Date Event Description 

11 Neil MacNeil and Harold W. Metz, The Hoover Report 1953-1955: What It Means to You as a 

Citizen and Taxpayer, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1956, p. 31. 

6 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Recruiting a Quality Workforce 

Recruitment is the process of attracting qualified individuals to apply for 

positions with an organization. Recruitment is not just about filling 

current vacancies; it is about making a continuous, long-term investment 

in attracting a flow of highly skilled applicants. These applicants provide the basis 

for a high-quality workforce capable of accomplishing the organization’s mission 

now and in the future.

12 Here, we discuss some of the most significant barriers to 

Federal recruitment. 

Hiring Process is Long 

One of the most common complaints about the Federal hiring process is that it 

takes too long. Using data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 

the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that it takes an average 

of 102 days to complete all of the steps in the competitive hiring process (from 

making the request to fill the position to making the appointment).13 In fact, it is 

not uncommon to hear from candidates who wait 6 months or more from the time 

they submit their application to the time they receive an offer. Needless to say, the 

longer the process takes, the more applicant attrition is likely to occur as potential 

candidates accept positions with other employers that use faster hiring processes. 

To obtain an approximation of applicant perceptions about the 

hiring process, MSPB surveyed new Federal employees. While 

a majority of them reported that hiring decisions were made 

within a reasonable period of time, almost a third did not agree. 

In particular, many survey respondents reported that the time 

between the application submission and the interview was 

too long.

14 

12 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing Federal Recruitment: Issues, Insights, and 

Illustrations, Washington, DC, Sep. 2004, p. 2. 

13 U.S. Government Accountability Office (formerly the General Accounting Office), Human 

Capital: Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies’ Hiring Processes, GAO-03-450, Washington, DC, 

May 2003, p. 11. 

14 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Competing for Federal Jobs: Job Search Experiences of New 

Hires, Washington, DC, Feb. 2000, pp. 11-13. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 7 
Recruiting a Quality Workforce 

Supervisors have also reported that the process takes too long. In a 1999 MSPB 

survey, 73 percent of supervisors reported that filling vacancies in their organization 

takes too long. While a large majority thinks it should take no more than 8 weeks 

to fill merit promotion jobs with internal or external candidates, this timeframe is 

rarely met.15 

There are a number of factors that lengthen the hiring process. For instance, 

selecting officials can add to the time it takes to hire. In a 2004 OPM survey, almost 

50 percent of agency respondents said that a key barrier to timely hiring is the 

amount of time spent by selecting officials in reviewing applicant credentials and 

conducting interviews.

16 

The human resources office can also contribute significantly to the lengthy hiring 

process. Table 3 reflects the results of a 1999 MSPB survey in which supervisors 

approximated how long it takes to fill a merit promotion position. They estimated 

that it takes over 1 month to announce the vacancy and about 8 weeks to develop 

rating plans, rate and rank applicants, and prepare the lists of best qualified 

candidates. 

Table 3. Supervisors’ Estimates of the Time it Takes 

to Complete Merit Promotion Tasks17 

Getting approval to fill a vacancy 

Getting the HR office to announce the vacancy 

Rating and ranking applicants 

Task 

Interviewing candidates 

Obtaining higher level approval of the proposed selectee 

Total 

Deciding on the appropriate area of consideration 

Developing a rating plan 

Preparing the best qualified lists 

Making the final selection 

Notifying the selectee and getting him or her on board 

Average # of calendar days 

29 

14 

36 

17 

21 

19 

15 

12 

16 

25 

204 

15 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Length of Time to Fill Jobs: Expectations are High 

and Unmet,” Issues of Merit, Sep. 2000. Currently, MSPB only has data on supervisors’ satisfaction 

with the length of the merit promotion process. We are in the process of collecting this data on 

other hiring authorities as well. 

16 United States House of Representatives, Statement of the Honorable Dan G. Blair, Deputy 

Director, Office of Personnel Management, Before the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization, 

Committee on Government Reform, Chicago, IL, June 7, 2004. 

17 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Merit Promotion Program: Process vs. Outcome, 

Washington, DC, Dec. 2001, p. 18. 

8 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Recruiting a Quality Workforce 

Furthermore, the agency process can be a barrier to timely hiring. The Partnership 

for Public Service is working with Federal agencies to conduct “Extreme Hiring 

Makeovers” and improve the hiring process. In the course of its efforts, one agency 

conducted process mapping exercises and found that there were 114 steps in the 

hiring process; 45 hand-offs between managers, administrative staff, and HR; and at 

least 2 steps in the process that required the approval of 10 or more officials.

18 

Finally, preappointment requirements can also significantly 

contribute to the length of the hiring process.

19 For instance, many 

positions require that applicants undergo extensive background 

investigations to ensure that they are suitable for security clearances 

or for positions of public trust. As of late 2005, there was a 

backlog of approximately 400,000 background investigations in 

Government,20 and the wait to complete these investigations can 

be in excess of one to two years. 

A somewhat lengthy hiring process is not always a bad thing. Using 

quality recruitment strategies and assessments to identify the best candidate for a 

job may take more time than using less effective means. However, the longer the 

process takes, the more applicant attrition is likely to increase as candidates accept 

positions with other employers. So, agencies must determine the proper balance 

between quality hiring methods and complex processes that deter applicants. 

Numerous efforts are underway to speed the hiring process. Many agencies are 

turning to automation to decrease processing time. OPM policy experts and 

program officials developed a 45-day hiring model and are measuring agency 

progress toward meeting this timeframe using the President’s Management 

Scorecard. OPM and the Partnership for Public Service are working with individual 

agencies to revitalize their hiring processes. Hiring flexibilities—such as category 

rating, direct hire, and streamlined intern and student programs—have been 

developed to help agencies speed their hiring process. OPM and Congress are 

attempting to address the background investigation backlog through automation, 

capacity building, and legislation. But much remains to be done if the Federal 

Government is to create a hiring process that can compete with other employers 

who can make more timely job offers. 

18 Partnership for Public Service, Extreme Hiring Makeover: A Makeover that Matters, presentation 

by Katie Malague, 2005. 

19 MSPB, Competing for Federal Jobs, p. 12. 

20 United States Senate, “Access Delayed: Fixing the Security Clearance Process, Part II,” 

Statement of The Honorable Linda M. Springer, Director, Office of Personnel Management, 

Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the 

District of Columbia, Nov. 9, 2005. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 9 
10 Reforming Federal Hiring

Hiring Process is Not Applicant-Friendly

Another common complaint about the hiring process is that it is not applicantfriendly. The process is difficult for applicants to understand and places too much 

burden on applicants. According to a 2001 National Association of Colleges and 

Employers college student survey, 37 percent of respondents interested in Federal 

careers did not understand the application process, and 49 percent thought the 

process was too lengthy and complicated.21 

A look at the numerous routes an applicant can take to enter the Federal 

Government shows why the process is considered so complex. The competitive 

examining process, as outlined in Table 1, has been the primary vehicle into Federal 

employment. The process was designed to hold agencies accountable for adhering 

to the merit system principles of fair and open competition; recruitment from all 

segments of society; selection based on relative ability, knowledge, and skills; and 

fair treatment of all applicants and employees. 

However, many 

noncompetitive 

hiring authorities 

have been 

introduced to 

streamline Federal 

hiring, meet 

agency mission 

needs, and support 

public policies, 

as illustrated in 

Figure 1. Each of 

these authorities 

has different 

processes and 

procedures for 

recruitment, 

applying, or selection. Because there are so many different ways to enter the civil 

service, one cannot reasonably expect an applicant to know about or understand 

them all. 

Decentralization has added to the complexity of the hiring process. Twenty-five 

years ago, the process was burdensome to the applicant but simple. OPM centrally 

administered hiring. Applicants went to OPM offices, filed a standard application, 

took a centrally administered test, and waited to hear for what positions in which 

agencies they were qualified.22 With the decentralization of hiring, agencies now 

Recruiting a Quality Workforce

21 Marilyn Mackes, “Keys to Finding Quality Entry-Level Employees,” National Association 

of Colleges and Employers, Presentation for the National Academy for Public Administration, 

Washington, DC, Apr. 2001.

22 Graeme Browning, “Embracing Online Recruiting,” Federal Computer Week, Apr. 8, 2002.
Recruiting a Quality Workforce 

administer hiring programs themselves. There is no standard application, no single 

assessment tool, and applicants generally must send different applications and other 

required forms to each agency they apply to. This increases the amount of time 

they must devote to job searching. 

Automation, in some ways, has further increased applicant burden. Many agencies 

have developed individual automated application systems that do not communicate 

with systems in other agencies. Therefore, an applicant who is searching for 

a “Government job” may have to build a separate resume and profile for each 

individual agency to which he or she applies. 

To help address this concern, OPM has implemented 

Recruitment One-Stop (ROS) through its USAJOBS 

recruitment Web site. Following private sector job board 

models such as Monster and CareerBuilder, ROS is intended 

to provide applicants with a single location where they can 

create a Federal resume, search Federal job listings, submit 

the resume to a posted job with one click, or post their 

resume so that employers can find them if their skills match 

the employer’s needs. OPM is coordinating with agencies to 

expand their job applications and status tracking and to complete the migration of 

agency job search engines and resume builders.

23 Until this integration is complete, 

applicants may still have to submit different online resumes to different agencies, 

depending on the automated system the agency uses. Additionally, applicants 

should note that while ROS is an important resource, not all Federal jobs are posted 

on OPM’s Web site since many positions are not required to be posted (more will be 

discussed on this later). 

Agency application requirements also add to applicant burden and complexity. For 

many Federal vacancies, applicants are required to submit narrative explanations 

(commonly known as Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities or KSAs) of their specific 

qualifications for the job or fill out long questionnaires. These submissions are 

used by HR specialists or selecting officials to rate applicant qualifications. They 

can be time intensive and burdensome to complete. In addition, they can be alien 

and discouraging to applicants because private sector organizations do not generally 

require these types of submissions. 

We cannot know precisely how many applicants drop out of the Federal job 

search due to a lack of understanding of the process or applicant burden. 

However, agencies cite complex hiring processes as a key obstacle to successful 

recruitment and selection. When applicants lose interest in or are deterred from 

even applying for jobs, agencies can lose much of the return on investment for 

their recruitment efforts. 

23 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Recruitment One-Stop,” E-Gov: Presidential 

Initiatives, downloaded on June 17, 2005 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/c-4-2-

recruit.html. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11 
Recruiting a Quality Workforce 

Government Recruitment and Marketing are Often Ineffective 

The Federal Government is often at a disadvantage in competing for highquality applicants. Several recent surveys demonstrate that interest in Federal 

Government employment is low. Jobs in the Government are commonly viewed as 

less challenging, rewarding, and developmental than private and non-profit sector 

jobs.

24 Even the events of September 11, 2001 have not had a profound impact on 

young adults’ desire to work for the Federal Government.25 This comes at a time 

when competition for qualified applicants is increasing across all sectors due to the 

expected wave of baby-boomer retirements and the slow growth rate of the U.S. 

labor force.

26 

To address these challenges, the Federal Government and its individual agencies 

need to ensure that recruitment and marketing efforts are sufficient to attract top 

talent in this competitive environment. Unfortunately, MSPB has found that Federal 

recruitment and marketing suffer from a number of weak points, starting with the 

vacancy announcement. 

Advertising Vacancies 

The Federal vacancy announcement serves three key functions: to market, 

inform, and support merit and public policies. First, the announcement should 

describe the job in such a way as to make applicants want to apply. Second, it 

should provide applicants with enough information to make informed decisions 

as to whether they are interested in, eligible for, and qualified for the position. It 

should then set out the rules applicants must follow to apply. Finally, posting the 

vacancy announcement is required for competitive service positions to ensure 

that competition is “fair and open” and to provide information about public 

policies that might allow applicants to apply under alternate processes.

27 The 

vacancy announcement is one of the most visible recruitment tools and contains 

information that is essential to applicants. Therefore, it is also one of the most 

important recruitment tools. 

Unfortunately, MSPB has found that the quality of Federal vacancy announcements 

is weak. As part of a research project, we reviewed a set of randomly selected 

vacancy announcements posted to USAJOBS. We rated the quality of the 

announcements based on organization, readability, use as a recruiting tool, and the 

utility and appropriateness of information and instructions provided. Ultimately, we 

rated 53 percent of them as “poor” and only 2 percent as “good.”28 

24 MSPB, Managing Federal Recruitment, p. 18.

25 See The Partnership for Public Service, The Class of 9-11: Bringing a New Generation of Practical 

Patriots into Public Service, Washington, DC, May 2005. 

26 MSPB, Managing Federal Recruitment, p. 3. 

27 5 U.S.C. §3330 and 5 C.F.R. §330.707 (b). 

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

Washington, DC, Apr. 2003, p. 9. 

12 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Recruiting a Quality Workforce 

All too often, vacancy announcements are not well written. They can use jargon, 

contain grammatical errors, and come across as negative or even insulting. They 

are frequently hard to understand—with murky job titles and duties, qualification 

requirements that are lengthy and unspecific, and vague or even contradictory 

applicant instructions. They can contain unnecessary information, are exceedingly 

long, and make little effort to “sell” the Government, agency, or job.

29 

All of this can discourage, rather than encourage, job seekers from applying for Federal 

jobs. MSPB recommended that agencies improve announcements by reducing their 

length, reducing the use of negative and confusing language, using clear descriptions to 

explain and sell jobs, and clearly describing how to apply for positions.

30 

OPM is making an effort to help agencies improve vacancy announcements. As 

part of its USAJOBS redesign, OPM revamped the job announcement template 

to make it more streamlined and user-friendly. The new template includes better 

organizational capability and a new tabbed display format that allows applicants 

access to necessary information in a quick and organized manner. 

The template is a tool to help organize announcements, but agencies must still put forth 

the effort to improve the actual content and make it appealing to applicants.

31

 MSPB 

conducted a follow-up review of a set of randomly selected vacancy announcements 

from USAJOBS in 2005. We found that many vacancy announcements are still 

poorly written and do not do a good job of recruiting high-quality applicants.

32 

29 MSPB, Help Wanted, pp. 10-16 

30 MSPB, Help Wanted, pp. 28-29. 

31 MSPB, Managing Federal Recruitment, p. 34. 

32 MSPB, “Help Wanted for Vacancy Announcements,” Issues of Merit, Dec. 2005. 

DON’Ts: 

Negative Statements 

• DO NOT contact our office asking 

if your application has been 

received. We will not provide 

verification of application receipt. 

Unclear Statements 

• MAJOR DUTIES: The primary 

purpose of this position is to 

manage and administer a specific 

technical area consisting of 

several subprograms and projects 

within a major program structure. 

Restrictive Qualifications 

• Knowledge of [a specific agency’s] 

body of pay rules, regulations, 

laws, and procedures. 

DOs: 

Market the Job 

• JOB SUMMARY: If you are 

interested in a challenging 

accounting career with excellent 

benefits, training, and strong 

growth potential...apply for the 

Internal Revenue Agent position. 

Clear Statements 

• QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED: 

You must have one year of 

specialized experience at a 

level close to the work of this 

job. Such experience requires 

a strong litigation background, 

particularly in litigating cases 

before administrative bodies and 

judicial forums. 

QUOTES FROM AGENCY VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENTS 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13 
Recruiting a Quality Workforce 

Recruitment Strategies 

Agencies recently reported to us that their most used recruitment strategy is posting 

announcements to their Web site and USAJOBS.

33 However, posting effective 

vacancy announcements is just one step in implementing a good recruitment 

strategy. While a job posting may be fast and inexpensive, it is a passive strategy 

that requires an applicant to search out the agency. A more effective recruitment 

strategy is for an agency to identify the type of applicants it needs, actively search 

for them, and make them want to apply for the job. Some key elements of an 

effective recruitment program include: 

❏ Distinguishing recruitment as a critical management function rather than 

solely as an HR function; 

❏ Establishing the needed infrastructure and resources for a good recruitment 

program and delineating the recruitment roles and responsibilities 

throughout the agency; 

❏ Identifying short- and long-term recruitment needs; 

❏ Identifying and implementing a balanced set of recruitment strategies that 

target the needed applicant pool and effectively market the organization; 

and 

❏ Evaluating results. 

MSPB has found that agencies are more often than not struggling in their 

recruitment efforts. For instance: 

❏ Recruitment is often viewed solely as an HR function rather than a critical 

management function; 

❏ Recruitment planning tends to be based on short-term needs rather than 

long-term goals that are aligned with the agency mission; 

❏ Agencies often do not play on their strengths in marketing the agency and 

its jobs to potential applicants; 

❏ The various flexibilities and marketing tools available to agencies (e.g., 

recruitment bonuses and student loan repayment) are not used to their 

fullest potential; 

❏ Tracking recruitment expenditures is difficult; and 

❏ Many organizations rely on rudimentary methods to measure the success of 

their recruitment efforts.

34 

33 MSPB, Managing Federal Recruitment, p. 10. 

34 MSPB, Managing Federal Recruitment. 

14 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Recruiting a Quality Workforce 

On the other hand, agencies need to take care that they do not over-recruit. In 

other words, recruitment efforts should entice qualified applicants to apply but 

not encourage unqualified applicants. Sometimes, this can be difficult or out 

of the agency’s control. Vacancies that receive a lot of attention or are highly 

sought after can result in a large number of applications. For instance, in 2002, 

1.8 million people applied for 55,000 screener positions at the Transportation 

Security Administration. Only about 340,000 met the minimum qualifications 

for the position and only 100,000 were rated as fully qualified.35 The creation 

of a federalized security screener workforce was highly publicized by the press. 

This press coverage most likely influenced the unprecedented numbers of 

applications. But the lesson is that simply increasing the number of applicants 

is not necessarily a good thing. It can result in agencies spending unnecessary 

time screening applications from ineligible or unqualified applicants. It can also 

result in antagonizing applicants who spend time preparing applications only to 

be disappointed with the end result. Agencies need to focus on targeting those 

applicants that are eligible and highly qualified for the position. 

A number of Federal agencies have demonstrated that it is possible for the 

Federal Government to effectively compete for talent. These organizations make 

recruitment an organizational priority, allocate the necessary resources to it, and 

employ proactive and creative approaches in their recruitment strategies. While they 

attempt to achieve efficiencies in their recruitment efforts, they emphasize quality 

recruitment strategies that target the needed applicant pool. Table 4 presents a 

sampling of these approaches.

36 

Table 4. Innovative Recruitment Practices 

The Internal Revenue Service has developed a written recruitment plan that was 

based on workforce analysis, competency assessment, and market research. 

The agency also tracks the expenditures on and the results of recruitment 

strategies to direct resources to the most effective activities. 

Planning and 

Evaluation 

The Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service was actively 

involved in recruitment events at his alma mater. This made a positive 

impression on candidates and conveyed his commitment to recruitment efforts. 

Leadership 

Participation 

The Social Security Administration built an agency-wide marketing campaign 

around a single “tag line” and targets marketing materials to specific needs 

and audiences. 

Branding and 

Marketing 

The Government Accountability Office assigns senior executives and a recruiting 

team to targeted colleges and universities to manage recruitment efforts and 

relationships. 

Building 

Relationships 

Practice Example 

35 Brian Friel, “Security Sweep,” Government Executive Magazine, Mar. 15, 2003. 

36 For additional examples of innovative agency recruitment approaches, see MSPB, Managing

Federal Recruitment. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15 

Assessing a Quality Workforce 

The key objective of a merit-based hiring system is the systematic 

identification of the best person(s) for the job. Fulfilling this objective 

depends on the criteria and methods used to distinguish among applicants. 

The criteria should first be job-related and reasonably able to predict job success. 

Cost and efficiency should be considered in deciding which assessment strategies to 

use, but should not be the driving forces behind that decision. Quality assessments 

should be viewed as an investment in the workforce—not a cost. MSPB’s research 

has found that generally the Federal Government does not use the most predictive 

assessment tools when evaluating applicant qualifications. Instead, it tends to use 

assessments that are easier and less expensive to develop and implement. 

Qualification Standards Have Limited Use 

Once an agency has successfully enticed applicants to apply for positions and 

accepted their applications, it must determine whether the candidates meet the 

minimum requirements to perform satisfactorily on the job. These minimum 

requirements are contained within OPM’s qualifications standards. The standards 

stipulate the quantity of experience or level of education the applicant must have. 

They may also call for specific educational or degree requirements. Applicants who 

do not meet these standards are not further considered. 

Having common criteria against which to measure minimum qualifications 

is advantageous because it can ensure consistency in initial determinations.

37 

However, the way the current standards are written is problematic in several ways: 

❏ They rely too heavily on length of previous experience rather than on the 

competency and talent developed through the previous experience, which 

are better indicators of success. This focus on length of experience also 

does not take into consideration the applicant’s future potential. 

❏ They do not acknowledge the obsolescence of training and experience over 

time. Given the changing nature of work, experience or education attained 

many years ago may not be relevant in today’s work environment.38 

37 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Assessing Federal Job-Seekers in a Delegated Examining 

Environment, Washington, DC, Dec. 2001, p. 15. 

38 MSPB, Help Wanted, p. 22. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17 
Assessing a Quality Workforce 

❏ They do not always adequately represent what is needed in the job. The 

standards are often criticized for being out-of-date for fast-changing 

occupations or too broadly defined to be meaningful.39 

❏ Their predictive validity is uncertain. They have never been tested to 

determine their ability to predict job performance.

40 

Qualification standards are intended to differentiate between those applicants who 

are likely to successfully perform the job and to screen out those who are not. We 

recognize that they are not designed to rank candidates, identify the best qualified, 

or substitute for rigorous skills assessments. However, there may be a better way 

to screen candidates than to rely on quantitative factors such as years of experience 

and levels of education. In addition, qualification standards could be used as more 

than just a screen-out tool. 

OPM has been experimenting with qualification standards that are written in terms 

of competencies.

41 This competency approach is based on scientific analysis that 

identifies the general and technical competencies required to successfully perform 

the job. Using this approach, agencies will be better prepared to measure the quality 

of applicants’ preparation for the job or their level of competence rather than just 

amount of experience or education.42 

Furthermore, this approach, when fully actualized, provides an optimal competency 

profile at all career levels of the job, from entry- through senior-level. Current 

qualification standards provide only the minimal qualifications. The competency 

profile facilitates an integrative approach to human resources management by 

serving as the basis for assessment, classification, career development, performance 

management, and other management functions.

43 

MSPB believes that these competency profiles can provide more detailed and valid 

descriptions of occupational requirements. However, they are costly to develop and 

require that users are familiar with the concepts behind competencies and how to 

use them in an integrated HRM approach. We encourage OPM to continue work in 

this area and explore ways to address these barriers. 

39 MSPB, Assessing Federal Job-Seekers in a Delegated Examining Environment, p. 15. 

40 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Identifying Talent through Technology: Automated Hiring 

Systems in Federal Agencies, Washington, DC, Aug. 2004, p. 45; Partnership for Public Service, 

Asking the Wrong Questions, p. 10. 

41 OPM Delegated Examining Operations Handbook defines competency as “a measurable 

pattern of knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors and other characteristics that an individual needs 

in order to perform work roles or occupational functions successfully” (2003, p. 2-B-1). 

42 Donna Rodriguez, Rita Patel, Andrea Bright, Donna Gregory, and Marilyn K. Gowing, 

“Developing Competency Models to Promote Integrated Human Resources Practices,” Human 

Resources Management, Fall 2002, Vol. 41, No. 3, p. 319. 

43 Rodriguez, Patel, Bright, Gregory, and Gowing, “Developing Competency Models to 

Promote Integrated Human Resources Practices,” p. 320. 

18 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Assessing a Quality Workforce 

Assessment of Relative Qualifications is Often Inadequate 

Once an agency determines which applicants meet the minimum qualification 

requirements, it then needs to assess relative qualifications—or make distinctions 

among the remaining applicants to determine who is best qualified for the 

position. Making these distinctions requires that agencies’ assessment tools 

sufficiently distinguish between average applicants and the potential “superstars.” 

Unfortunately, the Federal Government tends to use assessment procedures that are 

not particularly good in making these distinctions. 

Assessment Methods 

Much research has been conducted to compare the results of assessment methods 

with actual job performance. Table 5 shows that some assessment methods 

are better than others in predicting job performance, though none are perfect 

predictors. 

Assessment Procedure Validity Score 

Work Sample Tests 

Structured Interviews 

General Mental Ability Tests 

Job Knowledge Tests 

Job Try-Out Procedure 

Unstructured Interviews 

Biographical Data Measures 

Reference Checks 

Years of Job Experience 

Grade Point Average 

Training and Experience 

(behavioral consistency model) 

Training and Experience (point 

method) 

Years of Education 

Graphology (handwriting 

analysis) 

0.54 

0.51 

0.51 

0.48 

0.44 

0.38 

0.35 

0.26 

0.45 

0.18 

0.17 

0.10 

0.02 

0.11 

Table 5. Validity Scores of Selected Assessment Methods44 

Here, “validity” refers to the ability of an assessment tool to predict how well an applicant will 

perform on the job.45 The closer the score is to 

+1, the stronger the relationship between the 

assessment tool results and job performance. 

Based on that, work sample tests, structured 

interviews, and general mental ability tests 

have greater predictive value than training and 

experience point method. 

Squaring the validity score estimates the 

variability in an employee’s performance that 

can be predicted by an assessment tool.46 For 

instance, work sample tests predict 29 percent 

of the variability in how well applicants will do 

on the job whereas the training and experience 

point method predicts only 1 percent. It could 

be said, then, that the work sample test is 

up to 29 times better at identifying the best 

candidates than the point method. 

Interpreting Validity Scores 

44 Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in 

Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings,” 

Psychological Bulletin, the American Psychological Association, Inc., Vol. 124, No. 2, Sep. 1998, 

p. 265. 

45 Elizabethann O’Sullivan and Gary R. Rassel, Research Methods for Public Administrators, third 

edition, New York: Longman, 1999, p. 121. 

46 O’Sullivan and Rassel, Research Methods for Public Administrators, p. 433; MSPB, Identifying Talent 

through Technology, p. 61. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19 
Assessing a Quality Workforce 

Identifying the actual return on investment of using an assessment tool with 

high validity scores is somewhat difficult because of the many variables involved. 

However, Schmidt and Hunter’s research suggests that as employers use more valid 

selection procedures, improved employee performance can result in significant 

savings or profit over time.

47 

MSPB has reviewed the accumulating research on some of the more prevalent 

assessment methods available to Federal agencies. Below, we describe our general 

findings on these methods. 

Training and Experience 

The Government has gravitated toward the use of training and experience (T&E) 

assessments. MSPB’s 2000 Merit Principles Survey asked supervisors what 

information they use in selection decisions. Almost all—96 percent—reported 

using prior work experience to a great or moderate extent, and 82 percent reported 

using level of education to a great or moderate extent.48 

A 1999 MSPB study found that about 60 percent of delegated examining unit 

(DEU) hires are assessed through “unassembled examinations.”49 This term refers 

to a process in which the DEU reviews applications, rates education and experience 

against evaluation criteria for the position, and arrives at a numerical score for each 

applicant.

50

 This assessment methodology, most similar to the “point method” listed 

in Table 5, relies on giving points to applicants based on exposure to training and 

experience rather than actual achievement and performance. Used in this way, training 

and experience assessments are one of the poorer predictors of future job performance. 

This focus on T&E has likely occurred due to a number of factors, including 

the current Government emphasis on expediency; a regulated environment 

that discourages innovation; qualification standards that are written in terms of 

experience; and a lack of time, support, and expertise in developing advanced 

assessment instruments.

51 

It is understandable why agencies rely on T&E assessments. They are convenient 

and widely available tools that are fairly easy to develop, administer, and automate. 

They are also less costly to develop than the assessments with higher predictive 

values, such as written tests and work sample tests. These factors make evaluation 

of T&E particularly attractive to agencies filling individual positions. The return 

on investment for assessment development is simply not as high for individual 

47 Schmidt and Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel 

Psychology,” p. 273. 

48 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Merit Principles Survey 2000, Question 77A. 

49 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Role of Delegated Examining Units: Hiring New 

Employees in a Decentralized Civil Service, Washington, DC, Aug. 1999, p. 5. A delegated examining 

unit is the organization that evaluates applicants for employment in the competitive service. This 

authority is delegated to the agency by OPM. 

50 MSPB, The Role of Delegated Examining Units, p. 5. 

51 MSPB, Identifying Talent through Technology, p. 26. 

20 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Assessing a Quality Workforce 

positions as it is for high-volume hiring. However, as Schmidt and Hunter point 

out, using assessments with low validity will likely reduce organizational productivity 

and could result in the loss of financial assets over time.

52 

When developed properly, T&E assessments can be fairly solid predictors of 

future performance. For instance, the behavioral consistency method of evaluating 

training and experience is the more predictive version of T&E. The method uses 

scientifically rigorous procedures to identify which accomplishment dimensions 

separate top performers from low performers. Applicants are then asked to 

describe past experiences that show they can perform at a high level in these areas, 

and their answers are systematically scored.53 

However, Federal agencies historically have not applied the kind of rigor necessary to 

develop predictive T&E assessments. Most use scoring processes that gauge exposure 

to training and experience. Instead, the Government should be developing assessments 

that better measure the quality of the skills actually developed through that training and 

experience. This can be accomplished to a certain extent through T&E assessments, but 

only if agencies improve the way they do job analyses and crediting plans. In particular, 

the Government needs to use more rigorous procedures to determine performance 

elements that separate high performers from low performers and to develop valid 

scoring techniques for measuring applicants against those dimensions. 

General Mental Ability Tests 

As noted, general mental ability tests are one of the better tools available in 

predicting future job performance. These tests are used to measure such cognitive 

factors as spatial, verbal, and math skills. Schmidt and Hunter found that these 

tests have several advantages. They can be used for entry-, mid-, or senior-level 

jobs. They have the greatest theoretical foundation of any assessment tool. They 

have the highest validity at the lowest administration cost. Finally, they are the best 

available predictor of both job performance and learning ability.

54 

However, they do have their drawbacks, as well. General mental ability tests 

can have adverse impact on certain racial and ethnic groups.

55 In fact, OPM 

discontinued the use of the Professional and Administrative Careers Examination 

52 Schmidt and Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology,” 

p. 273. 

53 Schmidt and Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology,” 

p. 268. 

54 Schmidt and Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology,” 

p. 264. 

55 Kevin R. Murphy, Brian E. Cronin, and Anita P. Tam, “Controversy and Consensus Regarding 

the Use of Cognitive Ability Testing in Organizations,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, Vol. 88, 

No. 4, p. 660. Adverse impact is defined by the Federal Uniform Guidelines as existing when “a 

substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decisions works 

to the disadvantage of members of a racial, gender or ethnic group. If such a rate is less than 80 

percent of the selection rate of the racial, gender, or ethnic group with the highest rate of selection, 

this is generally regarded as evidence of adverse impact,” http://www.uniformguidelines.com/ 

uniformguidelines.html. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 21 
Assessing a Quality Workforce 

(PACE), a general mental ability test, in response to a 1979 lawsuit claiming the test 

had adverse impact on African-Americans and Hispanics. At that time, PACE was 

the Government’s primary assessment tool for almost 120 occupations at the GS-5 

and GS-7 levels. Some researchers argue that combining cognitive testing with other 

non-cognitive measures can alleviate the adverse impact resulting from cognitive 

ability tests. But no real consensus exists on this point.56 

In addition to the issue of adverse impact, these types of tests are costly to develop 

because they take much expertise and require rigorous validation methods. From 

an economical perspective, then, they are most beneficial in filling high-volume 

vacancies where a larger return on investment can be realized. According to a 

January 2000 MSPB report, another drawback is that many managers associate 

written ability tests with unsatisfactory experiences they had when hiring was 

centralized, including lack of timeliness and quality. Finally, selecting officials 

currently have access to noncompetitive hiring processes that give them more 

control over hiring and do not require any form of assessment beyond basic 

qualification determinations.

57 

MSPB has argued that criticisms of these tests carry less weight if agencies would 

consider alternate ways to use written tests. The tests do not have to be the first 

hurdle in hiring. Using them later in the process would likely lower the possibility of 

adverse impact. In addition, instead of using the strict numerical scores, the results 

of the test could be combined with the results of other assessment instruments, 

again lowering the possibility of adverse impact. Finally, advances in technology 

make administration and scoring far simpler now than even 10 years ago, which 

could make them much more timely.

58 Overall, general mental ability tests are a 

valuable assessment tool that can increase the quality of selections. 

Structured Interviewing 

Selection interviews are widely used and influential assessment tools. Ninetyfive percent of supervisory respondents to the Merit Principles Survey 2000 

reported using them in selection decisions.

59 However, not all interviews are alike. 

Specifically, a manager can conduct an informal, unstructured interview, or the 

interview can be structured in a way that produces useful, measurable data about 

the applicant. Table 5 demonstrates that structured interviews can be excellent 

assessment tools and relatively good predictors of performance—equal in validity 

to general mental ability tests. Unstructured interviews, on the other hand, are less 

capable of predicting performance and can lead to bias. Table 6 compares the 

characteristics of structured and unstructured interviews. 

56 Murphy, Cronin, and Tam, “Controversy and Consensus Regarding the Use of Cognitive 

Ability Testing in Organizations,” pp. 669-670. 

57 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring: Why Two Special Hiring 

Programs Should Be Ended, Washington, DC, Jan. 2000, p. 22. 

58 MSPB, Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring, p. 23. 

59 MSPB, The Merit Principles Survey 2000, Question 77A. 

22 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Assessing a Quality Workforce 

Table 6. Characteristics of Unstructured and Structured Interviews60 

Unstructured Structured 

The factors evaluated by the interview are implicit 

and vary across candidates. 

The factors evaluated are explicit, based on job 

analysis, and are the same for each candidate. 

Questions are not necessarily job-related. Questions are job-related. 

Questions vary from interview to interview for the 

same job. 

The same questions are asked of all candidates 

for the same job. 

There is no system or guide for evaluating 

interview results. 

There is a pre-developed system for evaluating 

interview results. 

Interviewers may be untrained. Interviewers have received the same training. 

Structured interviews provide consistency in the content of the interview, how the 

interview is conducted, what information is solicited, and how the information is 

rated and used. The benefits of structured interviews are numerous. They support 

merit when they are based on a solid job analysis and are relevant to the position 

being filled. Implemented correctly, they treat candidates fairly and objectively 

with little or no adverse impact. They give the interviews more focus, make them 

more consistent, and guard against errors in judgment. Conversely, unstructured 

interviews have been found to rely on first impressions (e.g., the strength of the 

handshake or how the applicant is dressed) and read too much into the interviewee’s 

behavior (i.e., assuming what the interviewer sees in an interview is the behavior 

they will see on the job).61 

Research tells us that agencies are not using interviews to their fullest potential. 

Instead, selecting officials rely on personal observation and judgment, sacrifice 

rigorous interview techniques for speed and intuition, and devote insufficient 

resources to developing and using good interview tools.

62 The structured interview 

does require more resources than the unstructured interview. More time and money 

is needed for job analysis, training, development, and evaluation of the results. 

However, its use can result in better hires and increase the defensibility of the 

assessment process. 

Reference Checks 

Selecting officials tend to rely on information reported by the applicant when 

evaluating an applicant’s skills and abilities. They collect this self-reported 

information from resumes, occupational questionnaires, and interviews. It is 

important for agencies and managers to verify that the information provided to 

them by the applicant is accurate. In this context, reference checks are a valuable asset 

in the overall assessment process, even though their validity score is relatively low. 

60 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential, 

Washington, DC, Feb. 2003, p. 6. 

61 MSPB, The Federal Selection Interview, pp. 19-22. 

62 MSPB, The Federal Selection Interview, pp. 28-29. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23 
Assessing a Quality Workforce 

MSPB’s 2005 study on reference checking, Reference Checking 

in Federal Hiring: Making the Call, defines a reference check as a 

discussion between a prospective employer and someone who 

has worked with the job applicant. A reference check should 

address pertinent, job-related questions about the applicant’s 

past performance, competencies, and job-related behaviors. It 

should be used primarily to verify information provided by the 

applicant, and the information gathered is used as part of the 

hiring decision. 

Research indicates that reference checks are widely used in the Federal Government. 

According to the Merit Principles Survey 2000, 77 percent of agency supervisors 

who hired a new employee conducted a reference check.63 However, managers 

have expressed a number of concerns about using this method of assessment. 

One drawback to reference checks is that managers feel former employers and 

other references do not always provide useful or appropriate information. This 

is a significant problem when dealing with prior employers who fear potential 

lawsuits as a result of providing negative information about the applicant. To 

avoid this legal pitfall, many employers have established policies that allow 

the release of only minimal information regarding former employees, making 

reference checks less useful.64 

To assuage reference-giver concerns, some organizations require applicants to sign 

a waiver authorizing prior employers to discuss the applicant’s job performance 

and releasing them from liability resulting from reference check discussions. As 

a matter of fact, the Federal Government’s Declaration of Federal Employment 

contains such a waiver, but is often not signed until after the applicant is hired.65 

Another strategy to overcome reference-giver concerns is to involve the applicant 

in contacting the former employer.

66 The applicant can notify the former employer 

that the reference check will be requested, encourage the employer’s candid 

participation, discuss the scope of the reference check, and attempt to allay any 

fears regarding legal backlash. 

Another concern about the reference check is that applicants provide the source 

of the information and will not likely provide a reference who will speak badly 

of them. Managers can address this issue by not relying solely on the references 

provided to them. Selecting officials can begin with the references provided by the 

applicant and ask those references for additional names. This type of strategy helps 

avoid over-reliance on the applicant; though, as mentioned above, it may be difficult 

to locate additional references who will agree to provide information.67 

63 MSPB, The Merit Principles Survey 2000, Question 77A. 

64 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Reference Checking in Federal Hiring: Making the Call, 

Washington, DC, Sep. 2005, p. 39. 

65 MSPB, Reference Checking in Federal Hiring, p. 17. 

66 MSPB, Reference Checking in Federal Hiring, p. 32. 

67 MSPB, Reference Checking in Federal Hiring, p. 33. 

24 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Assessing a Quality Workforce 

The reference check is a fairly simple and cost effective strategy that is particularly 

important in verifying job-related information the applicant has provided. 

Reference checks are especially useful if they employ a structured process similar 

to the structured interview. Structured reference checks can help add focus to the 

discussions, increase the fairness and objectivity of the checks by making them more 

consistent, and help guard against errors in judgment. Used properly, reference 

checks can assist in increasing the quality of the hire at a minimal cost to the 

organization. 

Probationary Period 

Managers tend to think that once they have made the selection and job offer, the 

assessment process is over. What they forget is that the probationary period is one 

of the most effective assessment tools available because it provides the opportunity 

to observe the employee on the job. Unfortunately, Federal managers do not 

typically use the probationary period as an additional assessment. 

The probationary period is the time agencies have to determine the fitness and 

qualifications of an individual before that individual’s appointment to the Federal 

service becomes final.68 The purpose of the probationary period is to observe 

employees and make sure they have the skills necessary to do the job for which 

they were hired. If they don’t—and the deficiency cannot be reasonably handled 

through training and development—then they should be terminated. As seen in 

Table 5, this type of “job try-out procedure” has a relatively high ability to predict 

future job performance. However, the assessment is limited by the unwillingness 

of some supervisors to terminate low performers, resulting in a lower validity score 

than one would expect.69 

Unfortunately, we have found that Federal supervisors do not, in fact, make 

good use of the probationary period. Less than 2 percent of competitive service 

employees are removed in their first year of service.

70 To explore this finding 

further, MSPB surveyed supervisors and asked if they would select their probationer 

again if given the chance. Of those who reported they would not again select their 

probationer, over half said they nevertheless expected to retain the probationer 

at the end of the probationary period.71 If the probationary period is to be an 

effective assessment tool, supervisors need to be willing to separate probationers 

who are not successfully performing in the job. Managers and probationers alike 

recognize that the Government does not effectively use the probationary period. 

68 5 U.S.C. §3321 and 5 CFR §315.803. 

69 Schmidt and Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel 

Psychology,” p. 268. 

70 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity, 

Washington, DC, Aug. 2005, p. ii. 

71 MSPB, The Probationary Period, p. 7. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25 
Assessing a Quality Workforce 

Some managers reported in the survey that it is better to have 

a “warm body” than “no body.” Others indicated that they 

do not receive support from upper management and/or the 

HR staff in separating problem probationers.

72 

This has an impact on the probationers themselves. They 

see that the probationary period is not being used and 

therefore do not take it seriously. This lack of organizational 

commitment to the probationary period undermines its 

effectiveness as a valuable assessment tool. 

Cost Prohibitions of Assessment 

Developing valid assessment tools can be expensive. For 

instance, creating and validating written examinations 

requires a certain amount of time and expertise to do 

properly. Another example is the time and effort required for designing, training 

in, conducting, and evaluating structured interviews as opposed to unstructured 

interviews. Unfortunately, due to increasing mission obligations and decreasing 

budgets, many agencies are not able to take on these additional resource demands. 

At one time, the responsibility for the Federal examining process rested with 

OPM. In recent years, OPM has decentralized a wide array of its operating 

functions. As a result, agencies have been delegated the task of developing and 

administering assessment tools. However, supporting resources did not accompany 

this shift in responsibility, and many agencies are not able to take on these additional 

resource demands. Moreover, delegated examining units have been under great 

pressure to cut costs, making them less able to invest in the more valid but costly 

assessment tools.

73 

OPM does still provide assistance to agencies in assessment development. But due 

to its own budget cutbacks, its services are available only on a reimbursable basis. 

Many agencies, particularly smaller agencies or those that do less hiring, do not have 

the necessary resources to invest either in OPM’s services or in the development of 

their own assessment tools. This limitation creates a system that divides agencies 

into the “haves” and “have-nots,” causing an imbalance in the quality of assessment 

tools being used throughout Government. 

However, we must also recognize that agencies have a role in deciding how their 

discretionary funding will be spent. Whether or not an agency invests in quality 

assessment instruments is therefore a business decision. While research indicates 

that using good assessment practices may increase the bottom line, the agency’s 

leadership decides how important assessment tools are compared to other priorities 

and allocates the resources as appropriate. 

72 MSPB, The Probationary Period, p. 12. 

73 MSPB, The Federal Selection Interview, p. 29.

26 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Assessing a Quality Workforce 

Therefore, the responsibility to garner resources and improve 

Federal assessment methods does not lie with one agency—it 

lies with all agencies. MSPB has long recommended that 

Congress provide OPM the funding necessary to assist agencies 

in developing assessment tools that create the best return on 

investment for the Government. For instance, OPM could focus 

on Governmentwide occupations, high-volume occupations, and/ 

or severe shortage occupations. 

When making decisions on how to allocate resources, agencies 

need to weigh the fact that it may cost more later to hire bad 

employees now. Therefore, agency leaders should look at the 

business case for investing in assessment, identify assessment 

as a priority, and devote the resources to it. One of the better 

investments would be using a multiple hurdle approach to assess applicants. 

Multiple Hurdle Approach 

MSPB has long advocated a multiple hurdle approach to assessment. This type of 

approach can help avoid poor selection by using a set of relatively valid assessment 

procedures successively to manage the candidate pool and narrow the field of 

qualified candidates.

74 Schmidt and Hunter found that using good assessment 

procedures in succession can improve the ability of the assessments to predict 

job performance, adding to the quality and cost benefit of the process.

75 Table 7 

provides a brief overview of the multiple hurdle approach. 

Table 7. Multiple Hurdles in Action 

Implementation Strategies 

Assessment 1 

- Fast, accessible, and low-cost instruments to 

sort applicants 

- High degree of automation, low level of 

precision 

Evaluate minimal 

qualifications 

Evaluate relative 

qualifications 

- Consider job, candidate quality, labor market, 

and urgency 

- Higher level of precision used to differentiate 

candidate quality 

Assessment 2 

Assessment 3 Select best qualified - Manager involvement 

- High level of precision 

Purpose 

Ensure selection meets 

needs of the job 

- Direct evaluation through the probationary 

period 

- Separate if not a good fit 

Final 

Assessment 

74 For more information on the multiple hurdle approach, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection 

Board, “Fewer Hoops, Higher Hurdles,” Issues of Merit, Sep. 2002; “How Many is Multiple,” Issues 

of Merit, July 2003; and Identifying Talent through Technology, pp. 75-77. 

75 Schmidt and Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel 

Psychology,” p. 265. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27 
Assessing a Quality Workforce 

All assessments used in this hurdle approach should be developed and administered 

carefully. They should produce usable, job-related information, and each assessment 

tool should be used to complement, not replicate, one another. In other words, they 

should each assess slightly different applicant attributes that are important to the job. 

Furthermore, assessments should be implemented in a thorough, but timely manner. 

High-quality candidates may not wait around for a hiring decision that takes too long. 

Therefore, while successive hurdles can improve the quality of the hiring process, 

excessive hurdles can result in applicant attrition and yield minimum value. 

Ideally, assessment procedures should be selected and sequenced based on cost and 

benefit. Methods that are less costly to administer should be used in the beginning 

stage of the assessment process when the candidate pool is largest. Methods 

that are more costly to administer should be used toward the end of the process 

when fewer applicants need to be assessed. This will help manage the return 

on investment for each instrument while recognizing that quality should not be 

sacrificed for speed or cost. 

The multiple hurdle approach may take more time, effort, and money than just 

reviewing training and experience or conducting an unstructured interview. But the 

expense could easily pay for itself through the savings entailed in making a quality 

hire. If conducted properly, the multiple hurdle approach can increase selecting 

officials’ ability to predict the job success of an applicant. This should increase the 

quality of the hire and decrease the costs associated with a poor performer (e.g., 

training, adverse actions, re-recruiting for the position). 

Sorting Applicants 

The method agencies use for sorting applicants can also influence the effectiveness 

of assessments. Until recently, selecting officials were required to follow the “rule 

of three” requirement when hiring a new employee into the competitive service. 

Under this rule, applicants’ relative qualifications are assessed and ranked based on 

a numeric score. Those deemed to be most qualified are referred to the selecting 

official in descending score order on a “certificate of eligibles.” Additional points 

are added for those eligible for veterans’ preference. The selecting officials can then 

only hire a candidate from among the top three names referred. 

The original purpose of this “rule of three” requirement was to ensure that 

selecting officials had choices when choosing among the most qualified applicants. 

However, this rule rests on the assumption that assessment tools can accurately 

distinguish the top three candidates. Research indicates that even some of the 

better assessment procedures still do not make fine enough distinctions between 

candidates to warrant limiting consideration to the top three. Instead, the rule of 

three often works to inappropriately limit managers’ choice of quality candidates. 

28 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Assessing a Quality Workforce 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 granted Federal agencies the ability to use 

category rating instead of the rule of three. Category rating allows agencies to assess 

candidates and group them into two or more quality categories. Selecting officials 

can then select a candidate from the top category. The advantage is that selecting 

officials are no longer limited to a choice of three applicants for external vacancies 

and therefore have a larger group of qualified candidates from which to select. 

Category rating also nicely complements the multiple hurdle approach and makes 

training and experience assessments less problematic. As indicated in Table 7, 

the initial assessment in a multiple hurdle approach does not need to be highly 

predictive because more precise instruments follow it successively. Because 

category rating eliminates the need to narrow the applicant pool down to just three 

candidates, it also eliminates the need to make fine distinctions among candidates in 

that initial hurdle. Those distinctions can be made using more precise assessment 

procedures in the successive hurdles. Therefore, category rating is better suited than 

the rule of three to training and experience assessments.

76 

MSPB has long held that category rating is a superior method for sorting candidates. 

It can improve the quality and diversity of the workforce by allowing selecting 

officials greater choice among qualified candidates. In addition, it can improve merit 

by recognizing the limitations of current assessment tools and treating everyone in 

a quality category as more or less equal rather than trying to identify the best three 

applicants with assessment tools that cannot make that type of fine distinction.77 

Unfortunately, it appears that category rating is not yet being widely used. In 2003, 

GAO surveyed agency Chief Human Capital Officers78 and found that almost 60 

percent were using category rating to “little or no extent.” The most cited reasons for 

not using the method were: (1) a lack of agency policies for using the method, (2) a 

lack of OPM guidance in how to use it, (3) 

a need to reprogram automated systems to 

support the process, (4) rigid OPM rules 

and regulations, and (5) concerns about 

potential inconsistencies in use.

79 Most 

of these are procedural issues. Agencies 

should not let procedural issues stand in 

the way of employing a tool that could help 

improve workforce quality and diversity by 

allowing selection from a larger group of 

qualified candidates. 

76 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Rule of Three in Federal Hiring: Boon or Bane?, 

Washington, DC, Dec. 1995, p. 19. 

77 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Making the Public Service Work: Recommendations for Change, 

Washington, DC, Sep. 2003, p. 3. 

78 The Homeland Security Act established the position of Chief Human Capital Officer for 

each major agency and department. This individual has the statutory responsibility to advise and 

assist agency heads and other officials in strategically managing the workforce. 

79 GAO, Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies’ Hiring Processes, pp. 33-34. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29 

Ensuring Merit in Federal Hiring 

While the Federal hiring system is expected to adhere to the merit system 

principles, it is also subject to compliance with other public policies 

and court-enforced settlements. In addition, there are a number of 

sanctioned alternatives to the competitive examining process that emphasize speed 

and ease. As a result, agency hiring procedures are often driven by factors other 

than simply who is most qualified for the job. These factors can create disincentives 

to invest resources in good recruitment and assessment practices. Below, we explore 

these issues. 

Excepted Service Appointments Often Reduce Competition 

We know that the length and complexity of the Federal hiring process causes 

frustration for both applicants and selecting officials. To help speed and simplify 

the process, the Federal Government has instituted several hiring flexibilities, 

including new excepted service hiring authorities. Excepted service appointments 

are exempted from the competitive examining process when competitive examining 

is deemed impracticable for the position or agency (e.g., policy-advocating, 

intelligence, or undercover work). 

Although competitive examining is still the primary single hiring authority in 

Government, its use is declining.

80 The Central Personnel Data File shows that in 

2001, competitive examining was used for 41 percent of hires into professional, 

administrative, and technical positions (full-time, non-temporary). In 2004, it was 

only used for 22 percent of these hires. Overall, competitive examining was used 

for less than one-third (29 percent) of the total hires between 2001 and 2004. 

Part of the explanation for the decline in competitive examining is the increase in 

new excepted service and other appointing authorities over the same time period. 

For instance, the Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP), an excepted service 

authority, was established in July 2000 to streamline the process of bringing new 

talent into Government. Additionally, the Aviation and Transportation Security 

Act of 2001 placed the newly federalized security screener workforce into the 

80 Other authorities it was compared against include Veterans Employment Opportunity, 

Federal Career Intern, Veterans Recruiting Appointing Authority, Outstanding Scholar, Direct 

Hire, Bilingual/Bicultural, Student Career Experience, Presidential Management Fellows, and 

an “other” category that includes such appointments as excepted service, reinstatements, and 

conversions. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 31 
Ensuring Merit in Federal Hiring 

excepted service. The Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002 (Title XIII of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002) also provided agencies with direct hire authority 

for jobs in which there is a severe shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need. 

Some excepted service authorities provide a gateway into the competitive service 

through noncompetitive conversion.81 Examples of such authorities include the 

FCIP, Veterans Recruitment Authority, Presidential Management Fellows Program, 

and the Student Career Experience Program. 

While excepted service appointments do not require agencies to follow competitive 

examining procedures, as described earlier in Table 1, the process is still in a real 

sense competitive. Applicants submit an application, and their qualifications 

are evaluated against what is needed to perform the job. However, recruitment 

and assessment rules are not as proscriptive as those in the competitive service. 

Unfortunately, this fact can also serve to reduce fair and open competition and 

advancement based solely on relative ability, as discussed below. 

Public Notice and Recruitment 

Excepted service positions do not require “public notice” as defined in the 

competitive service. This means that agencies are not required to notify OPM of 

vacancies for which applicants outside the agency may apply and are not required to 

post those jobs on USAJOBS. Nevertheless, these positions are still subject to the 

merit system principles. Agencies must therefore ensure that qualified individuals 

are recruited from all segments of society and selected on the basis of relative 

ability after fair and open competition. In the competitive service, public notice is 

how Government operationalizes “fair and open.” Because the excepted service 

is not subject to public notice, no operational definition of “fair and open” exists. 

Therefore, agencies are free to interpret what “fair and open” means for excepted 

appointments. 

While this type of flexibility allows agencies to tailor recruitment approaches 

to meet their mission requirements, it can also lead to unnecessarily narrowing 

recruitment practices. Our research suggests that information about excepted 

service positions is frequently difficult to find. These positions are often not 

posted on USAJOBS or the agency’s Web site because they are not required to be 

posted. For instance, MSPB surveyed Federal Career Interns, and a quarter of 

them reported that it was difficult to find out about internships in their agency.

82 

Furthermore, agencies that hired career interns cited college recruitment as a leading 

81 A noncompetitive conversion is an appointment to a position in the competitive service 

that is not made by selection from an open competitive examination. By converting an excepted 

service employee, the employee receives “competitive status.” Therefore, the employee is eligible 

for future noncompetitive assignments (such as promotion, transfer, or reinstatement) without 

ever having to compete with members of the general public in an open competitive examination. 

82 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Building a High-Quality Workforce: The Federal Career Intern 

Program, Washington, DC, Sep. 2005, p. 23. 

32 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Ensuring Merit in Federal Hiring 

recruitment method.83 While college recruitment can be an effective recruitment 

strategy, it can exclude from consideration qualified individuals not currently 

pursuing a college degree. 

When using excepted service appointments, agencies should be cautious in 

designing their recruitment strategies. At times, narrowing recruitment strategies is 

appropriate to ensure that unqualified applicants do not overwhelm the organization 

or to ensure that those with the necessary skills are targeted. However, the strategies 

should be well thought out to ensure they do not unnecessarily narrow the applicant 

pool, thereby limiting fair and open competition. 

Assessment 

Some excepted service programs actually require more rigorous assessment than 

many competitive positions. The Presidential Management Fellows Program, 

for example, includes a nomination process, review of the application and 

accomplishment record, and a set of oral, group, and written situational tests 

conducted at a structured assessment center.

84 However, assessment practices for 

excepted service positions are often similar to those used in the competitive service. 

For instance, when hiring Federal Career Interns, managers and HR staff tend to 

rely on interviews, evaluation of training and experience, recommendations, and/or 

grade point average (GPA).85 

Considering that no public notice requirement exists for excepted service positions, 

recruitment strategies can lead to smaller, narrower applicant pools. When there are 

fewer applicants from which to choose, using good assessment practices to identify 

the applicants who have the skills necessary to perform the job is particularly 

important. Using assessment strategies that have lower validity scores, such as those 

mentioned by managers hiring Federal Career Interns, hampers the Government’s 

ability to hire a high-quality workforce. Therefore, even though excepted service 

authorities allow for streamlined assessment procedures, these practices may not be 

in the best interest of the Government when they do not use instruments that are 

adequate predictors of job performance. 

Balancing Act 

Excepted service hiring can effectively address some of the flaws present in the 

competitive process. It can streamline recruitment, allow for faster hiring decisions, 

and provide the ability to tailor hiring procedures to meet mission requirements. 

On the other hand, it can also narrow the applicant pool and potentially lead to 

83 MSPB, Building a High-Quality Workforce, p. 22. 

84 See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Growing Leaders: The Presidential Management Intern 

Program, Washington, DC, Aug. 2001. 

85 MSPB, Building a High-Quality Workforce, p. 26. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33 
Ensuring Merit in Federal Hiring 

perceptions of unfair, arbitrary, or inequitable treatment. Therefore, agencies need 

to be cautious when using these appointing authorities to ensure that the goals of 

quality and fairness are balanced with the need for expediency. 

In the short term, agencies should give careful thought to the recruitment and 

assessment strategies they use for excepted service appointments to ensure that 

they support the ideals expressed in the merit system principles. In the long term, 

Government needs to decide how to proceed with hiring reform. Left unabated, 

excepted service hiring could likely exceed competitive service examining as the 

predominant hiring method. Government could simply allow momentum to drive 

that change. Then again, a more effective strategy would be to begin thoughtful 

discussions on how Government can balance the benefits of competitive and 

excepted hiring and still preserve merit. 

Merit Promotion Procedures Often Waste Resources 

While MSPB cautions agencies to consider the effect their recruitment and 

assessment strategies have on competition, we recognize that competition does not 

always result in better selection decisions. MSPB’s study, The Federal Merit Promotion 

Program: Process vs. Outcome, reports that the process is resource-intensive, timeconsuming, and often adds little value to the end result. 

The study found that selecting officials often feel they know who would be the 

best person for an internal job promotion before they announce the vacancy. And 

they select that person 80 percent of the time.

86 This knowledge is gained from 

observing and assessing their employees over a long period of time—a highly 

predictive form of assessment. In addition, the study found evidence to suggest 

that even when they had someone in mind for the position, supervisors still gave 

fair consideration to outside applicants and based their selections on the relative 

ability of the applicants. In our view, having someone in mind for a position is not 

inappropriate as long as the candidates are given fair consideration and evaluated on 

their relative ability.

87 

The cost of applying this competitive process—when selecting officials already have 

a good idea of whom they will promote—was about $102 million in 2000, just in 

supervisory expenditures. This does not include the costs of administrative tasks 

performed by the HR staff.

88 Therefore, the overall result is that supervisors spend 

unnecessary time and money promoting the person they had originally planned to 

promote, and unselected applicants became frustrated at spending the time applying 

for a job for which they had little chance of being selected. 

86 MSPB, The Federal Merit Promotion Program, p. 27. 

87 MSPB, The Federal Merit Promotion Program, pp. 26-27. 

88 MSPB, The Federal Merit Promotion Program, p. 30. 

34 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Ensuring Merit in Federal Hiring 

Based on the findings of this study, MSPB recommended that supervisors be 

permitted greater authority to promote employees without competition. This 

could be done through expanding the use of accretion of duties promotions or 

broadband pay systems that allow noncompetitive advancement. We posited that 

expanding noncompetitive advancement meets the merit principle of fair and 

open competition in the same way that competition is achieved through limiting 

the area of consideration to employees within the organization. The difference 

is that competition for future promotions would be ongoing. Supervisors would 

continually evaluate their employees to determine if they are a good fit for 

upcoming promotion opportunities.

89 

This approach offers several advantages. First, it recognizes the need for continuous 

assessment through observation of job performance—a strong assessment tool. 

Second, it provides managers flexibility in tailoring selection decisions to meet mission 

needs. Third, it would save resources through minimizing unnecessary competition. 

Finally, it would likely add credibility to the current process by reducing “sham 

competitions,” or those in which supervisors have a fairly good idea of whom they 

will select based on their observance of the organization’s employees. These benefits 

would be in the public’s best interest and further supervisors’ abilities to accomplish 

their mission without the unnecessary wait time caused by the current process. 

However, numerous concerns would need to be addressed before implementing 

such a system. For instance, agencies would need to ensure that supervisors are 

held accountable for making fair, objective decisions based on structured criteria 

and that they have the skills necessary to carry out this type of observation-based 

assessment. While this approach raises valid concerns, it is worthy of consideration 

as decision-makers look at potential hiring and promotion reform. 

Luevano, Rule of Three Can Inhibit Hiring and Merit 

In addition to ensuring that hiring adheres to the merit system principles, agencies 

must also comply with a number of other policies and requirements when designing 

and implementing hiring procedures. Through the years, managers and HR staff 

have complained about many of these policies and requirements—expressing 

frustration that they employ non-meritorious factors or add to the complexity of 

the hiring process. Here, we look at some of these policies and requirements and 

the challenges they present to the hiring process. 

89 MSPB, The Federal Merit Promotion Program, p. 38. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35 
Ensuring Merit in Federal Hiring 

Luevano Consent Decree 

In 1979, a lawsuit was brought against OPM claiming that the Federal Government’s 

key entry-level employment test, PACE, resulted in adverse impact on AfricanAmerican and Hispanic applicants. The court approved the Luevano consent 

decree to settle the case. This settlement agreement called for OPM to develop 

valid alternative examinations that do not result in adverse impact for about 120 

occupations at the GS-5 and GS-7 levels. In the meantime, the court created 

“temporary” hiring authorities for these positions. The newly created Outstanding 

Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural hiring authorities were to be used when 

underrepresentation existed in the covered occupations and competitive examining 

did not result in a diverse applicant pool. The settlement agreement and additional 

hiring authorities still exist today and have introduced several problems related 

to the Federal Government’s ability to implement quality assessments in a 

timely manner. 

ACWA 

The Administrative Careers With America (ACWA) written examination was 

introduced as a replacement for PACE in 1990 and was designed to be used with 

the career-entry positions covered by the consent decree. This examination contains 

both a cognitive ability multiple-choice section and a biodata self-rating section 

that helps reduce adverse impact.90 MSPB has supported the use of this written 

examination because it is better at predicting future job performance than many 

of the assessment tools currently used, especially the temporary hiring authorities 

established under Luevano. 

However, this examination has rarely been used since the mid-1990s. It was 

introduced when centralized examining was still common in Federal hiring. In 

the recent environment of decentralization, delegation, and reduced hiring, the 

examination was rejected by most agencies as slow, administratively cumbersome, 

and likely to cause adverse impact. Therefore, agencies have turned toward other 

alternatives that are easier to administer.

91 

As an alternative to the written ACWA exam, OPM provides agencies the opportunity 

to use the ACWA rating schedule (also known as Form C). The rating schedule 

contains a 156-item multiple-choice, self-rating form but does not contain the 

cognitive ability portion of the written test. The form is easier to administer than a 

written test, particularly for single job vacancies. However, MSPB has argued that this 

tool is far less able to predict future performance than the ACWA written test.

92 

90 The biodata section uses an individual’s biographical history to predict job performance. 

Job-relevant measures—such as achievements in school, work, or other settings and work 

attitudes, goals, and interests—are statistically correlated to successful job performance through 

validity studies and applicants are then scored against performance benchmarks. This is generally 

a much more rigorous assessment process than the training and experience-based assessments 

typically used by the Government. 

91 MSPB, Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring, p. 22. 

92 MSPB, Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring, p. 22. 

36 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Ensuring Merit in Federal Hiring 

An even more important problem with the use of Form C is that the rating schedule 

relies on assessing life and work experience as well as training. However, it is 

applied to an applicant pool of entry-level applicants, many of whom have not yet 

had the opportunity to gain significant experience or job-related training. Therefore, 

the distinctions the tool makes are not very precise and cannot distinguish those 

with future potential. This probably helps explain why many agencies reported to 

us their managers’ dissatisfaction with the quality of candidates referred by OPM 

from this rating schedule.

93 

A number of other issues cause problems with the use of the ACWA rating 

schedule. Agency HR staff reported to GAO that “the ACWA rating schedule was 

cumbersome, delayed hiring, and often did not provide quality candidates.”94 In 

another report, GAO found that applicants are skeptical about the job-relevance 

of many of the questions, thereby undermining the credibility of the assessment 

tool.95 Furthermore, the Partnership for Public Service pointed out that relying 

on self-reported information makes it easy for applicants to misrepresent their 

qualifications.

96 

Agencies are required to use either the ACWA written examination or the rating 

schedule for the occupations covered by the Luevano consent decree—whether the 

positions to be filled are in the competitive or the excepted service. To avoid the 

problems presented by these two instruments, agencies have devised strategies to 

avoid using them. Unfortunately, we have found that these strategies can inhibit 

merit and increase costs. 

Agencies have been known to limit public notice for Luevano-covered excepted 

service positions (such as FCIP), avoid external hires altogether, or even hire at 

higher-grade levels which are not covered by the consent decree. These steps 

help them limit the number of individuals to whom they must administer the 

rating schedule, making the process faster.

97 But these steps also limit who can be 

considered for the position. For instance, hiring at higher-grade levels can rule out 

high-potential applicants who cannot qualify due to lack of prior experience or an 

advanced degree. Also, hiring at higher levels simply to avoid the assessment tool 

unnecessarily increases employee life cycle costs. 

Agencies do have the authority to develop alternative assessment tools for 

Luevano-covered occupations, provided that they validate the tools to ensure that 

they are job-related and do not result in adverse impact. In fact, a few agencies 

have developed and validated instruments that meet Luevano requirements and 

93 MSPB, Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring, p. 22.

94 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Human Capital: Additional Collaboration Between OPM 

and Agencies is Key to Improved Federal Hiring, GAO-04-797, Washington, DC, June 2004, p. 27. 

95 GAO, Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies’ Hiring Processes, pp. 19-20. 

96 Partnership for Public Service, Asking the Wrong Questions, p. 5. 

97 MSPB, Managing Federal Recruitment, p. 20. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 37 
Ensuring Merit in Federal Hiring 

are believed to be more job-related to the targeted occupations than ACWA. 

Unfortunately, as previously discussed, this type of development process is 

prohibitively expensive for many agencies, causing an imbalance in the quality 

of assessment tools being used throughout Government. 

Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural Hiring Authorities 

MSPB has argued that the Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural hiring 

authorities conflict with the merit system principles. First, Outstanding Scholar 

hiring limits fair and open competition. College graduates with a 3.5 GPA or 

who are in the top 10 percent of their class can be hired under this authority 

without competition and without assessment of their relative ability to do the 

job in comparison to other applicants. In addition, the authority requires that 

applicants possess a bachelor’s degree for many occupations that do not have a 

degree requirement under OPM’s qualifications standards. These factors deny 

consideration to a larger applicant pool that may otherwise meet the qualification 

requirements and have competencies that better match the job. 

Second, these authorities use questionable selection criteria. The Bilingual/ 

Bicultural Program bases determinations on linguistic ability or knowledge of 

Hispanic culture, and only requires that the candidate be minimally qualified 

for the position. The Outstanding Scholar Program relies on GPA and class 

standing, without regard to the curriculum or recency of the education. Table 5 

demonstrated that GPA is not a good predictor of performance. Additionally, 

even this limited degree of validity actually declines with the passing of time and 

lack of job-relatedness. Therefore, agencies relying on these hiring authorities are 

also relying on assessment methods that are not good predictors of on-the-job 

performance, which could result in lower-quality hires. Furthermore, Outstanding 

Scholar has been misused by agencies. The intent of the authority was to augment 

competitive examining for Luevano-covered occupations that did not produce 

representative applicant pools. Instead, it has often 

been viewed as a first-choice hiring authority to 

bring new employees on board quickly, regardless 

of minority status. A 2000 MSPB study found that 

between 1993 and 1997, agencies relied more on 

Outstanding Scholar than competitive examining 

for Luevano-covered positions.

98 The Department 

of Justice and OPM both became so concerned that 

the Outstanding Scholar authority was becoming the 

primary hiring vehicle for GS-5/7 administrative and 

professional positions that they strongly cautioned 

agencies to evaluate how they were using the 

authority.

99 

98 MSPB, Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring, p. 7. 

99 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Memorandum for Directors of Personnel from 

Carol J. Okin, Outstanding Scholar Program Authorities,” July 13, 1998. 

38 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Ensuring Merit in Federal Hiring 

In a follow-up analysis of OPM-provided data from 2000 and 2001, we did note 

a drop in the aggregate proportion of Outstanding Scholar hires and an increase 

in the proportion of competitive hires. However, we also noted that the largest 

users of the program continued to rely heavily on Outstanding Scholar instead of 

competitive hiring for at least some key occupations. 

Finally, these two hiring authorities have not necessarily aided the Government in 

diversifying its workforce. Looking at data from 1993-1997, the 2000 study found 

that competitive examining proved to be a better vehicle than the Outstanding 

Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural programs for hiring Hispanics into covered 

occupations and at least as good or better for hiring African-Americans.

100 The 

follow-up analysis of 2000 and 2001 data found that competitive examining was 

more effective than Outstanding Scholar in hiring both Hispanics and AfricanAmericans. 

Hiring officials’ partiality to the Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural 

Programs is understandable. The authorities provide fast and simple ways to hire, 

and they directly link recruitment initiatives to hiring. But their benefits must 

be weighed against their costs. If these hiring authorities do not result in higher 

minority representation than competitive examining and do not support fair and 

open competition based on relative ability, the Government should question the 

value they add to the Federal hiring process. In addition, given the ease and speed 

of these authorities, their continued existence actually discourages the Government 

from pursuing one of the primary goals of the consent decree—developing 

replacement examinations for PACE that do not result in adverse impact and are 

valid predictors of job performance.

101 

Veterans’ Preference and the Rule of Three 

Veterans’ preference is a hiring benefit afforded to applicants who meet certain 

criteria related to military service.

102 The purpose is to recognize the economic 

sacrifices and contributions veterans have made to society through their military 

service. Under law, individuals who meet the criteria for preference are given 

precedence over qualified applicants who do not have preference. When used in 

conjunction with competitive examining, preference is granted by adding 5 to 10 

points to an applicant’s passing score on the examination used. Furthermore, those 

preference eligibles with a disability of at least 10 percent are placed at the top 

of the certificate of eligibles.

103 In the past, if a manager wanted to select a nonpreference eligible over a preference eligible, the action required OPM approval. 

Currently, most agencies have been delegated this “pass over” authority. 

100 MSPB, Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring, pp. viii, 9-12. 

101 MSPB, Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring, p. ix. 

102 Qualifying criteria are listed in 5 U.S.C. 2108. 

103 See 5 U.S.C. §3313 and OPM’s Delegated Examining Operations Handbook for a more 

detailed discussion of preference eligibility. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 39 
Ensuring Merit in Federal Hiring 

Many managers have complained that the interaction between veterans’ 

preference and the rule of three is a barrier to quality selection. They claim 

that by automatically increasing veterans’ scores and placing some at the top of 

the certificate, they often cannot hire the most qualified candidates. They also 

complain that they cannot reach those candidates they spent time and money 

recruiting, impacting their ability to reach targeted candidates for underrepresented 

occupations. Instead, they believe they often have to hire unqualified or lessqualified veterans, or allow their jobs to go unfilled. 

A 1995 MSPB study explored these criticisms. We found that veterans’ preference 

does not generally preclude quality hiring. For instance, veterans blocked namerequested candidates only 4 percent of the time.

104 Furthermore, we found little 

support for the perception that certificates topped with veterans had lower selection 

rates than certificates headed by non-veterans, leaving vacancies unfilled. Finally, 

pass over requests for unqualified veterans were generally sustained, indicating that 

veterans’ preference does not ensure jobs to those who are not qualified.105 

However, what we did find was that the rule of three, itself, does not represent the 

best way to foster merit-based hiring. The rule of three is based on the assumption 

that assessment tools can make fine enough distinctions to identify the three 

most qualified candidates. Because they rarely can, this requirement simply limits 

managers’ choices in hiring qualified applicants, regardless of veterans’ preference. 

As previously discussed, category rating allows managers to select from a larger pool 

of higher quality applicants and better align recruitment with selection. 

Furthermore, we found in the 1995 study that veteran hiring under category 

rating was generally fairer to veterans than other traditional hiring approaches.

106 

In category rating, candidates are assessed and placed into one of at least two 

quality categories. Those with preference eligibility are then placed ahead of nonpreference eligibles within the quality category. Compensably disabled preference 

eligibles (those veterans with at least 10 percent service connected disability) are 

placed at the top of the highest quality category, meaning that they “float to the 

top” as they do in the rule of three. The study showed that because category rating 

does a better job of ensuring veterans are qualified for the job, this method can lead 

to higher appointment rates for veterans listed at the top of the category. Overall, 

we believe category rating is a far superior tool for sorting veteran and non-veteran 

applicants and can result in better, merit-based selections. 

104 OPM’s 1999 Delegated Examining Operations Handbook defined a name request as “a 

means by which Federal agencies can request that a particular individual(s) be considered for 

inclusion on a certificate of eligibles if within reach for certification.” A name request does not 

guarantee that the candidate will make it to the list of eligibles but is a tool managers may use 

to help a preferred candidate avoid being eliminated from consideration in a tied-score situation 

under rule of three procedures. 

105 MSPB, The Rule of Three in Federal Hiring, p. 35. 

106 MSPB, The Rule of Three in Federal Hiring, p. viii. 

40 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Managing the Hiring Process 

Managing the hiring process well is as important as the process itself. Even 

a systematic, efficient, and quality process cannot run properly without 

the right resources guiding it. Here, we look at some of the difficulties 

the Federal Government faces in managing the hiring process. 

Hiring is Often Seen as Solely an HR Function 

In conducting our research for the study on managing recruitment, agency 

representatives indicated that leadership is one of most important aspects of good 

recruitment and hiring. Agency leaders can ensure that hiring is an organizational 

priority, that the needed resources are allocated to it, and that hiring receives wide 

support throughout the agency. Unfortunately, we also found that recruitment 

and hiring are often viewed as solely an HR function. The HR office is primarily 

responsible for planning, implementing, and evaluating hiring 

programs. While some selecting officials are involved in a 

number of hiring activities—such as attending recruitment 

events and reviewing applicant qualifications—others are not 

involved at all. Participation varies dramatically by agency. 

Employee selection affects the composition and competency 

of the entire workforce. Therefore, hiring should be 

recognized as a critical business function and not just an 

HR responsibility. Leaders and managers therefore should 

take an active role in the hiring process and be held equally 

accountable as the HR staff for the outcomes of the process. 

Supervisors Lack Human Resources Skills and Knowledge 

With downsizing, decentralization, increasing supervisor-to-employee ratios, and 

growing mission requirements, the demands on supervisors are reaching a breaking 

point. As the National Academy of Public Administration pointed out in a 2003 

study, supervisors have more decisions to make, less time to spend making them, 

and fewer resources to support them. Furthermore, agencies often select their 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 41 
Managing the Hiring Process 

best technicians for supervisory jobs (rewarding them for their performance with a 

promotion otherwise not available) rather than those who possess the best potential 

for being good supervisors. Finally, agencies do not do a good job training new 

supervisors to handle their supervisory responsibilities.

107 

In response to these pressures, supervisors often revert to short-term goals of 

filling jobs quickly rather than spending the additional time needed to find the right 

person for the job. This can occur through restricting the applicant pool or using 

assessments that bring fast, but not necessarily high-quality, results.

108 Supervisors 

have reported that they lack the necessary knowledge about hiring rules and 

procedures and are therefore reluctant to become involved in these activities. Even 

basic questions about what they are permitted to ask in interviews and if they can 

ask for writing samples are problematic for many.

109 

Supervisors have indicated that they are generally more satisfied with the results of 

the hiring process when they are involved than when they are not.110 Therefore, 

the Federal Government needs to do a better job training supervisors in their 

managerial responsibilities so that they can actively contribute to the process. 

Particularly, agencies need to educate supervisors about the hiring process, their 

responsibilities in it, how to select and apply quality assessment instruments, and the 

benefits of better assessments. 

HR Expertise is Eroding 

Supervisors are not the only ones who have felt the pressures of downsizing and 

decentralization. Between 1991 and 1998, the number of Federal HR professionals 

was reduced by 20 percent.111 The size has remained relatively stable since then.112 

However, DEU officials reported that the expertise of their staffing specialists has 

decreased as a result of this downsizing while the volume and variety of jobs with 

which they deal has increased.113 In addition, automation has brought with it larger 

applicant pools, putting increased strain on the HR staff.

114 

107 National Academy of Public Administration, First-Line Supervisors in the Federal Service: Their 

Selection, Development, and Management, Washington, DC, Feb. 2003, p. 12. 

108 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Supervisors and Strategic Human Resources 

Management, Washington, DC, June 1998, p. 2. 

109 MSPB, The Role of Delegated Examining Units, p. 15. 

110 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Managers Speak Out on the Hiring Process,” Issues of 

Merit, Dec. 2000. 

111 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Federal Human Resources Employment Trends: An 

Occupation in Transition: A Comprehensive Study of the Federal Human Resources Community, MSE-9-5, 

Washington, DC, Sep. 1999, p. 3. 

112 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Focus on the Facts: Is the HR Workforce Shrinking?” 

Issues of Merit, June 2005. 

113 MSPB, The Role of Delegated Examining Units, p. 8. 

114 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “HR Directors View Job Web Site as Mixed Blessing,” 

Issues of Merit, Apr. 2000. 

42 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Managing the Hiring Process 

Because of this decline in capacity, HR offices are spending valuable staff time on 

tactical rather than strategic work. They find it necessary to focus resources on 

reacting to crises, leaving fewer resources to devote to more proactive activities, 

such as developing well-planned recruitment and assessment methods. As a result, 

managers reported that they are often frustrated by the quality of the candidates 

forwarded by the personnel office.

115 Applicants, as well, complain about the 

services they receive from the examining office, including lack of feedback from HR 

offices, being treated rudely, and receiving confusing or inaccurate information.116 

For hiring programs to be effective, those who administer them need a high level of 

expertise and competence. Therefore, agency HR capacity must become an agencylevel priority, and adequate human, financial, and technological resources must be 

devoted to the HR function. 

Automation is Not Always Used Effectively 

Many agencies have turned to automation to try to make their hiring processes 

and procedures more efficient and effective. Automating the hiring process can 

result in a number of benefits, including increased speed, economies of scale, 

consistency, increased communication, improved 

records management, and better evaluation of 

processes and outcomes. It can also increase 

applicant access to information and simplify the 

application process.

117 However, MSPB found 

that automation is not being used as effectively as 

it could be, for several reasons. 

First, few agencies have taken full advantage of 

the potential of technology. Although automated 

hiring systems can administer or support highquality assessments, such as objective tests and 

structured interviews, most agencies have instead 

simply automated existing training and experiencebased assessments. In other words, they have 

paved the cow path, but did not necessarily 

improve it. Second, those existing assessments 

are often dated, deficient, or over-extended. The 

result is that, in many agencies, technology has 

not improved the ability of the hiring process to 

predict future performance. 

115 MSPB, “Managers Speak Out on the Hiring Process.” 

116 MSPB, Competing for Federal Jobs, p. 14.

117 MSPB, Identifying Talent through Technology, pp. 45-46.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 43 
Managing the Hiring Process 

Technology, by itself, cannot fix broken hiring processes or improve the precision 

of applicant assessment. Automated hiring systems require knowledgeable users, 

good content and selection criteria, and quality assessment instruments to support 

improved outcomes. Without re-engineering the assessment process used by the 

technology, automation will have negligible results on applicant quality. Achieving 

improved results requires that agencies introduce automated hiring systems as an 

organizational change initiative—in which leaders, managers, and HR all play a 

role—rather than as just an information technology or HR office tool.118 

Governmentwide Reforms Lack Focus 

Fragmentation 

As indicated, the Federal Government has experienced a trend toward more flexibility 

in the hiring process. Unfortunately, this trend has not resulted from a systematic 

Governmentwide evaluation of problems and potential solutions. Rather, agencies 

have identified their specific problems and attempted to mitigate these challenges 

through use of individual legislation, regulatory approvals, and budget requests. These 

individual approaches have caused fragmentation throughout Government. 

The collection of new appointing authorities and flexibilities is replacing the 

standard, Governmentwide hiring system. The benefit of this approach is that 

agencies are able to tailor their recruitment and hiring strategies to better meet their 

mission requirements and are not held back by unnecessary regulations or processes. 

However, the approach also has disadvantages. Government loses the ability to 

achieve economies of scale in terms of hiring tools and systematic approaches. 

Competition increases among agencies and provides advantages to those with 

more resources and leadership support. Fragmentation creates confusion among 

applicants who do not understand why some agencies employ traditional application 

and hiring methods and others do not. Furthermore, these flexibilities generally 

emphasize efficiency over quality. All of these factors can affect merit and the 

ability of individual agencies to hire high-quality applicants. 

In 2004, GAO and the National Commission on the Public Service held a forum 

to discuss how to best address Federal human capital management reform. 

Participants included representatives from the Federal Government, academia, 

professional organizations, unions, and other interested groups. Forum participants 

recognized that a “one size fits all” approach to human capital management 

no longer works. But they also came to a consensus that there should be a 

Governmentwide framework to guide reform. The framework should be based 

on “a set of beliefs that entail fundamental principles and boundaries that include 

118 MSPB, Identifying Talent through Technology, p. 49. 

44 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Managing the Hiring Process 

criteria and processes that establish the checks and 

limitations when agencies seek and implement their 

authorities.”119 

These views, while directed at overall human 

capital management reform, should be considered 

when looking at potential reform for the Federal 

hiring process. The Federal Government, under 

the leadership of OPM, needs to start looking at 

long-term, strategic hiring reform that balances 

the benefits of fragmentation with the costs and 

maintains merit. 

The Role of OPM 

OPM is responsible both for aligning personnel practices with the strategic direction 

of the President and for ensuring that those practices adhere to the merit system 

principles.

120 In recent years, OPM has played a valuable leadership role in helping 

agencies retool hiring efforts and has made many changes that provide agencies 

more flexibility in the way they implement their procedures. For instance, it has 

decentralized examining; propagated regulations concerning new hiring flexibilities 

such as direct hire, the Federal Career Intern Program, and category rating; 

instituted a 45-day hiring model against which agencies will be measured; organized 

and implemented Governmentwide recruitment efforts; and redesigned USAJOBS 

to expand its automated capabilities and user-friendliness. 

However, many of these improvements still do not get to the heart of the problems 

surrounding merit-based hiring. Many of them focus on efficiency and timeliness 

rather than quality. In addition, the improvements shift some of OPM’s former 

responsibilities onto individual agencies without consideration as to whether 

agencies have the resources necessary to carry out those functions. 

Current reform efforts provide agencies with the ability to tailor their hiring 

practices to meet individual mission needs. However, MSPB still sees a continued 

need for OPM to perform some core functions to improve the quality of meritbased practices in Federal hiring. These core functions include policy leadership, 

promoting best practices, and providing tools for effective hiring methods.

121 

Specifically, OPM should take a stronger leadership role in: 

119 U.S. Government Accountability Office and the National Commission on the Public Service 

Implementation Initiative, “Highlights of a Forum,” Human Capital: Principles, Criteria, and Processes 

for Governmentwide Federal Human Capital Reform, GAO-05-69SP, Washington, DC, Dec. 2004. 

120 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The U.S. Office of Personnel Management in Retrospect: 

Achievement and Challenges After Two Decades, Washington, DC, Dec. 2001, p. 3. 

121 MSPB, Making the Public Service Work, p. 17. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 45 
Managing the Hiring Process 

❏ Dealing with the fragmentation of the hiring system and loss of economies 

of scale; 

❏ Improving qualification standards to make them competency-based and 

therefore more useful in assessing applicant qualifications and managing the 

workforce; 

❏ Developing valid tools to assess candidates for Governmentwide 

occupations and assisting agencies to improve their assessment tools for 

individual occupations at little or no cost; 

❏ Addressing hiring authorities and practices that may erode merit; and 

❏ Expanding oversight programs to ensure that agency hiring methods adhere 

to the merit system principles. 

46 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Conclusions 

One of the most important objectives of a merit-based hiring process 

is the systematic identification and selection of the best person for 

the job. Good selections can lead to higher productivity, increased 

employee morale, improved teamwork, and reduced turnover—all of which are key 

ingredients in increasing organizational performance and the organization’s ability to 

meet the needs of the public. 

In recent years, the Federal Government has focused much of its attention on 

making the hiring process faster and more cost effective. These are worthy goals. 

A timely process that is understood by both applicants and managers will likely 

increase the applicant pool, reduce applicant attrition, and give supervisors the 

ability to bring people on board more quickly to accomplish the organization’s 

mission. 

But faster and cheaper are not everything. Hiring a poor performer faster and at 

a lower cost will not benefit the organization. The Federal Government needs to 

balance the need for efficiency with the need for quality. And right now, it is not 

doing this well. 

As discussed throughout this report, the current hiring system is not meeting 

Government’s needs in terms of: 

Attracting quality applicants and keeping them interested in the job. It 

takes too long to hire. The process is too complex. Furthermore, the Government 

does not do an adequate job of marketing itself to a labor force that currently 

believes the private and non-profit sectors can provide more rewarding, challenging, 

and developmental experiences. To compete, the Government needs to sharpen its 

recruiting skills and improve communications with potential applicants. This means 

providing an application process that does not drive applicants away because it 

takes too long or is too hard to understand and using proactive and job-appropriate 

recruitment strategies that attract the “best and the brightest.” Finally, the 

Government needs to improve its marketing message to demonstrate that Federal 

employment is highly desirable, respectable, and competitive. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 47 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Assessing candidates using the best methods. The quality of employee 

selection depends on the criteria and methods used to distinguish the highpotential applicants from the rest. Currently, the Federal Government tends 

to use assessment tools that are not good predictors of future performance. 

Specifically, the Federal Government relies too heavily on training- and experiencebased assessments. In some cases, these tools may help speed the process and 

reduce costs. But unless appropriate rigor is applied to the development of these 

instruments, they are less likely to result in quality selections. Selecting officials and 

HR staffs need better access to precise selection tools to help them identify the best 

candidates for the job. 

Ensuring that merit is the primary factor in selection decisions. As 

discussed, merit-based hiring can result in a number of benefits. Conversely, 

selections that are influenced by non-merit factors can result in hiring candidates 

who cannot perform the job—potentially undermining organizational success. 

While the competitive examining process is not the only way to ensure merit, 

the Federal Government should be cautious not to introduce programs that 

unnecessarily reduce competition or encourage the use of inferior assessment tools. 

Providing the necessary guidance, resources, and tools to effectively 

manage the process. It may sound overly simplistic, but the purpose of the 

hiring process is to hire the best possible employees. This requires that agency 

leadership treat hiring as a critical business process, make it a priority, and allocate 

the necessary resources to support the system. It also requires a high level of 

subject matter expertise, selecting officials who are well-versed in hiring procedures, 

and tools that help to improve quality, cost, and time. The Federal Government 

is often lacking in these areas. In addition, the Government needs to examine the 

impact that fragmentation in the hiring process has had on its ability to compete not 

only with the private and non-profit sectors, but also with itself. 

Recommendations 

If Government is to reform the hiring system, it needs to focus on what is 

important. This means systematically reengineering the process to ensure that the 

best candidates are hired in a timely and cost-effective manner. Note the order 

of those priorities: quality, timeliness, and then cost. Furthermore, note the word 

“systematically.” It is time to stop incrementally “tinkering” with the system. The 

Government should reform it in a substantive way that: (1) provides agencies the 

flexibilities they need to effectively manage, (2) ensures employees and applicants 

receive the protections promised by the merit system principles, and (3) gives the 

public a high-quality Government workforce working toward its interests. 

To begin this process, MSPB offers the following recommendations to guide reform 

and improve the Federal hiring process. These recommendations focus on “bigticket items” and should not be viewed as encompassing all aspects of what needs 

to be done to reform Government hiring. For more detailed recommendations on 

specific issues, consult the published studies listed in the next section. 

48 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Federal departments and agencies should— 

Manage hiring as a critical business process, not an administrative 

function. This means integrating discussions of hiring needs, methods, and 

outcomes into the business planning process. Agency leaders must acknowledge 

just how much impact the hiring process has on mission accomplishment and 

make hiring an agency priority, acquire and allocate the needed resources, and 

hold selecting officials accountable for decisions pertaining to selecting a quality 

workforce. 

Evaluate internal hiring processes, procedures, and policies to identify 

barriers to quality, timely, and cost-effective hires. While the Federal 

hiring system presents many barriers to efficient and effective hiring, agencies’ 

own internal practices often create additional, unnecessary barriers. Evaluating the 

agency’s hiring process and determining whether all of the steps are necessary may 

help identify and eliminate internal obstacles. 

Employ rigorous assessment strategies that emphasize selection 

quality, not just cost and speed. In particular: 

● Start with a thorough job analysis to identify the competencies and 

skills needed for the target position; 

● Become well-versed in distinguishing valid assessments from those that 

are not effective predictors of performance; 

● Use assessment instruments that have a greater ability to predict future 

performance and make finer distinctions among candidates; 

● Educate selecting officials on the benefits of valid assessment 

instruments, train them in the use of these instruments, and hold them 

accountable for using them properly; 

● Use category rating to sort applicants into quality groups, increasing 

selecting officials’ choice of quality candidates; 

● Employ a multiple hurdle approach in which assessment procedures are 

used successively to manage the candidate pool; and 

● Make full use of the probationary period as an assessment tool by 

continuously evaluating probationer performance and terminating 

probationers who fail to demonstrate the appropriate level of 

performance and conduct. Educate managers and employees to ensure 

they understand that the probationary period is an assessment period 

and the last stop before the appointment becomes final. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 49 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Improve efforts to manage the applicant pool while making the 

process manageable for applicants. For example: 

● Communicate with applicants and keep them engaged in the process; 

● Improve vacancy announcements and other recruitment materials by 

ensuring they are professional, clear, and compelling; 

● Develop proactive recruitment strategies that target those who possess 

the needed competencies; 

● Provide a timely, understandable application and assessment process, 

while keeping in mind that quality should not be sacrificed for 

efficiency; and 

● Make selection decisions in a timely manner. 

Properly prepare HR staff and selecting officials for their 

responsibilities. Ensure they have the training and expertise to carry out their 

hiring responsibilities in a timely, high-quality manner, and hold them accountable 

for those responsibilities. 

Plan carefully when implementing automated tools designed to 

support the hiring process. Careful planning is necessary to ensure that 

new hiring tools or processes work effectively. In many cases, they will require 

organizational change initiatives, reengineering of old processes and procedures, 

leadership support, and/or infrastructure investment. 

Evaluate success. Continually evaluate the hiring process to ensure it is meeting 

organizational long-term and short-term needs. 

The Office of Personnel Management should— 

Work with agency Chief Human Capital Officers, Congress, and the 

Administration to develop a Governmentwide framework for Federal 

hiring reform. This framework should provide agencies with the flexibilities 

necessary to address agency needs while also preserving selection quality and 

employee and applicant protections. The merit system principles should be used as 

the basis for reform and oversight. 

As part of Governmentwide reform, streamline and consolidate 

appointing authorities to simplify hiring procedures. A smaller number 

of flexible authorities will make the process more transparent and understandable 

for HR staff, selecting officials, and applicants. Coupled with valid assessment 

processes, streamlined procedures can speed the process while still ensuring fair and 

open competition and selection based on relative ability. 

50 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Better assist agencies to develop and implement valid and practical 

assessment tools. Agencies should have better access to the best selection tools, 

regardless of internal expertise or financial capability to develop them. OPM should 

make the business case to receive appropriated funding for centralized development 

and validation of good candidate assessment tools that agencies could acquire at 

little or no cost, particularly for Governmentwide and “at-risk” occupations. 

Work with the Attorney General to petition the district court to sunset 

the Luevano consent decree and its related special hiring programs. 

The decree and its “temporary” hiring authorities have had many negative effects 

on Federal recruitment and assessment. In particular, they have had a negative 

impact on the hiring of minority candidates and those with less experience but who 

may possess great potential. It is time to establish a sunset date for the decree and 

focus on developing valid and practicable assessment tools for entry-level positions 

covered by the decree that better predict performance and reduce adverse impact 

on minorities. 

Expand efforts to develop competency-based qualification standards. 

Building on the pilot-tested standards, OPM should advance efforts to develop 

and publish competency-based job profiles and eliminate the current qualification 

standards. A competency-based qualification system will help agencies make better 

determinations on whether applicants are a good fit for the job by emphasizing 

performance and potential rather than length of experience. 

The civil service is currently undergoing a great amount of change. As a result, 

the hiring process has been brought to the forefront of reform discussions. In 

particular, the Department of Defense is offered an opportunity to reform its hiring 

process, possibly using some of the recommendations presented within this report. 

The recent focus on hiring reform has been to make it faster and cheaper. These 

recommendations propose not only to make the hiring process faster and cheaper 

where appropriate, but also to balance those needs with quality and merit. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 51 
52 Reforming Federal Hiring 
Related MSPB Products 

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

Board is responsible for conducting studies of Federal merit systems to 

ensure they are free from prohibited personnel practices and for reviewing 

the significant actions of the Office of Personnel Management. 

Reports: 

❏ Reference Checking in Federal Hiring: Making the Call, September 2005 

❏ Building a High-Quality Workforce: The Federal Career Intern Program, 

September 2005 

❏ The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity, August 2005 

❏ Managing Federal Recruitment: Issues, Insights, and Illustrations, September 2004 

❏ Identifying Talent through Technology: Automated Hiring Systems in Federal Agencies, 

August 2004 

❏ The Federal Workforce for the 21st Century: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 

2000, November 2003 

❏ Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements, April 2003 

❏ The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential, February 2003 

❏ Making the Public Service Work: Recommendations for Change, September 2002 

❏ Assessing Federal Job Seekers in a Delegated Examining Environment, 

February 2002 

❏ The Federal Merit Promotion Program: Process vs. Outcome, February 2002 

❏ The U.S. Office of Personnel Management in Retrospect: Achievements and Challenges 

After Two Decades, January 2001 

❏ Growing Leaders: The Presidential Management Intern Program, August 2001 

❏ Competing for Federal Jobs: Job Experiences of New Hires, February 2000 

❏ Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring: Why Two Special Hiring Programs Should Be 

Ended, January 2000 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 53 
Related MSPB Products 

❏ The Role of Delegated Examining Units: Hiring New Employees in a Decentralized 

Civil Service, August 1999 

❏ Federal Supervisors and Poor Performers, July1999 

❏ Federal Supervisors and Strategic Human Resources Management, June 1998 

❏ The Rule of Three in Federal Hiring: Boon or Bane?, December 1995 

Newsletter: 

Issues of Merit is MSPB’s quarterly newsletter that offers insights and analyses on 

topics related to Federal human capital management, including Federal hiring. 

Obtaining Copies of MSPB Products: 

Download Publications: To download recent publications visit MSPB’s Studies web 

page at: http://www.mspb.gov/studies/mspbstudiespage.html to download copies 

of recent reports. 

Printed Copies: Printed copies may be obtained by e-mail, telephone, or written 

requests. Our contact information is as follows: 

E-mail: STUDIES@mspb.gov 

Telephone: (202) 653-8900; Toll-Free (800) 209-8960; FAX (202) 653-7211; 

V/TDD (800) 877-8339, 

or write to us at: 

U .S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Attention: Studies 

1615 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20419 

MSPB LISTSERVER: To be notified of MSPB’s future reports, newsletters, and 

other releases, subscribe to the MSPB STUDIES LISTSERV by visiting our Web 

site at http://www.mspb.gov/studies/mspbstudiespage.html 

54 Reforming Federal Hiring 
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

1615 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20419 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 

PRSRT 

US POSTAGE PAID 

WASHINGTON DC 

PERMIT NO. G-113 

Reforming Federal Hiring 

Beyond Faster and Cheaper