Firing the Unproductive Employee: Will Civil Service Reform Make a Difference?

• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X8200200208
• Date: 01 March 1982
• Published date: 01 March 1982
• Subject Matter: Articles

FIRING THE UNPRODUCTIVE EMPLOYEE:
WILL CIVIL SERVICE REFORM MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
Carolyn Ban
U. S. Office of Personnel Management
Edie N. Goldenberg
The University of Michigan
Toni Marzotto
Towson State University
Abstract
Civil service reform included a set of changes intended to facilitate the firing of consistently un-
productive employees. This article describes the background and logic of these changes, reviews
the status of their implementation, and offers preliminary evidence on their consequences for per-
sonnel management in the federal government.
Introduction
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) and associated reorganiza-
tions constitute the most significant effort to restructure the federal personnel
management system since the Pendleton Act a century earlier. The purpose of
the reform is to increase the authority of managers in a number of personnel
areas, while at the same time protecting employees against arbitrary personnel
actions.
This paper focuses on one key set of reform mechanisms, those changes in-
tended to facilitate the release of consistently unproductive employees. The
background and logic of the reforms are described and an update provided con-
cerning the status of implementation and results thus far. Although four years
have elapsed since the passage of the Act, we have limited experience with many
central reform provisions which have only recently been fully implemented.
Nevertheless, the general dimensions of reform consequences are becoming clear.
* The authors wish to thank the following people for their assistance: Wilma Lehman, Tom Johnson,
and Charles Gossett. The views expressed are those of the authors and not the official position
of the Office of Personnel Management. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the
Annual meeting of the Mid-West Political Science Association, Chicago, 1980.
87

---

Reform Background, and
Changes
The Nature of the ~~°®bl~
a
The of
the President’s Personnel Project
The authors of the President’s Personnel Management Project which
provided the basis for much of the Civil Service Reform Act, identified a number
of problems with the federal personnel system. One area they saw as having
problems was the firing of unproductive employees. On the one hand, they
recognized a number of factors which deterred managers from taking actions
against poor performers. On the other hand, they were concerned about the
possibility of arbitrary or political abuse in such actions. Correcting these prob-
lems simultaneously is difficult because of the inherent tension among them. 1
For example, expanding managers’ authority provides more opportunity for
abuses. Conversely, guaranteeing due process can lead to excessive delays and
rigidity. Nevertheless, civil service reform includes a variety of provisions de-
signed to address these problems.
1.
Factors deterring managers from taking actions against poor performers
While supervisors always had the authority to remove or demote poor per-
formers, they avoided doing so for a number of reasons identified by the Per-
sonnel Management Project (PMP) report (1977: 40). The first problem area
was procedural. The PMP saw a lack of adequate procedures for identifying
poor performance, and for taking appropriate action once poor performance
had been identified. The second problem area was the complexity and protracted
nature of appeals procedures, which inhibited managers from taking actions.
The third problem was the attitudes and behaviors of supervisors and managers
themselves. Some supervisors failed to counsel employees at an early stage or
to explain how they could improve their performance. Other supervisors great-
ly over-extended their efforts to counsel or reassign employees, but were un-
willing to fire employees whose performance did not improve.
2.
or
political abuse
The authors of the PMP (1977: 52) recognized that providing greater flex-
ibility to managers in this, as in other areas, brought with it the potential for
abuse. At the same time, they noted that &dquo;the complexity and red tape which
now surround personnel management processes may serve as a refuge for the
incompetent and yet do little to prevent abuses motivated by politics, cronyism,
or special interests. What is needed is a reorganization which will reduce the
red tape on one hand and which will provide strong and effective merit protec-
tion on the other.&dquo; The PMP
also expressed concern about past abuses, some
of which were politically motivated, and stated that &dquo;The Civil Service Com-
mission has not been able to provided adequate protection against these abuses.&dquo;
88

---

The Nature of the Reforms
s
The reforms contained in the Act designed to address these problems focus-
ed upon four concerns.
1.
I’rocedures for apprczising performance crnd for taking actions based on poor
performance
Civil service reform requires every agency to develop new procedures for ap-
praising their employees’ performance. These sytems are based on the employees’
actual activities, rather than on traits or personal characteristics. While each
agency may develop an appraisal system to meet its needs, each system breaks
an individual’s appraisal down into specific job elements and standards against
which performance is rated. These elements and standards are developed by
the supervisor, ideally with the employee’s participation.
Prior to reform, one set of procedures for downgrading or removing a federal
employee applied, regardless of the reasons for the action. This set of procedures
was termed &dquo;adverse actions.&dquo;2 The reform created new procedures, &dquo;actions
based on unacceptable performance,&dquo; linked to the new performance appraisal
systems. The intent was to make it easier to dismiss employees for poor per-
formance than it had been previously. Each performance appraisal system re-
quires supervisors to designate some performance elements and standards as
&dquo;critical.&dquo; Under the new procedures, employees can be dismissed or demoted
if their performance on one or more critical elements is unacceptable. This is
a significant change, since managers no longer must consider employees’ per-
formance as a whole; rather, individuals can be fired or demoted if they fail
to perform acceptably on any single critical element. Civil service reform also
requires a lesser standard of proof for actions based on unacceptable
performance.
1
2.
Improving the appeals process
Reform in the area of appeals focused both on streamlining the process, and
on enhancing the legitimacy of the employee appeals process. The authors of
the PMP report (1977: 40) saw the &dquo;incredible length&dquo; of the appeal process
and its extreme complexity as &dquo;one of the greatest deterrents in Government
to discharging employees whose performance is unsatisfactory.&dquo; The Reform
Act attempted to address this problem in several ways, first by reducing the
number of levels of appeal available,...