Employees and managers skeptical of merit promotion process

Almost everybody involved in the federal merit promotions process has doubts about its effectiveness, according to a new Merit Systems Protection Board study. MSPB compiled information from several different surveys for its report The Federal Merit Promotion Program: Process vs. Outcome, in an effort to find out how well the merit-based promotion system works. Employees, managers and unions doubt that the merit-based process yields the best candidate for the job, MSPB found. In fact, only 45 percent of employees in one survey believed that supervisors promote the best-qualified candidates, and a "significant portion" of supervisors said the process does not help them pick the best person for the job, MSPB found. Nearly half of those surveyed believed they had been passed over for a promotion. Employees tend to believe that promotions are based less on an applicant's potential and more on loyalty to a supervisor, the study said. "One major complaint of employees with regard to the merit promotion process is usually not that the person selected instead of them was not qualified, but rather that the competition itself was a sham," MSPB found. "Employees know that this frequently occurs and clearly resent it." Surveyed employees named job performance, potential to perform the new job and loyalty to the organization as factors that should be considered in promotion decisions. However, supervisors said they were less concerned about rewarding employees for their service to the government and more interested in getting the best possible person to fill the vacancy. While supervisors reported they were satisfied with the candidates they selected for promotions, most did not credit the merit promotion process for that success. When filling positions, supervisors look in-house first. Most admitted that they usually have a candidate in mind even before the position is posted. In fact, 71 percent of the supervisors surveyed said there was less risk of making a mistake if they chose an applicant whose work they were already familiar with in some way. "The point is that when supervisors have an opportunity to observe a person's work they often do have a valid basis on which to make a judgment of that person's ability to perform a similar higher level job," the report said. Both employees and supervisors complained that the merit process takes too long to fill vacancies, a problem that supervisors blame on slow service from human resources offices. "Tasks that are the responsibility of the servicing human resources office account for a significant amount of time in the merit promotion system," MSPB found. Employees and supervisors also agreed that the cost to the government of using a merit-based promotion system was excessive. According to MPSB, the federal government spends an estimated $238 million a year on the merit process, not including administrative support costs. "With our cost estimates in mind, we would say that our survey respondents certainly had a point when they agreed with our survey statement that announcing a vacancy when the supervisor already knows the person who will be selected is a waste of time and resources," the report said. To make the program more effective, MSPB recommended that federal agencies develop new approaches for assessing job applicants, and share information with employees about potential promotion opportunities and the criteria used to make promotion selections. "Consideration should be given to allowing supervisors greater authority to promote employees in their organizations without using formal competitive merit promotion procedures," MSPB said. Human resources offices need to assess the current process and suggest improvements. A shift to career ladder promotions and broad band pay systems may also help streamline the process, while ensuring it remains fair, MSPB said.