FEDERAL WORKFORCE

Lessons Learned for 

Engaging Millennials and 

Other Age Groups

Statement of Robert Goldenkoff, Director, 

Strategic Issues

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Regulatory 

Affairs and Federal Management, 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. ET

Thursday, September 29, 2016

GAO-16-880T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-880T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Regulatory 

Affairs and Federal Management, Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, U.S. Senate

September 29, 2016

FEDERAL WORKFORCE

Lessons Learned for Engaging Millennials and 

Other Age Groups 

What GAO Found

Employees 39 years of age and younger represented approximately 45 percent 

of the United States employed civilian labor force and about 30 percent of the

civilian federal workforce in fiscal year 2014. This group includes the millennial 

generation. The percent of millennials within the federal workforce varies by 

agency and agencies that have high rates of retirement eligibility also tend to 

have low percentages of millennials in the workforce. 

In 2015, millennial employees in the federal government had an estimated 

Employee Engagement Index (EEI) score of 63.8 – as derived from the Office of 

Personnel Management’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey – which is less 

than one percentage point lower than non-millennials. Engagement is usually 

defined as the sense of purpose and commitment employees feel towards their 

employer and its mission. As shown in the figure below, millennial subgroups 

had both the highest and lowest EEI scores among all age groups in 2015—

employees 25 and younger had the highest EEI score (70.8), while employees 

30 to 39 years old had the lowest EEI score (63.3). 

Estimated EEI Scores by Age Groups (2015) and Relative Size of Age Group within the Civilian

Federal Workforce (Fiscal Year 2014)

Note: The EEI estimates shown in this figure have sampling variability of no more than plus or 

minus 1.6 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence. 

Key drivers of engagement can help agencies develop a culture of engagement. 

GAO’s regression analysis identified six practices as key drivers of the EEI, 

which were similar for both millennials and non-millennials: (1) constructive 

performance conversations, (2) career development and training, (3) work-life 

balance, (4) inclusive work environment, (5) employee involvement, and (6) 

communication from management. As GAO found in a 2015 report on employee 

engagement, building a culture of engagement involves effective management 

strategies such as leadership involvement, strong interpersonal skills of 

supervisors, and thoughtful use of data. 

View GAO-16-880T. For more information, 

contact Robert Goldenkoff at (202) 512-2757

or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. 

Why GAO Did This Study

GAO’s prior work found that skills gaps 

in government-wide fields such as 

cybersecurity are threatening the ability 

of agencies to carry out their missions. 

At the same time, government-wide 

trends in federal workforce retirement 

threaten to aggravate the problem. To 

help ensure agencies have the 

capacity to address complex national 

challenges, agencies need to be 

competitive for top talent, including 

those in the millennial generation. 

This testimony examines (1) recent 

employment trends of millennials in the 

federal workforce and how they 

compare to other employee cohorts; 

(2) trends in engagement levels of 

millennials versus other employee 

groups; and (3) the drivers of federal 

employee engagement and the key 

lessons learned for building a culture of 

engagement. 

This statement is based on GAO’s

2015 review of the trends and drivers 

of government-wide employee 

engagement and our larger body of 

work on federal human capital, issued 

primarily between January 2014 and 

September 2016, and is updated with 

more recent information. Millennials 

are commonly considered as those 

born between the early 1980s and 

2000. However, for the purposes of 

this statement GAO is including all 

employees 39 years old and younger 

as millennials in order to provide a 

consistent definition across datasets.

GAO is not making any new 

recommendations in this testimony.

We have previously made 

recommendations to the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) to 

improve engagement governmentwide, which OPM has implemented. 
Letter

Page 1 GAO-16-880T 

Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Heitkamp, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss recruiting and 

retaining millennials in the federal government. As you know, federal 

agencies are facing critical human capital management challenges. In our 

prior work we noted how skills gaps in such government-wide fields as 

cybersecurity, acquisition management, and telecommunications, as well 

as in such agency-specific positions as nurses and physicians, are 

jeopardizing the ability of agencies to cost-effectively carry out their 

missions.1 At the same time, trends in retirement eligibility threaten to 

aggravate the problem of skills gaps. Across government, almost a third 

of permanent career employees on-board as of September 30, 2014, will 

be eligible to retire by 2019.2

The importance of a top-notch federal workforce cannot be overstated. 

The nation continues to face new and more complex social, economic, 

and security challenges, and all of these issues will need to be addressed 

in an environment of a large and long-term fiscal imbalance that will put 

resource constraints on most agencies. Moreover, as we have pointed 

out in our High-Risk Series and other reports for Congress, some federal 

agencies continue to face ongoing performance and accountability 

problems at a time when taxpayers have come to expect—and need—

higher levels responsiveness by public programs and officials.3

To help ensure agencies have the capacity to address these challenges, 

it will be important for them to recruit and retain employees able to thrive 

in organizations that are flatter, results-oriented, and externally focused, 

and that collaborate with other governmental entities as well as with the 

private sector to achieve desired outcomes. In short, agencies need to be 

 1 GAO, Federal Workforce: OPM and Agencies Need to Strengthen Efforts to Identify and 

Close Mission-Critical Skills Gaps, GAO-15-223 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2015). 

2 GAO, Human Capital: Update on Strategic Management Challenges for the 21st Century, 

GAO-15-619T (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2015). 

3 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-15-290 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2015).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-880T 

competitive in the labor market for top talent, including millennials.4 Based 

on our work and that of other organizations, this means going beyond 

merely attracting and hiring quality candidates; rather, it calls for a robust 

talent management strategy that covers the full life-cycle of federal 

employment and includes such key components as:

• data-driven workforce and succession planning;

• active recruiting;

• effective on-boarding programs;

• results-oriented training and development;

• meaningful performance management;

• comparable pay and benefits; and

• a culture of employee engagement.

In my remarks today, I will focus on this last component: employee 

engagement. A growing body of research on both private- and publicsector organizations has found that increased levels of engagement—

generally defined as the sense of purpose and commitment employees 

feel toward their employer and its mission—can lead to better 

organizational performance.5 Specifically, I will discuss (1) recent 

employment trends of millennials in the federal workforce and how they 

compare to other employee cohorts; (2) trends in engagement levels of 

millennials versus other employee groups; and (3) the drivers of federal 

employee engagement based on our 2015 report and key lessons

 4 Millennials are commonly considered as those born between the early 1980s and 2000. 

However, for this statement, unless otherwise noted and discussed below with our 

methodology, we are using a broad definition of millennials that includes all individuals 39 

years old and younger in the federal workforce. 

5 Office of Personnel Management, 2014 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results: 

Employees Influencing Change: Government-wide Management Report(Washington,

D.C.: 2014).
Page 3 GAO-16-880T 

learned for building a culture of engagement to help strengthen agencies’

recruitment and retention efforts.6

My statement is based on our review of the trends and drivers of 

government-wide employee engagement conducted between 2014 and 

2015 and our larger body of work on federal human capital management 

issued primarily between January 2014 and September 2016 and is 

updated with more recent information as appropriate. For example, to 

update the trends and drivers of employee engagement we analyzed 

2015 results from the Federal Employees Viewpoint Survey (FEVS).7 To 

update the federal civilian employment trend information, we analyzed 

fiscal year 2014 data from the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) 

Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) Statistical Data Mart.8

To provide consistent breakouts by age for both engagement and 

employment trend data, we used age groups established by OPM in the 

FEVS. These 6 groups are: 25 years old and younger, 26 to 29 years old, 

30 to 39 years old, 40 to 49 years old, 50 to 59 years old, and 60 years 

old and older. In defining the millennial generation for purposes of this 

statement we chose to group results from employees in 3 age groups: 25 

years old and younger, 26 to 29 years old, and 30 to 39 years old. 

Therefore, our definition of millennial is much broader than the typical 

definition but we believe the value of consistency across our analysis 

outweighs the disadvantages of including 30 to 39 year olds as 

millennials.

 6 GAO, Federal Workforce: Additional Analysis and Sharing of Promising Practices Could 

Improve Employee Engagement and Performance, GAO-15-585 (Washington, D.C.: July 

14, 2015). In that report we made recommendations to OPM in its roles to support 

agencies’ efforts to improve employee engagement and performance by analyzing the 

drivers of engagement for agencies, expand its efforts to share leading practices in 

improving engagement.OPM implemented these recommendations. 

7 The FEVS provides a snapshot of employees’ perceptions about how effectively 

agencies manage their workforce. The FEVS is based on a sample of full- and part-time, 

permanent, non-seasonal employees of departments and large, small, and independent 

agencies.

8 EHRI (formerly Central Personnel Data File–CPDF) is the primary government-wide 

source for information on federal employees. The EHRI data we analyzed cover executive 

branch civilian employees, and do not cover the U.S. Postal Service, legislative or judicial 

branch employees, or intelligence agencies. EHRI data include full- and part-time, 

permanent and non-permanent, and blue and white collar employees. 
Page 4 GAO-16-880T 

For our 2015 report on employee engagement we reviewed documents 

and interviewed officials from three case study agencies. To select these 

agencies, we considered the agencies that had the highest average 

sustained Employee Engagement Index (EEI) scores, most improved 

overall EEI scores, and most improved leadership component scores in 

the EEI from 2010 to 2014. We selected the National Credit Union 

Administration (NCUA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the 

Department of Education (Education) to ensure that we included agencies 

that had high scores in one or more of the three metrics we identified and 

that we included at least one Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO 

Act) agency.9

Detailed descriptions of the scope and methodology can be found in the 

original reports cited throughout this statement. The work that this 

statement is based on was conducted in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that 

we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Compared to the U.S. employed civilian labor force, the federal 

government’s workforce is made up of fewer millennials. In 2014, people 

39 years old and younger represented 44.8 percent of the U.S. employed 

civilian labor force and 29.6 percent of the total civilian federal 

government workforce (see figure 1). The differences were greatest for 

the youngest portion of millennials.

 9 The CFO Act agencies are the executive branch agencies listed at section 901(b) of title 

31, United States Code. The agencies covered by the CFO Act, as amended, are 

generally the largest federal agencies and account for over 98 percent of the federal 

workforce.

Background
Page 5 GAO-16-880T 

Figure 1: Federal Workforce Contains Fewer Employees 29 Years Old and Younger 

and More Employees 50 to 59 Years Old than the U.S. Employed Civilian Labor 

Force Overall for 2014

a

We are defining the millennial generation to include all employees 39 and younger for purposes of 

this statement.

b

As age groups do not correspond across data sets, this percent represents people ages 16 to 24 in 

the U.S. employed civilian labor force.

c

As above, this percent represents people ages 25 to 29 in the U.S. employed civilian labor force.

d

Percent of federal w orkforce includes employees w ith non-permanent and permanent appointments.

The increase of the number of millennials of working age has coincided 

with several events in the federal government—such as hiring freezes, 

sequestration, furloughs and a 3-year freeze on statutory annual pay 

adjustments from 2011 to 2013—that OPM and others contend negatively 

affected federal employee morale and limited opportunities for new 

employees to join the federal government. According to results from 

OPM’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), government-wide 

levels of employee engagement declined from an estimated 67 percent in 

2011, to an estimated 63 percent in 2014, and increased to 64 percent in 

2015, as measured by a score OPM derived from the FEVS beginning in 

2010—the Employee Engagement Index (EEI).10

OPM has conducted the FEVS—a survey that measures employees’

perceptions of whether, and to what extent, conditions characterizing 

successful organizations are present in their agencies—every year since 

 10 OPM’s Employee Engagement Index (EEI) is based on the average percentage of 

respondents that answer positively to each index item. We recreated OPM’s EEI for each 

individual based on the percentage of index questions for which the individual responded 

positively. Our version of the EEI is substantively equivalent to the OPM measure, but 

allows for regression analysis to control for multiple factors in analysis. 
Page 6 GAO-16-880T 

2010.11 The EEI is composed of 15 FEVS questions covering the 

following areas:

• Leaders lead, which surveys employees’ perceptions of the integrity of 

leadership, as well as employees’ perception of leadership behaviors 

such as communication and workforce motivation.12

• Supervisors, which surveys employees’ perceptions of the 

interpersonal relationship between worker and supervisor, including 

trust, respect, and support.13

• Intrinsic work experience, which surveys employees’ feelings of 

motivation and competency relating to their role in the workplace.

According to OPM, the EEI does not directly measure employee 

engagement. Instead it covers the conditions that lead to employee 

engagement. Specifically, OPM noted that organizational conditions lead 

to feelings of engagement, which in turn lead to engagement behaviors, 

such as discretionary effort, and then to optimum organizational 

performance.

Engaged employees are more than simply satisfied with their jobs. 

According to employee engagement literature, engaged employees

• take pride in their work,

• are passionate about and energized by what they do,

• are committed to the organization, the mission, and their job, and

• are more likely to put forth extra effort to get the job done.

 11 From 2002 to 2008, OPM administered the survey biennially.

12 The leaders lead component includes questions about (1) senior leaders—department 

or agency heads and their immediate leadership team, responsible for directing policies 

and priorities and typically members of the senior executive service or equivalent (career 

or political), and (2) managers—those in management positions who typically supervise 

one or more supervisors.

13 The supervisors component includes questions about first-line supervisors who are 

typically responsible for employees’ performance appraisals but do not supervise other 

supervisors.
Page 7 GAO-16-880T 

In 2014, we reported that in the face of limited budgets, some agencies 

had reduced hiring.14 The Budget Control Act of 2011 established a 10-

year cap on discretionary spending through 2021, but many agencies had 

experienced flat or declining budgets for several years prior. During that 

time, employment data show the following trends: 

From fiscal years 2008 to 2014, the total number of new federal 

employees hired decreased by 33 percent, from approximately 164,000 to 

110,000 employees per fiscal year.

• Employees 25 years old and younger have experienced the largest 

decrease with 58 percent fewer hired in 2014 than in 2008 (see figure 

2).

 14 GAO, Human Capital: Strategies to Help Agencies Meet Their Missions in an Era of 

Highly Constrained Resources, GAO-14-168 (Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2014).

Demographic Shifts 

and Evolving Nature 

of Federal Work May 

Challenge Agencies’

Capacity to Meet 

Their Mission
Page 8 GAO-16-880T 

Figure 2: Number of New Hires in the Federal Workforce for All Ages and by Age Group, Fiscal Year 2000-2014

Note: Includes new hires w ith non-permanent and permanent appointments. Recessions in figure are 

as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

• For the entire millennial cohort (39 years old and younger), the 

decrease in hiring is similar to that of the non-millennial cohort 

(decreases of 34 and 32 percent, respectively). 

• Compared to non-millennials, a greater percentage of millennials have 

non-permanent positions in the federal government than nonmillennials. Examples of non-permanent positions include 

appointments that are term-limited or temporary such as park rangers 

or interns. In fiscal year 2014, 42 percent of employees 25 years old 

and younger and 15 percent of employees 26 to 29 years old held 

non-permanent positions. Across all age groups, 7 percent of 
Page 9 GAO-16-880T 

employees in the federal government were in non-permanent 

positions.

Attrition rates for all age groups were much higher in the early 2000s than 

they were in fiscal year 2014.

• For example, in fiscal year 2000, when millennials were just entering 

the workforce, 19 percent of permanent career employees 25 years 

and younger with 5 years or less of federal service resigned or 

separated, compared to 9.3 percent in fiscal year 2014 (see figure 3). 

Two economic recessions have occurred since 2000 (in 2001 and 

from 2007 to 2009) and may have contributed to declining attrition 

rates.

In the federal government millennial attrition rates are slightly higher than 

other age groups, even when controlling for tenure.

• In fiscal year 2014, 9.3 percent of millennials 25 years old and 

younger who held permanent career positions for 5 years or less 

resigned or separated from the federal government. Fewer millennials 

26 to 29 years old and 30 to 39 years old with 5 years or less of 

federal service left the government, with 7.0 percent and 6.3 percent, 

respectively, resigning or separating in fiscal year 2014. 

• Non-millennial permanent career employees (age 40 and older) with 5 

years or less of federal service had an attrition rate of 5.1 percent in 

fiscal year 2014, not including retirements.

Turnover Decreased 

Across All Age Groups 

since Fiscal Year 2000, 

Although Millennials Had 

Slightly Higher Attrition 

Rates
Page 10 GAO-16-880T 

Figure 3: Percent Permanent Career Employee Resignations and Separations by Age Group for Employees with 5 Years of 

Federal Service or Less, Fiscal Year 2000-2014

Note: Recessions in figure are as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

While many factors affect when a person actually retires, in 2015, we 

reported that across the government, 31 percent of the career permanent 

career employees on board as of September 2014 would be eligible to 

retire by September 2019.15 About 23 percent of Department of 

Homeland Security staff on board as of September 2014 will be eligible to 

retire in 2019, while more than 43 percent will be eligible to retire at both 

 15 GAO-15-619T. To calculate retirement eligibility for the next 5 years, we computed the 

date at which the employee would be eligible for voluntary retirement at an unreduced 

annuity, using age at hire, years of service, birth date, and retirement plan coverage.
Page 11 GAO-16-880T 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Small 

Business Administration (see figure 4). Certain occupations—such as air 

traffic controllers, customs and border protection agents, and those 

involved in implementing government programs—will also have 

particularly high retirement-eligibility rates by 2019.

Figure 4: Percent of Millennials in Fiscal Year 2014 and Percent Eligible to Retire by 2019, by Agency

a

Percentage of millennials includes employees w ith non-permanent and permanent appointments.

b

Percentage eligible to retire by 2019 is based on permanent career employees on board as of 

September 2014.
Page 12 GAO-16-880T 

As retirements of federal employees continue, some agencies with few 

millennials may face future gaps in leadership, expertise, and critical skills 

because millennials represent the next generation of workers.

As with retirement eligibility, the percent of millennials in the workforce 

varies by agency. Millennials (39 years old and younger) make up more 

than 30 percent of the workforce at 8 of the 24 CFO Act agencies but less 

than a quarter at 7 agencies (see figure 4 above). Agencies that have 

high rates of retirement eligibility, such as the Environmental Protection 

Agency, also tend to have low percentages of millennials in the 

workforce. Actual retirement rates began to decline at the end of 2007 

with the recession to 3.3 percent in 2008, 2.5 percent in 2009, and 2.7 

percent in 2010, before increasing again to 3.5 percent in 2014.

The large percentage of federal employees eligible for retirement creates 

both an opportunity and a challenge for federal agencies. On the one 

hand, as shown in our prior work, if accompanied with appropriate 

strategic and workforce planning, it allows agencies to realign their 

workforce with needed skills and leadership levels to better meet their 

existing and any newly emerging mission requirements.16 On the other 

hand, it means that agencies will need succession planning efforts as well 

as effective sources and methods for recruiting and retaining candidates 

in order to avoid a brain-drain and mission-critical skills gaps.

We have found that leading organizations go beyond a succession 

planning approach that focuses on simply replacing individuals. Instead, 

leading organizations engage in broad, integrated succession planning 

and management efforts that focus on strengthening both current and 

future organizational capacity. To do this, it will be important for agencies 

to use workforce analytics to drive their decisions, as well as use 

available flexibilities from Congress and OPM to acquire, develop, 

motivate, and retain talent as needed.

 16 GAO, Human Capital: Selected Agencies Have Opportunities to Enhance Existing 

Succession Planning and Management Efforts, GAO-05-585 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 

2005).
Page 13 GAO-16-880T 

Mission-critical skills gaps within specific federal agencies as well as 

across the federal workforce pose a high risk to the nation because they 

impede the government from cost-effectively serving the public and 

achieving results. OPM and the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) 

Council established an interagency working group and identified skills 

gaps in six government-wide, mission-critical areas: information 

technology/cybersecurity specialist, contract specialist/acquisition, 

economist, human resource specialist, auditor, and specialists in the 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) functional 

community.

With one exception, millennials 39 years old and younger represent a 

greater percentage of employees in selected job series associated with 

these mission-critical occupations compared to their proportion in the 

workforce as a whole. Millennials represent 29.6 percent of the federal 

government workforce across all occupations in fiscal year 2014 (see 

table 1). Millennials’ percentages in the economist, auditor, and contract 

specialist job series are all greater than the government-wide average for 

all occupations, by as much as almost 10 percentage points. However, for 

human resources specialists, only 24.7 percent of the occupation is made 

up of millennials.

Table 1: Select OPM- and CHCO Council-Identified Mission-Critical Occupations 

with Skill Gaps by Age Group, Fiscal Year 2014

Millennials

(39 years old and younger)

Non-millennials

(40 years old and older)

All federal occupations 29.6% 70.4%

Economist 39.5 60.5

Human Resources 

Specialist 24.7 75.3

Auditor 39.2 60.8

Contract Specialist 34.0 66.0

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Office of Personnel Management Enterprise Human Resources Integration Statistical Data Mart

| GAO-16-880T

Today’s federal jobs require more advanced skills, often at higher grade 

levels than federal jobs 30 years ago. In 2014, we found that employees 

working in professional (e.g., doctors and scientists) or administrative 

positions (e.g., financial and program managers), which often require 

Millennials Have Greater 

Representation in Certain 

Mission-Critical 

Occupations with Skills 

Gaps Compared to 

Proportion in the 

Workforce
Page 14 GAO-16-880T 

specialized knowledge and advanced skills and degrees grew from 56 

percent of the federal civilian workforce in 2004 to 62 percent in 2012.17

Also, from 2004 to 2012, permanent career employees with a master’s or 

professional degree saw a 55.7 percent increase.

A lower percentage of millennial employees 29 years old and younger in 

the federal government have advanced degrees than older millennials (30 

to 39 years old) or non-millennials.18 In fiscal year 2014, 2.1 percent of 

permanent career millennials 25 years old and younger had advanced 

degrees, compared to 12.3 percent of 26 to 29 year olds and 21.8 percent 

of 30 to 39 year olds. One reason for these differences could be that 

younger millennials have not had the time to obtain a more advanced 

degree. Non-millennial permanent career employees were similar to older 

millennial employees in that 21.9 percent had advanced degrees.

Government-wide the estimated engagement level across all age groups

was 64 percent and engagement levels were similar between millennials 

and other age groups. Millennial EEI scores were 0.4 percentage points 

lower than non-millennials in 2015, at 63.8 and 64.2 respectively. Key 

findings from our analysis include the following:

• Millennials 25 years old and younger had the highest estimated EEI 

score across all age groups and were 7.6 percentage points higher 

than the age group with the lowest score, the 30 to 39 age group. 

However, employees age 25 and younger are a relatively small 

portion of the federal workforce, comprising only 1.8 percent in fiscal 

year 2014. In comparison, employees 30 to 39 years old comprised 

21.4 percent of the federal workforce in fiscal year 2014 (see figure 5).

 17 GAO, Federal Workforce: Recent Trends in Federal Civilian Employment and 

Compensation, GAO-14-215 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 2014).

18 Education data in EHRI is collected at the time of appointment and is not routinely 

updated. 

Millennial 

Engagement Scores 

Are Similar to Other 

Age Groups
Page 15 GAO-16-880T 

Figure 5: Estimated Employee Engagement Index (EEI) Scores by Age Group, 2015, 

and Relative Size of Age Groups within Civilian Federal Workforce, Fiscal Year 2014

Note: The EEI estimates show n in this figure have sampling variability of no more than plus or minus 

1.6 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence.

• Engagement scores of millennials vary across agency but were 

statistically higher than engagement scores of non-millennials at 14 of 

24 CFO Act agencies in 2015. Engagement scores for millennials 

were statistically lower than those of non-millennials at 3 agencies, 

the U.S. Agency for International Development, Department of 

Defense, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). There was no 

statistically significant difference between the engagement scores of 

millennials and non-millennials at the 7 remaining agencies 

(Department of Agriculture, Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Department of Justice, Department of State, 

Department of Treasury, the National Science Foundation, and the 

Small Business Administration) (see figure 6).
Page 16 GAO-16-880T 

Figure 6: Estimated Employee Engagement Index (EEI) Scores by Age Group and Agency, 2015

• The difference between EEI scores for millennials and non-millennials 

was highest at the Department of Commerce, where millennial EEI 

scores were approximately 5 percentage points higher than 

engagement scores for non-millennials.
Page 17 GAO-16-880T 

• The range between the agencies with the highest and lowest 

engagement scores was approximately 29 percentage points for 

millennials and approximately 23 percentage points for nonmillennials. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration had 

the highest EEI scores, with millennials scoring approximately 16 

percentage points higher than the government-wide average and nonmillennials scoring approximately 14 percentage points higher.

• DHS had the lowest engagement scores for both age groups—

millennials scored approximately 13 percentage points lower than the 

government-wide average and non-millennials scored approximately 

10 percentage points lower. Despite low EEI scores for millennials, as 

shown above in figure 4, DHS has the highest percentage (39.2 

percent) of employees 39 years old and younger in their workforce, 

compared to other CFO Act agencies.

Among all employees, millennials had similar perceptions of leaders as 

non-millennials, but, as shown in table 2, employees’ perceptions of 

leaders consistently received the lowest score of the three components 

that comprise the EEI. Millennials had better perceptions of their 

supervisors than non-millennials and the supervisors component saw the 

highest scores in the EEI across all age groups in 2015. For the intrinsic 

work experience component, however, non-millennials had higher scores 

than millennials by more than three percentage points.19

 19 The differences between millennial and non-millennial EEI scores for the supervisors 

and intrinsic work experience components are statistically significant at a 95 percent 

confidence level.

Millennials Ranked 

Supervisors Higher than 

Non-Millennials, But 

Scored Lower in Intrinsic 

Work Experience
Page 18 GAO-16-880T 

Table 2: Millennials Had Higher Supervisor Engagement Component Scores than 

Non-Millennials in 2015, But Lower Scores in the Intrinsic Work Experience 

Component

Millennials

(39 years old and younger)

Non-millennials

(40 years old and older)

Overall employee 

engagement index 63.8 64.2

EEI Components

Leaders lead 50.8 50.8

Supervisors 72.8 70.8

Intrinsic work experience 66.8 70.0

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) data, 2015 |

GAO-16-880T

As we have shown in the analysis above, the employee-supervisor 

relationship is an important aspect of employee engagement. FEVS 

questions on the supervisors component focus on the interpersonal 

relationship between worker and supervisor and concern supervisors’

support for employee development, employees’ respect, trust, and 

confidence in their supervisor, and employee perceptions of an immediate 

supervisor’s performance.20 This is consistent with U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board (MSPB) research, which suggests that first-line 

supervisors are key to employee engagement and organizational 

performance.21

Questions on intrinsic work experience reflect employees’ feelings of 

motivation and competency related to their role in the workplace, such as 

their sense of accomplishment and their perception of utilization of their 

skills.

 20FEVS defines supervisor as first-line supervisors typically responsible for employees’ 

performance appraisals and leave approval. This individual does not supervise other 

supervisors.

21U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision 

of Federal Employees (Washington, D.C.: May, 2010).
Page 19 GAO-16-880T 

Overall we found that the drivers of engagement were similar for 

millennials and non-millennials. What matters most in improving 

engagement levels across all age groups is valuing employees—that is, 

an authentic focus on their performance, career development, and 

inclusion and involvement in decisions affecting their work. The key is 

identifying what practices to implement and how to implement them, 

which can and should come from multiple sources—FEVS and other data 

sources, other agencies, and OPM.

Of the various topics covered by the FEVS that we analyzed, we 

identified six that had the strongest association with higher EEI levels 

compared to others for both millennials and non-millennials, as described 

in figure 7. We used regression analysis to test which selected FEVS 

questions best predicted levels of employee engagement as measured by 

the GAO-calculated EEI, after controlling for other factors such as 

employee characteristics and agency.

Lessons Learned for 

Driving Engagement 

Could Help Improve 

Recruitment and 

Retention

Performance 

Conversations Are the 

Strongest Drivers of EEI 

Levels
Page 20 GAO-16-880T 

Figure 7: Strongest Drivers of the Employee Engagement Index for Millennials and 

Non-Millennials, 2015

Notes: Results are based on a linear multiple regression analysis of all FEVS respondents that 

controlled for 18 potential driver questions, individual level demographic characteristics, and 37 

distinct agencies. To set a practical threshold for significance when defining drivers for this 

discussion, we defined as drivers those FEVS questions for which each positive increase in response 

w as associated with an average 3 percentage point or greater increase in the EEI. Other questions 

included in our model w ere statistically significant predictors of engagement, but implied a relatively 

smaller impact on engagement scores. Results w ere similar w hen we ran the regression model 

separately for millennials and non-millennials, except that one driver variable for millennials did quite 

attain our practical threshold. This driver, employee satisfaction with information from management 

on decisions that affect work, was still statistically higher than other potential driver variables for 

millennials.

Constructive performance conversations. We found that having 

constructive performance conversations was the strongest driver of the 

EEI government-wide. For the question “My supervisor provides me with 

constructive suggestions to improve my job performance,” we found that, 

controlling for other factors, someone who answered “strongly agree” on 

that FEVS question would have on average an engagement score that 
Page 21 GAO-16-880T 

was more than 20 percentage points higher, compared to someone who 

answered “strongly disagree” on the 5-point response scale.22

As we found in our March 2003 report on performance management, 

candid and constructive feedback helps individuals maximize their 

contribution and potential for realizing the goals and objectives of an 

organization.23 At the Department of Education (Education), one case 

study agency from our 2015 report on employee engagement, the Office 

of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) implemented a process to help 

ensure that constructive performance conversations regularly occur. In 

addition to department-wide requirements for supervisors to hold two 

performance conversations a year, OCIO officials said that they require 

all supervisors to offer OCIO employees optional quarterly conversations. 

These quarterly performance conversations are guided by a set of 

specific topics that supervisors and employees developed together to 

ensure that employees receive consistent and regular constructive 

feedback and coaching.

Career development and training. Our analysis found that career 

development and training was the second strongest driver governmentwide. For the question, “I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills 

in my organization,” we found that, controlling for other factors, someone 

who answered “strongly agree” to that question would have on average 

an engagement score that was approximately 15 percentage points 

higher than someone who answered “strongly disagree.”

As we found in 2004, the essential aim of training and development 

programs is to assist an agency in achieving its mission and goals by 

improving individual and, ultimately, organizational performance.24 At the 

National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), another case study agency 

from our 2015 report on employee engagement, officials said the agency 

focused on providing training for employees throughout their careers. For 

 22 The five-point scale generally consisted of strongly disagree to strongly agree or very 

dissatisfied to very satisfied.

23 GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual 

Performance and Organizational Success,GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 

2003).

24 GAO, Human Capital:A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development 

Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004).
Page 22 GAO-16-880T 

example, NCUA requires each employee to develop an individual 

development plan. For employees new to credit union examining—a 

majority of employees—NCUA has a standardized 18-month training 

program that combines classroom and practical work. New examiners 

must complete a core set of courses and may also choose additional 

elective courses. NCUA officials said that they are constantly assessing 

formal and informal training for entry-level employees to identify areas to 

improve the curriculum and instruction. For more experienced examiners, 

NCUA provides continuing training and development, according to these 

officials.

Remaining drivers. For the remaining 4 drivers, we found that 

government-wide, controlling for other factors, someone who answered 

“strongly agree” to those questions would have on average an 

engagement score that was between 10 and 14 percentage points higher 

than someone who answered “strongly disagree.” Those four drivers are 

work-life balance (“My supervisor supports my need to balance work and 

other life issues”), inclusive work environment (“Supervisors work well 

with employees of different backgrounds”), employee involvement (“How 

satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect your 

work”), and communication from management (“How satisfied are you 

with the information you receive from management on what’s going on in 

your organization”). Examples of how the three case study agencies from 

our 2015 report implemented practices consistent with these drivers 

include the following:

• Work-life balance. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) officials 

implemented an outreach strategy to inform staff about child and elder 

care resources after learning that employees were not aware of the 

services or did not know that they qualified for these services. Officials 

said employee knowledge of and agency commitment to these kinds 

of programs enhances supervisor support for work-life balance. 

Similarly, to support work-life balance, as part of its engagED 

initiative, Education revised telework policies, provided training for 

managers and employees on the new polices and on working in a 

telework environment, and improved infrastructure to make telework 

as effective as time spent in the office, according to Education 

officials.

• Inclusive work environment. The FTC established an agency-wide 

Diversity Council to develop comprehensive strategies to promote 

understanding and opportunity throughout FTC. FTC officials said that 

employees of all levels were interested in forming such a council. This 
Page 23 GAO-16-880T 

included employees who experienced diversity issues firsthand as 

well as managers who could address those issues. The goal of FTC’s 

Diversity Council—composed of representatives from each bureau 

and office—is to engage employees and supervisors across the 

agency, make recommendations for improving diversity, and foster 

the professional development of all agency employees, according to 

these officials.

• Employee involvement. Education’s Office of General Counsel 

(OGC) has a permanent employee-driven Workforce Improvement 

Team (WIT) that grew out of an office-wide meeting with employees at 

all levels to involve employees in the discussions about the FEVS 

results. As a result of this group’s work, Education’s OGC 

management introduced additional training and professional 

development opportunities and improved employee on-boarding 

through a new handbook and mentoring program. Education’s OGC 

officials said that the staff-driven WIT has created feelings of stronger 

ownership, engagement, and influence in office decision making. 

Education’s OGC officials said that OGC’s management seeks 

feedback from staff, including from the WIT, to evaluate the 

effectiveness of improvement efforts. These officials said that this 

strengthens two-way communication, which improves employee 

engagement and organizational performance.

• Communication from management. NCUA officials told us that the 

head of the agency and its senior leaders communicate with line 

employees (who are mostly in the field) through quarterly webinar 

meetings. The meetings are scheduled to accommodate the field 

employees’ frequent travel schedule and generally start with any “hot 

topics” and continue with discussion of agency efforts to meet mission 

goals. The agency head takes questions in advance and during the 

webinar and, when needed, participants research and share 

responses with agency employees. According to NCUA officials, 

these regular, substantive conversations demonstrate top leadership’s 

commitment and respect for all employees as valued business 

partners.

These key drivers can help agencies develop a culture of engagement as 

agencies embed them into the fabric of everyday management practices, 

rather than simply reacting to the results of the most recent FEVS. 

Importantly, these six practices were generally the consistent drivers of 

higher EEI levels when we analyzed them government-wide and by age 

groups, and were the same drivers of engagement identified in our prior 

analysis of the 2014 EEI. Because these six practices are the strongest 
Page 24 GAO-16-880T 

drivers of the EEI, this suggests they could be the starting points for all 

agencies seeking to improve engagement.

In our 2015 report we identified three key lessons for improving employee 

engagement, each of which is described in greater detail below.

Our three case study agencies in our 2015 report on employee 

engagement attributed their high or increasing levels of engagement to 

overall effective management practices more so than to efforts 

specifically aimed at improving engagement levels. Officials at these 

agencies said they pay attention to employee engagement scores, but 

also focus on overall positive organizational health and culture and on 

how their agency implements change efforts. Some of the practices 

agencies cited parallel those we identified in 2003 as key to successful 

organizational transformation, including top leadership involvement, 

consistency, creating a line of sight linking individual results to 

organizational performance, and employee outreach.25

Top leadership involvement. Officials from all three of our case study 

agencies said that top agency leaders were directly involved in 

organizational improvement efforts. We have previously reported top 

leadership that is clearly and personally leading the change presents 

stability and provides an identifiable source for employees to rally around 

and helps the process/efforts stay the course.26 For example, Education 

officials said Education’s Chief Information Officer is directly involved in 

efforts to address FEVS scores—including being directly involved in the 

data analysis, reviewing Education’s Office of the Chief Information 

Officer (OCIO) action plans developed by each of his subordinate 

directors, overseeing implementation of strategies, and assessing their 

effectiveness.

Consistency. Officials at Education’s OCIO said it is important to ensure 

that policies are applied consistently, which is the goal of that office’s 

 25GAO, Highlights of a GAO Forum: Mergers and Transformations: Lessons Learned for a 

Department of Homeland Security and Other Federal Agencies, GAO-03-293SP 

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2002).

26GAO-03-293SP.

Lessons Learned for 

Improving Employee 

Engagement

Use Effective Management 

Practices to Build a Culture of

Engagement
Page 25 GAO-16-880T 

Speaking with One Voice initiative. The biweekly management meetings 

to discuss and clarify the implementation of department policies (e.g., 

telework, resources, and employee bonuses) were instituted after 

conversations with employees revealed that policies were inconsistently 

applied. As a result of the initiative, Education’s OCIO officials said 

employees know that senior leaders are paying attention to how policies 

affect employees and are accountable for ensuring appropriate 

implementation.

Line of sight. FTC officials emphasized the importance of creating a line 

of sight between the agency’s mission and the work of each employee. 

As we have previously reported, successful organizations create a “line of 

sight” showing how team, unit, and individual performance can contribute 

to overall organizational results.27 FTC officials said that the agency lists 

every employee that contributed to a case in the pleadings, from the 

attorneys and paralegals to the information technology specialists who 

provided computer support. Importantly, FTC officials said they recognize 

how mission support functions, such as excellent human resources 

customer service contribute to the agency mission.

Employee outreach. According to officials at all three case study 

agencies, they all reach out to employees and their labor union 

representatives, if applicable, to obtain insight into their FEVS scores or 

to inform other improvement efforts. Our 2003 report found that employee 

involvement strengthens the improvement process by including frontline 

perspectives and experiences.28 By participating in improvement task 

teams, employees have additional opportunities to share their 

experiences and shape policies and procedures as they are being 

developed and implemented.29 For example, in 2012, while NCUA’s EEI 

score was above the government-wide level, FEVS questions about 

awards, performance appraisals, and merit-based promotions were its 

lowest scoring categories. NCUA officials said they contracted with an 

external facilitator to conduct workshops and webinar-based feedback 

sessions with employees to gain insight into their FEVS results and 

 27GAO-03-293SP.

28GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and 

Organizational Transformations,GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003).

29GAO-03-669.
Page 26 GAO-16-880T 

identify root causes influencing the survey scores. These officials said 

that using external facilitators offered employees confidentiality and 

created an environment that encouraged open conversations. Based on 

these feedback sessions, NCUA created an internal employee-driven 

committee to inform revisions to the awards, performance appraisals, and 

merit-based promotion process, and developed recommendations for 

NCUA’s management to implement these changes. Most of the 

committee’s recommendations were implemented.

According to officials at our case study agencies in our 2015 report on 

employee engagement, while the EEI provides a useful barometer for 

engagement, other indicators can provide officials with further insight into 

reasons for engagement levels and areas for improvement. Other data 

such as turnover rates and equal employment opportunity (EEO) 

complaints—which are likely already collected by federal agencies—can 

provide additional insight and strategies for improving employee 

engagement. Notably, MSPB found that there is a statistically significant 

correlation between higher levels of employee engagement and fewer 

EEO complaints.30 Officials in the three case study agencies said that 

they pay attention to their FEVS scores, but other sources of data can 

provide explanatory or agency-specific information valuable to developing 

improvement strategies.

Officials at case study agencies for our 2015 report on employee 

engagement told us that they take a multi-year, multi-prong approach to 

improving engagement and do not base engagement efforts solely on the 

survey cycle or focus their attention on year to year changes in the EEI. 

Some case study agency officials said a single survey cycle does not 

provide enough time to implement changes and see results because real 

change usually takes more than 1 year. The FEVS cycle begins around 

May and agencies receive results in September or October. It may be 

late-winter or early-spring before an agency will have designed an action 

plan. By the time the next survey cycle begins, agencies may still be 

interpreting results and developing and implementing their action plans.

Moreover, according to case study agency and other officials we 

interviewed for the 2015 report, the annual survey cycle does not allow 

 30U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement

(Washington, D.C.: September 2008).

Supplemental Data Sources 

Enable Agencies to Pinpoint 

Efforts

Effects of Engagement Efforts 

Occur Over Multiple Years
Page 27 GAO-16-880T 

enough time for employees’ perceptions to change before the next cycle 

begins.31 For example, an Education official said that it took a few years 

to see the effects of engagement-related actions. Members of the Chief 

Human Capital Officers Council and National Council on Federal LaborManagement Relations joint working group on employee engagement 

said that the effects of initiatives implemented to improve engagement, 

will not be reflected in the EEI scores for at least a couple of years, which 

makes evaluating their effectiveness challenging.

Instead of focusing exclusively on FEVS and EEI scores, the case study 

agencies we examined took a longer term approach to their engagement 

efforts. For example, according to officials, Education established 

engagED, a long-term cultural change initiative aimed at building a more 

innovative, collaborative and results-oriented agency, and creating a 

more engaged workforce. Key components included quarterly all-staff 

meetings with the Secretary to discuss various topics; a “lunches with 

leaders” program that allowed agency employees to discuss key topics 

with senior agency leaders; and periodic leadership summits where 

agency leaders participate in developmental activities identified by staff 

and focused on teams, individual leadership, and problem resolution. 

In conclusion, more than simply a goal in its own right, higher levels of 

engagement can enhance an agency’s “brand” to job seekers, reduce 

turnover, and most importantly, improve organizational performance. 

Moreover, while our analysis and the experience of our case study 

agencies suggests that developing a culture of engagement does not 

necessarily require expensive programs or technology, it does 

necessitate effective management strategies such as leadership 

involvement, strong interpersonal skills on the part of supervisors, and 

thoughtful use of data. The starting point is valuing employees, focusing 

on their performance and career development, and ensuring their 

inclusion in decisions affecting their work. These engagement efforts, 

combined with other components of a robust talent management strategy 

covering the full life-cycle of federal employment, provide an ample tool 

kit that should position agencies to be competitive in the labor market for 

top talent. 

 31Similarly, we found in our work on organizational transformations that change efforts can 

take as much as 5 to 7 years. GAO-03-293SP.
Page 28 GAO-16-880T 

This completes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any 

questions the Subcommittee may have.

For further information regarding this statement, please contact Robert 

Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-2757, or 

goldenkoffr@gao.gov.

Individuals making key contributions to this statement include Chelsa 

Gurkin, Assistant Director; Shelby Kain, Analyst-in-Charge; Giny Cheong, 

Sara Daleski, John F. Hussey III, Donna Miller, Anna Maria Ortiz, Ulyana 

Panchishin, and LaSonya Roberts.

GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments

(100931)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.