The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent, quasi-judicial agency that operates as part of the federal government's executive branch, and is, according to its website, "the guardian of federal merit systems." Jim Read is the agency's director of policy and evaluation, leading the creation of reports for Congress and the president that come from empirically gathered data.

About Jim Read

Jim Read is the director of policy and evaluation at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, or MSPB, a position he's held for about three years. MSPB focuses on the health of the federal government's merit-based employment system, conducting research and drafting reports for Congress and the president. Most of his time at the agency has been spent in adjudication, from staff attorney to supervisor, then chief counsel to the chairman. He is now the director at MSPB's headquarters.

Read started about 25 years ago—after graduating law school—as a clerk for a federal judge. He moved into private practice before ending up at MSPB, where since 2013 he has led the office that performs the studies function.

What do you hope to accomplish in your role?

I have two immediate goals. First, later this year, MSPB will invite about 120,000 federal employees to share their insights and experiences on a broad range of topics. The results, coupled with information from other research, will support multiple studies.

Second, MSPB's current chair, Susan Grundmann, is nearing the end of her term. I expect that sometime next year a new president will appoint a new chair of MSPB, and I would like to see the studies program in as strong a position as possible at the time of the change. For the adjudication function, board members decide the cases that the parties file; however, the number, scope, timing, and subject matter of studies to a great extent will be up to the next chair. MSPB's current chair has been very supportive of the studies function, and I want the program to thrive under the next chair as well.

What are a few insights you've gleaned during your time in the federal government?

Early on I was struck by how much responsibility managers confer on highly motivated subordinates who may not have many years of service. You're not going to be giving high-level briefings or testifying on the Hill in your first year, but you might contribute to a high-level briefing or congressional testimony.

This leads to another phenomenon. Employees who accept tough, but important, assignments that no one wants will advance. My advice to anyone starting in government is to seek out those assignments and do them well. Building a resume with a logical progression of roles in an organization or among different organizations will pay off.

I also have learned that the best leaders listen to their staffs and are not afraid to entertain conflicting viewpoints. I work with a group of intelligent, creative employees who care about what they do. I don't always follow their advice, but I do make sure to hear what they say.

Can you give a brief overview of the responsibilities of your job?

I oversee a staff of industrial organization psychologists, HR experts, an attorney, a statistics specialist, and others, who conduct empirical research and then draft reports to the president and Congress on the health of the federal government's merit-based employment system. To give you a flavor of our reports, we have recently studied topics such as the fairness and openness of the federal hiring system, employee engagement, retaliation against whistle-blowers, veterans' rights in federal employment, and training and development for senior executives. Upcoming studies will address dealing effectively with poor performers, the health of the HR workforce, and sexual harassment.

I am not a free agent. The presidentially appointed members of the MSPB, a bipartisan body, approve the reports before they are released. My staff and I love to talk about our work, and we frequently do outreach events.

How did your past experience prepare you for your current position?

I like to joke with my colleagues on the adjudication side of MSPB that they have the easier job. When MSPB issues a legal decision, the parties have no choice but to obey, whereas the power of MSPB's study reports depends on their persuasiveness. Seriously, though, in my time working in adjudication I saw over and over how a difficult work situation, if not handled well, can morph into a legal dispute. No one wants that. Ideally, the observations, recommendations, and best practices discussed in MSPB's study reports can contribute to a more harmonious workforce that gets better results for the nation.

I would also like to think that my background as an attorney gives me a good understanding of the policymaking process, which is important in my current position because, ultimately, one of the goals of the program I run is to affect policy.