Agencies Have Multiple Avenues Available to Address Employee Performance

In general, agencies have three means to address employees’ poor  performance, with dismissal as a last resort: (1) day-to-day performance  management activities (which should be provided to all employees,  regardless of their performance levels), (2) dismissal during probationary  periods, and (3) use of formal procedures. Formal Procedures Are Required to Dismiss Poor Performing Permanent Employees, but Related Processes Are Time and Resource Intensive

Generally, once an employee has completed a probationary period, if that  employee is a poor performer who does not voluntarily leave, an agency  is required to follow the procedural requirements under either 5 U.S.C. Overall, it can take six  months to a year (and sometimes significantly longer) to dismiss an  employee. Employees Facing Dismissal for Performance Reasons Have Certain Protections

In addition to the procedural requirements agencies must adhere to,  federal employees have additional protections designed to ensure that  they are not subject to arbitrary agency actions and prohibited personnel  actions, such as discrimination and reprisal for whistleblowing. If the  employee is unsatisfied with the final decision of the MSPB, the employee  may seek judicial review of that decision, generally with the United States  Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). Various Considerations Can Reduce Willingness to Deal with Poor Performance

A number of agency supports and constraints may reduce a supervisor’s  willingness to pursue dismissal or other action against a poor performing  employee. As depicted earlier in figure 1, the  time commitment for removing an employee under chapter 43 can be  substantial. Legal concerns. However, according to experts we interviewed, such separations  happen “all the time.” One CHCO we interviewed estimated that a large  majority of his agency’s performance-related separations would be  considered voluntary retirements or resignations and other CHCOs  agreed that employees with performance issues are more likely to  voluntarily leave than go through the dismissal process. OPM Provides a Range of Tools and Guidance to Address Poor Performance but This Assistance May Not Meet All Agency Needs

Taking action to address poor performance is challenging for agencies,  due to time and resource intensity, lack of supervisory skill and training,  and other factors (as described earlier). However, agencies are not always aware of this material and in some  cases it falls short of their needs. Going forward, it will be important for  OPM to fully leverage existing information sources (such as survey  results) to inform decisions on what material to develop and how best to  distribute it. Effectively addressing poor performance has been a long-standing  government-wide challenge. To help supervisors make effective use of the probationary period for educate agencies on the benefits of using automated notifications  to notify supervisors that an individual’s probationary period is  ending and that the supervisor needs to make an affirmative  decision or otherwise take appropriate action, and encourage its  use to the extent it is appropriate and cost-effective for the  agency; and determine whether there are occupations in which—because of  the nature of work and complexity—the probationary period  should extend beyond 1-year to provide supervisors with sufficient  time to assess an individual’s performance. For those  recommendations OPM concurred or partially concurred with, OPM  described the steps it planned to take to implement them. OPM concurred with our recommendation to assess the adequacy of  leadership training for supervisors. We agree and have  clarified the recommendation accordingly. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We were asked to examine the rules and trends relating to the review and  dismissal of employees for poor performance. Our objectives were to (1)  describe and compare avenues for addressing poor performance,  including the formal procedures required when dismissing employees for  poor performance; (2) describe issues that can affect an agency’s  response to poor performance; (3) determine trends in dismissals and  other agency actions taken for poor performance since 2004; and (4)  assess the extent to which OPM provides the policy, guidance, and  training that agencies say they need to address poor performance. To determine how agencies are addressing poor performance and to  understand the practical issues various agency employees consider when  addressing poor performance, we interviewed OPM officials from the  Merit System Accountability and Compliance Office, Office of Employee  Services, and other offices that work with agencies to address poor  performance; the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) including the  Executive Director, representatives from the Office of Regional  Operations, the Office of Appeals Counsel, and an administrative judge;  selected chief human capital officers (CHCO) chosen for their particular  expertise in the issue area as identified through the Executive Director’s  Office of the CHCO Council and previous GAO work on related topics, the  National Treasury Employees Union, American Federation of  Government Employees, the Federal Managers Association, individual  members of the Federal Employees Lawyers Group, the Partnership for  Public Service and the Senior Executives Association. We also conducted a  literature review. Agencies are to use this information to make strategic decisions  about management.
Why GAO Did This Study

Federal agencies' ability to address poor performance has been a long-standing issue. Employees and agency leaders share a perception that more needs to be done to address poor performance, as even a small number of poor performers can affect agencies' capacity to meet their missions.
GAO was asked to examine the rules and trends relating to the review and dismissal of federal employees for poor performance. This report (1) describes and compares avenues for addressing poor performance, (2) describes issues that can affect an agency's response to poor performance, (3) determines trends in how agencies have resolved cases of poor performance since 2004, and (4) assesses the extent to which OPM provides guidance that agencies need to address poor performance. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed OPM data, and interviewed, among others, OPM and MSPB officials, selected CHCOs, and selected union officials.

What GAO Found

Federal agencies have three avenues to address employees' poor performance:
Day-to-day performance management activities (such as providing regular performance feedback to employees) can produce more desirable outcomes for agencies and employees than dismissal options. However, supervisors do not always have effective skills, such as the ability to identify, communicate, and help address employee performance issues.
Probationary periods for new employees provide supervisors with an opportunity to evaluate an individual's performance to determine if an appointment to the civil service should become final. According to the Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCOs) that GAO interviewed, supervisors often do not use this time to make performance-related decisions about an employee's performance because they may not know that the probationary period is ending or they have not had time to observe performance in all critical areas
Formal procedures —specifically chapters 43 and 75 of title 5 of the United States Code and OPM implementing regulations—require agencies to follow specified procedures when dismissing poor performing permanent employees, but they are more time and resource intensive than probationary dismissals.
Federal employees have protections designed to ensure that they are not subject to arbitrary agency actions. These protections include the ability to appeal dismissal actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) or to file a grievance. If employees are unsatisfied with the final decision of the MSPB or an arbitrator decision, they may seek judicial review.
The time and resource commitment needed to remove a poor performing permanent employee can be substantial. It can take six months to a year (and sometimes longer) to dismiss an employee. According to selected experts and GAO's literature review, concerns over internal support, lack of performance management training, and legal issues can also reduce a supervisor's willingness to address poor performance.
In 2013, agencies dismissed around 3,500 employees for performance or a combination of performance and conduct. Most dismissals took place during the probationary period. These figures do not account for those employees who voluntarily left rather than going through the dismissal process. While it is unknown how many employees voluntarily depart, the CHCOs that GAO interviewed said voluntary departures likely happen more often than dismissals.
To help agencies address poor performance, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) makes a range of tools and guidance available in different media, including its website, in-person training, and guidebooks. However, CHCOs and other experts said agencies are not always aware of this material and in some cases it fell short of their needs. Going forward, it will be important for OPM to use existing information sources, such as Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results, to inform decisions about what material to develop and how best to distribute it.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations to OPM to strengthen agencies' ability to deal with poor performers including working with stakeholders to assess the leadership training agencies provide to supervisors. OPM concurred or partially concurred with all but one recommendation noting that GAO's recommendation to explore using an automated process to notify supervisors when a probationary period is about to end is an agency responsibility. GAO agrees and has clarified the recommendation.