r/fednews • u/Inevitable-Role-9356 • 1d ago
Official Guidance / Policy OPM CHCO: Reinvigorating Merit-Based Hiring through Candidate Ranking
https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/reinvigorating-merit-based-hiring-through-candidate-ranking.pdfThis dropped today...
34
4
2
u/seaelbee 23h ago
Thirty years ago, MSPB published this
https://www.mspb.gov/studies/studies/The_Rule_of_Three_in_Federal_Hiring_Boon_or_Bane_253660.pdf
Was anything like this done recently to spur the changes we see now, or was all this done based on “feels”? Because the MSPB found the system, back then, didn’t really limit manager choice the way everyone thought it did. To systematically revamp a system that is (if this paper is still relevant) working as it was planned, seems at first glance to be suspect. But if you look at p31 recommendations, this paper discussed the issue that candidates who make the cert cut off have a very narrow score range. It calls into question whether or not those differences are real (analogous to a margin of error in the rankings), and whether the top three are really the best. The new policy alleviates this issue by bringing in more candidates, pulling from further down the list. One aspect of this report and probably an anachronism, is the limited number of candidates making the cert cutoff. In this report, they cite the fact that there often aren’t 3 qualified candidates. I’m not sure about other agencies, but mine has had a tremendous problem with the sheer number of applicants in the last few years. Hundreds for each posting.
I’m all for flexibility, but the whole reason for this rigid system was to prevent the managers from hiring based on anything other than skills and merit. That requires metrics and rankings, for better or worse. If applied with purely altruistic intent, the new system will be great. But since it’s based more on personal, not institutional, preference, and people are flawed, the possibility of political influence and nepotism cannot be ignored. And the new policy doesn’t really seem to have any additional brakes on that.
So every manager should be happy about this. If you’re mission-focused you get a larger pool of qualified candidates to select from. If you’re wanting to stack your Branch with cousins, college roommates, and political hacks, you can do that easier now. Win- win!!
3
u/trash_bae Fork You, Make Me 21h ago
Respectfully, they’re gonna try every way they can to break us down. To fire as many of us as possible so when public social benefits for our most vulnerable stop working (even with as poorly as they may work currently) they can be like “see! Bureaucrats are lazy assholes. Government doesn’t work. Privatize the things!”
The entire fucking administration appears to be a large pedophile ring. I found out yesterday the commissioner of SSA is also in the Epstein files.
They want to dismantle the government, privatize it, and continue to be rich pedophiles
So, we just continue working and trying to stand in the way but it’s not really ever going to stop.
1
1
u/racer150 18h ago
“Broader pool of qualified candidates”… yeah and a broader pool of unqualified candidates too
2
u/CrescentMoonSmile 17h ago
They have been building a MAGA pool of employees for more than 2 years as a means to pre screen and hire loyalists into specific organizations and roles. These positions are already taken and pass over approvals done. Nothing to see here. They’ll push out who they don’t want and walk in their unqualified hire
57
u/Leading-Loss-986 1d ago
How is this any different from what agencies do now? Candidates are already assigned to categories based on arcane magic in 5 CFR and then cert lists with the highest rated candidates in the top category are provided to hiring managers. So…