Women in the 

Federal Government:

AMBITIONS AND

ACHIEVEMENTS

MAY 2011

A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States 

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
THE CHAIRMAN

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

The President

President of the Senate

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Dear Sirs:

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

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) report, Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements. 

The purpose of this report is to examine changes in the employment and treatment of women in the civilian 

Federal Government.

Much has changed for the better since MSPB’s 1992 study, A Question of Equity: Women and the 

Glass Ceiling in the Federal Government. The representation of women in professional and administrative 

occupations and the Senior Executive Service has increased. Within the Federal workforce, differences 

between women and men in experience and education have diminished, which bodes well for continued 

progress. Fewer women report that they are subjected to discrimination or stereotypes that hinder their 

advancement, and women and men express comparable levels of satisfaction with Federal employment and 

their treatment at work.

Although that progress is commendable, the vision of a workforce in which women are fully 

represented and utilized has not been wholly achieved. For example, the representation of women at higher 

levels continues to lag behind their representation at lower levels. Also, many employees believe that personnel 

actions are often influenced by non-merit factors such as favoritism. Therefore, agencies must sustain efforts 

to recruit highly-qualified women, strive for openness and fairness in personnel decisions, and remain vigilant 

against prohibited discrimination.

Yet, more is needed to address contemporary challenges to achieving a high-performing, diverse 

workforce. For example, the shift to knowledge-based work means that agencies must help employees 

understand the skills, education, and accomplishments needed to advance and select supervisors who can 

effectively manage knowledge workers. Continuing occupational differences between women and men, in 

both the civilian labor force and the Federal Government, may hinder efforts to recruit women in some 

occupations. Those differences may also create “glass walls”—barriers to lateral movement and career growth 

for employees in lower-paying or non-mission-critical occupations—which may require agencies to reexamine 

their approaches to recruitment, work assignment, and leadership development. I believe you will find this 

report valuable in our collective pursuit of a fair and effective workforce. 

 Respectfully,

 Susan Tsui Grundmann 

Enclosure
Women in the 

Federal Government:

AMBITIONS AND

ACHIEVEMENTS

MAY 2011

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

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mary M. Rose, Member

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Director

John Crum, Ph.D.

Deputy Director

Laura Shugrue

Project Manager 

James J. Tsugawa

Assistant Project Manager

Cynthia H. Ferentinos, Ph.D.

Project Analyst

Julie Osowski, Ph.D.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .

Introduction .

The Employment Status of Women in the Federal Government .

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, 

and Representation of Women . 

Employees’ Career Interests and Actions . 

Employee Perceptions of Work and the Workplace . 

Conclusions and Recommendations . 

Appendix A. 

Discussion Group Questions . 

Appendix B. 

The 2007 Career Advancement Survey (CAS) . 

Appendix C. 

Occupational Categories and Definitions . 

Appendix D. 

Occupational Groups in the Federal Government . 

Appendix E. 

Use of Information from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File . 

Appendix F. 

Achieving a Representative Workforce—The Vision and the Standard . 

Appendix G. 

Entry Requirements for Selected Professional 

and Administrative Occupations . 

Appendix H. 

Shattering the Glass Ceiling: Actions for 

Federal Agencies and Managers . 

Appendix I. 

Career Advancement Suggestions for Federal Employees . 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board i

Executive Summary

I

n its 1992 report A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling in the Federal 

Government, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) concluded that 

there was a “glass ceiling” that limited the advancement of women in the Federal 

Government. Evidence of that glass ceiling included (1) inadequate representation 

of women in supervisory and executive positions; (2) lower promotion rates for 

women from General Schedule (GS) grades GS-9 and GS-11; and (3) differences 

in grade level (and thus pay) that could not be explained fully by differences in 

experience and education. MSPB found that this glass ceiling consisted of factors 

that women could control, such as education, experience, and geographic mobility, 

as well as factors outside of their control such as employer expectations, assumptions, 

or stereotypes that could limit the opportunities available to women. Although 

employees generally agreed that the Federal Government had made considerable 

progress in its employment of women, many employees believed that the “playing 

field” for women and men seeking advancement was far from level.

There have been many changes in American society since then, and those changes 

have been mirrored in the Federal Government. Over the past two decades, the 

Federal Government has made substantial progress in hiring and advancing women 

in the Federal workforce. More women are employed in positions in professional 

and administrative occupations, which offer the greatest opportunities for pay and 

advancement. Increases in the representation of women in the executive ranks have 

outpaced projections from MSPB’s 1992 study. Pay differences between women and 

men have been considerably reduced.

These tangible gains have been accompanied by substantial, if less visible, 

improvements in Federal workplaces and the work lives of Federal employees. 

Fewer women believe that they have been subjected to overt or subtle discrimination 

at work. MSPB’s analysis of General Schedule promotion rates supports a belief 

that the prevalence and force of stereotypical assumptions about the abilities and 

appropriate roles of women have greatly diminished. Although women and men 

can differ in career factors such as occupation, family responsibilities, geographic 

mobility, and interest in supervisory roles, women are about as likely as men to 

be promoted when factors such as occupation, experience, and education are 

held equal.

Contributors to this progress include changes in American society that have 

expanded the opportunities available to women and changes in the civilian labor 

force that have expanded the pool of highly-qualified women in many occupations. 
Executive Summary

ii Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Within the Federal Government, those changes are reflected in diminishing 

differences between women and men in important characteristics such as education 

and experience. That trend, combined with a continued interest in career 

advancement among women in the Federal Government, bodes well for future 

gains in the representation of women at the highest levels of pay and responsibility, 

including the Senior Executive Service. Much credit is also due to agency efforts to 

recruit and advance women, to reduce the incidence of prohibited discrimination, 

to provide greater flexibility in work arrangements, and to focus on contributions 

and skills—rather than on indirect and unreliable indicators of performance and 

dedication such as time spent in the office or irrelevant factors such as marital status 

and family responsibilities—when evaluating and promoting employees.

Still, progress toward full equality is not yet complete. Women remain less likely 

than men to be employed in high-paying occupations and supervisory positions. 

That reflects, in part, continuing occupational differences between women and men 

in the Federal workforce and the broader civilian labor force. Women have made 

great strides in entering occupations such as physician and attorney, but remain 

relatively scarce in fields such as law enforcement, information technology, and 

engineering—fields important to the current and future Federal workforce. Also, 

even within a given occupation, women often have lower salaries than men, and 

those salary differences cannot be fully explained by differences in measurable factors 

such as experience and education. 

Agencies and stakeholders should also be aware that future progress may come less 

easily than past progress. First, occupational differences persist between women and 

men in both American society and Federal workplaces. Such occupational differences 

can complicate recruitment and create glass walls—barriers to movement across 

organizations, functions, or occupations—within the Federal workforce, resulting 

in different opportunities for women and men even if they are comparable in terms 

of educational attainment, years of experience, and performance. Second, agencies 

have increased their use of external hiring and upper-level hiring to fill positions in 

professional and administrative occupations. Women are increasingly successful in 

employment competitions of all types, reflecting diminishing differences in critical 

factors such as education, experience, and career interests. Nevertheless, for a variety 

of reasons, women are generally less likely to be hired when an agency fills a position 

through external (as opposed to internal) recruitment or fills a position at upperlevel instead of entry-level.

Also, sex-based discrimination and stereotypes have not yet completely disappeared. 

Even in the absence of overt discrimination, many employees continue to believe 

that women are subjected to unfounded assumptions about their abilities or 

dedication to work. However, most issues that are critical to the fair treatment 

and advancement of women are universal. For example, concerns about the role of 

favoritism in personnel decisions are widespread and shared equally by women and 

men. Other issues important to both women and men include the recruitment and 

selection of supervisors, career management (e.g., helping employees understand 

what is required to advance), and balancing demanding jobs with life/family 

responsibilities.
Executive Summary

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

Actions that agencies and managers can take to further progress in the representation 

and advancement of women and increase fairness for all employees include—

 • Provide continuing feedback and development to employees, so that employees 

understand and can develop the competencies and behaviors that are important 

to job success and career advancement;

 • Improve the recruitment, selection, and development of supervisors. Enhanced 

supervisory effectiveness will create a cadre of supervisors who are better able 

to focus on results, support work/life balance, and ensure fairness in work 

assignment and other aspects of human resources management;

 • Make informed and appropriate use of both internal and external sources of 

talent. When used appropriately, internal hiring can provide a “bridge” from 

technical, clerical, or blue-collar occupations to professional and administrative 

occupations, to the benefit of both agencies and employees. However, agencies 

should also recognize that internal and external talent pools can differ in 

ways that have significant implications for assessment, development, and 

advancement;

 • Recognize, and avoid reliance on, stereotypes and assumptions in day-to-day 

human resources management. Agencies should consciously focus on ability and 

results, rather than surface characteristics and impressions, when assigning work, 

allocating developmental opportunities, and evaluating employee performance 

and potential; 

 • Remain vigilant against sex-based discrimination, including sexual harassment, 

and ensure that avenues for reporting and addressing such discrimination are 

accessible and trusted; and

 • Maximize flexibility in work arrangements and job requirements. Flexible work 

arrangements can help agencies attract diverse pools of qualified applicants, 

retain employees, and sustain engagement without compromising teamwork and 

productivity. Conversely, unnecessary inflexibility in matters such as geographic 

mobility, work hours, and travel may result in the loss of highly capable 

applicants and employees who have life/family responsibilities and can find 

competing employers that are more accommodating.

We note that the subjects and recommendations of this report are not purely or 

even primarily “women’s issues.” Effective, merit-based human resources practices—

including outreach and recruitment, workplace fairness, and effective supervision—

matter to everyone and can yield positive dividends in workforce quality and 

organizational performance. All employees and all segments of the American public 

benefit from workplaces that are “representative of all segments of society” and fully 

utilize and recognize the talents of every employee.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1

Introduction

Purpose

The mission of the MSPB is to protect merit systems in the Federal civil service. 

To that end, MSPB conducts special studies to assess how effectively Federal 

Government human resources (HR) policies and practices serve the public interest, 

to determine whether Federal agencies are managing employees in accordance with 

the laws and principles that govern the Federal civil service, and to identify and 

recommend improvements.

Fundamental values of the civil service, codified in the merit system principles, 

include a workforce that is “representative of all segments of society” and selection 

and advancement “determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge and 

skills.”1 That includes an affirmative responsibility to treat all employees fairly and 

equitably, ensure that human resources management decisions are not influenced by 

personal characteristics that are not job-related, and identify and remove any barriers 

to the employment of historically underrepresented groups, including women.

Accordingly, in the early 1990s, MSPB conducted research on the employment, 

experiences, and advancement of women in the Federal Government. The results 

of that research, which focused on employees in professional and administrative 

occupations,were published in the 1992 report A Question of Equity: Women and the 

Glass Ceiling in the Federal Government.

2

This study follows up on that research, to examine the progress that has been made; 

analyze differences in the representation, career interests, and treatment of women 

and men in the Federal Government; identify and discuss any remaining barriers 

to a workforce in which women are fully represented at all levels; and to make 

recommendations to eliminate those barriers and ensure that the talents of women 

in Federal agencies are appropriately utilized and recognized.

1 Title 5, United States Code, § 2301(b)(1).

2 That study, like this study, focused on professional and administrative occupations because they 

account for all positions in the Senior Executive Service and the vast majority of positions at higher pay 

and grade levels, such as General Schedule grades GS-12 through GS-15.
Introduction

2 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Methodology

The issues, findings, and recommendations in this report are based on—

 • A review of literature on topics such as workforce fairness, diversity, and gender 

differences related to career and work. We also reviewed research conducted by 

other organizations that examined the fair treatment of a variety of demographic 

groups, within the private and public sectors, as well as books and articles from 

academic journals and the popular press;

 • Meetings with Federal managers and employees, including representatives 

from HR offices and employee affinity groups3 to better understand employee 

perceptions of their experiences and treatment at work and to outline areas 

where improvement was desired. We also discussed the research topic with 

colleagues from the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission;

 • Discussion groups of Federal employees to explore the degree to which agencies 

operate within the merit system principles and to gather suggestions for 

improvement. To obtain a wide range of perspectives, we selected participants 

based on characteristics such as geographic location, agency, ethnicity/race, 

gender, occupation, and grade.4 Occasionally, employees volunteered or were 

nominated by their agencies to participate in these sessions. Appendix A lists 

the discussion group questions. In addition to scheduled discussion groups, 

we collected employee input in conjunction with presentations at numerous 

conferences;

 • A survey of Federal employees (the Career Advancement Survey or CAS). 

Approximately half the items on this survey replicated items that appeared 

in previous MSPB surveys to permit trend analysis.5 The CAS also included 

new questions to build upon preceding questions or to explore emerging 

issues. MSPB utilized a stratified random sample to ensure that results were 

representative of employee opinion Governmentwide and to permit analysis of 

results by ethnicity and race, gender, and pay level. The survey was administered 

in 2007 in a web-based format.6 Appendix B provides a copy of the paper 

version of the CAS;

3 The discussion groups supported this study and a preceding MSPB study focusing on diversity 

issues, including ethnicity and race. We received input from Blacks in Government, the Federal 

Asian Pacific American Council, Federally Employed Women, National IMAGE, and the Society of 

American Indian Government Employees.

4 Discussion group locations included Oklahoma City, OK; Chicago, IL; Long Beach, CA; and 

Albuquerque, NM. 

5 See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling in 

the Federal Government, Washington, DC, October 1992 and U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board,

Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Progress Report on Minority Employment in the Federal Government, 

Washington, DC, August 1996.

6 A paper survey was made available to approximately 5 percent of sampled employees who did not 

have internet access.
Introduction

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

 • Results from previous administrations of MSPB’s Merit Principles Survey 

(MPS). The MPS, which has been administered periodically since 1983, 

contains core items (including demographic items and questions related to 

job satisfaction and workplace fairness) that have appeared in several separate 

administrations of the survey. The MPS has been administered on sufficient 

scale to permit comparison of employee responses over time and across 

demographic groups;7

 • Analyses of workforce data from the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). We 

used CPDF data to examine changes in the demographic and occupational 

composition of the workforce over time, with particular attention to professional 

and administrative occupations.8 Appendix C provides a definition of these 

occupational categories and Appendix D describes the occupational families 

(broad lines of work) that the Federal Government uses for staffing, pay, and 

other purposes. We also used CPDF data for two special analyses: an analysis 

of promotion rates and factors affecting likelihood of promotion for employees 

under the General Schedule pay system and an analysis of how Federal 

employees enter professional and administrative occupations. Appendix E 

describes CPDF data and its use in this report.

 • Comparisons of the Federal workforce to the civilian labor force using data from 

the Current Population Survey as reported by the Department of Commerce, 

U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

These sources of information provided insight into trends in the employment of 

women and men in the Federal workforce and a better understanding of how Federal 

employees view their jobs, coworkers, and supervisors; manage their careers; and 

perceive their work experiences and the human resources management policies and 

practices of Federal agencies and the Federal Government.

7 Many findings from these analyses were presented in a 2008 MSPB report. See U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board, The Federal Government: A Model Employer or a Work In Progress?, Washington, DC, 

September 2008.

8 The terms “professional” and “administrative” refer to the corresponding occupational categories. 

Professional occupations include occupations that require specialized education or credentials for entry, 

such as physician, nurse, attorney, and biologist. Administrative occupations include occupations such 

as human resources management, criminal investigation, and budget analysis. In this report, the term 

“administrative employees” does not include employees in clerical and technical occupations, even 

though such work is often considered administrative in nature.

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

The Employment Status

of Women in the 

Federal Government

The representation of women in professional and administrative 

occupations has increased.

The data in Figure 1 show that women have made considerable progress in the 

Federal Government. Women now hold approximately 44 percent of the positions 

in both professional and administrative occupations, which constitute the pipeline 

for positions at the highest grade and pay levels, including the Senior Executive 

Service.

Figure 1. Representation of women in professional and 

administrative occupations, 1976-2009

Women are also increasingly visible at the highest levels of the Federal service, as 

illustrated in Figure 2.

9 Women now account for approximately 30 percent of the 

Senior Executive Service, reflecting—and building on—the increased representation 

of women in supervisory and high-graded positions.

9 We present figures for employees paid under the General Schedule for comparability with our 1992 

study. Readers should be aware that the coverage of the General Schedule has declined considerably 

since that time; many employees are now paid under systems that are not readily comparable to the 

General Schedule. However, the trend line shown here is quite similar to trend lines for broader 

populations that include employees at grade levels similar to GS-13 through GS-15 and employees 

receiving pay at or above the GS-13 level.
The Employment Status of Women in the Federal Government

6 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Figure 2. Representation of women in high-level and 

supervisory positions, 1991-2009

In fact, progress has outpaced the projections of MSPB’s 1992 study,10 and the 

representation of women in the SES compares favorably with their representation 

in similar positions in the civilian labor force.11

Differences in pay have narrowed.

The progress that women have made is evident in pay as well as representation. 

Figure 3 shows that differences in pay (pay gaps) between women and men have 

narrowed. The gains have been greatest in administrative occupations, where the 

median salary for women is now almost 93 percent of that for men, up from just 

over 83 percent in 1991. This progress reflects, in part, convergence between women 

and men in characteristics such as length of service and educational attainment and 

the increased employment of women at higher grade levels.

10 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling in the 

Federal Government, Washington, DC, October 1992, pp. 10-11. The study projected that women 

would hold approximately one-third of jobs at the GS-13 through GS-15 levels and constitute 

approximately 27 percent of the Senior Executive Service.

11 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey for 2009, 

“Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity,” accessed in 

June 2010 at www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf. Women accounted for 25 percent of “chief executives” 

and 30 percent of “general and operations managers.”
The Employment Status of Women in the Federal Government

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 7

Figure 3. Median salaries for women in professional and 

administrative occupations as a percentage of the median salaries 

for men, 1976-2009

That convergence is not yet complete. As we discuss later in this report, there are 

continuing occupational differences between women and men that contribute to pay 

differences. Nevertheless, salary differences are not explained solely by occupational 

differences. Statistical analysis of employee salaries for populous professional and 

administrative occupations12 revealed that there are often significant differences 

between the salaries of women and men within an occupation. For the occupations 

we analyzed, the salaries of women were lower than those of men in more than 

three-fourths of professional occupations and more than half of administrative 

occupations.13

The existence of such differences is not, in itself, evidence of discrimination or 

inequitable human resources policies or practices. Pay differences can reflect 

many factors, both position-based (such as skill requirements and grade level) and 

individual (such as experience, tenure, education, and performance). However, 

research on pay differences, both inside and outside the Federal Government, 

continues to find that pay differences cannot be fully explained by measurable 

12 We conducted statistical analyses of employee salaries for professional and administrative 

occupations that had 50 or more permanent full-time employees of each sex as of September 30, 2009. 

Ninety-nine professional occupations and 102 administrative occupations met that criterion.

13 These pay analyses did not control for factors such as pay system, grade level, supervisory status, 

length of service, or education. Thus, the analyses simply confirmed the existence of pay differences; 

they did not indicate why those differences existed or whether those differences could be fully 

explained.
The Employment Status of Women in the Federal Government

8 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

factors such as occupation, education, and experience.14 Clearly challenges remain 

in understanding pay differences and eliminating unwarranted pay differences.15

Nevertheless, those challenges should not overshadow the progress that has been 

made.

Women are increasingly successful in competing for employment.

Figure 4 shows that women account for an increasing percentage of upper-level 

entrants in both professional and administrative occupations.16 At entry-level and 

mid-level, the percentages of women and men are relatively balanced, although 

women are less frequently selected into upper-level positions than men. As we 

discuss later in this report, the proportion of women entrants is influenced by 

factors such as the specific occupations filled and the use of internal or external 

recruitment. Therefore, decreases in the proportion of women among entry-level 

applicants should not be interpreted as indications that Federal agencies have 

become less willing to hire women or that women are less, rather than more, 

able to compete.

14 See, for example, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Women’s Pay: Gender Pay Gap in the 

Federal Workforce Narrows as Differences in Occupation, Education, and Experience Diminish, GAO 09 

279, Washington, DC, March 2009, p. 3, and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Work Patterns 

Partially Explain Difference between Men’s and Women’s Earnings, GAO 04 35, Washington, DC, pp.3 

and 21-22. GAO reported that measurable factors accounted for approximately 4 cents of an 11-cent 

pay gap between men and women in the Federal workforce in 2007. An unexplained difference is only 

that: unexplained; it is not conclusive evidence of discrimination. GAO notes that the differences they 

found may reflect “inability to account for certain factors that cannot effectively be measured or for 

which data are not available.”

15 We note that the Administration has created a National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force 

(summarized at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/equal_pay_task_force.pdf) to better 

enforce equal pay laws. The task force’s recommendations include “Implement a strategy to improve the 

federal government’s role as a model employer” and indicate that “The EEOC and OPM will request 

to work with GAO to identify the reasons for [the wage gap between men and women in the Federal 

workforce] and ways to close it.”

16 Entry-level corresponds to grades GS-7 and below, mid-level corresponds to grades GS-9 through 

GS-11, and upper-level corresponds to grades GS-12 and above. Levels were assigned using General 

Schedule (GS) grade, General Schedule-related grade, or pay level (basic pay) for positions in non-GSrelated pay systems. Our “slotting” based on pay level used comparison to minimum (step 1) GS pay 

rates and may assign positions to a level higher than would result from application of GS classification 

standards, especially for pay systems with rates higher than typical GS rates.
The Employment Status of Women in the Federal Government

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 9

Figure 4. Women as a percentage of new entrants to professional 

and administrative occupations, by occupational category and 

job level, 1980-2008

Progress will continue.

As discussed above, the statistics show continued movement toward equality 

for women, both in the positions they hold and in the pay they receive. We 

do recognize, however, that movement has slowed. For example, although the 

representation of women in professional occupations has increased since 1991, 

the representation of women in administrative occupations—the fastest-growing 

segment of the workforce—has not risen as rapidly. Similarly, pay gaps continue to 

diminish, if less slowly than in the 1970s and 1980s.

These developments are, to some extent, a natural consequence of success. The 

initial steps toward equity—such as reducing overt discrimination—are easier 

to identify and produce more immediate and visible results than the final steps. 

Also, the changes in American society and the civilian labor force that facilitated a 

rapid increase in the presence and status of women in the workplace have slowed. 

For example, the labor force participation and educational attainment of women 

increased quite rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s. Since then, labor force participation 

has changed little;17 educational attainment is still increasing, but at a reduced 

pace.18

17 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Changes in men’s and women’s labor force 

participation rates,” The Editor’s Desk, January 10, 2007. Women’s labor force participation increased 

from 43.3% in 1970 to 57.5% in 1990, but decreased slightly from 59.9% in 2000 to 59.3% in 2005.

18 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, “Table 225. Educational Attainment by Race, 

Hispanic Origin, and Sex: 1970 to 2008,” The 2010 Statistical Abstract, accessed in August 2010 at 

www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/10statab/educ.pdf. The percentages of women who were college 

graduates (had completed 4 years or more of college) were 8.1% in 1970, 18.4% in 1990, and 28.8% 

in 2008.
The Employment Status of Women in the Federal Government

10 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Readers should keep the possibility of gradual future progress in perspective. 

Substantial progress has been made, to the benefit of Federal agencies, Federal 

employees, and the American public. Women will continue to make inroads into 

high-paying occupations and the supervisory and executive ranks. For their part, 

Federal agencies should be neither discouraged nor complacent. Continued attention 

to the hiring, advancement, and fair treatment of women remains important, 

both to sustain the progress that has been made and to fully achieve the vision of 

a representative workforce and an equitable workplace. As in a long-distance race, 

the last few miles may prove more challenging than the first few miles. The 

following sections explore factors that have contributed to the progress women 

have made and that may affect the future recruitment and advancement of women 

in the Federal Government, discuss Federal employees’ career intentions and 

perceptions of the workplace, and outline actions for Federal agencies, managers, 

and employees to consider.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11

Factors Affecting the 

Advancement, Recruitment, 

and Representation of Women

This section discusses four factors—experience, education, occupation, and 

recruitment patterns—that affect Federal employees’ career opportunities 

and progress and shape Federal agencies’ hiring practices and outcomes.

Experience

Although Federal agencies are placing increased emphasis on 

performance and results, experience remains important.

For a variety of reasons, the Federal Government has sought to reduce the role 

of length of service (which corresponds roughly with years of Federal experience) 

in personnel decisions such as advancement, pay, and retention.19 Nevertheless, 

experience continues to be extremely important to career advancement. As of 

September 2009, approximately three-fourths of Federal employees at grades 

GS-13 through GS-15 had 10 or more years of service, and three-fourths of 

employees in the Senior Executive Service had 16 or more years of service. 

Although those proportions are lower than in 1991, 20 the fact remains that 

very few Federal employees make it to the top without extensive Federal 

experience.

The “experience gap” between men and women has narrowed.

As shown in Figure 5, the difference in average length of service between women 

and men in professional occupations has decreased considerably. In administrative 

occupations, women now have, on average, more Federal experience than their male 

colleagues.

19 Illustrations include proposals to eliminate time-in-grade restrictions, initiatives that increase the 

weight given to performance (and thus reduce the weight given to time) in pay increases, and proposals 

to give greater weight to performance when determining an employee’s standing in a reduction-in-force.

20 Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, CPDF. Length of service at the 25th percentile 

for employees in the specified groups as of September 2009, rounded to the nearest full year. As of 

September 1991, the figures were 13 years for employees at grades GS-13 through GS-15 and 18 years 

for employees in the SES.
12 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

Figure 5. Average years of service of employees in professional and 

administrative occupations, by sex, 1991 and 2009

Thus, an increasing percentage of women have sufficient Federal experience to 

establish a “track record” in the Federal Government. Beyond that, it is not apparent 

that either women or men have any systematic or clear advantage in terms of 

experience. First, previous analysis of promotion rates indicates that experience is a 

career asset that yields diminishing returns.21 Beyond some point, more experience 

is not necessarily better. Second, quality of experience should matter more than 

quantity of experience. “Quality” reflects both level of performance (how well a 

job was done) and relevance (how well a job’s competencies and accomplishments 

transfer to a new role or position). There is no easy way to gauge differences among 

employees in quality of experience, and available indicators of quality of experience 

(such as performance ratings22 and positions held23) are mixed.

21 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges 

Remaining, Washington, DC, December 2009, p. 35. Further analyses indicate that experience, like 

education, has similar effects on the likelihood of promotion for both women and men.

22 See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling in 

the Federal Government, Washington, DC, October 1992, pp. ix-x. That study reported that women 

received performance ratings comparable to or better than those received by men. We did not attempt 

to analyze performance ratings for this study because such analysis is confounded by marked differences 

in rating systems and rating distributions within and across agencies.

23 For example, as noted previously, women remain less likely than men to hold supervisory 

positions. That suggests that women, as a group, might be at a disadvantage when competing for 

positions where supervisory experience is required or desired.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

Education

There is a strong positive relationship between formal education 

and career advancement.

Previous MSPB studies have consistently found a strong relationship between 

education and advancement. Obviously, formal education is required for entry into 

many of the Federal Government’s highest-paying occupations, such as attorney 

and medical officer (physician). But the relationship between education and 

advancement is also present in occupations that do not have positive educational 

requirements.24 Figure 6 illustrates the relationship between educational attainment 

and General Schedule grade level for several populous administrative occupations.

Figure 6. Percentage of employees in selected occupations 

who have completed a four-year or higher degree, 

by General Schedule grade level

MSPB analysis of Federal employee promotion data confirms the value of education. 

Although degrees and credentials do not guarantee promotion—and a lack thereof 

does not preclude promotion—we found a positive relationship between formal 

education and promotion rates for both professional and administrative occupations 

as suggested by Figure 6.25

24 A “positive educational requirement” is a requirement that an individual have a specific amount and 

type of education to qualify for the occupation, even at entry-level. Generally, a positive educational 

requirement is met through completion of a bachelor’s or professional degree in a particular field.

25 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges 

Remaining, Washington, DC, December 2009, p. 36. Additional analyses confirm that formal 

education increases the likelihood of promotion for both women and men, but also indicate that (as 

suggested by Figure 6) the effect may vary by occupation.
14 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

Differences between men and women in educational attainment 

have diminished.

In our 1992 study on women in the Federal Government, we reported that women 

were less likely than men to hold a four-year degree.26 As illustrated in Figure 7,

27 

those differences are now much smaller, which bodes well for the continued progress 

of women.

Figure 7. Percentage of Federal employees in professional and 

administrative occupations with a four-year or higher degree, 

by sex, 1991 and 2009

Furthermore, trends in the Federal workforce and in American society indicate that 

differences in educational attainment will continue to diminish. Table 1 shows that 

differences in educational attainment are smaller among employees with fewer years 

of service. Among professional and administrative employees with fewer than 10 

years of service, the “education gap” between women and men has shifted and now 

favors women. A similar shift has occurred outside the Federal workforce: in the 

United States, women now account for a majority of college students and a majority 

of the college degrees conferred each year.28, 29 

26 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling in the 

Federal Government, Washington, DC, October 1992, p. 14.

27 We selected 1991 as the “base year” to show changes since our previous report on women in the 

Federal Government, which was published in 1992 and used survey and workforce data collected 

in 1991. We caution that the workforce statistics presented in this report often cannot be directly 

compared to those in that report because the data source differs. This report relies solely on the Central 

Personnel Data File, while the previous report sometimes used self-reported survey data.

28 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, “Table 275. Bachelor’s, 

master’s, and doctor’s degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions, by sex of student and discipline 

division: 2007-2008,” Digest of Education Statistics 2009, accessed in August 2010 at nces.ed.gov/

programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_275.asp. In academic year 2007-2008, women earned approximately 

57% of the bachelor’s degrees conferred and 61% of the master’s degrees conferred.

29 We note that women and men continue to differ in academic areas of specialization. Notably, 

men continue to outnumber women in the areas of science and technology. See U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration and Executive Office of the President, Office 

of Management and Budget, Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being, March 

2011, p. 18.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

Table 1. Percentage of Federal professional and administrative 

employees who had completed a four-year or higher degree, 

by sex and length of service, 1991 and 2009

1991 2009

Length of Service Women Men Women Men

Fewer than 5 years 80% 83% 77% 70%

5-9 years 67% 74% 71% 67%

10-19 years 45% 73% 64% 69%

20 or more years 26% 70% 46% 71%

TOTAL30 52% 74% 60% 69%

Some differences remain, particularly among employees with the most years of 

Federal service. Women with 10 or more years of service are less likely to have 

completed a four-year degree than are comparable men, and the difference is greatest 

among employees with 20 or more years of service. Thus, there are still fewer women 

than men who combine extensive Federal experience with advanced educational 

credentials. Consequently, increases in the representation of women at entry-level 

and mid-level may not translate immediately into increases in representation at 

the highest levels of the career Federal service. Yet the trend is clear: the number of 

women who have both extensive work experience and a four-year or higher degree 

will continue to rise, and it is quite possible that any education gap may soon favor 

women rather than men.

Occupation

There are continuing occupational differences between men and 

women, both inside and outside the Federal Government.

Although they may have diminished, historical differences between women and 

men in societal norms and expectations, career interests and options, and education 

endure. As illustrated in Figure 8 and Figure 9, that history is reflected in vast 

differences across occupations in the representation of women in both the civilian 

labor force and Federal Government. Change is occurring, but on a field-by-field 

and occupation-by-occupation basis, numerical parity between men and women is 

the exception rather than the norm.

30 Readers may notice patterns that suggest that a stable or declining trend in the percentage of 

Federal employees who have completed a four-year (“college degree”) or higher degree. These patterns 

reflect the fact that growth in employment in administrative occupations, which do not require such 

a degree, has outpaced growth in professional occupations. Within each occupational category, the 

percentage of employees who hold a college degree has increased.
16 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

Figure 8. Women as a percentage of total employment in selected 

occupations in the civilian labor force, 2003 and 200931

Figure 9. Percentage of Federal Government professional and 

administrative positions held by women in selected occupational 

families, 2009

31 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey 2009, 

“11. Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity,” accessed in 

August 2010 at www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf . The occupation labeled “Human resources specialists” 

in the figure was “Human resources, labor relations, and training specialists” in the Current Population 

Survey. Changes in occupational titles and definitions preclude direct comparison with data from years 

before 2003.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

Women in the Federal Government are still much more likely than men to be 

employed in fields32 such as human resources, medicine and public health, and 

social insurance and social science. Conversely, women remain much less likely than 

men to be employed in engineering and architecture, transportation (e.g., air traffic 

control), and investigation and enforcement.

Women tend to be less represented in higher-paying professional 

and administrative occupations.

Given the differences in the distribution of women across occupations, it is 

important to also note that opportunities differ across occupations. Some 

occupations, such as accountant and human resources specialist, can be found in 

nearly every Federal agency, while others exist in only one or a few agencies. Some 

occupations are geographically dispersed, while others are concentrated in specific 

regions or locations. Some occupations involve frequent travel, while others involve 

little or none. One particularly important difference among occupations is pay. In 

some occupations, positions at high grade and salary levels (such as GS-14, GS-15, 

or the equivalent) are common; in others, such positions are rare or nonexistent. To 

illustrate, in 2009 the median salary of a Federal attorney exceeded $130,000, while 

the median salary of a budget analyst was just under $75,000.33

Table 2 shows that women are much less likely than men to be employed in 

the highest-paying occupations. While women are a majority of employees in 

professional and administrative occupations that have a median salary between 

$70,000 and $79,999, they remain a distinct minority in occupations with a 

median salary of $90,000 or above.34 Women have made inroads into higher-paying 

occupations such as psychologist, internal revenue agent, attorney, and statistician.35 

However, men still account for more than 80 percent of the employees in populous 

higher-paying occupations such as general engineer, electronics engineer, air traffic 

controller, and criminal investigator.36 That pattern does much to explain the 

continuing differences between the median salaries of women and men shown in 

the preceding section.

32 In this report, a career “field” refers to a broad line of work and generally corresponds to a 

combination of occupational category (professional or administrative) and occupational group or 

family. OPM’s classification system categorizes white-collar occupations into occupational families 

(that is, groups of occupations with related functions). For example, the social science “field” includes 

professional occupations in the 0100 occupational family, such as economist (series 0110), social work 

(0185), and psychology (0180). The social insurance “field” includes administrative occupations in the 

0100 occupational family, such as social insurance administration (0105). As in the example, the names 

of the fields and occupational groups are broadly descriptive, but do not necessarily reflect the full 

range of occupations they cover.

33 Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Central Personnel Data File, September 2009. 

Statistics reflect adjusted basic pay for permanent full-time employees.

34 This pattern also appears outside the Federal Government. See U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Economics and Statistics Administration and Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 

and Budget, Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being, March 2011, p. 18, which 

reports that “While women are more likely than men to work in professional and related occupations, 

they are more highly represented in the lower-paying jobs in this category.”

35 Id. The representation of women in these four occupations ranged from 44 percent to 50 percent.

36 Id. These four occupations alone account for approximately 105,000 Federal employees.
18 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

Table 2. Employment of women in professional and administrative 

occupations, with occupations grouped by median salary, 200937

Median Salary Employees (1,000s) Women

$69,999 and below 104 42%

$70,000–$79,999 405 58%

$80,000–$89,999 245 45%

$90,000–$99,999 161 29%

$100,000 and above 188 28%

The effects of occupational differences are not limited to salary. Occupational 

differences can also create glass walls38 within agencies—barriers to movement 

across occupations, organizations, or functions—which can limit an employee’s 

opportunities for development and advancement.39 In particular, employees who are 

in mission-critical occupations will generally have greater long-term opportunities 

for development and advancement than employees who work in occupations that 

provide staff services or mission support. Often, although not always, those missioncritical occupations are also the higher-paying occupations.

The level at which women will be fully represented in an agency’s 

workforce depends on its occupational mix and will vary by agency.

As discussed previously, women and men are increasingly similar in terms of overall 

educational attainment and years of work experience. However, the occupational 

differences between women and men mean that full representation of women 

in an occupation or agency—as measured by comparison to the relevant civilian 

labor force—is often quite distinct from equal representation of women and men 

in an occupation or agency. These occupational differences also affect agency 

efforts to achieve diversity at all levels, from front-line positions to executive 

leadership. Agencies may often find that the applicant pools for their mission-critical 

occupations and supervisory and executive positions are composed mostly of men 

or mostly of women. Appendix F provides a fuller discussion of the merit system 

principles related to recruitment and diversity, guidelines for assessing representation 

in the Federal workforce, and their implications for Federal agencies.

37 Id.

38 This term is not original to MSPB. See, for example, Will Miller, Brinck Kerr, and Margaret Reid, 

“A National Study of Gender-Based Occupational Segregation in Municipal Bureaucracies: Persistence 

of Glass Walls?” Public Administration Review, v. 59, no. 3, May 1999, p. 218.

39 The phenomenon of occupational differences across lines of sex or other factors is sometimes 

referred to as “occupational segregation.” We use the term “glass walls” because it encompasses barriers 

to lateral movement resulting from factors in addition to occupation and because it emphasizes the fact 

that occupational differences can limit the movement of employees across functions and organizations 

and result in different opportunities for men and women, even when their length of experience and 

educational attainment are otherwise comparable. However, our definition of “glass walls” is narrower 

than that used by some researchers and observers. In particular, we do not use the term to imply that 

Federal agencies or Federal managers have deliberately created barriers to the entry of women into the 

occupations that provide the greatest opportunities for pay, career growth, and advancement.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

Shifts in Federal employment have produced both opportunities 

and challenges for increasing the proportion of women in the 

Federal workforce.

The composition of the Federal workforce is not static. Although the shift toward 

“knowledge work” inside and outside the Federal Government is well known, 

changes in the types of knowledge work performed by Federal employees have 

received much less attention. However, as shown in Table 3, there have been some 

significant changes in the composition of the Federal professional and administrative 

workforce. The increasing prominence of knowledge work has not produced 

increases in every line of work. Employment in some fields has grown substantially, 

while employment in other fields—such as physical science, engineering, and 

architecture—has declined.

Table 3. Federal civilian professional and administrative employment 

in populous occupational families, 200940

Employment

Occupational Family (Code) Level (1000s) Change Since 1991

General Management and 

Administration (0300) 180.4 52%

Medical and Public Health (0600) 114.2 60%

Investigation and Enforcement (1800) 106.7 87%

Engineering and Architecture (0800) 95.6 -17%

Finance and Accounting (0500) 82.6 12%

Business Industry (1100) 74.9 5%

Social Insurance and Social Science (0100) 71.6 39%

Information Technology (2200) 69.9 36%

Law and Adjudication (0900) 58.5 40%

Natural and Biological Science (0400) 37.7 8%

Transportation (2100) 35.6 12%

Security, Protection, 

and Miscellaneous (0000)

30.2 36%

Human Resources (0200) 29.2 -1%

Physical Science (1300) 25.6 -23%

Grey shading indicates occupational families which are primarily professional. Most occupational families are 

predominantly professional or administrative; exceptions include the 0100 and 0500 occupational families, 

which have significant numbers of both. 

These dynamics have had mixed effects on the representation of women in the 

Federal Government. For professional occupations, trends have facilitated increased 

employment of women. Growth has been concentrated in fields where women 

are highly represented or predominant,41 such as medicine and public health, 

40 Data for permanent full-time employees from U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Central 

Personnel Data File, September 1991 and September 2009. To facilitate comparison, we assigned the 

former Computer Specialist (0334) occupation to the Information Technology (2200) occupational 

family.

41 In the Federal workforce, women have made inroads into medical occupations where they were 

once relatively scarce, such as physician and pharmacist and are in the majority in occupations such as 

registered nurse, physical therapist, and medical technologist.
20 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

resulting in expanded opportunities for women to enter the Federal workforce and 

corresponding gains in their representation.

Trends in administrative occupations have been less conducive to increased 

representation of women. Growth in the area of general management and 

administration, which employs roughly equal numbers of men and women, has been 

accompanied by substantial growth in information technology, investigation, and 

enforcement. Men tend to predominate in these fields, in both the civilian labor 

force and the Federal Government.

Recruitment Patterns and Practices

Recruitment is central to the Federal Government’s efforts to achieve a competent, 

representative workforce; fully utilize the skills and abilities of its employees; and 

retain ambitious, high-performing employees. Figure 10 illustrates three different 

methods that agencies can use to fill positions in professional and administrative 

occupations. As shown, only the first two methods (labeled “External Hiring” and 

“Internal Hiring”) result in a new professional and administrative employee. The 

third method simply redeploys an existing professional or administrative employee; 

thus, it does not constitute a means of entry into professional and administrative 

occupations.

Figure 10. Methods for filling positions in the Federal professional 

and administrative workforce

To better understand patterns and trends in Federal hiring and how they might 

affect the representation and advancement of women in the Federal Government, 

we analyzed data from the CPDF to identify new entrants (i.e., internal or external 

hires) to positions in professional and administrative occupations for fiscal years 

1980 through 2008. That analysis indicates that opportunities for women can be 

affected by how an agency fills a position.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 21

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

Recruitment decisions—such as candidate source and the level at 

which a position is filled—can affect the proportion of women 

among new hires. 

Women are increasingly successful in competing for employment, reflecting the 

gains they have made in experience and education. Nevertheless, as shown in 

Table 4, it appears that women are still somewhat more likely to be hired when an 

agency fills a position through internal hiring instead of external hiring, or fills a 

position at entry-level or mid-level instead of upper-level. The pattern is clearest in 

administrative occupations, but also appears in professional occupations.42 Below, we 

discuss some possible reasons for this pattern to help agencies and managers better 

understand the potential implications of recruitment decisions.

Table 4. Women as a percentage of new entrants into professional and 

administrative occupations, by position level and source, 2000-2008

Occupational Category and Position Level

Source (Hiring Method)

External Internal

Professional Entry-level 41% 54%

Mid-level 56% 55%

Upper-level 43% 41%

Professional 

(excluding nurse)

Entry-level 40% 59%

Mid-level 47% 52%

Upper-level 31% 33%

Administrative Entry-level 42% 61%

Mid-level 32% 61%

Upper-level 27% 34%

External Hiring vs. Internal Hiring

In many occupations, external applicant pools will often have a lower proportion 

of women than internal applicant pools. First, internal entrants to professional 

and administrative occupations are frequently drawn from employees in technical 

and clerical occupations, in which women often predominate.43 Also, internal 

competitions are usually restricted to agency or Federal employees.44 External 

42 Data excluding the nursing occupation is presented here to more clearly illustrate the interaction 

between recruitment source and position level and the proportion of women hired. That interaction is 

not apparent when the nursing occupation is included because of its special characteristics. The nursing 

occupation is populous, with a high level of employment and hiring; over 90 percent of registered 

nurses in the civilian labor force and in the Federal Government are women (which means that women 

account for the vast majority of hires in this occupation, regardless of source or position level), and 

most nurses are paid under a non-General Schedule pay system with a distinctive grade structure and 

pay rates.

43 There are some exceptions to this pattern. For example, an administrative occupation that draws 

from blue-collar or other (security and protective) occupations may have a high proportion of men 

among internal applicants and entrants. Three such occupations are equipment services, quality 

assurance, and criminal investigation.

44 Internal competitions under merit promotion procedures are not always restricted solely to 

current agency or Federal employees. Other groups that may be eligible to apply and be considered 

for appointment include persons with recent military service and persons eligible for reinstatement 

or appointment based on service in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the Federal 

Government. See 5 CFR Part 335.
22 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

applicant pools are not limited in this way: agencies usually solicit applications from 

the general public when recruiting externally,45 and the resulting applicant pool can 

be large and deep. For example, an announcement for an entry-level position might 

attract many applicants who have extensive job-related education and specialized 

experience.

Second, procedures for external hiring may tend to reduce the proportion of 

qualified women who can be selected. As noted above, external recruitment can 

produce a much larger pool of applicants than internal recruitment, including 

candidates with extensive and varied training and experience. Yet external hiring is 

often conducted under rules that may afford the hiring manager limited choice. In 

contrast to internal hiring, where a hiring manager can usually choose from among 

several (or more) best-qualified candidates,46 the “rule of three” that has usually 

applied in a competitive examination requires a selecting official filling a single 

vacancy to select from among the three highest-ranked applicants.47 Moreover, 

when an agency uses evaluations of training and experience to assess applicants’ 

relative qualifications, the highest-ranked applicants will often be those with 

the most training and experience.48 In occupations where men were historically 

predominant, those applicants are more likely to be men than women. The rule of 

three and its potentially detrimental effects may soon become a thing of the past, as 

Federal agencies have been directed to discontinue use of the rule of three in favor of 

category rating as part of the Administration’s hiring reform initiative.49

However, external hiring will continue to differ from internal hiring in several 

aspects. One important aspect is veterans’ preference, which applies in a competitive 

examination and many forms of excepted service hiring.50 In recognition of the 

sacrifices that members of the U.S. armed services have made for the Nation, public 

45 For example, an agency conducting a competitive examination under OPM-delegated authority 

is required to provide public notice by announcing the position on USAJOBS, an online interagency 

recruitment portal maintained by OPM. See U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Delegated 

Examining Operations Handbook: A Guide for Federal Agency Examining Offices, May 2007, available as 

of September 2010 at www.opm.gov/deu/Handbook_2007/DEO_Handbook.pdf.

46 5 CFR Part 335, which governs merit promotion (i.e., internal competitions) in the competitive 

service, provides that “Selection procedures will provide for management’s right to select or not select 

from among a group of best qualified candidates.”

47 The Homeland Security Act of 2002 authorized the use of category rating as an alternative to the 

“rule of three” in competitive examinations. Under category rating, an agency uses job-related criteria to 

assign applicants to two or more quality groups and a selecting official may select any candidate in the 

highest quality group, consistent with veterans’ preference requirements. However, until very recently, 

few agencies have made significant use of category rating. A complete description of assessment, 

referral, and selection procedures under both category rating and the rule of three can be found in 

OPM’s Delegated Examining Operations Handbook.

48 Quantity of training and experience is distinct from both quality of training and experience and 

quality of performance. 

49 President Barack Obama, “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, 

Subject: Improving the Federal Recruitment and Hiring Process,” May 11, 2010. (Available at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-improving-federal-recruitment-andhiring-process.) We note that the use of category rating will narrow the differences between internal 

and external hiring in how agencies refer and select among applicants.

50 Veterans’ preference does not apply to internal hiring through intra-agency transfers or the merit 

promotion process. See 5 C.F.R. § 335.103(b) and, e.g., Abell v. Department of the Navy, 343 F.3d 

1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and Brown v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 247 F.3d 1222, 1224-25 

(Fed. Cir. 2001).
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

policy strongly encourages the employment and retention of veterans in the civil 

service. Provisions in support of that policy include veterans’ preference and special 

appointing authorities for veterans. When veterans’ preference applies, a selecting 

official may not pass over a qualified veteran to select a non-veteran with the same 

or lower score.51 Also, special appointing authorities expand the opportunities for 

veterans to apply for Federal jobs and for selecting officials to hire veterans.52

Accordingly, veteran status strongly influences outcomes in external hiring. 

As shown in Table 5, veterans account for a substantial percentage of external 

entrants,53 especially in administrative occupations, and the proportion of veterans 

is higher at mid-level and upper-level than at entry-level.

Table 5. Veterans as a percentage of external entrants in professional 

and administrative occupations, by position level, 2000-2008

Occupational Category

Position Level Professional Administrative

Entry-level 9% 22%

Mid-level 15% 44%

Upper-level 18% 43%

Total (all levels combined) 15% 38%

While women account for an increasing proportion of military service members,54

the overwhelming majority of current members of the U.S. armed services55 and 

veterans in the Federal civil service are men.56 The demographics of the U.S. military 

51 Veterans’ preference is not only a tie-breaker among otherwise equal applicants. First, when a 

competitive examination is conducted under “rule of three” procedures, preference eligible applicants 

receive additional points. Second, with the exception of professional positions at or above the GS-9 

level, veterans with a compensable service-connected disability of 10 percent or more who meet 

minimum qualification requirements are placed at the top of the certificate (under the rule of three) 

or in the highest quality group (under category rating). See 5 U.S.C. §§ 3309, 3313, and 3318; and 

5 CFR 302.

52 For example, the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA; Pub. L. 105-339, amended 

by Pub. L. 106-117) enabled certain veterans to apply and be considered for competitive appointment 

under agency merit promotion procedures.

53 In 2009, veterans accounted for approximately eight percent of the U.S. civilian labor force. See 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Table 1. Employment status of persons 18 

years and over by veteran status, period of service, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, 2009 

annual averages,” accessed via http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm#vets. 

54 U.S. Department of the Army, demographics on the members of the armed services, accessed in 

August 2010 at www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics.asp. A slide presentation available through the 

site, “Active-Duty Army: Then and Now,” includes a table showing that 15.2% of active-duty members 

of the U.S. Army in 2003 were women, up from 9.8% in 1983 and 12.5% in 1993.

55 Id. As of fiscal year 2009, in the active-duty U.S. Army women accounted for approximately 17% 

of commissioned officers, 9% of warrant officers, and 13% of enlisted soldiers. As of fiscal year 2004, 

the percentage of women in the commissioned officer corps ranged from 5.8% in the Marine Corps to 

18.3% in the Air Force.

56 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Central Personnel Data File. As of September 2009, men 

accounted for approximately 84% of veterans and approximately 85% of preference eligibles (based on 

military service) in the permanent full-time Executive Branch workforce.
24 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

and the veteran population mean that goals for the employment of women and 

veterans can be difficult to reconcile.57

Agencies have increased their use of external hiring to fill positions, 

especially in administrative occupations.

Figure 11 shows Federal agency use of external hiring to fill positions in professional 

and administrative occupations. Two patterns are apparent. First, external hiring 

plays a much greater role in professional occupations than it does in administrative 

occupations. Professional occupations have positive educational requirements. 

That means that an applicant must have specific education (usually a four-year or 

higher degree in a specific field) to qualify, even at entry-level. That greatly limits 

the ability of an individual to qualify for professional occupations solely through 

work experience. In contrast, administrative occupations do not have positive 

educational requirements. For many administrative occupations, general experience 

or a four-year degree in any field is qualifying, and an employee may be able to 

qualify for entry through work in a support or technician position. (Appendix G 

outlines entry requirements for selected professional and administrative occupations, 

illustrating that entry requirements can range from open (non-restrictive) to highly 

restrictive.) Second, except for a temporary decrease during the 1990s58 there is a 

clear trend toward increased use of external hiring to fill positions in administrative 

occupations.59

Figure 11. External hires as a percentage of new entrants to 

professional and administrative occupations, fiscal years 

1980 through 2008

57 For example, Federal agencies made over 28,000 permanent full-time appointments to positions in 

professional and administrative occupations under VEOA during fiscal year 2009. Women accounted 

for 17 percent of those appointments. Source: MSPB analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel 

Data File.

58 The increased share of internal hiring during the 1990s likely reflects staff reductions and 

restructuring in Federal Government, notably the Department of Defense and its component agencies.

59 In professional occupations, it is not clear whether the increase in external hiring since the 1990s is 

a long-term trend or simply a recovery to the norm.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

This trend reflects, in part, the changing demographics of the Federal workforce. 

Figure 12 shows that employment in professional and administrative occupations 

has increased, while employment in other occupational categories has decreased.

Figure 12. Permanent full-time Federal employment by 

occupational category, 1991 and 2009

Thus, while the Federal Government has more professional and administrative 

positions to fill, it also has fewer employees that it can “bridge” into those 

occupations. Another possible reason for greater use of external hiring is that 

agencies may be seeking attributes, such as a four-year college degree,60 specialized 

technical skills, or recent non-Federal experience, that they believe to be more 

common among external applicants.

Entry-Level Hiring vs. Upper-Level Hiring

An applicant may qualify for an entry-level position solely on the basis of education 

or experience. In administrative occupations, it is often possible to qualify for an 

entry-level position by working in a clerical, technical, or blue-collar occupation. 

It is much more difficult to “work one’s way up” into professional occupations 

because of those occupations’ positive educational requirements. Even so, entrylevel positions are, as the label indicates, entry-level. An agency that fills a position 

at entry-level, especially in an administrative occupation, can recruit from a 

(comparatively) broad talent pool that may include recent (and less-recent) college 

graduates and individuals with relevant, but not directly-related, experience. Women 

are often particularly well-represented among these pools.61

60 Possible contributors to Federal agency interest in hiring college graduates include a desire to 

“professionalize” the Federal workforce and ensure that new entrants possess general competencies 

such as analytical ability, writing, and conscientiousness that are not amenable to assessment through 

evaluations of training and experience. Past agency use of appointing authorities (such as the nowdefunct Outstanding Scholar Program) aimed at college graduates, and current plans to replace the 

recently-discontinued Federal Career Intern Program with appointing authorities that facilitate the 

hiring of students and recent graduates, indicate that this interest is both widespread and continuing.

61 We note that entry-level hiring can also enable agencies to consider and hire veterans whose military 

service has provided them with strong general competencies and relevant, but not specialized, experience.
26 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

In contrast, to qualify for placement in an upper-level position, an applicant must 

have specialized experience. Such experience is typically obtained by working in 

a professional or administrative occupation identical, or closely related, to that 

of the job being filled; experience in a clerical, technical, blue-collar, or “other” 

occupation is usually not sufficient.62 Consequently, the applicant pools (both 

internal and external) will often be composed primarily or exclusively of individuals 

who are already employed in a professional or administrative occupation. As noted 

previously, in most occupations, the proportion of women will tend to be lower 

among the applicants with the most years of experience.

Recruitment in professional and administrative occupations is 

shifting from entry-level toward upper-level.

Figure 13 shows that new entrants to professional and administrative occupations 

are increasingly likely to be hired at mid-level or upper-level. Although the 

distribution of entrants by level has varied from year to year, and entry-level hiring 

remains the norm in some occupations, the long-term trend is clear. Hiring at 

upper-level is now more common than hiring at entry-level.63

Figure 13. Distribution of new entrants into professional and 

administrative occupations, by level, 1990 2008

62 This discussion greatly simplifies the content and effect of OPM-established qualification 

standards for professional and administrative occupations. It is possible, if atypical, for an individual 

who has not worked in a professional or administrative occupation to meet qualification requirements 

for a position above entry-level through education or experience. Readers seeking a fuller understanding 

of qualification requirements should refer to OPM-published standards and guidelines for their 

application, which are available through www.opm.gov.

63 This trend may seem surprising given that funding in many organizations may be static or 

decreasing in real terms. We note, however, that mission requirements or resource limitations may make 

it impractical or impossible to reduce salary expenditures through entry-level hiring.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

One result of the trends toward external hiring and upper-level hiring is that equal 

representation of women at the highest grade levels may take some time to achieve, 

given shifts in the occupational composition of the Federal workforce and the 

continuing occupational differences between men and women in both the Federal 

workforce and civilian labor force.

Recruitment strategies and decisions have long-term implications.

As discussed above, how agencies recruit can affect both the diversity and qualifications 

of the resulting hires. Recruitment decisions also have implications for development 

and advancement. To the extent that internal and external hires differ in attributes 

such as experience and education,64 they may also differ in job-related competencies, 

developmental needs, and preparedness for advancement. Therefore, agencies should 

take a strategic approach to the development of new employees as well as their 

recruitment.

Agencies should, for any employee, communicate competencies that are important 

to long-term success and work with the employee to identify and close any gaps 

in proficiency in those competencies. As discussed previously, formal education 

appears to be strongly correlated with advancement. Thus, a systematic approach 

aimed to training and mentoring may be especially useful to new professional 

and administrative recruits who lack career-specific experience or education. 

When counseling and training a new professional or administrative employee, 

of any background, agencies should understand that the competencies requiring 

development may be general (such as analytical ability, writing, and flexibility) as 

well as technical or occupation-specific. 

To completely shatter the glass ceiling, it will not suffice to merely recruit women 

into professional and administrative occupations. The Federal Government will also 

need to recruit and select women for positions at the highest levels—and this means 

that women must be competitive at the highest levels. Federal agencies’ historic 

reliance on internal hiring as a source of new administrative employees makes it 

particularly important that agencies identify and minimize any competency gaps 

between internal and external hires. Internal hiring has many potential benefits for 

both agencies and employees. However, the transition from a non-professional or 

administrative occupation can present special challenges, because the employee’s 

previous experience and education were not necessarily targeted to the new 

occupation. It would be unfortunate if external hires were to progress faster or 

farther than internal hires (or vice versa), with attendant negative effects 

on organizational performance, diversity, and morale, as a result of competency 

gaps that could have been closed through better initial assessment, training, or 

mentoring.

64 In administrative occupations, 33 percent of internal entrants from fiscal years 2000 through 2008 

had a four-year or higher degree at the time of entry, compared to 59 percent of external entrants. In 

professional occupations, the difference between internal and external entrants was much smaller (69 

percent vs. 87 percent), consistent with those occupations’ positive educational requirements.
28 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Factors Affecting the Advancement, Recruitment, and Representation of Women

The Federal Government has strengths that can be used to recruit 

and retain highly qualified women.

The demographics of external entrants to administrative occupations suggests that 

the Federal Government’s hiring patterns and systems are not always conducive 

to the hiring of women. However, there are also aspects of Federal employment 

that could help the Federal Government attract and retain women. These 

include opportunities for challenging work and advancement,65 a commitment 

to fairness,66 benefit and work/life programs, and relatively predictable pay and 

stable employment.67 In two high-profile, high-paying occupations, attorney 

and physician, the Federal Government employs women at rates well above their 

employment in the civilian labor force.68

A strategic approach to workforce planning and recruitment 

is essential.

A Federal agency’s talent requirements are driven by its assigned missions and 

functions; it may not allow the important—but nevertheless secondary—public 

policy goal of a representative workforce to dictate its occupational mix or staffing 

patterns. Yet agencies also have objectives when filling positions beyond the timely 

acquisition of a competent employee. Agencies must also comply with requirements 

such as nondiscrimination and support public policy goals such as employment of 

veterans and a representative workforce. At times, there can be some tension between 

those goals.

Therefore, agencies should attempt to understand how their workforce requirements, 

recruitment plans, assessment methods, and appointing authorities can affect hiring 

outcomes. Unthinking approaches to workforce planning, recruitment, and hiring 

may produce undesired outcomes. As noted in a previous MSPB report, success in 

achieving the various goals of Federal hiring requires thought and planning: “We 

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

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

recruitment plans.... Additionally, agencies should make strategic use of other hiring 

authorities available to them to ensure that they have a representative workforce at 

all grade levels.”69

65 An interest in challenging work and advancement is not limited to women, but women may be 

more likely to encounter glass ceilings or stereotypes that limit their opportunities and encourage them 

to seek a new employer.

66 Although fairness matters to both men and women, an emphasis on fairness and merit may 

be particularly important to applicants who have experienced, or fear they may be subjected to, 

discrimination or other forms of mistreatment. Consistent with this possibility, in our 2005 Merit 

Principles Survey, women and minorities were more likely to agree with the statement “I would 

recommend the Government as a place to work” than were men and nonminorities.

67 See Suzanne Scotchmer, Risk Taking and Gender in Hierarchies, NBER Working Paper 14464, 

National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, November 2008, p. 3. This paper cites 

research indicating that women are, on average, more risk-averse (i.e., less risk-seeking) than men in 

areas such as investment and examination strategies. Risk aversion in employment and pay could be 

reflected in a desire for job security and predictable pay.

68 In fiscal year 2005, women accounted for 32% of upper-level medical officer (physician) hires, 

although women accounted for 24.3% of physicians in the civilian labor force. For the attorney 

(lawyer) occupation, the figures were 46.7% and 26.3%, respectively. This pattern also appeared in 

data for several preceding and following fiscal years.

69 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, In Search of Highly Skilled Workers: A Study on the Hiring of 

Upper-level Employees from Outside the Federal Government, Washington, DC, February 2008, p. 25.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29

Employees’ Career Interests 

and Actions

Experience, education, occupation, and agency workforce requirements and 

hiring patterns are not the only factors that affect the representation and 

advancement of women in the Federal Government. Individual interests 

and actions play an important role. This section examines Federal employees’ 

career intentions and commitment and gauges the Federal Government’s progress 

toward an equitable environment in which employees are managed, recognized, 

and advanced on their merits. Survey results indicate that women and men are, in 

general, much more alike than different in their ambitions and their perceptions of 

their treatment at work.

Interest in Career Advancement

Both women and men are interested in advancement.

As shown in Figure 14, a majority of employees at all pay levels expressed an interest 

in further advancement. In fact, at the highest pay level, women were somewhat 

more likely than men to indicate that they were likely to seek a higher-level job.70 

Figure 14. Federal employees indicating that they were “very likely” 

or “somewhat likely” to apply for a higher-level job within the 

next five years, by pay level and sex, CAS 2007

70 This may reflect differences in stage of career or life, rather than a difference in ambition. Men 

tend to have more years of service and higher pay levels than women. Consequently, there may be 

differences in career prospects (men may be more likely to be at or near the top of their career fields, 

and thus have limited opportunities for promotion) and in eligibility and readiness for retirement.
Employees’ Career Interests and Actions

30 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Most noteworthy, however, were the high percentages of employees at lower 

pay levels who plan to seek promotion. Clearly, many Federal employees desire 

opportunities greater than those afforded by their current position or their current 

line of work.

Many employees plan to strive for high-level leadership positions, 

but the responsibilities and stresses are deterrents for many others.

Not surprisingly, the proportion of employees who aspire to the Senior Executive 

Service (SES) was smaller than the proportion of employees who seek higher-level 

positions. As shown in Figure 15, women and men at higher pay levels were equally 

likely to strive for the SES, although women at lower pay levels were less likely than 

men to express such ambitions.

Figure 15. Federal employees indicating that they were “very likely” 

or “somewhat likely” to strive for a position in the Senior Executive 

Service, by pay level and sex, CAS 2007

Women and men have similar reasons for not seeking advancement.

Figure 16 shows that there was much common ground among women and men 

who indicated that they did not intend to seek a higher-level position.71 The 

broad reasons cited, in descending order of frequency, were: (1) satisfaction with 

the current position; (2) desire to avoid a requirement or feature of a higher-level 

position; (3) belief that selection was unlikely; and (4) work-life concerns.72

71 In the CAS 2007, we asked respondents who indicated that it was “somewhat unlikely” or “very 

unlikely” that they would apply for a higher-level position to select the reason(s) for that unlikelihood. 

We did the same for respondents who indicated that they were unlikely to strive for the SES during 

their Federal career.

72 The pattern of reasons for not striving for the SES was somewhat different. Job requirements and 

satisfaction with the current position were cited with similar frequency. However, lack of qualifications, 

cited by fewer than 10 percent of men as a reason for not applying for a higher level position, was cited 

by over 20 percent of women.
Employees’ Career Interests and Actions

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 31

Figure 16. Federal employees’ reasons for not seeking a higher-level 

position, by sex, CAS 200773

Within this general agreement, there were some differences between women and 

men. Women were somewhat more likely to cite stress or supervisory responsibilities 

as a reason not to seek advancement, while men were more likely to cite relocation 

or poor chances of selection.

That pattern points to some actions for agencies to consider. First, improvements 

in supervisory recruitment could produce a deeper, more diverse applicant pool. 

Agencies cannot force employees to seek supervisory roles. However, the survey 

results suggest that many talented employees may be declining to seek supervisory 

roles because they perceive the transition to supervision as unclear or unacceptably 

risky in personal or professional terms. Providing realistic job previews might help 

employees make better-informed choices about careers in supervision and leadership. 

Providing timely, comprehensive training for new supervisors—and support in the 

form of timely, constructive feedback and mentoring—could reduce the risks of new 

supervisors underperforming or failing, and encourage more talented employees to 

apply for supervisory positions. Second, a review of supervisory, managerial, and 

executive roles and responsibilities might reveal unnecessary expectations or stresses 

that deter otherwise qualified and interested individuals from seeking leadership 

positions.

73 CAS question 16a; responses are paraphrased from the original.
Employees’ Career Interests and Actions

32 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Managing the Responsibilities and Rewards of Leadership

Supervisory, managerial, and executive positions are not for everyone. As 

discussed in previous MSPB reports, such positions involve achieving work 

through others. That may be unattractive or unrewarding to employees 

who are attracted to the technical challenges of their chosen occupations. 

Leadership positions also require competencies that even an interested 

employee may lack. Finally, leadership positions are often stressful and 

may impose demands—including work time, personal commitment and 

accountability, travel, and geographic mobility—that an employee cannot or 

will not meet.

Nevertheless, agencies should consider whether unnecessary requirements 

and expectations may be deterring high-potential employees from seeking 

leadership roles. Agencies should also consider whether lack of appropriate 

training, support, or recognition is making the jobs of supervisors more 

difficult or less rewarding than they could be. Previous MSPB research has 

found that agencies often fail to provide supervisors with sufficient training, 

and that the challenges that supervisors face leading and motivating employees 

are exacerbated by a lack of communication, feedback, and support from 

higher-level managers. 

To summarize, supervision is not easy, and agencies cannot eliminate many of 

the demands or stresses inherent in leadership. But agencies that want diverse 

and highly qualified pools of candidates must do their best to ensure that 

“demanding” does not mean “all-consuming,” that “stressful” does not mean 

“thankless,” and that “accountability” does not mean “responsibility without 

resources.74

Third, agencies may need to emphasize—to both selecting officials and 

employees—that efforts to reduce underrepresentation (such as targeted 

recruitment) do not mean that qualified employees in “non-targeted” 

groups should not apply, or that non-merit factors will influence assessment, 

consideration, or selection.

Commitment to Career Advancement

Career advancement requires accomplishment and dedication, not merely ambition. 

Accordingly, in addition to asking employees about their career intentions, the 

CAS asked employees about their personal commitment to their jobs and their 

advancement. Employees’ responses, shown in Table 6, provide several insights.

74 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal 

Employees, Washington, DC, May 2010, pp ii-iii.
Employees’ Career Interests and Actions

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33

Table 6. Federal employees’ agreement with statements related to 

career commitment, by sex, CAS 200775

Survey Item Women Men

I volunteer for difficult assignments. 75% 76%

I am willing to devote whatever time is necessary to my job 

to advance my career. 70% 74%

I am willing to develop myself professionally on my own time 

or money.

70% 71%

I am willing to relocate to advance my career. 37% 45%

Men and women are equally committed to their careers.

First, most Federal employees—both men and women—take their careers quite 

seriously. On the job, they are willing to take on difficult assignments and work 

hard. Off the job, they are willing to supplement often-limited agency training funds 

with their own time or money.

Even among ambitious and hard-working employees, 

geographic mobility cannot be assumed.

Second, dedication to career and agency mission does not necessarily translate into 

geographic mobility. As shown in Figure 17, less than half of survey respondents 

indicated readiness to relocate for career advancement.

Figure 17. Federal employees indicating that they were willing to 

relocate to advance their career, by pay level, 1993 and 200776

75 Percentage responding “strongly agree” or “agree” to the statement “I volunteer for difficult 

assignments.” Percentages responding “To a Great Extent” or “To a Moderate Extent” for the remaining 

statements. 

76 Pay levels for 2007 shown. The 1993 groupings were based on grade level, as follows: GS-9 and 

below, GS-10 through GS-12, and GS-13 and above. The correspondence between the 2007 pay levels 

and the 1993 grade levels is quite close, although not perfect.
Employees’ Career Interests and Actions

34 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

As in 1993, fewer women (37 percent) than men (45 percent) indicated willingness 

to relocate. But the data illustrate a new development: a decreasing willingness 

to relocate among employees at higher pay and grade levels. Also, although the 

percentage of employees who would consider relocation has changed relatively little, 

there has been a notable decline in those who were willing to relocate “to a great 

extent.” This pattern is not unique to Federal employees, but may surprise many 

agency leaders and managers.77

There are several possible reasons for this pattern. First, the Federal workforce has 

aged. Employees in the middle or latter stages of a Federal career may calculate 

that the potential benefits of relocation—such as a pay increase, greater status and 

responsibility, and increased promotability—are outweighed by its immediate costs, 

such as moving, uprooting a family, and adjusting to a new locale and workplace. 

Second, changes in economic conditions may have increased the actual or perceived 

costs of relocation. Third, employee values and priorities may be changing, in both 

the Federal and non-Federal workforce. Research suggests that American workers 

have become less geographically mobile78 and, perhaps, less inclined to automatically 

accommodate an employer’s wishes.

Whatever the reasons, agencies should understand that requirements for 

geographic mobility can adversely affect recruitment and retention, with the 

greatest effects on high-level employees and women. The accompanying 

discussion outlines some potential benefits and costs of geographic mobility, 

for both agencies and employees.

77 See Jeanne M. Brett, Linda K. Stro, and Anne H. Reilly, “Pulling up roots in the 1990s: Who’s 

willing to relocate?” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1), 2006. The article reports that employees 

who were most willing to relocate were younger and lower-paid than employees who were less willing 

to relocate.

78 D’Vera Cohn and Rich Morin, Who Moves? Who Stays Put? Where’s Home?, Pew Research Center, 

Washington, DC, December 29, 2008, p. 3. Using data from the Bureau of the Census’ Current 

Population Survey, the authors report that “The annual migration rate, which held at about 20% 

through the mid-1960s, has drifted downward since then to its current low of 11.9%.”
Employees’ Career Interests and Actions

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35

Geographic Mobility: Consider the Side Effects

Agencies that desire a well-stocked pipeline of “high-potential” employees for 

high-level positions should take care to distinguish situations where geographic 

mobility is essential from situations where geographic mobility is desirable.

Certain jobs and roles demand short-term or long-term geographic mobility. 

We also note that the creators of the SES envisioned a corps of versatile leaders 

who could function successfully in a wide range of organizational settings. 

Clearly, mobility—occupational, organizational, and geographic—was implicit 

in that vision. Experience in different roles, cultures, and locations can broaden 

an employee’s skills and perspective. Also missions and crises do not necessarily 

observe geographic boundaries. Organizations understandably want the ability 

to deploy their best employees to the locations where they are most needed.

However, agencies should also understand that the costs of relocation and 

geographic mobility are not borne solely by the employee. Agencies that 

routinely require relocation or geographic mobility may bear costs much 

greater than the expenses associated with travel, transportation, and real 

estate. Such requirements may reduce the quantity and quality of candidates 

for job vacancies. In particular, results from our Career Advancement Survey 

suggest that such requirements may deter many women and more-experienced 

employees from applying. That outcome may be precisely what agencies 

seeking a diverse, high-performing workforce do not want. Moreover, the 

undesired effects will not necessarily be limited to the applicant pool. Another 

possible outcome is undesired turnover: high-performing employees may 

conclude that they have little future in the agency and take jobs with more 

flexible competing employers.

For their part, employees should appreciate that the geographic mobility 

can be beneficial, even when it is not explicitly or implicitly required. 

Federal employees who have relocated often report that relocation was 

ultimately career-enhancing. Employees who are willing to move have more 

opportunities, both in terms of job vacancies and professional growth and 

development, than comparable employees who are not. MSPB strongly 

encourages agencies to be judicious about requiring geographic mobility 

and to take a “results-oriented” approach to when and where employees 

work. Yet there are limits to what can be accomplished with telework or 

technology. Positions with the highest levels of pay and responsibility tend to 

be concentrated in regional and headquarters offices or major installations. For 

example, approximately 72 percent of positions in the career Senior Executive 

Service are located in the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area.79

Accordingly, employees—especially those in organizationally or geographically 

remote areas—should understand that a lack of mobility may be careerlimiting.

79 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Central Personnel Data File, September 2009. Employees 

with permanent appointments to the career SES with a duty location in the Washington, DC 

consolidated statistical area.
Employees’ Career Interests and Actions

36 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Interest in advancement, although typical, is not universal.

The survey results show that some Federal employees have chosen to place (or 

believe that circumstances have placed) limits on their career ambitions and their 

work commitments. At the lowest pay levels, women were more likely than men 

to indicate limited (or no) willingness to relocate or devote extra time for career 

advancement.

This is not necessarily a matter for concern. It is perfectly acceptable for an employee 

to choose not to seek advancement. We also recognize that agencies cannot eliminate 

the stresses and demands inherent in high-level positions. Yet agencies and managers 

should realize that an undue emphasis on traditional indicators of dedication (such 

as “face time” in the office, willingness to relocate, and availability to work irregular 

hours) may discourage capable employees from seeking jobs that they could perform 

with distinction.

Managing Work Relationships

In almost every high-level job, an employee must cultivate good interpersonal skills 

and functional work relationships to succeed. To determine how employees managed 

their work relationships, and to determine whether women and men approached or 

viewed those relationships differently, we asked employees several questions related 

to communication and conflict at work. The responses, shown in Table 7, offer 

some insights to both managers and employees.

Table 7. Federal employees’ agreement with statements on 

managing work relationships, CAS 2007

Survey Item (Survey) Women Men

I try to get along with my supervisors and managers even 

if I don’t agree with their decisions.

97% 95%

I speak up whenever I suspect that I’ve been treated unfairly. 71% 70%

I “tell it like it is” even if my supervisor doesn’t like what 

I have to say. 50% 61%

I have experienced frustration (such as communication 

problems) in the workplace when trying to deal with a 

coworker of the opposite sex.

24% 15%

First, both women and men appreciate the importance of working relationships with 

agency leaders. Second, although most employees are willing to assert themselves 

if they have been treated unfairly, nearly one-third of employees are reluctant to 

voice concerns about their treatment or to express their opinions (or communicate 

uncomfortable truths) about work matters. Finally, although differences between 

men and women are not large, the survey results indicate that women are somewhat 

more likely than men to perceive problems in communication with the opposite 

sex and somewhat less likely than men to openly express opinions or facts their 

supervisor might dislike.
Employees’ Career Interests and Actions

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 37

In summary, agency leaders should understand that stereotypes about men and 

women in the workplace are overstated at best and misleading at worst. More 

broadly, agency leaders should recognize that most employees strive to maintain 

good working relationships and that employees may be reluctant to raise concerns 

about their treatment or about agency operations and policies, even when they 

should. Therefore, agency leaders should be particularly attentive to and seek to 

mitigate aspects of organizational culture or their own behavior that may discourage 

employees from speaking openly about work matters or participating fully in 

discussions about agency programs, policies, and initiatives.

Employees should recognize that success in high-level positions requires more than 

technical competence and contribution. OPM competency models for supervisory 

and executive positions clearly show that technical competence or credibility is only 

one element, albeit an important one, of effective leadership.80 But OPM research81

and guidance82 also confirm that competencies such as interpersonal skills, conflict 

management, flexibility, and resilience are also essential to advancement to high-level 

nonsupervisory positions.

Balancing Work and Personal Commitments

To better understand how employees balance work and personal responsibilities, 

the 2007 CAS included questions asking employees (1) whether they have ever 

taken specific actions to help balance work and life/family responsibilities and 

(2) how those actions had affected their careers. Employee responses are shown in 

Figure 18 and Figure 19.

80 See U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Supervisory Qualification Guide, accessed in August 

2010 at www.opm.gov/Qualifications/standards/Specialty-stds/gs-supv.asp, and U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management, Guide to Senior Executive Service Qualifications, accessed in August 2010 at 

www.opm.gov/ses/references/GuidetoSESQuals_2010.pdf. The Supervisory Qualification Guide states 

that a position may require technical subject-matter knowledge, requiring application of an appropriate 

occupational qualification standard, but the competencies that the guide indicates are most important 

to supervisory work, such as decisiveness, resilience, and interpersonal skills, are not technical. The 

Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs) comprise five broad ECQs (leading change, leading people, 

results driven, business acumen, and building coalitions) and technical credibility is simply one of six 

competencies in the results driven ECQ.

81 See U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Looking to the Future: Human Resource Competencies, 

MSE-99-6, Washington, DC, September 1999. The appendix to this report contains several different 

competency models, including one developed by OPM staff. The OPM-developed model indicates 

that consulting and strategic roles require competency in areas such as influencing/negotiating, conflict 

management, oral communication, and stress tolerance.

82 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Job Family Standard for Administrative Work in the 

Information Technology Group, 2200, revised September 2008, accessed in August 2010 at www.opm.

gov/fedclass/GS2200A.pdf, pp.22, 40, 48, and 72-73. In addition to technical knowledge associated 

with particular specializations (such as enterprise architecture or systems analysis), positions at higher 

levels typically require skill in acquisition management, project management, and cost-benefit analysis. 

At the highest levels, “mastery” in oral and written communication may be necessary to “present, 

justify, defend, negotiate, or settle matters involving significant or controversial issues.” That clearly 

implies the requirement for competencies such as interpersonal skills, conflict management, and 

resilience at a high level of proficiency, and the standard notes that, in addition to the competencyoriented factor of knowledge required by the position, “other classification factors and factor levels, 

with their implications about the behaviors and characteristics that performing successfully at a given 

level requires, also strongly reflect a systematic foundation of competencies.”
Employees’ Career Interests and Actions

38 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Figure 18. Federal employees who had taken the specified action to 

balance work and life/family responsibilities, by sex, CAS 2007

The differences between women and men do not simply reflect differences in 

the availability of work/life flexibilities83 or differences in career prospects.84 

Clearly, career considerations influence how employees balance work and personal 

responsibilities. For example, employees at higher pay levels were more likely than 

employees at lower pay levels to indicate that their spouse had adjusted his or 

her work schedule. Yet it is also clear that when work and personal life come into 

conflict, women are more likely than men to adjust their work commitments.

83 Men were not only less likely to have taken a specified action; they were also less likely than 

women to indicate that they would like to take an action (such as use a flexible work schedule) or take 

it more frequently.

84 Within salary group, women were more likely than men to indicate that they had adjusted their 

work commitments.
Employees’ Career Interests and Actions

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 39

Figure 19. Reported career effects of actions taken to balance work 

and life/family responsibilities, CAS 200785

Employee perspectives on the career effects of efforts to balance work and life/family 

responsibilities provide several insights. First, flexible work arrangements appear 

to be a “win-win” proposition for both agencies and employees. A vast majority 

of employees who had used flexible work schedules or telework indicated that the 

effects on their career were neutral or positive. This suggests that such arrangements 

do not compromise—and may even enhance—an employee’s productivity or 

availability for work. Second, actions that reduce an employee’s availability for 

work appear much more likely to have negative long-term career consequences 

than actions that permit an employee to remain fully employed and “connected” 

to coworkers and the agency. Third, agencies and managers appear to be generally 

understanding and supportive of employees’ life/family responsibilities. A majority 

of employees, including those employees who had taken significant amounts of 

leave, indicated that the action(s) they had taken had no adverse effect on their 

careers. Finally, although we encourage agencies to make full use of flexible work 

arrangements, we also note that changing jobs or changing agencies may be a viable 

option for employees who cannot readily reconcile their current jobs and life/family 

responsibilities.

85 The descriptions of the actions in the figure are paraphrased. The action labeled “used intermittent 

leave” was “Took significant blocks of leave intermittently (as needed to handle family responsibilities),” 

and the action labeled “Took leave for more than 4 weeks” was “Took leave for more than 4 consecutive 

weeks.”
Employees’ Career Interests and Actions

40 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

The Extent and Effect of Family Responsibilities

Family responsibilities are the norm, rather than the exception, 

for all employees.

As illustrated in Figure 20, most employees have family responsibilities. Men 

were more likely than women to report that they had family responsibilities. Also, 

employees at lower pay levels were slightly less likely to report that they had family 

responsibilities. That may reflect the fact that employees at lower pay levels tend to 

be younger, and thus less likely to have dependents needing care, than employees at 

higher pay levels.

Figure 20. Federal employees indicating that they have family 

responsibilities, by pay level and sex, CAS 2007

As we discuss below, survey results suggest that “family responsibilities” can vary 

considerably in nature and extent. One employee may be responsible for providing 

financial support to an aging parent, while another employee may be responsible for 

caregiving. But clearly, family responsibilities of some sort are the norm rather than 

the exception for employees at all levels.
Employees’ Career Interests and Actions

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 41

Family responsibilities and their effects are complex.

Figure 21 shows the perceived effect of family responsibilities on career advancement. 

Employees’ views may be eye-opening for any reader who believes that work and 

family are fundamentally incompatible. Notably, significant percentages of both 

women and men believed that family responsibilities had been a positive factor 

in their career advancement. Thus, agencies and managers should understand 

that family responsibilities are not necessarily a distraction from work; for many 

employees, such responsibilities increase ambition and focus at work. Nevertheless, 

women were much more likely than men to believe that their family responsibilities 

had hindered their career advancement.

Figure 21. Perceived effect of family responsibilities on career 

advancement, by pay level and sex, CAS 2007

Survey results suggest that a primary reason for this pattern is that the family 

responsibilities of men and women often differ, in both nature and extent.86 

As shown in Figure 22, women were much more likely than men to report that 

caring for a family member had affected their availability for work.

86 In particular, women may have greater responsibility for household management and caregiving. 

See, for example, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration and 

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Women in America: Indicators of 

Social and Economic Well-Being, March 2011, p. 35. The report notes that “On an average workday in 

2009, employed married women spent 1.6 hours in household activities and an additional hour caring 

for family members. In contrast, employed married men spent nearly one hour in household activities 

and about 40 minutes caring for household members.”
Employees’ Career Interests and Actions

42 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Figure 22. Federal employees indicating that caring for a family 

member had significantly affected availability for work, by pay level 

and sex, CAS 200787 

However, the survey results also show that family responsibilities affect every 

segment of the workforce, and that those responsibilities are not limited to child 

care. Notably, employees at higher salary levels were more likely than employees at 

lower pay levels to report that family obligations had affected their availability for 

work. Also, over 12 percent of respondents—approximately one in eight—reported 

that caring for an adult family member had affected their availability for work.

It is not surprising, then, that more women (23 percent) than men (18 percent) 

agreed that family responsibilities were disadvantageous when being considered 

for a job. Yet the difference is quite small considering that women, at all pay levels, 

remain much more likely to have caregiving responsibilities in addition to their work 

responsibilities. Also, the survey results suggest that Federal agencies have improved 

at helping employees balance work and family responsibilities, or become more 

accepting of employee “balancing acts.” Respondents to our 2007 survey were less 

likely to believe that family responsibilities are disadvantageous when competing for 

a job than were respondents to our 1991 survey.88

87 CAS 2007 questions 40 and 42 combined.

88 In MSPB’s 1991 Career Development Survey, 51% of men and 30% of women agreed with 

the statement “In my organization, it is a disadvantage to have family responsibilities when being 

considered for a job.” In the 2007 CAS, the levels of agreement declined to 17% and 23% for 

comparable men and women, respectively. One plausible interpretation of these results is that it 

has become more acceptable for all employees (including men) to have family responsibilities that 

occasionally impinge upon work, but that family responsibilities that substantially interfere with work 

schedules or commitments remain problematic.
Employees’ Career Interests and Actions

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 43

Agencies and managers should not make assumptions about the 

extent or effects of an employee’s life/family responsibilities.

Our intent in presenting these survey results is not to encourage agencies 

and managers to replace one easy but erroneous assumption (such as “family 

responsibilities are a distraction from work”) with another (such as “family 

responsibilities make employees more dedicated at work”). The survey results 

caution agencies and managers against making unfounded judgments about the 

nature, extent, or effects of employees’ family responsibilities. For example, managers 

should not assume that employees with dependent care responsibilities do not seek, 

or cannot successfully hold, challenging and responsible positions. Nor should they 

assume that “high-potential” employees can (or should) avoid or “delegate” family 

responsibilities.

Flexible work arrangements can be beneficial to retention and 

career advancement as well as productivity.

In an ideal world, an employee can utilize flexible work arrangements to be at least 

as productive as a comparable employee working under traditional “inflexible” 

arrangements. As discussed above, employee perspectives—supported by research on 

the organizational effects of well-managed workplace flexibility programs—indicate 

that the real world often mirrors this ideal world: employees receive flexibility, and 

employers receive productivity, attendance, and morale equal to, or better than, 

that attained under traditional working arrangements. Unfortunately, the ideal is 

not always attainable. A full-time, fixed-schedule, on-site employee is not always an 

option. Survey results confirm that employees can be faced with difficult choices. 

Many employees have taken extended leave, changed jobs, or left Federal service to 

deal with non-work responsibilities. That might indeed have been the best or only 

option for the employee. But in some instances, greater agency flexibility might have 

produced a better outcome for both employee and employer. Sometimes, employers 

must choose between an employee working under nonstandard conditions—ranging 

from alternative work schedules to a reduced schedule to intermittent leave—and no 

employee at all.

We are not saying that agencies can, or should, accommodate every employee who 

requests working conditions different from the norm. We further note that not 

every employee will be equally productive under alternative work arrangements, and 

that agencies may lack the infrastructure (including effective supervisors) needed to 

support and manage alternative work arrangements. However, policies and practices 

that help high-quality employees remain in their jobs and at work may benefit both 

the agency (which avoids the need to replace or “cover for” a valuable employee) 

and the employee (who can continue to contribute, build skills, and maintain work 

relationships).

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 45

Employee Perceptions of Work 

and the Workplace

Women and men in the Federal Government hold comparable views 

of most aspects of their employment.

As illustrated in Table 8, women and men expressed similar levels of satisfaction 

with Federal employment and their treatment at work. On most survey items, 

differences between the responses of women and men were small, and those 

differences that do exist are mostly related to factors other than gender, such 

as occupation and organization. Restated, perceptions of work and the work 

environment depend more on “where you work” and “what you do” than “who you 

are.” For example, the fact that women were slightly less likely than men to agree 

that they were treated with respect, or that their work opinions count, may reflect 

the fact that women remain more likely than men to hold support positions and less 

likely than men to hold supervisory and managerial positions.

Table 8. Federal employees’ perceptions of their employer 

and their jobs, MPS 200589

Percent Agreeing

Survey Question Women Men

I would recommend the Federal Government as a 

place to work. 79% 74%

I would recommend my agency as a place to work. 74% 74%

I am treated with respect at work. 80% 83%

My opinions count at work. 52% 56%

My job makes good use of my skills and abilities. 69% 67%

Information is shared freely in my work unit. 59% 61%

89 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2005 Merit Principles Survey, except for “I am treated with 

respect at work,” which is from the 2007 Merit Principles Survey.
Employee Perceptions of Work and the Workplace

46 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Fewer employees believe that they have experienced discrimination 

based on sex.

As shown in Figure 23, the percentage of Federal employees who believe that they 

have experienced discrimination based on sex has declined.90 Consistent with this 

trend, a majority of respondents believed that discrimination against women in the 

Federal Government occurs less often than in the past 91

Figure 23. Federal employees reporting denial of a job, promotion, or 

other job benefit on the basis of sex, by sex, 1992-2007

This trend suggests that efforts to educate Federal agencies and Federal managers 

about prohibited discrimination, eliminate sex-based discrimination, and remove 

subtle biases and stereotyping from day-to-day human resources decisions have been 

successful. We further note that such efforts have benefited men as well as women—

showing that measures to eliminate discrimination and stereotyping do not simply 

replace one form of prohibited discrimination with another.

However, this positive trend does not mean that sex-based discrimination has 

completely disappeared or that agencies should divert attention or resources from 

efforts to prevent and rectify such discrimination. First, discrimination is a serious 

matter whenever it occurs. A decreasing frequency of discrimination does not 

excuse or reduce the harm to an employee who has been denied a job, promotion, 

or award on the basis of sex. Second, previous MSPB research indicates that sexual 

harassment—another form of discrimination on the basis of sex—may be more 

90 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Government: A Model Employer or a Work In 

Progress?, 2008, p. 41.

91 Source: U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2007 Career Advancement Survey, question 23 (“In 

your opinion, does discrimination against women in the Federal Government occur more or less often 

than it did 10 years ago?”). Among respondents who expressed an opinion, 61 percent indicated that 

“discrimination occurs less often now” and 19 percent indicated that “discrimination against women 

has not been a problem in the last 10 years.”
 Employee Perceptions of Work and the Workplace

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 47

common than the figures above might suggest.92 The consequences of sexual 

harassment are severe: “For employees who experience it, sexual harassment takes its 

toll in the form of mental and emotional stress and even loss of income, if victims 

leave their jobs or take leave without pay as a result of their experiences. For the 

Government as an employer, the dollar costs attributable to lost productivity and 

sick leave are very high.”93

Women have a less optimistic view than men of the Federal 

Government’s progress toward a “gender neutral” work environment 

in which women and men are treated equally.

Women and men continue to have differing perceptions of the nature and extent 

of discriminatory practices. As shown in Table 9, women were more likely to 

perceive discriminatory practices against women, while men were more likely to 

perceive discriminatory practices against men.

Table 9. Federal employees indicating that women or men are 

subjected to discriminatory practices that hinder their career 

advancement to a “great extent” or “moderate extent,” CAS 2007

Survey Question Women Men

To what extent do you believe that women are subjected to 

flagrant or obviously discriminatory practices that hinder their 

career advancement?

21% 6%

To what extent do you believe that men are subjected to 

flagrant or obviously discriminatory practices that hinder their 

career advancement?

5% 14%

Not surprisingly, a “gender gap” also remains in employee perceptions of the 

treatment of women in Federal workplaces, as illustrated in Figure 24. The 

percentage of women who believe that women and men are equally respected has 

increased, but the percentage of men holding that belief remains substantially higher.

92 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: Trends, Progress, 

Continuing Challenges, Washington, DC, October 1995, p. 15. In a 1994 MSPB survey of Federal 

employees, 44 percent of women and 19 percent of men indicated that they had experienced sexual 

harassment. Those figures are much higher than the percentages of employees who reported denial of a 

job, promotion, or other job benefit in the 1992 and 1996 Merit Principles Surveys.

93 Id. Chapter 4 of the report describes the organizational costs and personal harm that can result 

from sexual harassment, including lost individual and organizational productivity, illness and sick leave, 

and job turnover.
Employee Perceptions of Work and the Workplace

48 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Figure 24. Federal employees’ agreement with statements about the 

work environment and work expectations, by sex, Career Development 

Survey (CDS) 1991 and CAS 2007 

94 

The differences in perception concerning the existence of a “double standard” are 

even more striking. Although very few men believe that women are held to a higher 

standard than men, a substantial minority of women still do.

Women and men have similar perceptions of the fairness of their 

treatment in most employment matters.

The differences in how women and men perceive the work environment are 

not apparent in employees’ perceptions of their personal experiences. Table 10

shows that women and men held remarkably similar beliefs about the effects of 

discrimination, either flagrant or subtle, on their personal career advancement.

Table 10. Federal employees indicating that their career advancement 

had been hindered by discrimination or subtle barriers to a “great 

extent” or “moderate extent,” CAS 2007

Survey Question Women Men

I have experienced flagrant discrimination (based on non-job 

related characteristics) that has hindered my career advancement.19% 19%

I have experienced subtle barriers based on non-job related 

characteristics that have hindered my career advancement. 26% 25%

As illustrated in Figure 25, women and men were also equally likely to indicate 

that they had been treated fairly in employment matters, with one exception: work 

assignments.

94 The 1991 survey was limited to employees in the SES and grades GS-9 though GS-15. To provide 

comparability with responses from the 1991 survey, the 2007 percentages are for respondents with 

salaries of $50,000 and above.
 Employee Perceptions of Work and the Workplace

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 49

Figure 25. Federal employees agreeing that they had been treated 

fairly in selected aspects of their employment, MPS 2007

 

95 

As shown in Figure 26, that difference is not completely explained by differences 

in job level. When we asked employees whether it was likely that their supervisor 

would assign a critical work project to them, employees at lower pay levels were 

(unsurprisingly) less likely to agree. Yet women were less likely than men to believe 

that a critical assignment would be directed to them, at any given pay level.

Figure 26. Federal employees indicating that it was “somewhat likely” 

or “very likely” that a critical work project would be assigned to them, 

by pay level and sex, CAS 2007.

95 Employees responding “yes” to the question “Have you been treated fairly in the past 2 years in 

each area listed below?” Responses of “Not Applicable” were excluded when calculating percentages.
Employee Perceptions of Work and the Workplace

50 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

These results suggest that agencies should pay close attention to how they assign 

work. In particular, managers should consider how they assign work to ensure that 

demanding and career-enhancing assignments are provided to those able to perform 

them, regardless of sex. Obviously, important work (or any work worth doing, for 

that matter) should be done by conscientious, capable employees. And, in a merit 

system, personnel decisions—including the assignment of work—should be driven 

by organizational mission and individual merit. Yet it is all too easy to give the most 

challenging work assignments to the most assertive or visibly ambitious employee; 

to give unpleasant and unrewarding assignments to the reliable and uncomplaining 

employee; and to assign (or not assign) demanding, high-profile projects based on 

unwarranted assumptions about an employee’s willingness to commit the necessary 

time and effort.

Employees lack confidence that agencies will respond to grievances 

or complaints in a timely and constructive manner.

As illustrated in Table 11, Federal employees are both uncertain that grievance 

and complaint procedures would rectify discrimination or other wrongs and 

apprehensive that using those procedures would be career-limiting.96

Table 11. Federal employees’ responses to statements about 

complaint and grievance procedures, CAS 2007

Survey Question Agree Disagree

If I filed an action charging discrimination, it would be 

resolved justly. 44% 27%

Management would take appropriate action against a 

supervisor who discriminated. 57% 22%

Filing a grievance would hurt my career. 57% 19%

Filing an EEO complaint would hurt my career. 53% 21%

In summary, it appears that the Federal Government has succeeded in reducing 

the incidence of sex-based discrimination in Federal workplaces. However, agency 

leaders must recognize that such discrimination has not been entirely eliminated 

and that women are more likely to be affected when it does occur. Agencies must 

also ensure that grievance and complaint procedures are accessible, timely, and 

trusted because employees who experience discrimination, harassment, or forms of 

mistreatment should be able to seek redress—yet may be reluctant to do so.

Many Federal employees believe that hiring and promotion decisions are 

inappropriately influenced by favoritism and personal relationships.

The survey results in Table 12 show that the apparent decrease in prohibited 

discrimination has not, to date, translated into employee confidence that agencies 

and managers always base selections on merit (i.e., job-related characteristics such as 

knowledge, proficiency, and accomplishments).

96 Concerns about Federal agency EEO complaint processes are not unique to employees. See, 

for example, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Equal Employment Opportunity: Pilot Projects 

Could Help Test Solutions to Long-standing Concerns with the EEO Complaint Process, GAO 09 712, 

Washington, DC, August 2009.
 Employee Perceptions of Work and the Workplace

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 51

Table 12. Federal employees’ agreement with statements related 

to favoritism, nepotism, and the merit basis of promotion decisions, 

by sex, CAS 2007

Survey Question Women Men

Some supervisors in my agency practice favoritism 

(giving an unfair advantage to friends or favorite employees). 74% 67%

Some supervisors in my agency practice nepotism 

(giving an unfair advantage to relatives). 35% 28%

People are promoted because of their competence. 40% 39%

People are promoted because of how hard they work. 36% 36%

People are promoted because of who they know. 72% 72%

These results should greatly concern agencies and managers. Favoritism is not only 

inconsistent with the merit principles of selection based on ability and efficient and 

effective use of the Federal workforce.97 Favoritism in hiring and other aspects of 

human resources management could also perpetuate the glass ceiling by subtly yet 

systematically disadvantaging women, even if favoritism is not consciously based 

on sex. Research indicates that people tend to form close relationships (social and 

work) with people they see as similar to themselves in background, life experiences, 

interests, and values. Often, those characteristics are correlated with demographic 

characteristics such as sex, age, education, and ethnicity and race. If managers—

who are still disproportionately likely to be men—allow personal relationships to 

influence decisions regarding work assignments, pay, or promotion, the adverse 

effects on women will probably, on average, be greater than the adverse effects on 

men.98

97 Although the prohibited personnel practices (title 5, United States Code, § 2302) do not explicitly 

mention “favoritism,” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)6) prohibits “grant[ing] any preference or advantage not 

authorized by law, rule, or regulation to any employee or applicant for employment (including defining 

the scope or manner of competition or the requirements for any position) for the purpose of improving 

or injuring the prospects of any particular person for employment.” The Office of the Special Counsel 

has pursued and obtained disciplinary action against Federal employees who abetted the promotion of 

a preselected, albeit qualified, individual. See Special Counsel v. Richard F. Lee and Diane L. Beatrez, 114 

M.S.P.R. 57 (2009).

98 Relationships can have effects even when they do not directly influence any personnel action. 

MSPB’s previous study on women and the glass ceiling noted that “Studies in the private sector have 

found evidence that women are often excluded from networks dominated by men, and therefore 

could have less access to information and contacts which could enhance their advancement potential,” 

and “Direct access to a promotion is not the only benefit that a network can provide, in the long 

run, to career advancement. Discussions...indicated that many women believe men are able to take 

advantage of the informal relationships that develop with other men to gain access to information or 

superiors in the chain of command. It is possible that greater access can help the man do a better job 

or gain recognition that may ultimately indirectly enhance his potential for advancement.” U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board, A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling in the Federal Government, 

Washington, DC, October 1992, pp. 24 and 26.
Employee Perceptions of Work and the Workplace

52 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Women and men share broad concerns about leadership and the 

merit basis of personnel decisions.

The preceding discussion has focused on gender equity and the differing perceptions 

of men and women. Although continued attention to those issues is necessary, 

that should not distract agencies from broader systemic concerns. As discussed in 

previous MSPB reports, Federal employees have concerns that transcend lines of sex 

and ethnicity and race.99 The survey responses in Table 13 show that many Federal 

employees of both sexes remain doubtful that merit-based personnel decisions are 

the norm, even though they work under merit systems. 

Table 13. Federal employees’ agreement with statements 

regarding the merit basis of personnel decisions, supervisory skills, 

and trust in leadership

Survey Question Women Men

My performance appraisal is a fair and accurate reflection of 

my performance. 63% 60%

Recognition and rewards are based on performance in my 

work unit. 50% 48%

My supervisor has good management skills. (MPS 2005) 55% 56%

I have trust and confidence in my supervisor. 60% 65%

I can express my point of view to management without fear of 

negative consequences. 41% 44%

Although MSPB plans to conduct further research on workplace fairness, with 

particular attention to prohibited personnel practices and favoritism, previous 

research makes it clear that one contributor to this doubt is employee uncertainty 

about the competence and motivation of some of the supervisors, managers, and 

executives who are authorized to make those decisions.

Therefore, agency efforts to promote workplace fairness and shatter the glass ceiling 

must go beyond preventing and rectifying overt, prohibited discrimination. Agencies 

also must pay close attention to how they select, train, guide, and monitor the 

supervisors and managers who are responsible for making decisions about areas such 

as work assignment, performance evaluation, promotion, and pay.100 It is essential 

that managers be able to exercise judgment and discretion when making personnel 

decisions. It is also essential that agencies provide policies, training, guidelines, 

and safeguards to ensure that judgments are based on mission- and job-related 

criteria and that discretion is exercised in a deliberative and systematic manner. 

The alternative is increased risk of error, inequitable outcomes, and employee 

distrust in human resources decisions such as promotions and pay.

99 See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and 

Challenges Remaining, Washington, DC, December 2009, pp. 56-57 and p. 65, which discusses 

widespread employee concerns about favoritism and the challenges of maintaining perceptions of 

fairness and transparency under increasingly varied and complex human resources systems.

100 See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Call to Action: Improving Firs-Level Supervision of 

Federal Employees, Washington, DC, May 2010 for a discussion of issues and recommendations related 

to supervisory selection and development.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 53

Conclusions and 

Recommendations

The recent report Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic WellBeing101 describes a nation that has greatly reduced longstanding disparities 

in the opportunities available to women and men—but also a nation in 

which women have not yet attained full economic equality. As summarized below, 

the experience of women in the Federal Government closely parallels that of women 

in American society. Women in the Federal Government have made substantial 

progress, yet differences between women and men remain, in both inputs (such as 

education and occupation) and outcomes (such as pay and attainment of executivelevel positions).

Conclusions

Women have made substantial progress in the Federal Government. Much 

has changed for the better since MSPB’s 1992 study on the employment and 

advancement of women in the Federal Government. The representation of women 

in professional and administrative occupations has increased; the “pay gap” has 

narrowed; the accession of women to the Senior Executive Service has outpaced our 

past projections.

Progress made has been cultural as well as statistical. Fewer women believe that 

they have experienced sex-based discrimination. Women are now about as likely as 

men to believe that they have been treated fairly in matters such as pay, discipline, 

and awards. Also, the stereotypes and biases that can result in managers or agencies 

overlooking or devaluing the abilities and achievements of women appear to be less 

prevalent and less powerful than in the past.

Women are increasingly competitive in terms of experience and education. 

The reduction in the influence of stereotypes and biases has been accompanied 

by an increase in the pool of women who are prepared for entry into professional 

and administrative occupations and for advancement to high-level positions. More 

women in the Federal workforce now have both extensive experience and formal 

educational credentials, meaning that women are not only more fully represented, 

but also better-positioned to compete for promotion.

101 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration and Executive Office 

of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Women in America: Indicators of Social and 

Economic Well-Being, March 2011.
Conclusions and Recommendations

54 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

The glass ceiling has been fractured, but it has not been shattered. The progress 

described above shows that the glass ceiling is not unbreakable. However, women 

remain less likely than men to be employed in the highest-paying occupations, 

in supervisory positions, or in executive-level positions. Also, a recent study by 

the Government Accountability Office confirms the continued existence of a pay 

gap between women and men in the Federal Government, despite the Federal 

Government’s longstanding emphasis on fair treatment and internal equity. MSPB 

analysis of employee salaries indicates that women often have lower salaries than 

men, even when they are in the same occupation. Those salary differences can be 

partially, but not fully, explained by factors that directly affect job classification (such 

as supervisory responsibilities) and factors that can affect an employee’s pay level and 

ability to compete for promotion, such as experience and education.

Discrimination and stereotypes have diminished, but have not yet disappeared. 

Women remain more likely than men to believe that they have experienced sexbased discrimination. Even in the absence of overt discrimination, many employees 

continue to believe that women are adversely affected by unfounded assumptions 

or unreasonable expectations. Also, some perceived or actual differences between 

women and men—such as the presence or absence of high-profile assignments and 

accomplishments in an employee’s work history—may be the product of agency 

decisions. For example, women are somewhat less likely than men to believe that 

their supervisors would assign a critical project to them.

The glass ceiling persists for reasons other than discrimination. Discrimination 

and stereotypes do not appear to be the primary reason for the persistence of a glass 

ceiling. An analysis of factors influencing likelihood of promotion indicates that 

demographic factors such as sex and ethnicity and race are much less important 

than factors such as the occupation held (and its inherent promotion potential), 

education level, and supervisory experience. When all else is equal, it appears that 

gender—whether female or male—has little effect on an employee’s chances of 

promotion. However, as noted above, “all else” is not always equal. Women and men 

often differ in terms of occupation, extent or nature of experience, and educational 

attainment or field of study. They may also differ in terms of geographic mobility, 

work/life responsibilities, or interest in supervisory 

and managerial roles.

Agencies may face demographic challenges to achieving gender balance in 

their workforces. In many professional and administrative occupations, women 

or men predominate. That has implications for representation, recruitment, 

and advancement. First, full representation of women in an occupation or 

organization—that is, employing women at a level equal to the relevant civilian 

labor force—may entail employing women at a level considerably higher or lower 

than their representation in the total civilian labor force or the general population. 

Second, the ease or difficulty of recruiting qualified women will vary greatly by 

occupation and occupational specialty. For example, agencies recruiting accountants, 

attorneys, and psychologists should find it relatively easy to recruit highlyqualified women; while agencies filling positions in fields such as law enforcement, 
Conclusions and Recommendations

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 55

engineering, and information technology may find that qualified women are 

comparatively scarce. Finally, occupational differences between women and men can 

create glass walls which limit the movement of employees within organizations, with 

an attendant negative effect on access to cross-functional assignments, professional 

growth, and career advancement.

Recruitment decisions can affect the employment and advancement of women 

in the Federal Government. Analysis of workforce data shows that internal 

hiring and entry-level hiring have aided the entry of women into professional and 

administrative occupations. However, agency recruitment patterns are shifting 

toward external hiring for administrative occupations and upper-level hiring for 

both professional and administrative occupations. Although women are increasingly 

successful in all types of employment competition, external and upper-level hiring 

are often less conducive to the recruitment and selection of women for reasons 

that include the demographics of the labor force and public policies related to the 

veterans’ employment. Agencies and managers must approach workforce planning 

and recruitment strategically to attain a representative, high-performing workforce in 

a manner consistent with merit system principles and public policies. 

Federal employees—both women and men—are ambitious and dedicated. 

Survey results show that many employees intend to seek advancement and that 

most employees are willing to work hard for that advancement. Federal agencies and 

managers should realize that stereotypes about unambitious Federal employees are 

indeed stereotypes and that current employees may be excellent prospects for higherlevel positions.

Work/life issues are increasingly important to all employees, although 

these issues may have special relevance to the recruitment, retention, and 

advancement of women. Survey results show that work/life issues and life/family 

responsibilities are not unique to women. Employees of both sexes, at all levels, have 

lives and responsibilities outside work. Although current economic conditions may 

have temporarily increased employers’ leverage over job applicants and employees, 

research indicates that American workers place increasing importance on work/

life balance. Agencies must deal openly and constructively with work/life issues, 

not only because the Federal Government strives to be a “model employer,” but 

because failure to provide employees with necessary flexibility and support will harm 

recruitment, retention, and productivity and perpetuate the glass ceiling.

Many issues relevant to the fair treatment, full utilization, and advancement 

of women are universal. Many barriers to the employment and advancement of 

women are not “women’s issues.” For example, deficient job analysis and assessment, 

insufficient attention to performance management and employee development, 

and suboptimal use of flexible work arrangements are, fundamentally, management 

problems. Such problems are not rooted in gender differences and affect all 

employees. Similarly, employee concerns about favoritism and the merit basis of 

personnel decisions are shared by men and women alike.
Conclusions and Recommendations

56 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Recommendations 

This report does not include specific recommendations to the President or to 

Congress. First, the statutory framework for managing the Federal service, including 

the merit system principles and prohibited personnel practices, establishes clear 

and appropriate requirements regarding the employment of women in the Federal 

service. Second, our recommendations to Federal agencies can be accomplished 

within the existing statutory framework and Federal agencies’ delegated authorities 

for human resources management. 

We note, however, that the decisions and priorities of the Nation, as reflected in 

laws, Executive Orders, or other directives or initiatives, can directly affect the 

recruitment and advancement of women in the Federal service. For example, because 

of occupational differences between women and men in the civilian labor force, 

actions that affect the level of employment in particular agencies or occupations may 

increase or decrease both the level at which women would be “fully represented” in 

the Federal Government and the percentage of women in the Federal Government. 

Similarly, public policies to promote the employment of particular groups, such as 

displaced Federal employees or veterans, may have differential effects on women 

and men.

Recommendations for Federal agencies and managers

Develop and implement a strategic approach to staffing, with particular 

attention to mission-critical and “pipeline” occupations. Hiring is about more 

than filling individual vacancies with capable employees as quickly as possible 

within the confines of law and regulation. Hiring practices and decisions also have 

long-term implications for retention, individual and organizational performance, 

and achievement of public policy goals. Accordingly, agencies should pay particular 

attention to (1) how they define their talent needs, in terms of both level and 

competencies, and (2) how they use internal and external sources to meet those 

needs.

Agencies may need to establish, expand, or rethink their recruitment programs 

in order to reach and attract women or other underrepresented groups. However, 

efforts to eliminate underrepresentation should encompass workforce planning and 

assessment, not just recruitment.

Think broadly about talent needs and recruitment methods. Hiring for general 

competencies such as analytical ability, interpersonal skills, conscientiousness, and 

initiative will often enable agencies to attract and select from an applicant pool that 

is more diverse, in terms of gender, ethnicity and race, and age than an applicant 

pool defined by highly specific education, experience, and skill requirements.

Make informed and balanced use of internal and external sources of talent. 

Internal hiring, which can provide a “bridge” for employees in technical, clerical, or 

blue-collar occupations to move into professional and administrative occupations, 

can benefit both agencies and employees. However, agencies should also recognize 
Conclusions and Recommendations

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 57

that internal and external talent pools can differ in ways that have significant 

implications for assessment, development, and advancement.

There is considerable evidence that formal education can be useful even when 

it is not mandatory. However, when identifying candidate sources, recruitment 

methods (including appointing authorities), and selection criteria, agencies should 

be particularly cautious about practices that may exclude qualified applicants who do 

not possess four-year degrees or are not recent graduates. Although formal education 

may confer (or be an indicator of) important competencies, agencies should not 

use recruitment methods (such as exclusive reliance on college recruitment) or job 

requirements to “screen” candidates for competencies that they can and should assess 

directly.

Provide continuing feedback and development to employees to help them 

understand and develop the competencies needed for long-term job success and 

career advancement. The competencies that are required to ascend to the highest 

levels of the Federal service are not only technical. Even at entry-level, professional 

and administrative positions require proficiency in general competencies such 

as problem solving, writing, and analytical ability. At higher levels, proficiency 

in competencies such as project management, organizational awareness, and 

influencing/negotiation may be helpful or essential. 

Accordingly, agencies should understand that training and development activities 

that help an employee develop or sharpen general competencies may be important 

to an employee’s job performance and career prospects, even when such activities do 

not convey specific subject matter knowledge or have immediate applicability to an 

employee’s day-to-day assignments. Also, structured feedback and development may 

be particularly important for employees who “work their way up” into professional 

and administrative occupations, as those employees may lack the education or 

specialized experience of other entrants into those occupations.

Agencies should also educate employees about the distinct roles, responsibilities, and 

requirements of leadership positions. Employees seeking supervisory, managerial, 

or executive positions must recognize that a successful transition from individual 

contributor to leader of people demands competencies that their past education and 

experience may have neither required nor developed. Appendix G outlines specific 

actions that agencies and managers can take to recruit, develop, and advance a 

diverse, high-performing workforce.

Maximize flexibility in work arrangements and job requirements. Flexible work 

arrangements can help agencies attract a diverse pool of qualified applicants and 

help agencies retain employees and sustain engagement without compromising 

teamwork or individual productivity. Agencies should also limit requirements such 

as geographic mobility, irregular or inflexible hours, and extensive travel to those 

situations or positions where they are truly essential, as opposed to desirable, and 

reexamine such requirements in light of advances in communication, technology, 

and policy. Inflexibility may have the undesired effect of deterring highly capable 

applicants who have life/family responsibilities and can find competing employers 

who are more accommodating.
Conclusions and Recommendations

58 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Remain vigilant against prohibited discrimination and ensure that avenues for 

identifying and remedying discrimination are trusted and accessible. Although 

sex-based discrimination, including sexual harassment, appears to have become less 

frequent, such discrimination can be devastating to employees and the organization 

when it does occur—and survey results show that it remains more likely to affect 

women than men.

Recognize, and avoid reliance on, stereotypes and assumptions in day-to-day 

human resources management. Agencies should consciously focus on ability and 

results—rather than demographic characteristics or potentially misleading indicators 

of performance and dedication such as time spent at work—when assessing 

employees, assigning work, allocating developmental opportunities, and evaluating 

employee performance and potential. For their part, supervisors must do more than 

merely avoid prohibited practices such as discrimination. Supervisors should strive 

for fairness in all aspects of human resources management, understanding that 

“human resources management” is not limited to formal decisions in matters such 

as appointment, promotion, and separation. Human resources management also 

encompasses day-to-day decisions on matters such as work assignment, performance 

feedback, coaching and counseling, and on-the-job training and development. 

Those day-to-day decisions can have long-term consequences for an employee’s 

engagement, advancement, and retention.

Aim for openness in dealings with all employees, ranging from routine work 

meetings to performance feedback to career counseling. This openness has two 

aspects. One is organizational, dealing with how agencies and managers share and 

receive information about the organization and how agencies and managers debate, 

communicate, and examine agency policies and operations. The other aspect 

is interpersonal, dealing with communication between and among supervisors 

and employees and the acknowledgement and management of differences at the 

individual level. Diversity can bring a valuable range of perspectives and ideas to 

the workplace. However, differences across lines of sex (as well as ethnicity and 

race, culture, religion, sexual orientation, and other dimensions) may also inhibit or 

complicate difficult yet necessary discussions between supervisors and employees and 

among employees. It is vital that managers and employees work together effectively 

regardless of those differences.

Strengthen the merit basis of human resources management decisions on both 

a systemic and individual level. This recommendation includes several measures 

discussed in previous MSPB reports, such as ensuring that “fair and open” 

competition is truly fair and open; using the best practicable methods to assess 

and select job candidates; and improving performance evaluation and performance 

management practices. Employee concerns about the role of favoritism in personnel 

decisions, from hiring to work assignment to recognition to promotion, are 

widespread. Such concerns can be damaging to organizational effectiveness and 

efficiency, and may be particularly detrimental to the engagement and retention of 

groups, including women, that have often been excluded from positions of status 

and influence in the workplace.
Conclusions and Recommendations

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 59

Improve the recruitment, selection, and development of supervisors. Supervisors 

will bear much of the responsibility for implementing the recommendations 

discussed above. Unfortunately, previous MSPB research has found deficiencies 

in how agencies recruit, select, develop, and manage their first-level supervisors. 

Improvement in supervisory selection and development will both improve the 

quality and diversity of candidate pools for supervisory positions and help agencies 

take the actions needed to shatter the glass ceiling. For example, realistic job 

previews can help employees make informed decisions about pursuing careers 

in supervision and leadership. Improving the training and mentoring of new 

supervisors may encourage high-potential employees who are apprehensive about 

the transition from a technical role to a supervisory role to actively consider or apply 

for a supervisory position. Finally, improvements in supervisory effectiveness will 

help build a cadre of supervisors who appreciate, and are better able to implement, 

the preceding recommendations related to workforce planning, focusing on results, 

supporting work/life balance, and assuring fairness in work assignment and other 

aspects of human resources management.

Recommendations for Federal employees

Establish career goals, learn what is required to achieve those goals, and act 

accordingly. The glass ceiling in the Federal Government cannot be shattered in 

a single blow. It can only be dismantled over time, through the merit-based hiring 

and advancement of individual employees. However, there are limits to what Federal 

agencies can or should do to help employees succeed in their jobs and careers. 

Advancement to the highest levels requires dedication and effort from the employee, 

not only to perform well in the current position, but also to set career goals, identify 

and pursue developmental and promotional opportunities, and acquire and sharpen 

the competencies needed to compete successfully for those opportunities. Specific 

steps for employees who seek advancement include:

 • Recognize the importance of educational and occupational choices. Select 

careers and opportunities with long-term goals in mind;

 • Develop foundational competencies such as writing, analytical ability, and 

interpersonal skills in addition to technical, occupational-specific competencies; 

 • Cultivate good working relationships with your supervisor and higher-level 

managers;

 • Maintain a high level of performance;

 • Seek challenging assignments, both to demonstrate your abilities and to broaden 

your skills and experiences; 

 • Seek guidance on what is required to succeed in your chosen field and to 

attain your career goals, and solicit honest feedback on your performance, 

competencies, and developmental needs. Consider obtaining a mentor; and

 • Make an informed decision about pursuing a career in supervision and 

leadership. If you seek a supervisory or leadership role, develop the experiences 

and competencies needed to perform successfully in those roles.
Conclusions and Recommendations

60 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Appendix I provides a Federal employee perspective on how specific career-related 

experiences and attributes have aided or hindered their advancement, discusses 

the steps above in greater detail, and outlines additional suggestions for Federal 

employees to consider.

Make the effort to understand individual differences and work effectively with 

others regardless of those differences. Effective working relationships are not 

necessary work relationships that are free of conflict or other obvious problems. In 

most organizations, an employee who is merely tolerated, or left to her or his own, 

is unlikely to survive or thrive. The benefits of diversity—such as bringing a range 

of perspectives to bear on agency problems, courses of action, and how those actions 

may be perceived—can only 

be realized when employees act to attain them. 

It can be challenging to work with individuals who differ in characteristics such 

as ethnicity and race, sex, and age. It can be even more challenging to work with 

individuals whose interests, values, or beliefs differ from our own. Those challenges 

are particularly likely to arise when women or men move into occupations, work 

units, or organization cultures that have historically lacked balance between the 

sexes. We acknowledge these challenges can be uncomfortable for both new and 

long-time employees. However, it is imperative that personal discomfort—with the 

differences themselves, or with the effort needed to bridge them—not be allowed to 

interfere with the sharing of work-related information and the accomplishment of 

work unit and agency goals.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 61

Appendix A. 

Discussion Group Questions

1. As noted in the merit principles, one of the ideals of the Federal service is a workforce that represents 

“all segments of society.” How close is your agency to that vision? How well has it recruited and managed 

a diverse workforce? Where is it lacking?

2. “Fair and equitable treatment” is also mandated by the merit system principles. 

 • Despite this ideal, in your agency, do personal characteristics that are not job-related, (e.g., sex, race, 

national origin, religion, age, marital status) create challenges for employees in the workplace? (In 

other words, does discrimination still occur?) 

 • Which personal characteristics have created challenges? Do certain groups have unique challenges in 

specific areas?

 • What kinds of challenges (e.g., recruitment, hiring, advancement, training, pay, awards, performance 

appraisal, discipline, retention) do you see? 

 • Based on your own observations, do you think the amount of discrimination has remained the same, 

increased, or decreased over the past 10 years? Are things better, worse, or the same compared to 10 

years ago? 

3. How can agencies better manage a diverse workforce? Will these strategies differ by particular group (e.g., 

race/national origin, sex)? 

 • Recruit

 • Hire

 • Train/prepare

 • Advance/promote

 • Manage performance (pay, performance management, awards, discipline)

 • Retain

4. Do you feel that changes in the Federal civil service systems (e.g. pay for performance, changes in appeals 

and labor relations, changes in job descriptions and classifications) will affect fairness in the workplace? 

How? If so, what do you recommend to preserve the merit principles and ensure that employees are 

managed efficiently and effectively? 

5. In the spring [of 2007], we plan to administer a Fair and Equitable Treatment survey of Federal 

Government employees to cover a number of the topics we’ve discussed today. What topics would you 

recommend that we cover in this survey?

6. What can we (MSPB) do to ensure fair and equitable treatment of a diverse workforce? 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 63

2007 CAREER ADVANCEMENT SURVEY 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

OMB Control No. 3124-0013 

RCS# MSPB-2007-002. Expires December 31, 2007 

Dear Federal Colleague: 

You are part of a small group of Federal employees who have been randomly selected to participate in a 

survey conducted by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). This survey is part of a study 

examining Federal employees’ career advancement strategies and work experiences. This study will also 

review whether career advancement opportunities vary for different groups of employees. For the survey 

to reflect the true thoughts and experiences of all groups of Federal employees, it is extremely important 

that you complete and return this survey. We value your opinions! 

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent Federal agency, is responsible for monitoring 

the health of Federal merit systems by conducting studies of the Federal civil service and other merit 

systems in the Executive Branch to ensure they are free of prohibited personnel practices. For example, 

the study supported by this survey examines how Federal employees move through their Government 

careers, and what factors may help or hinder their career advancement. This research has combined a 

variety of information sources, such as this survey and data from the Office of Personnel Management’s 

Central Personnel Data File, interviews of key management officials and representatives of employee 

groups, discussions with groups of Federal employees in a variety of locations, and data from other 

MSPB surveys. We will summarize our findings and recommendations in a report to the President and 

the Congress. 

Your responses to this survey are voluntary and will be kept strictly confidential. The survey should 

take about 30 minutes and may be completed at your worksite or from another computer with Internet 

access. If you have any questions about this survey, please send your question in an email to 

CareerSurvey@mspb.gov or call our survey hotline at 1-888-260-4798. Additional information on this 

survey is available by clicking on the "MSPB Studies" tab on MSPB's website (www.mspb.gov).

Thank you in advance for answering this survey. Your input will help us make recommendations to 

improve the ability of the Federal Government to recruit, retain, and effectively manage a top quality 

workforce. 

 ,ylerecniS

 .D.hP ,murC nhoJ

 noitaulavE dna yciloP ,rotceriD gnitcA

Appendix B.

 The 2007 Career Advancement 

Survey (CAS)
Appendix B. The 2007 Career Advancement Survey (CAS)

64 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

 draoB noitcetorP smetsyS tireM .S.U - 1 - YLNO NOITAMROFNI ROF

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

The Career Advancement Survey is divided into different 

sections containing a variety of questions. We would 

appreciate your response to each question. Some of the 

questions ask for your opinion regarding sensitive topics. We 

assure you that your responses will be kept confidential. 

Please answer these questions as truthfully as possible. 

Thank you for participating in this very important survey. 

MARKING INSTRUCTIONS:

 Place an in the box next to your response. 

 Use a blue or black pen. Do not use a pencil or a felttipped pen. 

 Please print where applicable. 

 To change your answer, cross out the incorrect answer 

and put an in the correct box. Also draw a circle 

around the correct answer. 

True False 

 Sometimes you will be asked to Mark all that apply. 

When this instruction appears, you may mark more than 

one answer. 

 Please follow any arrows or instructions that direct you 

to the next question.

MAILING INSTRUCTIONS:

Please return your completed survey in the business reply 

envelope. If you misplaced the envelope, mail the survey to: 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

c/o Westat 

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20850 

PRIVACY NOTICE: 

Collection of this information is authorized by Title 5, U.S. 

Code, Section 1204. This survey has been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget in accordance with 5 CFR 

1320. 

Only MSPB staff and our survey support contractor staff will 

have access to the individually completed surveys. In 

accordance with the Privacy Act (PL-93-579, Title 5 U.S. 

Code, Section 552a), no data will be disclosed that could be 

used to identify individual participants. 

A. WORK SATISFACTION 

1. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement 

with each of the following statements. 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree Nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

a. In general, I am satisfied with 

my job....................................................

b. I am satisfied with my career 

advancement so far...............................

c. Overall, I am satisfied with my 

supervisor..............................................

d. I would recommend my agency 

as a place to work .................................

e. I would recommend the Federal 

Government as a place to work.............

2. How many years have you been employed on a full-time 

permanent basis as a civilian (not military) with the 

Federal Government? 

Less than 1 year.

 NUMBER OF YEARS 

3. Thinking back to when you applied for your first job with 

the Federal Government, 

a. In the first column, what obstacles did you face 

when searching for a Federal job? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

b. If you encountered obstacles, which ONE was 

the worst? Mark the ONE worst obstacle in the 

second column. 

Finding out about job opportunities...............................

The complexity of the hiring process.............................

The length of the hiring process....................................

Qualifying for a Federal position ...................................

Finding a job offer with good pay and benefits .............

I don’t remember the application process for my first 

job...........................................................................

I didn’t face any obstacles.............................................

Other - Please specify: _________________________
Appendix B. The 2007 Career Advancement Survey (CAS)

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 65

 draoB noitcetorP smetsyS tireM .S.U - 2 - YLNO NOITAMROFNI ROF

B. CAREER EXPERIENCES 

4. For the items listed below, please indicate the following: 

Step 1. In the first column, mark whether or not you have this 

or have done this, and 

Step 2. The impact you think the presence or absence 

of each has had on your career advancement in 

the Federal Government. 

Not Applicable/Don’t Know

Very Negative

Somewhat Negative

Neutral 

HAVE Somewhat Positive 

( ) evitisoP yreV 

a. Formal educational 

qualifications (e.g., a college

degree or higher).......................

b. Specialized or technical 

training.....................................

c. Leadership development 

program or managerial 

training.....................................

d. Developmental assignments 

to improve the depth of my 

experience...............................

e. Taken a lateral transfer 

(at the same grade) within my 

agency.....................................

f. Taken a lateral transfer 

(at the same grade) to 

another agency........................

g. Extensive past work

experience...............................

h. High quality past work 

performance ............................

i. Acting in a position prior to 

appointment.............................

j. Contacts who knew the 

selecting official and 

recommended me....................

k. A supportive supervisor to 

encourage my development 

and advancement....................

l. Senior person/mentor (other 

than my supervisor) looking 

out for my interests..................

m. Networking through a 

professional association or 

other formal network................

n. Ability/willingness to take on

challenging assignments .........

o. Ability/willingness to work

long hours................................

p. Ability/willingness to travel

whenever needed....................

q. Ability/willingness to relocate as

needed .....................................

r. Other – Please specify:

________________________

5. Listed below are some personal characteristics. 

Step 1. In the first column, mark whether or not you have 

this, and 

Step 2. For the remainder, rate only the impact on your 

career advancement. We’re not asking for the 

specific nature of these personal 

characteristics.

Not Applicable/Don’t Know

Very Negative

Somewhat Negative

Neutral 

Somewhat Positive 

HAVE Very Positive 

 ( ) 

a. A foreign accent......................

b. A disability...............................

c. Family responsibilities.............

d. My gender...............................

e. My race/national origin/ 

ethnicity...................................

f. My marital status.....................

g. My sexual orientation..............

h. My political affiliation...............

i. My religion ..............................

j. My age ....................................

k. Other – Please specify:

________________________

6. From the list of factors shown in Question 4 and 5, 

please indicate the one factor (by writing in the question 

number and letter) that has had the greatest positive

impact and the one factor that has had the greatest 

negative impact on your advancement. 

Please write the question number in the first box and 

the letter in the second box. 

GREATEST POSITIVE IMPACT 

 TSETAERG NEGATIVE IMPACT 

7. How many jobs within the Federal Government have you 

applied for within the past 3 years? 

 NUMBER OF JOBS APPLIED FOR 

 Not applicable – I’ve been with the Federal 

Government less than 3 years. 

SKIP TO QUESTION 10 ON THE NEXT PAGE 

IMPACT

IMPACT
Appendix B. The 2007 Career Advancement Survey (CAS)

66 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

 draoB noitcetorP smetsyS tireM .S.U - 3 - YLNO NOITAMROFNI ROF

7a. How many of these jobs for which you applied in the 

past 3 years did you not receive a job offer? 

JOB OFFER(S) NOT RECEIVED

 Not applicable. I haven't applied for any jobs or I've 

been offered every job that I've applied for within 

the past 3 years.

SKIP TO QUESTION 10 

8. How important do you believe the following factors were 

in explaining why you did not get the most recent job you 

applied for but did not receive? 

Not Applicable/Don’t know/Can’t judge

Of No Importance

Of Little Importance

Somewhat Important

Very Important

a. Another candidate was equally or 

better qualified in terms of work 

experience .............................................

b. I did not have enough education ............

c. I don’t interview well ...............................

d. Someone else had already been 

“preselected”...........................................

e. I did not have great references...............

f. I was not a friend or relative of the 

selecting official ......................................

g. The selecting official did not like me.......

h. My past performance..............................

i. My past conduct .....................................

j. My gender...............................................

k. My ethnicity/race/national origin .............

l. My marital status.....................................

m. My family responsibilities........................

n. My sexual orientation..............................

o. My political affiliation...............................

p. My religion ..............................................

q. My age (too old)......................................

r. My age (too young).................................

s. My disability ............................................

t. Other – Please specify: 

________________________________

9. From the list of reasons shown in Question 8, which do 

you believe is the most important reason you did not get 

the job? 

Please write in the letter corresponding to the most 

important reason.

MOST IMPORTANT REASON 

10. In the last 3 years, did you choose not to apply for any 

promotion or developmental opportunity (for example, 

assignment to a high visibility task force or group project) 

because you thought that someone of your ethnicity or 

race or national origin had no chance of being selected 

for the job or assignment? 

Yes

No

Not applicable – There were not any promotions or 

developmental opportunities available during this 

time frame.

Not applicable – I’ve been with the Federal 

Government less than 3 years. 

11. In the last 3 years, did you choose not to apply for any 

promotion or developmental opportunity (for example, 

assignment to a high visibility task force or group project) 

because you thought that someone of your gender had 

no chance of being selected for the job or assignment? 

Yes 

No 

Not applicable – There were not any promotions or 

developmental opportunities available during this 

time frame.

Not applicable – I’ve been with the Federal 

Government less than 3 years. 

12. How many times in your Federal civil service career 

have you been temporarily promoted or detailed to a 

higher graded job for at least 30 days? 

 # TIMES TEMPORARILY 

PROMOTED OR DETAILED

13. How often in your Federal civil service career have you 

voluntarily made a lateral transfer to advance your 

career; that is, moved from one permanent job to 

another permanent job without getting a raise in pay? 

 # TIMES VOLUNTARILY MADE 

LATERAL TRANSFER

14. How often in your Federal civil service career have you 

voluntarily taken a downgrade to advance your career; 

that is, moved from one permanent job to another 

permanent job at a lower grade or pay level? 

 # TIMES VOLUNTARILY 

 TAKEN DOWNGRADE 
Appendix B. The 2007 Career Advancement Survey (CAS)

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 67

 draoB noitcetorP smetsyS tireM .S.U - 4 - YLNO NOITAMROFNI ROF

15. When your supervisor is away for a short period of time, 

is the responsibility to serve as the “acting supervisor” 

always assigned to employees at a higher grade than 

yourself? 

Yes GO TO QUESTION 16

No GO TO QUESTION 15a

Not applicable – no one acts for my supervisor 

when he or she is away. GO TO QUESTION 16

15a. How often are you asked to serve as the “acting 

supervisor” when your supervisor is away for a 

short period of time? 

Almost always

Regularly

Occasionally

Very rarely

Never

16. If your supervisor had a critical project, how likely is it 

that it would it be assigned to you? 

Very likely 

Somewhat likely

Somewhat unlikely

Very unlikely

17. Is it likely that you will apply for a higher level position 

within the next 5 years? 

Very likely GO TO QUESTION 18

Somewhat likely GO TO QUESTION 18

Somewhat unlikely

Very unlikely 

Not applicable – I am already a member of the 

Senior Executive Service. GO TO QUESTION 19

17a. If somewhat unlikely or very unlikely, why? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

I enjoy my current job. 

I am comfortable with my current level of 

responsibility. 

I like working with my current supervisor. 

I don’t want the stress of working at that level. 

I don’t want supervisory responsibilities 

(if applicable). 

I don’t want to work more hours. 

I don’t want to relocate. 

I have family responsibilities that would conflict 

with job requirements (such as travel or longer 

work hours). 

I don’t have the qualifications/ability. 

I don’t think I would be selected. 

The application process is too burdensome. 

I plan to retire soon. 

Other – Please specify: 

__________________________________ 

18. Is it likely that you will strive to be a member of the 

Senior Executive Service during your career? 

Very likely GO TO QUESTION 19

Somewhat likely GO TO QUESTION 19

Somewhat unlikely

Very unlikely 

Not applicable – I am already a member of the 

Senior Executive Service. GO TO QUESTION 19

18a. If somewhat unlikely or very unlikely, why?

MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

I enjoy my current job. 

I am comfortable with my current level of 

responsibility. 

I like working with my current supervisor. 

I don’t want the stress of working at that level. 

I don’t want supervisory responsibilities. 

I don’t want to work more hours. 

I don’t want to relocate. 

I have family responsibilities that would 

conflict with job requirements (such as travel, 

or longer work hours). 

I don’t have the qualifications/ability. 

I don’t think I would be selected. 

The application process is too burdensome. 

I plan to retire soon. 

Other – Please specify:

___________________________________ 

 
Appendix B. The 2007 Career Advancement Survey (CAS)

68 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

 draoB noitcetorP smetsyS tireM .S.U - 5 - YLNO NOITAMROFNI ROF

C. PERCEPTION OF THE WORK ENVIRONMENT

The following questions ask about your perceptions of the work environment in the Federal Government. 

19. Based on your experience in your current organization, please mark whether you agree or disagree with each of the 

following statements. 

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

 

a. People are promoted because of their competence ..................................................................

b. People are promoted because of how hard they work...............................................................

c. People are promoted because of the number of hours they work .............................................

d. People are promoted because of whom they know ...................................................................

e. Women and men are respected equally ....................................................................................

f. The viewpoint of a woman is often not heard at a meeting until it is repeated by a man...........

g. In selecting among well-qualified men and women job candidates, the selecting 

official should consider whether women are under-represented in the work unit as 

one of the important factors in his or her decision .....................................................................

h. Standards are higher for women than men................................................................................

i. My organization is reluctant to promote women to supervisory or managerial positions...........

j. Minorities and nonminorities are respected equally...................................................................

k. The opinions and insights of minority employees are often ignored or devalued ......................

l. In selecting among well-qualified minority and nonminority job candidates, the 

selecting official should consider whether minorities are under-represented in the 

work unit as one of the important factors in his or her decision .................................................

m. Standards are higher for minorities than nonminorities .............................................................

n. My organization is reluctant to promote minorities to supervisory or managerial 

positions.....................................................................................................................................

o. In my organization, members of some minority groups receive preferential treatment 

compared to other minority groups ............................................................................................

p. In my organization, nonminorities receive preferential treatment compared to 

minorities....................................................................................................................................

q. Minority women face extra obstacles in their careers because they are both minority 

and female .................................................................................................................................

r. My agency has been successful in recruiting a diverse workforce ............................................

s. My organization only pays lip service to actively supporting the goal of equal 

employment opportunity for all employees ................................................................................

t. If a supervisor or manager in my organization was found to have discriminated based 

on prohibited factors (e.g., race/national origin or gender), management would take 

appropriate action against that person.......................................................................................

u. If I filed an action charging discrimination, I am confident that it would be resolved in a 

fair and just manner by my organization ....................................................................................
Appendix B. The 2007 Career Advancement Survey (CAS)

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 69

 draoB noitcetorP smetsyS tireM .S.U - 6 - YLNO NOITAMROFNI ROF

20. In your organization, to what extent do you believe that 

employees from the following groups are subjected to 

flagrant or obviously discriminatory practices that hinder 

their career advancement? 

Don’t Know/ Can’t Judge 

To No Extent

To a Minimal Extent 

To a Moderate Extent 

To a Great Extent 

a. African Americans/Blacks ...............

b. Asians/Pacific Islanders ..................

c. Hispanics/Latinos............................

d. American Indians ............................

e. Whites .............................................

f. Women............................................

g. Men .................................................

h. People with disabilities....................

i. People over age 40.........................

j. I have experienced flagrant 

discrimination (based on non-job 

related characteristics) that has 

hindered my career advancement ..

k. I have experienced subtle barriers

based on non-job related 

characteristics that have hindered

my career advancement .................

21. If you’ve been a Federal Government employee for at 

least 10 years, what is your general impression of the 

amount of progress each of the following groups has 

made in moving into top-level positions in the Federal 

Government in the last 10 years? 

Not Applicable/Don’t Know/Can’t Judge 

Negative Progress (Things are worse now.) 

No Progress

Minimal Progress 

Some Progress 

Considerable Progress 

a. African Americans/Blacks ............

b. Asians/Pacific Islanders ...............

c. Hispanics/Latinos.........................

d. American Indians .........................

e. Minority Men ................................

f. Minority Women ...........................

g. Nonminority Men..........................

h. Nonminority Women ....................

i. People with disabilities.................

22. In your opinion, does discrimination against minorities in 

the Federal Government occur more or less often than it 

did 10 years ago? 

I wasn’t in the Federal Government 10 years ago. 

Discrimination occurs more often now. 

Discrimination occurs with about the same 

frequency. 

Discrimination occurs less often now. 

Not applicable – discrimination against minorities 

has not been a problem in the last 10 years. 

Don’t know/can’t judge.

23. In your opinion, does discrimination against women in 

the Federal Government occur more or less often than it 

did 10 years ago? 

I wasn’t in the Federal Government 10 years ago. 

Discrimination occurs more often now. 

Discrimination occurs with about the same 

frequency. 

Discrimination occurs less often now. 

Not applicable – discrimination against women has 

not been a problem in the last 10 years. 

Don’t know/can’t judge.

24. Do you agree or disagree with each of the following 

statements? 

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

a. Some supervisors in my agency 

practice favoritism (giving an 

unfair advantage to friends or 

favorite employees)..........................

b. Some supervisors in my agency 

practice nepotism (giving an unfair 

advantage to relatives).....................

c. Filing a grievance would harm my 

future career.....................................

d. Filing an equal employment 

opportunity (EEO) complaint 

would harm my future career............

e. I have been disadvantaged by the 

emphasis on diversity.......................

f. In my organization, it is a 

disadvantage to have family 

responsibilities when being 

considered for a job..........................

g. A diverse workforce produces 

better services and products than 

a workforce that is not diverse..........

h. Agencies should ensure that their 

workforce is representative of the 

public they serve ..............................
Appendix B. The 2007 Career Advancement Survey (CAS)

70 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

 draoB noitcetorP smetsyS tireM .S.U - 7 - YLNO NOITAMROFNI ROF

24. (Continued) Do you agree or disagree with each of the 

following statements? 

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

i. I try to get along with my 

supervisors and managers even if I 

don’t agree with their decisions .........

j. I speak up whenever I suspect that 

I’ve been treated unfairly ...................

k. I “tell it like it is” even if my supervisor doesn’t like what I have to say..

l. If I work hard, I will succeed in my 

organization.......................................

m. I volunteer for difficult assignments ...

n. To be successful in my 

organization, it’s important to 

maintain a physical appearance 

(e.g., dress, hairstyle) that is similar 

to others ............................................

o. If I want to advance my career, I will 

have to play down my own ethnic 

and cultural customs .........................

p. I have experienced frustration (such

as due to communication problems) 

in the workplace while trying to deal 

with a coworker of another race or 

ethnicity .............................................

q. I have experienced frustration (such

as due to communication problems) 

in the workplace when trying to deal 

with a coworker of the opposite sex ..

25. If you think people are treated less favorably based on 

their race/ethnicity, gender, or age of 40+, please mark 

off the ways in which they are treated less favorably.

Age (40+) 

Gender 

Race/ethnicity

 

a. Recruitment........................................................

b. Initial hiring.........................................................

c. Selection for assignments..................................

d. Advancement/promotion ....................................

e. Telework/flexible schedules ...............................

f. Training/developmental opportunities ................

g. Compensation/pay .............................................

h. Performance management/appraisals ...............

i. Awards ...............................................................

j. Discipline............................................................

k. Retention efforts.................................................

D. PAY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 

26. To what extent does your supervisor provide 

constructive feedback on your job performance? 

To a great extent

To a moderate extent 

To a minimal extent 

To no extent 

27. Compared to what I deserved, the performance 

appraisal rating that I received during my last appraisal 

was: 

Too high 

About right 

Too low 

I have not received a performance appraisal 

28. Do you feel you are usually expected to do work that is 

above, at, or below your current pay level? 

Work that is above my pay level 

Work that is at my pay level 

Work that is below my pay level 

29. Do you feel that you are paid more, about the same, or 

less compared to other employees in your agency who 

do similar work? 

More

About the same

Less 

Don’t know

E. WORK/LIFE ISSUES 

30. Did you relocate geographically to take your first job with 

the Federal civilian service? 

Yes 

No 

31. How many times have you voluntarily relocated (moved 

geographically) for the sake of your career since you 

have been employed as a civilian with the Federal 

Government?

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 or more times 

32. Have you ever relocated to follow the career of your 

spouse or significant other? 

Yes 

No 
Appendix B. The 2007 Career Advancement Survey (CAS)

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 71

 draoB noitcetorP smetsyS tireM .S.U - 8 - YLNO NOITAMROFNI ROF

33. For each of the following statements, indicate the extent 

to which each applies to you. 

Don’t Know/ Can’t Judge 

To No Extent 

To a Minimal Extent 

To a Moderate Extent 

To a Great Extent 

a. I am willing to relocate to advance 

my career ...........................................

b. I am willing to devote whatever time 

is necessary to my job to advance 

my career ...........................................

c. I am willing to develop myself 

professionally (e.g., attend 

classes/training) on my own time 

and/or money .....................................

34. How many days per month, on average, have you spent 

on Government travel during the past year? 

None 

1-2 days 

3-5 days 

6-10 days 

11-15 days 

16-20 days 

21 or more days 

35. How many hours, on average, have you worked each 

week during the past year? 

40 hours or less 

41-45 hours 

46-50 hours 

51-55 hours 

56-60 hours 

60+ hours 

36. Which option most closely reflects how frequently you 

telework from an office within your home or from a 

telework center? 

Five days a week 

Twice a week 

Once a week 

Once every two weeks 

Once a month 

Twice a year 

Never 

37. Have you ever done any of the following to help balance 

work and life/family responsibilities? Second, what 

impact did this have on your subsequent career? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

Not Applicable/Don’t Know

Very Negative

Somewhat Negative

Neutral 

Somewhat Positive 

HAVE Very Positive 

 ( ) 

a. Used flexible work 

schedules (alternate work 

schedules).............................

b. Used flexi-place (telework or

telecommute) options............

c. Took significant blocks of 

leave intermittently (as 

needed to handle family 

responsibilities). ....................

d. Took leave for more than 4 

consecutive weeks ................

e. Switched to a less than fulltime schedule (less than 40 

hours a week)........................

f. Quit Federal job, but 

returned after a break in 

service...................................

g. Changed jobs within my 

agency...................................

h. Changed jobs by going to 

another agency .....................

i. My spouse adjusted his/her 

schedule................................

j. Other: __________________

38. Which of these would you like to do (or do more 

frequently) to help balance work and life/family 

responsibilities? MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

a. Flexible work schedules .................................................

b. Telework (also known as telecommute or flexi-place)....

c. Take leave intermittently (as needed) ............................

d. Take leave for more than 4 consecutive weeks .............

e. Switch to a less than full-time schedule 

(less than 40 hours a week) ...........................................

f. Quit Federal job, but return after a break in service.......

g. Change jobs within my agency.......................................

h. Change jobs by going to another agency.......................

i. Have my spouse adjust his/her schedule.......................

j. Other: ______________________________________
Appendix B. The 2007 Career Advancement Survey (CAS)

72 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

 draoB noitcetorP smetsyS tireM .S.U - 9 - YLNO NOITAMROFNI ROF

39. If you were to be promoted, how many additional hours 

per week would you be willing to work in your new job? 

0 hours 

1-5 hours 

6-10 hours 

11-15 hours 

16-20 hours 

20+ hours 

40. Has caring for children significantly impacted your 

availability for work? 

Yes 

No GO TO QUESTION 41 

40a. If so, for how many years (combining time if it was 

intermittent)? 

One year or less 

2-3 years 

4-5 years 

6-7 years 

8-9 years 

10-15 years 

More than 15 years. 

41. Have you had children (under the age of 18) living with

you at any time during your Federal career? 

Yes 

No GO TO QUESTION 42 

41a. What was the greatest number of children (under 

the age of 18) you had living with you (at one time) 

during your Federal career? 

# CHILDREN 

42. Has caring for elderly family members or other adult 

dependent family members significantly impacted your 

availability for work? 

Yes 

No GO TO QUESTION 43 

42a. If so, for how many years (combining time if it was 

intermittent)? 

One year or less 

2-3 years 

4-5 years 

6-7 years 

8-9 years 

10-15 years 

More than 15 years. 

43. If you have/had any dependents (e.g., children, elderly 

or disabled family members) requiring care, would you 

say that you have/had primary responsibility for their 

day-to-day care? 

I have not been responsible for caring for any 

dependents. 

My spouse or another adult in the household had 

primary responsibility for caring for dependents. 

Responsibility was/is split 50/50 with another adult. 

I have/had primary responsibility. 

F. ABOUT YOU 

44. Are you Hispanic/Latino? 

Yes 

No 

45. Are you: MARK ALL THAT APPLY

American Indian or Alaska Native 

Asian 

Black or African American

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

White 

46. What is your gender? 

Male 

Female

47. Is your immediate supervisor the same gender as you? 

Yes 

No 

48. Is your immediate supervisor the same race/national 

origin/ethnicity as you?

Yes 

No 

49. What is the highest level of education (a) that you had 

completed at the time you got your first, full-time, 

permanent, civilian job with the Government, and 

(b) that you have now?

a. At the time hired for first, full-time permanent 

civilian Government job 

b. That you have now 

Less than high school ...................................................

High school diploma or equivalent (e.g., GED).............

Some college, no degree ..............................................

Completed associate’s degree (e.g., AA)......................

Completed bachelor’s degree (e.g., BA).......................

Some graduate school, no graduate degree.................

Completed master’s degree (e.g., MA, MS)..................

Completed professional degree (e.g., JD, MD, DDS) ...

Completed doctorate (e.g., PhD) ..................................
Appendix B. The 2007 Career Advancement Survey (CAS)

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 73

 draoB noitcetorP smetsyS tireM .S.U - 01 - YLNO NOITAMROFNI ROF

OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS

50. What advice would you offer to someone from a similar background as yours who is interested in a career with the 

Federal Government? 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

51. What does the Federal Government need to do to better recruit and hire a diverse workforce? 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

52. What does the Federal Government need to do to better retain a diverse workforce? 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

53. Excluding the legally protected areas of race/national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, marital status, political 

affiliation, and sexual orientation, are there other characteristics that are not related to job performance that impact 

the way employees are treated-either positively or negatively? 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

54. Please provide any additional comments that you have regarding the fairness of employment practices within the 

Federal Government. 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN OUR SURVEY!

PLEASE MAIL YOUR COMPLETED SURVEY IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE. 

If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the MSPB Survey Support Center 

Toll-free: 1-888-260-4798 (Monday through Friday 8:00am – 5:00pm ET) 

Email: CareerSurvey@mspb.gov 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 75

Appendix C. 

Occupational Categories 

and Definitions

The Federal Government categorizes positions into six broad occupational categories.102 This study 

focuses closely on professional and administrative occupations, because those occupations generally 

offer the greatest pay and advancement potential and constitute the pipeline for the Senior Executive 

Service.

Professional work requires knowledge in a field of science or learning characteristically acquired through 

education or training equivalent to a bachelor’s or higher degree with major study in or pertinent to the 

specialized field, as distinguished from general education. Work is professional when it requires the exercise 

of discretion, judgment, and personal responsibility for the application of an organized body of knowledge 

that is constantly studied to make new discoveries and interpretations, and to improve data, materials, and 

methods, e.g., mathematics or engineering.

Administrative work involves the exercise of analytical ability, judgment, discretion, and personal 

responsibility, and the application of a substantial body of knowledge of principles, concepts, and practices 

applicable to one or more fields of administration or management. While these positions do not require 

specialized education, they do involve the type of skills (analytical, research, writing, judgment) typically 

gained through a college level education, or through progressively responsible experience. 

Technical work is typically associated with and supportive of a professional or administrative field. It involves 

extensive practical knowledge, gained through experience and/or specific training less than that represented 

by college graduation. Work in these occupations may involve substantial elements of the work of the 

professional or administrative field, but requires less than full knowledge of the field involved. 

Clerical occupations involve structured work in support of office, business, or fiscal operations. Clerical 

work is performed in accordance with established policies, procedures, or techniques; and requires training, 

experience, or working knowledge related to the tasks to be performed. Clerical occupational series follow a 

one-grade interval pattern. 

Other white-collar occupations. There are some occupations in the General Schedule that do not clearly fit 

into one of the above groupings. Included among these are series such as the Fire Protection and Prevention 

Series, GS-081, and Police Series, GS-083.

Blue-collar occupations are occupations whose paramount requirements are trades, crafts, and labor 

experience and knowledge.

102 The definitions for the professional, administrative, and remaining white-collar occupational categories are taken from U.S. 

Office of Personnel Management, Introduction to the Position Classification Standards, TS-134, July 1995. The definition of blue-collar 

occupations is taken from U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Introduction to the Federal Wage System Job Grading System, TS-44, 

September 1981. As of July 2010, these documents can be accessed through www.opm.gov/fedclass.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 77

Appendix D.

Occupational Groups in 

the Federal Government

For reference, this appendix lists the 22 occupational groups used to categorize and classify positions in 

professional and administrative occupations. The listing is adapted from the U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management’s Handbook of Occupational Groups and Series. For each group (family), we list 

sample occupations to illustrate the range of work covered by the group. In some cases, we have modified 

or paraphrased the official name of an occupational series for clarity or readability. We also provide, from 

OPM’s Central Personnel Data File, the number of permanent full-time Executive Branch employees in 

professional (P) and administrative (A) positions as of September 2009. Readers will note that most, but not 

all, occupational groups are composed primarily of professional or administrative occupations and employees.

Table 14. OPM occupational groups and employment levels by occupational group 

and category

OPM Occupational Group Employment

Code Group Title and Sample Occupational Series (P) (A)

0000 Miscellaneous Occupations

0007A Correctional Institution Administrator

0028A Environmental Protection

0060P Chaplain

1,496 28,991

0100 Social Science, Psychology, and Welfare

0105A Social Insurance Administration

0110P Economist

0180P Social Worker

30,448 41,578

0200 Human Resources Management

0201A Human Resources Specialist

0260A Equal Employment Opportunity

0 29,634

0300 General Administrative, Clerical, and Office Services

0340A Program Manager

0343A Management Analyst

0346A Logistics Management

0 182,095

0400 Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences

0403P Microbiologist

0460P Forester

37,778 0

0500 Accounting and Budget

0505A Financial Manager

0510P Accountant

0512P Internal Revenue Agent

0560P Budget Analyst

38,507 44,454

0600 Medical, Hospital, Dental, and Public Health

0602P Medical Officer (Physician)

0610P Nurse

0670A Health System Administrator

0690A Industrial Hygienist

104,124 10,736
78 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Appendix D. Occupational Groups in the Federal Government

OPM Occupational Group Employment

Code Group Title and Sample Occupational Series (P) (A)

0700 Veterinary Medical Science

0701P Veterinary Medical Officer

1,858 0

0800 Engineering and Architecture

0810P Civil Engineer

0828A Construction Analyst

0861P Aerospace Engineer

95,799 170

0900 Legal and Kindred

0905P Attorney

0950A Paralegal

0996A Veterans Claims Examiner

31,382 27,270

1000 Information and Arts

1015P Museum Curator

1035A Public Affairs Specialist

479 13,765

1100 Business and Industry

1102P Contracting

1140A Trade Specialist

1160A Financial Analyst

32,459 42,766

1200 Copyright, Patent, and Trademark

1224P Patent Examiner

7,178 0

1300 Physical Sciences

1310P Physicist

1340P Meteorologist

1370P Oceanographer

25,380 261

1400 Library and Archives

1410P Librarian

1412A Technical Information Services

1,626 1,178

1500 Mathematical Sciences

1510P Actuary

1550P Computer Scientist

14,943 10

1600 Equipment, Facilities, and Services

1630A Cemetery Administrator

1654A Printing Services

0 13,302

1700 Education

1710P Education and Vocational Training

1715A Vocational Rehabilitation

8,623 7,869

1800 Inspection, Investigation, Enforcement, and Compliance

1811A Criminal Investigator

1825A Aviation Safety

1895A Customs and Border Protection Officer

0 107,386

1900 Quality Assurance, Inspection, and Grading

1910A Quality Assurance

0 8,668

2000 Supply

2010A Inventory Management

0 11,566

2100 Transportation

2125A Highway Safety

2152A Air Traffic Controller

0 35,781

2200 Information Technology

2210A Information Technology Management

0 70,454
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 79

Appendix E.

Use of Information from OPM’s 

Central Personnel Data File

The Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) is a repository of information on civilian Executive Branch 

employees maintained by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. The CPDF contains several 

different files. The two CPDF files that provided the Federal workforce statistics presented in this 

report are (1) the status file, a file containing information on an employee’s appointment, position, and 

demographics at a particular point in time; and (2) the dynamics file, a file containing information on 

personnel actions taken by Federal agencies, such as appointments, position and pay changes, awards, and 

separations.

Coverage

The CPDF covers most, but not all, of the Executive Branch; for security reasons, some agency components 

(such as the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency in the Department of Defense) or workforces (such as 

the Foreign Service in the Department of State) are excluded.

Reporting Criteria

Population. The statistics presented in this report are for permanent full-time employees; employees holding 

nonpermanent appointments (such as temporary and term appointments) and employees on intermittent or 

part-time work schedules were excluded.

Valid data. Calculations that are based on specific data elements (such as sex, pay grade, and supervisory 

status) were limited to records containing valid data.

Time frame. Statistics are presented on a fiscal year basis. For example, “1991” means “as of September 30, 

1991” for information from the CPDF status file, and “for the period beginning October 1, 1990 and ending 

on September 30, 1991” for information from the CPDF dynamics file.

Pay and grade levels. Pay statistics were calculated using adjusted basic pay. Adjusted basic pay, which 

corresponds to “salary,” includes locality pay adjustments. It does not include premium pay, awards, or other 

nonrecurring or discretionary payments.

Grade levels generally reflect an employee’s grade level under the General Schedule (GS) or a GS-related 

pay system. However, the coverage of the General Schedule has declined in recent years, and OPM has 

not established “GS-equivalent” grade levels for recently-created non-GS pay systems. To aid in analysis of 

the entire white-collar workforce, we estimated a General Schedule level for those white-collar employees 

whose records did not contain a GS or GS-related grade. That approximation was based on comparison of 

the employee’s basic pay to the minimum (step 1) non-locality General Schedule rates in effect during the 

applicable calendar year. 
80 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Appendix E. Use of Information from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File

Special Analyses

In addition to tabulations using variables such as agency, occupation, sex, age, education, and pay or grade 

level, we conducted two special analyses.

Analysis of promotion factors. This analysis, which was initially conducted as part of a preceding MSPB study, 

used CPDF data to track permanent full-time employees in professional and administrative positions at grades 

GS-5 through GS-14 for a succession of one-year periods. Based on personnel actions and the employee’s 

grade level at the beginning and the end of the one-year period, we determined whether the employee had 

been promoted. We then conducted a series of regression analyses to determine how various factors affected 

the likelihood of promotion. Those factors included sex, ethnicity and race, education level, supervisory 

status, length of service, and the modal full-performance grade level of the employee’s occupation (an 

indicator of the occupation’s promotion potential). 

Analysis of entry into professional and administrative occupations. To better understand how the Federal 

Government recruits professional and administrative employees and how entry patterns and characteristics 

influence career advancement, we reviewed records from successive CPDF status files to identify “new 

entrants” to professional and administrative occupations. An employee was considered a “new entrant” in a 

given fiscal year if the employee—

 • Held a position in a professional or administrative occupation; and

 • Held or attained, by the end of the following year, a permanent, full-time position;103 and

 • Was not employed in the same occupational category, or in the same occupational series, at the end of the 

preceding fiscal year.104

A new entrant who was previously employed by the Federal Government in a non-professional or 

administrative position was categorized as an “internal” entrant. A new entrant who was not previously 

employed by the Federal Government (based on the absence of a CPDF status file record) was categorized 

as an “external” entrant. For each new entrant, we recorded information about the position entered (such 

as occupational category, occupational series, pay plan, pay grade, and agency) and the entrant (including 

sex, age, length of service, and education level). Our analysis, which used CPDF files from fiscal years 1979 

through 2009, produced information on entrants for fiscal years 1980 through 2008.

103 This criterion allowed us to focus on permanent full-time employees, while allowing for the possibility that an employee entered a 

professional or administrative occupation through temporary or term employment.

104 For example, we did not consider a Federal employee in a professional occupation who was employed in a professional 

occupation at the end of the preceding fiscal year to be a “new entrant.” Similarly, we did not consider an employee whose 

occupational series did not change to be a new entrant, even if the employee’s occupational category changed (e.g., from technical 

to administrative, or administrative to professional).
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 81

Appendix F. 

Achieving a Representative 

Workforce—The Vision 

and the Standard

When discussing issues of recruitment and representation, identifying barriers, and considering 

affirmative employment and other initiatives, it is essential that agencies and stakeholders 

accurately understand what a “representative workforce” entails. Without that understanding, 

agencies may set goals that are too high or too low and stakeholders may have inappropriate or unrealistic 

expectations of Federal agencies. The Federal Government has a vision of a workforce and society free of 

divisions and inequities along lines of sex, ethnicity and race, and religion. However, American society and 

the American labor force do not yet fully reflect that vision, and that directly affects what it means to have a 

“representative workforce” and how quickly or readily agencies can achieve a workforce that fully reflects the 

diversity of American society.

The Vision: “A Work Force from All Segments of Society”

The merit system principles establish a broad vision for agency employment practices and workforces:

(1) Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a 

work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on 

the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skills, after fair and open competition which ensures that all 

receive equal opportunity. 

(2) All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of 

personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, 

marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional 

rights.105

A reader unfamiliar with the demographics of the American labor force might read these principles and 

conclude that every agency can and should have a workforce whose demographic profile mirrors that of the 

nation. However, the general population is not an appropriate standard for assessing workforce representation. 

Even the total civilian labor force (CLF) is usually not a realistic source of candidates for agency positions or 

an appropriate benchmark for goal-setting.

The Standard: The Relevant Civilian Labor Force

EEOC guidance states that agencies should assess representation with regard to the relevant civilian labor 

force (RCLF).106 The relevant civilian labor force is defined by both the job (the occupation of the position 

being filled and the skills required) and the applicant pool. Agencies have influence over both. For example, 

105 Title 5, United States Code, §§ 2301(b)(1) and 2301(b)(2).

106 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715, accessed in 

August 2010 at www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/md715.cfm. The directive states that “In conducting its self-assessment, agencies shall 

compare their internal participation rates with corresponding participation rates in the relevant civilian labor force (CLF),” and defines 

“relevant labor force” as “The source from which an agency draws or recruits applicants for employment or an internal selection such 

as a promotion.”
82 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Appendix F. Achieving a Representative Workforce—The Vision and the Standard

the RCLF for a human resources (HR) specialist position obviously includes HR specialists. But an agency 

that fills a human resources specialist position at entry-level might reasonably define the RCLF much more 

broadly, to include HR assistants and other occupations (such as management analysts) in which employees 

are highly likely to possess essential fundamental competencies. Similarly, the RCLF for a position may be 

local or national, depending on the agency’s recruitment efforts.107 Nevertheless, there are limits to what 

agencies can do to expand the portion of the labor force that is “relevant.” The RCLF for a nursing position 

cannot include electrical engineers; the RCLF for a computer scientist position cannot include human 

resources specialists.

EEOC notes that “the representation of any gender, racial or ethnic group among a particular occupational 

group may be quite different from their representation in the overall civilian labor force (CLF).”108

As illustrated in Table 15, that is also true of women.

Table 15. Employment of women in selected occupations in the civilian labor force, 2009109

Occupation Women

Electrical and electronics engineers 9%

Computer scientists and systems analysts 27%

Lawyers 32%

Total CLF (employed persons 16 years and over) 47%

Accountants and auditors 62%

Human resources, labor relations, and training specialists 71%

Registered nurses 92%

Implications for Goal-Setting, Recruitment, and Assessing Progress

Agencies must use the RCLF when measuring and reporting their progress in achieving a representative 

workforce. Given the persistence of occupational differences between women and men, an agency in which 

women are a distinct minority may find that women are fully represented. Conversely, an agency in which 

women are a majority may find that women are nevertheless underrepresented. The point is that, in any given 

occupation or agency, it may be neither appropriate nor realistic to strive for 50/50 balance between women 

and men.

However, agencies should also recognize that the vision of the merit principles—a workforce “from all 

segments of society” that is both efficient and effective—may demand more than simply accepting and 

replicating the differences and disparities that exist in American society. Accordingly, agencies should define 

their talent requirements broadly and recruit widely, to the extent practical. Agencies should also examine 

107 See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Instructions to Federal Agencies for Equal Employment Opportunity 

Management Directive 715 (EEO MD 715), accessed in August 2010 at www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/md715instruct.cfm. Guidance 

on tabulating participation rates and applicant flow for mission-critical occupations states that “...the appropriate or relevant CLF 

availability data generally depends on the employer’s area of recruitment. If a job is recruited nationally, then it may be appropriate to 

use the national CLF for that occupation.... On the other hand, if an agency’s announcement is limited to a particular geographic area 

(e.g. region, state, county or city)...then it may be more appropriate to consider the local area CLF.”

108 See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tips for Small Agencies Conducting Barrier Analyses Under MD 715, 

accessed in August 2010 at www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/md715_barriertips.cfm.

109 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009 Current Population Survey, “11. Employed persons by detailed 

occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity,” accessed in August 2010 at www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf. We present data 

from the 2009 CPS because of its recency, but note that EEOC has provided agencies with a special tabulation of data from the 2000 

census for EEO reporting and barrier analysis.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 83

Appendix F. Achieving a Representative Workforce—The Vision and the Standard

whether their development and promotion practices are creating an adequate pipeline of candidates, in terms 

of both quality and diversity, for mission-critical occupations and leadership positions.

Stakeholders should recognize that the vision of a Federal Government in which women and minorities are 

equally represented in all occupations and at all levels cannot be attained through agency action alone. All too 

often, Federal agencies are faced with talent pools that are far from “representative of all segments of society” 

when recruiting and filling mission-critical positions. Until that situation is addressed, progress toward a 

Federal Government that fully reflects “the tapestry of America”110 will remain incomplete.

110 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “EEOC Releases Federal Work Force Report,” Washington, DC, July 26, 

2010. Statement of Jacqueline A. Berrien, Chairman, U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, on Federal Government recruitment and 

promotion practices.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 85

Appendix G.

Entry Requirements for 

Selected Professional and 

Administrative Occupations

This appendix outlines entry requirements for two administrative occupations and three professional 

occupations. The information presented below is digested from qualification standards developed and 

published by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Readers needing detailed information or 

guidance must refer to published OPM standards and instructions. For brevity, we outline requirements for 

the lowest entry-level only; however, many professional and administrative occupations permit entry at two 

levels (typically GS-5 and GS-7).

We provide this information to illustrate that requirements for entry into professional and administrative 

occupations can range from general and non-restrictive to highly specific and restrictive. As a general rule, 

administrative occupations are easier to enter than professional occupations because they do not have 

positive educational requirements, although many administrative occupations have individual occupational 

requirements (requirements for specific knowledge or experience). Professional occupations also vary; for 

some, a four-year degree with some specialized coursework is sufficient; for others, advanced degrees and 

specific credentials are mandatory. We also note that occupations or positions, especially those involving law 

enforcement or public safety, may also have other requirements (such as physical ability or maximum age) that 

are not described here.

Entry requirements have implications for applicants and employees seeking advancement. It is possible for 

employees to “work their way into” most administrative occupations. It is also possible for employees to 

“work and study their way into” some professional occupations, given completion of certain course work and 

a particular type of experience. However, there are many professional occupations for which there is little 

alternative to a particular degree or licensure.

Entry requirements also have implications for agencies and for the representation and advancement of women 

in the Federal Government. In some occupations, it may be feasible and cost-effective for an agency to expand 

the pool of possible applicants and to “bridge” employees from technical, support, or trades occupations into 

the occupation. In other occupations, agencies may have very limited ability to expand the applicant pool or 

to create opportunities for employees who lack specific and extensive education and training.

Management and Program Analysis Series, 0343

Occupational category: Administrative

Entry-level: GS-5

This occupation is covered by a group coverage qualification standard that applies to nearly 120 different 

administrative and management occupations.111 Under that standard, an individual may qualify at the GS-5 

level through the education or experience described below.

111 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Group Coverage Qualification Standards for Administrative and Management Positions, 

available at www.opm.gov/qualifications/standards/group-stds/gs-admin.asp as of August 2010.
86 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Appendix G. Entry Requirements for Selected Professional and Administrative Occupations

Education: A 4-year course of study in any field leading to a bachelor's degree.

Experience: 3 years of general experience, 1 year of which was equivalent to at least GS 4. This general 

experience must be progressively responsible and demonstrate the ability to (1) Analyze problems to identify 

significant factors, gather pertinent data, and recognize solutions; (2) Plan and organize work; and (3) 

Communicate effectively orally and in writing.

Education and experience may be combined to qualify for entry. An individual with specialized experience, 

graduate education, or superior academic achievement may qualify for entry at the GS-7 level.

Safety and Occupational Health Program Management Series, 0018

Occupational category: Administrative

Entry-level: GS-5

This occupation is also covered by the group coverage qualification standard for administrative and 

management positions that applies to the management and program analysis series. However, this occupation 

is also subject to the individual occupational requirements outlined below. Those requirements define what 

constitutes qualifying education, experience, and certification.112

Education: A 4-year course of study leading to a bachelor's degree with major study in safety or occupational 

health fields (safety, occupational health, industrial hygiene), or degree in other related fields that included 

or was supplemented by at least 24 semester hours of study from among the following (or closely related) 

disciplines: safety, occupational health, industrial hygiene, occupational medicine, toxicology, public health, 

mathematics, physics, chemistry, biological sciences, engineering, and industrial psychology.

Experience: General experience in scientific or technical work that provided an understanding of the basic 

principles and concepts of the safety and occupational health field. Creditable general experience must have 

demonstrated the achievement of knowledge equivalent to the education described above.

Certification: Certification as a Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH), or 

Certified Health Physicist (CHP), or similar certification that included successful completion of a written 

examination.

Economist Series, 0110

Occupational category: Professional

Entry-level: GS-5

This occupation is covered by a group coverage qualification standard that covers over 110 different 

professional and scientific occupations. Individual occupational requirements, outlined below, describe what 

constitutes qualifying education and experience for entry.

Education: four-year (i.e., bachelor’s) degree in economics, with course work that included at least 21 semester 

hours in economics and 3 semester hours in statistics, accounting, or calculus.

112 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Safety and Occupational Health Management Series, 0018, individual occupational 

requirements, available at www.opm.gov/qualifications/standards/IORs/gs0000/0018.htm.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 87

Appendix G. Entry Requirements for Selected Professional and Administrative Occupations

Combination of education and experience: courses equivalent to a major in economics, as described, plus 

appropriate experience or additional education. Examples of qualifying experience include:

 • Individual economic research assignments requiring planning, information assembly, analysis and 

evaluation, conclusions and report preparation;

 • Supervisory or project coordination assignments involving a staff of professional economists, and 

requiring the evaluation and interpretation of economic information; or

 • Teaching assignments in a college or university that included both class instruction in economics subjects 

and one of the following (1) personal research that produced evidence of results, (2) direction of graduate 

theses in economics, or (3) service as a consultant or advisor on technical economics problems.

Chemistry Series, 1320

Occupational category: Professional

Entry-level: GS-5

This occupation is covered by a group coverage qualification standard that covers over 110 different 

professional and scientific occupations. Individual occupational requirements, outlined below, describe what 

constitutes qualifying education and experience for entry.

Education: four-year (i.e., bachelor’s) degree in physical sciences, life sciences, or engineering that included 30 

semester hours in chemistry, supplemented by course work in mathematics through differential and integral 

calculus, and at least 6 semester hours of physics.

Combination of education and experience: course work equivalent to a major as described above, plus 

appropriate experience or additional education.

Medical Officer Series, 0602

Occupational category: Professional

Entry-level: GS-11

To qualify for entry, an individual must meet the following education, training, and licensure requirements. 

The training and licensure requirements may be waived, at the agency’s discretion, for positions that do not 

involve direct patient care.

Education: Degree—Doctor of Medicine or Doctor of Osteopathy from a school in the United States or 

Canada approved by a recognized accrediting body in the year of the applicant's graduation.

Graduate Training: Subsequent to obtaining a Doctor of Medicine or Doctor of Osteopathy degree, a 

candidate must have had at least 1 year of supervised experience providing direct service in a clinical setting, 

i.e., a 1-year internship or the first year of a residency program in an institution accredited for such training.

Licensure: For positions involving patient care, candidates must have a permanent, full, and unrestricted 

license to practice medicine.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 89

Appendix H. 

Shattering the Glass Ceiling: 

Actions for Federal Agencies 

and Managers

This appendix describes actions for Federal agencies and managers to consider related to recruitment, 

performance management, and career development. The actions are geared to three issues with special 

relevance to the employment and advancement of women: (1) encouraging entry into occupations 

where there are issues of underrepresentation, or gender balance; (2) assuring that employees have the 

qualifications (e.g., competencies, educational attainment, or experience) needed for short- and long-term job 

success; and (3) recruiting and preparing employees for higher-level jobs, either in a technical contributor or 

supervisory/leadership capacity.

The actions are organized into four categories:

 • Recruitment and Selection—actions to generate interest in Federal careers, build diverse and qualified 

applicant pools, and select employees who are likely to perform well, both in the short and long term;

 • Development—actions to help employees develop competencies required for entry or advancement, 

through on-the-job learning, classroom training, or other means;

 • Communication and Support—actions to educate employees on requirements for job success and 

advancement, help employees identify career goals, and provide employees with feedback on their 

performance, strengths, and developmental needs;

 • Mentoring and Networking—actions to help employees establish relationships that can advance their 

development and careers.

The sections below link these actions to three distinct career goals or stages of an employee’s career: entry, 

advancement to a high-level technical contributor or expert role, and advancement to a supervisory or 

leadership role. Although there is considerable overlap between the suggested actions for the technical 

contributor and supervisory roles, the roles and requisite competencies are quite distinct. That has particular 

relevance to identifying and preparing high-potential employees: an employee who seeks, and is ideally suited 

to, one role may be uninterested in or ill-suited to another.

Readers should note that the list of actions is illustrative rather than exhaustive. Also, some actions (such as 

using valid assessments) are universally important or are generally good practice. Others are simply options 

to consider; their value and practicality will differ by organization and occupation. Agencies and managers 

should consider resource availability and return on investment when evaluating actions, especially those that 

require substantial commitment of resources.

Career Goal/Stage: Entry into a professional or administrative occupation

Recruitment and Selection

 • Identify competencies (including proficiency levels) required for short- and long-term job success, 

giving appropriate weight to foundational general competencies such as analytical ability, writing, and 

interpersonal skills. Use those competencies as a basis for outreach, recruitment, and selection.
90 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Appendix H. Shattering the Glass Ceiling: Actions for Federal Agencies and Managers

 • Seek to expand the scope and diversity of the applicant pipeline—

– Establish relationships with both traditional groups (e.g., professional societies and colleges), and 

non-traditional groups (e.g., diversity-focused associations and secondary schools) to market Federal 

careers.

– Foster relationships with educational and vocational institutions to inform them about Federal careers 

and help them align their programs with agency talent requirements.

 • Help applicants understand and prepare for Federal careers—

– Offer realistic job previews though recruitment visits, information sessions, “job-shadowing” days, 

and other means.

– Develop and distribute tools that help potential recruits assess their skills and interest and match them 

to agency jobs and careers.

– Involve line managers and employees in outreach and recruitment.

 • Establish tracks into professional and administrative occupations, especially mission-critical occupations, 

through outreach and strategic, judicious use of hiring methods such as student employment programs 

and special appointing authorities.

 • Use valid assessments to assess applicants—

– Assess for ability or potential; minimize reliance on indirect measures of ability such as educational 

attainment and length of experience.

– Focus on attributes that are (1) important to short- and long-term job success and (2) not amenable 

to acquisition through on-the-job development or training.

– Avoid use of recruitment methods or appointment authorities as proxies for formal assessment.

Development

 • Support acquisition of essential competencies through developmental assignments, training classes, and 

tuition support.

 • Provide employees with substantive assignments to help them acquire essential knowledge and 

competencies and to enable them to contribute meaningfully to the agency mission.

 • To the extent practical, involve employees in higher-level discussions about work priorities and issues.

 • Establish developmental programs, with formal assessment and competition for entry, for selected 

occupations.

Communication, Feedback, and Support

 • From the beginning, articulate requirements for success, including results (job performance), 

competencies, and important behaviors such as organizational citizenship or continuing education.

• Outline long-term career opportunities—both technical and leadership—in the employee’s organization 

and career field.

 • Provide candid and constructive feedback on the employee’s progress and success. Use the probationary 

period (if applicable).

 • Respect boundaries—but take a genuine interest in employee’s job satisfaction, engagement, and work/life 

balance.

 • Establish formal career counseling programs.

 • Establish an on-boarding program.

Mentoring and Networking

 • Pair the employee with higher-level employees who can serve as a resource and provide a safe environment 

for testing skills.

 • Encourage the employee to seek one or more mentors.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 91

Appendix H. Shattering the Glass Ceiling: Actions for Federal Agencies and Managers

 • Encourage the employee to acquire and share knowledge within the organization and through professional 

organizations or associations.

Career Goal/Stage: Advancement to a high-level technical 

contributor role

Recruitment and Selection

 • Encourage high-potential employees to consider seeking advancement. Take care to avoid assumptions 

about an employee’s potential based on personal characteristics, including sex, marital status, and life/

family responsibilities, that are not relevant to job performance.

 • Consider past contribution and performance when assessing and selecting candidates—but take care to 

assess candidates on the competencies needed to take on new roles and responsibilities and to give those 

competencies due weight in hiring decisions.

 • Use valid assessments to select employees for promotion or formal developmental opportunities. Consider 

the use of assessment tools such as job simulations (including assessment centers), work samples, and 

knowledge tests as additions or alternatives to evaluation of training and experience.

Development

 • Provide assignments, training, or other opportunities that help the employee acquire and demonstrate 

necessary competencies. Necessary competencies may include existing competencies at a higher level of 

proficiency and new competencies.

 • Consider rotational assignments, leadership training, and other activities to broaden functional knowledge 

or develop leadership skills. Such knowledge and skills may be particularly helpful when higher-level roles 

involve working across functions or organizations, responsibility with limited authority, or competing 

values and priorities.

 • Encourage continued professional development, including formal education to convey necessary skills or 

make the employee more competitive when applying for promotion.

 • Consider establishing formal training or certification programs to prepare employees for advancement. 

Such programs should be developed in consultation with subject matter experts and training and 

assessment professionals.

Communication, Feedback, and Support

 • Communicate the competencies needed to attain and succeed in higher-level roles. Often, technical 

expertise and personal effort will not suffice to complete projects and meet goals. Competencies such as 

project management, influencing/negotiating, and organizational awareness may matter as much as, or 

more than, technical competence.

 • Encourage employees to articulate career goals; provide feedback on the employee’s strengths and 

developmental needs in relation to the roles or positions that the employee is seeking.

 • Provide career counseling; inform employees of what is needed for further advancement to help them 

make informed decision about pursuing further education and development and making any personal 

sacrifices required.

Mentoring and Networking

 • Encourage the employee to seek a mentor who has worked in a leadership role.

 • Encourage participation in professional or management organizations, for both learning and leadership 

opportunities.
92 Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Career Goal/Stage: Advancement to a supervisory or managerial role

Recruitment and Selection

 • Encourage high-potential employees to consider seeking supervisory and managerial positions. Take care 

to avoid assumptions about an employee’s potential based on personal characteristics such as sex, marital 

status, religion, or life/family responsibilities that are not relevant to job performance.

 • Provide realistic job previews of supervisory, managerial, and executive positions.

 • Provide opportunities for employees to assess their interest in and aptitude for supervisory and leadership 

roles.

 • Give due weight to supervisory potential and competence in both assessment and selection.

 • Reexamine technical experience and skill requirements for supervisory positions, especially second-level 

and higher positions.

 • Use valid assessments when identifying high-potential employees and selecting employees for promotion. 

Consider the use of assessment tools such as job simulations (including assessment centers), work samples, 

and knowledge tests as additions or alternatives to evaluation of training and experience.

Development

 • Provide assignments, training, or other opportunities that help the employee acquire and demonstrate 

supervisory and leadership competencies such as conflict management, influencing/negotiating, and oral 

and written communication.

 • Provide rotational assignments to mission and management functions.

 • Encourage high-potential employees to consider participating in intra- or interagency training and 

development programs, such as SES Candidate Development Programs. 

 • Establish developmental programs for supervisory, managerial, or executive positions.

 • Be attentive to fairness when allocating opportunities for performance (such as high-profile assignments) 

and development (such as nominations for training programs).

Communication, Feedback, and Support

 • Provide focused feedback on assignments and competencies related to supervision and leadership.

 • Emphasize the differences between leadership roles and line/technical contributor roles.

• Describe competencies required for success in supervisory and leadership roles.

• Communicate the importance and limitations of technical competence and credibility.

 • Inform employees of any special expectations or requirements (such as travel, fixed or unpredictable work 

hours, or geographic mobility) associated with supervisory, managerial, or executive positions.

 • Accept that a high-potential employee may need to look outside the organization or agency for 

development or promotion.

Mentoring and Networking

 • Encourage the employee to seek a mentor who has worked in a leadership role.

• Encourage participation in professional or management organizations, for both learning and leadership 

opportunities.

Appendix H. Shattering the Glass Ceiling: Actions for Federal Agencies and Managers
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 93

Appendix I.

Career Advancement Suggestions 

for Federal Employees

This appendix provides suggestions for Federal employees seeking advancement, based on information 

discussed in the body of the report and additional data from our 2007 Career Advancement Survey 

(CAS). The information presented here has special relevance for women, because the representation 

of women at the highest levels continues to lag that of men, and because women are more likely than men to 

enter professional and administrative occupations from other occupations.113 However, the information and 

suggestions are applicable to any employees seeking career advancement.

Results from the 2007 Career Advancement Survey

In the CAS, we asked employees about whether they had, or did not have, certain experiences or attributes 

(“career factors”). We then asked employees to indicate how the presence or absence of the career factor 

had affected their career advancement. The CAS listed seventeen career factors (“career accelerators”) that, 

if present, might enhance promotability or accelerate advancement.114 Those factors fell into five broad 

categories: education and skills, experience, performance, relationships, and availability. The first table shows 

the career accelerators by category;115 the second table shows the prevalence of each career accelerator among 

upper-level respondents.116

113 As discussed in the report, internal entry from a non-professional/administrative occupation has several possible implications. First, 

an internal entrant’s experience may be less directly applicable to the new occupation than the experience of external entrants who 

possess occupation-specific specialized experience. Second, internal entrants—especially entrants to administrative occupations—are 

less likely than external entrants to hold four-year or higher degrees. Finally, because internal entrants tend to be older and have more 

years of Federal service than external entrants, they may have fewer years remaining (i.e., less time to advance) in their Federal careers.

114 The CAS also included an “other” factor which employees were asked to describe and several factors that would be non-merit 

factors in most circumstances.

115 Factors are paraphrased for brevity. Factors are assigned to categories to aid discussion and interpretation of the survey results; 

some factors could reasonably be assigned to more than one category.

116 The sample for the CAS was stratified by pay level (salary); at the time of the survey, the salary threshold used to define the 

highest salary group corresponded roughly to the GS-13 level. Survey responses for this group are shown more to provide the 

perspective of employees who have attained upper-level positions in the Federal service. 
94

Appendix I: Career Advancement Suggestions for Federal Employees

Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Table 16. Career accelerators and categories from the CAS 2007

Category Factors

Education and Skills • Formal educational qualifications

• Specialized or technical training

• Leadership or managerial training

Experience • Developmental assignments

• Lateral move—within the agency

• Lateral move—to another agency

• Extensive work experience

• Acting in a position

Performance • High quality past performance

• Willingness to take on challenging assignments

Relationships • Contacts who knew selecting official

• Supportive supervisor

• Mentor (other than supervisor)

• Professional networking

Availability • Willingness to work long hours

• Willingness to travel

• Willingness to relocate

Table 17. Prevalence of career accelerators among upper-level respondents, CAS 2007

Prevalence Career Factor

Universal 

(90% or more)

• Willingness to take on challenging assignments

• Willingness to work long hours

• Willingness to travel

• High quality of past performance

Very High

(80% to 89%)

• Formal educational qualifications

• Specialized or technical training

• Extensive work experience

High

(60% to 79%)

• Supportive supervisor

• Leadership or managerial training

• Developmental assignments

Moderate

(40% to 59%)

• Lateral move—within agency

• Acting in a position

• Contacts who knew selecting official

• Willingness to relocate

• Mentor (other than supervisor)

• Professional networking

Low

(Fewer than 40%)

• Lateral move—to another agency
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 95

Appendix I: Career Advancement Suggestions for Federal Employees

Importance of Career Accelerators

Some career accelerators were nearly universal, such as willingness to take on challenging assignments, which 

was claimed by 99 percent of respondents. Many were typical; most employees had them, now or in the past. 

Others, such as willingness to relocate, a mentor, and professional networking were less common.

Although prevalence varied considerably, respondents indicate that all the accelerators have the potential to 

aid career advancement. For every factor, over 60 percent of employees who possessed the factor indicated 

that its effect had been positive. However, that does not mean that every factor is equally important. Some 

factors appear to be essential; others may be desirable, or vary in importance depending on the organization, 

occupation, work situation, or the employee’s other factors. The table below groups the career factors by their 

perceived importance.

Table 3. Perceived importance of career accelerators among upper-level respondents

Importance Factors

Essential

Among upper-level employees, these factors are universal or nearly so; 

employees indicate the factor’s effect is strong (positive if present, negative if absent, or both); and the factor will be relevant to any upper-level 

hiring or promotion decision. An employee lacking the factor is almost 

certain to be at a serious disadvantage when competing for advancement.

• Willingness to take on challenging assignments

• High quality of past performance

• Willingness to work long hours

Important

These factors are important. They fall short of “essential” because many 

employees have obtained an upper-level position without the factor. 

However, employees indicate that the factor contributed positively to advancement, and the factor is relevant to performance or promotability in 

most organizations or occupations. In some situations, a particular factor 

may be essential for entry or advancement.

• Developmental assignments

• Supportive supervisor

• Mentor (other than supervisor)

• Formal educational qualifications

• Specialized or technical training

• Willingness to travel

Potentially Valuable or Important

These factors are potentially valuable. Employees indicate that their presence is typically positive and their absence may be negative. However, the 

importance and effect of the factor may be contingent on the employee’s 

career field, agency requirements, the employee’s skills, experience, or 

work situation, or other considerations.

• Leadership training

• Extensive work experience

• Acting in a position

• Contacts who knew selecting official

• Willingness to relocate

• Lateral move—within the agency

• Lateral move—to another agency

• Professional networking

Next, we briefly discuss the career factors and their relevance to advancement. The intent of this discussion 

is to help employees understand the potential benefits of an activity or attribute and decide whether it is 

essential or important to their career goals.

Willingness to take on challenging assignments and high quality of past performance. There is no substitute for 

commitment and contribution. Despite concerns about favoritism, CAS respondents clearly believe that they 

earned their current positions through their accomplishments.

Willingness to work long hours. Endorsement of this career accelerator does not necessarily mean that an 

employee must work 80-hour weeks and forgo work/life balance to advance; relatively few employees believe 

that agencies base promotion decisions on how many hours employees work. Another interpretation is 

that an employee must be willing to do what is needed to complete high-priority projects and challenging 

assignments. In most circumstances, it may be possible to perform at a high level while working reasonable 

hours and maintaining a boundary between work and personal life. But it may also be necessary, on occasion, 
96

Appendix I: Career Advancement Suggestions for Federal Employees

Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

to give priority to the organization’s needs. In organizations or occupations where work is especially timesensitive, those occasions may be quite frequent.

Developmental assignments. As discussed in the report, higher-level positions often involve new roles and 

competencies. Developmental assignments provide an opportunity for employees to develop and demonstrate 

those competencies and show that they can adapt to new stresses and responsibilities.

Supportive supervisor and mentor (other than supervisor). As stated in a previous MSPB report, “[employees 

should] appreciate the power and value of supervisors and mentors in career development. Employees who 

establish good working relationships with supervisors and mentors can enhance their access to developmental 

opportunities, communicate their interest in further advancement, and obtain valuable insights into their 

career options, strengths and developmental needs, and strategies for career growth.”117 A majority of 

employees who lacked a supportive supervisor viewed that absence as a hindrance.

Formal educational qualifications and specialized or technical training. Formal education may convey 

competencies and perspectives of enduring value. Employees seeking advancement, in both administrative 

and professional occupations, should seriously consider pursuing the education needed to put them on at least 

an equal footing with likely competitors. Specialized training and skills may be helpful in distinguishing an 

employee from her or his peers, both on the job and during competition for promotion. However, training 

and skills can become outdated or obsolete. Therefore, continuing education, through self-development, 

training courses, or professional networks may be necessary to maintain skills and visibility. Degrees and 

certificates may open doors, but they do not guarantee ascent to the top.

Willingness to travel. Even in positions that typically require little or no travel, occasional travel may be 

necessary to complete a challenging assignment, meet with high-level officials or stakeholders, or participate 

in a training program. Despite advances in technology and increasing acceptance of “virtual meetings,” there is 

not always a satisfactory substitute for a personal presence or a face-to-face meeting.

Leadership or management training. Research shows that supervisory and leadership roles require distinctive 

competencies and behaviors, in addition to a high level of proficiency in interpersonal skills, conflict 

management, and communication. Therefore, leadership and management training are likely essential for 

employees in, or seeking, supervisory and leadership roles. Even for employees who do not seek supervisory 

responsibilities, training in leadership-related subjects such as change management and conflict management 

may be useful.

Extensive work experience. Employees appear to indicate that, consistent with results from MSPB’s analysis 

of promotions, quality of experience matters more than quantity. Although some experience is needed to 

establish a track record and (for high-level positions) to meet qualification requirements, “more” is not 

necessarily better than “enough.” For example, extensive work experience may not be important in an 

emergent field, or extensive work experience may be less important for employees with outstanding credentials 

or a short but impressive resume.

Willingness to relocate. The importance of this factor may depend greatly on an employee’s ambitions, career 

field, and location. In some locations (such as the Washington, DC area and other metropolitan areas with 

a concentration of Federal installations), advancement opportunities may be ample; in others, opportunities 

will be scarce or nonexistent. Employees aspiring to an executive position should understand that geographic 

117 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining, Washington, DC, 

December 2009, p. 75.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 97

Appendix I: Career Advancement Suggestions for Federal Employees

mobility may be mandatory and that agencies typically have considerable discretion to reassign or relocate 

executives and other high-level officials.

Lateral moves, within the agency or to another agency. Relatively few employees had made a lateral move, but 

those who did so usually found it beneficial. Lateral moves may be particularly important when an employee 

needs skills or experience that cannot be readily acquired in the current position or line of work, or when 

promotional or developmental opportunities are lacking.

Acting in a position and contacts who knew the selecting official. These factors can help make an employee 

known to decision-makers. Observation of an employee, whether direct or indirect, may make hiring officials 

more confident about a candidate’s competencies and “fit” with the organization’s culture, improving the 

chances of selection. An acting assignment can also provide a realistic job preview and help an employee 

decide whether the acting position is a good fit for her or his interests and talents.

Professional networking. Professional networking can serve several purposes. First, it can support continuing 

professional education. Second, it can provide opportunities to assume leadership and technical expert roles. 

Third, it can signal an employee’s commitment to the profession or career field and increase an employee’s 

visibility. Finally, it can provide resources for both day-to-day work (through access to a community of 

practice) and career development. Although professional networking may be especially important in fields 

such as science, engineering, and medicine, it may also be useful in other fields.

Differences in Career Accelerators between Women and Men

Women and men differed little on most career factors. There were some exceptions, which are summarized 

below.

Table 19. Differences in career factors between women and men

Prevalence For the following factors, there was a difference of six or more percentage points 

between the percentages of women and men indicating that they had the career factor.

More women than men had these factors—

• Mentor (other than supervisor)

• Developmental assignments

• Lateral move—within agency

• Lateral move—to another agency

Fewer women had these factors—

• Formal educational qualifications

• Willingness to relocate

Effect Women reported a stronger effect118 than men for the following factors:

• High quality of past performance

• Supportive supervisor

• Developmental assignments

• Lateral move—within agency

• Lateral move—to another agency

The reasons for these differences are not completely clear; they may include differences in occupation, career 

path (e.g., timing and method of entry into the current occupation), work/life issues and how they are managed, and approaches to career development and advancement. One possibility is that more women than men 

have followed a nontraditional career path—for example, entered an occupation in which members of the 

opposite sex predominate, or entered a professional or administrative occupation from a technical or clerical 

occupation—and that the factors listed above assume increased importance when trying to “break in” to a 

career field or organization.

118 Compared to men, more women who had the factor reported that it had positively affected their career, more women who did 

not have the factor reported that its absence had negatively affected their career, or both. 
98

Appendix I: Career Advancement Suggestions for Federal Employees

Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements

Summary

There is no single route to career success. The importance of a particular career accelerator will depend on the 

employee’s career goals, previous education and accomplishments, and the unique requirements and demands 

of an employee’s organization, occupation, and position. But clearly, any employee seeking advancement 

should demonstrate—through performance, expressions of interest, and personal development—readiness for 

higher-level responsibilities. Any employee seeking advancement should identify the specific requirements for 

success in her or his chosen career field and strive to meet them.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

PRST STD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

WASHINGTON DC

PERMIT NO. G-113

Women in the 

Federal Government:

AMBITIONS AND

ACHIEVEMENTS

MAY 2011