the lectern banner

By Steve Kelman

Blog archive

Do federal managers play favorites in career advancement?

The Merit Systems Protection Board recently issued a report, titled Fair and Equitable Treatment:  Progress Made and Challenges Remaining (wow -- the folks at MSPB seem to be taking a leaf from the title writers at GAO!)  that is attracting attention for a survey of federal employees asking whether supervisors show favoritism in making promotion decisions. 

An article on the survey by Alyssa Rosenberg in has drawn 109 comments (!) online, as of this writing, and is listed as one of the Web site's most popular articles. MSPB conducted the survey in 2007, and found that 72 percent of federal employees said promotions were based on who they knew, while just 40 percent cited competence as a reason for advancement, and 36 percent believed the key factor to be hard work.
There are really good reasons to take these findings with a huge grain of salt in terms of how well they represent the actual behavior of supervisors. A really well-established finding in social psychology is that people have "positive illusions" (to use the phrase of Professor Shelley Taylor of UCLA, who has investigated the phenomeon most extensively) about themselves. In area after area, most people -- generally around 70 percent --  think they are above average, which of course is statistically impossible. (Technically, 70% could be above average if "average" means the mean, but it's a safe guess that most people are intuitively answering the question using the median as their benchmark -- the performance of the person in the fiftieth percentile of the population.) Most people think they are above-average drivers and above average in interpersonal skills. And a simliar 70 percent of employees believe they are above-average employees.

These (honest) perceptions create a built-in problem for any workplace decisions -- including promotion decisions (and pay for performance) -- that require managers to affirm that some employees are better than others. Most people turned down for promotion genuinely believe they are above-average and deserved to be promoted. So it's natural that when they aren't promoted, they blame something other than that they weren't as good as the person who got the job. The most obvious candidate is "favoritism."

An indication of how inaccurately many perceive the grounds for promotion is the finding from the survey that 31 percent of respondents thought promotion decisions were influenced by nepotism, which must be absurd given the tiny percentage of supervisor relatives who work in workplaces. Although I predict that this blog post will incite disagreement and maybe even insults, I still believe that nobody should conclude from these survey results that favoritism is a rampant problem in federal workplaces. Sure, one may assume that most supervisors like the person selected for promotion more than the ones they didn't choose, but in most (though obviously not all) cases, a supervisor has no real reason to like or dislike an employee other than job performance.
There are two caveats to this. First, don't take these thoughts as a ringing vote of endorsement for federal supervisors. As I suggested in a recent FCW column, the quality of first-line supervision is often a real problem in the government, and a target for reform. Surely there are supervisors who really do play favorites, without concern about workplace performance, although I am confident the problem is of nowhere near the magnitude this employee survey suggests. 

The second caveat is that positive illusions are a fact -- people genuinely do often think they are better than they are -- and therefore must be taken into account in designing workplace systems. This suggests, for example, that employee evaluations (and possible pay for performance) be based on objective performance measures to the extent possible, rather than subjective judgments about hard work or good attitude. It is probably also the reason why many local governments have, unlike the federal government, traditionally based promotions on objective factors such as length of service, which, however, I think is a cure worse than the disease.

Posted by Steve Kelman on Feb 02, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Who's Fed 100-worthy?

Nominations are now open for the 2015 Federal 100 awards. Get the details and submit your picks!


Reader comments

Thu, May 10, 2012

The federal government advancement system is who you know and how much coffee and pizza you can fetch for agency managers.It doesnt matter what agency.the pay is the only thing that makes people show up.

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 Observer Jr.

The comment set is almost certainly not a statistically representative cross-section, but it suggests strongly that federal employees: dislike their environment quite a bit and are very cynical; they mostly believe promotion based on merit or performance is a crock; dislike their management. Worst of all: they expect no change and have negligible hope of fair and equitable treatment. The only good news, from allusions to demographics, is that the commenters tend to be near retirement.

Wed, Feb 10, 2010

Favortism is blatant in my office as well. My supervisor provides much more help to one employee than all the rest he supervies put together while giving her top ratings and rest average or below. Yes, many think that they may be having an affair. Despite multiple complaints to management above him, those upper managers act like nothing is wrong. Since there are stories of those upper managers also having affairs and using their positions to try to promote their own favorites, you can see why those other complaints go nowhere. I do not see it everywhere in my orginization, but it is prevelant - at least where I work and others have told me they see the same at other offices.

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 Erich Darr

Dear Steve, Do you realize that you can only have incompetent 1st line supervision, if the management above them is incompetent as well?

Tue, Feb 9, 2010

You seem to be incredibly naive if you think favortism is an illusion. The most blatant occurs when contractors become govies and then hire other contractors as each govie slot opens whether or not the new appointee has any expetise in govie operations or mgmt decisions.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above