Category Archives: Guiding Principles: Federal HR

Trying Out for a Federal Job

Posted on by
Reply

A new MSPB report explores how using job simulations can improve your assessment practices.

The federal government is experiencing a surge in interest from potential applicants and agencies are reporting unprecedented numbers of applicants. This could be the result of current economic conditions or it could be the President’s appeal and his determination to make Government “cool” again.

As the number of applicants rise and as hiring reforms are initiated, agencies need to be careful to use good assessment tools that will help distinguish the most qualified applicants. Job simulations may help accomplish this goal. MSPB’s recent report, Job Simulations: Trying Out for a Federal Job, defines a job simulation as an assessment that presents applicants with realistic, job-related situations and documents their behaviors or responses to help determine their qualifications for the job. Job simulations include but are not limited to work samples, situational judgment tests, assessment centers, and job tryout procedures.

Job simulations can be an effective tool to evaluate applicant qualifications. They have many advantages. They tend to have higher predictive validity than other typical assessments, meaning they should be better at predicting future job performance. They can also provide a realistic job preview that helps applicants determine if the job is well suited to their knowledge, skills, abilities, and interests. Because job simulations replicate the tasks performed in the actual job, studies have found that applicants are more likely to view them as being fair and job-related. Finally, research has generally demonstrated that job simulation assessments have lower rates of adverse impact, as well as a lower degree of exposure to discrimination law suits based on the selection procedure.

Job simulations do have their drawbacks, though. In particular, they can be costly because they require more expertise to develop than simpler assessments. They also may require more staff and training to administer and score the results. In addition, while job simulations can be used to assess multiple competencies, a single simulation exercise will often focus on a limited number of tasks or duties performed on the job. Finally, some job simulations are not suited to all jobs because they require the applicant to already have a certain level of knowledge, skills, or abilities to complete the assessment.

Job simulations, therefore, may not work in every situation. That is why it is important for agencies to have a good grasp of the job for which they are hiring, the competencies needed for that job, and knowledge about what assessments would best fit their specific needs. MSPB’s report provides a strategy agencies can adapt that will help them determine what assessments would best fit their hiring situation.” v

[Reprinted from Issues of Merit, a publication of the Office of Policy and Evaluation , U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. To view the full MSPB report, go to www.mspb.gov and click on “MSPB Studies.]

 What do you think? What are the advantages/disadvantages of using this assessment practice at your agency?

Improving Performance through Fair Treatment of Employees

Posted on by
Reply

 

So, what actions can agencies take to foster a fair environment in which employees can and want to do their best work? Here’s a brief overview of some of the necessary steps.

  1. Conduct a thorough workforce analysis. This analysis should identify workforce requirements, including identifying where representation lags behind the available workforce and possible barriers to a fully representative workforce.
  2.  Ensure that human resources policies and practices do not create barriers to merit-based selection, recognition, advancement, and retention. For example, agencies should use a balanced set of recruitment strategies and hiring authorities. Selection criteria should be clearly job-related, with assessment strategies that are well-designed and carefully implemented. Additionally, the diversity and depth of the resulting candidate pool should be examined at each stage of the process to identify any unintentional impacts.
  3. Select supervisors with care and assure that they exercise their authority in a fair and transparent manner. Agencies must recognize that the supervisor employee interface represents one of the most critical points at which employees can experience fair—or unfair—treatment. Therefore, supervisory selection and accountability are critical. Supervisors may also need training, as well as the time, to fairly and effectively manage their employees.
  4. Earn the confidence of employees through daily decisions and routine interactions. It isn’t sufficient for supervisors to feel that they are treating employees fairly. They must earn employee confidence through their actions—whether giving assignments, constructive feedback, training opportunities, performance ratings, awards, and pay raises. All workforce decisions should be based on merit factors—matching individual abilities and performance to organizational requirements. Relying upon less rigorous assessments that can’t hold up to external scrutiny has the potential to seriously undermine employee engagement and subsequently, organizational performance.
  5. Ensure employees have knowledge of and access to effectual redress procedures, such as grievance and EEO complaint processes. Although these procedures serve as a safety net to guard against misuse of authority or mistreatment of employees, agencies should work to avoid getting to this stage by maintaining high standards as discussed in the points above.

Reprinted from Issues of Merit, a publication of the Office of Policy and Evaluation , U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. More details can be found in the report, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining, found at www.mspb.gov/studies.

What do you think? Are there other actions that agencies should take so that employees can do their best work?

Making Merit-Based Personnel Decisions: The Critical Manager–HR Partnership

Posted on by
Reply

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?

Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

Posted on by
Reply

In a newly released report, the MSPB examines the federal government’s progress toward achieving a representative workforce and treating all employees fairly. The assessment is based on an analysis of statistical data and federal employee perceptions of their experiences and treatment in the workplace.

The MSPB found that  progress has been made. First, the federal workforce has become more diverse, in keeping with the federal government’s commitment to recruit and retain a workforce from all segments of American society. Second, an increasing percentage of federal employees perceive that they are treated fairly, and a decreasing percentage believe that they have experienced discrimination on factors such as ethnicity/race, gender, and age.

Nevertheless, challenges remain. For example, the percentage of minorities at higher levels of pay and responsibility (such as General Schedule grades GS-14 and GS-15 and the Senior Executive Service) remains below their rate of employment at lower levels. In addition, may employees believe that personnel decisions are often based on factors other than merit, such as favoritism.

As Chairman Grundmann stated, “Fairness–and an engaged, high-performing workforce–require more than the absence of discrimination and prohibited personnel practices. It is essential for agencies to ensure that their HR policies and practices do not create barriers to merit-based selection, advancement, recognition, and retention. We also remind agencies that safeguards and employee protections are a critical component of decentralized, flexible HR systems.”

MSPB research also confirmed the importance of employee actions to achieving a representative, high-performing workforce. Data  from an MSPB survey on career advancement shows that applicants and employees can do much to improve their prospects for success on the job and for promotion. Federal employees reported that challenging work assignments, a good working relationship with a supportive supervisor, and formal education and on-the-job development could pay substantial dividends. Accordingly, the report includes recommendations for federal employees who seem advancement within the federal service.

http://www.mspb.gov/studies/browsestudies.htm

What do you think? What does your agency do (or what additional things do you think they should do) to ensure that all employees are treated fairly in the federal workplace?

Unifying the Civil Service

Posted on by
Reply

[The introduction and report excerpts below are from the Partnership for Public Service 2014 report, Building the Enterprise: A New Civil Service Framework.]

The American federal civil service system, the foundation for effective government, is in crisis.

Designed more than 60 years ago, the personnel system governing more than 2 million workers is a relic of a bygone era, reflecting a time when most federal jobs were clerical and required few specialized skills, and when the government’s role in society was smaller and far less complicated. The world has changed dramatically, but the civil service system has remained stuck in the past, serving as a barrier rather than an aid to attracting, hiring and retaining highly skilled and educated employees needed to respond to today’s domestic and global challenges.

The way forward: A transformed civil service

Unlike the private sector, the government’s success is judged by how it serves the broader public interest, promotes the general social welfare and protects society and its citizens. The federal government also aspires to be a model employer and an example for others, with a long and respected tradition of placing a high value on merit, nonpartisan independence, preference for our veterans, equal employment opportunity and nondiscrimination, due process and collective bargaining.

A modernized civil service system should continue to be based on these long-held principles. It should have the consistent policies and procedures and level playing field that are characteristics of a single enterprise, but also be flexible and adaptive enough to accommodate the wide variety of agency missions, cultures and constituents.

The system should be designed to more easily attract, hire, promote and retain the best qualified employees, and place greater attention on the development of leaders. It should be based on state-of-the-art human capital practices and have a total compensation system that is occupation specific and market-sensitive. And it should have career paths that support progression and job mobility, and be designed to reward performance, not just time on the federal payroll.

Unifying the Civil Service  [report excerpt]

Do you agree with the report’s premise that, “A modernized civil service system should continue to be based on these long-held principles” and that “In addition to the core principles, a reformed civil service system must be bounded by a set of governmentwide human capital policies and procedures that are common across all agencies—policies and practices that are so fundamental that they must apply regardless of mission or circumstance.” Why or why not?

The Impact of Veterans’ Preference Laws on Federal Hiring

Posted on by
Reply

The federal government’s complicated and layered rules about hiring military veterans has created the perception of unfair and preferential treatment, which has in turn negatively impacted employee engagement, according to a new MSPB report.

In his article in Government Executive, Eric Katz summarizes the report in which MSPB opines that agency management should do a better job explaining the various veterans’ preference laws to their workforce to reduce the perception of impropriety. It noted, however, such an endeavor is easier said than done: “Of course, internal and external education would be easier if the rules were simpler.”

How Veterans’ Preference Laws Are Dragging Down Federal Hiring

Do you agree with MSPB? Would the perception of impropriety be reduced if management (and HR as their representative) do a better job explaining veterans’ preference laws to the federal workforce? Do you think HR staff are trained adequately regarding the complex rules on veterans’ preference so that they can explain these rules adequately?