Manage Your Career Around the Potential Hazards of Favoritism, Discrimination and Harassment

Transcription

1 Manage Your Career Around the Potential Hazards of Favoritism, Discrimination and Harassment Federally Employed Women National Training Program July 15, 2015

2 Goals of Presentation Quick overview of MSPB s mission and the MSPs and PPPs. Current status of employee perceptions: Discrimination Harassment vs. MERIT Favoritism Impacts on individuals and organizations. Strategies for neutralizing these hazards.

3 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Mission Protect the Merit System Principles and promote an effective Federal workforce free of Prohibited Personnel Practices. Adjudication Review of OPM Significant Actions Merit System Studies

4 How Does MSPB Conduct Research? Literature Review Analysis of Federal Workforce Data Interviews Agency Questionnaires Employee Surveys Discussion Groups

5 Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 Promote a more efficient civil service while preserving the merit principle in Federal employment. Pendleton Act of 1883-ended spoils system CSRA Codified MSPs and PPPs Reorganized Civil Service Commission MSPB/OSC, OPM, FLRA Gave EEOC Federal workforce responsibilities

6 Merit System Principles Themes Fairness Recruitment of qualified, representative workforce Fair and open competition Employment decisions based on qualifications/merit (w/o discrimination) Protection Selection/promotions, pay, awards, education/training, retention/separation Political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, disability. From partisan politics & personal favoritism From reprisal against whistleblowing Appropriate use of resources Effective and efficient management of employees High standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest

7 Organizational Success at MSPs Successes Weaknesses Prevent & rectify discrimination High standards conduct Pay employees fairly Recruit diverse pool of candidates X Poor performers X Favoritism X Efficiency X Selecting best qualified employees Source: U.S. MSPB, 2010 Merit Principles Survey

8 Perceptions of Merit System Successes Prevents prohibited discrimination 66% Holds employees to high standards of conduct 64% Pays employees fairly 63% Recruits a diverse pool of applicants for job vacancies 61% Rectifies prohibited discrimination 60% Puts the public interest first 60% Provides employees with necessary training 60% 57% 58% 59% 60% 61% 62% 63% 64% 65% 66%

9 Perceptions of Merit System Challenges Selects the best qualified candidates 39% Eliminates unnecessary functions and positions 29% Does not engage in favoritism 28% Addresses poor performers effectively 24% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

10 Perceptions of Most Prevalent PPPs Improperly Defined Scope of Hiring Action Nepotism Improper Employment Recommendations Discrimination-Race Obstructed Right to Compete Discrimination-Sex Retaliation for Exercising a Right Discrimination-Age Discrimination-Off-Duty Conduct Retaliation for Whistleblowing Influenced Withdrawal from Competition Discrimination-Disability Discrimination-National Origin Violated Veterans' Preference Discrimination-Marital Status Discrimination-Political Affiliation Discrimination-Religion Pressure for Partisan Politics Self Self/Other 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

11 Why Should Agencies Care About Employee Perceptions? Inconsistent with core values (MSPs/PPPs) Utilization of talent Respect for supervisor/credibility Working relationships Work satisfaction/engagement Motivation Agency performance Resentment toward coworkers Increased turnover Time lost due to conflict management

12 Source: Deloitte, Waiter, is that inclusion in my soup? A new recipe to improve business performance, November 2012 Diversity & Inclusion = Performance Increased Performance Confidence Diversity Inspiration Inclusion: Driven by perceptions of 1) Fairness and respect 2) Value and belonging

13 Discrimination Career Hazards Harassment What When Where Favoritism Who Why

14 Employee Perceptions: Discrimination Percentage of employees indicating denial of a job, promotion, or pay increase on the listed basis. Source: U.S. MSPB, Merit Principles Surveys.

15 From FY : EEO Complaint Trends Completed counseling, complaints filed, complainants Most frequently alleged bases (FY 2012): Reprisal/Retaliation Age Race Black/African American Most frequently alleged issues (FY 2012): Harassment Non-Sexual Promotions/Non-Selection Terms/Conditions U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, FY 2012 Annual Report on the Federal Work Force, Part 1 Complaints Processing Statistics, August 19, 2014.

16 Harassment EEOC definition: Unwelcome and offensive behavior directed at a person due to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40+), disability or genetic information or as retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint or assisting another with a complaint. Unlawful when 1) a condition of continued employment or 2) severe or pervasive. Impacts target of behavior and those who observe the behavior. See

17 Sexual Harassment Harassment MSPB studies: 1981, 1988, : 44% of women; 19% of men Nonsexual Harassment Fair & Equitable Treatment: 1996, 2009 Workplace Aggression Intimidating or abusive behavior Workplace Violence: 2012

18 Employment Life Cycle Separations Recruitment Advancement Selection Recruitment Incentives Retention Incentives Telework Flexible Work Schedules Awards Social Interactions Work Assignments Discipline Adverse Actions Reassignments Geographic Relocations Performance Appraisals Pay Training & Development Acting Supervisor Tuition Assistance/Reimbursement

19 Employee Perceptions: Fairness During the past 2 years, have you been treated fairly in Source: U.S. MSPB, 2010 Merit Principles Survey.

20 Employee Perceptions of Unfair Competition 30% 25% 20% 15% Unfair advantage given to another Discouraged from competing Influenced to withdraw Denied a job due to nepotism 10% 5% 0% Source: U.S. MSPB, Merit Principles Surveys

21 Advancement: What Do You Believe Matters? Think about your organization. How would you respond to these statements? (Agree? Disagree? Both? Neither?) People are promoted because of their competence. People are promoted because of who they know. Source: U.S. MSPB, 2007 Career Advancement Survey.

22 Advancement: What Matters Most? People are promoted because of Source: U.S. MSPB, 2007 Career Advancement Survey.

23 Why Not Selected? Preselection Another candidate better qualified Not a friend or relative of manager Insufficient education Manager did not like me Age (too old) I don't interview well Ethnicity/Race Sex Lacked great references Past performance Past conduct Family responsibilities Age (too young) Other 63% 43% 30% 29% 29% 29% 26% 20% 16% 15% 13% 10% 9% Disability, marital status, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation. 84% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Source: U.S. MSPB, 2007 Career Advancement Survey.

24 Perceptions of Favoritism and Nepotism MSPB, Federal Merit Systems Survey, questions 3a, 3e, 10b and 10c. MSPB, Fair and Open Competition Survey, items.

25 Our Definition of Favoritism When a selecting official or supervisor grants a benefit to one applicant or employee, but not to another similarly situated applicant or employee, for reasons other than a legitimate or merit-based reason to: 1) any applicant for employment (including defining the scope or manner of competition or the requirements for any position) for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any particular person for employment, or 2) any employee, such as in selection for work assignments, promotions, telework, flexible work schedules, reassignments, geographic relocations, training or developmental opportunities, pay, performance appraisal ratings, awards, discipline, retention efforts, etc.

26 My Supervisor Has Demonstrated Favoritism Through:

27 Discussion Topic What Leads to Suspicions of Favoritism?

28 Audience Poll: Root Cause(s) of Favoritism For each statement, select your level of agreement. If you believe favoritism occurs, why do you think it happens? Supervisors do not understand what s required to fairly and effectively perform their supervisory role. Supervisors value friendships/loyalty over competence. There aren t good tools for making personnel decisions. U.S. MSPB, Federal Merit Systems Survey, questions 11a-11c.

29 Why Favoritism Occurs: Employees Views MSPB, Federal Merit Systems Survey, question 11 (statements paraphrased).

30 Familiarity with the MSPs and PPPs 100% 90% 80% 70% 77% 80% 89% 92% 74% 77% Familiar with the Merit System Principles 60% 50% 40% 30% Familiar with the Prohibited Personnel Practices 20% 10% 0% All Supervisor Nonsupervisor

31 Potential Causes of Perceived or Actual Favoritism Cause Possible Contributors Intentional Misunderstanding of role Ignorance of policy Discrimination Corruption Unintentional Unequal playing field Unconscious bias / heuristics Poor decision criteria Measurement error Poor decision tools Misunderstanding Opacity (lack of transparency) Criteria Processes Outcomes and rationales Evolving norms and practices Differing views of merit Differing judgments

32 Potential Sources of Misunderstanding Expectations Understanding of merit Competencies Performance (results) vs. behaviors and methods (process) Service and tenure Relationships Organizational citizenship Fit: skills, personality, work unit, organization HR rules and processes

33 Appropriateness of Factors Influencing Promotions Quality of experience/technical competence 98% Recognized potential Education/training 90% 93% Dedication 84% Performance in process 79% Length of experience 67% References/contacts 47% Professional relationships - peer Professional relationships - lower level 35% 33% Professional relationships - higher level Professional relationship - selecting official 14% 18% Physical attractiveness Personal relationship - selecting official 3% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

34 Comparison of Reasons Employees Are and Should Be Promoted Quality of experience/technical competence Recognized potential Education/training Dedication Performance in process Length of experience References/contacts Professional relationships - peer Professional relationships - lower level Professional relationships - higher level Professional relationship - selecting official Considered? Physical attractiveness Personal relationship - selecting official 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

35 Range of Fairness in Selection Competitions Fair? Unfair Competition Based on Competencies Proper Procedures Followed Possibly Influenced by Subtle Cues Management Flexibilities Exercised Influenced by Favoritism, Nepotism, Discrimination, Prejudice

36 What Should You Do?

37 Discuss with Your supervisor What Should You Do? The selecting official Colleagues/mentors Employee organization Human Resources Management EEO Change supervisors/organizations Consider contacting the Office of Special Counsel

38 Was the Decision Merit-Based? Merit-Based Competency Technical General Managerial Competition Better skills Better match? Process limitations Selection risk Fit with culture Fit with supervisor Learning curve Non-Merit-Based Impersonal Preselection Favoritism Policy Personal Discrimination Dislike Retaliation

39 Ask for Feedback Did you apply for a job that you weren t selected for? 33% Yes No 67% Did you request feedback? 29% 58% 13% Yes Neither No Did you receive helpful feedback?

40 Discussion Topic Advancement in Your Organization What does your organization reward (or penalize)? What has contributed to your success? Have you encountered any impediments? What advice would you give others?

41 Employee Views: Decelerators and Accelerators Lack of Mentor Supportive supervisor Developmental assignments Formal education Disability Accent Mentor Supportive supervisor High performance Challenging assignments Extensive work experience Contacts Specialized training Formal education Opportunity to act Source: U.S. MSPB, 2007 Career Advancement Survey.

42 Discussion Topic Work Relationships and Advancement How have your work relationships influenced your career? How do work relationships affect personnel decisions? Should that change? What work relationships should be cultivated? Avoided or discouraged?

43 Influence of Relationships Two Sides of the Same Coin? Fundamentally Good or Bad or Neither? Professional or Personal? Work-Related or Not? Referral vs. Influence of Others? Mentoring vs. Sponsoring?

44 Work Relationships: Different Types Employee Peer Subordinate Supervisor Formal, Defined roles and responsibilities Established by the organization Driven by authority Network Mentor Sponsor Member Less formal Voluntary Negotiable roles and responsibilities Supervisor Employee Employee Employee Driven by influence, shared interests, mutual benefit Member Member Mentor Mentee Mentee Mentee Mentee Mentee Member Member

45 Supervisors

46 The Impact of Supervisory Behaviors on Perceptions of Fair Treatment

47 Supervisor Priorities Compared to Employee Perceptions Producing high quality products and services Supporting the agency's mission Building relationships with higher level officials Building relationships with peers Building relationships with direct reports Treating employees fairly Supporting employees' careers 45% 42% 46% 40% 68% 61% 62% 55% 71% 95% 91% Supervisor Employee 83% 93% 86% Obtaining a promotion 20% 28% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

48 Selecting Official s Dilemmas How much risk am I willing to take? Known quantity, safe, okay quality Unknown quantity, risky, excellent potential Should I base the decision on: What s good for me personally (comfort level) What s good for team ( fit ) What s good for organization/mission What should I tell nonselectees?

49 Supervisors Consideration of Fit

50 Role of HR

51 What contributes to perceptions of unfairness? Staffing decisions may be Made without sufficient care or rigor. Made by supervisors who lack necessary skills, information, or training. Poorly communicated. Employees believing that they are overlooked, excluded, or devalued. Changes in Human Resources roles and staff. HRM systems are increasingly complex.

52 Human Resources Perspective: Frequency of Debatable Actions Applicant influenced to withdraw from competition Hiring process seemed to circumvent veterans preference Selective factor provided an unfair advantage Open period of vacancy announcement intended to provide an unfair advantage Duties crafted to provide an unfair advantage Qualifications crafted to provide an unfair advantage Grade level chosen to provide an unfair advantage Rarely/never Sometimes Always/most of the time Area of consideration intended to provide an unfair advantage Asked to readvertise because someone was not on the certificate Selecting official has someone in mind prior to advertising 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: U.S. MSPB, Fair and Open Competition Survey, 2011.

53 Assessment Tools Flexibility Ability to withstand scrutiny Ease of use Effort required Speed Low cost Validity/Reliability High cost

54 What Should Employees Do? Manage your career actively Appropriately leverage professional relationships Seek honest feedback and strive to improve If you see something, say something.

55 As an HRM Employee, What Should You Do? Advise supervisors in support of MSPs/PPPs. Work with supervisors to identify jobrelated criteria and build this into recruitment, selection, performance mgt. Take appropriate action if witness violations of MSPs/PPPs.

56 What Should Supervisors Do? Honor spirit and intent of MSPs/PPPs. Seek HRM advice when needed. Base decisions on work-related criteria, not feelings or relationships. Exercise transparency if possible. Maintain two-way communication with employees: abilities, interests, goals, performance. Treat all employees with respect.

57 What Should Agency Leaders Do? Communicate strong support of MSPs and avoidance of PPPs. Select supervisors based on their ability and willingness to manage employees fairly and effectively. Provide supervisors with MSP/PPP training. Hold supervisors accountable for PPPs. Provide employees with information on MSPs/PPPs.

58 What Should Agency Leaders Do? Identify and correct problems Discrimination, favoritism, nepotism Deficient supervision Improve inclusion Become aware of assumptions See potential Distinguish business needs from organizational habits and personal preferences

59 Yes-Intentional Yes-Unintentional No Supervisor Willful Violation Ignorance Merit-Based Possible Responses Accountability Education-MSPs/PPPs Education: Biases, Supervisory Behavior, HR Guidance Transparency Employee Recognizes PPP Suspects PPP Other person more qualified Possible Responses Human Resources Possible Responses Multiple Perspectives on PPPs Change supervisors/ organizations Contact the OSC Network Self-Development Education-MSPs/PPPs Self-Development Willful Violation Gray Area No problems Selection and Accountability of Supervisors Education-MSPs/PPPs Is a PPP Occurring? Education: Biases, Supervisory Behavior, MSPs/PPPs HR Guidance No action needed

60 Keep in Mind Multiple perspectives on potentially ambiguous situations can make it challenging to determine whether PPPs have occurred Achieving the ideals of the Federal merit system requires effort by employees, HRM, supervisors and agency leaders

61 May You Always Win Your Competitions And if you can t, then may at least your competitions be fair.

62 For Additional Information MSPB Studies ListServ Subscribe to the MSPB Studies Listserv , x V/TDD:

63 Subscribe to the MSPB Studies Listserv