Washington, DC

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code

---

Ana A. Mazzi
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


01/07/2025

---

Date

Finality of Decision

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision constitutes a certificate that is mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Government. The agency is responsible for reviewing its classification decisions for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure consistency with this decision. There is no right of further appeal. This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions and time limits specified in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards (Introduction), appendix 4, section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).

As indicated in this decision, our findings show the appellant’s official position description (PD) does not meet the standard of adequacy described in section III.E. of the Introduction. Since PDs must meet the standard of adequacy, the agency must revise the appellant’s PD to reflect our findings. The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected PD within 30 days of the date of this decision to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE) Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Supervisory Managing Editor (TV) (Russian), GS-1001-13, but she believes it should be classified at the GS-14 grade level. The position is assigned to the Russian Service, Eurasia Division, Programming Directorate, Voice of America (VOA), U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), in Washington, DC. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General Issues

The appellant makes various statements about her employing agency’s classification review process and evaluation of her position and compares her position to GS-14 positions in her agency. She states that her daily duties are commensurate with, and sometimes exceed, the requirements of numerous published USAGM PDs at the GS-14 grade and pay scale. In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of the appellant’s position. By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing her current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCSs) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112). Since comparison to PCSs is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant’s position to others that may or may not be properly classified, as a basis for deciding her appeal. Because our decision sets aside any previous agency decisions, the appellant’s concerns about the agency’s classification review process are not germane to the classification appeal process.

Like OPM, the appellant’s employing agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM standards and guidelines. The agency also has primary responsibility for ensuring that its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions. If the appellant considers her position so similar to others that they all warrant the same classification, she may pursue the matter by writing to her headquarters human resources office. In doing so, she should specify the precise organizational location, classification, duties, and responsibilities of the positions in question. If the positions are found to be basically the same as hers, the agency must correct their classification to be consistent with this appeal decision. Otherwise, the agency should explain to her the differences between her position and the others.

The appellant states that in the last three years she has been assigned numerous Personnel Services Contractors (PSCs), which require full-time management including preparing performance appraisals and, in some cases, doubling her workload.  However, volume of work is a factor which cannot be considered in determining the grade of a position (The Classifier’s Handbook, chapter 5).

The appellant believes the concept of the “impact of the person on the job” should be considered in determining the classification of her position. In her request to OPM, she states that she is uniquely qualified as an expert on Russia and the post-Soviet states, thus she possesses higher qualifications and stands out from other GS-13 managers. During OPM’s interview she explained that her work provides Russian-speaking people around the world with an image of America and its policies. She believes it is accomplished due to her decision making and supervisory abilities, and this should be considered when weighing the “impact of the person on the job.”

The concept of “impact of the person on the job” is addressed in both the Introduction and The Classifier’s Handbook. This concept holds that, by virtue of exceptional competence, an employee may have such an impact on the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements of a position that it is changed to the point where its classification must also be changed. However, the mere fact an individual in a position possesses higher qualifications or stands out from other individuals in comparable positions is not sufficient reason by itself to classify the position to a higher grade. When “impact of the person on the job” is a factor, the PD should clearly state the higher-level duties and responsibilities. Nevertheless, the position’s final grade must be based on comparison to grade level criteria in appropriate classification standards. In the appellant’s case, because of a position review, the agency added duties to her PD which the appellant believes support a higher grade level. We find that major duties described in her PD accurately reflect the scope of responsibility of the position. However, as addressed in this decision by application of the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG) the duties performed have not materially changed the final classification (grade level) of the position. Therefore, the concept of “impact of the person on the job” is not applicable to the appellant’s situation.

Position Information

The appellant and her immediate supervisor, who occupies a Supervisory International Broadcaster (Russian), GS-1001-14 position (with working title of Chief of the Russian Service), agree with the accuracy of the appellant’s PD of record number V220109. However, our review disclosed the appellant’s PD of record is not completely accurate because under the position’s “Supervisory Factor Level Descriptions” it overstates the purpose of her contacts described in Subfactor 4B, Purpose of Contacts, stating “Contacts are made to persuade other groups to cooperate; the incumbent must be skilled at persuading and dealing with individuals or groups.” This statement supports the agency’s assignment of Subfactor Level 4B-3. However, we find that the purpose of her contacts is limited to ensuring shared information is accurate including coordinating work with others outside the Russian Service and involves resolving differences of opinion among various parties. We found no indication that the appellant’s contacts require persuading other individuals or groups to cooperate.  Therefore, the appellant’s PD of record does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 11-12 of the Introduction, and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings for Subfactor 4B discussed in the Grade Determination section of this decision.

The mission of the USAGM is to inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy through its international media programs. The agency accomplishes its mission through its two federal networks: the VOA and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting; and four USAGM-funded grantees: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, and the Open Technology Fund. The VOA is the largest U.S. international broadcaster providing trusted and objective news and information in 48 languages to a measured weekly audience of more than 326 million people around the world (published on the VOA website at the time of adjudication of this appeal). The VOA pursues the agency’s mission by producing accurate, balanced and comprehensive reporting and programming, particularly to those who are denied access to open and free media. Its content is available on digital and social media platforms and traditional broadcast stations (Radio, TV) around the world.

The VOA’s Language Services has six regional divisions (Africa, Eurasia, East Asia and Pacific, Latin America, Persian, and South and Central Asia). The Eurasia Division is composed of the Albanian, Armenian, Bosnian, Georgian, Macedonian, Serbian, and Russian language services. The appellant is assigned to the VOA’s Russian Service of the Eurasia Division. The multimedia content of the Russian Service’s 24/7 Russian-language television and digital news network includes video streaming, social media native products, and expert media projects, providing important context and alternative viewpoints on important events in the United States, Russia and globally not presented by Russian-controlled TV and media outlets.

The appellant directs and oversees the development and production of the Russian Service’s live and recorded TV programs and features and incorporates TV content into various multimedia platforms (e.g., Facebook, YouTube, VOA website in Russian). Television programming and features include America, Itogi, Detali, and New York, New York, all broadcasted through the “Current Time” channel headquartered in Prague and produced by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in cooperation with the VOA. The appellant serves as liaison between the Russian Service and the channel and is the point-of-contact for making editorial decisions for all TV products including those involving complex, controversial and/or politically sensitive in nature.

Based on updated information received from the agency, the appellant now provides technical and administrative supervision to the following positions: one International Broadcaster (Multimedia)(Russian), GS-1001-13; one International Broadcaster (Online)(Russian), GS-1001-12; three International Broadcaster (TV/Online)(Russian), GS-1001-12; one International Broadcaster (Multimedia)(Russian), GS-1001-12; two Multimedia Specialists, GS-1001-12; and eight PSCs (i.e., five International Media Journalists, Level III, and three International Multimedia Journalists, Level II). She provides oversight and serves as a Contractor Officer Representative (COR) to nine stringers (i.e., Multimedia Reporters) located in the United States and overseas (i.e., Florida, New York, California, Latvia, Kazakhstan, and Georgia). She assigns work (appointing correspondents, hosts and producers) and oversees the operations during TV production. She reviews work products produced by her staff for accuracy, conformance to instructions, consistency with requirements for fair and balanced reporting, and adherence to the standards and principles of the “The VOA Charter.” She is responsible for quality control over video content distributed on all live sites, TV platforms and branded social media properties ensuring accuracy of language and corresponding visuals, and making editorial decisions for additional editing on special programs including TV marathons, series and documentaries as necessary. She deals with controversial and/or sensitive content and approves final content for TV news reporting and broadcasts.

The appellant reviews and evaluates news sources and developments to identify coverage items and discussion points likely to attract the target audience and generate the highest degree of engagement. She tracks and monitors available statistical data to make informed editorial decisions and improve messaging strategies. She coordinates with managers of language services and VOA Newsroom personnel on matters related to TV and multimedia content.

In reaching our classification decision, we carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and the agency including the appellant’s official PD which, although not completely accurate, we have incorporated by reference into this decision. In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and her immediate supervisor including follow-up requests for additional information from the appellant.

 Series, Title, and Standard Determination

The agency classified the appellant’s position in the General Arts and Information Series, GS-1001, titling it Supervisory Managing Editor (TV) (Russian), and evaluated the position by application of the GSSG. The appellant does not dispute these determinations. The appellant’s position is characteristic of work in the GS-1000 Information and Arts Group and meets the general criteria for inclusion in the General Arts and Information Series, GS-1001. Therefore, we concur with the agency’s series determination. Since there are no titles specified for positions in the GS-1001 series, the agency may construct a title in keeping with the work performed. We find the appellant spends all her time performing supervisory responsibilities and the position fully meets the GSSG coverage requirements for evaluating and titling as a supervisor.  As instructed in the GSSG, the prefix “Supervisory” must be added to the title selected by the agency. Moreover, titling instructions in the Introduction state that parenthetical titles should be used when necessary to identify further the duties and responsibilities involved, and such duties and responsibilities reflect special knowledge and skills needed to perform the work. Given the requirement for the incumbent of the position to be fluent in Russian (spoken and written) as stated in the PD, the parenthetical “Russian” to the title of the position selected by the agency is appropriate.

Grade Determination

The GSSG is a cross-series guide used to determine the grade level of supervisory positions in the General Schedule (GS). The GSSG has six evaluation factors, each with several factor-level definitions and corresponding point values. Positions are evaluated by crediting the points designated for the highest level met under each factor and converting the total to a grade by using the point-to-grade conversion chart in the guide.

The appellant disagrees with the agency’s GSSG assignment of Level 1-3 for Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect, Level 2-1 for Factor 2, Organizational Setting, Level 3-2c for Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised, Subfactor Level 4A-3 (Nature of Contacts), Subfactor 4B-3 (Purpose of Contacts) for Factor 4, Personal Contacts, Level 5-7, for Factor 5, Difficulty of Typical Work Directed, and Level 6-5(b) for Factor 6, Other Conditions. The appellant believes her position should be credited with Levels 1-4, 2-2, 3-3b, 4A-4, 4B-4, 5-8 and 6-6.

The appellant’s PD includes “Nonsupervisory Factor Level Descriptions” with no evaluation for those duties. Our fact-finding shows that occasionally she may perform non-supervisory work (e.g., writing and producing content for TV programs). This may occur in the absence of an employee or during an emergency to produce, adapt and/or edit news content. However, only duties that are assigned and performed on a regular and recurring basis and occupy at least 25 percent of an employee’s time can affect the grade of a position (Introduction, section III.J), thus we have not separately evaluated non-supervisory work. The appellant’s supervisory duties occupy all her time and represent the highest level of work assigned to her position. Therefore, we have evaluated only the grade of the position’s supervisory duties below solely by application of the grading criteria in the GSSG to those factor levels in dispute.

Factor 1, Program scope and effect

This factor assesses the general complexity, breadth, and impact of the program areas and work directed, including its organizational and geographic coverage. It also assesses the impact of the work both within and outside the immediate organization. To assign a factor level, the criteria dealing with both scope and effect, as defined below, must be met.

1. Scope

This element addresses the general complexity and breadth of the program (or program segment) directed; or the work directed, the products produced, or the services delivered. The geographic and organizational coverage of the program (or program segment) within the agency structure is included under this element.

At Level 1-3, the position directs a program segment that performs technical, administrative, protective, investigative, or professional work. The program segment and work directed typically have coverage which encompasses a major metropolitan area, a State, or a small region of several States; or, when most of an area’s taxpayers or businesses are covered, coverage comparable to a small city. Providing complex administrative or technical or professional services directly affecting a large or complex multi-mission military installation also falls at this level. An illustration at level 1-3 describes a position that in providing services directly to the general public, furnishes a significant portion of the agency's line program to a moderate-sized population of clients. The size of the population serviced by the position is the equivalent of a group of citizens and/or businesses in several rural counties, a small city, or a portion of a larger metropolitan area. Depending on total population serviced by the agency and the complexity and intensity of the service itself, however, the serviced population may be concentrated in one specific geographic area, or involve a significant portion of a multistate population, or be composed of a comparable group.

At Level 1-4, the supervisor directs a segment of a professional, highly technical, or complex administrative program which involves the development of major aspects of key agency scientific, medical, legal, administrative, regulatory, policy development or comparable, highly technical programs; or that includes major, highly technical operations at the Government’s largest, most complex industrial installations. 

The position meets Level 1-3. Like this level, the appellant directs a program segment (TV) within the VOA’s Russian Service that performs administrative work to produce and report accurate and objective news and information on key global issues, U.S. government policies and society developments broadcasted on the TV channel and digital network “Current Time.” The geographic coverage (target area) of the program segment and work directed by the appellant’s position encompasses the Russian Federation, as well as the Russian-speaking population of former Soviet republics and globally. For purposes of determining the serviced population, we use data for the measured weekly audience reach in Russia. [1] Latest available data published in the agency’s “Audience and Impact Report” for 2022, shows that Russia placed in the “Top Ten Audience for International Media” with a measured weekly audience reach of 11.7 million people (adults who listen/view/use programming at least once a week based on survey data) which at least is equivalent to a small region of several states. While not grade controlling, comparable to the illustration at Level 1-3 the provision of television programs and features furnishes a significant portion of the agency’s international broadcasting services particularly to the public in Russia who are information denied or targets of misinformation. Further, the weekly population reach of 11.7 million information deprived Russian-speaking people may be construed as equivalent to serving a significant portion of a multistate population.

The position does not meet Level 1-4. Unlike this level, the appellant does not direct a segment of the agency’s professional, highly technical, or complex administrative program, involving the development of major aspects of key legal, administrative, regulatory, or policy development. While the program segment directed by the appellant has broad geographic coverage, her work does not involve development of major aspects of USAGM’s entire administrative program. The appellant’s work is solely focused on interviewing, writing, analyzing, producing, editing, adapting, and broadcasting news and essential information on television and incorporating it into multimedia platforms. The television programs and features produced and broadcasted support the agency’s international media program goals to provide audiences, particularly those who are denied access to open and free media, with balanced and comprehensive reporting and programming.

Scope is evaluated at Level 1-3.

b. Effect

This element addresses the impact of the work, the products, and/or the programs described under “Scope” on the mission and programs of the customer(s), the activity, other activities in or out of government, the agency, other agencies, the general public, or others.

At Level 1-3, the activities, functions, or services accomplished directly and significantly impact a wide range of agency activities, the work of other agencies, or the operations of outside interests (e.g., a segment of a regulated industry), or the general public. At the field activity level (involving large, complex, multi-mission organizations and/or very large serviced populations) the work directly involves or substantially impacts the provision of essential support operations to numerous, varied, and complex technical, professional, and administrative functions. 

At Level 1-4, the position impacts an agency’s headquarters operations, several bureau-wide programs, or most of an agency’s entire field establishment; or facilitates the agency’s accomplishment of its primary mission or programs of national significance; or impacts large segments of the Nation’s population or segments of one or a few large industries; or receives frequent or continuing congressional or media attention.

The position meets Level 1-3. Like this level, the work accomplished directly and significantly impact a wide range of agency programming, reporting, and broadcasting activities carried out to provide news and information to those who are denied open and free media or faced with disinformation. For instance, providing accurate and balanced reporting and live news on local, regional, and international issues impacts  

the agency’s operations to counter state-sponsored propaganda and misinformation. Specifically, impact performance data from the FY 2022 USAGM’s Performance and Accountability Report shows the weekly audience reach in Russia, an environment targeted by state-sponsored disinformation campaigns, was 10.6 percent of the adult population based on survey data. Furthermore, information found on the VOA website states that in Russia, where VOA is denied direct distribution and program placement and limited to only 12.5 hours per week of broadcasting in Russian, audience reach is approximately 3.1 percent or 3,186,105. [2] In addition, the appellant stated that published videos are by far the most popular content produced and as of January 2024, the Russian Service had 2.4 million followers across major digital platforms and was reaching millions of Russian speakers weekly. Therefore, the work directed materially affects the agency’s activities in reaching its performance and impact goals for its target audience.

The position does not meet Level 1-4. Unlike this level, the work directed by the appellant’s position does not directly impact agency headquarters operations, several bureau-wide programs, or most of the agency’s entire field establishment (e.g., USAGM federal networks and all its funded grantees), or impacts large segments of the Nation’s population, or receives frequent or continuing congressional or media attention. Rather, as previously addressed the work directed contributes to the agency’s activities and operations to reach audience in a specific target area to support the agency’s international media program objectives.

Effect is evaluated at Level 1-3.

Both Scope and Effect are evaluated at Level 1-3; therefore, this factor is credited at Level 1-3 and 550 points are assigned.

Factor 2, Organizational setting

This factor considers the organizational situation of the supervisory position in relation to higher levels of management.

At Level 2-1, the position is accountable to a position that is two or more levels below the first (i.e., lowest in the chain of command) SES, flag or general officer, equivalent or higher level position in the direct supervisory chain.

At Level 2-2, the position is accountable to a position that is one reporting level below the first SES, flag or general officer, or equivalent or higher level position in the direct supervisory chain.

The appellant’s position meets Level 2-1. Like this level, she is accountable to a Supervisory International Broadcaster (Russian), GS-1001-14 position (i.e., Chief of the Russian Service) who reports to a Supervisory International Broadcaster (Eurasia), GS-1001-15 position (i.e., Eurasia Division Director), who then reports to the Director of Programming in an SES level position. Therefore, the appellant is accountable to a position that is two reporting levels below the first SES level position in the direct supervisory chain.

The appellant seeks assignment of Level 2-2 because for several years she represented the Russian Service at the division director’s meetings in the absence of the Chief of the Russian Service. She also states that as a supervisor within the Russian Service she participates in division and agency-wide and interdepartmental meetings and shares full responsibility for the success of the Russian Service. Implicit in her statements is that she considers herself accountable to the Division Director’s position based on her participation and contributions at the division level. However, although she may participate on behalf of the Russian Service at division level meetings, her position is not officially and directly supervised by the Eurasia Division Director. Rather, she is directly accountable to the Chief of the Russian Service who is officially assigned to supervise her position and rate her performance.

This factor is credited at Level 2-1 and 100 points are assigned.

Factor 3, Supervisory and managerial authority exercised

This factor considers the delegated supervisory and managerial authorities exercised on a recurring basis. To be credited with a level under this factor, a position must meet the authorities and responsibilities to the extent described for the specific level.

Level 3-2 is met if either Level 3-2a, 3-2b, or 3-2c is credited. The agency credited the appellant’s position at Level 3-2c, but the appellant believes her position should be credited at Level 3-3b. Because each factor level is predicated on the preceding factor levels having been fully met, we must first compare her position to the authorities and responsibilities at Level 3-2 before considering the subsequent factor levels.

Level 3-2a addresses production oriented work not applicable to the appellant’s position, thus we will not address this level. Supervisors at Level 3-2c must carry out at least three of the first four, and a total of six or more of the 10 responsibilities listed at level 3-2c in the GSSG. Based on our review, we concur with the agency that the appellant’s position meets Level 3-2c. As both the appellant and her agency do not contest assignment of Level 3-2c,we will not address those responsibilities further but incorporate them by reference into this decision. However, because the appellant supervises contractors in addition to Federal civilian employees, we must evaluate her position to the authorities and responsibilities at Level 3-2b. Our analysis follows below.

At Level 3-2b, where work is contracted out, the position performs a wide range of technical input and oversight tasks comparable to all or nearly all of the following:

1. Analyze benefits and costs of accomplishing work in-house versus contracting; recommend whether to contract;
2. Provide technical requirements and descriptions of the work to be accomplished;
3. Plan and establish the work schedules, deadlines, and standards for acceptable work; coordinate and integrate contractor work schedules and processes with work of subordinates or others;
4. Track progress and quality of performance; arrange for subordinates to conduct any required inspections;
5. Decide on the acceptability, rejection, or correction of work products or services, and similar matters which may affect payment to the contractor.

The appellant’s position meets Level 3-2b in that she meets nearly all of the technical and oversight tasks described at that level. Like task two (2), she provides technical assignments and descriptions of the work to be accomplished by PSCs. This information is used for determining staffing needs of the organization. Like task three (3), the appellant plans and establishes work schedules and sets product priorities and deadlines for the work performed by the contractors under her supervision. She also coordinates and integrates contractor work schedules and processes with that of other employees and television operation and production staff to ensure all reporting is suitable for final release, post, distribution and/or broadcast. Comparable to task four (4), the appellant tracks progress and quality of performance holding meetings with contractors to discuss status of work products and address sensitive or controversial issues. Further, like task five (5), the appellant decides on the acceptability, rejection, or correction of work products which may affect payment to the contractor. She reviews work products for accuracy and fair and balanced reporting requirements and in accordance with the standards and principles of “The VOA Journalistic Code” and “The VOA Charter.” The appellant meets nearly all of the technical and oversight tasks described at Level 3-2b; therefore, her position meets Level 3-2b.

Level 3-3 is met if either Level 3-3a or 3-3b is credited. Level 3-3a describes managerial positions with authority to devise long-range staffing needs and which are closely involved with high-level program officials (or comparable agency-level staff personnel) in developing overall goals and objectives related to high levels of program management and development or formulation. The appellant serves as a first-level supervisor for an organization without the subordinate organizational units or subordinate supervisors envisioned for an organizational setting at Level 3-3a and does not exercise the significant and extensive program authority defined at this level. Therefore, the criteria at Level 3-3a does not apply to the appellant’s position and this level is not met.

To meet Level 3-3b, a supervisor must exercise all or nearly all of the supervisory responsibilities and authorities described at Level 3-2c (which the appellant meets), plus at least 8 of the 15 supervisory responsibilities and authorities listed under Level 3-3b of the GSSG. Our analysis of those responsibilities as compared to the appellant’s position follows.

Responsibilities 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 refer to situations where work is accomplished through subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or other similar personnel. Further, the supervisor’s organizational workload must be so large and the work so complex that it requires using two or more subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or comparable personnel to direct the work. The appellant is a first-level supervisor and given that the organizational workload (addressed under Factor 5, Difficulty of Typical Work Directed) of 16 work years is not so large or so complex as to require using subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or comparable personnel to direct the work, her position is not credited with responsibilities 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8.

Regarding the remaining authorities, responsibility 2 is credited because the appellant exercises significant responsibilities when dealing with service chiefs, the Division Director, and VOA newsroom managers and editors.

Responsibility 4 is not credited. It involves direction of a program or major program segment with significant resources, e.g., one at a multimillion dollar level of annual resources. The appellant does not direct a program or program segment with multimillion dollar resources directly under her discretion and control. Responsibility 4 does not consider budget planning-related recommendations concerning the Russian Service’s annual budget for contractor work or travel. The level of discretion and control expected by responsibility 4 rests at the division or programming directorate levels.

Responsibility 7 is not credited. The appellant cannot make or approve selections for subordinate nonsupervisory positions. Her authority is limited to recommending  selections or approval of subordinate nonsupervisory positions to the Chief of the Russian Service. However, final selections and approval of such positions are made at the division level.

Responsibility 9 is not credited. The appellant does not have authority to hear and resolve group grievances or serious employee complaints. Her authority is limited to effecting minor disciplinary measures (e.g., warnings and reprimands) and recommending other actions in more serious cases which does not exceed those described by responsibility 7 of Level 3-2c.  

Responsibility 10 is not credited. The appellant does not have authority to review and approve serious disciplinary actions (e.g., suspensions) involving nonsupervisory subordinates. Such authority is held by the Division Director.

Responsibility 11 is not credited. The appellant does not have authority to make decisions on non-routine, costly, or controversial training needs and training requests. Such decisions are made by the Division Director or by higher level positions at the programming directorate level. The appellant’s authority does not exceed that described in responsibility 8 of Level 3-2c.  

Responsibility 12 is credited. It involves determining whether contractor performed work meets standards of adequacy necessary for authorization of payment. The appellant determines whether work performed by contractors meet VOA standards of adequacy and approves time sheets necessary for authorization of payments.  

Responsibility 13 is not credited. It involves approving expenses comparable to within-grade increases, extensive overtime, and employee travel. The appellant has authority to approve within-grade increases for her subordinates but does not have authority to approve travel and extensive overtime. This authority is held by the Division Director.  

Responsibility 14 is credited. It involves recommending awards or bonuses for nonsupervisory personnel and changes in position classification, subject to approval by higher level officials, supervisors, or others. The appellant may recommend awards and bonuses for nonsupervisory personnel and changes in position classification, subject to approval by the appropriate higher-level officials.

Responsibility 15 is not credited. It involves finding and implementing ways to eliminate or reduce significant bottlenecks and barriers to production, promote team building, or improve business practices. This would apply to large organizations, e.g., in a large production or processing unit. The nature of the work supervised by the appellant does not lend itself to this type of work. The appellant’s authority in this area would not exceed that described in responsibility 9 of Level 3-2c, which is credited to a supervisor who finds ways to improve production or increase the quality of the work directed.

Based on the information above, the appellant performs 3 of the 15 responsibilities listed under Level 3-3b. Because the appellant’s position does not meet Level 3-3a nor 8 of the 15 responsibilities listed in Level 3-3b, Level 3-3 is not met.  

This factor is credited at Level 3-2 and 450 points are assigned.

Factor 4, Personal contacts

This is a two-part factor which assesses the nature and the purpose of personal contacts related to supervisory and managerial responsibilities. The nature of the contacts, credited under Subfactor 4A, and the purpose of those contacts credited under Subfactor 4B, must be based on the same contacts.

Subfactor 4A: Nature of contacts

This subfactor covers the organizational relationships, authority or influence level, setting, and difficulty of preparation associated with making personal contacts involved in supervisory and managerial work. To be credited, the level of contacts must contribute to the successful performance of the work, be a recurring requirement, have a demonstrable impact on the difficulty and responsibility of the position, and require direct contact.

At Level 4A-3, frequent contacts are comparable to any of the following:

(1) high ranking military or civilian managers, supervisors, and technical staff at bureau and major organization levels of the agency; with agency headquarters administrative support staff; or with comparable personnel in other Federal agencies;

(2) key staff of public interest groups (usually in formal briefings) with significant political influence or media coverage;

(3) journalists representing influential city or county newspapers or comparable radio or television coverage;

(4) congressional committee and subcommittee staff assistants below staff director or chief counsel levels;

(5) contracting officials and high level technical staff of large industrial firms;

(6) local officers of regional or national trade associations, public action groups, or professional organizations; and/or State and local Government managers doing business with the agency.

Contacts include those which take place in meetings and conferences and unplanned contacts for which the employee is designated as a contact point by higher management. They often require extensive preparation of briefing materials or technical familiarity with complex subject matter.

At level 4A-4, frequent contacts are comparable to any of the following:

(1) influential individuals or organized groups from outside the employing agency, such as executive level contracting and other officials of major defense contractors or national officers of employee organizations;

(2) regional or national officers or comparable representatives of trade associations, public action groups, or professional organizations of national stature;

(3) key staff of congressional committees, and principal assistants to senators and representatives. For example: majority and minority staff directors, chief counsels, and directors of field operations;

(4) elected or appointed representatives of State and local governments;

(5) journalists of major metropolitan, regional, or national newspapers, magazines, television, or radio media;

(6) SES, flag or general officer, or Executive Level heads of bureaus and higher level organizations in other Federal agencies.

Contacts may take place in meetings, conferences, briefings, speeches, presentations, or oversight hearings and may require extemporaneous response to unexpected or hostile questioning. Preparation typically includes briefing packages or similar presentation materials, requires extensive analytical input by the employee and subordinates, and/or involves the assistance of a support staff.

The appellant’s nature of contacts meets Level 4A-3. The VOA is the largest international broadcaster and Federal media network of the USAGM. In reviewing its unique structure in relation to the agency’s, we consider the VOA like a bureau with major organizational levels. Like Level 4A-3, the appellant has frequent contact with VOA civilian managers, supervisors, and technical staff (e.g., VOA Newsroom operations and production managers and staff). Further, like Level 4A-3, contacts include those which take place in meetings and conferences and unplanned contacts for which the appellant is designated as a contact point by higher management and require preparation of briefing materials on complex TV and multimedia related matters.

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 4A-4. Our fact-finding does not support that the appellant has contacts with any of the contacts described at Level 4A-4 on a frequent basis. Further, unlike Level 4A-4, her position does not require extemporaneous response to unexpected or hostile questioning, or preparation of briefing packages requiring extensive analytical input, and/or involving the assistance of a support staff. 

This subfactor is credited at Level 4A-3 and 75 points are assigned.

Subfactor 4B: Purpose of contacts

This subfactor covers the purpose of contacts credited in Subfactor 4A, including the advisory, representational, negotiating, and commitment responsibilities related to the supervisor’s contacts.

At Level 4B-2, the purpose of contacts is to ensure that information provided to outside parties is accurate and consistent; to plan and coordinate the work directed with that of others outside the subordinate organization; and/or to resolve differences of opinion among managers, supervisors, employees, contractors, or others.

At Level 4B-3, the purpose of contacts is to justify, defend, or negotiate in representing the project, program segment(s), or organization unit(s) directed, in obtaining or committing resources, and in gaining compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts. Contacts at this level usually involve active participation in conferences, meetings, hearings, or presentations involving problems or issues of considerable consequence or importance to the program or program segment(s) managed.

At Level 4B-4, the purpose of the contacts is to influence, motivate, or persuade persons or groups to accept opinions or take actions related to advancing the fundamental goals and objectives of the program or segments directed, or involving the commitment or distribution of major resources, when intense opposition or resistance is encountered due to significant organizational or philosophical conflict, competing objectives, major resource limitations or reductions, or comparable issues. At this level, the persons contacted are sufficiently fearful, skeptical, or uncooperative that highly developed communication, negotiation, conflict resolution, leadership, and similar skills must be used to obtain the desired results.

The purpose of the appellant’s contacts meets Level 4B-2. Comparable to this level, the appellant plans and coordinates content related matters with VOA managers, supervisors, managing editors from other services, and TV operations and technical staff of the VOA Newsroom. Like Level 4B-2, the purpose of her contacts is to plan and coordinate the work directed with that of others outside the subordinate organization and to ensure consistency in operations between program segments. Similar to Level 4B-2, she resolves difference of opinions relating to program objectives among supervisors, managers and production and/or VOA newsroom personnel.

The purpose of the appellant’s contacts does not meet Level 4B-3. Unlike this level, the purpose of her contacts does not involve justifying, defending, or negotiating in obtaining or committing resources, and gaining compliance with established policies. In contrast to Level 4B-3, the appellant recommends or proposes allocation of resources within her organization, but she is not delegated with the authority to obtain or commit resources for her organization.  

Since the purpose of the appellant’s contacts do not meet the criteria for Level 4B-3, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to evaluate the purpose of her contacts to Level 4B-4 criteria.  

This subfactor is credited at Level 4B-2 and 75 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Difficulty of typical work directed

This factor measures the difficulty and complexity of the basic work most typical of the organization directed as well as other line, staff, or contracted work for which the supervisor has technical or oversight responsibility, either directly or through subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or others. The level is determined by identifying the highest grade which best characterizes the nature of the basic (mission oriented) nonsupervisory work performed or overseen by the organization directed, and which constitutes 25 percent or more of the workload (not positions or employees) of the organization.

In determining the highest level of work, developmental positions below the normal full performance levels are considered at the full performance levels. Certain work is excluded from consideration in making the determination. This work includes subordinate work that is graded on the basis of supervisory or leader duties; work for which the supervisor does not have the minimum supervisory and managerial authorities defined under Factor 3 (including such basic administrative supervisory functions as approving leave and evaluating performance); lower-level support work that primarily facilitates the basic work of the unit; and work that is graded based on an extraordinary degree of independence from supervision.

The appellant directly supervises the work of the following positions: one International Broadcaster (Multimedia)(Russian), GS-1001-13; one International Broadcaster (Online)(Russian), GS-1001-12; three International Broadcasters (TV/Online)(Russian), GS-1001-12; one International Broadcaster (Multimedia)(Russian), GS-1001-12; two Multimedia Specialists (Russian), GS-1001-12; and eight PSCs (five International Multimedia Journalist- Level III and three International Multimedia Journalist- Level II). The agency did not consider work performed by the PSCs for determining the highest level of work directed by the appellant. However, as indicated in the GSSG, work performed by contractors is considered in applying the grading criteria within each factor of this guide, provided the position first meets the coverage requirements based on supervision of noncontractor personnel. As previously addressed, the appellant meets GSSG coverage requirements based on supervision of noncontractor personnel (i.e., GS employees). Moreover, our fact-finding shows (as confirmed by the appellant and her supervisor), that the appellant’s position meets the minimum supervisory and managerial authorities defined under Factor 3 (including such basic administrative supervisory functions as approving leave and evaluating performance). Therefore, it is appropriate to include the work performed by the PSCs supervised by the appellant for base level determination of the position. Based on our review of PSC Work Statements and equivalent GS grades information provided by the agency, as well as discussions with the appellant and her supervisor on the level of work performed by the PSCs, we find the grade comparisons determined by the agency appropriate. Thus, we credit the work performed by the current PSC II positions comparable to GS-11, and the PSC III work equivalent to GS-12.  

In addition, the appellant provides oversight and serves as a COR to nine stringers (i.e., Multimedia Reporters) based in the United States and overseas. Information provided by the agency shows that these positions are contracted under a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) and paid per assignment completed and accepted by the VOA. As stated in their BPAs, stringers conduct work during uncommon working hours (e.g., shift work, weekends, evenings, and holidays as necessary to accomplish their work). Our fact-finding indicates that stringer positions function similar to positions held by intermittent employees without a defined regular tour of duty. Consequently, we are unable to determine the percentage of mission oriented nonsupervisory workload derived from stringer positions and must exclude their work in determining the base level of the appellant’s position which follows.  

GS-13

1.0   International Broadcaster (Multimedia) (Russian), GS-1001-13 (PD# V114294)

1.0

GS-12

1.0    International Broadcaster (Online) (Russian), GS-1001-12 (PD#136051)

1.0    International Broadcaster (TV/Online) (Russian), GS-1001-12 (PD# V158010)

1.0    International Broadcaster (TV/Online) (Russian), GS-1001-12 (PD# V170229)

1.0    International Broadcaster (TV/Online) (Russian), GS-1001-12 (PD# V190112)

1.0    International Broadcaster (Multimedia) (Russian), GS-1001-12 (PD# V210026)

1.0    Multimedia Specialist (Russian), GS-1001-12 (PD# V230014)

1.0    Multimedia Specialist (Russian), GS-1001-12 (PD# V230014)

1.0    International Multimedia Journalist- Level III

1.0    International Multimedia Journalist- Level III

1.0    International Multimedia Journalist- Level III

1.0    International Multimedia Journalist- Level III

1.0    International Multimedia Journalist- Level III

12.0 

GS-11

1.0   International Multimedia Journalist- Level II

1.0   International Multimedia Journalist- Level II

1.0    International Multimedia Journalist- Level II

3.0

Total nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload is 16 work years. GS-13 grade level constitutes 6 percent of the nonsupervisory workload. GS-12 grade level work constitutes 75 percent of the nonsupervisory workload and GS-11 grade level work constitutes 19 percent of the nonsupervisory workload. Positions at the GS-11 and GS-12 or comparable levels are at the full performance level. Therefore, we find the GS-12 work at 75 percent is fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory mission-oriented work performed by the appellant’s unit. Using the conversion chart in the GSSG for Factor 5, a GS-12 base level equates to Level 5-7.

This factor is credited at Level 5-7 and 930 points are assigned.

Factor 6, Other conditions

This factor measures the extent to which various conditions contribute to the difficulty and complexity of carrying out supervisory duties, authorities, and responsibilities.  There are two steps involved in assigning a level under Factor 6: (1) select the highest level that the position meets, and (2) if the level selected in step 1 is either 6-1, 6-2, or 6-3, refer to the Special Situations section of Factor 6. If the position meets 3 or more of the situations, then a single level is added to the level selected in the first step. If the level selected under step 1 is either 6-4, 6-5, or 6-6, the Special Situations section does not apply, no level is added to the one selected in step 1, and the original level selected is credited.

Level 6-5 is met if either Level 6-5a, 6-5b, or 6-5c is credited.

1. Supervision and oversight at this level requires significant and extensive coordination and integration of a number of important projects or program segments of professional, scientific, technical, managerial, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-12 level. Supervision at this level involves major recommendations which have a direct and substantial effect on the organization and projects managed. For instance, makes major recommendations in at least three of the areas listed below or in other, comparable areas:

• • significant internal and external program and policy issues affecting the overall organization, such as those involving political, social, technological, and economic conditions, as well as those factors cited in the first item of Factor Level 6-4a;
  • restructuring, reorienting, recasting immediate and long range goals, objectives, plans, and schedules to meet substantial changes in legislation, program authority, and/or funding; determinations of projects or program segments to be initiated, dropped, or curtailed;
  • changes in organizational structure, including the particular changes to be effected;
  • the optimum mix of reduced operating costs and assurance of program effectiveness, including introduction of labor saving devices, automated processes, methods improvements, and similar;
  • the resources to devote to particular programs (especially when staff-years and a significant portion of an organization's budget are involved);
  • policy formulation, and long range planning in connection with prospective changes in functions and programs.

OR

b. Supervision of highly technical, professional, administrative, or comparable work at GS-13 or above involving extreme urgency, unusual controversy, or other, comparable demands due to research, development, test and evaluation, design, policy analysis, public safety, public health, medical, regulatory, or comparable implications.

OR

c. Managing work through subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-11 level. Such base work requires similar coordination as that described at Factor Level 6-4a for first line supervisors.

Level 6-6 is met if either Level 6-6a or 6-6b is credited.

1. Supervision and oversight requires exceptional coordination and integration of a number of very important and complex program segments or programs of professional, scientific, technical, managerial, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-13 or higher level. Supervision and resource management at this level involves major decisions and actions which have a direct and substantial effect on the organizations and programs managed.

OR

b. They manage work through subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-12 or higher level. Such base work requires similar coordination as that described at Factor Level 6-5a above for first line supervisors.

The appellant’s position meets Level 6-5a. Like this level, she is involved in significant and extensive coordination and integration of important program segments (i.e., television and digital platforms) of administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-12 level (base level of the appellant’s position) and makes major recommendations in at least three of the areas listed which have a direct and substantial impact on the organization and projects she manages. For instance, given the political, social, and economic changes in Russia resulting from its military invasion of Ukraine, she made major recommendations and took related actions, including addressing internal and external program issues impacting audience reach, regarding television programming and features to be initiated, dropped, or curtailed in and from the “Current Time” channel to meet urgent audience needs in areas of crisis. These included recommending specific programming or special broadcasting in response to Russia’s war on Ukraine which allowed audiences to engage with news events in real time and to judge the situation on the ground for themselves, yielding significant returns on digital platforms. Comparable to Level 6-5a, the appellant makes recommendations for allocation of resources as it relates to staffing such as her proposal to open VOA “bureaus or hubs” in different parts of the U.S. (e.g., in the Midwest) to increase first-hand reporting with less reliance on associated press. Further, like this level, she makes recommendations for reorienting and recasting short and/or long-term plans to meet substantial changes in funding, particularly as it relates to the hiring of contractor personnel or reorienting positions within the organization to adapt to changes in regional priorities and broadcast strategies. Based on the above, the appellant makes major recommendations in at least three of the seven areas listed under this level; the minimum required for crediting Level 6-5a. Therefore, her position fully meets Level 6-5a.

The appellant believes her position meets Level 6-6. However, her rationale supports criteria described at Level 6-5a but does not extend to Level 6-6, where supervision requires exceptional coordination and integration of a number of very important and complex projects or program segments with work comparable in difficulty at the GS-13 or higher level. The appellant supervises only one GS-13 position and we have previously established that GS-12 work is fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory mission oriented work performed by the appellant’s unit. Further, unlike Level 6-6a, she does not make major decisions and actions which have a direct and substantial effect on the organization and its programs.  

The appellant’s position also does not meet Level 6-6b. Unlike this level, the appellant does not manage work through subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-12 or higher level. Such base work requires similar coordination as that described at Factor Level 6-5a above for first line supervisors.

This factor is credited at Level 6-5 and 1225 points are assigned.

Summary

By application of the GSSG, we have evaluated the appellant’s supervisory duties as follows:

Table 1 Grade Determination

Factor	Level	Points
1. Program scope and effect	1-3	550
2. Organizational setting	2-1	100
3. Supervisory and managerial authority exercised	3-2	450
4. Personal contacts
Nature of contacts	4A-3	75
Purpose of contacts	4B-2	75
5. Difficulty of typical work directed	5-7	930
6. Other conditions	6-5	1225
Total Points		3405

The total of 3405 points falls within the GS-13 grade range (3155-3600) on the point-to-grade conversion chart in the GSSG. Therefore, the appellant’s position is graded at the GS-13 level.

Decision

The proper classification series and grade of the appellant’s position is GS-1001-13. Title is at the agency’s discretion with the prefix “Supervisory” added.

 

[1] Data for audience reach of Russian-speaking population of former Soviet republics and globally was not available.

[2] Although this data is currently published on the VOA website, the appellant asserts that it is outdated, however, more current information was not provided.  

Back to Top