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

I s s u e s of

M  R I 

a publication of

the U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board,

Office of Policy

and Evaluation

W h a  ’ 

I n s d 

Much of the guidance on performance 

evaluation focuses on measurement—

developing standards of performance, 

evaluating performance against those 

standards, and documenting the results. 

Performance evaluations matter greatly to 

employees as a factor in pay decisions and 

as a lasting reflection of the organization’s 

valuation of employees’ work contributions. 

Thus, it is important that they be done 

carefully rather than casually. 

Performance evaluations and 

performance discussions should not focus 

exclusively on the past. The purpose 

of performance evaluation—and the 

employee-supervisor discussion of an 

evaluation—is not merely to look back. 

It is also to look forward—to think about 

what should be done to sustain or improve 

performance. Indeed, one of OPM’s 

warranty conditions for a performance 

management program is “commitment to...

conscientious development of employees.” 

That look forward should include both 

performance (What results do we want?) 

and the person (What skills or support 

does the employee need to achieve those 

results?). The box to the right provides 

some questions that supervisors and 

employees might use to “look forward” 

during a performance discussion and guide 

their actions after the formal appraisal has 

been signed and filed away.1

 

1. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 

Reference Materials: Performance 

Management, “Warranty Conditions,” www.

opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/performancemanagement/reference-materials/moretopics/warranty-conditions/. Director’s Perspective

Page 2

Perceptions and Realities 

in Federal 

Adverse Actions 

Page 3

Agency Branding

Page 4

Probationary Periods

Page 5

Succession Planning

and USACE’s 

Talent Aspirations Survey 

Page 6

The Future of 

Classification

Page 7

Spring 2 0 1 5 

Effective Performance Discussions: 

Don’t Forget to Look Forward

Supervisor:

Performance Questions

•	 What do you see as your role in the 

office?

•	 What do you need from me and/or 

the agency to succeed?

Person Questions

•	 What skills would you like to 

improve or develop?

•	 What can I and/or the agency 

do to support your growth and 

development?

Employee:

Performance Questions

•	 What are the office’s priorities?

•	 What contributions should I 

continue to make?

•	 What new roles could I take on?

Person Questions

•	 What strengths should I build on?

•	 What skills could I strengthen?

•	 How can I build new skills?

•	 How can I grow into new roles?
I s s u e s of

M  R I 

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

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

U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board

CHAIRMAN

Susan Tsui Grundmann 

BOARD MEMBER

Mark A. Robbins

Office of Policy and Evaluation

DIRECTOR

James Read

DEPUTY

DIRECTOR

James J. Tsugawa

Our Mission

The MSPB Office of Policy and 

Evaluation conducts studies to 

assess the health of Federal merit 

systems and to ensure they are free 

from prohibited personnel practices.

Issues of Merit

We offer insights and analyses on 

topics related to Federal human 

capital management, particularly 

findings and recommendations 

from our independent research.

Reprint Permission

We invite you to reprint any of our 

articles. If you do, please include 

the following attribution: Reprinted 

from Issues of Merit, a publication 

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

Board.

For More Information

Contact us at:

www.mspb.gov/studies

STUDIES@mspb.gov

202-254-4802

1-800-209-8960

V/TDD: 202-653-8896

(TTY users may use the Federal 

Relay Service, 800-877-8339)

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Office of Policy and Evaluation

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419

D i r e c t o r ‘ s P e r s p e c t i v e

2

(continued, page 3) 

below summarizes outcomes in the 305 

IRA appeals that MSPB closed in FY 

2014.2 

Two things are noteworthy about 

these numbers. First, the individual 

obtained some measure of relief, either by 

negotiated resolution or binding decision, 

in 79 cases—26% of the IRA appeals 

closed by MSPB in FY 2014. Indeed, 

considering only the 119 IRA appeals 

in which the individual exhausted the 

OSC complaint process as required by 

law, filed the appeal on time, established 

jurisdiction, had not previously resolved 

the matter, and chose to continue with the 

litigation, the individual received some 

measure of relief in 79 cases, or over 66% 

of the time. Moreover, although MSPB 

does not track the contents of settlement 

agreements, many settlements include 

substantial relief. For example, OSC 

reported that an IRA appeal in which it 

was involved was settled with a $360,000 

payment to the individual and all negative 

references removed from the individual’s 

personnel file.3

2. Annual Performance Report and Plan for FY 

2014 - 2016, at 44-45, available at: mspb.gov. 3.

 FY 2014 Performance and Accountability 

Report, at 17, available at: osc.gov.

At a House subcommittee hearing 

last September, a witness asserted that 

the success rate for whistleblowers 

before MSPB 

Administrative 

Judges (AJs) is 

unreasonably low 

and that it may be 

inferred that AJs are 

biased in favor of 

the Government. Is 

there more to the 

story? I believe so, 

and here is why.

The Whistleblower Protection Act 

of 1989 prohibits retaliation against 

a Federal employee or applicant for 

Federal employment who discloses: a 

violation of law, rule, or regulation; a 

substantial and specific danger to public 

health or safety; an abuse of authority; 

a gross waste of funds; or gross 

mismanagement. The law was amended 

in 1994 and 2012, each time with the 

intention of strengthening protections 

for whistleblowers. The Office of 

Special Counsel (OSC) investigates 

complaints of whistleblower retaliation. 

When the complainant is not satisfied 

with the result before OSC, he or she 

may file an Individual Right of Action 

Appeal (IRA) with the MSPB against 

the agency involved. An AJ renders 

a decision based on evidence and 

argument presented by the parties, and 

either party may petition the threemember Board for review of the AJ’s 

decision.

OSC achieved “136 favorable 

actions” on whistleblower retaliation 

complaints in FY 2014.1 The table 

1. FY 2014 Performance and Accountability 

Report, at 10, available at: osc.gov.

Behind the Whistleblower 

Numbers

Issues of Merit Spring 2015

Outcome Appeals 

Dismissed

(255 appeals) 

No jurisdiction, untimely, 

or previously decided 

144 47%

Remedy not exhausted 17 6%

Withdrawn 25 8%

Settled 69 23%

Decided

(50 appeals) 

Corrective action ordered 10 3%

No corrective action

ordered

40 13%
Issues of Merit Spring 2015 3

that of the precedential decisions issued by the Board 

members in FY 2014 that involved whistleblower reprisal 

claims, the Board either granted relief or found the 

whistleblower’s argument for additional examination of 

his or her case persuasive 62% of the time.

To be fair, the FY 2014 figures from OSC and MSPB 

were not available at the time of the September 2013 

subcommittee hearing mentioned above. It is evident 

from these figures that the legal protections for 

whistleblowers are more effective than MSPB’s detractors 

suggest they are. 

Second, in FY 2014 OSC achieved relief to the 

satisfaction of the whistleblower in nearly three times 

as many cases as MSPB decided on the merits. In IRA 

appeals before MSPB, agencies agreed to provide relief 

to the satisfaction of the individual in 69 cases—19 more 

than were decided on the merits. It is far-fetched to think 

that agencies agreed to provide relief that satisfied the 

whistleblowers, either before OSC or before MSPB, in the 

weakest retaliation cases. What appears to be happening 

is that the strongest retaliation cases are resolved at the 

OSC level; the remaining cases come to MSPB, and even 

then, in a significant number of cases, either the agency 

offers relief to the satisfaction of the whistleblower or 

MSPB grants corrective action. It also bears mention Director, Policy and Evaluation

(continued from page 2)

Director’s Perspective

James Read

Perception 1:

It is impossible to fire a Federal employee.

Reality:

From FY 2000-2014, over 77,000 full-time, 

permanent, Federal employees were discharged as a 

result of performance and/or conduct issues.1

Perception 2: 

Agency leaders have no authority to serve as 

proposing or deciding officials in title 5 adverse actions.

Reality: 

Title 5 empowers the agency to take an adverse 

action. If agency leadership chooses to delegate the 

proposal or decision authority to lower levels, then it 

cannot interfere with the decision-making process of 

those delegees. But, prior to the assigned decisionmaker’s involvement in a particular case, current statutes 

permit delegations to be abandoned or modified at will 

by the agency.2

1. Analysis of data from U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 

Central Personnel Data File (CPDF), FY 2000-FY 2014.

2.

 Goeke v. Department of Justice, 122 M.S.P.R. 69, ¶ 23 

(2015); see Boddie v. Department of the Navy, 827 F.2d 1578, 

1580 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Ward v. U.S. Postal Service, 634 F.3d 

1274, 1279 (2011); 5 U.S.C. § 7513.

4 Perceptions (and Realities) 

about Federal Adverse Actions

Perception 3: 

There are no legal barriers to firing an employee in 

the private sector.

Reality: 

Many of the laws that apply to removing employees 

in the Federal civil service also apply to private sector 

employment or have a similar counterpart, such as the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII – Equal Employment 

Opportunity), and the Uniformed Services Employment 

and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 

both of which permit private sector employees to pursue 

litigation.3

Perception 4: 

An agency must pay a salary to an employee who has 

been removed until any appeal has been resolved.

Reality: 

An employee is not paid while appealing his/her 

removal to MSPB. If the action is found to have been 

unwarranted, then reinstatement and back pay may be 

awarded. But, there is no pay while removed.4 

3.

 See 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4333 (USERRA); Civil Rights Act of 

1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, § 706(e)-(g) (authorizing 

discrimination litigation in Federal courts). 

4.

 See 5 U.S.C. § 5596 (b)(1)(A). 
4 Issues of Merit Spring 2015

Federal agencies compete with the private sector 

and other Federal agencies for the attention and interest 

of potential job applicants. An important strategy in this 

competition for talent is to establish a compelling agency 

brand—a statement of “the essence of who you are, who 

you want to be and how you want people—in this case 

potential job seekers—to view you.”1 Along these lines, 

MSPB has long advocated that Federal agencies use job 

announcements to distinguish themselves, marketing the 

agency as a place to work instead of simply describing the 

job.2 As discussed below, it appears that many agencies 

have made the effort to market their brand.

MSPB explored agency branding strategies using 

Aaker’s Brand Personality (ABP) scale,3 which is used 

often in market research to compare messaging strategies 

for products, services, and organizations. The ABP 

distinguishes between strategies that emphasize one 

of five attributes: Competence, Excitement, Sincerity, 

Ruggedness and Sophistication. We applied the ABP 

scale to a sample of 62 agency and sub-agency websites, 

focusing on pages which described each agency’s mission 

and priorities. The percentage of agencies emphasizing 

each branding strategy appears in the chart to the right.

The majority of agency websites we analyzed 

emphasize competence in the specialized knowledge 

needed to accomplish their missions (60%). While the 

missions themselves differ, these agencies want the 

public to recognize their commitment to performing 

their missions effectively. A smaller number of agencies 

emphasize how exciting their work can be (18%) and 

their fair and honest administration of the resources under 

their control (12%). Three agencies—including the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service—emphasize the physically 

demanding aspects of work in their organizations.

Although the ABP framework worked well for 

examining general trends in agency website branding 

strategies, it was unable to classify three agencies. A 

1. Tim McManus of the Partnership for Public Service, as cited 

in: Fox, T. (February 21, 2014). Building a brand for your Federal 

agency. The Washington Post. (Accessed at: at http://www.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2014/02/21/

building-a-brand-for-your-federal-agency/).

2. U.S. MSPB. Help wanted: A review of Federal vacancy 

announcements, Washington, DC, (2003). 3. Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal 

of Marketing Research, 34(3), pp. 347-356. The text analytic 

version of the scale used in this research is described in: 

Opoku, R. Abratt, R. & Pitt, L. (2006). Communicating brand 

personality: Are the websites doing the talking? Journal of 

Brand Management, 14, pp. 20-39.

Agency Branding Emphasizes Competence

closer look at the language in these and other agency 

mission statements suggests that there are branding 

themes present in Federal missions which are not captured 

by the ABP scales. Across agencies, we found themes 

relating to: Protection and Defense (72% of agencies), 

Health and Medical Care (80%), and Regulations 

and Enforcement (50%). This finding highlights the 

distinctive nature of Federal agencies and reflects the 

fact that agency mission statements, while emphasizing 

competence, also showcase the different kinds of services 

that they provide to the public.

Federal agencies have been advised to create 

brands which are not only relevant to their missions 

but which also help them differentiate themselves from 

other prospective employers.4

 Most of the agencies we 

examined seem to be doing this correctly—emphasizing 

both their “specialty” in public service and the 

importance of performing this service at the highest 

standards of knowledge and ability. MSPB believes that 

agencies should continue attending to how they market 

themselves—particularly to the brand they communicate 

to potential job applicants in vacancy announcements. 

Applicants should see what kinds of competence 

an agency values and deems necessary for mission 

accomplishment. 

4. Tuutti, C. (September 28, 2012). Why branding matters—

even in government. Federal Computer Week. (Accessed at: 

http://fcw.com/articles/2012/09/28/agencies-employer-brand.

aspx).

5%

0%

5%

12%

18%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

(None)

Sophistication

Ruggedness

Sincerity

Excitement

Competence

Percent of Federal Agencies Using 

Each Branding Strategy
Issues of Merit Spring 2015 5

In its recently released report on poor performers 

in Government, the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) recommended more effective use of the 

probationary period to identify and remove individuals 

who are unlikely to be good performers. GAO 

recommended that agencies consider doing more to 

ensure that supervisors have the opportunity to intercede 

before an individual completes a probationary period and 

that OPM and possibly Congress consider whether longer 

probationary periods might be appropriate for some 

positions.1

MSPB’s extensive research over the past decade 

supports these recommendations. In a 2009 survey, 

we asked proposing and deciding officials for adverse 

actions whether the individual in question demonstrated 

during the probationary period that he or she was a good 

employee. Only 56% of those with knowledge of the 

individual during that period agreed the individual had 

shown good signs at that time. Thus, it appears that some 

of these adverse actions could have been avoided by 

better use of the probationary period. 

We also conducted a survey of supervisors of 

probationary employees, discussed in our 2005 report, 

The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment 

Opportunity. Of those supervisors who admitted that they 

would not select the person again if they could do it over, 

more than half planned to keep the individual beyond 

the end of the probationary period, less than one-third 

stated they did not expect to retain the person, and the rest 

were unsure.2

 This data was one more indicator that the 

probationary period was not being used to separate some 

candidates who failed to show they were the right choice 

for the job at hand. 

GAO is correct that inadequate communications 

with supervisors of probationers may also be an issue.3 

In the survey for our 2008 report, Federal Appointment 

Authorities: Cutting through the Confusion, we asked 

 

1. GAO, Improved Supervision and Better Use of Probationary 

Periods Are Needed to Address Substandard Employee 

Performance, GAO-15-191 (Mar 9, 2015), pp. 30-31. 2. MSPB, The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment 

Opportunity (2005), pg, 7. 3.

 GAO pg. 11, 30. 

supervisors of newly hired individuals whether anyone 

had discussed with them the purpose of the trial or 

probationary period for the individual they selected. 

Thirty-one percent of the supervisors said this had not 

occurred, with another 3% unsure whether the discussion 

had taken place. 

GAO recommended that agencies make use 

of automated human resources systems to inform 

supervisors that they have a probationer nearing the 

end of the probationary period so that “an affirmative 

decision” or other action may be taken.4 Our 2005 report 

recommended that supervisors be required to certify that 

the individual should become an employee.5 This was 

based on survey data that showed 69% of supervisors 

would prefer it if the supervisor was required to actively 

certify that the individual’s conduct and performance are 

fully acceptable before conversion can occur. In contrast, 

only 5% of supervisors of probationers preferred a system 

where conversion to employee status is automatic if the 

supervisor does not act to remove the employee (the 

current system). Twenty-six percent favored a system 

in which conversion would not occur if the supervisor 

indicates there is a problem with the individual.6 

GAO reported that Chief Human Capital Officers 

(CHCOs) informed them that for some positions, such 

as trainee positions or those involving complex projects, 

a longer probationary period may be appropriate.7 Our 

surveyed supervisors of probationers agreed. Sixtyfive percent wanted bureaus/components to be able to 

determine the length of an employee’s probationary 

period based upon the complexity of the job.8

MSPB’s finalized research agenda for 2015 - 2018 

includes a study of the incidence and consequences of 

poor performance in the civil service. While this study is 

only in the earliest planning stages, we hope we will soon 

be able to provide new data and insights to add to this 

important discussion. 

4.

 GAO pg. 30. 

5. MSPB pg. 15.

6.

 Id. pg. 14. 7. GAO pg. 13. 

8. MSPB pg.18.

Probationary Periods: A Missed Opportunity 

to Address Poor Performance
6 Issues of Merit Spring 2015

“Engineering” the Future: 

USACE’s Talent Aspirations Survey

 Agency mission success begins with people: hiring 

and developing individuals who can effectively perform 

the agency’s current and future core functions. That 

requires an agency to develop ongoing awareness of: 

(1) positions that may become vacant or necessary; (2) the 

extent to which current employees are interested in—and 

competitive for—such positions; and (3) the need to hire 

external talent to bring in particular capabilities. 

Succession planning, summarized to the right,1 is a 

practice that can help agencies meet their future talent—

and ultimately mission—requirements. 

Spotlight: USACE’s Talent Aspirations Survey

A critical element of succession planning is taking a 

talent inventory or assessing workforce capabilities and 

career interests. One method that can aid development 

of a talent inventory is to survey current employees. The 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) designed and 

administered a brief Talent Aspirations Survey2

 to gauge 

the interest of their GS-14 and GS-15 employees in 

advancing to leadership positions. Survey items inquired 

about topics such as:

•	 Reasons for wanting to advance;

•	 Interest in leadership roles & responsibilities;

•	 Interest in leadership development activities;

•	 Reasons for not wanting to advance; and

•	 Willingness to relocate.

Participation in the survey was voluntary but expressly 

not anonymous so that USACE could follow up with 

individuals who might be interested in leadership 

development activities. In addition to supporting 

succession planning, the survey was also intended to help 

USACE identify any talent gaps. 

USACE will use the survey to aid their action plans. 

For example, USACE plans to use survey responses 

coupled with 360o

 assessments of employees interested 

in leadership roles to determine whether and how to 

revise the content of USACE training and development 

1. Information about workforce assessment and planning 

adapted from: Cascio & Aguinis (2005), Applied Psychology in 

Human Resource Management, Chapter 10: Strategic Workforce 

Planning, pp. 237-258, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

2. Information about USACE’s Talent Aspirations Survey was 

obtained from a presentation by Ms. Sue Engelhardt, Director of 

Human Resources, USACE, on December 2, 2014, at the Human 

Capital Management Group Conference, Alexandria, VA, and 

from a subsequent interview with Ms. Rebecca S. Thompson, 

Chief of USACE’s Human Resources Development Division.

programs to better support competency development of 

future leaders. USACE also will incorporate summary 

results into a Corps-wide Strategic Communication Plan 

as well as tailored Strategic Implementation Plans for 

each division of the Corps. These efforts illustrate how an 

agency can realize the full value of an employee survey, 

along the lines discussed in MSPB’s article, “From Input 

to Impact: Using Survey Results.”3

Assessing individuals’ career aspirations and related 

developmental needs, as USACE has done, can support 

succession planning by providing insight into who is in 

the pipeline for leadership and other critical positions and 

what an agency can do to mitigate any talent gaps. 

3. U.S. MSPB, From Input to Impact: Using Survey Results, Issues 

of Merit, January 2012, p.5.

Succession Planning “101”

What is succession planning?

Succession planning is an ongoing process of an agency: 

(1) analyzing future work and staffing needs; (2) ensuring 

its workforce has or can develop the capabilities necessary 

for success; and (3) identifying when it is necessary to hire 

external talent. 

What are the key elements?

Agency leaders should evaluate (and reaffirm or update):

•	 The purpose and range of agency products or services, 

considering how public needs may change;

•	 Current and future agency goals, as well as the 

associated strategic plan and performance metrics; and

•	 Functional structure, including clear statements of how 

each function supports agency goals.

Leaders can then focus on workforce assessment and planning, 

to include:

•	 A talent inventory of internal capabilities such as 

employees’ competencies and career interests; 

•	 Workforce forecasting to anticipate future talent needs; 

•	 Action plans to meet anticipated future needs and 

mitigate talent gaps, such as plans to develop, redeploy, 

or hire individuals; and

•	 Evaluation of the workforce plan’s effectiveness, making 

mid-course adjustments if needed. 
Issues of Merit Spring 2015 7

Among the measures Federal agencies used 

to address the reduction in the number of position 

classification specialists were:

•	 Transitioning HR staff from specialists to generalists;

•	 Reducing or ceasing periodic review of position 

descriptions (PDs); and

•	 Developing standard PDs that managers could certify 

with little or no input from HR staff. 

In 2011, an MSPB survey found that only 3% of 

Federal HR specialists reported spending more than half 

their time on classification, while 73% reported spending 

no time on classification. The 2014 GAO report found 

that OPM had only 6 full-time specialists maintaining 

classification standards, compared to 16 in 2001 and 

many more in the 1980’s. As a result, about 30% of white 

collar occupational standards used to classify jobs have 

not been updated since 1990; some have not been updated 

since the 1970’s. GAO also found that OPM has limited 

assurance that agencies are correctly classifying positions, 

as OPM has not reviewed agency position classification 

programs since the 1980’s. 

Where do we go from here? To be sure, complaints 

about the position classification system were voiced prior 

to the reductions in HR staff in the 1990’s. Policymakers 

continue to debate, and Federal agencies continue to 

seek, alternatives to the GS pay and classification system. 

However, it is difficult to see how the existing system—or 

any plausible replacement—can function properly with 

such a loss of expertise and so little oversight. Therefore, 

Federal decision-makers contemplating better ways to pay 

Federal employees should consider:

•	 Who will administer and oversee the system that 

ties job duties to rates of pay? A new cadre of HR 

experts? Individual agencies or managers? An 

extra-governmental entity? 

•	 What mandate and resources will OPM have to 

fulfill its role in a new pay or position classification 

system? 

The Federal Government’s General Schedule (GS) 

pay and classification system has been under fire from 

many observers for some time. For example, a recent 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report noted 

that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) needs 

to improve the design, management, and oversight of 

the Federal classification system.1

 Many critiques of 

Federal position classification focus on the “what”—what 

is wrong with the GS system and what system might 

pay Federal employees more appropriately. MSPB 

believes another aspect of position classification also 

deserves attention—who might administer future Federal 

classification systems? This is a significant consideration 

given a decrease in both the number of agency staff 

devoted to position classification and the number of OPM 

staff devoted to maintaining classification systems and 

overseeing agency classification programs.

Why does position classification matter? First, 

position classification is the foundation of hiring and pay 

for almost all positions in the Federal civil service. A 

position’s occupation and level drive selection criteria and 

shape the pool of potential applicants. Classification—

pay system, occupational series, and grade level—also 

determines salary range. Second, the merit system 

principles call upon Federal agencies and Federal 

managers to provide equal pay for substantially equal 

work. Finally, the basis upon which a position may be 

graded in each of the GS grades is defined by statute.2

 

For these reasons, Federal agencies have a continuing 

responsibility to classify positions accurately. 

How have classification programs changed? The 

National Performance Review of the 1990’s aimed to 

reduce the number of human resources (HR) specialists 

in the Federal Government. It succeeded. A 1999 OPM 

report documented a 20% decrease in the number of HR 

specialists during the 1990’s.3

 By the end of that decade, 

the number of classifiers had declined by almost 60% and 

classifiers comprised only 4% of all HR specialists, down 

from 15% at the beginning of the 1970’s. 

1. U.S. Government Accountability Office, OPM Needs to 

Improve the Design, Management, and Oversight of the Federal 

Classification System, GAO-14-677, July 2014. 2. 5 U.S.C. § 5104.

3. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Federal Human 

Resources Employment Trends Part 1, MSE-99-5, September 

1999.

The Future of Position Classification: 

Not Only “What?” But “Who?”
I s s u e s of

M  R I 

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

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

MSPB 20419

PERMIT NO. G-113

Succession Planning. How the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers used a 

Talent Aspirations Survey to support 

their succession planning efforts. 

(Page 6)

The Future of Classification. An 

effectively functioning classification

system requires both sound design 

and skilled administrators. (Page 7)

Performance Discussions. 

Evaluate the past, but also discuss 

ways to sustain and improve 

performance in the future. (Page 1)

Director’s Perspective. Taking 

a closer look at the success rate of 

whistleblowers. (Page 2)

Spring 2 0 1 5 V o l u m e 2 0 I s s u e 2

Federal Adverse Actions. A brief 

look at four perceptions (and 

realities) about adverse actions. 

(Page 3)

Agency Branding. What do Federal 

agencies “advertise” about their 

missions on their websites? (Page 4)

Probationary Periods. MSPB 

research supports GAO conclusions 

on poor performers. (Page 5)