Following is a summary of a recent MSPB report looking at fairness in federal hiring and advancement policies.
In the past 30 years, there have been significant changes to the Federal workforce and the broader labor market from which it draws—the civilian labor force. As articulated in the merit system principles, the Federal Government is committed to the goals of a representative Federal workforce and to Federal agencies which manage their employees fairly and develop and deploy their talents effectively. Therefore, it is important to assess the Government’s progress towards achieving the stated ideals. The MSPB, which is responsible for evaluating and reporting on the health of the Federal civil service, conducted this study to assess the Federal Government’s progress in meeting these goals, with particular attention to representation, career advancement, and the perceived fairness and integrity of personnel practices and decisions. With regard to representation, we examined the availability of various groups of workers in the civilian labor force and compared the presence of these groups in the Federal workforce over a period of significant demographic change in our Nation. We also reviewed Federal employee opinions over time, including those reported in our 1996 Fair and Equitable Treatment Report, and other survey data. Our findings and recommendations are based on demographics and trend data on the civilian labor force and the Federal workforce, measures of Federal employee opinion, and previous research.
Findings
Progress has been made. First, the Federal workforce has become more diverse, consistent with the Federal Government’s commitment to recruit and retain a workforce that reflects the Nation’s diversity. Second, an increasing percentage of Federal employees believe that they are treated fairly, and a decreasing percentage believe that they have experienced discrimination on factors such as ethnicity/race, gender, and age, indicating progress toward managing all Federal employees on the basis of merit and in a manner free from prohibited personnel practices. Nevertheless, the ideals of a fully representative workforce and fair treatment of all employees have not been wholly realized. Although a statistical analysis of the Federal workforce confirms that diversity has increased, that analysis also shows that progress has been uneven. For example, the Federal Government continues to employ Hispanics at a rate below their availability in the civilian labor force (CLF). Also, the percentage of minorities at higher levels of pay (e.g., General Schedule grades GS-14 and GS-15) and responsibility (e.g., supervisory and executive positions) remains below their rate of employment at lower levels. These differences are the result of a variety of factors, including occupational and educational patterns, as well as other possible influences, such as the legacy of past discrimination or other socioeconomic disadvantages. Similarly, although a decreasing percentage of employees believe that they have experienced prohibited discrimination, many employees believe that personnel decisions are often based on factors other than merit, such as favoritism. Moreover, survey data indicate that a substantial group of employees lack confidence in both existing redress procedures (such as the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint process) and the willingness or ability of Federal agency leaders to take appropriate action against managers who discriminate or misuse their personnel authority. Below, we briefly summarize our findings on specific aspects of fair treatment and career advancement.
Promotion rates. Promotion rates are generally comparable across lines of ethnicity/ race and gender, but some differences persist. Statistical analysis indicates that those differences are driven primarily, although not exclusively, by factors such as occupation, education, and experience. The analysis also suggests that the value of factors such as education and experience depends more on relevance and quality than on sheer quantity. For example, we found that supervisory experience from an earlier position makes little difference in initial advancement but gains importance at higher levels.
Fostering advancement. As in 1996, minority employees remain more likely to report a lack of career-enhancing opportunities, such as serving as an “acting supervisor.” Employees in ethnic/minority groups also continue to express less confidence than White employees in agency promotion processes. That lack of confidence may be reducing the diversity in candidate pools and, as a consequence, diversity at higher levels. In our surveys, employees sometimes indicated that they had chosen not to apply for a position because they believed the manager (or agency) would not select someone of their ethnicity or race for the position. Although fewer employees reported such a decision in our 2007 survey, the proportion of employees who “opted out” of a competition under the belief that applying would be pointless is not negligible—as high as one in five for some demographic groups.
Employee strategies for career advancement. Although employees continue to express serious reservations about promotion processes and decisions, employees also reported that Federal agencies and managers can and often do promote employees based on accomplishment and ability, and that individual initiative matters. When asked about factors that had aided their advancement, employees gave high marks to: (1) finding a supervisor or mentor who could provide career advice and developmental opportunities; and (2) seeking and successfully completing challenging assignments to “get noticed” and develop a good track record. Employees also recognized that education and training are the foundation for advancement in many occupations.
Views on the impact of ethnicity and race. Survey results show a dramatic decrease in the percentages of employees who believe that they have recently experienced discrimination on the basis of their ethnicity or race. Nevertheless, a considerable percentage of employees still feel that their ethnicity or race has hindered their advancement or otherwise disadvantaged them. Also, employees appear to be less aware of—or less inclined to believe in—discrimination against employees of a different ethnicity or race. Such differences in opinion have significant implications for personnel policy and practice. In particular, they create the potential for disagreement and discord over matters such as the prevalence and severity of discrimination in Federal agencies, the appropriateness of giving agencies and managers greater discretion in hiring and pay, and the need for measures to prevent and address prohibited discrimination. Concerns about favoritism. Decreases in the proportion of employees who believe that they have experienced prohibited discrimination have not been matched by increases in the proportion of employees who believe that personnel decisions are fair and merit based. Substantial percentages of employees believe that managers engage in favoritism when selecting employees, allocating work and developmental opportunities, and granting awards. It is not realistic to expect every employee to accept every less-thanoptimal personnel decision, such as not being selected for a promotion or the denial of a request for training, as fair, just, and merit-based. Nevertheless, continued employee perceptions of favoritism are a serious concern, given their pervasiveness and their corrosive effects on the credibility of agency leadership, the perceived integrity of personnel decisions, and the efficiency and effectiveness of agency human resources (HR) systems (including, but not limited to, hiring, performance management, and pay).
Recommendations for Federal agencies
Improve measurement. Efforts to improve representation and fair treatment may be unfocused or unproductive unless agencies have a clear understanding of the goals to be achieved, their performance in relation to those goals, and how their personnel policies and practices are promoting or hindering attainment of those goals. Agencies should conduct a thorough workforce analysis, such as the analysis required by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Management Directive 715. That analysis should clearly identify: (1) workforce requirements; (2) areas (such as organization, occupations, or grade levels) where representation lags behind the civilian labor force; and (3) possible barriers to a fully representative workforce. The analysis should also be used to develop strategies for eliminating those barriers. Agencies should also evaluate critical HR processes and policies, and that assessment should examine effects on employees at different levels and in different demographic categories, in addition to other measures such as cost, timeliness, and contribution to organizational and employee performance.
Ensure that HR policies and practices, at both the organizational and individual level, do not create barriers to merit-based selection, recognition, advancement, and retention. Seemingly neutral policies and practices can unintentionally overlook or disadvantage members of certain demographic groups, including those who are highly qualified or high-performing. Below, we outline some measures agencies should consider in specific areas of human resource management.
* Recruitment. Use a balanced set of recruitment strategies, complementing “passive” recruitment methods such as posting jobs on USAJOBS and agency websites with active methods such as job fairs, targeted advertisements, and tapping into professional networks. Seek balance when selecting and using appointment authorities, recognizing that recruitment methods or eligibility criteria for a particular authority may limit the diversity or depth of the resulting candidate pool.
* Assessment and selection. Ensure that selection criteria are job-related and do not impose unnecessary requirements or inappropriately favor internal or “connected” applicants. Assess critical skills, such as analytical ability and writing, through direct measurement, rather than relying upon indirect indicators, such as education or credentials. Develop and use structured rather than unstructured assessments to improve the consistency and quality of hiring decisions and to minimize the possibility that decisions will be influenced by unconscious or unwarranted assumptions about candidates. Evaluate the diversity of both applicants and new hires to evaluate the success of recruitment efforts and the effects of assessment criteria and methods.
* Supervisory selection and training. Emphasize the human resources management aspects of supervision when advertising supervisory positions and base selection decisions on supervisory competence or potential. In addition to improving selection, train supervisors on their responsibilities, to increase their ability to make unbiased, merit-based personnel decisions.
* Training, development, and career advancement. Remind supervisors that how they allocate work assignments, training, and developmental opportunities can expand and accelerate—or constrain and slow—their employees’ growth and advancement. Because critical, high-visibility projects, acting supervisor assignments, and selection for developmental programs can provide employees with valuable skills and enhance their confidence and visibility, agencies should allocate these opportunities with due attention to fairness and the long-term goal of developing a diverse pool of capable employees, not merely based on expediency or management’s “comfort level.”
* Retention. Devote appropriate resources to orientation and training of new employees, to enhance their initial performance and job satisfaction and reduce the likelihood of unwanted turnover. Use mechanisms, such as employee surveys and exit interviews, to identify problems that may contribute to unwanted turnover.
Emphasize to supervisors their influence over—and responsibility for—the career development of the employees they supervise. Supervisors’ power extends well beyond formal personnel actions. Supervisors are appropriately accountable for timely, high-quality products and services and responsible use of resources. However, supervisors should not permit day-to-day demands, expediency, or limited budgets to overshadow their responsibility to support the professional development and growth of all their employees. Supervisors should take particular care to ensure that coaching, constructive feedback, and training and development are available to all employees, not only a favored few.
Strengthen processes for identifying and rectifying unfair treatment, including accountability for supervisors who misuse their authority. Delegated authorities must be accompanied by safeguards. The first safeguard is transparency—establishing and communicating bases for personnel decisions, both before and after decisions are made, to supervisors and employees. The second safeguard is having procedures for identifying and resolving unfairness and inequity in the workplace. In addition to informing employees of their rights, agencies should seek to increase confidence in the effectiveness of existing redress mechanisms (e.g., grievance and EEO complaint processes). Those mechanisms should be complemented by organization-wide processes, such as employee surveys and program evaluations, to identify concerns that might go unraised or unresolved, at the individual level. The final, indispensable safeguard is accountability. Even in the presence of clear personnel policies and viable complaint procedures, employee trust in agency leaders will be guarded, at best, if employees believe that those leaders will tolerate misuse of authority or mistreatment of employees.
Ensure that managers understand that personnel decisions must be based on merit factors—that is, the ability to perform the job. However, agencies need to be alert to the potential impact of nonmerit factors such as ethnicity/race and gender when monitoring workforce patterns. The recommendations outlined above require a delicate balancing act from Federal agencies and Federal managers. On the one hand, agencies must be conscious of nonmerit factors, such as ethnicity/race and gender, when conducting high-level analyses of the workforce and of personnel programs and practices. On the other hand, managers must be scrupulous in ensuring that those same factors do not influence personnel decisions. Instead, managers must focus on organizational needs and individual abilities and performance—not group identity—when filling jobs, establishing and communicating expectations, assigning work, evaluating performance, recognizing excellence, and holding employees accountable.
Recommendations for Employees
Employees should understand the long-term implications of their decisions in matters such as education, occupation, geographic mobility, and willingness to take on challenging projects and to assume supervisory and leadership roles. Not all jobs are equal in terms of upward mobility. Some occupations have much more limited career paths, and employees may find it difficult to obtain supervisory positions from certain occupations. Employees should recognize that what suffices for initial advancement and routine salary progression—conscientious completion of assigned tasks, satisfactory performance, and acceptable conduct—is insufficient to earn advancement to higher levels. Accordingly, we recommend that employees who desire advancement, or who seek professional growth and high regard in their current roles:
* Take the initiative to seek or create developmental opportunities;
* Strive to develop a productive relationship with their supervisors or other mentors;
* Request and accept opportunities to demonstrate exceptional performance and initiative; and
* Understand that continuous learning and formal education and training have gained in importance, reflecting the increasing complexity of Federal work and the professionalization of the Federal workforce.
Summary
Many of the patterns we observed, in both Federal employment and Federal employee attitudes, reflect two conditions in the United States. The first is rapid demographic change. As the U.S. population has become more diverse, so has the Federal workforce. However, because of its stability and distinctive occupational mix, change in the Federal workforce has lagged behind change in the broader civilian labor force. The second is historical inequities in the allocation of opportunities for both education and employment, which can impact qualifications for Federal jobs. Yet, the merit system principles do not permit Federal agencies to simply accept those inequities. Instead, the merit system principles require Federal agencies to strive for a workforce that is representative of all segments of American society and to select, develop, and advance employees on the basis of merit, without regard to factors such as gender, ethnicity or race. Thus, Federal hiring policies must be both race- and gender-neutral. Achieving a representative, competent, and motivated workforce—and equal opportunity and protection for all—requires more than avoiding prohibited discrimination. This report outlines steps that Federal agencies, as well as current and prospective Federal employees, can take to achieve those goals.