Issue Briefs

Following is an article from a recent MSPB publication warning against repeating the same mistakes the last time the government downsized.


In the 1990s, the Federal Government downsized a considerable portion of its workforce using such strategies as attrition, buy-outs, earlyout retirements, and some reductionsin- force. It then went through a period of limited hiring during which agencies were not able to develop much bench strength in their key mission-critical and support occupations. As the Government likely faces another period of downsizing, we need to take a look at the lessons we can learn from the 1990s experience.

First, organizations have to make more strategic decisions about what positions they will fill and at what levels. In the 1990s, a popular reduction strategy was “last in, first out” in which agencies focused on retaining their most experienced employees and de-emphasized the need to fill lowergraded training positions. This strategy contributed to an aging workforce with a limited pipeline of talent and predictions of a “retirement tsunami” in which critical Government functions would not have been able to keep up with mission requirements.

In addition, many critical support occupations were ultimately pretty well decimated and had to be rebuilt in the early 2000s. For instance, the number of Federal Human Resource (HR) professionals was reduced by 20 percent between 1991 and 1998. Both HR and line managers complained that the expertise of HR Specialists had eroded.

Therefore, when agencies did start to increase hiring in the early- to mid- 2000s, there was a steep learning curve for some HR staffs.

For this reason, careful thought needs to go into what positions are critical to the agency’s performance. While retaining expertise is important, so too is building bench strength for the future. While cutting support positions often seems to be the easiest cuts to make in a resourcedeprived environment, agencies need to plan for how they will fill the voids left by those reductions.

A second important lesson is that selection processes matter. When hiring officials are approved to fill a vacancy during a period of downsizing, it is critical to fill it with someone who will be highly successful. If a bad selection is made, hiring officials may not get a second chance to rectify the situation. There are several steps agencies can take to improve the effectiveness of their recruitment and selection processes.

A good recruitment and selection process starts with having a good understanding of the job. Prior to advertising the vacancy, hiring officials should identify what they expect from the person filling the position and ensure that the job description accurately reflects the expectation and requirements of the job. This information will convey a clear description of the job duties and talent requirements for successful performance.

Based on this input, hiring officials can work with their HR specialist to develop a recruitment strategy that targets qualified applicants. This strategy will likely differ depending on the type of job. For general skills, a more broad-based recruitment approach might work, or alternatively you may need to target your recruitment sources for more specialized occupations. Providing potential job applicants with a realistic job preview of what will be required in the job and the conditions under which they will work (e.g., position telework eligible, amount of travel required, night work only) may help narrow the applicant pool to those who are a good match for the organization.

The most critical step is choosing assessments that will best identify high potential employees. Our research has demonstrated that agencies have historically often used ineffective assessment tools, such as low level training and experience measures. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has been working with agencies to improve these assessments. Ultimately, hiring officials and HR specialists need to have a better grasp of what assessments are better predictors of future performance and use those instruments to assess candidates. For instance, structured interviews are much more predictive than unstructured interviews and provide more in-depth detail about the applicant’s competencies for the job.

We have also found that, when performed correctly, reference checks can be a valid and useful component of the assessment process (see our report Reference Checking in Federal Hiring: Making the Call, 2005).

Since many assessment tools rely on information reported by applicants (e.g., resumes, occupational questionnaires, interviews), reference checks may be needed to verify the information provided, as well as to assess job-related competencies not adequately assessed through other means.

Although a well-planned recruitment strategy and careful use of multiple assessment tools can go a long way in providing hiring officials with valuable information about candidates, they do not guarantee a good selection. For this reason, it is important for hiring officials to monitor the performance of a new employee during the probationary period to assess how well the employee performs the job. If there are any concerns about performance, the probationary period is the time to address and resolve them.

While staff reductions are generally a painful experience, this focus on strategic workforce decisions and good assessment strategies will help minimize the shrinking pains.