Managers and selecting officials are expected to decide personnel matters consistent with the merit system principles (MSPs) and to avoid the prohibited personnel practices (PPPs). The MSPs and PPPs state clearly what selecting officials should consider (e.g., relative ability, knowledge, and skills) and what they should not consider (e.g., political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, and disability) when making personnel decisions.

The MSPs and PPPs also make clear that it is improper to base personnel decisions on “personal favoritism” or nepotism (family relationships). Favoritism occurs when a selecting official or supervisor grants a benefit to one employee or applicant but not another similarly-situated employee or applicant for anything other than a legitimate or merit-based reason. Although it may seem like a straightforward responsibility, managers often face daunting challenges and difficult choices as they navigate the many decision points that are part of the typical recruitment and selection process.

Fortunately, although managers retain ultimate responsibility for their actions, they should not have to navigate these points alone or unaided. Human resources (HR) professionals (or those who perform this role in line organizations) play a critical role in ensuring that managers use HR flexibilities and their authority appropriately to make wise merit-based personnel decisions. HR professionals need to understand and accept this responsibility—and recognize that it may require them to initiate difficult discussions about a manager’s goals and motives, rather than the fine points of an appointing authority or an awards policy. They must also recognize and accept the potential for conflict, such as when a management official wants to achieve an outcome that threatens the integrity of the merit systems. Human resources professionals have a responsibility to educate managers regarding what an HR policy (such as a hiring authority) appears to permit and about their broader obligations regarding the public interest and the MSPs, as well as how their actions may be perceived (or misperceived) by employees and other observers.

For example, in a case called Special Counsel v. Lee and Beatrez, the Office of Special Counsel charged two human resources specialists with helping a supervisor to commit a PPP by deliberately cancelling a vacancy for which a desired candidate was not referred and re-announcing the position with an area of consideration that would be to the candidate’s advantage. In the end, Lee was found to have committed a PPP because he knew about the supervisor’s improper motive and deliberately helped her to achieve it, while Beatrez was found to have acted in good faith because the administrative law judge who conducted the hearing determined that Beatrez was unaware of the selecting official’s motives and was trying to get a list of generally better candidates to the selecting official.

This case demonstrated the extent to which not only managers but also HR professionals have an obligation to be careful when using hiring flexibilities. Although agencies do have the right to re-style and re-advertise vacancy announcements when adequate pools of qualified applicants cannot be found, this should not be done to circumvent the merit systems by wiring the announcement to suit a particular candidate. When used properly, hiring flexibilities can help management choose well-qualified employees in accord with the MSPs. However, when these flexibilities are manipulated in order to hire a specific person based on personal relationships rather than job-related qualifications, there may be many who suffer the consequences—the agency, the management official, subordinates and/or colleagues of the selectee, as well as the applicants who were not selected.

Overall then, it is prudent for managers, selecting officials, and other personnel decision-makers to partner with HR professionals to help ensure that their personnel actions are consistent with the MSPs and avoid the PPPs. Such partnerships will go a long way towards keeping the underlying intent of such actions grounded in merit.

[Reprinted from Issues of Merit, February 2013, a publication of the Office of Policy and Evaluation , U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.]

What do you think? Do managers, selecting officials, and other decision makers actively solicit the involvement of HR professionals to ensure the decisions they make are merit-based? Do HR professionals see themselves as partners in the process of merit-based decision-making? Do both parties understand the uniqueness of the federal merit system and work together to ensure its success?