Comment from Anonymous

Regarding OPM-2026-0067, I encourage you to make federal employees eligible for positions two grades above them after a specified period of time (I suggest two or three years), rather than doing away with time-in-grade requirements altogether. I am a federal civil servant, expressing my views as a private citizen. I have a Master of Public Health degree from Columbia University and a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University, with a major in Regional and Comparative Studies and a certificate in International Development. Prior to my federal government service, I worked at a multilateral development bank, for which I traveled frequently to Latin America and the Caribbean as I provided technical assistance (advising and capacity-building) to national and city governments in that region. Through my work and study, I have observed that one of the greatest differences between well-functioning countries that offer a high quality of life, and lower income countries that are beset by poverty and violence, is the quality of their government institutions, including and especially a competent, ethical civil service. Building and maintaining a competent, ethical civil service involves many components, including fair, merit-based hiring, performance rating, and promotion practices; career stability and protection from political interference; relevant training; and appropriate incentives. It is important that civil servants be compensated well enough and be provided sufficient opportunities for career growth to attract highly competent workers and provide a viable alternative to corruption, but not so much that the civil service attracts individuals primarily motivated by money and personal gain. The type of individuals we want to attract and retain in the civil service are not those whose main motivation is to get rich (or powerful) quickly, but those who recognize they always have more to learn, are willing to build their knowledge, skills, and abilities over time, and build wealth slowly. Eliminating time-in-grade requirements altogether may attract or advance unscrupulous individuals whose primary goal is immediate personal gain, or narcissistic individuals with an inflated sense of their own abilities rather than the humility to learn over time through experience. Equally concerningly, it risks putting people in positions they do not have the experience to perform competently. That said, the current time-in-grade requirements are problematic as they can prevent even the most competent employees from advancing when there are no positions in the grade directly above them available in their area, forcing them to transfer to an area where they may have less experience in order to advance or languish for years in a position in which little further professional growth is possible for them. It also means that when a position becomes available at a particular grade, it is often filled by someone at the same grade level who has little experience in the particular subject matter or operational area, rather than by someone two grades below the grade of the vacancy who may have many years of experience in that particular subject or operation and much more relevant qualifications for the position. In other words, the current time-in-grade requirements result in a loss of institutional knowledge and growth in particular areas as agencies must fill the positions with staff at the same grade or one grade lower, often from outside of a given subject matter or operational area, especially in organizational units where there are fewer employees at higher grades than lower ones, which is common. The current time-in-grade requirements create bottlenecks for growth and limit the pool of well-qualified applicants. Making federal employees eligible for positions up to two grades above their current grade after two or three years in grade would greatly reduce bottlenecks for the advancement of excellent employees, incentivize high performance and accomplishment among federal workers, expand the pool of well-qualified candidates available for consideration for a position, and reduce the loss of institutional knowledge from transitions, while keeping safeguards in place to help ensure that staff have the experience needed to execute their duties competently and de-incentivize individuals primarily looking to get rich or powerful quickly from joining or staying in the civil service. My proposal avoids the pitfalls of both the proposed and current approach, and I hope you will consider it seriously. Ultimately, I think we can all feel comfortable with a well-qualified, experienced GS-13 employee advancing to a GS-15 role, but we should be concerned about a GS-7 employee immediately moving to a GS-15 role.