The probationary period of federal employment has in
many cases been reduced to a mere formality, the
Merit Systems Protection Board has said in a new report
arguing for its more effective use.
It said “an unwillingness to assess candidates, or
to act upon an assessment,” is an obstacle to using the
period and that it is necessary to regard probationers
as candidates rather than as employees with the full
protections of federal employment.
That could require “a dramatic shift in culture and
mindsets,” said the report.
Most supervisors — 70 percent of those surveyed for the
report — said some probationers should have to be
certified to convert to full federal employment, but
MSPB said the period is “not being used as a
tool to assess probationers to determine if an
appointment to the civil service is in the government’s
best interest.”
Further, it said many supervisors indicated they
were unwilling to remove probationers who were not an
asset.
“If agencies do not address problems during the
probationary period, the individual is unlikely to
depart afterwards,” according to the report.
It said just 1.6 percent of first-year competitive
service employees are separated from government service,
dropping to .5 percent over the next 20 years.
Removing a poorly performing probationer is not easy,
often requiring time-consuming improvement measures
before removal is even possible and supervisors often
feel pressured to hold on to the person or lose
the only worker available, MSPB said.
It said 65 percent of supervisors want to be able
to determine the length of a probationary period,
and that supervisors with trainees were twice as
likely to want a longer trial period, but that even
if Chapter 75 of 5 U.S.C. were changed to enable
that, after one year probationers would have full
appeal rights.
