Carla A. Hackworth1

S. Janine King2

Cristy A. Detwiler1

1

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

2

Omni Corporation

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

July 2003

Final Report

This document is available to the public

through the National Technical Information

Service, Springfi eld, Virginia 22161.

Offi ce of Aerospace Medicine

Washington, DC 20591

DOT/FAA/AM-03/11 The Employee Attitude 

Survey 2000: Perspectives 

on Its Process and Utility 
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of

information exchange. The United States Government

assumes no liability for the contents thereof.
i

Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

DOT/FAA/AM-03/11 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

The Employee Attitude Survey 2000: Perspectives on Its Process and Utility July 2003

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

Hackworth CA1, King SJ2, & Detwiler CA1

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

1

FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute

P. O. Box 25082 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

2

OMNI Corporation

P. O. Box 25082 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

15. Supplemental Notes 

Work was accomplished under approved subtask AM-B-03-HRR-522. 

16. Abstract 

The Post-Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) 2000 Point of Contact (POC) Feedback Survey was distributed to gather 

information about the 2000 EAS process and subsequent action planning. The present study was designed to gain a better 

understanding of the extent to which the EAS 2000 results were used to promote organizational change and to examine 

satisfaction with the EAS 2000 survey process. Feedback was sought from individuals who were involved in the EAS 2000 

process. Method: One hundred eighty-one employees completed and returned the POC Feedback Survey. Respondents 

represented all supervisory levels (i.e., non-supervisor, 46%; supervisor, 13%; and manager, 41%). Approximately twothirds of the respondents indicated that they had served as a POC at some level of the agency. Specifically, 24% of 

respondents indicated that they had served as an EAS 2000 Line of Business (LOB) or organizational POC; 35% had acted 

as a field (region or division) POC, and 34% indicated that they had participated in an EAS 2000 workgroup. Results: The 

majority of respondents reported having access to their organization's results, and greater than half reported having access to

the agency's EAS 2000 results. Many of the respondents (84%) reported involvement in post EAS 2000 action planning at 

some level of the agency. Respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the EAS 2000 results were used to identify areas 

needing improvement for the FAA overall (77%), and 86% reported that areas were identified at the organizational level. 

Further, at least 60% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that actions were being taken across the various organizational 

levels of the agency (e.g., FAA, LOB, division or facility) to improve the areas identified by the EAS 2000. However, onefourth of the POC subgroup reported not receiving feedback regarding actions taken. Nonetheless, respondents were strong 

in agreement that the next administration of the EAS would be used to assess the progress of the actions taken across LOBs 

and organizational levels within the agency. Conclusions: The EAS was found to have long-term utility across the levels of 

the agency. Establishing continual feedback mechanisms regarding action planning progress was an area identified as 

needing attention. Without these updates, POCs will be unable to verify that the desired organizational changes are taking 

place. 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

Survey Feedback, Action Planning, Employee Surveys Document is available to the public through the 

National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 21 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 

1

THE EMPLOYEE ATTITUDE SURVEY 2000: 

PERSPECTIVES ON ITS PROCESS AND UTILITY

BACKGROUND

Organizational surveys are designed for a number of 

reasons such as soliciting employee feedback, noting organizational trends, gauging reactions to organizational 

changes, and identifying organizational concerns (Kraut, 

1996). Strategically focused surveys have been successful in identifying issues related to specifi c organizational 

goals (e.g., Schneider, Ashworth, Higgs, & Carr, 1996). 

The federal government utilizes organizational surveys 

for a wide array of applications (Gowing & Lancaster, 

1996). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has 

administered the Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) to 

employees since 1984. The survey was administered to a 

census of the FAA in 1984, 1986, 1997, and 2000, and 

to a 15% sample of FAA employees in 1988, 1990, 1993, 

and 1995. Although elements of the survey have changed 

across administrations, items thought to represent core 

areas of interest have remained unchanged. The survey has 

been designed to gather information regarding employee 

attitudes, perceptions, and opinions about a broad variety 

of organizational issues that affect workforce performance 

and quality of work life. (For more information about 

the EAS, see Thompson et al., 2000.)

Post-survey interventions are necessary to generate 

organizational change as a consequence of survey results 

(Hinrichs, 1996). Born and Mathieu (1996) found that 

supervisors who were perceived by their subordinates as 

implementing a high degree of change in response to an 

initial survey were rated higher regarding supervisory skills, 

supervisory communications, and work-unit climate in a 

subsequent survey. In contrast, supervisors who initially 

were rated lower in implementing change were rated lower 

on the second survey in supervisory skills, supervisory 

communications, and work-unit climate. Several explanations are plausible for the fi ndings (e.g., resistant subordinates, unskilled supervisors; Born & Mathieu, 1996), 

but the bottom-line was that those supervisors rated lower 

on perceived responsiveness to survey results declined in 

subordinate perceptions across survey administrations. 

Therefore, when employees do not perceive responsive 

action to the results of an organizational survey, it can 

have deleterious effects. Further, failing to adequately communicate survey results and subsequent action-oriented 

responses (i.e., action plans) can undermine the integrity 

of the survey process (Hinrichs, 1996). 

The most recent administration of the EAS was a census of FAA employees in September 2000. Completing 

a census of employee attitudes for an agency of this size 

requires the support and involvement of individuals 

across the agency. The agency’s Line of Business (LOB) 

Points of Contact (POCs), major organization POCs, 

and other survey stakeholders contributed to the survey 

design and content. This method allowed the survey to 

refl ect issues of interest throughout the agency at the 

time of development, while maintaining core historical 

items across administrations. The reporting of the EAS 

2000 results was accomplished by distributing more than 

1,000 summary reports via CD-ROM to LOB and major 

organization POCs. Many LOBs and major organizations use the results of the EAS to gauge their progress 

regarding various action plans established as organizational 

performance indicators.

Included in the EAS 2000 survey was space reserved for 

written comments. A portion of the comments expressed 

disappointment with the lack of visible change in response 

to survey results. The present study was designed to a) 

gain a better understanding of the extent to which the 

EAS 2000 results were used to promote organizational 

change, and b) gauge POC and stakeholder satisfaction 

with the EAS 2000 survey process. 

The POC feedback survey content was derived through 

a collaborative effort between the Civil Aerospace Medical 

Institute (CAMI), the Offi ce of Organizational Learning 

and Development (AHD), and LOB and major organization POCs. Feedback was specifi cally sought from EAS 

LOB and major organization POCs, fi eld POCs, and 

other individuals involved in the EAS 2000 survey design or action planning workgroups. This target audience 

allowed the opportunity to assess perceptions of those 

individuals more closely linked to the survey process. 

However, respondents also included some LOB, organization, and division or facility supervisors and managers 

who were not directly involved in the EAS process. The 

survey was coordinated with union representatives, and 

participation was voluntary and anonymous. This report 

presents a summary of the EAS 2000 POC Feedback 

Survey results.
2

METHOD

Survey Content

The Post-EAS 2000 POC Feedback Survey consisted 

of 23 items covering various aspects of the EAS 2000 

process, 5 demographic items, and 1 comment content 

item (see the complete survey in Appendix A). Participants 

were queried about three major topics: (1) the EAS 2000 

process, (2) identifying areas needing improvement and 

action planning, and (3) progress of action planning. 

Most EAS process items were answered using a 5-point 

Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly 

agree.” On several items, respondents were provided with 

a “don’t know” response option in the event that they 

had no experience with which to judge. Occasionally, we 

have included the percentage of respondents that indicated “don’t know” as a point of reference. However, in 

general, the following results exclude the “don’t know” 

response option on the Likert-type items. By removing 

those respondents who indicated “don’t know” item-byitem, we believe that the results more accurately refl ect 

perceptions about the EAS 2000 process. See Appendix 

B for the results of all items. 

EAS 2000 process. Two items (2, 3) asked about the EAS 

2000 development and reporting process. Item 2 assessed 

the effectiveness of the method used for the EAS 2000 

development; whereas, item 3 evaluated the helpfulness 

of the EAS 2000 organizational demographic sheet(s) in 

determining what reports were needed. Six items (1, 4-6, 

19, 22) dealt with the reporting of the EAS 2000 results. 

Specifi cally, two items (1,19) asked what organizational 

levels the respondents had access to for EAS 2000 results 

(e.g., FAA overall, LOB, organization, division or facility) and how they received their reports (e.g., CD-ROM, 

Internet, E-mail). Two items (5, 6) addressed the timeliness of report distribution and the effectiveness of the 

distribution method. Another item (4) asked whether the 

report format was easy to understand. Respondents were 

also requested to indicate whether they knew whom to 

contact for information about EAS results (22). 

Identifying areas needing improvement and action planning. Items 7-10 assessed whether or not the various levels 

of the agency (e.g., FAA, LOB, organization, division or 

facility) had identifi ed areas needing improvement based 

on EAS 2000 results. Eight items (11-14, 18, 20, 21, 27) 

assessed various aspects of action planning. Items 11-14 

inquired about respondents’ knowledge of actions taken 

at the various levels of the agency to improve the areas 

identifi ed by the EAS 2000 as needing improvement. 

Respondents were also asked about their involvement in 

EAS 2000 action planning (18) and whether they had 

received feedback regarding actions taken to improve 

areas identifi ed by the EAS 2000 (20). For items 18 and 

20, respondents were allowed to mark all applicable organizational levels of the agency. Respondents were also 

asked the approximate percentage of the divisions and 

facilities in their organization taking action to improve 

the identifi ed areas (21). Additionally, respondents were 

asked to indicate what area(s) (i.e., accountability, coaching, model work environment, quality of work life, etc.) 

were chosen for follow-up action planning within their 

LOB, organization, and division or facility (27). 

Assessing progress. Three items (15-17) asked whether 

the next EAS would be used by the various levels of the 

agency to assess the progress of actions taken based on 

EAS 2000 results. 

Demographics. Five items (23-26, 28) gathered demographic information. Participants indicated whether 

they had acted as LOB POC (23) or fi eld (region or 

division) POC (24), and whether they had participated 

in an EAS 2000 workgroup (25). Supervisory status (26) 

and reporting organization (LOB or major organization) 

for the EAS 2000 (28) were also asked. 

Comment content. Respondents were invited to provide 

comments about the EAS 2000 process. Item 29 asked 

respondents to either indicate “no comment” or to code 

the overall content of their comment(s) into the following categories: complaint, compliment, suggestion, or 

other. Respondents were allowed to mark all applicable 

response options for item 29. 

Procedure

The Post-EAS 2000 POC Feedback Survey was distributed in June 2002 to gather information about the 

EAS 2000 process and subsequent action planning. Survey 

recipients included both employees who were involved in 

the EAS 2000 process (including post-EAS 2000 action 

planning) and supervisors and managers not specifi cally 

involved in the EAS 2000 process. Each EAS Feedback 

Survey POC was tasked with identifying recipients within 

their respective LOB or major organization and with 

distributing the POC Feedback Surveys. The number 

of surveys distributed by each POC was not equivalent 

due to several factors: the variation in the size of LOBs 

and major organizations, the number of people involved 

in the EAS 2000 process within each LOB and major 

organization, the number of people selected by POCs to 

participate, and photocopying of surveys following the 

initial distribution. Recipients were allowed six weeks to 

complete and return the survey. 
3

RESULTS

Participants

One hundred eighty-one employees completed and 

returned the Post-EAS 2000 POC Feedback Survey. We 

mailed approximately 340 surveys to the LOB and major 

organization POCs; however, the exact number of surveys 

distributed by POCs is unknown due to photocopying 

following distribution. Therefore, we were unable to 

derive an accurate response rate. Table 1 provides the 

percentages of respondents who identifi ed their LOB 

or major organization within the agency. Most of the 

LOBs and major organizations were represented within 

the sample. Participants varied in their POC involvement, 

action planning participation, and supervisory status. 

Approximately two-thirds of the respondents indicated 

that they had served as an EAS POC at some level of the 

agency. Specifi cally, 24% of respondents indicated that 

they had served as an EAS 2000 LOB or organizational 

POC, 35% had acted as a fi eld (region or division) POC, 

and 34% indicated that they had participated in an EAS 

2000 workgroup. The majority of respondents (84%) 

indicated involvement in post-EAS 2000 action planning 

at some level of the agency. Respondents represented all 

supervisory levels (i.e., non-supervisor, 46%; supervisor, 

13%; and manager, 41%).

EAS 2000 Process

Nearly all respondents (98%) indicated having had access to the EAS 2000 results for some level of the agency 

(e.g., FAA, LOB or major organization, division or facility). Over half of respondents reported having access to 

the EAS 2000 results for the FAA and for their respective 

LOB, while over 70% reported access to EAS 2000 results 

for their specifi c organization. The response rate for access 

to FAA results was lower than expected, especially given 

that the results were sent via CD-ROM to major LOB 

POCs and stakeholders. Further, the EAS 2000 results 

were posted on an FAA intranet Website. Moreover, 92% 

of respondents indicated that they knew whom to contact 

for information about the EAS results.

Identifying Areas Needing Improvement 

The majority of respondents were in agreement (agree 

or strongly agree) that EAS 2000 results were used to 

identify areas needing improvement across the various 

levels of the agency. For example, 77% of respondents 

either agreed or strongly agreed that the FAA overall 

had identifi ed areas needing improvement based on EAS 

2000 results, and 86% of respondents indicated that their 

specifi c organization had utilized EAS 2000 results for 

the same purpose (see items 7-10). 

Table 1. Percentage of respondents who indicated their LOB or Major Organization within the Agency.

Percentage Line of Business (LOB) or Major Organization (MO) 

15 AOA or Staff Office reporting to AOA (e.g., AOZ, ABA, AIO) 

0 Civil Aviation Security (ACS) 

5 Air Traffic Service (AAT) 

26 Airway Facilities (AAF) 

4 Air Traffic Services – Not AAT nor AAF (i.e., ATS, ARS, ASC, ATQ, ARI, ATB) 

11 Flight Standards (AFS) 

9 Aircraft Certification (AIR) 

12 Regulation and Certification – Not AFS nor AIR (i.e., AVR, AAI, AAM, ARM) 

1 Research and Acquisition (ARA) 

13 Regions and Center (ARC) 

4 Airports (ARP) 

0 Commercial Space and Transportation (AST) 

Note: Three respondents did not indicate their Line of Business or Major Organization. 
4

Action Planning 

Respondents were in agreement that actions were 

being taken by the FAA (60%), their LOB (64%), their 

organization (71%), and their division or facility (71%) 

to improve areas identifi ed by the EAS 2000 (see items 

11-14).Most respondents (84%) indicated participation 

in post-EAS 2000 action planning at some level of the 

agency, with the majority of respondents (63%) indicating 

involvement at the division or facility level (see Figure 

1; item 18). 

A list of topic areas covered by the EAS 2000 was 

provided (see item 27), and respondents were asked to 

indicate the areas chosen for follow-up action planning 

within their LOB, organization, and division or facility. 

The areas identifi ed by respondents for follow-up action planning varied across the three levels of the agency; 

however, the number-one area chosen for each level (e.g., 

LOB, organization, and division or facility) was communication (41%, 58%, and 70%, respectively). Nearly half 

(48%) of respondents indicated that over three-fourths 

of the facilities or divisions in their organizations were 

taking action to improve the areas identifi ed by the EAS 

2000 results (see item 21). However, 37% of respondents 

indicated that they did not know what percentage of their 

facilities was taking action. Further, 26% of respondents 

indicated that they had not received feedback regarding 

what actions had been taken (see item 20). 

To evaluate further the reported lack of feedback 

regarding actions taken, item responses were compared 

for two subgroups (POCs and Non POCs) with the 

“don’t know” response excluded. POCs were defi ned as 

respondents who indicated that they had acted as an EAS 

POC at some level of the agency (items 23 or 24) or who 

had participated in an EAS workgroup (item 25). Those 

who responded “no” or who were missing responses for 

items 23-25 were defi ned as Non POCs. 

Not surprisingly, more Non POCs (31%) reported 

that they had not received feedback, when compared with 

POCs (25%). Nonetheless, one-fourth of the POC subgroup reported not receiving feedback regarding actions 

taken (see Table 2). This fi nding could prove problematic 

for successful action planning interventions (see Stringer, 

1999). Hopefully, this report will serve as a vehicle to 

foster communication within this area.

Assessing Progress 

As evidence of the long-term utility of the EAS, respondents reported that the next EAS would be used 

to assess the progress of actions taken as a result of the 

EAS 2000 results across the various levels of the agency. 

Specifi cally, 80% of respondents reported that their LOB 

plans to use the next EAS to assess progress, 80% indicated that their organization would use the next EAS, 

and 75% indicated that their division or facility would 

use the next EAS to judge the progress of actions taken 

(see items 15-17). 

CONCLUSIONS

The present study was designed to solicit feedback 

about the EAS 2000 process and subsequent action planning. One of our initial interests was inquiring about the 

availability of the EAS 2000 results across the various 

levels of the agency. The majority of respondents reported 

having had access to their organization’s results, and over 

half reported having had access to the agency’s EAS 2000 

results. Also, most respondents reported that they knew 

whom to contact for information regarding the EAS 2000. 

Nonetheless, we will continue to improve the method 

of distribution for EAS results. Further, we will aim to 

improve communication with the stakeholders and POCs 

surrounding the follow-up segment of the EAS.

3

15

40

63

16

0

20

40

60

80

100

FAA LOB Organization Division/Facility None

Figure 1. Percentage of respondents that indicated involvement in post-EAS 2000 action 

planning across levels of the agency. 

Note: Numbers (n) may sum to greater than sample size due to multiple responses. 
5

Table 2. Percentage of POCs versus Non POCs that received feedback regarding actions taken. 

20. I have received feedback regarding the actions taken to improve areas identified by 

the EAS 2000 as needing improvement for... (Mark all that apply) 

 POCs Non POCs

 n % n %

the FAA overall. 15 13 1 2 

my LOB. 23 20 7 12 

my organization. 50 43 22 38 

my division/facility. 60 52 26 45 

none of the above. 29 25 18 31 

 POCs = 116 Non POCs = 58 

Note: Numbers (n) may sum to greater than sample size due to multiple responses.

Overall, the results were positive regarding the utility 

of the EAS 2000. Respondents reported that the survey 

was useful for 1) identifying areas needing improvement, 

2) action planning, and 3) gauging the future success of 

action planning efforts. Nearly half of respondents reported that over three-fourths of the divisions or facilities 

within their organization were taking action regarding 

areas identifi ed by the EAS 2000 as needing improvement. However, a minority of respondents was found 

to be unaware of the progress regarding actions taken 

across the various levels of the agency. It is possible that 

feedback regarding actions taken was provided following 

data collection. However, if this information exchange 

did not occur, the benefi ts of action planning are likely 

to be adversely affected. 

Organizational changes rely upon employee participation. To sustain effective changes, employees should perceive the actions in response to survey results as authentic 

attempts to address problem areas (Burke, Coruzzi, & 

Church, 1996). Employees should be informed of the 

area(s) chosen for follow-up action planning and should 

be provided information regarding the implementation 

and status of action plans. Involving employees invites 

them to affect the organization’s future (Burke, Coruzzi, 

& Church, 1996). By utilizing POCs from within the 

FAA’s LOBs and major organizations for survey development and feedback, we have increased the opportunity 

for survey development to address issues critical to FAA 

organizations. Additionally, we have solicited feedback 

from employees regarding the survey process. 

Achieving established organizational outcomes requires 

patience. It is possible that the impact of some interventions will not be immediately visible; change generally 

takes time (Schneider, Gunnarson, & Niles-Jolly, 1994). 

The results of the next EAS will provide an opportunity 

to assess the impact of the current action planning efforts. 

This is not to suggest that the EAS should be relied upon 

as the sole source for monitoring change but, rather, can 

complement a set of metrics with delineated goals.

REFERENCES

Born, D.H., & Mathieu, J.E. (1996). Differential effects 

of survey-guided feedback: The rich get richer and 

the poor get poorer. Group & Organization Management, 21 (4), 388-403.

Burke, W.W., Coruzzi, C.A., & Church, A.H. (1996). 

The organizational survey as an intervention for 

change. In A.I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational surveys: 

Tools for assessment and change (pp. 41-66). San 

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gowing, M.K., & Lancaster, A.R. (1996). Federal government surveys: Recent practices and future directions. In A.I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational surveys: 

Tools for assessment and change (pp. 360-380). San 

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hinrichs, J.R. (1996). Feedback, action planning, and 

follow-through. In A.I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational 

surveys: Tools for assessment and change (pp. 255-279). 

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kraut, A.I. (1996). An overview of organizational surveys. 

In A.I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational surveys: Tools for 

assessment and change (pp. 1-14). San Francisco, 

CA: Jossey-Bass.
6

Schneider, B., Ashworth, S.D., Higgs, A.C., & Carr, L. 

(1996). Design, validity, and use of strategically 

focused employee attitude surveys. Personnel Psychology, 49, 695-705.

Schneider, B., Gunnarson, S.K., & Niles-Jolly, K. (1994, 

Summer). Creating the climate and culture of success. Organizational Dynamics, pp. 17-29.

Stringer, E.T. (1999). Action research (2nd ed.). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thompson, R., Hilton, T., Twohig, P., Pagnini, C., 

Park, H., King, S.J., Malone, M., Thompson, D., 

& Thompson, J. (2000, March). Results of the 1997 

employee attitude survey. (Memorandum Report). 

Oklahoma City, OK: FAA Civil Aerospace Medical 

Institute Human Resources Research Division.
A1

APPENDIX A

Post-EAS 2000 POC Feedback Survey
A2
A3

2. The POC Feedback Package method used for item

development (e.g., item deletions/additions) for the EAS

2000 was effective. --------------------------------------------------------

3. The EAS 2000 survey demographic sheet (i.e., where you

indicated your division/organization on the survey) was

helpful in determining what reports I needed.-----------------------

4. The EAS 2000 report format was easy to understand. -----------

5. CAMI distributed the EAS 2000 results in a timely manner.-----

6. Providing EAS 2000 results on CD-ROM facilitated the

distribution of reports.-----------------------------------------------------

Instructions: Please answer the following questions about the 2000 Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) process and

results from your perspective as an EAS Line of Business Point of Contact (POC), field POC, or workgroup member.

Use the "Don't Know" response option for any item that you do not have enough experience to judge.

19. How did you receive your EAS 2000 Report(s)?

(Mark all that apply)

CD-ROM

Internet

E-mail

Paper copy

Did not receive a report

Other

15. My LOB plans to use the next EAS to assess the progress of

actions taken as a result of EAS 2000 feedback. ------------------

16. My organization plans to use the next EAS to assess the

progress of actions taken as a result of EAS 2000 feedback. --

17. My division/facility plans to use the next EAS to assess the

progress of actions taken as a result of EAS 2000 feedback. --

11. The FAA is taking action to improve areas identified by the

EAS 2000 as needing improvement.----------------------------------

12. My LOB is taking action to improve areas identified by the

EAS 2000 as needing improvement.----------------------------------

13. My organization is taking action to improve areas identified

by the EAS 2000 as needing improvement.-------------------------

14. My division/facility is taking action to improve areas identified

by the EAS 2000 as needing improvement.-------------------------

7. The FAA has identified areas needing improvement based

on EAS 2000 results.------------------------------------------------------

8. My LOB has identified areas needing improvement based on

EAS 2000 results.----------------------------------------------------------

9. My organization has identified areas needing improvement

based on EAS 2000 results.---------------------------------------------

10. My division/facility has identified areas needing improvement

based on EAS 2000 results.---------------------------------------------

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neither Agree

Strongly

Agree

Don't

Know

1. I had access to the EAS 2000 results for ... (Mark all that apply)

the FAA overall.

my LOB (e.g., Regulation and Certification).

my organization (e.g., Airway Facilities).

my division/facility.

none of the above.

18. I was involved in post EAS 2000 action planning to

address areas identified as needing improvement

for...(Mark all that apply)

the FAA overall.

my LOB.

my organization.

my division/facility.

none of the above.

Post Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) 2000 Point of Contact Feedback Survey
A4

22. Do you know who to contact for information about

the EAS results?

23. Did you act as an LOB (e.g., AVR) or organizational

(e.g., AAF) Point of Contact in the EAS 2000

process?

24. Did you act as a field (regional or division) Point of

Contact in the EAS 2000 process?

25. Did you participate in an EAS 2000 workgroup?

26. What is your supervisory status?

Non supervisor

Supervisor

Manager

20. I have received feedback regarding the actions

taken to improve areas identified by the EAS 2000

as needing improvement for... (Mark all that apply)

the FAA overall.

my LOB.

my organization.

my division/facility.

none of the above.

21. Approximately what percentage of the

facilities/divisions in your organization is taking

action to improve areas identified by the EAS 2000

as needing improvement?

None

1 to 25%

26 to 50%

51 to 75%

76 to 100%

Don't Know

Areas Covered by the 2000 EAS LOB Organization Division/Facility

Accountability-------------------------------------------

Coaching ------------------------------------------------

Communications---------------------------------------

Conflict Management---------------------------------

Customer Support-------------------------------------

Management Concern for Employees------------

Model Work Environment ---------------------------

Organizational Commitment------------------------

Quality of Worklife-------------------------------------

Recognition and Rewards---------------------------

Trust and Fairness ------------------------------------

Other Area Not Listed --------------------------------

(Specify level and area:)

Don't Know----------------------------------------------

27. Please indicate the areas identified by the EAS 2000 that were chosen for follow-up action planning within your

LOB, Organization, and/or Division/Facility, where applicable, for each level of the agency. (Mark all that apply)

28. What was your Line of Business or Major Organization for EAS 2000 reporting?

AOA or Staff Office reporting to AOA (e.g., AOZ, ABA, AIO, etc.)

Civil Aviation Security (ACS)

Air Traffic Service (AAT)

Airway Facilities (AAF)

Air Traffic Services - Not AAT nor AAF (i.e., ATS, ARS, ASC, ATQ, ARI, ATB)

Flight Standards (AFS)

Aircraft Certification (AIR)

Regulation and Certification - Not AFS nor AIR (i.e., AVR, AAI, AAM, ARM)

Research and Acquisition (ARA)

Regions and Center (ARC)

Airports (ARP)

Commercial Space and Transportation (AST)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Post Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) 2000 Point of Contact Feedback Survey
A5

COMMENTS: If you have additional comments about the Employee Attitude Survey 2000 process, provide them in the box below.

Please categorize the overall content of your comment by darkening the appropriate response(s) on item 29. Written comments

will be transcribed and only names and expletives will be edited out. If the content of your comment identifies you, your

confidentiality cannot be assured.

29. Please categorize your comment. (Mark all that apply)

No Comment Complaint Compliment Suggestion Other

Please return your completed survey by July 12, 2002 in the business-reply envelope provided. If you were not

provided an envelope or have misplaced it, please return your survey to the address below.

EAS POC Survey

Training and Organizational Research (AAM-520)

PO Box 25082

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

Thank You for Your Feedback!

45860

Post Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) 2000 Point of Contact Feedback Survey

B1

Appendix B

Overall Summary of Results 

Excluding Don't Know (DK) Response Option

Developed by

Federal Aviation Administration

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute

Human Resources Research Division (AAM-500)

And

Omni Corporation

September 24, 2002

Post Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) 2000 Point of 

Contact (POC) Feedback Survey
B2
B3

Item Wording

The item as it was worded on the survey. 

Number of Respondents (n)

The number of people that provided usable (i.e., valid) responses. 

Mean

Standard Deviation (SD)

Response Distributions (%)

Response Options

Generally, the following response option was used for this survey. 

Agree scale

1 = Strongly Disagree 

2 = Disagree

3 = Neither

4 = Agree 

5 = Strongly Agree 

6 = Don't Know

 Example

Item Wording Response Distribution (%)

SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N=Neither, A=Agree, SA=Strongly Agree, DK=Don't Know

2.

n 103

Mean 3.55

SD 1.00

The POC Feedback Package method used for item development (e.g., 

item deletions/additions) for the EAS 2000 was effective.

Explanation of Report Content

Item response distributions represent the percentage of people who selected each response option for each item. Values may not 

sum to 100 due to rounding. 

The arithmetic average. The sum of all scores for a group divided by the number of respondents in the group. The mean excludes

the "Don't Know" (DK) response option.

The standard deviation is a measure of dispersion, or spread, of scores around the mean. Smaller values indicate higher levels of

agreement among respondents. The standard deviation excludes the "Don't Know" (DK) response option.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) distributed the 2000 Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) to all full-time, permanent FAA 

employees in September, 2000. As a follow-up, the Post Employee Attitude Survey 2000 Point of Contact Feedback Survey was 

administered in early June 2002 to gather information about the 2000 EAS process. The survey sought feedback from individuals who

were involved in the EAS 2000 process. For example, EAS Line of Business (LOB) Points of Contact (POCs), Field POCs, and 

individuals involved in EAS 2000 survey design or action planning workgroups were surveyed. Respondents also included some LOB,

organization, and division/facility supervisors and managers who were not directly involved in the EAS. This report summarizes the

results of the POC feedback survey. 

4

14 17

53

12

0

SD D N A SA DK
B4

Post Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) 2000 Point of Contact Feedback Survey

Overall (Excluding Don't Know)

Total number (n) of respondents = 181

Item Wording

1. I had access to the EAS 2000 results for... (Mark all that apply)

 n %

97 56 the FAA overall.

103 59 my LOB (e.g., Regulation and Certification).

126 72 my organization (e.g., Airway Facilities).

110 63 my division/facility.

4 2 none of the above. 

Total number (n) of respondents to item = 174

Numbers (n) may sum to greater than sample size due to multiple responses.

Item Wording Response Distribution (%)

SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N=Neither, A=Agree, SA=Strongly Agree, DK=Don't Know

2.

n 103

Mean 3.55

SD 1.00

3.

n 144

Mean 3.71

SD 0.99

4. The EAS 2000 report format was easy to understand.

n 170

Mean 3.82

SD 0.93

5. CAMI distributed the EAS 2000 results in a timely manner.

n 159

Mean 3.28

SD 1.18

The POC Feedback Package method used for item development (e.g., item 

deletions/additions) for the EAS 2000 was effective.

The EAS 2000 survey demographic sheet (i.e., where you indicated your 

division/organization on the survey) was helpful in determining what reports I 

needed.

4

14 17

53

12

0

SD D N A SA DK

4 10 11

59

15

0

SD D N A SA DK

2

12 6

62

18

0

SD D N A SA DK

7

25

13

42

13

0

SD D N A SA DK

This report excludes the "Don't Know (DK)" response option for items answered on Likert-type scales.

Responses may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
B5

Post Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) 2000 Point of Contact Feedback Survey

Overall (Excluding Don't Know)

Item Wording Response Distribution (%)

SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N=Neither, A=Agree, SA=Strongly Agree, DK=Don't Know

6.

n 107

Mean 3.64

SD 1.06

7.

n 158

Mean 3.68

SD 1.14

8.

n 155

Mean 3.77

SD 1.04

9.

n 161

Mean 3.96

SD 0.96

10.

n 165

Mean 3.80

SD 1.07

11.

n 145

Mean 3.28

SD 1.19

My LOB has identified areas needing improvement based on EAS 2000 results.

Providing EAS 2000 results on CD-ROM facilitated the distribution of reports.

The FAA has identified areas needing improvement based on EAS 2000 results.

My organization has identified areas needing improvement based on EAS 2000 

results.

My division/facility has identified areas needing improvement based on EAS 

2000 results.

The FAA is taking action to improve areas identified by the EAS 2000 as 

needing improvement.

4 10

26

37

22

0

SD D N A SA DK

8 11

4

59

18

0

SD D N A SA DK

6 8 8

59

19

0

SD D N A SA DK

4 6 3

62

24

0

SD D N A SA DK

4

12 7

52

24

0

SD D N A SA DK

12 17 10

52

8

0

SD D N A SA DK

This report excludes the "Don't Know (DK)" response option for items answered on Likert-type scales.

Responses may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
B6

Post Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) 2000 Point of Contact Feedback Survey

Overall (Excluding Don't Know)

Item Wording Response Distribution (%)

SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N=Neither, A=Agree, SA=Strongly Agree, DK=Don't Know

12.

n 149

Mean 3.41

SD 1.14

13.

n 160

Mean 3.59

SD 1.17

14.

n 166

Mean 3.66

SD 1.16

15.

n 108

Mean 3.81

SD 1.00

16.

n 121

Mean 3.90

SD 1.00

17.

n 138

Mean 3.80

SD 1.08

My LOB is taking action to improve areas identified by the EAS 2000 as needing 

improvement.

My organization is taking action to improve areas identified by the EAS 2000 as 

needing improvement.

My division/facility plans to use the next EAS to assess the progress of actions 

taken as a result of EAS 2000 feedback.

My division/facility is taking action to improve areas identified by the EAS 2000 

as needing improvement.

My LOB plans to use the next EAS to assess the progress of actions taken as a 

result of EAS 2000 feedback.

My organization plans to use the next EAS to assess the progress of actions 

taken as a result of EAS 2000 feedback.

9

16 11

54

10

0

SD D N A SA DK

9 12 9

53

18

0

SD D N A SA DK

8 11 10

50

21

0

SD D N A SA DK

6 4 10

61

19

0

SD D N A SA DK

5 5 10

55

25

0

SD D N A SA DK

7 7 12

51

24

0

SD D N A SA DK

This report excludes the "Don't Know (DK)" response option for items answered on Likert-type scales.

Responses may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
B7

Post Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) 2000 Point of Contact Feedback Survey

Overall (Excluding Don't Know)

Item Wording

18.

 n %

5 3 the FAA overall. 

27 15 my LOB.

71 40 my organization.

112 63 my division/facility. 

28 16 none of the above. 

Total number (n) of respondents to item = 179

Numbers (n) may sum to greater than sample size due to multiple responses.

19. How did you receive your EAS 2000 Report(s)? (Mark all that apply)

 n %

37 21 CD-ROM

37 21 Internet

80 44 E-mail

111 62 Paper copy

5 3 Did not receive a report

6 3 Other

Total number (n) of respondents to item = 180

Numbers (n) may sum to greater than sample size due to multiple responses.

20.

 n %

17 10 the FAA overall.

30 17 my LOB.

74 42 my organization.

88 49 my division/facility.

47 26 none of the above.

Total number (n) of respondents to item = 178

Numbers (n) may sum to greater than sample size due to multiple responses.

Item Wording Response Distribution (%)

21.

n 113

Mean and Standard Deviation not provided for this item.

I have received feedback regarding the actions taken to improve areas identified by the EAS 2000 as needing 

improvement for... (Mark all that apply)

Approximately what percentage of the facilities/divisions in your 

organization is taking action to improve areas identified by the EAS 

2000 as needing improvement?

I was involved in post EAS 2000 action planning to address areas identified as needing improvement for...

(Mark all that apply)

9

19

9 16

48

0

None 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-

100%

DK

This report excludes the "Don't Know (DK)" response option for items answered on Likert-type scales.

Responses may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
B8

Post Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) 2000 Point of Contact Feedback Survey

Overall (Excluding Don't Know)

Item Wording Response Distribution (%)

22. Do you know who to contact for information about the EAS results? 

n 179

Mean and Standard Deviation not provided for this item.

23.

n 178

Mean and Standard Deviation not provided for this item.

24.

n 176

Mean and Standard Deviation not provided for this item.

25. Did you participate in an EAS 2000 workgroup?

n 178

Mean and Standard Deviation not provided for this item.

26. What is your supervisory status? 

n 177

Mean and Standard Deviation not provided for this item.

Did you act as a field (regional or division) Point of Contact in the EAS 2000 

process?

Did you act as an LOB (e.g., AVR) or organizational (e.g., AAF) Point of Contact 

in the EAS 2000 process? 

8

92

Yes No 

24

76

Yes No 

35

65

Yes No 

34

66

Yes No 

46

13

41

Nonsupv Supv Mgr

This report excludes the "Don't Know (DK)" response option for items answered on Likert-type scales.

Responses may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
B9

Post Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) 2000 Point of Contact Feedback Survey

Overall (Excluding Don't Know)

27.

 N % N % N % 

Accountability 19 19 31 26 43 30

Coaching 12 12 29 24 41 29

Communications 42 41 70 58 100 70

Conflict Management 17 17 30 25 52 36

Customer Support 14 14 18 15 26 18

Management Concern for Employees 19 19 38 31 46 32

Model Work Environment 36 35 43 36 48 34

Organizational Commitment 10 10 14 12 24 17

Quality of Worklife 10 10 18 15 22 15

Recognition and Rewards 25 25 49 40 69 48

Trust and Fairness 6 6 18 15 41 29

Other Area Not Listed 16 16 13 11 15 10

Don't Know 39 38 34 28 26 18

Total n = 102 Total n = 121 Total n = 143

Numbers (n) may sum to greater than sample size due to multiple responses.

28. What was your Line of Business or Major Organization for EAS 2000 reporting?

 n %

27 15 AOA or Staff Office reporting to AOA (e.g., AOZ, ABA, AIO, etc.)

0 0 Civil Aviation Security (ACS)

9 5 Air Traffic Service (AAT)

47 26 Airway Facilities (AAF)

7 4 Air Traffic Services- Not AAT nor AAF (i.e., ATS, ARS, ASC, ATQ, ARI, ATB)

20 11 Flight Standards (AFS)

16 9 Aircraft Certification (AIR)

21 12 Regulation and Certification- Not AFS nor AIR (i.e., AVR, AAI, AAM, ARM)

1 1 Research and Acquisition (ARA)

23 13 Regions and Center (ARC)

7 4 Airports (ARP)

0 0 Commercial Space and Transportation (AST)

Note: Three respondents did not indicate their Line of Business or Major Organization.

29. Please categorize the overall content of your comments. (Mark all that apply)

 n %

103 60 No comment

27 16 Complaint

8 5 Compliment

30 17 Suggestion

14 8 Other

Total number (n) of respondents to item = 172

Numbers (n) may sum to greater than sample size due to multiple responses.

Please indicate the areas identified by the EAS 2000 that were chosen for follow-up action planning within your LOB, 

Organization, and/or Division/Facility, where applicable, for each level of the agency. (Mark all that apply)

LOB Organization Division/Facility

This report excludes the "Don't Know (DK)" response option for items answered on Likert-type scales.

Responses may not sum to 100 due to rounding.