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

I s s u e s of

M  R I 

a publication of

the U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board,

Office of Policy

and Evaluation

W h a  ’ 

I n s d 

continued, page 4 

In our recent report, The Power of 

Federal Employee Engagement, we defined 

employee engagement as a heightened 

connection between employees and their 

work, their organization, or the people they 

work for or with. 

Why should agencies spend their 

time and energy attempting to improve 

the engagement levels of their employees? 

Because it could affect their bottom line. 

Using the engagement scale we developed 

from the 2005 Merit Principles Survey, the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) 

found a significant relationship between an 

agency’s level of employee engagement and 

certain desirable agency outcomes. 

First, we found that agencies with the 

most engaged employees produced better 

programmatic results than agencies with the 

least engaged employees. To measure these 

results, we used the Office of Management 

and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating 

Tool (PART). This tool assesses the results 

of Federal programs to determine if they are 

meeting long-term and annual performance 

goals, how well the programs compare to 

other similar programs, and how effective 

the programs are based on independent 

evaluations. The most engaged agencies 

achieved an average rating of 65 (out of 

100) on the results/accountability portion 

of the PART, while the least engaged 

agencies only achieved an average of 37.

Second, we found that engaged 

agencies reported that employees used less 

sick leave. Employees in the most engaged 

agencies used an average of 9 days of sick 

leave in 2005, while employees in the 

least engaged agencies used an average of 

12 days.

Third, employee engagement 

appears to be linked to equal employment 

opportunity (EEO) complaints. Of the 

workforce in the most engaged agencies, 

0.47 percent filed EEO discrimination 

complaints in 2005, while 1.04 percent 

of the workforce in the least engaged 

agencies filed such complaints. 

Finally, there were fewer cases of 

work-related injury or illness in agencies 

with more engaged employees. The case 

rate of employees missing work time 

in these situations was 0.73 (per 100 

employees) while employees in the least 

engaged agencies missed work time 

at triple that rate (2.15 cases per 100 

employees).

We cannot claim that employee 

engagement definitely causes these 

Director’s Perspective

Page 2

Alternative Discipline: 

Negotiating the Contract

Page 3

End-to-End Hiring Process

Page 4

Doing Well on an 

Accomplishment Record

Page 5

25 Years of Rating 

Supervisors

Page 6

Ideas to Celebrate 

Diversity

Page 7

F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 9

Employee Engagement: 

The Missing Link to Federal Results?

MSPB research finds that employee engagement is more than a buzzword—

it matters to your bottom line.
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

Neil A. G. McPhie

VICE CHAIRMAN

Mary M. Rose

Office of Policy and Evaluation

DIRECTOR

John Crum, Ph.D.

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

(click on “MSPB Studies”)

STUDIES@mspb.gov

202-653-6772 x1350

1-800-209-8960

V/TDD: 202-653-8896

(TTY users may use the Federal 

Relay Service, 800-877-8339)

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Office of Policy and Evaluation

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419

D r e to r s    e r s p c 



continued, page 3 

can incentivize poor and marginal 

performers to either improve or move on. 

While the pay for performance 

concept has a number of features that 

are intuitively attractive, there have been 

implementation issues that have limited 

widespread acceptance of the concept. 

For pay for performance systems to 

operate as intended, employees must trust 

their supervisors’ ability and willingness 

to provide fair assessments of their 

performance. This trust can be built 

through training, collaboration in the 

development of performance expectations, 

transparency in the pay determination 

process, and ultimately what is perceived 

as a successful implementation of the 

system. 

But do these challenges mean that the 

Government must abandon the concept of 

pay for performance? Maybe not. Believe 

it or not, the General Schedule was 

originally intended to have many pay for 

performance features. The merit system 

principles call for employees to receive 

equal pay for work of equal value, as well 

as appropriate incentives and recognition 

for excellence in performance. In short, 

this means employees should be paid 

based upon how well they perform the 

work required of them. 

But how can this be done within 

the constraints of the General Schedule? 

There are actually several tools agencies 

can use. First, agencies must ensure 

that supervisors have an awards budget 

that allows them to provide meaningful 

recognition of superior performance. In 

turn, supervisors must use their award 

budgets judiciously and not simply spread 

awards across the office to all staff, as is 

Can the General Schedule help supervisors pay for performance?

The concept of pay for performance 

has taken some hits recently. In 

September 2008, the Government 

Accountability Office questioned 

whether the Department of Defense’s 

(DoD) performance management 

system had the necessary safeguards to 

ensure the system is fair, effective, and 

credible. This system serves as the basis 

of DoD’s pay for performance system. 

On October 2, 2008, the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) announced 

it was rescinding application of its new 

human resources system—including 

the pay for performance component. In 

an October letter to the President of the 

American Federation of Government 

Employees, then-Presidential candidate 

Barack Obama called into question 

whether the DoD pay for performance 

system should be implemented due to 

existing concerns about the system. 

Given these developments, it is 

a good time to reflect on why pay 

for performance has faced so many 

challenges and where the Government 

might go from here. Over the last 10 

years or so, there have been a number 

of attempts to change the way Federal 

employees are compensated, most 

notably at DHS and DoD. One of the 

recurring themes has been to provide a 

greater link between the quality of work 

an employee does and his or her salary. 

Proponents have claimed pay for 

performance has many advantages. 

They say it can be a fairer way to pay 

because the highest performers receive 

the highest compensation, providing 

agencies with greater ability to attract 

and retain “the best and the brightest.” 

Also, they believe pay for performance 

Pay for Performance: Where Do 

We Go From Here?


The MSPB defines alternative discipline as an effort 

undertaken by employers to address employee misconduct 

using a method other than traditional discipline. Most 

readers are likely familiar with the traditional concepts 

of a reprimand or suspension to deal with an employee’s 

misconduct. With alternative discipline, management 

takes a different course of action to try to change 

the behavior, such as having the employee perform 

community service or attend anger management classes. 

Alternative discipline is an important management 

tool. It allows the agency to tailor its approach to a 

specific situation and could cut down on future litigation.

Alternative discipline is typically an agreement 

between an employee and the employer. As such, it is 

limited only by the imagination of the parties. Keep in 

mind, however, that the Federal Circuit has held that 

alternative discipline agreements are considered contracts, 

and the terms of the agreement will be evaluated by the 

MSPB or the courts under the principles of contract law. 

Thus, it is important that the agreements are well drafted. 

Agencies should keep in mind four specific points 

about drafting agreements. First, if the language in the 

contract written by the agency is ambiguous, and the 

employee reasonably challenges it at a later date, then the 

agreement will be interpreted in favor of the employee. 

So be clear and make sure the terms are not subject to 

multiple interpretations. Second, the agreement implies 

that both the agency and employee will act in good faith. 

The agency’s failure to do so can be considered a breach 

of the contract, making the terms unenforceable. Third, 

the agency cannot force or coerce the employee into an 

alternative discipline agreement. The employee must 

knowingly and voluntarily enter into the agreement and 

understand any rights being waived. Finally, agencies 

cannot include terms or conditions that may be impossible 

to accomplish. The employee should not be set up to fail, 

and the agency should not promise anything it cannot 

actually do. 

Ultimately, supervisors need to understand these 

points to ensure the agreements they sign are valid, 

binding contracts. Unfortunately, the MSPB found in a 

recent survey that few agencies educate supervisors on 

the use of alternative discipline, how to abide by the terms 

of the agreement, and what their legal obligations are 

under the agreement. Guidance from agencies on creating 

enforceable alternative discipline agreements might be 

helpful to managers and human resources staff. For more 

on alternative discipline, see MSPB’s report, Alternative 

Discipline: Creative Solutions for Agencies to Effectively 

Address Misconduct, available at www.mspb.gov. 

Alternative Discipline: What You Need to Know

Paying for Performance

(continued from page 2)

John Crum

Director, Policy and Evaluation

often done. 

Another tool supervisors can use to recognize 

performance is the quality step increase (QSI). In 

many organizations, this type of award is seldom used. 

While supervisors certainly should not pass out QSIs 

indiscriminately, their strategic use can be a valuable way 

of recognizing and reinforcing superior performance.

While not directly related to performance, agencies 

can also use pay to manage the retention of their top 

employees. They can pay employees a retention incentive 

under certain conditions when the employees are likely 

to leave for another Federal or private sector job. This 

authority is also rarely used. 

On the other side of the scale, pay for performance 

should mean withholding rewards for poor performance. 

Specifically, supervisors should be more willing to 

withhold within-grade step increases from employees who 

are not performing at an adequate level. Unfortunately, 

the data suggest that few supervisors are willing to do so. 

I do not mean to suggest that the civil service should 

cease efforts to modernize the compensation system. 

Rather, if agencies believe that pay for performance is 

the better way of compensating employees, then they can 

begin by making better use of the pay for performance 

elements of the General Schedule. In fact, by using 

the options that are currently available to them in an 

appropriate and transparent manner, supervisors may be 

able to demonstrate to employees that they can be trusted 

to make fair decisions that affect their subordinates’ pay, 

thus laying the groundwork for more comprehensive 

compensation reform. 


positive results, but we know that there is a relationship 

between engagement and these outcomes. By establishing 

this relationship, we hope to focus attention on the 

management practices that can improve employee 

engagement in agencies. 

In any organization, a clear focus on good daily 

management practices may become lost among evershifting priorities and increasing pressures for improved 

results. However, our report makes a strong business case 

for maintaining a clear focus on these practices. Methods 

that agencies can use to improve their employees’ 

engagement include:

• Ensuring a good person-to-job fit by improving the 

marketing of job vacancies, better assessing job 

candidates, and rotating employees to different jobs 

where practical.

• Using effective performance management techniques 

throughout the annual rating cycle.

• Recruiting and selecting supervisors to supervise 

instead of simply promoting the best technical 

specialists to supervisory positions.

• Using a competency-based approach to enhance an 

employee’s career by affording them the opportunity to 

develop existing, and acquire new, competencies that 

will be valuable to the organization.

MSPB’s report, The Power of Federal Employee 

Engagement, is available at www.mspb.gov. 

Engagement

(continued from page 1)

Much has been said about the Federal hiring process: 

it is too cumbersome, too lengthy, and too complex. Our 

studies have shown that many new hires feel the greatest 

obstacles to their job search were the length of time it 

took to get hired and the complexity of the application 

process. One-third of entry-level applicants indicated that 

it took over 5 months to get hired. This is too long for a 

quality candidate, as well as an agency in need of talent, 

to wait. 

In past reports on hiring, the MSPB has made several 

recommendations to agencies and the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM), including: (1) Agencies need to 

evaluate their hiring process for obstacles; (2) Agencies 

should develop a hiring strategy; and (3) OPM should 

work with agencies to develop a framework for hiring 

reform. Realizing the importance of the problems with 

the hiring process, OPM released the “End-to-End (E2E) 

Hiring Roadmap” in September. This roadmap is designed 

to assist agencies in streamlining their hiring activities. 

OPM is taking an all-encompassing view of 

recruitment. The new E2E roadmap integrates all aspects 

of the hiring process, from strategic planning through 

on-boarding. It provides detailed, step-by-step guidelines 

for workforce planning, recruitment, hiring, security and 

suitability, and orientation. 

Prior to the E2E Hiring Roadmap, agencies were 

using OPM’s 45-day hiring model, which stated that 

agencies should take 45 business days from the close of 

the announcement until a job offer was made. This was 

still a significant amount of time for an applicant to wait. 

The new roadmap states that these steps should take only 

34 calendar days—reducing the time almost by half. The 

total time for the new hiring process, from identifying the 

need to fill a position to Entry on Duty, should take 80 

calendar days. 

In addition to addressing recruitment and selection, 

the new roadmap includes activities that should occur 

year round, including strategic planning and on-boarding. 

Human resource professionals and hiring managers 

should work together to determine their human capital 

needs throughout the year. This will help alleviate some 

of the time-consuming processes that currently occur at 

the time the job is announced.

The process does not end once an employee has 

entered duty. MSPB has shown that an employee’s 

engagement with the agency is key to keeping quality 

talent. This starts even before the employee walks in 

the door. OPM realizes this and includes an orientation 

section in the new roadmap. Agencies need to be able 

to hire quality employees efficiently to achieve their 

missions. OPM hopes this new roadmap will be key in 

accomplishing this goal. 

To view the roadmap, go to www.opm.gov/

publications/EndToEnd-HiringInitiative.pdf. 

End-to-End Hiring: A Holistic Approach to 

Managing Your Hiring Process


An increasing number of hiring officials are assessing prior work experience in a 

new way. Instead of traditional “KSA” narratives, which ask applicants to list all of the 

evidence that they have a certain skill, agencies are beginning to use accomplishment 

records (ARs). These assessments require a more specific discussion of the candidates’ 

skills than is required by KSAs. They ask applicants to select one accomplishment from 

their work history and write about it in depth. Research has shown that this approach 

yields information which better predicts applicants’ future performance on the job.1

One danger in using a new assessment—even a better one—is that applicants will 

score lower than they should because they are unfamiliar with it. We offer the following 

advice to help applicants get the scores they deserve.

Pick one accomplishment. Pay close attention to the instructions to pick one 

accomplishment and describe it in depth. Typical AR scoring guidelines are not flexible 

enough to yield a competitive score for lists of unrelated tasks. Some scoring guides 

require that this type of list to be left unscored. Others require scoring of only part 

of the information you provide. Under either of these scoring systems, not following 

directions to focus on a single accomplishment will lower your score.

Select the accomplishment carefully. Do not necessarily select your most recent 

or most interesting accomplishment—or even the one from the job where people liked

you the most. Pay attention to the kind of job you are applying for and the parameters 

described in the AR instructions. In our office, we ask applicants to describe research 

projects and reports they have written as accomplishments. If they describe another 

kind of achievement, we have no choice but to score them lower, even if we find their 

accomplishment personally impressive.

Focus on the scoring dimensions. AR instructions will tell you what to include in 

your description. Be sure to provide information about each requested aspect rather than 

relying on the overall impressive nature of an accomplishment. Most ARs are scored 

like structured interviews, with very specific scoring dimensions and guidelines. If you 

omit requested information, you may end up with a “0” on that dimension, and a low 

score overall. It’s better to describe a weaker aspect of the accomplishment for partial 

credit than leave it out for no credit.

Choose good verifiers. Many ARs ask you to supply the names and contact 

information of “verifiers” who can vouch for your role in an accomplishment. It is 

important to provide this information and understand that this role is similar but slightly 

different than that of an employment reference provider. Like reference providers, the 

best verifiers must actually have observed your performance of the accomplishment. 

It is less important that they have generally positive things to say about you—they are 

usually asked only to verify, not evaluate, your accomplishment. And, of course, if you 

fail to provide verifier information at all, you risk receiving that zero score.

AR assessments are designed to give applicants credit for their significant work 

accomplishments. Applicants who are informed about this format and represent their 

achievements accurately will likely be more competitive for jobs they wish to obtain.

1 For more information on accomplishment records, see “Assessing the Assessments: An Overview of

Accomplishment Records,” Issues of Merit, 13(3), July, 2008.

Listen to the Exam Coach: How 

to Do Well on an Accomplishment 

Record Assessment

Workplace 

Learning

Times are getting tough, and 

that likely means agencies 

will have to cut back their 

spending, leaving limited 

resources for learning. We offer 

these low-to-no cost training 

suggestions to help you better 

manage the funds you have, 

while still providing employees 

development opportunities. We 

hope these ideas will get you 

thinking about what learning 

opportunities you can provide 

given your work environment.

Lessons Learned

Develop a questionnaire for 

employees to complete at the 

midpoint and completion of a 

project to record the lessons 

they learned, including what 

went well and what could 

be improved. Make the 

questionnaires available in an 

electronic database or paper 

file and encourage employees 

to consult the repository before 

beginning a project. 

Electronic Newsletters

Check professional association 

Web sites to see if they offer 

free electronic newsletters 

to interested persons. They 

typically provide current news 

and short informative articles 

that help keep employees 

abreast of current topics. 

Vendor Presentations

Invite consultants to a staff 

meeting to make informational 

presentations on topics of 

interest to your group. They 

will usually make these 

presentations free of charge 

as an opportunity to showcase 

their work, even if the product 

or service is not purchased. 

Employees benefit from 

exposure to leading edge 

practices in their field.


Federal supervisors serve a critical role because they 

are responsible for facilitating the accomplishment of 

the Federal Government’s missions through the efforts 

of their employees. As shown in Figure 1, results from 

25 years of MSPB’s Merit Principles Survey suggest that 

the majority of Federal employees are satisfied with their 

supervisors and respect their technical qualifications. 

However, they also perceive substantial room for 

improvement in supervisors’ managerial skills. While 

employee perceptions are just one indicator of supervisory 

quality, these perceptions suggest that agencies should 

continue evaluating whether they are holding supervisors 

accountable for exercising effective management skills. 

One area that employees identified as presenting 

substantial managerial challenges is performance 

management. Supervisors are commonly viewed as not 

dealing effectively with poor performers—only 30 percent 

of 2005 and 22 percent of 2000 survey respondents gave 

their supervisors favorable marks on this item. When poor 

performers aren’t held accountable, it is more difficult 

for the team to achieve its goals and can have a negative 

impact on other employees who have to shoulder the extra 

burden. 

Similarly, in 2007, only 49 percent of employees 

reported that rewards and recognition are based on 

performance. Although this represented a substantial 

increase over the first time the question was asked in 

1983 (17 percent favorable), the fact that only half of 

employees saw a link between performance and outcomes 

could mean that awards provided by supervisors have 

limited motivational value. 

Building trust between employees and their 

supervisors is another area that appears to need work. 

This becomes readily apparent in questions regarding 

employees’ trust of their supervisors in fairly and 

effectively exercising various personnel authorities (e.g., 

rating applicants, making selections, setting pay, and 

taking adverse actions), as seen in Figure 2. Ratings in 

each of these areas improved slightly compared to 1996, 

although fewer than 40 percent of employees expressed 

faith in their supervisors in any of these areas. 

As these results show, there has been some progress 

in employees’ perceptions of supervisors’ managerial 

ability, yet this improvement has been modest. Given 

that supervisors accomplish their mission through 

their employees, it is essential that agencies select, 

develop, reward, and retain their supervisors based on 

the supervisor’s ability to effectively manage. Unless 

employees perceive that they are being managed well, 

it is highly unlikely that they will perform at their best. 

Additional longitudinal trends are summarized in the 

recent MSPB report, The Federal Government: A Model 

Employer or a Work In Progress? 

Federal Supervisors: Technically Competent, but 

Managerially Challenged?

25 years of survey trends indicate that employees are still critical of supervisors’ management skills.


As the Federal workforce has become increasingly 

diverse over time, the concept of diversity itself 

has evolved. The “melting pot” terminology and its 

implications of assimilation have given way to a “salad 

bowl” perspective as we have begun to appreciate the 

value of individual differences. Perhaps the latest shift 

has been to recognize what makes each of us unique, 

while promoting inclusion and unity by identifying shared 

interests as well. 

Although there are months 

set aside to observe the history 

and contributions of a variety of 

groups—based on ethnicity, gender, 

and disability—you may also 

consider new ways to acknowledge 

the diversity within your workforce 

while promoting fun and fellowship. 

It is important to note that these 

ideas do not require money or large 

amounts of employees’ time. Yet, 

agencies may reap the benefits 

of encouraging their employees 

to break out of organizational stovepipes and work 

collaboratively on a project that may help foster their 

understanding and appreciation of their coworkers. Here 

are some ideas that have been used in some agencies. 

Invite speakers to share their perspectives.

Speakers from within or outside your agency can provide 

presentations based on their expertise or personal 

experiences, or you can pose questions to a panel 

convened to represent a variety of perspectives. Having 

your agency leaders introduce these speakers conveys the 

respect that your organization has for the topic. 

Host a cultural “potluck” lunch. Sharing food 

remains one of the most popular ways for people to learn 

about each others’ culture and customs. Recipes can be 

exchanged by posting them on the agency’s intranet site. 

Be entertained by musicians or dancers 

representing different cultures. We’re not 

recommending a Federal “American Idol” or “Dancing 

with the Stars,” but you never know what talent might 

be hiding in your coworkers, their families, friends, or 

neighbors. Voluntarily taking a lunch break to listen to 

music from other countries or learning to salsa or chacha could be just what employees need to boost their 

concentration and energy.

Provide a forum for employees to display items 

representing their history. A conference room or lobby 

can be used to host a temporary display of cultural 

artifacts (e.g., traditional costumes, artwork) or personal 

mementos (e.g., photos of ancestors or documents such as 

immigration papers). Slide shows 

played while light refreshments 

are served can also provide a 

fitting environment where items 

can be displayed with captions to 

explain their significance. 

Get to know your 

colleagues better. Social 

networking sites, such as 

Facebook, have become very 

popular. Perhaps your agency 

could create a Web page on the 

agency intranet site to allow 

employees to get to know their coworkers a little better. 

In addition to posting a photo, employees may answer 

questions that are designed to allow them to share more of 

their personalities, such as by describing their hobbies or 

why they like their jobs. 

Sponsor a book swap. Here’s a great excuse to 

clear out those books you’ve already read and are ready 

to pass on to a new owner. Recently, there have been 

lots of interesting titles on the best-seller lists that relate 

to diversity-related themes. Recycling them with your 

coworkers can start some interesting discussions.

Create a library of diversity-related books. As an 

alternative to the book swap, you could set aside a book 

shelf to create a lending library for books. 

Facilitate a lunchtime book discussion. If you 

want to get a group together to talk about a book that 

raises issues regarding diversity, look no further than 

the Internet for ideas. You can search on terms such as 

“diversity book discussion” or “diversity book club” and 

you’ll find lengthy lists of suggested reading. 

Celebrating Diversity Within Federal Agencies:

Opportunities to Foster Cultural Appreciation

Are you looking for an innovative way to celebrate diversity in your organization? Here are some 

suggestions.

The “melting pot” terminology 

and its implications of assimilation 

have given way to a “salad bowl” 

perspective as we have begun to 

appreciate the value of individual 

differences.
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

Managing Managers. Employee 

perceptions of supervisors’ management skills continue to be a concern, 

as shown through 25 years of MSPB 

surveys. (Page 6)

Going Beyond Posters. We offer 

suggestions on how to recognize and 

celebrate diversity in creative and 

motivational ways. (Page 7)

Federal Employee Engagement: 

Why Does it Matter? Because it 

may affect your agency’s bottom line. 

Find out how. (Page 1)

Director’s Perspective. With the 

difficulties agencies face in 

implementing pay for performance 

systems, our Director demonstrates 

how agencies can use the current 

system to “pay for performance.” 

(Page 2)

Alternative Discipline. What it is, 

why it’s important, and what you need 

to know to make it effective. (Page 3)

F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 9 V o l u m e 1 4 I s s u e 1

End-to-End Hiring. A discussion of 

OPM’s new hiring model and its 

attempt to bring about holistic change 

to the way agencies manage their 

workforce. (Page 4)

Accomplishment Records. We’ve 

previously discussed what accomplishment records are. Now we help 

you and your employees prepare for 

them. (Page 5)