Managing for Engagement – 

Communication, Connection,

and Courage 

A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

July 2009 

The President

President of the Senate

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Dear Sirs and Madam:

In accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 1204(a)(3), it is my honor to submit this Merit Systems 

Protection Board report, “Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage.” 

If Federal employees are to invest their best efforts in serving the public, then they must be fully engaged in 

their work. This report focuses on how leaders can drive employee engagement and increase high performance 

through hands-on performance management; i.e., the concrete actions leaders from first-line supervisors to 

executives can take to facilitate the motivation and commitment of their employees. 

Our research indicates that employee engagement is higher in agencies in which senior leaders build trust 

with employees by aligning their words and actions, communicating openly and frequently with employees, 

and treating employees as valued business partners. Supervisors in high engagement agencies define clear 

performance expectations, develop strong working relationships with employees, provide employees with useful 

feedback, and recognize their contributions. In short, the effort leaders invest in managing their workforce pays 

off in substantially higher levels of employee engagement and performance.

The recommendations we offer for increasing both engagement and performance can be characterized in 

three words: communication, connection, and courage. These are the foundation of performance management 

– communicating openly and honestly with employees, connecting with them as people to build good working 

relationships, and demonstrating the courage to address and resolve problems. Our objective is to provide 

Federal leaders with practical, action-oriented guidelines for nurturing the capabilities and passion of employees 

to ably serve their fellow citizens. 

 Respectfully,

 Neil A. G. McPhie 

Enclosure

The Chairman

A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Managing for Engagement – 

Communication, Connection,

and Courage

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Neil A. G. McPhie, Chairman

Mary M. Rose, Vice Chairman

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Director

John Crum, Ph.D.

Project Manager

Anne Marrelli, Ph.D.

Assistant Project Manager

James Tsugawa

Survey Administration Team

John Ford, Ph.D.

Sharon Roth

Laura Shugrue

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

 For All Employees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

 For Leaders at All Levels (Supervisors, Managers, and Executives). . . . . . . . . . v

 For Managers and Executives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

 For Consideration by Congress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Employee Engagement and High Performance . . . . . . . . . . 1

Engagement Driver One: Pride in One’s Work and 

Workplace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Engagement Driver Two: Satisfaction With Leadership. 11 

Immediate Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Managers and Executives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Engagement Driver Three: Opportunity to Perform 

Well at Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Using One’s Talents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Providing Direction and Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Providing Feedback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Engagement Driver Four: Positive Work Environment. . 31

Work Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Employee Empowerment and Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

High Performance Culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Management of Poor Performers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Table of Contents
Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Table of Contents

Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction with the 

Recognition Received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Accountability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Performance Appraisal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Recognition and Rewards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

The Challenges of Accountability and Recognition in Managing 

 the Federal Workforce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Engagement Driver Six: Prospect for Future 

Personal and Professional Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Conclusions and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

 For All Employees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

 For Leaders at All Levels (Supervisors, Managers, and Executives). . . . . . . . 68

 For Managers and Executives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

 For Consideration by Congress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Appendix A: 2007 Merit Principles 

Survey Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Appendix B: Comparisons of Performance Management 

Practices in High and Low Engagement Agencies. . . . . . . 81

Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey. . . . . . . . . . 87
As we conclude the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Federal Government 

is facing complex and unprecedented challenges both at home and abroad. The 

American public is relying on its elected leaders and the Federal workforce to 

successfully address these challenges. To do so, the workforce must operate at peak 

performance and with a strong sense of urgency. But how can Federal agencies 

better manage their workforces to achieve optimal performance? We believe 

engaging employees through effective performance management practices is an 

integral part of the answer.

Employee engagement has an enormous impact on organizational outcomes. 

Extensive research consistently demonstrates a strong positive relationship between 

high levels of employee engagement and desired organizational outcomes such 

as customer satisfaction, safety, low turnover, productivity, and profitability. 

Engagement refers to a high level of motivation to perform well at work combined 

with passion for the work. Engaged employees are absorbed intellectually and 

emotionally in their work and vigorously invest their best efforts in producing 

the outcomes needed for the organization to achieve its goals. 

In a study published in 2008, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) confirmed that employee engagement 

has a strong, positive impact on organizational outcomes in the Federal sector. We 

found significant correlations between high employee engagement in an agency and 

several key outcomes including higher scores on the results portion of the Office 

of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool, reduced use of 

sick leave, fewer Equal Employment Opportunity complainants, fewer cases of lost 

time due to work-related illness and injury, and lower rates of employee intention 

to leave the agency. In the current report, we explore how Federal managers can 

use performance management to increase employee engagement in their agencies 

by analyzing the results of the 2007 Merit Principles Survey and comparing the 

responses of nonsupervisory employees in the four agencies with the highest 

percentages of engaged employees with the four agencies with the lowest percentages 

of engaged employees. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board i

Executive Summary
ii Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

The recommendations we offer to increase employee engagement are based on 

the principle that performance management is a continuing dialogue between 

supervisors and their employees. The actions we recommend are already key 

components of every leader’s job. They can be characterized in three words: 

communication, connection, and courage. These are the foundation of effective 

performance management—communicating openly and honestly with employees, 

connecting with them as people to build strong working relationships, and 

demonstrating the courage to address and resolve problems.

Findings

Our findings are based on the responses of the 41,600 employees at all levels in 

30 agencies who completed the 2007 Merit Principles Survey.

Effective performance management practices are a key factor in employee 

engagement. In our comparisons of the four agencies with the highest percentages 

of engaged employees with the four agencies with the lowest percentages of engaged 

employees, every positive performance management practice we reviewed (e.g., 

senior leaders communicating openly and honestly with employees; employees 

having written performance goals) is employed more widely in high engagement 

agencies than in low engagement agencies.

The vast majority of Federal employees take great pride in both their work 

and their agencies. Taking pride in one’s work and workplace is an area in which 

the Federal workforce shines. Employees believe their work is important and 

meaningful and know how it contributes to the success of their agency’s mission. 

The satisfaction they feel, which enables them to recommend their agencies to others 

as good places to work, is a vital component of employee engagement. 

The majority of employees trust their supervisors and believe they are doing a 

good job, but higher level leaders are not as widely respected or trusted. Leaders, 

especially direct supervisors, play a critical role in facilitating employee engagement. 

Although two-thirds of employees express confidence in their direct supervisors, 

many employees do not have positive perceptions of their organization’s higher level 

leaders. Employees’ lack of trust in managers and executives may be a result of those 

leaders’ failure to communicate honestly with employees about the organization 

as well as their lack of consistency between words and actions. Our comparisons 

of the four agencies with the highest percentages of engaged employees with the 

four agencies with the lowest percentages show that leaders in the high engagement 

agencies do a much better job of communicating with their employees.

Many employees do not feel free to express their opinions to management. A 

prerequisite to engagement is employees’ perception that they can express their point 

of view. Less than half (46 percent) of all survey participants agreed that they could 

express their point of view to management without fear of negative consequences. 

Executive Summary
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board iii

Executive Summary

Most employees have written performance goals and the resources they need, 

but goals may not always accurately define current expectations. The majority 

of employees reported that their job responsibilities make good use of their 

competencies and they are usually provided with the resources, time, and assistance 

they need to do their jobs. Although more than two-thirds of employees said 

that they have written performance goals that clearly define the results they are 

expected to achieve, substantially fewer said the goals are current or accurately define 

performance expectations. 

Many employees do not receive adequate feedback on their progress. Although 

research repeatedly shows that giving feedback to their employees is the most 

important and effective action supervisors can take to improve work performance, 

only 40 percent of employees at all levels said they receive informal or formal 

feedback at least every two weeks. Fourteen percent receive feedback monthly and 

another 14 percent receive it quarterly. Thirty-two percent receive feedback twice 

per year or less. We also found that many Federal employees are not benefiting from 

frequent reviews and discussion of their work with their supervisors. Forty percent 

discuss their progress with their supervisor only twice per year or even less often.

Substantial improvement is needed in holding employees accountable for 

results. Being held accountable for one’s work is the most fundamental principle of 

performance management and is essential for ensuring high performance. Slightly 

fewer than two-thirds (65 percent) of employees agreed that they experience positive 

consequences when they achieve expected results and only 57 percent agreed that 

they experience negative consequences when they do not achieve expected results.

The management of poor performers needs to be improved. While the 

proportion of poor performers in the Federal workforce is relatively small, their 

management is seen as an important issue by employees. Fewer than one-third (30 

percent) of survey participants agreed that their supervisor takes steps to deal with 

poor performers who cannot or will not improve. Rather than actively helping poor 

performers improve or removing them, some supervisors are apparently dealing with 

the problem of poor performers by transferring their work to others. Sixty-three 

percent of survey respondents reported that they routinely do more than their fair 

share of work because of poorly performing coworkers.

The assessment of employee performance is an area of concern. About 61 percent 

of survey participants agreed that their performance appraisal is a fair reflection of 

their performance. The accuracy and fairness of performance appraisals is a complex 

issue because performance ratings may be influenced by multiple factors unrelated to 

performance, such as supervisors’ inability to separate individual performance from 

the impact of organizational processes and events; unconscious biases; impression 

management by employees; and, rating leniency. The complexity of performance 

assessment is increased by the human tendency to overestimate one’s performance; 

employees believe they deserve high ratings and if they do not receive them, they 

conclude that they have been treated unfairly. 
iv Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Executive Summary

Only half of Federal employees believe recognition is linked to performance.

Recognition of employees’ contributions is vital to engagement. Only half of our 

survey participants reported that they are rewarded for providing high-quality 

products and services to their customers and that recognition and rewards are 

based on performance in their work unit. Just over half, 55 percent, said they had 

personally been treated fairly in the receipt of performance awards. Promotions are 

an important form of recognition that an employee is doing an excellent job. Fiftyone percent of all the survey participants believe promotions in their work unit are 

based on merit. 

More attention is needed to employee development. Many Federal agencies are 

not taking advantage of the opportunity to engage their employees through personal 

and professional growth. Fewer than half (46 percent) of survey participants 

reported that their training needs are assessed, while only 58 percent reported 

that they have real opportunities to improve their skills. 

Employees would like more input and involvement in their organizations.

One-quarter of nonsupervisory employees and 35 percent of leaders believe that 

their input is used to make improvements in the organization. Half of all our survey 

participants are satisfied with their involvement in decisions that affect their work, 

while fewer than two-thirds reported they are proactively informed of work changes. 

Recommendations

For All Employees

1. Take an active role in managing your own performance. If you need more 

guidance, direction, or feedback than you are receiving, ask for it. Reflect 

frequently on your own performance and consider how you can improve it. 

2. Adopt a continuous learning mindset. Work with your supervisor to create 

and implement a focused development plan with clear objectives that include 

both enhancing your strengths and overcoming problem areas that may be 

impeding you from performing at your best. Be an advocate for positive 

change in your work group. 

3. Prepare carefully for progress review meetings with your supervisor. Be 

prepared to summarize your progress on assignments and your accomplishments 

since your previous meeting. Bring a list of issues you want to discuss and 

questions you want to ask. Consider any barriers to high performance you 

face and ask your supervisor for help in overcoming them.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board v

Executive Summary

For Leaders at All Levels (Supervisors, Managers, and Executives)

1. Hire with care and use the probationary period as part of the selection 

process. The best way to avoid performance problems is to invest the time and 

effort required to hire only candidates who have a high potential for success in 

the job. Clearly define the technical and nontechnical competencies and other 

qualifications required for success before you plan your recruiting and selection 

strategies. Provide applicants with an accurate job description and a realistic 

preview of the pros and cons of the position. Use a multiple hurdle approach in 

which only the best qualified move on to the next step in the selection process. 

Use the probationary period as it was intended, as the final step in the selection 

process, and separate employees who do not perform well during this period. 

2. Develop a strong working relationship with each employee. The essence 

of performance management is an ongoing dialogue between supervisors and 

their employees. Develop strong working relationships with your employees by 

talking with them informally and frequently (e.g., two or three times per week). 

Get to know them as people, provide informal feedback, and learn about their 

concerns and goals. 

3. Meet regularly with each employee to review progress and provide feedback. 

Schedule regular meetings with each employee to discuss the employee’s progress 

on current assignments and any obstacles that may be impeding success; 

provide feedback and recognition; explain new assignments; communicate 

high expectations for performance; provide information about the work unit 

or organization; respond to the employee’s questions or concerns; and review 

progress on development plans. The optimal frequency of these individual 

meetings will vary with the employee, his or her assignments, and the job. 

Monthly is usually a minimum time frame. 

4. Model requesting and applying feedback. Set an example for your employees 

by requesting feedback from them on your performance as a supervisor and 

by sharing with them feedback you receive from your manager. Discuss with 

employees how you plan to use the feedback you receive. 

5. Give all employees the opportunity to grow and develop. Conduct annual 

or semiannual assessments of each employee’s strengths and development needs. 

Provide development opportunities for all employees, including both specific 

training needed for the current job and wider skill development. There are 

many free and low-cost development opportunities available. 
vi Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Executive Summary

6. Hold employees accountable for their performance. Manage poor 

performance promptly and assertively. Hold all employees accountable for 

their performance by: 

• Consistently communicating high performance expectations.

• Working with each employee to define individual performance goals with 

specified outcomes and timelines.

• Regularly reviewing and documenting employees’ work.

• Meeting regularly with employees to review their progress toward achieving their 

performance goals.

• Providing frequent constructive feedback and coaching.

• Providing recognition and other positive consequences for good work.

• Taking prompt corrective action when employees are not performing well, 

making it clear that continuing poor performance will not be tolerated, and 

following up with negative consequences if the poor performance continues.

• Avoiding transferring low or poor performers’ work to others.

For Managers and Executives

1. Involve employees in building a high performance organization. Use the 

results for your agency from the Merit Principles Surveys, the results of agency 

surveys, and additional employee input to identify strengths and weaknesses in 

your organization. Use this information to work with employees to create and 

implement an action plan to build a high performing organization.

2. Build employee trust and confidence through frequent, open communication. 

Invest substantial effort in gaining the respect and trust of your employees by 

openly sharing information about the organization, both positive and negative, 

aligning words and actions, and making it safe for employees to express 

their perspectives. Develop personal connections with employees through 

meetings, visits to work sites, exchanges of ideas, and other forms of in-person 

communication. 

3. Engage new employees with an onboarding program. Nurture your investment 

in new employees by providing a year-long onboarding program that makes them 

feel welcome and valued, helps them build good relationships with coworkers, 

equips them with the information and resources they need to perform well, and 

helps them adapt to the culture and operation of the organization. 

4. Closely link recognition and rewards to performance. Develop and 

heavily communicate to employees a recognition program that tightly links 

recognition to performance. Ensure that recognition and rewards are available 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board vii

Executive Summary

to all employees in all jobs who perform well. Use within-grade increases as a 

recognition tool. Award these only to employees who have met or exceeded 

expectations, i.e., performed at the “fully successful” or higher level, and let 

employees know they are receiving the salary increase because of their successful 

performance. Set aside more funds for monetary awards and distribute them 

judiciously, giving the awards only to those who most deserve them. Develop 

non-monetary recognition practices so that rewards are not constrained by 

available funds.

5. Select supervisors who will effectively manage performance. Select 

supervisors who can and will provide honest feedback and actively manage the 

performance of all their employees, including low performers. If supervisors do 

not effectively manage performance during the probationary period, they should 

not remain in a supervisory position. 

6. Hold every supervisor accountable for effective performance management. 

Make it clear to all supervisors that they are personally responsible for effectively 

managing their employees’ performance to produce results. Regularly review 

with each supervisor his or her management of the work group.

7. Provide supervisors with the training, resources, and management 

support they need to effectively manage their employees to achieve high 

performance. Provide supervisors with the support they need to successfully 

manage their work groups, including training, resources, and management 

support. In particular, remove organizational obstacles to taking justified 

actions against poor performers, and back up supervisors when they take 

needed actions. 

8. Evaluate the effectiveness of your agency’s current performance appraisal 

system. Determine if your agency’s performance appraisal system facilitates or 

impedes the achievement of your agency’s mission. Assess how it contributes 

to or detracts from accountability, communication, and recognition of good 

performers. Consider the advantages and disadvantages of different systems. 

Involve employees in the evaluation and solicit their ideas for alternative 

approaches.

For Consideration by Congress

Consider modifying the requirement for annual agency employee surveys to 

require employee surveys every two or three years. Determine if the high costs 

of annual surveys for every agency justify the benefits received. Yearly intervals 

between surveys often do not allow agencies the time required to analyze the data, 

implement indicated changes in organizational programs or practices, and see the 

results of those changes. In addition, the changes from year to year may be the result 

of variables not related to changes in employee perceptions or actions taken by the 

agency. Administering annual surveys also sets overly high employee expectations. 
viii Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Executive Summary

When employees are asked to provide input in a survey, they expect to see something 

positive happen as a result. When it does not happen because of agency resource 

and time limitations, employees may feel disappointed and disempowered and are 

less likely to contribute input in the future. Conducting employee surveys every 

two or three years would provide agencies with more accurate information about the 

perceptions of their employees than conducting annual surveys and allow the time 

needed to interpret the results and make indicated changes while reducing by half 

or more the cost of the annual surveys.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1

The essence of performance management is a continuing dialogue between 

supervisors and their employees. It is communication and connection between 

two people who share the same goal of optimizing the employee’s contribution to 

achieving the agency’s mission. The forms, systems, formal appraisals, and ratings 

typically associated with performance management are merely tools; they are not 

essential for high performance. What is vital is the engagement of employees in 

their work so that they invest their best efforts in achieving the outcomes needed 

for the agency to succeed in its mission. 

Employees’ competencies (the knowledge, skills, and abilities developed through 

education and experience and personal characteristics such as conscientiousness 

and flexibility) add value to the organization only when they are applied to work. 

Motivation to apply one’s competencies to accomplishing work is a key driver of 

strong work performance. We can define motivation in terms of the choices people 

make among competing alternatives and the intensity and persistence of effort they 

invest.1 For example, a strongly motivated employee will invest a high level of effort 

in completing a task well and will forego other, possibly more appealing, activities, 

until the task is completed. An unmotivated employee will delay completing 

assigned tasks, will devote minimal effort to completing tasks, and may abandon 

a task if it is irksome or difficult.

There has been much discussion recently in both the academic and business 

literature about employee engagement and its positive impact on organizational 

performance. Engagement refers to a high level of motivation to perform well at 

work combined with passion for the work. Employees are engaged when they are 

absorbed intellectually and emotionally in their work and vigorously invest their 

best efforts to achieve the outcomes needed by the organization to achieve its goals. 

Engaged employees are emotionally connected to their jobs and organizations and 

believe they are doing important work. High performance is greatly facilitated 

when employees are engaged. Employees who are not engaged do not commit 

enough attention and effort to perform at their best. Two employees, one engaged 

and one disengaged, with similar competencies and experience can contribute to 

their organizations at very different levels because the engaged employee will invest 

discretionary effort in the work to do the best job possible while the disengaged 

employee will often do the minimum. 

1 A. Bandura, Human agency: The rhetoric and the reality, American Psychologist, 46, 1991, 

pp. 157-162.

Employee Engagement and 

High Performance
2 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

There are multiple sources of motivation and engagement, some of them intrinsic to 

the individual such as conscientiousness, interest in the specific job responsibilities, 

and the centrality of work in one’s life and the personal satisfaction derived from 

work. Other drivers of engagement are the support supplied by the organization 

such as a compelling organizational mission, trusted leadership, efficient work 

processes, peer support, and recognition for good work. Thus, although 

engagement is an attribute of the individual employee, it is dependent on multiple 

organizational factors external to the employee as well as individual competencies 

and characteristics. For example, an employee who is highly motivated and an 

excellent performer can quickly become disengaged and a mediocre performer if 

inefficient processes prevent her from doing her best. Conversely, a low performer 

can sometimes blossom into an engaged, high performer when placed in a job that 

is a better fit for his competencies. 

With surprising consistency, research shows that 20 to 30 percent of North 

American workers are engaged in their work and that about 50 percent admit they 

perform only the minimum needed to retain their jobs.2 Additionally, studies have 

consistently found that almost all workers are engaged when they begin a job but the 

proportion of engaged employees decreases dramatically thereafter. Six months after 

joining an organization, fewer than 40 percent say they are engaged, and the longer 

employees work in an organization, the more engagement decreases until only 20 

percent are engaged after 10 years of service. Too many leaders are not taking the 

actions needed to sustain the initial enthusiasm and commitment of employees and, 

worse, many leaders do not recognize that they play a significant role in destroying 

employee engagement.3 While we would expect a drop in initial enthusiasm from 

organizational entry resulting from habituation to the tasks and routines of the job, 

a drop this large cannot be attributed simply to the novelty wearing off. 

Employee engagement has an enormous impact on organizational outcomes. 

Multiple research studies have demonstrated the positive relationship between 

high levels of employee engagement and desired organizational outcomes such 

as customer satisfaction, safety, low turnover, productivity, and profitability.4 For 

example, an analysis of data from 664,000 employees from 50 global organizations 

showed that operating income in companies with high employee engagement 

improved 19 percent but it decreased by 33 percent for the same 12-month period 

in companies with low employee engagement; net income growth rose 14 percent 

Employee Engagement and High Performance

2 R. E. Clark, Motivating individuals, teams, and organizations, in J. A. Pershing, (Ed.), 

Handbook of Human Performance Technology (3rd ed.), Pfeiffer, San Francisco, 2006 , pp. 478-497.

3 K. Ayers, Are leaders destroying employee engagement?, MWorld: The Journal of the American 

Management Association, 6(3), 2007, pp. 38-39.

D. Tosti, Energy investment: Beyond competence, Performance Improvement, 44(1), 2005, 

pp. 17-21.

4 B.J. Gorman and R.E., Why managers are crucial to increasing engagement. Strategic HR 

Review, 5(2), 2006, pp. 24-28.

J. K. Harter, F. L. Schmidt, and T.L. Hayes, Business-unit-level relationship between employee 

satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis, Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 87, 2002, pp. 268-279.

M. Buckingham and C. Coffman, First, Break All the Rules, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1999.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3

for high engagement companies but declined 4 percent for low engagement 

companies.5 A study by the Corporate Leadership Council of 50,000 employees 

in 59 organizations found that increased engagement may result in up to a 57 

percent increase in employees’ discretionary effort, which in turn results in up to 

a 20 percentile point improvement in performance. Engagement also results in 

up to an 87 percent reduction in desire to leave an organization.6

Employee engagement is a valuable concept for understanding and improving 

individual and organizational performance. Employee engagement can be developed 

and enhanced by organizational practices throughout the entire range of talent 

management systems including job design, recruitment and selection, performance 

management, training and development, compensation, and recognition. This 

report focuses on driving engagement through hands-on performance management; 

i.e., the concrete actions that leaders at all levels from first-line supervisors to 

executives can take to facilitate the motivation and commitment of their employees. 

Supervisors play a key role in building employee commitment and engagement and 

thereby improving performance.7

The Merit Systems Protection Board recently conducted a study in which we 

confirmed that employee engagement has a strong, positive impact on organizational 

outcomes in Federal agencies.8 We found significant correlations between high 

employee engagement in an agency and several key outcomes including higher 

scores on the results portion of the Office of Management and Budget’s Program 

Assessment Rating Tool, reduced use of sick leave, fewer Equal Employment 

Opportunity complainants, fewer cases of lost time due to work-related illness or 

injury, and lower rates of employee intention to leave the agency. In this earlier 

study we assessed engagement based on employees’ responses to the 2005 Merit 

Principles Survey questions in six areas that drive engagement: 

• Pride in One’s Work and Workplace

• Satisfaction With Leadership 

• Opportunity To Perform Well at Work

• Positive Work Environment

• Satisfaction With the Recognition Received

• Prospects for Future Personal and Professional Growth. 

Employee Engagement and High Performance

5 Towers Perrin global database as reported in J. Koob, Mergers and acquisitions 2008: Don’t 

leave employees behind, Talent Management, 4(7), 2008, pp. 52-55.

6 Corporate Leadership Council, Driving Employee Performance and Retention Through 

Engagement: A Quantitative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Employee Engagement Strategies. 

Corporate Executive Board, Washington, DC, 2004. 

7 T.E. Becker, R.S. Billings, D.M. Eveleth, and N.L. Gilbert, Foci and bases of employee 

commitment: Implications for job performance, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1996, 

pp. 464-482.

B.J. Gorman and R.E. Gorman, Why managers are crucial to increasing engagement, Strategic HR 

Review, 5(2), 2006, pp. 24-28.

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

DC, 2008.
4 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

We concluded that overall, 35 percent of Federal employees were engaged, 47 

percent were somewhat engaged, and 18 percent were not engaged. The percentage 

of engaged employees in each agency varied from 20 percent to 49 percent. 

Although engagement may have been defined somewhat differently in our studies 

than in other research, these findings suggest that more of the Federal workforce 

is engaged than the American workforce at large. This positive difference may 

be attributable, at least in part, to the meaningfulness of public service work 

and the job security enjoyed by Federal employees, two important conditions 

for engagement.

The objective of this previous study was to identify the drivers of engagement and 

their positive impact on organizational outcomes. In the current study, we focused 

on the performance management practices that fuel the six drivers of engagement. 

We explored how well Federal leaders are managing their employees to promote 

engagement by analyzing employees’ perceptions of performance management 

practices in their agencies as reported in the 2007 Merit Principles Survey (MPS). 

We also compared the perceptions of nonsupervisory participants in the 2007 MPS 

in the four agencies with the highest percentages of engaged employees with the four 

agencies with the lowest percentages of engaged employees as measured in our study 

of the 2005 MPS. Through these comparisons, we discovered that every affirmative 

performance management practice we reviewed (e.g., senior leaders communicating 

openly and honestly to employees; employees having written performance goals; 

leaders holding employees accountable for their work) is employed more widely in 

high engagement agencies than in low engagement agencies. In this report, as we 

discuss the survey results related to each driver of engagement, we describe some of 

the differences between high and low engagement agencies. All the differences we 

found for the performance management practices reviewed are listed in Appendix B. 

There is little leaders can do about the personal facets of motivation and engagement 

such as the centrality of work in an employee’s life. Some people don’t choose to 

invest themselves wholeheartedly in their work but derive most of their satisfaction 

and sense of accomplishment from other aspects of their lives such as community 

service or hobbies. But leaders can take multiple actions to substantially increase 

the proportion of employees in the Federal workforce who are highly motivated and 

engaged and thereby improve performance significantly. We applied our comparisons 

of performance management practices in high and low engagement agencies and a 

review of best practices in organizations to recommend actions that leaders can take 

to increase employee engagement and thereby maximize performance. 

The actions needed to engage employees are already key components of every leader’s 

job. They can be characterized in three words: communication, connection, and 

courage. These are the foundation of performance management—communicating 

openly and honestly with employees, connecting with employees as people to 

build strong working relationships, and demonstrating the courage to address and 

resolve problems.

Employee Engagement and High Performance
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5

Before We Proceed, a Few Notes. . .

Background The Merit Systems Protection Board conducts studies of the Federal 

civilian workforce to determine if the workforce is being managed effectively, 

efficiently, and in accordance with the Federal merit system principles. The 2007 

Merit Principles Survey methodology and the 30 participating agencies are described 

in Appendix A. The survey is contained in Appendix C. 

Perceptions vs. Facts It is important for readers to remember that survey data 

is based on the perceptions and beliefs of participants rather than on verified 

facts. However, people’s perceptions largely shape their behavior. For example, 

if employees say they cannot freely express their views to management without 

fear of negative consequences, this perception affects the choices they make in the 

workplace. Employees will be hesitant to speak out if they believe there will be 

negative consequences, regardless of how management may actually respond upon 

hearing their views. 

Survey Question Response Categories Five response choices were provided 

for most of the survey questions, e.g., Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor 

Disagree, Disagree, and, Strongly Disagree. When five choices were offered, in most 

cases we report the results by combining the two favorable choices as if they were a 

single positive response and combining the two unfavorable choices as if they were 

a single negative response. For example, for the question, “Managers communicate 

the goals and priorities of the organization,” participants who selected either 

“Strongly Agree” or “Agree” are reported as agreeing while participants who chose 

“Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree” are reported as disagreeing. This practice helps 

us more easily analyze and report the data.

Definitions of Terms In this report, we use the following definitions:

• Employees—the entire Federal workforce as represented by the survey 

participants

• Survey Participants or Respondents—the employees who responded to the 

pertinent MPS questions 

• Individual workers—nonsupervisory employees who are not team leaders

•	 Team leaders—nonsupervisory employees who provide other employees with 

day-to-day guidance in work projects but do not have official supervisory 

responsibilities such as approving leave or conducting performance appraisals

• Nonsupervisory employees—individual workers and team leaders combined

• Supervisors—employees who have official supervisory responsibilities such as 

approving leave and conducting performance appraisals for individual workers 

and team leaders

Employee Engagement and High Performance
6 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Employee Engagement and High Performance

• Managers—employees other than executives who supervise one or more 

supervisors

• Executives—members of the Senior Executive Service or its equivalent 

•	 Leaders—all employees with supervisory responsibilities including supervisors, 

managers, and executives

• Organization—an agency, office, or division

• Work unit—an employee’s immediate work unit headed by the employee’s direct 

supervisor
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 7

Taking pride in one’s work and believing that it is important is a vital component of 

engagement. In order to invest their best efforts in their work, employees need to 

believe their work makes a positive contribution to society. Employees must believe 

that their organization has a worthy mission and is successful in achieving that mission. 

The vast majority of Federal employees take great pride in both their work and 

their agencies. Federal employees clearly feel good about the public service work 

they do and know it is important for their country’s well being and prosperity. As 

illustrated in Figure 1 below, fully 91 percent of our survey participants indicated 

that the work they do is important. Across all agencies, employees’ agreement that 

the work they do is important ranged from 70 to 98 percent. 

Figure 1: Employees’ Pride in Their Work

Another source of pride for employees is the knowledge that their work contributes 

to their agency’s success; 86 percent indicated that they know how their work relates 

to their agency’s goals and priorities. When we asked the survey participants if 

their work gives them a feeling of personal accomplishment, 76 percent agreed it 

does. The level of agreement increased with supervisory status. Thus, 74 percent 

of individual workers agreed they derive a feeling of personal accomplishment from 

their jobs, while 80 percent of team leaders and supervisors, 85 percent of managers, 

and 91 percent of executives did so. We can hypothesize that leaders’ greater choice 

of tasks and wider range of influence may contribute to their increased feelings of 

accomplishment. Leaders may wish to consider how they can further increase their 

employees’ already strong sense of fulfillment in their work through providing more 

autonomy and empowerment to make decisions.

Engagement Driver One: Pride In 

One’s Work and Workplace

Percent Agreement

0 20 45 60 85 100

The work I do is 

important

I know how my work 

relates to the agency's 

goals and priorities

My work gives me a 

feeling of personal 

accomplishment

91

86

76
8 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Everyone wants to be part of a winning team. It is important for employees to feel 

that their organization is successful to fuel pride in their work. As shown in Figure 2, 

a strong majority of 83 percent felt their agency was successful in accomplishing 

its mission, an increase of 7 percent from the MPS 2005 results. The range of 

agreement by agency is extensive, from a high of 96 percent to a low of 65 percent.

Figure 2: Employees’ Pride in Their Agencies

A strong majority of Federal employees recommend their organizations as a 

good place to work. When they think highly of their organizations, employees 

recommend their organization as a good place to work to family members and 

friends. When we asked our survey participants if they would recommend their 

agency, a hearty 74 percent agreed they would. This is a significant increase over 

the 66 percent of participants in the MPS 2005 who said they would recommend 

their agency. The percentage of participants in the MPS 2007 who agreed that 

they would recommend their agency as a place to work steadily increases with 

supervisory level, with 72 percent of individual workers in agreement, 76 percent 

of team leaders, 79 percent of supervisors, 83 percent of managers, and 90 percent 

of executives. 

When we looked at the survey results in terms of length of Federal service, we found 

that employees with less than one year of service were more likely to recommend 

their agencies than were more experienced employees as shown in Figure 3 on the 

next page.

Engagement Driver One: Pride In One’s Work and Workplace

Percent Agreement

0 20 40 60 80 100

My agency is successful 

in accomplishing its 

mission

I would recommend 

my agency as a place 

to work

83

74
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 9

Figure 3: Employees by Years of Federal Service who Would 

Recommend Their Agency as a Place to Work

These findings are in accord with research that shows that newer employees have 

high levels of enthusiasm for their organizations that quickly diminish9 and they 

reinforce the importance of managing employees to retain their initial enthusiasm 

throughout their careers. The percentages of employees in each agency who said 

they would recommend their agencies as good places to work ranged from 58 

percent to 91 percent. The more appealing work life in the more highly rated 

agencies gives them an edge in recruitment, retention, and engagement.

Summary

Taking pride in one’s work and agency is an area in which the Federal workforce 

shines. Employees believe their work is important and meaningful. They know 

how their work contributes to the success of their agency’s mission and feel good 

about their contributions. The satisfaction they feel enables them to recommend 

their agencies to others as good places to work. Because every Federal employee 

contributes in some way to the welfare of fellow citizens, the work is inherently 

meaningful. A strong sense of the value of one’s daily work facilitates engagement 

and creates a foundation for high performance.

Engagement Driver One: Pride In One’s Work and Workplace

Percent Agreement

0 20 40 60 80 100

More than 25 years 74

75

00 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010

21 - 25 years

16 - 20 years

11 - 15 years

6 - 10 years

1 - 5 years

Less than 1 year

72

74

72

76

83

9 K. Ayers, Are leaders destroying employee engagement?, MWorld: The Journal of the American 

Management Association, 6(3), 2007, pp. 38-39.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11

The second driver of high employee engagement is satisfaction with leadership at 

all levels, from one’s immediate supervisor through top agency executives. Leaders 

play an important role in engagement by establishing clear organizational goals 

and priorities; keeping employees informed of organizational progress; nurturing 

an organizational culture that supports goal achievement strategies; empowering 

employees with the information, resources, authority, and support they need to do 

their jobs; requesting and acting on employees’ input; and recognizing employees’ 

contributions.

Immediate Supervisors

Two-thirds of employees believe their supervisors are doing a good job. Research 

shows that the immediate supervisor is one of the most important factors in 

employee engagement. For example, research provides evidence that the immediate 

supervisor is the single strongest influence on employees’ engagement in their work 

and that supervisors have an enormous impact on their employees’ commitment to 

the team, organization, and job.10 A study of the Federal workforce showed that 

employees’ perceptions of their supervisors were one of the top predictors of agency 

performance.11 In our previous study of employee engagement, we found that 87 

percent of engaged employees agreed that their supervisor had good management 

skills compared to only 14 percent of employees who were not engaged.12

Immediate supervisors establish the work environment and link employees 

to the larger organization by helping them understand how their individual 

accomplishments lead to the achievement of agency goals. They make assignments, 

provide guidance and feedback, and review the employees’ work. Through their 

actions or inactions, supervisors can make a great job frustrating and a poor job 

tolerable. As illustrated in Figure 4, 67 percent of our MPS 2007 respondents 

at all levels rated their supervisors as “very good” or “good.” Nineteen percent of 

respondents rated their supervisors as fair and the remaining 14 percent rated them 

as “poor” or “very poor.” 

 Engagement Driver Two: 

Satisfaction With Leadership

10 J. K. Harter, Taking feedback to the bottom line, Gallup Management Journal, Mar 15, 2001. 

Corporate Leadership Council, Driving Employee Performance and Retention Through Engagement: A 

Quantitative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Employee Engagement Strategies, Washington, DC, Corporate 

Executive Board, 2004.

11 G. Brewer, In the eye of the storm: Frontline supervisors and federal agency performance, 

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 2005, pp. 505-527.

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

Washington, DC, 2008.
12 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Figure 4: Overall, how would you rate your 

immediate supervisor’s performance as a supervisor?

Figure 5 shows that 19 percent more of nonsupervisory employees in the 

agency with the highest percentage of engaged employees rated their supervisor’s 

performance as a supervisor as “very good” or “good,” compared with those in the 

agency with the lowest percentage of engaged employees.

Figure 5: Non-supervisory Employees who Rate Their 

Supervisors as Good or Very Good

Although there is certainly room for improvement, employees’ assessment of their 

supervisors increased considerably in the MPS 2007 compared with previous Merit 

Principles Surveys in which we asked employees to state their level of agreement with 

this statement: “My supervisor has good management skills.” In the six previous 

MPS administrations from 1986 through 2005, the level of agreement ranged from 

47 to 55 percent. Thus, employees seem to have more favorable perceptions of their 

supervisors than previously and given supervisors’ strong influence on employees’ 

commitment to their work, these favorable perceptions should enhance employees’ 

engagement in their work. 

Engagement Driver Two: Satisfaction With Leadership

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Very Good 36

5

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

31

19

9

Percent

Percent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

High Engagement 

Agency

79

60 Low Engagement 

Agency
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13

Engagement Driver Two: Satisfaction With Leadership

Employees have a moderate level of trust in their supervisors. In a series of 

four closely related questions focusing on employees’ perceptions of their immediate 

supervisors, the majority of survey participants indicated that they trust their supervisors 

and see them as persons of integrity who keep their commitments and speak up for their 

employees. Participants’ responses to each question are shown in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6: All Employees’ Trust in Their Supervisors 

Trust in one’s direct supervisor is an important element of engagement. The survey 

data indicate that a sizeable minority of supervisors need to work harder to build 

employee trust. We found that nonsupervisory employees in the four agencies 

with the highest percentages of engaged employees (high engagement agencies) 

had greater trust in their supervisors than did participants in the four agencies 

with the lowest percentages of engaged employees (low engagement agencies). 

The differences are shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7: Nonsupervisory Employees’ Trust in Their Supervisors in 

High and Low Engagement Agencies

Percent Agreement

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

My supervisor follows 

through on commitments 65

58

63

69

My supervisor speaks up 

for employees

I have trust and confidence 

in my supervisor

My supervisor 

demonstrates a high 

level of integrity

Percent Agreement

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

My supervisor follows 

through on commitments

70

58

69

74

My supervisor speaks 

up for employees

I have trust and confidence 

in my supervisor

My supervisor 

demonstrates a high 

level of integrity

61

65

59

66

Low Engagement Agencies High Engagement Agencies
14 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Managers and Executives

Although a majority of nonsupervisory employees expressed confidence in 

their immediate supervisors, employees have less positive perceptions of their 

organization’s higher level leaders. 

Organizational senior leaders are not generating high levels of respect or 

commitment. Only 44 percent of nonsupervisory employees have a high level of 

respect for their organization’s senior leaders and only one-third believe that leaders 

generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce. 

These findings are illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Nonsupervisory Employees’ Respect for 

Management in All Agencies

Figure 9 illustrates the large differences between high and low engagement agencies 

in respect for management.

Figure 9: Nonsupervisory Employees’ Respect for Management in 

High And Low Engagement Agencies 

Engagement Driver Two: Satisfaction With Leadership

0 10 20 30 40 50

I have a high level 

of respect for my 

organization's 

senior leaders

44

33

In my organization, 

leaders generate high 

levels of motivation 

and commitment

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Percent Agreement

Percent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

I have a high level 

of respect for my 

organization's 

senior leaders

55

28

In my organization, 

leaders generate

high levels of

motivation and

commitment

40

44

Low Engagement High Engagement
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15

Managers and executives are not communicating effectively with employees.

Extensive research demonstrates that frequent, open, honest communication 

between management and employees is crucial to generating trust and high 

organizational performance. Organizations that receive the “best companies to 

work for” awards have senior leaders who engage their employees through personal 

connections and communication. These leaders communicate frequently and 

personally to employees; speak directly, openly, and honestly to them; are easily 

accessible to employees; and provide clear direction.13 Consistent with other 

research, our survey results suggest that the deficit in Federal employees’ trust and 

respect for managers and executives may be caused, at least in part, by inadequate 

communication. As depicted in Figure 10, the data indicate that communication 

between these senior leaders and the employees in their organizations may be 

inadequate in three related but distinct ways:

• Managers and executives do not share enough information with employees

• Managers and executives are not open and honest when they share information 

with employees

• The information shared is not credible because managers’ and executives’ actions 

do not align with their words.

Figure 10: Nonsupervisory Employees’ Perceptions of 

Management Communication 

While somewhat more than half (56 percent) of nonsupervisory employees report 

that managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization, only 41 

percent are satisfied with the information they receive from management about 

the organization. Substantial differences in survey results by role suggest that 

information is not being effectively passed down from senior leadership; less 

information is apparently shared at each step of the chain. Thus, 84 percent of 

Engagement Driver Two: Satisfaction With Leadership

13 E. Gubman, Engaging talent, Executive Excellence, 20(7), July 2003, pp. 11 ff. 

Percent Agreement

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Managers communicate the goals 

and priorities of the organization 56

41

32

30

I am satisfied with the organizational 

information I receive from management

Managers and executives are open 

and honest in sharing information 

with employees.

Managers and executives are 

consistent in words and actions
16 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

executives, 73 percent of managers, and 66 percent of supervisors report that 

managers communicate organizational goals and priorities compared to 56 percent 

of nonsupervisory employees. Similarly, while 78 percent of executives, 61 percent 

of managers, and 51 percent of supervisors are satisfied with the information 

they receive, 41 percent of nonsupervisors are satisfied. The differences in 

employees’ satisfaction by level may be partly attributable to the typical operation 

of organizational hierarchies. As employees ascend the hierarchy, they have more 

opportunities to receive information about the organization and are perceived by 

senior leaders as having a greater “need to know.” 

Only 32 percent of nonsupervisors believe that managers and executives are 

open and honest in sharing information and just 30 percent feel that these senior 

leaders’ words and actions are aligned. Inconsistency between what leaders say 

and what they do releases a cascade of negative effects in employees, reducing 

trust, commitment, and willingness to invest discretionary effort in their work.14 

Credibility and respect take a long time to build and can crumble with a single 

untruth or inconsistency. Only when employees feel a sense of connection with 

their leaders will they trust them. This connection results from open, honest, 

frequent communication with employees that should begin when employees are 

first hired into the organization and continue throughout their career.

We found large, consistent differences in management communication with 

employees between the high and low engagement agencies. As Figure 11 illustrates, 

management communication in high engagement agencies is significantly better 

than in low engagement agencies.

Figure 11: Nonsupervisory Employees’ Perceptions of 

Management Communication Practices in High 

And Low Engagement Agencies 

Engagement Driver Two: Satisfaction With Leadership

14 T. Simons, The high cost of low trust, Harvard Business Review, 80(8), September 2002, pp. 

18-19.

Percent Agreement

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

63

37

Managers and executives 

are consistent in words 

and actions

50

49

Low Engagement High Engagement

42

26

43

26

Managers and executives are 

open and honest in sharing 

information with employees

I am satisfied with the 

organizational information I 

receive from management

Managers communicate 

the goals and priorities of 

the organization
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17

The survey data support our assertion that management communication and 

connection with employees is strongly tied to the trust and respect employees feel for 

management. In the high engagement agencies in which management demonstrates 

more positive communication practices, there is a higher level of respect for senior 

leaders and correspondingly higher levels of motivation and commitment. 

Employees do not feel free to express their perspectives to management. As we 

have discussed, the survey results indicate that many employees are not satisfied 

with the communications they receive from agency leadership. Many employees 

also believe that they are not free to communicate to management. Just 46 percent 

of all survey participants agreed that they could express their point of view to 

management without fear of negative consequences. Employees’ responses to a 

related MPS question (“In the past 2 years, do you feel you have been retaliated 

against or threatened with retaliation for disagreeing with management decisions?”) 

may help to explain why some employees do not feel free to express their opinions. 

Eight percent of survey participants said they had actually experienced retaliation 

after expressing disagreement with management, while 3 percent said they had 

been threatened with retaliation. It is possible that these employees shared their 

experiences with their coworkers and word quickly spread that it is dangerous to 

disagree with management even though a relatively small percentage of employees 

reported they had actually experienced negative consequences. 

Open, two-way communication is a prerequisite to empowerment and engagement. 

Employees must believe that they can express their point of view without fear of 

negative repercussions. In addition, when employees do not feel free to express their 

opinions, many worthwhile ideas may be lost to the organization and there is the 

danger of creating an environment of automatic compliance in which ethical lapses 

and imprudent choices may go unchallenged. Federal employees’ whistleblower 

protections are intended to support employees in championing the public interest 

even when it may not be in accord with the views or actions of their leaders. 

The differences between nonsupervisory employees and leaders are substantial, with 41 

percent of nonsupervisory employees and 54 percent of leaders feeling that they can 

express their perspectives. It is especially unfortunate that so many leaders do not trust 

their own leaders enough to openly voice their opinions. When lower level leaders are 

reluctant to voice concerns or suggest alternative courses of action, senior leaders may 

make poorly informed or unwise decisions at great potential cost to the public. 

Figure 12 depicts the considerable difference between high and low engagement 

agencies in the percentage of nonsupervisory employees who agreed they could 

express their point of view to management without fear of negative consequences. 

The 17 percent gap confirms the importance of open expression to engagement.

Engagement Driver Two: Satisfaction With Leadership
18 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Figure 12: I can express my point of view to management 

without fear of negative consequences 

To create the positive environment of trust needed to engage employees, 

organizational leaders should communicate to employees that they may express 

their opinions and then demonstrate that it is safe to do so by encouraging open 

discussion and acknowledging it with positive reactions and consequences.

Although there are many challenges in the Federal work environment such as 

frequently changing circumstances and organizational size and complexity, leaders 

can and should improve the amount and quality of communication to their 

employees. Our data indicate that in the agencies in which leaders invest more 

time and effort in communicating with their employees, employees are more likely 

to respect the leaders and to believe leaders generate motivation and commitment. 

Thus, communication and connection with employees are shown to be effective 

drivers of engagement in the Federal workforce. There are many actions leaders can 

take to enhance communication in their organizations, such as sharing information 

more frequently and openly and demonstrating courage in sharing both the good 

news of achievements and the more difficult messages of uncertainty, mistakes, and 

challenges. Leaders can connect with employees by making sure they are accessible 

and visible to employees at all levels and by encouraging employees to express their 

opinions and share their ideas. Leaders also need to build trust by ensuring that 

their words and actions are consistent and, when necessary, explaining any apparent 

or actual inconsistencies.

Engagement Driver Two: Satisfaction With Leadership

Percent Agreement

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

High Engagement 

Agencies

52

35 Low Engagement 

Agencies
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19

Summary

The satisfaction with leadership driver is a challenging area for most agencies. 

Although two-thirds of all Federal employees rated their immediate supervisor’s 

performance as a supervisor as good or very good, there is certainly room 

for improvement. Nonsupervisory employees’ perceptions of managers and 

executives are much less positive. They do not believe that their senior leaders are 

communicating adequately and openly with them. Employees also do not feel they 

can freely express their perspectives to their leadership. The result of this lack of 

open, two-way communication is that many leaders may fail to develop the trusting 

relationships and personal connections with employees that generate motivation 

and commitment. Consistent, honest communication with employees should begin 

with onboarding programs when employees first enter an organization and continue 

with frequent opportunities for employees to participate in dialogue about the 

organization with their leaders. 

Engagement Driver Two: Satisfaction With Leadership

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 21

The third driver of engagement is the opportunity to perform well at work. No 

matter how competent or initially motivated employees are, if they are not given the 

opportunity, information, resources, or support they need to do their best, they may 

disengage from their work and performance will suffer.

Using One’s Talents

About two-thirds of employees believe their talents are used well in the 

workplace. For high levels of performance, it is essential to design jobs and assign 

work so that most of employees’ tasks require the application of their competency 

strengths. People apply their best efforts to completing tasks that they perceive as 

challenging but achievable. If a task is too easy, they expend minimal effort. If a 

task is too hard, they become overwhelmed and don’t engage in the work.15 Sixtyfive percent of survey participants reported that their talents are used well in the 

workplace. It is noteworthy that 63 percent of nonsupervisors in the MPS 2007 

reported their talents were being well used while 75 percent of leaders thought so. 

This difference may be partly attributable to the fact that leaders may have more 

discretion over which tasks they perform and which they delegate, and they choose 

to do the tasks most closely aligned with their strengths.

It’s a good start to have two-thirds of employees believing that their job 

responsibilities make good use of their capabilities, but Federal agencies may be 

losing an opportunity for improved performance by not making use of everyone’s 

strengths. As shown in Figure 13, there is a large difference between high and low 

engagement agencies in employees’ perceptions that their talents are used well. 

While 72 percent of non-supervisory employees in high engagement agencies 

reported that their talents are used well in the workplace, just 56 percent of 

those in low engagement agencies did so.

Engagement Driver Three: 

Opportunity To Perform 

Well At Work

15 J. Fuller, Performance Management with Bottom-Line Results. Presentation at the International 

Quality and Productivity Center Conference, Aligning Performance Management with Business 

Strategy and Goals, San Francisco, August 2001.
22 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Figure 13: Non-Supervisory Employees Who 

Believe Their Talents Are Used Well

When people don’t believe that their strengths are utilized, motivation suffers and 

productivity declines. Although supervisors may face multiple constraints in making 

work assignments, it is often possible to assign staff members at least some work 

that utilizes their strengths and minimize the assignments that require use of their 

less developed competencies. When feasible, employees whose strengths are not 

compatible with changes in technology or agency goals or processes can be assisted 

to develop new strengths that align with organizational needs.

Providing Direction and Resources

The majority of employees have individual performance goals that are linked to 

organizational goals and define what they are expected to achieve. Individual 

goals provide performance targets for employees by giving them a clear view of what 

they need to do to succeed. Employee engagement is facilitated when goals specify 

the expected work outcomes and timelines tailored to each employee’s responsibilities 

and capabilities, and tie the work to larger organizational goals but allow employees to 

choose how to do the work. Along with the priorities supervisors communicate, goals 

serve as a continuing point of reference for employees as they make day-to-day and 

longer term decisions about their work. They empower employees with the direction 

they need to do their jobs well, helping them monitor and regulate their own activities 

and output to produce the results needed by internal and external stakeholders and 

avoid wasted effort.16 In addition, clear goals provide a focus for employees and their 

supervisors to periodically review and discuss the employee’s progress in comparison 

with expectations. Written performance goals facilitate mutual understanding and 

avoid situations in which components of goals are forgotten or misinterpreted. Goals 

are most effective in generating engagement when employees are involved in defining 

Engagement Driver Three: Opportunity To Perform Well At Work

Percent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

High Engagement 

Agencies

72

Low Engagement 56

Agencies

16 J. W. Gilley, Performance management applied at the performer level, Performance 

Improvement Quarterly, 13(4), 2000, pp. 87-105.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23

the goals, both so they have a voice in how they will make a positive difference in their 

agency and so the goals are realistic from their perspective. Goals should be reviewed 

and updated as priorities and organizational needs change.

Seventy-one percent of survey participants reported that they have individual written 

performance goals that clearly define the results they are expected to achieve. Of 

these 71 percent: 

• 83 percent said the goals had been developed, reviewed, updated, or discussed 

with their supervisors for the current performance period

• 85 percent said the goals accurately define what is expected of them

• 89 percent said the goals are clearly linked to organizational or work unit goals.

Areas of concern are those employees who did not indicate they have written 

performance goals and those whose goals are not up to date, do not accurately 

define expectations, or are not linked to work unit or organizational goals. These 

employees may not be receiving the direction they need to fully contribute to 

the achievement of agency goals. We found that 76 percent of nonsupervisory 

employees in the high engagement agencies reported they have written individual 

performance goals, compared with 61 percent in the low engagement agencies. 

Discussions about individual goals at the beginning and midpoint of each 

performance period provide supervisors with an excellent opportunity to 

communicate organizational goals and priorities to employees. If these discussions 

do not take place, supervisors or managers may not otherwise communicate 

organizational goals. Indeed, our analysis shows that 68 percent of the participants 

who said their individual goals had been developed, reviewed, updated, or discussed 

with their supervisor for the current performance period agreed that their managers 

communicate organizational goals and priorities, but only 45 percent of those who 

did not meet with their supervisors to discuss their goals agreed.

Approximately 60 percent of employees are receiving the information and 

guidance they need. In addition to performance goals, employees at all levels 

need ongoing direction and guidance including information related to specific 

assignments. Sixty-one percent of survey participants reported that they receive the 

information and guidance they need to do their jobs effectively and efficiently all or 

most of the time. The remaining 39 percent of participants receive the information 

and guidance they need less frequently (27 percent sometimes receive it, 9 percent 

usually don’t receive it, and 3 percent rarely or never receive it). These results may 

be indicative of lost opportunity. Without consistent guidance, employees cannot be 

expected to produce the results needed to effectively serve the public. When they are 

initially given an assignment, employees need to know the purpose of the assignment 

and its stakeholders; its context as part of a larger effort; the history of similar work 

and lessons learned; the resources available; the priority of the assignment relative 

to the employee’s other work; the supervisor’s expectations for quality, quantity, and 

due dates; and potential problems to avoid. As employees work on the assignments, 

the supervisor needs to be readily available to provide advice or assistance as needed.

Engagement Driver Three: Opportunity To Perform Well At Work
24 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Most supervisors are providing employees with the assistance they need.

Approximately 73 percent of our survey participants stated that their supervisors 

talk with them or assist them when they need help. These supervisory behaviors 

both create a positive work environment for employees and provide the assistance 

they need to get the job done. Managers need to encourage the remaining quarter 

of supervisors to understand how important it is for them to provide employees 

with the help they need. If employees don’t receive the assistance they need, they 

may ask their colleagues for help, figure out what to do on their own, or search 

for information, all of which may be fine in some cases but in others, it can mean 

that employees are not doing the work as they should, errors are being made, or 

much time is wasted. Not assisting employees may also send the message that the 

supervisor doesn’t care about them or doesn’t value their work. 

When we looked at the data by age of the survey participants, we discovered 

that the proportion of employees who felt they received the assistance they need 

steadily decreased as employees’ age increased. Thus, 80 percent of employees aged 

25 or under agreed that they received the assistance they needed, compared with 

71 percent of employees aged 50 or above. This finding may indicate that both 

supervisors and employees could benefit from greater assertiveness. Supervisors 

should tactfully offer assistance to even very experienced or mature employees. 

Employees should request the help they need rather than remaining silent for fear 

of being perceived as incompetent or needy for attention.

Most employees usually have the time and resources they need. To achieve their 

goals, employees require adequate time and resources including tools, supplies, 

staff support, and reference materials such as handbooks and job aids. Although it 

seems obvious that time and resources are necessary to do good work, organizations 

sometimes do not supply what their employees need and subsequently, performance 

suffers. For example, employees may be told that a certain goal is a top priority 

but then may be assigned other tasks that prevent them from working on the high 

priority assignment. 

A total of 69 percent of respondents indicated that they usually have the resources 

they need to do their job well, while 23 percent said they sometimes have the 

resources they need. The remaining 8 percent usually do not have required 

resources. We can conclude that most organizations are doing a good job in 

ensuring their employees have the equipment, support staff, supplies, and other 

resources required for effective performance but that a sizable minority need to focus 

on consistently providing needed resources. This question is based on employee 

perceptions, as are the other survey questions. It is possible that some employees 

would like to have more resources but the resources are not actually required for 

effective job performance or some employees may not efficiently use the resources 

they are given. In some cases, the agency budgets may not be sufficient to supply 

all the resources that employees believe they need.

Engagement Driver Three: Opportunity To Perform Well At Work
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25

Time is one of the essential resources for good performance. If employees have 

too much work to do, quality suffers or tasks are delayed or remain uncompleted. 

Figure 14 shows the percentage of all survey participants who agreed that their 

workload is reasonable. 

Figure 14: My workload is reasonable

It appears that most survey participants are comfortable with the amount of work 

they are assigned. The 23 percent who do not perceive their workload as reasonable 

may need help from their supervisors in reviewing their workload and if appropriate 

and possible, adjusting it. In some Federal agencies, the amount of work that needs 

to be done may exceed the capability of the current workforce and funds are not 

available to add staff. In this situation, leaders are advised to review the criticality of 

work tasks and determine if any can be eliminated as well as review work processes 

to identify how they can be streamlined. In some cases, the source of employees’ 

perceptions that their workload is not reasonable may be that they do not have the 

level of competency or the tools or staff support needed to efficiently perform the 

work and therefore it is taking longer than necessary. Alternatively, employees may 

have unrealistically low expectations of how much work they should do or there 

may be obstacles outside their control. Supervisors need to frequently discuss with 

their employees their perceptions of their workload and available resources so that 

potential problems can be promptly explored and resolved.

Providing Feedback

Research repeatedly shows that giving feedback to their employees is the most 

important and effective action supervisors can take to improve work performance. 

The feedback should both communicate to employees that they are valued and 

provide direct information about their work, especially what they are doing well 

and what can be improved.17 Feedback can come from many sources other than the 

Engagement Driver Three: Opportunity To Perform Well At Work

Percent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Agree 64

13

23

Neutral

Disagree

17 J. Fuller, Performance Management with Bottom-Line Results. Presentation at the International 

Quality and Productivity Center Conference, Aligning Performance Management with Business 

Strategy and Goals, San Francisco, August 2001.
26 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

supervisor. It can come from coworkers, higher level leaders, customers, suppliers, 

and external colleagues or from self-reflection or measurements. There are two 

kinds of feedback: positive feedback when good performance is acknowledged and 

complimented, and corrective feedback when errors or deficiencies are specifically 

identified and instructions are given for rectifying them. The Conference Board 

reports that in a survey of 166 organizations, poor or insufficient performance 

feedback was identified as a primary cause of deficient performance by 60 percent 

of respondents, more than any other factor.18 

Many employees are not benefiting from frequent performance feedback from 

their supervisors. We asked employees two closely related questions: “How often 

do you typically receive formal or informal feedback from your supervisor?” and 

“How often do you meet individually with your supervisor to discuss the progress 

of your work?” Figure 15 illustrates their responses.

Figure 15: Frequency of Performance Feedback and 

Meetings with Supervisor

The similarity of the responses to both questions leads us to conclude that most 

of the feedback given to employees by supervisors is probably provided during 

individual progress review meetings rather than informally. The supervisors of 

the 40 percent of employees who receive feedback at least every two weeks are to 

be commended, but it is clear that many other employees are not benefiting from 

frequent feedback or reviews and discussion of their work. More than half (60 

percent) of employees are receiving feedback monthly or less often. Especially 

distressing are the 31 percent of employees who receive feedback only twice yearly 

or less often and the 40 percent who meet with their supervisor to discuss their 

work just twice yearly or even less frequently. 

Engagement Driver Three: Opportunity To Perform Well At Work

18 The next three highest causes of deficient performance were high individual stress levels (40 

percent), lack of performance standards (39 percent), and lack of clear individual goals (37 percent). 

The Conference Board, Closing The Human Performance Gap, Washington, DC, August 1994. 

Note: The Conference Board is a non-profit, independent membership organization that creates 

and disseminates knowledge about organizational management.

Percent

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

7

Weekly or more often

6

7

How often do you meet individually with your supervisor to discuss your work?

How often do you typically receive formal or informal feedback from your supervisor?

10

17

24

14

15

14

11

8

7

32

27

Every 2 weeks

Monthly

Quarterly

Twice per year

Once per year

Less than once per year
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27

When we look at responses to these questions by the participants’ supervisory 

status, we see that supervisors are receiving more feedback and attention from their 

managers than they give to their employees. Thirty-eight percent of individual 

workers reported that they receive feedback at least every two weeks compared with 

45 percent of team leaders, 48 percent of supervisors and managers, and 55 percent 

of executives. Thirty-eight percent of individual workers meet at least every two 

weeks with their supervisors, compared with 42 percent of team leaders, 47 percent 

of supervisors, and 50 percent of managers and executives. 

Infrequent supervisor-employee meetings erode trust and confidence. Individual 

supervisor-employee meetings to discuss the employee’s progress are an effective 

and practical approach to providing regular feedback and developing good working 

relationships. For employees who work at different locations from their supervisors, 

the meetings can be telephonic. The important thing is that employees and their 

supervisors both regularly monitor and discuss the employee’s progress. The 

value of frequent individual progress meetings is demonstrated in Figure 16. It 

depicts the strong relationship of the frequency of supervisor-employee meetings 

with employees’ trust in their supervisors, their confidence that their supervisor 

has a good understanding of their job performance and accomplishments, and 

their confidence that their performance appraisals are a fair reflection of their 

performance. As the frequency of meetings declines, so do the levels of trust and 

confidence, especially when the meetings are held less than quarterly. 

Figure 16: Relationship of Frequency of 

Meetings With Trust and Confidence

Engagement Driver Three: Opportunity To Perform Well At Work

Supervisor understands Trust supervisor performance

0

20

40

60

80

100

Appraisal reflects 

performance

Weekly Every 2 

Weeks

Monthly Quarterly SemiAnnuallyAnnually Less Than Annually
28 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

In the 2000 Merit Principles Survey, we also asked participants about the feedback 

they received from their supervisors. We did not specifically ask them how often 

they received feedback but rather if their supervisor kept them informed about how 

well they are doing, a very similar concept. About 46 percent of participants agreed 

with the statement, “My supervisor keeps me informed about how well I am doing.” 

In the 2005 Merit Principles Survey, we asked participants if their supervisor 

provides timely feedback. About half (53 percent) agreed with the statement, “My 

supervisor provides timely feedback on my job performance.” Although these 

questions from previous MPS administrations cannot be directly compared with the 

2007 question about feedback frequency, we can conclude that many supervisors 

have not been providing adequate feedback from their employees’ point of view over 

the last several years and there has not been recent improvement.

Most employees find their supervisors’ feedback to be helpful. We asked survey 

participants to tell us how helpful their supervisor’s feedback is in enabling them to 

improve or enhance their performance. Figure 17 depicts their responses. 

Figure 17: How helpful is your supervisor’s feedback in 

helping you improve or enhance your performance? 

Although the majority of participants (77 percent) find their supervisor’s feedback 

to be very or somewhat helpful, 21 percent find their supervisors’ feedback to not be 

helpful and 2 percent even find it to be harmful. It is possible that some employees 

rated their supervisor’s feedback as only “somewhat helpful” or “not helpful” because 

they do not agree with the supervisor’s assessment of their work, the supervisor 

may not be fully informed about the employee’s work and associated constraints, 

or the supervisor may not be phrasing the feedback constructively. Actions can be 

taken to address each of these issues. Supervisors can learn how to provide sensitive, 

informed feedback and tailor it to the individual. Employees can learn how to 

accept and respond to feedback they may not want to hear.

New supervisors are not adequately prepared to provide feedback. Two reasons 

that leaders may not provide adequate feedback to their employees is that they don’t 

know how to provide feedback or are uncomfortable doing so. It appears that this 

may be the case for many Federal leaders. Only 25 percent of supervisors, managers, 

Engagement Driver Three: Opportunity To Perform Well At Work

Percent

0 10 20 30 40 50

Very Helpful 32

45

21

Somewhat Helpful

Not Helpful

Harmful 2
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29

and executives said they had received formal training in providing positive feedback 

and coaching prior to or during their first year as a supervisor. Just 24 percent 

said they had received training in providing corrective feedback and coaching. 

Additionally, only 23 percent said they had received training in conducting 

performance discussions. Yet, supervisors are expected to provide feedback to their 

employees as an important component of their job beginning from their first day.

Supervisors’ assumptions about the capability of employees to improve their performance 

can be a key factor in supervisors’ ability to recognize changes in performance and 

their inclination to provide feedback and coaching. Those who believe that individual 

competencies and attributes are traits that are fixed over time may fail to recognize when 

an employee’s performance is improving or declining, while those who believe people 

can change over time are more likely to recognize both positive and negative changes 

and discuss the changes with the employee. Research demonstrates that the fixed trait 

mindset can be changed through training interventions.19 Thus, it may be possible to 

improve both the quantity and quality of feedback supervisors provide their employees 

if they are provided with effective training. 

We also asked supervisors if they had received coaching and/or feedback from their 

own managers to help them build their supervisory skills during their first year as 

a supervisor. Fifty-nine percent said they had. The problem is thus compounded. 

Not only are the majority of our new supervisors not receiving formal training in 

giving feedback, 41 percent are not receiving feedback from their own managers. 

Novice supervisors often use their managers as exemplars to develop their own 

supervisory style. A manager’s failure to provide feedback to the supervisor can 

communicate a strong message that giving feedback is not important or valued 

and can result in a cycle of inadequate feedback.

Summary

Results are mixed for the employee engagement driver of the opportunity to perform 

well at work. Most employees feel their talents are used well at work and the 

majority have written performance goals that define expected results. The majority 

of employees indicate that they usually have adequate resources, time, and assistance. 

However, a large number of employees reported that they usually do not receive 

the direction and guidance they need. In addition, the frequency and usefulness 

of feedback is not sufficient to help these employees achieve optimal performance. 

Engagement can be enhanced through a continuing dialogue between supervisors 

and employees with the shared objective of optimizing performance. High priority 

needs are to provide leaders at all levels with opportunities to build skill in providing 

top quality feedback customized to the individual and to help employees learn how 

to request, receive, and apply feedback.

Engagement Driver Three: Opportunity To Perform Well At Work

19 P. A. Heslin and D. VandeWalle, Managers’ implicit assumptions about personnel, Current 

Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 2008, pp. 219-223.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 31

The fourth driver of engagement is a positive work environment, a social and 

psychological context for work that communicates to employees that they are valued 

partners in the achievement of the agency mission. Organizational communications, 

leadership behaviors, policies, practices, and systems (e.g., staffing and performance 

management) create and reinforce the intangible work environment. Organizational 

leaders need to create an environment in which high performance is valued and 

rewarded and employees are involved and empowered to achieve their best. Leaders 

need to define organizational goals and the strategies to achieve the goals, determine 

which employee behaviors will lead to execution of the strategies, and then develop 

a culture in which employees choose to practice the behaviors that lead to goal 

achievement. When leaders actively work with employees to develop a work 

environment that leads to results, they are also facilitating employee commitment 

and engagement. If employees are involved in creating the environment, they are 

much more likely to support it. 

Work Environment

Employees report a positive, collaborative work environment. Eighty-one 

percent of survey participants reported that their supervisors treat them with 

courtesy and respect. This basic courtesy is, of course, a prerequisite for smooth 

interactions between employees and their supervisors and therefore essential for good 

performance. Collaboration is another indicator of a positive work environment. 

Three-quarters of our survey participants agreed that the people they work with 

cooperate to get the job done. 

Employee Empowerment and Involvement

Employees need to be proactively informed of work changes. Empowerment 

requires information. One type of information employees need to perform 

efficiently is to be advised, whenever possible, of work changes before they take 

place. If assignments, priorities, due dates, personnel, equipment, or other aspects 

of work are expected to change, supervisors need to inform employees of the 

change in advance. When supervisors explain to their employees why changes to 

work processes or products are being made before the changes are implemented, 

employees feel respected and are prepared to proactively adapt their work behaviors 

 Engagement Driver Four: 

Positive Work Environment
32 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

to the new requirements. When changes are not explained in advance, employees 

feel devalued and may openly resist the changes, passively resist by being slow to 

adjust to the new practices, or even sabotage the changes.

When we asked individual workers and team leaders if their supervisors explain the 

reasons for work changes before they take place, only 56 percent indicated they did 

so. Thus, many employees are not benefiting from advance explanations of work 

changes and therefore are not receiving information conducive to high performance. 

When we compared nonsupervisory employees in high and low engagement 

agencies, we found that 62 percent of those in high engagement agencies reported 

that their supervisor proactively explains changes, compared with 52 percent in low 

engagement agencies.

Among supervisors, managers, and executives in all agencies, 64 percent indicated 

that their managers explain the reasons for upcoming changes. The finding that 

more than one-third of leaders are not receiving advance explanations of changes 

from their own managers helps explain why many employees are saying changes 

are not explained to them before they occur. If their supervisors don’t know the 

rationale behind changes, they cannot explain them to employees. The results of 

this question underscore employees’ stated need for more information about the 

organization from their leaders that was discussed previously.

Employees want to be more involved in their organizations. Just over half (51 

percent) of our survey participants are satisfied with their involvement in decisions 

that affect their work. When employees are not involved in work decisions that 

directly affect them, they often feel powerless and commitment to their work 

may decrease. They may also feel that their ideas are not respected or valued. 

Additionally, by not involving employees in these decisions, leaders are not taking 

advantage of employees’ knowledge. Employees are typically closer to the work than 

leaders are and can offer valuable perspectives and insights. Agency leaders should 

plan how they can encourage and use input from employees when changes are being 

considered. They also should explain the rationale for the decisions made so that 

employees understand management’s thinking.

There were very large differences by supervisory status in satisfaction with 

involvement in decisions that affect one’s work. Satisfaction steadily increases 

with level as shown in Figure 18. We would expect that leaders would be more 

involved in decisions that affect their work but we would also suggest that agencies 

consider how they can involve employees in decision making. 

Engagement Driver Four: Positive Work Environment
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33

Figure 18: Satisfaction With Involvement in Decisions 

Affecting One’s Work

We discovered a large difference between high and low engagement agencies in 

nonsupervisory employees’ satisfaction with their involvement in decisions that 

affect their work. Figure 19 shows that 15 percent more of the employees in the 

four agencies with the highest percentage of engaged employees are satisfied with 

their involvement than employees in the four agencies with the lowest percentage 

of engaged employees. 

Figure 19: Nonsupervisory Employees Satisfied 

With Involvement in High and Low Engagement Agencies

Even when employees’ perspectives are solicited by their organizations, their input is 

frequently not being recognized or applied. As shown in Figure 20, only 26 percent 

of our survey participants who are individual workers or team leaders agreed that 

employee input from surveys or other means is used to make improvements in the 

organization. The remaining 74 percent either had no opinion or disagreed.

Engagement Driver Four: Positive Work Environment

Percent Satisfied

0 20 40 60 80 100

Executives 81

69

61

54

47

Managers

Supervisors

Team Leaders

Individual Workers

Percent Satisfied

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

59

44

High Engagement

Low Engagement
34 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Figure 20: Nonsupervisory Employees − The information collected in 

surveys and other forms of employee input is used to make 

improvements in my organization

The percentage of agreement that employee input is used is higher among leaders 

(35 percent) but still low, especially given that leaders are the people who should be 

using the feedback to make improvements. When the information collected from 

employees in surveys and other forms of input is taken seriously by agency leaders 

and is actually used to make improvements, the leaders are sending two strong 

messages to employees: first, employee input is valued; and second, employees 

are partners in continuously improving the organization. Providing input and 

having their ideas used is important to most people and can be a powerful driver 

of engagement. It is possible that employee input is being used but organizational 

leaders are not informing employees how their input is being applied. Employees 

may see this lack of acknowledgement as an indication that their opinions are not 

valued. Thanking employees for their input and explaining to them how it is being 

used are essential to ensure continued employee participation in surveys and other 

feedback vehicles and, most importantly, to facilitate a sense of empowerment and 

thus engagement. 

The results of previous Merit Principles Surveys demonstrate that Federal employees’ 

sense of disempowerment has been an issue of long standing. In 2005, only 

54 percent of employees reported that their opinions count at work, the same 

percentage as in 1996.20 If employee input is not used, employees conclude their 

ideas are not valued and leadership is not concerned with their perspectives. In 

addition, if survey data are not properly used, taxpayers are not recouping their 

investment in employee surveys through improved productivity. The currently 

required annual employee surveys may not allow the time agencies need to plan 

and implement changes based on the data and then see alterations in employees’ 

opinions as a result of the changes. It may easily take several years for program 

or practice changes to have a positive impact on employees’ perceptions. Thus, 

Engagement Driver Four: Positive Work Environment

Percent

0 10 20 30 40 50

26

42

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

32

20 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Government: A Model Employer or a Work 

in Progress?, Washington, DC, 2008.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35

surveys are best used to identify areas for improvement and areas of success by 

tracking trends over time. Random variability in year-by-year results may provide 

misleading information if the longer term perspective is not also considered. In 

addition, many agencies do not have the resources to dedicate to survey analysis 

and responsive action on a yearly basis. Employee surveys are costly endeavors in 

terms of development, administration, employee time, analysis, interpretation, and 

application of the results.

Surveys are a good investment if they result in improved performance and 

productivity. However, it may be difficult for agencies to make effective use of the 

information obtained in annual surveys both because changes in survey results over 

one year’s time are difficult to accurately interpret and because it may be impractical 

to expect agencies with limited budgets to invest a large amount of resources every 

year in using the data they collect. In addition, the administration of annual surveys 

may set unrealistic employee expectations for rapid change; employees expect to see 

results from their input which often cannot be delivered in complex organizations 

within a short time frame. In sum, the annual surveys may promise more than they 

can deliver to employees, agencies, and the public. Employee surveys administered 

every two or three years may be a more practical alternative.

High Performance Culture

Increased communication of high performance expectations to all employees 

would be beneficial. We asked survey participants if their supervisor communicates 

high performance expectations to employees. Two-thirds of all participants stated 

that they did. This is a promising beginning but a substantial minority of employees 

are not benefiting from the stimulus of expectations that they should perform at 

their best. Moreover, when we view the data by supervisory status as shown in 

Figure 21, we see that high performance expectations are being communicated to 

leaders more frequently than to nonsupervisory employees. Thus, some leaders may 

not be transmitting the messages they receive from their managers. Leaders achieve 

results through their employees. If leaders do not communicate the same high level 

of expectations they receive to their employees, it will be difficult for leaders to 

achieve their goals.

Engagement Driver Four: Positive Work Environment
36 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Figure 21: Supervisors Communicate High Performance Expectations 

We also found that 10 percent more of the survey participants in the high 

engagement agencies than in the low engagement agencies reported that their 

supervisors communicate high performance expectations. 

More supervisors need to invest effort in maintaining and improving their 

work unit’s performance. Sixty-three percent of survey participants agree that 

their supervisors work hard to maintain and improve their work unit’s performance. 

This is a moderately positive result but more emphasis on improving work group 

performance would very likely lead to increased effectiveness. When supervisors 

focus on continuous improvement, not only does it result in better performance, 

but the supervisors serve as role models for their employees and thus encourage 

them to work on improving their individual performance.

Management of Poor Performers

The ineffective management of poor performers remains a problem. Federal 

employees have reported for years that their supervisors do not manage poor 

performers well. In the 1996 MPS, employees’ strongest negative perception 

concerned the handling of poor performers. Forty-four percent of nonsupervisory 

employees and 43 percent of supervisory employees reported that their agencies had 

a major problem in taking appropriate steps to correct inadequate performance.21

Only 22 percent of the MPS 2000 participants reported that their supervisor dealt 

effectively with poor performers, while 30 percent of respondents to the MPS 2005 

did so.22 In the 2007 MPS we again found only 30 percent of survey participants

Engagement Driver Four: Positive Work Environment

Percent Agreement

0 20 40 60 80 100

86

76

Executives

Supervisors

Managers

71

66

65

Team Leaders

Individual Workers

21 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Adherence to the Merit Principles in the Workplace: 

Federal Employees’ View, Washington, DC, 1997.

22 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Government: A Model Employer or a Work in 

Progress?, Washington, DC, 2008.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 37

Engagement Driver Four: Positive Work Environment

agreeing that steps are taken to deal with poor performers who cannot or will not 

improve. We also found that employees’ perception of the management of poor 

performers is consistently negative across all agencies. When we viewed the results 

by agency, levels of agreement that steps were taken to manage poor performers 

varied from a high of only 37 percent to a low of 21 percent. 

The high engagement agencies seem to be doing a somewhat better job of managing 

poor performers than other agencies at least from the perspective of employees. 

Thirty-five percent of nonsupervisory employees in high engagement agencies agreed 

that steps are taken to deal with poor performers. Only 24 percent of their peers in 

low engagement agencies agreed.

As Figure 22 illustrates, there is a profound difference between the perceptions of 

nonsupervisory employees and leaders in all agencies on this issue. While only 26 

percent of nonsupervisory employees believe that steps are taken to deal with poor 

performers, almost twice that percentage of leaders feel actions are taken.

Figure 22: In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor 

performer who cannot or will not improve

One reason for the chasm between nonsupervisors and leaders’ perceptions may be 

that employees are not informed of the actions supervisors take to deal with poor 

performers because counseling poor performers is a private matter between the 

employee and the supervisor. In addition, employees often are not fully informed 

about their coworkers’ performance and may reach inaccurate conclusions. 

However, if a co-worker performs poorly for an extended time and remains in the 

work unit, employees may reasonably conclude that the supervisor is not effectively 

dealing with the problem. Another possible explanation is that supervisors are 

sometimes unaware of performance problems or underestimate their severity. 

Coworkers often recognize a problem long before the supervisor when the supervisor 

does not frequently review employees’ work. It is also possible that leaders are 

reluctant to admit that they and their peers are not taking the actions needed to 

manage poor performers.

Percent Agreement

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

26

51

Nonsupervisors

Leaders
38 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

The Office of Personnel Management has estimated that that the percentage of poor 

performers in the Federal Government is about 3.7 percent23 so the number of 

poor performers is not as serious a problem as the way they are managed. Analysis 

of the percentage of employees eligible for a salary step increase (Within-Grade 

Increase or WGI) in 2006 provides an independent source of data that corroborates 

employees’ perceptions that poor performers are not being well managed. Of 

the approximately 481,000 employees eligible for a WGI, 99.9 percent received 

one.24 The WGI’s are intended to be performance-based, i.e., employees should 

only receive the step increase if they are fully meeting performance expectations. 

It is extremely unlikely that only one-tenth of one percent of Federal employees 

(or employees in any organization) are performing below expectations. Even if we 

assume that some supervisors are directly initiating performance-based actions such 

as reductions in grade or removals for poor performance rather than denying WGI’s, 

it is highly probable that some supervisors are awarding WGI’s to poor performers 

who do not deserve them. Additional evidence for the ineffective management of 

poor performers is the distribution of performance ratings. Less than 1 percent 

of employees received ratings below the fully successful level.25 If we assume that 

OPM’s estimate that the percentage of poor performers is about 3.7 percent is 

accurate, both the salary step increases and the lenient ratings provide solid evidence 

that supervisors are not effectively managing poor performers.

When poor performers are not well managed or employees believe they are not well 

managed, there is a strong negative influence on the engagement of the employees 

in the work unit. Supervisors’ failure to deal effectively with poor performers sends 

a clear message to all employees that good performance is optional and low effort is 

acceptable. The expectation of continual improvement on everyone’s part is dashed 

and a high performance culture is undermined. Although the percentage of poor 

performers may be low, their negative impact on their coworkers can be high. Not 

only do poor performers lower the work unit’s productivity, they may generate 

resentment and frustration among the employees who are working hard. This is 

especially a problem in the Federal sector where most employees are not paid on the 

basis of the quality or quantity of their performance so that poor performers may 

receive the same compensation they would if they were performing well. Perceived 

unfairness in pay has long been known to be a powerful de-motivator.26 

Additionally, the work not completed by poor performers may be distributed to 

their coworkers, a practice that can easily generate additional resentment. When 

we asked our survey participants how often they do more than their fair share of 

work because of the poor performance or low productivity of their coworkers, 

63 percent responded that they routinely do more than their fair share of work 

Engagement Driver Four: Positive Work Environment

23 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Poor Performers in the Government: A Quest for the 

True Story, Washington, DC, January 1999.

24 The 481,000 employees are the full-time, permanent Executive Branch employees in the 

General Schedule and GM pay plans included in the Central Personnel Data File, September 

2006, who were eligible for a salary step increase.

25 This finding is explained in the section on performance appraisal in the next chapter.

26 F. Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man, World Publishing, Cleveland, 1966.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 39

Engagement Driver Four: Positive Work Environment

because of poorly performing coworkers (35 percent said they do this work some 

of the time, 18 percent said most of the time, and 10 percent said always or almost 

always). Only 24 percent said they usually do not have to do others’ work and 13 

percent said they rarely or never do extra work because of poor performers. Thus, 

the majority of employees believe that they are unfairly asked to take on work not 

completed by poor performers. 

Although nonsupervisors and leaders differ significantly in their opinions of how 

well poor performers are managed, almost the same percentage believe that at least 

some of the time they do more than their fair share of work because of the poor 

performance of others (63 percent of nonsupervisors and 62 percent of leaders). 

Figure 23 shows how closely the perceptions of leaders and nonsupervisors align on 

this question and emphasizes the seriousness of the consequences of not dealing well 

with poor performers. 

Figure 23: How often do you do more than your fair share of 

work because of the poor performance or low productivity of 

one or more of your coworkers? 

The results of this question lead us to believe that rather than actively helping poor 

performers improve or removing them, some supervisors are apparently dealing with 

the problem of poor performers by transferring their work to others. Situations in 

which an extra burden is placed on good workers because their supervisors are not 

managing poor performers well lowers employees’ engagement in their work and 

leads to overall declines in work unit productivity. 

Insufficient supervisor training is a key contributor to the ineffective 

management of poor performers. One major reason that poor performers are not 

being well managed is that many new supervisors are not being taught how to work 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

10

Rarely or Never

7

18

16

35

23

27

14

11

Usually Not

Some of the Time

Most of the Time

Always or 

Almost Always

39

Leaders Nonsupervisors

Percent
40 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

with poor performers. Below are the percentages of leaders who reported that prior 

to or during their first year as a supervisor they received formal training in the skills 

needed to manage poor performers:

• Using the probationary period as the final stage of the selection process—

9 percent

• Helping all employees improve their performance—20 percent

• Managing poor performers—21 percent

• Conducting performance discussions—23 percent

• Providing corrective feedback and coaching—24 percent

• Monitoring or reviewing employee work and progress—26 percent

• Documenting employee performance—28 percent

With so few new supervisors receiving training in these critical areas, it is not 

surprising that there are problems in effectively managing poor performers. Formal 

training is not the only way to learn how to manage employees but agencies need 

to provide at least a foundation of basic training to their new supervisors to ensure 

consistency in the handling of performance problems. For example, new supervisors 

need to learn both that they can withhold within-grade salary step increases from 

poorly performing employees and the process for doing so. Especially noteworthy 

is that only about one-fifth of new supervisors were trained in helping employees 

improve their performance or managing poor performers and, worse yet, only 9 

percent learned how to use the probationary period to separate poor performers. 

Better use of the probationary period can help correct the problem. The 

probationary period is a vital tool in identifying low performers early and removing 

them easily from the workforce if they do not improve. In our 2005 study, The 

Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity, we determined that the 

probationary period is not being used as intended to determine if a probationer’s 

performance warrants a final appointment. We also found that if problems are not 

addressed during the probationary period, the employee is extremely unlikely to 

leave thereafter.27 Inadequate use of the probationary period as the final step in the 

selection process is very likely a primary contributor to the persistent problem of 

ineffective management of poor performers.

Other factors contribute to problems in managing poor performers. In addition 

to lack of training and not taking advantage of the probationary period to dismiss 

poor performers, there are many other factors that may lead supervisors not to take 

Engagement Driver Four: Positive Work Environment

27 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment 

Opportunity. Washington, DC, 2005.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 41

Engagement Driver Four: Positive Work Environment

steps to effectively manage poor performers. For example, the special job protections 

Federal employees enjoy may discourage some supervisors from addressing poor 

performance. Of course, these protections are not intended as shelters for employees 

who are not performing well, but some supervisors see them as restricting their 

ability to deal with poor performers. If supervisors regularly review and document 

their employees’ work and meet with them to discuss their performance, which 

are both necessary for accountability for all employees, the supervisors will be 

well equipped to take needed actions in managing poor performers. Employee 

protections only become an obstacle to taking justified actions when supervisors 

delay in addressing performance problems and do not document both the employee’s 

performance and the supervisor’s efforts to guide and assist the employee. 

Additional factors that may contribute to the ineffective management of poor 

performers include supervisors’ discomfort with providing corrective feedback 

to employees, a perceived or real lack of support from management, the long 

process and extensive documentation that some agencies may be requiring to take 

disciplinary action against an employee, the supervisor’s fear of having to respond 

if the employee grieves or appeals the action, and the inability to replace a separated 

employee. In addition, supervisors’ beliefs about the malleability of human 

behavior affects their efforts to help employees improve. Those who believe that 

human attributes cannot be changed are less likely to invest effort in helping poor 

performers improve.28

Summary

Our survey results indicate that Federal agencies are doing well in some aspects of 

cultivating a positive work environment but improvement is needed in several other 

areas. Employees report that they are treated with courtesy and respect and that 

their coworkers are collaborative. Supervisors are doing a moderately good job of 

establishing high performance expectations and investing effort in improving their 

work units. Employee empowerment could be increased by proactively informing 

employees of the reasons for workplace changes, using the input they offer to improve 

the organization, and involving them in decisions that affect their work. The issue 

of ineffective management of poor performers persists. Unfortunately, some leaders 

appear to be addressing the problem of poor performers by distributing their work 

to others. Low empowerment and the frustration engendered by not resolving 

performance problems can undermine employees’ engagement in their work.

28 P.A. Heslin and D. VandeWalle, Managers’ implicit assumptions about personnel, Current 

Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 2008, pp. 219-223.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 43

The fifth driver of employee engagement is satisfaction with the recognition received 

for one’s contributions. Recognition encompasses all the ways organizations provide 

positive consequences for good performance, from simple words of gratitude to 

monetary awards and public ceremonies. Recognition lets employees know their 

work is appreciated and valued. It is a strong contributor to high levels of employee 

engagement and retention. As well as encouraging employees to repeat desirable 

behaviors, recognition can be used to improve an employee’s performance to the 

level expected by recognizing incremental improvements. Monetary incentives such 

as salary increases and bonuses are only part of the recognition picture. In addition 

to money, employees appreciate more personal forms of acknowledgement of their 

contributions, such as oral or written praise, achievement awards, time off, special 

assignments, increased autonomy, opportunities to share and implement their ideas, 

and public recognition. 

Careful consideration of the behaviors or outcomes that should be rewarded is 

important when planning how to reward employees. Reward programs can result 

in nonproductive behavior if potential unintended negative consequences are not 

considered. For example, some organizations have discovered that if managers’ 

bonuses are based on low error rates, it is essential to develop mechanisms that 

will assure accurate identification and attribution of errors. In another common 

example, when quantity of output is rewarded, quality can suffer unless steps are 

taken to ensure quality. 

To be effective, recognition needs to be tied to specific performance results and be 

given only to employees who truly have earned it; i.e., those who have clearly met the 

criteria for the award. For example, if all employees in a work unit receive the same 

or similar performance ratings or awards regardless of their contributions, the rating 

or award is no longer an acknowledgement of special achievement and will not be 

effective in engaging employees. It is also important to remember that not all forms 

of recognition improve performance. For example, when recognition is perceived as 

controlling rather than supportive, it may reduce intrinsic motivation and therefore 

performance, as when compliance is rewarded and innovation is not. Also, recognition 

may provide an incentive for continued good performance to the employees who 

receive it but have a negative effect on employees who feel they deserve the same 

type of recognition but do not receive it.29 Consistency, fairness, and intensive 

communication about the purpose and distribution of rewards are essential.

29 B. Frey, Giving and receiving awards, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 2006, 

pp. 377-388.

 Engagement Driver Five: 

Satisfaction With The 

Recognition Received
Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

44 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Accountability

Recognition of good work is based on accountability. A basic principle of human 

behavior is that people will repeat behavior that results in positive consequences and 

they will avoid behavior that results in negative consequences. Accountability in 

the workplace is holding people responsible for their work by applying appropriate 

consequences for their performance—positive consequences for good performance 

and negative consequences for inadequate performance. Positive consequences 

are events that are perceived as good by the employee. Examples are a coveted 

assignment, words of appreciation, or a salary increase. Negative consequences are 

events that are viewed as adverse by the employee. Examples are a low performance 

rating, the removal of responsibility, or no salary increase. 

When there are no external consequences for performance, the employee may 

perceive the situation as either positive or negative depending on the circumstances 

and the employee’s proclivities. For example, if an employee successfully completes 

a challenging assignment that required much effort and time and receives no 

feedback from his supervisor, he is likely to perceive the lack of acknowledgement 

as negative. If an employee does not complete an assigned task and does not receive 

corrective feedback from her supervisor, she is likely to perceive the lack of response 

as positive. Thus, from the employee’s point of view, there are always consequences 

for performance, intended or not by the supervisor. 

Holding Employees Accountable for Results Needs to be Strengthened. It 

is important to distinguish between activities and results. Employees should be 

accountable for outcomes, not for activities. We asked survey participants if they 

are held accountable for achieving results in the sense that if they achieve expected 

work results, they experience positive consequences. About 65 percent agreed they 

are held accountable. The percentage of agreement varied across agencies from 53 

to 93 percent. We can infer that agencies employ divergent policies and practices 

in holding their employees accountable for good work. It is notable that 71 percent 

of the employees in the high engagement agencies reported experiencing positive 

consequences for good work results, compared with 59 percent of employees in the 

low engagement agencies.

We also asked survey participants if they are held accountable for results in the 

sense that if they do not achieve the expected work results, they experience negative 

consequences. About 57 percent of survey participants agreed that they experience 

negative consequences when they do not achieve expected work results. The 

difference in level of agreement between low and high engagement agencies was 

less than for positive accountability; 61 percent for high engagement agencies and 

57 percent for low engagement agencies. Again, we saw substantial variations 

across the agencies with a range of 46 to 93 percent agreement. For all but four 

agencies, the percentage of employees who agreed that they are held accountable by 

experiencing positive consequences is higher, and in most cases, substantially higher, 

than the percentage who say they are held accountable by experiencing negative 

consequences. 
Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 45

In discussing negative consequences for not achieving expected work results, it is 

important to differentiate failure to achieve ambitious “stretch” goals from failure to 

achieve more easily attainable outcomes. In some cases, it may not be possible to 

accomplish a bold goal because of circumstances beyond the employee’s control and 

employees should not be punished for undertaking ambitious projects and prudent 

risks. The point is that employees need to be held accountable for fully contributing 

to their organizations and investing their best efforts to accomplish their goals.

Based on the data from these two questions about accountability, we conclude that 

more effort should be invested in holding Federal employees accountable for results. 

Accountability for one’s work is the most fundamental principle of performance 

management and is essential for ensuring high performance. Some workplace 

practices are helpful in improving performance but are not critical. Accountability 

is absolutely vital. Leaders must clearly communicate to all employees that they 

are held accountable for their work and will experience positive consequences for 

good work and negative consequences for poor work. Employees will only believe 

this if it actually happens. Holding employees accountable for their work is more 

challenging in the Federal workplace than it is for the other employment sectors 

given the protections afforded to Federal employees and the loose link between pay 

and performance for most. In the conclusion of this chapter, we discuss several 

of the factors that make accountability more difficult for Federal managers to 

consistently implement as well as how accountability can be sustained despite 

these challenges.

Performance Appraisal

Employees can only be held accountable for their performance if their work is fairly 

assessed. Earlier in this report, we discussed the importance of performance goals as a 

means of clearly defining work expectations. These goals are the baseline for measuring 

and evaluating performance. If agencies do not have clear performance goals and 

measures in place for their employees, it is difficult to fairly assess performance. 

The assessment of employee performance is an area of concern. As shown in 

Table 1, two-thirds of all nonsupervisory employees agree that their supervisor 

has a good understanding of their job performance and accomplishments. Fiftysix percent believe that appropriate, objective measures are used to evaluate their 

performance. Sixty-one percent agreed that their performance appraisal is a fair 

reflection of their performance, while 63 percent understood what they had to 

do to earn a different rating. When we view the survey results for these questions 

for nonsupervisory employees in the high engagement agencies, we see that they 

have significantly more favorable perceptions of the accuracy of their performance 

appraisals than their counterparts in the low engagement agencies.
Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

46 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Table 1. Nonsupervisors’ Perceptions of 

Performance Appraisal—Levels of Agreement

All High Low

Agencies Engagement Engagement 

Agencies Agencies

66 % 71 % 63 %

56 % 61 % 48 %

61 % 69 % 57 %

63 % 67 % 55 %

Across all agencies, leaders’ perceptions are similar to nonsupervisors’ views for all four 

of these questions about performance appraisal. In each question, the percentage of 

agreement is only 3 to 5 percent higher for leaders. These are among the few questions 

in the MPS 2007 in which nonsupervisors and leaders have similar opinions.

There was a wide range of agreement from 50 to 76 percent among all survey 

participants in all agencies that their performance appraisal is a fair reflection of 

their performance. This means that many Federal employees do not believe that 

their performance is being accurately assessed. This may be because objective 

measures are not being employed to evaluate performance, these measures have 

not been implemented well or consistently, or alternatively, the measures may have 

been appropriately applied but employees do not believe they received the rating 

they deserve. As we have seen, many supervisors are not providing employees with 

frequent feedback, so employees are not receiving accurate information about their 

performance throughout the year. For example, it is common for employees to 

believe they are performing better than they actually are because their supervisors are 

not offering corrective feedback. Employees are then unpleasantly surprised when 

their performance ratings are lower than expected. It is also possible that employees 

did receive feedback during the performance year but they disagree with their 

supervisors’ evaluation of their performance.

My supervisor has a good 

understanding of my job 

performance and accomplishments.

2007 Merit Principles

Survey Question

Appropriate, objective measures are 

used to evaluate my performance. 

In my most recent performance 

appraisal, I understood what I had 

to do to be rated at different 

performance levels. 

My performance appraisal is a fair 

reflection of my performance.
Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 47

The accuracy and fairness of performance appraisals is a complex issue because 

performance ratings may be influenced by multiple factors unrelated to 

performance. Examples of these factors include:

• Supervisors’ ability to separate individual performance from the impact of 

organizational processes, systems, and events

• Supervisors’ understanding of the employee’s work; e.g., if a supervisor has 

less technical knowledge than the employee, it is difficult for the supervisor to 

accurately judge the employee’s performance 

• Supervisors’ tendency to give higher performance ratings to employees they have 

personally hired compared to those hired by others

• The similarity of the employee to the supervisor in personal characteristics and 

background

• Impression management by employees, e.g., ingratiation; taking credit for 

others’ work

• Supervisors’ beliefs about the rigidity or malleability of employee competencies; 

e.g., supervisors who believe people can change are more apt to recognize 

improvements or declines in employees’ performance over the rating period

• Rating distortions by supervisors; e.g., inflating the ratings of low performers 

in the belief it will encourage them to improve; not assigning low or moderate 

ratings because they believe that telling employees the truth about their 

performance will damage the person, the employee-supervisor relationship, or 

work group functioning; a personal lack of courage or fear of conflict in being able 

to explain and support a low rating to employees and cope with their reactions; 

and punishing a competent but challenging employee with a low rating.30

Adding to the complexity of performance ratings is the issue of how employees 

perceive the fairness of ratings based on their assessments of their own performance. 

Research consistently demonstrates that people do not accurately evaluate their own 

competencies or performance and that self-assessments are both substantively and 

systematically flawed. Employees tend to significantly overestimate the level of their 

performance. The one exception is top performers, who tend to accurately estimate 

the quality of their own performance but underestimate how well they perform 

compared to others.31 Many studies show that about 80 percent of employees 

30 K. Murphy, Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of job 

performance, Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1(2), 

2008, pp. 148-160.

P.A. Heslin, D. VandeWalle, and G.P. Latham, The effect of implicit person theory on performance 

appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 2005, pp. 842-856.

T. Coens and M. Jenkins, Abolishing Performance Appraisals: Why They Backfire and What To Do Instead, 

Barrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 2000.

S.W. J. Kozlowski, G.T. Chao, and R.F. Morrison, Games raters play: Politics, strategies, and 

impression management in performance appraisal, in J.W. Smither (Ed.), Performance Appraisal: State 

Of The Art In Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1998, pp. 163-205.

31 D. Dunning, C. Heath, and J. M. Suls, Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, 

education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 2004, pp. 69-106.
Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

48 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

rate their performance as being in the top quarter of their work group.32 This 

tendency to overestimate one’s performance also exists in the Federal workforce. For 

example, in the MPS 2005, when we asked employees to rate their performance in 

comparison to their coworkers in their work unit, 69 percent rated themselves as 

above average, 30 percent rated themselves as average, and less than 1 percent said 

their performance was below average.33

There are several reasons why most people are poor judges of their own level of 

competence. One is that the knowledge, skills, or abilities needed to perform 

competently are the same as those needed to evaluate performance.34 For example, 

if a supervisor lacks skill in providing helpful feedback to employees, this skill deficit 

prevents him both from providing good feedback and from recognizing that he is 

not supplying useful feedback. Another reason for inaccurate self-assessment is that 

people begin their self-evaluations by applying their preconceived beliefs about their 

levels of skill rather than carefully thinking through what they did well and what 

they did not.35 In addition, rather than paying attention to their overall proficiency, 

people focus on the aspects of performance that they do well and tend not to 

consider their weaker points. They thus define competence in a way that puts them 

in the best light.36 For example, if an employee has excellent analytical skills but 

poor writing skills, she will tend to focus on the analysis tasks as the truly important 

component of her job. Self-enhancement in domains that people care about, 

including their performance at work, is a fundamental psychological characteristic 

of human beings.37

In addition to people generally being poor assessors of their own performance, there 

is the problem of the fundamental attribution error, a widespread phenomenon of 

human behavior in which people attribute their inability to accomplish tasks not 

to their own behaviors but to external factors such as inadequate time, resources, 

or direction, while they identify their colleagues’ behaviors as the cause for their 

colleagues’ performance limitations. Attribution error leads to employees believing 

they did everything they could to accomplish their work goals and thus over-rating 

their own performance, while downplaying the performance of their colleagues.38 

They sincerely believe they are “above average” and should receive higher ratings 

than most of their colleagues. 

32 T. Coens and M. Jenkins, Abolishing Performance Appraisals: Why They Backfire And What To 

Do Instead, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 2000.

33 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the 2005 Merit 

Principles Survey, Washington, DC, 2007.

34 D. Dunning, K. Johnson, J. Ehrlinger, and J. Kruger, Why people fail to recognize their own 

incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 2003, pp. 83-87.

35 Ibid. 

36 W. Williams, Blissfully incompetent, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 2004, pp. i-ii.

37 C. Sedikides and A. P. Gregg, Self-enhancement: Food for thought. Perspectives on Psychological 

Science, 3(2), 2008, pp. 102-116.

38 H. J. Bernardin, C. M. Hagan, J .S. Kane, and P. Villanova, Effective performance management: 

A focus on precision, customers, and situational constraints, in J.W. Smithers (Ed.), Performance 

Appraisal: The State Of The Art In Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1998, pp. 3-48. 

P. J. Dean, M. R. Dean, and R. M. Rebalsky, Employee perceptions of workplace factors that will most 

improve their performance, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(2),1996, pp. 75-89.
Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 49

Since it is mathematically impossible for 69 percent of Federal employees to be 

above average and for 99 percent of them to be average or above as they evaluated 

themselves in the MPS 2005, we can see why appraisal fairness is a thorny issue. 

Employees who receive performance evaluations inconsistent with their perceptions 

may easily conclude that the appraisals are inaccurate and they are being treated 

unfairly. Federal supervisors tend to be lenient in evaluating employee performance. 

If they were more accurate in assigning performance ratings and actually gave people 

the ratings they earned, we would probably have a much higher percentage of 

employees who believe that appraisals do not accurately reflect their performance. 

The problem is compounded over time. As supervisors are consistently lenient in 

assigning ratings, employees come to expect high ratings and believe they deserve 

them. If a supervisor attempts to use performance rating scales as they are designed, 

so that only the truly exceptional employees receive high ratings, many employees 

may be offended and may file grievances. They may also complain that they will not 

be able to qualify for promotional opportunities in their own agencies or another 

agency because most other employees receive high ratings and, in comparison, they 

themselves will appear less qualified. 

Supervisors are inadequately trained to prepare performance appraisals. The 

difficulty of ensuring accuracy and fairness in performance appraisals is magnified 

by the lack of training for Federal supervisors in preparing performance appraisals. 

Only 26 percent of leaders reported that, as new supervisors, they had received 

formal training in preparing performance appraisals. Supervisors cannot be expected 

to write fair and accurate appraisals if they are not taught how to do so. Writing 

and delivering good appraisals is a learned skill that requires both instruction 

and extensive practice with feedback. Formal training in preparing performance 

appraisals is vital because agencies need to ensure that all leaders understand and 

consistently implement agency requirements and guidelines for the documentation 

and evaluation of employee performance.

Recognition and Rewards

Only half of Federal employees believe recognition is linked to performance.

According to our survey participants, most supervisors are informally acknowledging 

employees’ good work; 70 percent reported that their supervisor compliments them 

when they are doing a good job. However, employees have significantly less favorable 

opinions of other recognition and reward practices. Only 50 percent of survey 

participants indicated that they are rewarded for providing high quality products 

and services to their customers, while 49 percent believe recognition and rewards in 

their work unit are based on performance. Although recent improvement is evident, 

the perceived lack of connection between recognition and performance has been a 

continuing problem in the Federal workforce and remains as one. For example, in the 

last 25 years, the percentages of employees who agreed that recognition and rewards
Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

50 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

are based on performance in their work unit were 17 percent in 1983, 33 percent in 

1992 and 2000, 45 percent in 2005, and 49 percent in 2007.39

In 2007, there were substantial disparities between nonsupervisory employees 

and their leaders. As shown in Figure 24, leaders have a more favorable view of 

recognition practices in their agencies.

Figure 24: Perceptions of Recognition Practices by Role

There could be several reasons why leaders, especially managers and executives, 

have a more favorable view of recognition practices in their agencies. First, leaders 

typically have more positive views overall of their organizations, because they have 

more influence on the policies and practices of their organization and tend to have 

optimistic views of the organizations they help shape. Second, they work much 

more closely with higher level leaders who are therefore more familiar with them 

and their work and thus would tend to award more recognition to managers and 

executives. Third, it is also possible that because they have been promoted up the 

hierarchy, leaders are better performers, on average, than other employees and thus 

actually deserve more recognition.

We found a difference of 14 percent between high engagement and low engagement 

agencies in the proportion of nonsupervisory employees who believed they are 

rewarded for providing high quality products and services to their customers (58 

percent for high engagement agencies and 44 percent for low engagement agencies). 

Among all agencies, favorable perceptions ranged from a low of 35 percent to a high 

of 78 percent.

Percent Agreement 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

76

73

66

I am rewarded for providing high quality products and services to my customers

Recognition and rewards are based on performance in my work unit

64

59

58

50

56

46

49 Individual Workers

Team Leaders

Supervisors

Managers

Executives

39 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Government: A Model Employer or a Work in 

Progress?, Washington, DC, 2008.
Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 51

In the high engagement agencies, 15 percent more employees believe recognition 

and rewards are based on performance in their work unit than in the low 

engagement agencies (57 percent for the high engagement agencies and 42 percent 

for the low engagement agencies). Among all agencies, favorable perceptions 

ranged from a low of 35 percent to a high of 69 percent. The large gaps among 

agencies in their employees’ levels of agreement that recognition and rewards are 

based on performance may indicate both the diversity of the importance placed on 

recognition and the resources agencies invest in it. 

We asked employees if they personally had been treated fairly in the past two years 

in the receipt of performance awards. Just over half of the survey participants, 55 

percent, said they had. As in the previous questions about recognition, differences 

by role were substantial with leaders having a significantly more positive view as 

shown in Figure 25. 

Figure 25: Have you been treated fairly in the past 2 years in awards?

It is advisable for each agency to determine why many of its employees do not 

believe that recognition is tied to performance and then take actions to address the 

problem. There are many possible reasons for employees’ negative perceptions of 

agency recognition practices. These include:

•	 Limited scope of recognition programs and practices

• The lack of funds for monetary recognition

• Limited availability of tangible awards in Federal personnel systems (which 

may make it difficult to recognize the performance of deserving employees and 

therefore may give rise to perceptions of inequity even when scarcity is the issue 

rather than fairness)

•	 Deficiencies in the criteria or systems used to allocate awards

Percent 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

52

32 15

Yes No

57 32

11

63

28

9

Executives 21

Managers

Supervisors

Team Leaders

Individual Workers

Don’t Know or N/A

69

23 8

71

8
Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

52 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

• Practices that render recognition meaningless such as rewarding employees 

without regard to their relative contributions or rotating awards among 

employees

• Failure to publicize awards and recognition

• Failure to explicitly communicate to employees the links between performance 

and recognition

•	 Intentional or unintentional favoritism or bias; e.g., basing recognition more 

on how much the employee seems to like or admire the supervisor than on the 

employee’s performance.

Only half of employees believe that promotions are based on merit. Promotions 

are an important form of recognition that an employee is doing an excellent job. We 

asked survey participants if they believed promotions in their work unit are based 

on merit. Just 51 percent of all the survey participants agreed they are. There are 

substantial disparities across all agencies in employees’ perceptions that promotions 

are based on merit with agreement ranging from 44 percent to 71 percent. For 

example, there is a large gap between high and low engagement agencies. We 

found that 56 percent of nonsupervisory survey participants in high engagement 

agencies believe that promotions are based on merit, compared with 42 percent of 

participants in low engagement agencies. 

As depicted in Figure 26, there are also large differences in opinion between 

nonsupervisory employees and leaders across all agencies with executives having the 

most positive perceptions by far. 

Figure 26: Promotions in my work unit are based on merit

Percent Agreement

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

49

51

Individual Workers

Team Leaders

56

62

75

Supervisors

Managers

Executives
Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 53

We also asked survey participants if they believed that they personally had been 

treated fairly in the past two years in career advancement. Just under half (49 

percent) believed they had been. As illustrated in Figure 27, there were substantial 

differences by role in perceptions of fairness in career advancement. For example, 

while only 46 percent of individual workers felt that they had been treated fairly, 77 

percent of executives believed so. 

Figure 27: Have you been treated fairly in the past two 

years in career advancement?

Figures 26 and 27 depict very similar patterns with employees’ perceptions of 

fairness increasing with their level in the organization. As we have discussed, most 

people overestimate their own performance compared to others. Thus, when we 

ask employees if promotions are based on merit or if they have been treated fairly 

in career advancement, those who have been promoted are probably most likely to 

believe that merit and fairness are the key factors in promotions. Those who have 

not been promoted will believe other factors are more important in promotion 

decisions because they have not received the promotions they believe they deserved. 

It is not surprising then that perceptions of fairness and merit-based promotions 

increase substantially with employee level, especially among managers and executives 

who typically have been promoted several times to achieve their current positions.

However, in addition to potential self-assessment biases, there may be multiple 

factual explanations why many employees do not believe that promotions are 

awarded on the basis of merit. Agencies need to carefully consider and address each 

possibility. They include:

• Poorly conceived criteria for promotion

• Lack of transparency in criteria for promotions and the selection process

• Employees’ lack of understanding of the qualifications for promotion

Percent 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

46

32 22

Yes No

50

34 16

61

24

15

69

Executives

Managers

Supervisors

Team Leads

Individual Workers

Don’t Know or N/A

18

13

77 9

14
54 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

• Limited opportunities for employees to develop the competencies needed for 

advancement

• Inadequate communication of advancement opportunities

• Inadequate assessment of candidates in the selection process

• Intentional or unintentional favoritism or bias.

Each of these factors can create problems if they are not addressed. For example, 

some employees may not understand the qualifications required for promotion to 

a particular job. They are accustomed to automatic salary step increases based on 

length of time in a position. This system may lead them to believe that promotions 

should be based on seniority and if they have more experience than the person 

selected, they may perceive the selection as unfair. This type of misunderstanding 

can be avoided if leaders clearly identify the criteria for advancement. 

The Challenges of Accountability and Recognition in Managing 

the Federal Workforce

Accountability and recognition are key challenges for managing the Federal 

workforce for engagement. If the linkage between work performance and 

recognition is perceived as weak or non-existent, employees begin to feel that the 

quality of their work doesn’t matter to the organization and they do not invest their 

full energy in accomplishing their work. 

Private Sector Advantages In many large private sector organizations with 

administrative, professional, and technical employees similar to those that currently 

comprise the majority of the Federal workforce, supervisors have an extensive array 

of techniques for holding employees at all levels accountable for achieving desired 

results and recognizing their contributions. Examples include salary increases tied 

directly to performance; large monetary bonuses; stock options; awards such as 

outings, dinners, travel, and gift cards; perquisites such as car service, a desirable 

office, or membership in a gym or country club; and special opportunities such as 

development or rotation programs restricted to high-potential employees. These 

items provide clear positive consequences for performance when they are awarded 

and clear negative consequences for performance when they are not. For example, 

an unambiguous message is sent to employees who receive large salary increases that 

their contributions are highly valued and they have a future in the organization. 

Employees who do not receive a salary increase hear the unmistakable message 

that they have limited time to improve before they will no longer be part of 

the organization.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 55

Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

Limitations in the Federal Sector Few of the private sector consequences and 

the accountability and recognition they communicate are available to most 

supervisors of Federal employees. There are a limited number of tools in the Federal 

management accountability toolbox. In addition, there are strong disincentives 

to using the one basic performance management tool supervisors do have to hold 

employees at least somewhat accountable and provide consequences for their work 

behaviors—accurate performance ratings. There is strong evidence that many 

Federal performance appraisal systems are not being used to accurately differentiate 

employees based on their performance. According to the records in the Office of 

Personnel Management’s Federal Central Personnel Data File, the vast majority 

of employees receive high ratings despite the very low probability that this large 

a proportion of the workforce actually earned these ratings. For example, of the 

almost 12,000 participants in the MPS 2005 whose agencies employed a 5-point 

performance rating scale (e.g., 1 = Unacceptable, 2 = Minimally Successful, 3 = Fully 

Successful, 4 = Exceeds Fully Successful, 5 = Outstanding), fewer than 1 percent 

received ratings of 1 or 2, 14 percent received a rating of 3, 29 percent received 

a rating of 4, and 56 percent received a 5, the top rating. Thus, 85 percent of 

employees received ratings denoting superior performance. In any organization, it 

is extremely unlikely that this large a proportion of the workforce would perform 

at this high a level. It is also extremely unlikely that only 1 percent or less of the 

workforce would be performing below the fully successful level.

It is easy to understand why many Federal supervisors may decide it is not 

worthwhile to invest time and energy in accurately rating employees when it makes 

no difference in their salaries and only minimal differences in available bonuses, and 

will upset or anger many employees who believe they deserve a higher rating. If 

the appraisal system results in few to no tangible consequences for performance yet 

is likely to create problems for the supervisor in terms of employee complaints and 

conflicts, why conscientiously implement the system? 

Even if the Federal performance appraisal system does not provide substantial 

consequences based on performance, the appraisal process and accompanying 

discussion could be useful as a communication tool to provide a vehicle for the 

supervisor and employee to candidly discuss what the employee is doing well and 

what could be improved. However, we have little assurance this is actually being 

done. The process only works if the supervisor, despite giving relatively high ratings, 

also communicates high performance expectations to employees and discusses with 

them how their performance can be improved.

For organizations in which pay is directly linked to performance, there is a definite 

need to rank and rate employees to facilitate evaluations that are as objective and 

fair as possible in allocating salary increases and bonus payments. However, for the 

majority of Federal organizations in which pay is not directly linked to performance, 

there is no one best approach to meet the underlying need of holding employees 

accountable for their work. No performance appraisal system will be effective unless 

it is founded on the principle of defining clear, appropriate performance goals and 

holding people accountable for achieving those goals. 
Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

56 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

The Need for Agency Leaders to Evaluate Performance Appraisal Each agency’s 

leaders need to consider how the agency’s current performance appraisal system helps 

or hinders the workforce from achieving the agency’s mission and then take action to 

make needed changes. Several questions need to be answered, such as:

• Do our performance appraisals contribute to our efforts to hold employees 

accountable and recognize them for their work?

• Do our performance appraisals facilitate honest communication between 

supervisors and their employees?

• How are we using performance appraisals to identify employees who deserve 

special recognition for their work?

• Are the ratings and narratives accurate assessments of employee performance?

• Should we continue to use our current system but enforce accurate assessment?

• Do multiple-level ratings make sense in an environment where they are not used 

to make salary decisions? Do we need them?40 

• Are there other, more effective ways of documenting performance and holding 

employees accountable? 

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives?

• What do our employees think about our performance appraisal system? Do 

they have ideas for alternative approaches?

The Bottom Line of Accountability Federal supervisors may not have the full 

array of tools their private sector counterparts have to hold employees accountable 

and performance appraisals may be operating in an environment that reduces their 

value as effective management tools, but Federal supervisors still have all they need 

for accountability and recognition if they choose to recognize and use what they 

have. An enormous advantage Federal supervisors have that private sector leaders do 

not is the opportunity to build deep levels of communication and trust with their 

employees. This communication and trust is possible for several reasons. Because 

the special job protections Federal employees enjoy allow adverse actions to be 

taken against them only for reasons of unacceptable conduct or performance, they 

do not need to fear for their jobs if they irritate or challenge a manager. They also 

have excellent job security; they do not feel the pressure of constantly striving to 

survive, and do not work in the accompanying competitive, edgy atmosphere that is 

common in the private sector, especially in large, high-performing companies. And 

very importantly, most Federal employees’ salaries and salary increases are based on 

a set salary schedule rather than their managers’ evaluation of their performance. 

These factors can facilitate a much more open, honest, and trusting work 

relationship than is usually possible in the private sector. For example, employees 

40 Under current law, most executive branch agencies are required to provide periodic ratings 

to employees, 5 U.S.C. § 4302(a) (1), which the Office of Personnel Management interprets to 

mean generally every 12 months, 5 C.F.R. § 430.206 (a) (2).
Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 57

can have a candid discussion of their performance or development needs with their 

supervisor without undue fear that it will have a negative impact on their next salary 

increase. Employees can also more openly discuss their career goals, even if they 

involve moving to another agency or out of the Government.

What really counts in holding employees accountable and recognizing them is the 

personal working relationship the supervisor has with each employee. Performance 

appraisals and other formal systems are simply job aids; they are not in themselves 

sufficient. Few organizations in the public, private, or nonprofit sectors are satisfied 

with their performance appraisal systems. One reason is that people are expecting 

appraisal forms and ratings to do the work that can only be done through human 

interaction. In addition, most employees find the process of being graded as 

dehumanizing and humiliating while supervisors are uncomfortable assigning 

ratings. Managing performance depends on live person-to-person communication. 

The supervisor-employee dialogue is the bottom line of accountability. Supervisors 

must take an active role in consistently communicating with each employee 

about his or her performance. If supervisors define clear performance goals and 

expectations, regularly review the work of their employees, document it, and provide 

candid, helpful feedback and guidance, they will be better able to hold employees 

accountable for their work and recognize their achievements. If, for example, 

a supervisor meets every two weeks with employees to review their progress on 

assignments and provide feedback and then briefly documents the meetings, the 

vast majority of employees will work hard to produce results. In these meetings, 

the supervisor and employee can identify and work together to resolve obstacles that 

prevent the employee from performing at his or her best. The rare employee who 

does not respond to this approach and does not perform well will have an extremely 

difficult time claiming that he was not aware of his unacceptable performance or 

that the supervisor did not provide the direction or assistance needed.

Recognition The MPS results showed that only about half of Federal employees 

believe recognition is linked to performance. In addition, only half believe that they 

are rewarded for providing high quality products and services to their customers. 

These responses may reflect employees’ frustration with the fact that compensation 

is not closely linked to performance, inadequate agency recognition programs, 

or insufficient communication of the link between performance and recognition. 

Because monetary forms of recognition for good performance such as substantial 

salary increases and bonuses are not available to most Federal employees, nonmonetary recognition becomes especially important. Most employees reported 

that their supervisor compliments them for good work. This is a good base for 

supervisors to build on in devising creative ways to recognize employees that do 

not require funding.
Engagement Driver Five: Satisfaction With The Recognition Received

58 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Summary

A current and important challenge for many Federal supervisors is to take 

advantage of the unique opportunity they have to build deep levels of trust 

and communication with their employees to facilitate engagement and ensure 

accountability. They need to build stronger working relationships with their 

employees by interacting with them more frequently, meeting with them more 

often to discuss their progress, and providing frequent feedback, encouragement, 

and recognition. 

The kind of creative, facilitative working relationship we have discussed in which 

supervisors hold employees accountable and recognize their contributions depends 

on the supervisors having excellent communication skills, a deep interest in working 

closely with employees to develop their potential, and a solid understanding of the 

role of the supervisor. For a supervisory force of this high caliber, highly effective 

supervisor selection, development, and performance management are required. 

Persons selected need existing good interpersonal and communication skills that can 

be strengthened through development, coaching, and feedback. It is also essential 

for managers and executives to hold supervisors accountable for capably managing 

the performance of their employees. 

In addition, to build trust and respect, many higher level leaders need to 

communicate much more frequently and openly with employees and encourage 

them to express their ideas and perspectives. Open communication and 

commitment to high performance must begin with leadership. First-level 

supervisors need the full support and participation of managers and executives in 

engaging employees and holding them accountable for their work. When employees 

are engaged in their work, they will perform at high levels because they believe their 

work is important and because they derive personal satisfaction from it. Virtually 

all employees want to perform well but they need the consistent support and 

involvement of their direct supervisors and higher level leaders. 
Pay for Performance Decision Points

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 59

The prospect for future personal and professional growth through acquiring new 

knowledge and developing new or existing skills is the sixth and last engagement 

driver. Whether employees are honing their skills in their current position, 

preparing for new responsibilities in a lateral move, or equipping themselves 

for advancement, learning and growing enriches their work lives and increases 

engagement in their work. When an organization provides development 

opportunities for its employees, it communicates that employees are valued and 

have a future in the organization. The MPS 2007 results showed that many Federal 

agencies are not taking advantage of the opportunity to engage their employees 

through personal and professional growth.

More attention should be focused on meeting employees’ training and 

development needs. A vital prerequisite for high performance is identifying 

employees’ training and development needs so that competency gaps can be 

closed and strengths can be enhanced. No matter how experienced or competent 

employees are, there are always areas for improvement. Ongoing needs assessment 

is an integral part of a high-performance mindset. Fewer than half (46 percent) 

of survey participants reported that their training needs are assessed. The figure is 

slightly lower for nonsupervisors (43 percent) and higher for leaders (51 percent). 

The wide range of percentages of employees in each agency who reported that their 

training needs are assessed (31 percent to 64 percent) reflects different emphases on 

the importance of continuing learning. 

Somewhat more than half (55 percent) of survey participants responded that they were 

satisfied with the training they receive for their current job. Satisfaction varies substantially 

with age. Seventy percent of survey participants 25 and under and 60 percent of those aged 

26 through 29 said they are satisfied, while 51 to 52 percent of participants from age 30 

through 59 and 56 percent of those 60 or over reported satisfaction. When we look at the 

results by agency, we find a range of 38 percent to 71 percent. 

We broadened the scope from job-specific training to development opportunities 

of all types when we asked survey participants if they are given a real opportunity 

to improve their skills. These opportunities could include job rotations, selfstudy programs, conferences, stretch assignments, participation in communities 

of practice,41 cross-training, and other routes to learning in addition to traditional 

Engagement Driver Six: Prospect 

For Future Personal and 

Professional Growth

41 Communities of practice are networks of people with a common interest in enhancing 

their knowledge or skills in a specific area. They meet in person or online to share information, 

experiences, and resources. They typically meet on a regularly scheduled basis, establish guidelines 

for their interactions, and have a designated leader who coordinates and facilitates the group’s 

meetings.
Engagement Driver Six: Prospect For Future Personal and Professional Growth

60 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

classroom or on-line training courses. About 58 percent of survey participants 

agreed that they did have these types of opportunities. Agreement by agency ranged 

from 45 percent to 78 percent. There was a sizeable difference between leaders and 

nonsupervisors’ perceptions, with 64 percent of leaders indicating they had skill 

development opportunities compared to 53 percent of nonsupervisors. This gap 

may be explained by the overall more favorable feelings leaders tend to have toward 

their organizations as well as the tendency many organizations in both the public 

and private sector have of investing more heavily in development for leaders than 

for other employees. 

Perceived opportunity to improve skills steadily decreases as the age of survey 

participant increases. Thus, 67 percent of participants 25 years or younger agreed 

that they have a real opportunity to improve their skills in their organization but 

agreement drops to 62 percent for participants 26 through 29, to about 55 percent 

for those 30 through 49, and to 52 percent for participants 50 and above. Possible 

explanations for older employees’ lower satisfaction with training and development 

opportunities are that more younger employees are in probationary status or working 

in internship or fellows programs in which more attention is given to assessing 

and meeting their development needs; less experienced workers may require more 

training to develop proficiency than their more experienced colleagues; or, older 

workers may be less likely to discuss their development needs with their supervisors. 

The differences may also be a result of agencies believing that older employees have 

reached the peak of their advancement potential and, given scarce development 

dollars, assigning priority to development for younger workers. 

For all three of the survey questions about training and development, nonsupervisory employees in the high engagement agencies had substantially higher 

percentages of favorable responses than non-supervisory employees in the low 

engagement agencies. Figure 28 illustrates the differences between the two groups. 

Figure 28: Nonsupervisory Employees’ Perceptions of 

Training and Development Opportunities in High and 

Low Engagement Agencies

Percent Agreement 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

51

38

High Engagement Agencies Low Engagement Agencies

58

46

I am given a real 

opportunity to 

improve my skills in 

my organization.

I am satisfied with 

the training I receive 

for my present job.

My training needs 

are assessed.

63

47
Engagement Driver Six: Prospect For Future Personal and Professional Growth

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 61

Agencies need to investigate the fairness of training opportunities. We also asked 

employees if they believed that they had been treated fairly in the past two years in 

receiving training. A majority of 65 percent believed they had been treated fairly 

while 25 percent said they had not. The remaining 10 percent said they didn’t know 

or the question was not applicable to them. Although the percentage of employees 

who feel they are not receiving their fair share of training opportunities is not 

numerically high, if one-quarter of all employees feel they are not treated fairly, this 

perception can clearly have a negative impact on overall employee engagement. This 

issue warrants investigation in each agency to determine if employees are truly not 

being treated fairly in the area of development opportunities or if employees have 

misperceptions that can be addressed.

Summary

Our survey results indicate that Federal agencies could make more vigorous attempts 

to engage employees through providing more learning and development opportunities 

for them. Less than half of the survey participants reported that their training needs 

are assessed, an essential first step in planning effective development programs. Slightly 

more than half are satisfied with the training they receive for their current job and 

reported that they have a real opportunity to improve their skills. Many employees, 

especially more mature employees and nonsupervisors, would like to have more 

development opportunities than are currently available to them.

It would be helpful for agencies to examine their assumptions about the relative value 

of training for different groups—delineated, for example, by age, type of job, and 

supervisory status—and determine if they are indeed making the best decisions about 

the allocation of resources in terms of contributing to achievement of their missions. 

Even with scarce development dollars, learning opportunities can be expanded to 

all employees. There are many free and low-cost development options that agencies 

could encourage all employees to participate in, such as mentoring, job rotations, 

cross-training, free seminars and webinars, professional associations, communities 

of practice, and self-study of books and journals. More focus on offering growth 

opportunities can facilitate employee engagement. Substantially more employees in 

the high engagement agencies than in the low engagement agencies had positive views 

of the training and development opportunities available to them.

Pay for Performance Decision Points

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 63

In this report, we analyzed data from the 2007 Merit Principles Survey to identify 

strengths and challenges in the management of the Federal workforce to drive 

employee engagement and facilitate high performance. We compared the practices 

in the agencies with the highest percentages of engaged employees with the practices 

in the agencies with the lowest percentages of engaged employees. We discovered 

that every positive performance management practice we reviewed is practiced more 

frequently in high engagement agencies than in low engagement agencies. 

We found that the meaningfulness of work and pride in one’s agency are solid 

strengths throughout the Federal workforce. The key areas that require attention 

are communication and trust between leaders and employees, and employee 

involvement, accountability, and recognition. We present here our conclusions then 

offer recommendations to increase employee engagement through improvements 

in each of these areas. The recommendations are based on the principle that 

performance management is a continuing dialogue between employees and their 

supervisors. The recommended actions can be characterized in three words: 

communication, connection, and courage. These are the foundation of effective 

performance management – communicating openly and honestly with employees, 

connecting with them as people to build good working relationships, and 

demonstrating the courage to address and resolve problems.

Conclusions

Good performance management practices are key factors in employee 

engagement. In our comparisons of the four agencies with the highest percentages 

of engaged employees with the four agencies with the lowest percentages of engaged 

employees, we discovered that every positive performance management practice 

we reviewed (e.g., senior leaders communicating open and honestly to employees; 

employees having written performance goals) is practiced more widely in high 

engagement agencies than in low engagement agencies.

Pride in One’s Work Our survey results show that the vast majority of Federal 

employees take great pride in both their work and their organizations. They have 

a clear line of vision from their individual responsibilities to the achievement of 

their agency’s mission and believe their work is important and meaningful. Pride 

in one’s work, a prerequisite for employee engagement, is a solid strength of the 

Federal workforce. 

Conclusions and 

Recommendations
Conclusions and Recommendations

64 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Satisfaction With Leadership We found that employees’ satisfaction with 

leadership is an area for focused attention and improvement for most agencies. 

While about two-thirds of employees think their direct supervisors are doing a good 

job as supervisors, employees have much less confidence in their higher level leaders. 

They indicated that these leaders are not communicating enough with them. 

Employees also believe that leaders’ words and actions are not consistent and they are 

not honestly and openly sharing information. Inadequate communication may be 

keeping leaders from developing the trusting relationships and personal connections 

with employees that drive engagement. 

Our comparisons of the agencies with the highest and lowest percentages of engaged 

employees show that leaders in the four high engagement agencies do a much better 

job of communicating and connecting with their nonsupervisory employees. In 

turn, employees in the high engagement agencies reported much higher levels of 

respect and trust in their leaders than did employees in the low engagement agencies. 

Opportunity To Perform Well at Work 

Performance Goals 

The MPS data show mixed results for the engagement driver of having the 

opportunity to perform well at work. The majority of employees reported that 

their job responsibilities make good use of their competencies and that they are 

usually provided with the resources, time, and assistance they need to do their 

jobs. Although 71 percent of employees said they have written performance goals, 

substantially fewer said the goals are current or accurately define performance 

expectations. Supervisors who do not work with employees each performance 

period to define clear goals in terms of quantity, quality, and timelines are missing 

an excellent opportunity to increase both engagement and productivity. 

Feedback 

Although research repeatedly shows that giving feedback to their employees is the most 

important and effective action supervisors can take to improve work performance, 60 

percent of employees said they receive informal or formal feedback only monthly or 

less often and 31 percent receive feedback twice per year or less. We also discovered 

that many Federal employees are not meeting regularly with their supervisors to 

discuss their work. In addition, we found that employees’ trust and confidence in 

their supervisor declines as the frequency of meetings with their supervisor decreases. 

The essence of performance management is ongoing dialogue between employees and 

their supervisors, but this communication and connection is not occurring for many 

Federal employees. As Federal agencies strive to engage their employees, they need to 

provide leaders at all levels with opportunities to build skill and become comfortable 

with providing frequent, high quality feedback. They also need to help supervisors 

understand the value of developing a strong working relationship with each employee 

through regular progress reviews and informal conversations.

Positive Work Environment 

Employee Involvement 

Employee engagement can be facilitated by empowering employees to participate 

in the organization as partners with management. However, more than half of all 

the survey participants do not feel free to express their opinions to management. 
Conclusions and Recommendations

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 65

About half of employees are satisfied with their involvement in decisions that affect 

their work. Only one-quarter of nonsupervisors and 35 percent of leaders reported 

that their input via surveys and other vehicles is used to make organizational 

improvements. However, the currently required annual employee surveys do not 

allow the time agencies need to plan and implement changes based on the data 

and then see alterations in employees’ opinions as a result of the changes. It may 

easily take several years for program or practice changes to have a positive impact on 

employees’ perceptions.

Employees in high engagement agencies reported much higher levels of involvement 

in their organizations than their peers in low engagement agencies providing 

evidence that employee empowerment is an important driver of engagement. 

The Management of Poor Performers 

The apparent ineffective management of poor performers is a persistent problem 

in all agencies although it is somewhat less severe in high engagement agencies. 

The fact that only one-tenth of one percent of eligible employees do not receive 

performance-based within-grade salary increases and the fact that less than one 

percent of employees receive less than fully successful performance ratings support 

employees’ reports that poor performance is not being adequately addressed. 

Supervisors’ inaction communicates to employees that good performance is not 

required or highly valued and can create resentment and frustration. The negative 

impact of poor performers is increased when other employees are asked to take on 

their work. And it appears that some Federal supervisors are dealing with poor 

performers by transferring their work to other employees. Only a small minority 

of supervisors reported that, as new supervisors, they received training in the skills 

needed to manage poor performers, including using the probationary period as the 

final step in the selection process to dismiss underperforming employees. 

Satisfaction With the Recognition Received Accountability and recognition are key 

challenges in managing the Federal workforce for engagement. Accountability for 

results needs to be strengthened. About 65 percent of survey participants said they 

are held accountable for achieving results in the sense that if they achieve expected 

work results they experience positive consequences, while 57 percent agreed that they 

experience negative consequences when they do not achieve expected work results.

Performance Appraisal Ratings 

Sixty-one percent of survey participants agreed that their performance appraisal is 

a fair reflection of their performance, while 63 percent understood what they had 

to accomplish to earn a different rating. The accuracy and fairness of performance 

appraisals is a complex issue because performance ratings may be influenced by 

multiple factors unrelated to performance and because most employees tend to 

significantly overestimate the level of their performance. It appears that many 

supervisors are being overly lenient in rating employees. The percentage of 

employees who believe their performance appraisals fairly reflect their actual 

performance would very likely be much lower than the current 61 percent if 

supervisors rated employees less leniently. 
Conclusions and Recommendations

66 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Communication, not a formal appraisal system, is the key to accountability

When performance ratings are not closely tied to compensation, their value may 

be questioned. The critical success factor in holding employees accountable is the 

ongoing communication the supervisor has with each employee. Performance 

appraisals and other formal systems are simply communication aids; they are 

not essential. Each agency’s leaders need to consider how the agency’s current 

performance appraisal system helps or hinders the workforce from achieving the 

agency’s mission and then take action to make needed changes. 

Recognition 

Half of our survey participants indicated that they are rewarded for providing high 

quality products and services to their customers and that recognition and rewards in 

their work unit are based on performance. Just over half, 55 percent, said they are 

treated fairly in receiving performance awards, while 51 percent believe promotions 

are based on merit. Although recent improvement is evident, the perceived lack of 

connection between recognition and performance has been a continuing problem 

in the Federal workforce. Because funds for monetary recognition are scarce, it is 

important for leaders to think creatively about how they can reward employees with 

non-monetary acknowledgements of good performance. 

Prospect for Future Personal and Professional Growth Many Federal agencies 

are not taking advantage of the opportunity to engage their employees through 

providing avenues for personal and professional growth. Although a prerequisite to 

efficient and effective learning is the identification of competencies that employees 

need to strengthen, fewer than half of our survey participants reported that their 

training needs are assessed. Only about half of survey participants reported that 

they are satisfied with the training they receive for their current job as well as other 

opportunities to improve their skills. Although funds for development may be in 

short supply, free and low-cost learning options are often available. 

Recommendations 

For All Employees

1. Take an active role in managing your own performance.

You are responsible for your own work performance. If you need more 

guidance, direction, or feedback than you are receiving, ask for it. Your 

supervisor may not know that you need help. Reflect frequently on your own 

performance and consider how you can improve it. Request feedback from your 

supervisor, peers, team members, and customers and ask for clarification if you 

need it. Accept that you may not always agree with the feedback you receive but 

you always need to listen to it with an open mind and learn from it. Talk with 

your supervisor or team leader about how you can apply others’ feedback and 

your own ideas to increase the value of your contributions to your organization.

2. Adopt a continuous learning mindset.

Talk candidly with your supervisor about your development needs and goals. 

No matter how much education and experience you have, you can always learn 
Conclusions and Recommendations

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 67

more and enhance your performance. Work with your supervisor to create and 

implement a focused development plan with clear objectives that include both 

enhancing your strengths and overcoming problem areas that may be impeding 

you from performing at your best. It is valuable to clearly define and document 

your goals because if you do so, you are much more likely to pursue them. Take 

advantage of the development opportunities offered to you and create your own. 

There are many free and low-cost learning opportunities available. A few examples are: 

• Read journals, trade magazines, or books in your field 

	 • Talk to colleagues in other organizations to find out about their practices 

and share what you have learned with your coworkers

• Join a professional association and attend local meetings and seminars

• Coach a peer or new employee in an area in which you are strong

	 • Ask your supervisor if you can rotate responsibilities in your work group 

• When you complete a project, reflect on what went well and what could be 

improved. Take the time to document the lessons learned and share them 

with your colleagues

	 • Participate in free webinars and seminars offered to Government employees

	 • Create and participate in a community of practice with interested 

colleagues.

Try incorporating your development into your everyday routine. Just 15 minutes 

each day can make a big difference over a year’s time. For example, in 15 minutes, 

you can read an article or half a book chapter, reflect on feedback you recently 

received and figure out how to apply it, plan how you will increase your efficiency, 

or observe a colleague expertly performing a task you find difficult. 

Become an advocate for positive change in your work group. Do not be content 

with the status quo. Speak up and suggest improvements for your work unit 

processes and practices to your supervisor and colleagues. Encourage others to 

suggest ideas and support their efforts. You will help your colleagues and yourself 

create a more engaging work life as well as improve your work unit’s performance.

3. Prepare carefully for progress review meetings. 

For individual meetings with your supervisor, prepare a list of issues you want 

to discuss and questions you want to ask. Be prepared to summarize your 

progress on assignments and your accomplishments. Although supervisors 

have the responsibility to review and document employees’ work throughout 

the year, they may not be aware of everything employees accomplish. Consider 

barriers to high performance you may be facing and ask your supervisor 

for help in overcoming them. Think honestly about your strengths and 

weaknesses and note what went well and what could have been better in each 

of your assignments. Note the progress you have made on implementing your 

development plan since your last meeting. Consider any revisions or additions 

that need to be made to the plan based on your recent experiences. 
Conclusions and Recommendations

68 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

For Leaders at All Levels (Supervisors, Managers, and Executives)

1. Hire with care and use the probationary period as part of the selection process.

The best way to avoid performance problems is to invest the time and effort 

required to hire only candidates who have a high potential for success in the 

job. First, clearly define both the technical and non-technical competencies 

and other qualifications required for high performance in the job before you 

plan your recruiting and selection strategies. Second, provide applicants with 

a clear, accurate job description that includes the competencies required for 

success as well as a realistic preview of the pros and cons of the job and the work 

environment. This approach will reduce the number of applicants who are not 

well suited for the job. Third, ensure that all of the critical competencies and 

qualifications needed for the job are assessed. Use a multiple hurdle approach in 

which only the best qualified move on to the next step in the selection process. 

For example, you could use a resume review followed by a structured panel 

interview, a work sample, a second set of structured interviews, and reference 

checks. The probability of selecting the best person for the job increases if 

several valid and reliable assessment procedures are used in succession.42 

Be cautious in using performance appraisal ratings as part of the selection 

process. As we have discussed, appraisal ratings are subject to many forms of 

intentional and unintentional distortion including rating inflation. Because 

appraisal ratings may not be accurate indicators of past performance, they 

should not be relied upon to predict performance in a new position. 

Use the probationary period as it was intended, as the final step in the selection 

process. Of all the methods one can use to select employees, the probationary 

period is the most accurate indicator of how the employee will perform on the 

job in the long term because it allows you to observe the new employee actually 

doing the job. It is your final opportunity to evaluate new employees’ ability 

to contribute to your work unit before their positions become permanent. 

When candidates accept a job, you need to inform them that they will be on 

probation for the designated period. When a new employee begins work, 

you need to explain the performance expectations and make it clear that they 

will be dismissed if these expectations are not met during the probationary 

period. Then, follow through and separate employees who are not performing 

well during their probationary period. Over the years, MSPB has repeatedly 

recommended that supervisors use the probationary period to identify 

employees who are not a good fit for the job. Taking the probationary period 

seriously and separating employees whose performance indicates they will not be 

successful requires courage but it is a critical part of the job of every supervisor.43 

42 MSPB has published several reports that provide more information about assessment and 

hiring: Reforming Federal Hiring: Beyond Faster and Cheaper (2007), Reference Checking in Federal 

Hiring: Making the Call (2005), and The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential (2003). 

All are available on our web site at www.mspb.gov.

43 For detailed information about the probationary period, see the MSPB report, The 

Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity (2005), available from our web site at 

www.mspb.gov. 
Conclusions and Recommendations

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 69

2. Develop a strong working relationship with each employee. 

Remember that the essence of performance management is an ongoing dialogue 

between employees and their supervisors. Develop strong working relationships 

with each of your employees by talking individually with them informally and 

frequently (e.g., two or three times weekly) and getting to know them as people. 

You can also offer informal feedback about their work and thank them for their 

contributions. If employees feel a strong connection to you as their leader and 

feel valued by you, they will be more engaged in their work and perform better. 

In addition, the more you know about each employee, the better you will be 

able to tailor your supervisory approach to their needs. Employees may not 

come to you with day-to-day concerns but if you ask them about their work, 

they will share them, allowing you to help them overcome barriers to high 

performance and learn about issues before they become big problems. 

3. Meet regularly with each employee to review progress and provide feedback. 

Schedule regular meetings with each employee to discuss the employee’s 

progress and provide both positive and corrective feedback. Regularly scheduled 

individual meetings provide the opportunity for the supervisor and employee to 

personally connect with each other at a deeper level than the informal check-ins 

and nurture a strong working relationship. These meetings provide a vehicle 

for discussing the employee’s progress on current assignments and any obstacles 

that may be impeding success; providing feedback and recognition; explaining 

new assignments; communicating high expectations for performance; providing 

information about the work unit or organization; responding to the employee’s 

questions or concerns; and reviewing progress on development plans. Individual 

meetings are also a good time to solicit the employee’s ideas about what is going 

well and what could be improved in the work unit.

The optimal frequency of these individual meetings will vary with the employee, 

his or her assignments, and the job. Monthly is usually a minimum time frame. 

Many supervisors like to meet with each employee weekly or every two weeks 

so they can promptly identify and address any potential problems and they have 

dedicated private time with the employee to offer feedback. 

4. Model requesting and applying feedback.

Model requesting and applying feedback for your employees by asking them 

for feedback and then discussing with them how you plan to use the feedback. 

You can directly ask for feedback when you meet with them individually or in 

a group setting such as a staff meeting. This requires courage but it presents a 

forceful example for your employees on the importance of asking for and using 

feedback. An alternative approach is to ask for their feedback anonymously 

through an upward feedback instrument44 or simply by asking them to answer 

three questions about you in writing: What should I stop doing? What should I 

44 An upward feedback instrument is a questionnaire in which employees rate their supervisor 

on a series of specific management skills such as making assignments or providing feedback. 

Most instruments also provide space for employees to write narrative comments. The supervisor 

uses the employees’ ratings and narratives to identify personal strengths and weaknesses for 

development. A multi-source or 360 feedback instrument solicits information from the 

supervisor’s manager, employees, peers, and sometimes, customers and suppliers.
Conclusions and Recommendations

70 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

start doing? What should I continue doing? From your employees’ responses to 

these three questions, you can obtain a wealth of valuable information that you 

can immediately apply. You can also share with your employees the feedback 

you receive from your own manager or customers and discuss how you plan to 

use this feedback. 

 5. Provide all employees with the opportunity to grow and develop. 

Conduct annual or semi-annual assessments of each employee’s strengths 

and development needs. Conduct the assessments both for the purpose of 

development planning and to identify strengths so that employees can be assigned 

to tasks in which they can apply their talents. These assessments can be conducted 

through an informal discussion with each employee, but specific development 

goals and the strategies to achieve the goals should be documented in the 

employee’s individual development plan for follow-up throughout the year.

Provide development opportunities for all employees, including both specific 

training needed for the current job and wider competency development. If 

possible, allow employees time on the job to pursue job-related development. 

Even 30 or 60 minutes per week can help them build their knowledge and 

skills. Even with small or nonexistent training budgets, you can make growth 

experiences available to your employees. Remember that participation in 

formal training and conferences are only two of many possible avenues for 

development. There are many free or low-cost development options. For 

example, such simple activities as having employees share journal or trade 

magazine articles or past work experiences in staff meetings can build employees’ 

professional knowledge base.

6. Hold all employees accountable for their performance. Manage poor 

performance promptly and assertively.

Hold all employees accountable for their performance by:

• Consistently communicating high performance expectations 

• Working with each employee to define individual performance goals with 

specified outcomes and timelines

• Meeting regularly with employees to review their progress toward achieving 

their goals

• Regularly reviewing employees’ work

•	 Providing frequent constructive feedback and coaching

• Providing recognition and other positive consequences for good work

• Taking prompt corrective action when employees are not performing well, 

making it clear that continuing poor performance will not be tolerated, and 

following up with negative consequences if the poor performance continues

• Avoiding transferring low or poor performers’ work to others.
Conclusions and Recommendations

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 71

For Managers, Executives, and Agencies

1. Use employee survey results and additional employee input to identify 

strengths and weaknesses. Use this information to work with employees 

to create and implement an action plan to build a high performance 

organization.

It is essential for continued employee engagement that agencies use the feedback 

that employees provide in the Merit Principles Survey, agency surveys, and other 

forms of input such as focus groups, suggestion boxes, web feedback forms, and 

discussions in staff meetings. Leaders should follow up with employees, explain 

how their feedback was used, or if it was not used, why. It is important to 

manage employees’ expectations so that they understand that their suggestions 

are considered carefully even though not all can be implemented. In the case of 

annual surveys, most agencies will probably not have the resources to carefully 

analyze and apply the results every year and thus should explain how employees’ 

input will be used. For example, an agency could explain that the survey results 

are used to identify trends over time and an intensive effort to analyze and apply 

the data is made every three years. 

Those who contribute suggestions or otherwise work for improvement should 

be recognized and rewarded. It is frustrating for employees who want to 

make a positive difference and invest time and effort in completing surveys or 

responding to other requests for input to see nothing happen with their input. 

They soon stop contributing their ideas. Consistently treating employees as 

partners in achieving agency goals sends a strong message to employees that they 

are critical for the success of the organization and their leaders are depending 

on them. Listening to employees’ ideas and openly recognizing their value by 

acting on them are powerful approaches to building engagement.

2. Build employee trust and confidence through frequent, open 

communication. 

Communicate, communicate, communicate! The time you invest in 

communicating with employees at all levels will pay off handsomely with higher 

productivity and commitment and greater trust in leadership. Employees 

typically want five types of information from managers and executives: 

• What are our mission and goals and our strategies for achieving those goals?

• What can I do to contribute?

• How will you demonstrate that you value and respect me as your partner in 

achieving our mission?

• What progress are we making in achieving organizational goals?

• What problems are we facing? 
Conclusions and Recommendations

72 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Select several communication methods that are best for you and your 

organization, being sure to choose at least a couple of methods that involve faceto-face contact with employees. Face-to-face meetings are vital for building trust 

and mutual respect. A few examples of effective communication methods are:

• Semi-annual, quarterly, or monthly in-person meetings with all employees 

in the agency, division, or subdivision to review progress and discuss goals 

and priorities (with videoconferencing or teleconferencing for field locations 

or very large groups but on a rotational basis meet in person with employees 

at different locations)

• Town halls in which employees are encouraged to ask questions and share 

their perspectives

•	 Symposiums on a particular topic such as how to cut costs or provide better 

customer service

• Celebrations of major accomplishments such as exceeding organizational 

goals 

• Special events in which employees share their accomplishments and lessons 

learned

• Informal coffee hours or brown bag lunches in which small groups of 

employees meet with you

• Walking around and talking to employees at all levels and locations, asking 

them how things are going, what’s on their mind, or what they need to do 

their jobs better

• Electronic question and answer forums (employees enter questions and 

leaders post their answers) 

• E-mail bulletins and memos

• Voice mail broadcasts

Whatever methods of communication you choose to build trust with employees, 

it is essential to be honest, admit mistakes, and align words and actions. It 

is also critical to encourage employees to safely express their concerns and 

perspectives and ensure there are no negative repercussions for them when 

they do so. 

3. Engage new employees with an onboarding program.

Nurture new employees by providing an onboarding program that makes them 

feel welcome and valued, helps them build good relationships with coworkers, 

equips them with the information and resources they need to perform well, and 

helps them adapt to the culture and operation of the organization. The program 

should start as soon as the new hire accepts the job and extend through the 
Conclusions and Recommendations

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 73

first year of employment. Research shows that effective onboarding programs 

build engagement, improve performance, decrease time to full productivity, and 

increase retention.45 

4. Closely link recognition and rewards to performance.

Develop and heavily communicate to employees a recognition program 

that tightly links recognition to performance. Ensure that recognition and 

rewards are available to all employees who perform well. Informal and formal 

acknowledgement of employees’ contributions at individual and team levels 

should be a way of life in the organization. Inform all employees in a work unit 

or organization when an employee receives a reward, be it large or small, so that 

coworkers see the connection between performance and rewards. Describe the 

outcomes achieved by the individual and the positive impact on the organization 

and its customers. 

Use within-grade salary increases as a recognition tool. Award these only to 

employees who have met or exceeded expectations, i.e., performed at a “fully 

successful” or higher level, and let them know they are receiving the salary 

increase because of their successful performance. If no mention of the increase 

is given to the employee and it simply appears in the paycheck, an opportunity 

for recognition is lost and employees come to think of salary increases as an 

entitlement rather than recognition of good performance. Be sure that all 

supervisors clearly understand the process for denying the within-grade increase 

and that they know they can count on being supported by leaders at every level 

when they award within-grade increases only on the basis of merit.

Set aside more funds for monetary awards and distribute them judiciously, 

giving the rewards only to those who most deserve them. The approach used 

by some organizations in which they spread limited award money among most 

employees is not an effective recognition approach. The value of an award 

depends on it being presented only to those who have truly earned it through 

meritorious service. Develop non-monetary recognition practices so that awards 

are not constrained by available funds.

5. Select supervisors who will effectively manage performance.

Select supervisors who can and will actively manage employee performance. 

Supervisors must have good personal interaction skills, be able to coach 

employees and provide both positive and corrective feedback, review work 

and hold people accountable, and assertively address performance problems. 

In the recruiting process for supervisory positions, provide a realistic job 

preview of a supervisor’s responsibilities. Many employees aspire to become 

supervisors because it entails a promotion and pay increase but few understand 

how demanding the job is. In the job preview, emphasize that supervisors are 

responsible for effectively managing poor performers and that this may require 

45 The Partnership for Public Service has published a helpful guide for Federal agencies to 

planning onboarding programs, Getting on Board: A Model for Integrating and Engaging Employees, 

May 2008. It is available from the Partnership’s web site at www.ourpublicservice.org.
Conclusions and Recommendations

74 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

a high degree of managerial courage as well as the ability to deal well with 

uncomfortable situations and make tough decisions. It is important to note 

that many of the competencies required for good management such as strong 

communication and interpersonal skills, the ability to deal effectively with 

conflict, and sound judgment, are not easily developed. Candidates need to 

possess these competencies when they are hired. 

Federal regulations require that employees be placed on probation when they 

assume a supervisory position. The probationary period is the final step in 

the selection process and new supervisors need to be fully informed of this 

requirement. Use the probationary period to carefully observe and assess the 

performance management competency of the newly hired supervisor. If a 

supervisor is not effectively managing the performance of employees, then he 

or she should not remain in a supervisory position. 

6. Hold supervisors accountable for effective performance management. 

Make it clear to every supervisor that he or she is personally responsible for 

effectively managing performance to produce results, including: defining 

performance goals; regularly reviewing employees’ work; frequently meeting 

with employees to discuss their progress; providing helpful coaching and 

feedback; guiding employee development; recognizing good performance; 

and effectively dealing with poor performers. On a regular basis, discuss with 

each supervisor how he or she is managing performance and any problems or 

obstacles encountered. 

7. Provide supervisors with the training, resources, and management 

support they need to effectively manage their employees to achieve high 

performance.

Equip supervisors with the skills they need to effectively manage their 

employees. Training and development should focus on practical strategies for 

defining performance goals, reviewing work, providing feedback, recognizing 

good performance, preventing low performance, and managing poor performers. 

The training should emphasize that supervisors must use the probationary 

period as the final step in the selection process to release employees who do 

not demonstrate acceptable performance. It also should stress that supervisors 

should not reward poor performers by assigning their tasks to others. 

Training should include substantial practice with feedback and opportunities 

to hone skills using the feedback. Make certain the training program includes 

post-training support to ensure that learning is transferred to the job. Training 

will be most effective when a leader from the agency who is skilled in managing 

employee performance serves as a co-instructor and provides actual on-the-job 

examples and emphasizes how effective performance management impacts the 

organization.

Do not assume that because a leader has completed a training course he or 

she is skilled in managing performance. It takes experience and coaching to 

develop strong performance management skills. Model effective performance 
Conclusions and Recommendations

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 75

management for the supervisors you manage by providing them with ample 

feedback. Provide them with the help and support they need to handle tough 

situations such as managing poor performers. Remove organizational obstacles 

to taking justified action against poor performers. 

8. Evaluate the effectiveness of your agency’s current performance appraisal 

system.

Consider how your agency’s current performance appraisal system facilitates 

or impedes the achievement of your agency’s mission then take action to make 

needed changes. Discuss questions such as:

•	 Do our performance appraisals contribute to our efforts to hold employees 

accountable for their work?

• How are we using the performance appraisals to identify employees who 

deserve special recognition for their work?

• Do our performance appraisals facilitate honest communication between 

supervisors and their employees? 

• Are the ratings and narratives accurate assessments of employee 

performance?

• Should we continue to use our current system and enforce accurate assessment?

• Do multiple-level ratings make sense in an environment where they are not 

used to make salary decisions?

• Has our performance appraisal system become a tedious, meaningless 

exercise or a barrier people have to work around?

• Are there other, more effective ways of documenting performance and 

holding employees accountable? 

•	 What are the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives?

Involve employees in the discussion and solicit their ideas for alternative 

approaches.

For Consideration By Congress

Consider modifying the requirement for annual agency employee surveys to 

require employee surveys every two or three years.

Determine if the benefits of annual surveys for every agency justify the high costs. 

Yearly surveys often do not allow agencies the time required to analyze the data, 

implement indicated changes in organizational programs or practices, and see the 

results of those changes. In addition, the changes from year to year may be the result 

of variables not related to changes in employee perceptions or actions taken by the 

agency. For example, differences in sample size or composition, survey response 
Conclusions and Recommendations

76 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

rates, or placement of questions in the survey from one year to the next can result 

in changes of several percentage points independent of actual changes in employee 

perceptions. Thus, year to year changes may be difficult to interpret. Trends over 

time provide a clearer perspective. 

Administering annual surveys also sets overly high employee expectations. When 

employees are asked to provide input in a survey, they want to see something positive 

happen as a result. When they don’t, they feel disappointed and disempowered and 

are less likely to contribute input in the future. Conducting employee surveys every 

two or three years would provide agencies with more accurate information about the 

perceptions of their employees and allow them the time they need to interpret the 

results and make indicated changes while reducing by half or more the cost of the 

annual surveys.

These Merit Systems Protection Board recommendations—based on our survey 

and other research—are designed to help produce the highly engaged employees 

invaluable to agency mission achievement. Two of the recommendations could be 

deemed countercultural: consistently using the probationary period as the final step 

in selection to identify and separate employees who are not suited for the job and 

abolishing the near-automatic awarding of within-grade salary increases and, instead, 

awarding them only when merited. Although these actions require courage on the 

part of supervisors, we believe they are essential for holding employees accountable 

for their work. The successful implementation of these recommendations depends 

on agency leaders at all levels providing intensive, ongoing communication and 

education to help employees understand and accept that differentiation of employees 

on the basis of performance is both necessary and desirable to create a high 

performance workforce.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 77

The Merit Systems Protection Board conducts studies of the Federal civilian 

workforce to determine if the workforce is being managed effectively, efficiently, 

and in accordance with the Federal merit system principles. One way we fulfill this 

responsibility is by periodically conducting the Governmentwide Merit Principles 

Survey (MPS). 

Administration: 

The MPS 2007 was administered in the fall of 2007 to 68,789 Federal employees in 

the 30 departments and agencies listed below. It was distributed via the Internet to 

most employees; 500 employees who did not have access to the Internet received a 

paper copy of the survey. 

Survey Versions: 

Two versions of the 2007 MPS were administered: (1) an annual survey version 

that included all questions required by the Office of Personnel Management for the 

mandated annual agency employee surveys in addition to the MPS questions; (2) a 

standard version that included only the MPS questions. The annual survey version 

was administered to the employees in the 15 agencies that had contracted with 

MSPB to administer their annual surveys embedded in the Merit Principles Survey. 

The annual survey questions were included to allow the employees in these agencies 

to complete both their agency’s annual survey and the Merit Principles Survey in one 

administration. Both versions included all the questions discussed in this report. 

The annual survey version is contained in Appendix C.

Response Rate: 

Survey participation was voluntary. There was a 60 percent response rate (41,577 

employees completed the survey).

Sample: 

A representative, random sample of employees from each participating agency was 

selected from the population of 1.6 million full-time, permanent, nonseasonal 

Federal employees who were working in executive branch agencies as of December 

2006. For most agencies, a sample of 2,000 employees was selected including 1,000 

nonsupervisory employees (individual workers and team leaders) and 1,000 leaders 

(supervisors, managers, and executives). Nonsupervisors and leaders were separately 

sampled to allow analyses of differences between these two groups. 

 Appendix A: 2007 Merit Principles 

 Survey Methodology
Appendix A: 2007 Merit Principles Survey Methodology

78 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Weighting: 

Weighting eliminates over or under representation of a group in the survey results. 

When combined results are reported for all employees in all agencies, the results are 

weighted for both agency size and supervisory status. When results are reported 

separately for nonsupervisors and leaders, the results are weighted for agency size. 

The responses for questions are weighted by agency according to the number of survey 

respondents from each agency compared with the actual population proportions of 

employees who work in each agency. The responses to the questions are weighted 

for supervisory status according to the number of survey respondents compared with 

the actual population proportions for supervisory and nonsupervisory employees as 

provided in the Central Personnel Data File.

Margin of Error: 

A confidence level and confidence interval, or margin of error, provide an indication 

of the reliability of survey responses. These are based on the number of randomly 

selected employees who responded to the survey questions compared with the 

population of Federal employees. For the MPS 2007, we have an overall 99 percent 

level of confidence that the responses given by the employees who answered the 

survey questions can be generalized to all Federal employees in our population 

with a margin of error of less than 1 percent. For example, if 83 percent of the 

responding employees agreed that their workload is reasonable, we can be confident 

that 82 to 84 percent of all Federal employees, if given the opportunity to answer 

this question, would also say that their workload was reasonable. The 1-percent 

margin of error is a good indicator for the Federal workforce overall. However, the 

margin of error for each individual agency will vary with the survey sample size for 

that agency compared with the agency’s population. Because the confidence level 

and margin of error are dependent on sample size, the confidence level decreases and 

the corresponding margin of error increases as the sample size decreases relative to 

the population of employees. 

Participating Agencies:

• Department of Agriculture

• Department of Commerce

• Department of Defense

o Air Force

o Army 

o Navy

o Other Defense

• Department of Education

• Department of Energy

• Environmental Protection Agency
Appendix A: 2007 Merit Principles Survey Methodology

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 79

• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

• Department of Health and Human Services

• Department of Homeland Security

• Department of Housing and Urban Development

• Department of the Interior 

• Department of Justice

• Department of Labor

• Merit Systems Protection Board

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration

• National Archives and Records Administration

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission

•	 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

• Office of Personnel Management

• Smithsonian Institution

• Department of State

• Securities and Exchange Commission

• Social Security Administration

• Department of the Treasury

• Department of Transportation

• Department of Veterans Affairs

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 81

Nonsupervisory employees’ responses to the 2007 Merit Principles Survey 

questions about performance management practices in the four agencies with the 

highest percentages of engaged employees were compared with the responses of 

the nonsupervisory employees in the four agencies with the lowest percentages of 

engaged employees. The figures in the table below are the percentages of employees 

who affirmed the existence of the practice by providing favorable responses (either 

“strongly agree” and “agree” or “very satisfied” and “satisfied” except where noted). 

Survey questions that also appeared in the 2005 MPS that were used to create an 

engagement scale and identify the percentage of engaged employees in each agency 

were not included in these comparisons of performance management practices in 

high and low engagement agencies.46 

MPS 2007 Question High Low Difference

Appendix B: Comparison Of Performance 

Management Practices In High and Low Engagement Agencies

46 The methodology applied to develop the engagement scale is described in MSPB’s previous 

report, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, 2008 available on our website: www.mspb.gov. 
82 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Appendix B: Comparison Of Performance Management Practices In High and Low Engagement Agencies

High Low Difference Engagement Engagement Between

Agencies Agencies High & Low

My Job

My workload is reasonable. 68.4 64.4 4.0

My talents are used well in the 

workplace. 71.5 56.3 15.2

How often do you receive the 

information and guidance you 

need to do your job well?a 63.8 56.5 7.3

How often do you do more than 

your fair share of work because 

of the poor performance or low 

productivity of one or more of 

your coworkers?b 40.5 31.2 9.3

How satisfied are you with your 

involvement in decisions that affect 

your work? 59.3 43.7 15.6

My Immediate Supervisor

My supervisor communicates 

high performance expectations 

to employees. 70.1 59.5 10.6

My supervisor talks with me or 

assists me when I need help. 75.9 70.3 5.6

My supervisor compliments me 

when I do a good job. 73.7 68.5 5.2

My supervisor explains the reasons 

for work changes before they 

take place. 62.1 51.7 10.4

a = Responses of Always or almost always and Most of the time

b = Responses of Rarely or never and Usually not 

 MPS 2007 Question

Percent
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 83

Appendix B: Comparison Of Performance Management Practices In High and Low Engagement Agencies

High Low Difference Engagement Engagement Between

Agencies Agencies High & Low

My Immediate Supervisor 

(continued)

My supervisor works hard to 

maintain and improve our work 

unit’s performance. 67.7 58.5 9.2

My supervisor follows through on 

commitments. 70.4 61.3 9.1

My supervisor speaks up for 

employees. 65.2 52.5 12.7

I have trust and confidence in my 

supervisor. 68.5 59.1 9.4

My supervisor demonstrates a high 

level of integrity. 73.5 66.3 7.2

My supervisor has a good 

understanding of my job 

performance and accomplishments. 70.8 63.2 7.6

The frequency with which my 

supervisor meets with me to discuss 

my work is (not often enough, 

about right, too often).c 74.0 66.0 8.0

How helpful is your supervisor’s 

feedback in helping you improve or 

enhance your performance?d 79.5 73.1 6.4

Overall, how would you rate your 

immediate supervisor’s performance 

as a supervisor?e 71.5 63.2 8.3

c = Responses of About right

d = Responses of Very helpful and Somewhat helpful

e = Responses of Very good or Good

 MPS 2007 Question

Percent
84 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

Appendix B: Comparison Of Performance Management Practices In High and Low Engagement Agencies

High Low Difference 

Engagement Engagement Between

Agencies Agencies High & Low

Performance Management

Do you have written individual 

performance goals that clearly 

define the results you are expected 

to achieve?f 75.6 61.3 14.3

I am held accountable for achieving 

results in the sense that if I achieve 

the expected work results, I 

experience positive consequences. 70.9 58.7 12.2

I am held accountable for achieving 

results in the sense that if I do NOT 

achieve the expected work results, I 

experience negative consequences. 60.8 56.6 4.2

Appropriate, objective measures are 

used to evaluate my performance. 61.2 48.1 13.1

My performance appraisal is a fair 

reflection of my performance. 68.7 56.6 12.1

In my most recent performance 

appraisal, I understood what I had 

to do to be rated at different 

performance levels. 67.0 55.1 11.9

In my work unit, steps are taken to 

deal with a poor performer who 

cannot or will not improve. 35.3 23.8 11.5

I am rewarded for providing high 

quality products and services to 

my customers. 57.6 43.8 13.8

Promotions in my work unit are 

based on merit. 55.9 45.2 10.7

f = Responses of Yes

 MPS 2007 Question

Percent
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 85

Appendix B: Comparison Of Performance Management Practices In High and Low Engagement Agencies

High Low Difference 

Engagement Engagement Between

Agencies Agencies High & Low

Managers and Executives 

in My Organization

The information collected in 

surveys and other forms of 

employee input is used to make 

improvements in my organization. 28.3 24.0 4.3

I have a high level of respect for 

my organization’s senior leaders. 54.9 39.9 15.0

In my organization, leaders generate 

high levels of motivation and 

commitment in the workforce. 44.0 27.5 16.5

Managers and executives 

demonstrate consistency between 

words and actions. 42.9 26.2 16.7

Managers and executives are open 

and honest in sharing information 

with employees. 42.4 26.4 16.0

I can express my point of view to 

management without fear of 

negative consequences. 52.2 34.8 17.4

Managers communicate the goals 

and priorities of the organization. 62.7 50.3 12.4

How satisfied are you with the 

information you receive from 

management about what’s going 

on in your organization? 49.2 36.5 12.7

Training and Development

My training needs are assessed. 50.8 37.8 13.0

How satisfied are you with the 

training you receive for your 

present job? 58.4 45.5 12.9

 MPS 2007 Question

Percent

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 87

Appendix C: The 2007 Merit 

Principles Survey

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2007 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

OMB Control No. 3124-0014 

RCS# MSPB-2007-001. Expires December 31, 2007 

Dear Federal Colleague: 

Your opinion counts! The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) asks that you take a few minutes to 

participate in our Merit Principles Survey 2007—a Government-wide survey of Federal employees that covers a 

variety of workforce issues, including supervision, employee development, performance management, and more. 

Because you are part of a random sample of Government employees, your views about your work and work 

environment will represent those of the larger Federal workforce. This is an opportunity for you to inform policy by 

voicing your opinions and concerns about workforce issues. 

This survey is an important part of MSPB’s responsibility to assess the soundness of Federal merit systems. Your 

responses will help us recommend to the President, Congress, agency leaders, and other decision makers how to 

improve the Federal workplace. The information you share will make a positive difference! 

Your responses to this survey are voluntary and strictly confidential. Only MSPB staff and our survey support 

contractor staff will have access to the surveys and no data will be disclosed to anyone that could be used to 

identify individual participants. 

On average, the survey will take about 20 minutes for employees to complete and about 30 minutes for supervisors. 

It may be completed at your work site or at home. Additional information about the Merit Principles Survey is 

available by clicking the “MSPB Studies” tab on MSPB’s website (www.mspb.gov). If you have questions about this 

survey, please email us at MeritPrinciplesSurvey@mspb.gov or call our survey hotline at 1-888-260-4798 or 202-

653-8896 (V/TDD) for live support Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern and voice mail at all other 

times. 

Thank you! We appreciate your help. 

Sincerely, 

John Crum, Ph.D. 

Acting Director, Policy and Evaluation 
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

88 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

Privacy Statement 

MSPB wants to assure survey participants that 

your involvement in the Merit Principles Survey 

2007 is both voluntary and confidential. This 

Privacy Statement identifies MSPB’s 

authorization to conduct the survey and explains 

how we will manage the data we receive. 

 The purpose of collecting this information is 

to study how well the Federal Government 

is managing its workforce in adherence to 

the merit system principles. The results of 

the survey will be shared with the President, 

Congress, and other Federal decisionmakers to be used in developing policy that 

supports both merit and mission 

accomplishment. 

 Collection of the information is authorized 

by Section 1204 of Title 5, US Code. 

 This survey has been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget in 

accordance with 5 CFR 1320. 

 Your responses to this survey are 

completely voluntary. There is no penalty if 

you choose not to participate. However, we 

encourage your participation to ensure that 

our data is complete and representative of 

the Federal workforce. 

 Only MSPB staff and our survey support 

contractor staff will have access to 

individually completed surveys. In 

accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 

(Public Law 93-579), no data will be 

disclosed that could be used to identify 

individual participants. 

 Your agency may receive the raw data to be 

analyzed by agency staff, but MSPB will 

cleanse the data in such a way as to ensure 

that whatever data we give to agencies 

cannot be used to identify individual 

participants. 

Marking Instructions 

 Place a  in the box next to your response. 

 Please use a No. 2 pencil or blue or black 

ink. 

 Please print when you write in your 

response. 

 To change your answer, cross out the 

incorrect answer and put a  in the correct 

box. Also draw a circle around the correct 

answer. 

Yes No

Definitions of Survey Terms 

Executives are members of the Senior 

Executive Service or equivalent. 

Leaders are an agency's management team. 

This includes anyone with supervisory or 

managerial duties including supervisors, 

managers, and executives. 

Managers are those individuals in management 

positions who typically supervise one or more 

supervisors. 

Organization means an agency, office, or 

division. 

Supervisors are first-line supervisors who do 

not supervise other supervisors; typically those 

who are responsible for employees' 

performance appraisals and approval of their 

leave. 

Team leaders are those who provide 

employees with day-to-day guidance in work 

projects, but do not have supervisory 

responsibilities or conduct performance 

appraisals. 

Work unit means an employee’s immediate 

work unit headed by the employee’s direct 

supervisor. 

 
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 89

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 1- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

Agency and Supervisory Status 

Please select your agency or agency component. 

 Defense: Air Force 

 Defense: Army 

 Defense: Navy

 Defense: Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)

 Defense: Other DoD Office, Agency, or Field Activity 

(including those administratively serviced by DLA)

 Energy: Headquarters Staff and Support Offices 

 Energy: Power Marketing Administrations

 Energy: The Under Secretary 

 Energy: The Under Secretary for Science

 Energy: The Under Secretary for Nuclear Security (NNSA) 

 Energy: Other 

 EPA: Region 1 

 EPA: Region 2 

 EPA: Region 3 

 EPA: Region 4 

 EPA: Region 5 

 EPA: Region 6 

 EPA: Region 7 

 EPA: Region 8 

 EPA: Region 9 

 EPA: Region 10 

 EPA: Office of the Administrator 

 EPA: Office of Administration and Resources Management 

 EPA: Office of Air and Radiation 

 EPA: Office of Chief Financial Officer 

 EPA: Office of Enforcement Compliance Assurance 

 EPA: Office of Environmental Information 

 EPA: Office of General Counsel 

 EPA: Office of Inspector General 

 EPA: Office of International Affairs 

 EPA: Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances 

 EPA: Office of Research and Development 

 EPA: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

 EPA: Office of Water 

 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

 Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs 

 Interior: Bureau of Land Management – Headquarters 

 Interior: Bureau of Land Management – Field 

 Interior: Bureau of Reclamation 

 Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service – Headquarters 

 Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service – Regional Office 

 Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service – Field Office 

 Interior: Minerals Management Service – Offshore Minerals 

Management 

 Interior: Minerals Management Service – Minerals Revenue 

Management 

 Interior: Minerals Management Service - Other 

 Interior: National Park Service – Headquarters 

 Interior: National Park Service – Regional Office/Center 

 Interior: National Park Service – Park 

 Interior: Office of the Inspector General

 Interior: Office of the Secretary: Assistant Secretary, Policy, 

Management, and Budget 

 Interior: Office of the Secretary – National Business Center 

 Interior: Office of the Secretary – Other 

 Interior: Office of the Solicitor – Headquarters 

 Interior: Office of the Solicitor – Field 

 Interior: Office of Surface Mining – Headquarters 

 Interior: Office of Surface Mining – Field 

 Interior: United States Geological Survey – Headquarters 

 Interior: United States Geological Survey – Eastern Region 

 Interior: United States Geological Survey – Central Region 

 Interior: United States Geological Survey – Western Region 

 Justice: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives 

 Justice: Bureau of Prisons 

 Justice: Civil Division 

 Justice: Justice Management Division 

 Justice: Office of Justice Programs 

 Justice: Other 

 Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 Labor: Employee Benefits Security Administration 

 Labor: Employment Standards Administration 

 Labor: Employment and Training Administration 

 Labor: Mine Safety and Health Administration 

 Labor: Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

 Labor: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration 

and Management 

 Labor: Other 

 Merit Systems Protection Board

 NASA: Ames Research Center 

 NASA: Dryden Flight Research Center 

 NASA: Glenn Research Center 

 NASA: Goddard Space Flight Center 

 NASA: Headquarters 

 NASA: Johnson Space Center 

 NASA: Kennedy Space Center 

 NASA: Langley Research Center 

 NASA: Marshall Space Flight Center 

 NASA: Stennis Space Center 

 NASA: Shared Service Center 

 National Archives and Records Administration 

 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 

 Securities and Exchange Commission 

 SSA: Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources 

 SSA: Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income 

Security Programs 

 SSA: Deputy Commissioner for Business, Finance and 

Management 

 SSA: Deputy Commissioner for Disability Adjudication and 

Review 

 SSA: Deputy Commissioner for Communications 
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

90 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 2- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

 SSA: Deputy Commissioner for Legislation and 

Congressional Affairs 

 SSA: Deputy Commissioner for Policy 

 SSA: Deputy Commissioner for Systems 

 SSA: Deputy Commissioner for Operations 

 SSA: Other 

 Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration 

 Transportation: Federal Highway Administration 

 Transportation: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

 Transportation: Federal Railroad Administration 

 Transportation: Federal Transit Administration 

 Transportation: Maritime Administration 

 Transportation: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

 Transportation: Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

 Transportation: Office of the Inspector General 

 Transportation: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration 

 Transportation: Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration 

 Transportation: Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation 

 Transportation: Surface Transportation Board 

 Treasury: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

 Treasury: Bureau of Engraving and Printing 

 Treasury: Bureau of Public Debt 

 Treasury: Departmental Offices 

 Treasury: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

 Treasury: Financial Management Service 

 Treasury: Inspector General for Tax Administration 

 Treasury: Internal Revenue Service 

 Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 

 Treasury: Office of the Inspector General 

 Treasury: Office of Thrift Supervision 

 Treasury: United States Mint 

What is your supervisory status? 

 Non-supervisor (You do not supervise other 

employees.) 

 Team Leader (You are not an official supervisor; you 

provide employees with day-to-day guidance in work 

projects, but do not have supervisory responsibilities or 

conduct performance appraisals.) 

 Supervisor (You are responsible for employees’ 

performance appraisals & approval of their leave, but you do 

not supervise other supervisors.)

 Manager (You are in a management position and 

supervise one or more supervisors.) 

 Executive (Member of the Senior Executive Service or 

equivalent.) 

Part A: My Job 

A1. For each question, please indicate your 

level of agreement or disagreement with the 

statement by placing a check in the box 

under your response choice. 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

 

a. My agency is successful in 

accomplishing its mission ........     

b. I would recommend my 

agency as a place to work .......     

c. The workforce has the jobrelevant knowledge and 

skills necessary to 

accomplish organizational 

goals ........................................     

d. My work unit is able to 

recruit people with the 

right skills .................................     

e. Employees have a feeling 

of personal empowerment 

with respect to work 

processes.................................     

f. I like the kind of work I do ........     

g. My workload is reasonable ......     

h. My work gives me a 

feeling of personal 

accomplishment.......................     

i. My talents are used well in 

the workplace...........................     

j. I know how my work 

relates to the agency’s 

goals and priorities...................     

k. The work I do is important........     

l. The people I work with 

cooperate to get the job 

done.........................................     
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 91

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 3- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

A2. For each question, please indicate how 

often the event occurs by placing a check in 

the box under your response choice. 

Always or Almost Always 

Most of the Time 

Some of the Time 

Usually Not 

Rarely or Never 

 a. How often can at least 

one of your co-workers fill 

in for you when you are 

not at work?..............................     

b. How often do you have 

the resources you need to 

do your job well? ......................     

c. How often do you receive 

the information and 

guidance you need to do 

your work efficiently and 

effectively? ...............................     

d. How often do you do 

more than your fair share 

of work because of the 

poor performance or low 

productivity of one or 

more of your co-workers? ........     

A3. For each question, please indicate your 

level of satisfaction by placing a check in 

the box under your response choice. 

Very Dissatisfied 

Dissatisfied 

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 

Satisfied 

Very Satisfied 

 a. Considering everything, how 

satisfied are you with your 

job? ..........................................     

b. How satisfied are you with 

your involvement in decisions 

that affect your work?...............     

A4. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being 

done by your immediate supervisor/team 

leader? 

 Very good

 Good

 Fair

 Poor

 Very Poor

Part B: My Immediate Supervisor 

B1. For each question, please indicate your level 

of agreement or disagreement with the 

statement by placing a check in the box 

under your response choice. 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

 a. My supervisor communicates 

high performance 

expectations to employees ......     

b. My supervisor talks with me 

or assists me when I need 

help ..........................................     

c. My supervisor treats me with 

courtesy and respect................     

d. My supervisor compliments 

me when I do a good job..........     

e. My supervisor explains the 

reasons for work changes 

before they take place..............     

f. My supervisor works hard to 

maintain and improve our 

work unit’s performance...........     

g. My supervisor follows 

through on commitments .........     

h. My supervisor speaks up for 

employees................................     

i. I have trust and confidence in 

my supervisor...........................     

j. My supervisor makes 

decisions based on what is 

personally best for him or her 

rather than what is best for 

the organization .......................     

k. My supervisor demonstrates 

a high level of integrity .............     

l. My supervisor has a good 

understanding of my job 

performance and 

accomplishments .....................     

m. My supervisor supports my 

need to balance work and 

family issues ............................     

n. Discussions with my 

supervisor/team leader about 

my performance are 

worthwhile................................     
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

92 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 4- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

B2. About how often do you meet individually 

with your supervisor to discuss the 

progress of your work? 

 Weekly or more often

 Every two weeks

 Monthly

 Quarterly

 Twice per year

 Annually

 Less than once per year

B3. The frequency with which my supervisor 

meets with me to discuss the progress of 

my work is: 

 Not often enough 

 About right

 Too often

B4. How often do you typically receive formal or 

informal feedback from your supervisor? 

 Weekly or more often

 Every two weeks

 Monthly

 Quarterly

 Twice per year

 Annually

 Less than once per year

B5. How helpful is your supervisor’s feedback in 

helping you improve or enhance your 

performance? 

 Very Helpful

 Somewhat Helpful

 Not Helpful

 Harmful

B6. What does your supervisor do (or not do) 

that helps you do your best work? Please 

list one to three actions or behaviors. If your 

supervisor does not help you do your best 

work, write “none”. 

1. _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

2. _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

3. _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

B7. What does your supervisor do (or not do) 

that makes it difficult for you to do your best 

work? Please list one to three actions or 

behaviors. If your supervisor does not make 

it difficult for you to do your best work, write 

“none”. 

1. _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

2. _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

3. _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

B8. Overall, how would you rate your immediate 

supervisor’s performance as a supervisor? 

 Very Good

 Good

 Fair

 Poor

 Very Poor
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 93

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 5- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

Part C: Performance Management 

C1. Do you have written individual performance 

goals that clearly define the results you are 

expected to achieve during the performance 

period? 

 No Î Skip to Question C5

 Yes

 Don’t Know Î Skip to Question C5

C2. Have your individual performance goals 

been developed, reviewed, updated, or 

discussed with your supervisor for the 

current performance period (or if your 

performance period ended within the past 

two months, answer for your goals for the 

previous performance period)? 

 No

 Yes

 Don’t Know

C3. Are your individual performance goals 

clearly linked to organizational or work unit 

goals? 

 No

 Yes

 Don’t Know

C4. Do your individual performance goals 

accurately define what is expected of you? 

 No

 Yes

 Don’t Know

C5. For each question, please indicate your 

level of agreement or disagreement with the 

statement by placing a check in the box 

under your response choice. 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

 

a. I am held accountable for 

achieving results in the sense 

that if I achieve the expected 

work results, I experience 

positive consequences ..............     

b. I am held accountable for 

achieving results in the sense 

that if I do NOT achieve the 

expected work results, I 

experience negative 

consequences. ..........................     

c. Appropriate, objective 

measures are used to 

evaluate my performance. .........     

d. My performance appraisal is 

a fair reflection of my 

performance ..............................     

e. In my most recent 

performance appraisal, I 

understood what I had to do 

to be rated at different 

performance levels (e.g., 

Fully Successful, 

Outstanding). .............................     

f. In my work unit, steps are 

taken to deal with a poor 

performer who cannot or will 

not improve................................     

g. I am rewarded for providing 

high quality products and 

services to my customers 

(internal and/or external) ...........     

h. Recognition and rewards are 

based on performance in my 

work unit. ...................................     

i. In my work unit, differences in 

performance are recognized 

in a meaningful way...................     

j. Creativity and innovation are 

rewarded....................................     

k. Pay raises depend on how 

well employees perform their 

jobs ........................................     

l. Promotions in my work unit 

are based on merit.....................     
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

94 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 6- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

C6. For each question, please indicate your 

level of satisfaction by placing a check in 

the box under your response choice. 

Very Dissatisfied 

Dissatisfied 

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 

Satisfied 

Very Satisfied 

 

a. How satisfied are you with 

the recognition you receive 

for doing a good job? ...............     

b. How satisfied are you with 

your opportunity to get a 

better job in your 

organization?............................     

c. Considering everything, how 

satisfied are you with your 

pay? .........................................     

Part D: Managers and Executives in My 

Organization 

D1. For each question, please indicate your 

level of agreement or disagreement with the 

statement by placing a check in the box 

under your response choice. 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

a. The information collected 

in surveys and other forms 

of employee input is used 

to make improvements in 

my organization........................     

b. I have a high level of 

respect for my 

organization’s senior 

leaders. ....................................     

c. In my organization, 

leaders generate high 

levels of motivation and 

commitment in the 

workforce. ................................     

d. Managers and executives 

demonstrate consistency 

between words and 

actions......................................     

e. Managers and executives 

are open and honest in 

sharing information with 

employees................................     

f. I can express my point of 

view to management 

without fear of negative 

consequences..........................     

g. Managers communicate 

the goals and priorities of 

the organization. ......................     

h. Managers review and 

evaluate the 

organization’s progress 

toward meeting its goals 

and objectives..........................     

i. Managers/supervisors/team 

leaders work well with 

employees of different 

backgrounds ............................     
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 95

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 7- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

D2. For each question, please indicate your 

level of satisfaction by placing a check in 

the box under your response choice. 

Very Dissatisfied 

Dissatisfied 

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 

Satisfied 

Very Satisfied 

 

a. How satisfied are you with 

the policies and practices of 

your senior managers? ............     

b. How satisfied are you with 

the information you receive 

from management about 

what’s going on in your 

organization?............................     

Part E: Training and Development 

E1. For each question, please indicate your 

level of agreement or disagreement with the 

statement by placing a check in the box 

under your response choice. 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

 

a. Supervisors/team leaders in 

my work unit support 

employee development. ...........     

b. I am given a real opportunity 

to improve my skills in my 

organization..............................     

c. My training needs are 

assessed. .................................

    

If you answered “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” to 

question E1-c, continue with question E2. 

If not, skip to question E3. 

E2. How are your training needs assessed? 

Mark all that apply.

 Informal discussion with my supervisor or 

team leader

 Formal discussion with my supervisor or 

team leader

 My supervisor or team leader decides what I 

need without discussing it with me

 Individual development planning

 Self-assessment questionnaire

 360 or multi-source feedback (Several 

different groups of people who work with you 

assess your development needs such as 

peers, supervisor, subordinates, or 

customers) 

 Other Specify:_______________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

E3. How satisfied are you with the training you 

receive for your present job? 

Please mark only one.

 Very Satisfied 

 Satisfied 

 Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

 Dissatisfied 

 Very Dissatisfied 
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

96 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 8- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

E4. How many times in the past 12 months have 

you had each of the following kinds of 

formal training that was paid for or 

otherwise provided by the Federal 

Government? 

 For our purposes, formal training includes 

classroom training, computer/web-delivered 

training, conferences and symposia, etc. 

Please count one “time” for each “class” or 

conference you took, even if it lasted for 

several days. 

# times Paid formal training 

a. Agency, bureau, division, or 

office-required training (such as 

computer security awareness, 

ethics, e-travel, etc.) 

b. Training about topics of general 

interest to government 

employees (such as new 

employee orientation, retirement 

planning, insurance benefits, etc.) 

c. Training that is closely related to 

the duties of your current job

d. Training that primarily prepares 

you for a promotion or movement 

to a different job

e. Training that has little or no real 

relation to your present or 

possible future job responsibilities 

If you answered 1 or more to question E4-c, 

please continue with question E5. 

Otherwise, skip to the Introduction to Question 

E10 on page 9. 

E5. Please describe in a few words (no more 

than a sentence) the topic of the most 

recent formal training closely related to the 

duties of your current job you received that 

was paid for or otherwise provided by the 

Federal Government. 

____________________________________ 

____________________________________ 

____________________________________ 

E6. Which of the following best describes your 

reason for taking this training? 

Please mark only one.

 It is required for employees in my occupation 

or specialty. 

 My supervisor or other agency leader 

requested or required that I take it.

 I requested to take it because I thought it 

would increase my job-related abilities. 

 I requested it because it would improve my 

ability to get a promotion or different job. 

 I requested to take it for a different reason. 

Specify: ___________________________ 

___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________

E7. Which of the following best describes the 

level of the knowledge, skill, or ability you 

expected to obtain from this training? 

Please mark only one.

 Introductory, which assumes little or no 

prior background in what is taught. 

 Intermediate, which assumes some 

background or ability and builds toward the 

advanced level. 

 Advanced, which assumes attendees 

already have a great deal of background 

and/or ability in this area, and are fine-tuning 

their knowledge, skill, or ability. 

E8. Which of the following persons or groups 

developed the content of this most recent 

formal, job-related training? 

Please mark only one.

 An office or individual within your agency

 Another Federal agency or organization 

 A state or local government organization 

 A professional association or other nonprofit 

organization 

 A private sector contractor or other 

commercial organization 

 A college, university or other academic 

institution 

 Don’t know 
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 97

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 9- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

E9. Please indicate your level of agreement or 

disagreement with each of the following 

statements about this most recent jobrelated training: 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

 

a. I enjoyed this training ..............     

b. The training was effective in 

teaching what it was 

designed to teach.....................     

c. The training consisted mostly 

of things that I did not know

before taking the training..........     

d. What I have learned from this 

training either has, or will 

likely improve my job 

performance ...........................     

e. Obstacles in my work setting 

that I cannot control prevent 

me from using the training to 

improve my job performance....     

f. It would be more effective

for employees to learn this 

type of knowledge, skill or 

ability on the job......................     

g. It is very hard to develop 

proficiency in this area if you 

do not have natural talent or 

ability to begin with...................     

h. Other employees in my work 

unit have had the same 

training in the past year............     

i. I would recommend this 

training to others who do the 

same kind of work I do .............     

Please consider the following possible situation. 

 Your agency is hiring more staff as a result 

of increased funding and an expansion of 

its mission. You have been asked to help 

hire a new employee who will be doing the 

same type and level of work that you do, 

but will be part of a different work team. 

E10. Please describe in a few words or phrases 

the most important knowledge, skill, or 

ability this new employee needs to do his 

or her job well: 

____________________________________ 

____________________________________ 

____________________________________ 

____________________________________ 

E11. Please indicate your level of agreement or 

disagreement with the following 

statements about this most important skill 

or ability: 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

 

a. It can be learned by studying 

an appropriate manual, book, 

or web site................................     

b. It can be learned from a 

formal training class or series 

of classes.................................     

c. It can be learned on the job 

through selected tasks or 

assignments.............................     

d. It can be learned through 

coaching or mentoring by an 

experienced co-worker.............     

e. It is more of a personal 

characteristic or ability that 

cannot easily be learned..........     

f. It is important to have during 

the first week on the job...........     
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

98 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 10- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

E12. Consider all of the knowledge, skills and 

abilities (KSAs) the new employee needs 

for this job. Given that we want to be as 

efficient as possible, what percentages of 

these KSAs should come from each of the 

following sources? (Note: The total should 

equal 100%.)

Percent 

a. The employee should be able to 

do this before beginning work

on the job ........................................

b. The employee should be formally 

trained to do this while on the job ..

c. The employee should “learn by 

doing” this while on the job............

d. The employee should be 

coached or mentored in this 

while on the job...............................

TOTAL 

Part F: Physical Work Environment and 

Safety 

For each question, please indicate your level of 

agreement or disagreement with the statement 

by placing a check in the box under your 

response choice.

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

 

a. Physical conditions (for 

example, noise level, 

temperature, lighting, 

cleanliness in the workplace) 

allow employees to perform 

their jobs well. ..........................     

b. Employees are protected 

from health and safety 

hazards on the job....................     

c. My organization has 

prepared employees for 

potential security threats. .........     

Part G: Merit System Principles and 

Prohibited Personnel Practices 

These questions pertain only to your 

experiences as a Federal employee. If you 

have been a Federal employee for less than 

two years, please answer the questions for 

the time you have been a Federal employee.

For each question, please place a check in the 

box under your response choice. 

G1. Have you been treated fairly in the past 2 

years in each area listed below? 

Not Applicable 

Don’t know 

No 

Yes 

 

a. Career advancement ......................    

b. Awards............................................    

c. Training...........................................    

d. Performance appraisals..................    

e. Job assignments.............................    

f. Discipline.........................................    

g. Pay..................................................    

G2. In the past 2 years, have you been denied a 

job, promotion, pay increase, or other job 

benefit because of unlawful discrimination 

based on the following factors? 

Don’t know 

No 

Yes 

a. Race/national origin ...............................   

b. Sex.........................................................   

c. Age.........................................................   

d. Disability.................................................   

e. Religion..................................................   

f. Marital status..........................................   

g. Political affiliation ...................................   

h. Sexual orientation ..................................   

i. Off duty conduct.....................................   

100% 
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 99

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 11- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

G3. In the past 2 years, have you been... 

Don’t know 

No 

Yes 

a. Discouraged from competing for a job 

or promotion by an agency official .........   

b. Influenced by an agency official to 

withdraw from competition from a 

Federal job or promotion in order to 

help another person’s chances of 

getting that job or promotion ..................   

c. Denied a job or promotion because 

one of the selecting or recommending 

officials gave an unfair advantage to 

another person .......................................   

d. Denied a job or promotion because it 

was given to a relative of a selecting 

or recommending official ........................   

e. Denied an award based on favoritism 

by the nominating or approving 

officials ...................................................   

f. Pressured into participating in political 

activities .................................................   

g. Improperly pressured to take actions 

or make decisions based on political 

goals of others........................................   

G4. In the past 2 years, do you feel you have 

been retaliated against or threatened with 

retaliation for taking any of the following 

actions? Mark all that apply.

Not Applicable 

Yes, Threatened with Retaliation 

Yes, Experienced Retaliation 

No 

 a. Disclosing health and safety 

dangers, unlawful behavior, 

and/or fraud, waste, and abuse.......    

b. Exercising any formal appeal, 

complaint, or grievance right ...........    

c. Testifying for or otherwise 

assisting any individual in the 

exercise of whistleblowing, equal 

opportunity, or appeal rights............    

d. Refusing to obey an unlawful 

order................................................    

e. Reporting unwanted sexual 

attention or sexual harassment .......    

f. Disagreeing with management 

decisions .........................................    

H. Demographic Questions 

H1. How many years have you been a Federal 

civil service employee? 

 Less than 1 year 

 1 to 5 years

 6 to 10 years

 11 to 15 years

 16 to 20 years

 21 to 25 years

 More than 25 years

H2. How many years of full-time work 

experience did you have before you began 

working for the Federal government in the 

civilian workforce? 

 Less than 1 year

 1 to 5 years

 6 to 10 years

 11 to 15 years

 16 to 20 years

 21 to 25 years

 More than 25 years

H3. Are you: 

 Male

 Female

H4. Are you Hispanic or Latino? 

 Yes

 No

H5. Please select the racial category or 

categories with which you most closely 

identify. Mark all that apply.

 American Indian or Alaska Native

 Asian

 Black or African American

 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

 White
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

100 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 12- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

H6. What is your age? 

 25 or under

 26–29

 30–39

 40–49

 50–59

 60 or older

H7. What is your annual base salary? Please 

round to the nearest thousand. 

H8. What is your current education level? 

 Less than a high school diploma

 High school, equivalent diploma, or GED

 Some college credits but no degree

 Associate’s college degree

 Bachelor’s college degree

 Graduate credits but no graduate degree

 Master’s degree

 Professional degree (e.g., J.D, M.D., D.D.S., 

Ed.D.)

 Academic or scientific doctoral degree 

(e.g., Ph.D.) 

I. Questions for Supervisors, Managers, and 

Executives 

All questions in this section are to be answered 

ONLY by supervisors, managers, and 

executives. 

I1. How many years of experience did you have 

as a supervisor or manager before you 

joined the Federal civilian workforce? If you 

had less than 6 months experience, enter 0. 

If you had 6 months or more experience but 

less than 1 year, round up to 1 year. 

I2. How many total years of supervisory 

experience do you have in the Federal 

civilian workforce? If you have less than 6 

months experience, enter 0. If you have 6 

months or more experience but less than 1 

year, round up to 1 year. 

I3. What do you see as the most important 

component of your job? 

 Communicating and interacting with other 

supervisors and managers 

 Communicating with internal and/or external 

customers 

 Doing my own technical work 

 Supervising my employees (reviewing work, 

providing feedback, discussing their 

assignments, development, or performance 

with them, etc.) 

 Creating a work unit or organization 

equipped to successfully meet the 

challenges of today and tomorrow through 

strategic hiring, development, management, 

and retention

 Completing administrative work 

 Other Specify: _______________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________

I4. What is the most satisfying part of your job? 

 Communicating and interacting with other 

supervisors and managers

 Communicating with internal and/or external 

customers 

 Doing my own technical work 

 Supervising my employees (reviewing work, 

providing feedback, discussing their 

assignments, development, or performance 

with them, etc.) 

 Creating a work unit or organization 

equipped to successfully meet the 

challenges of today and tomorrow through 

strategic hiring, development, management, 

and retention 

 Completing administrative work 

 Other Specify: ______________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 101

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 13- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

I5. Approximately what percentage of your time 

is devoted to each of the following activities? 

(Note: The total should equal 100%.)

Activity % of Time

a. Communicating and interacting 

with other supervisors and 

managers........................................

b. Communicating with internal 

and/or external customers ..............

c. Doing my own technical work .........

d. Supervising my employees 

(reviewing work, providing 

feedback, discussing their 

assignments, development, or 

performance with them, etc.) ..........

e. Creating a work unit or 

organization equipped to 

successfully meet the challenges 

of today and tomorrow through 

strategic hiring, development, 

management, and retention ............

f. Completing administrative work......

e. Other Specify: _______________

TOTAL 

I6. Do you have all the authority you need to 

fulfill your supervisory responsibilities? 

 No

 Yes

 Not sure

I7. When do you typically review your 

employees’ work? Please select only one 

response. 

 I don’t typically review my employees’ work

 Usually only when a problem arises

 Usually only when an employee requests my 

review

 When the customer is especially important or 

demanding or the work has political 

implications

 At the completion of a project or product 

milestone

 At the full completion of a project or product

 Routinely review my employees’ work on a 

regular basis 

 Other Specify: ____________________

If you selected “Routinely review my employees 

work” please continue with question I7A. 

Otherwise, skip to question I8.

I7A.How often do you routinely review your 

employees’ work on a regular basis? 

 Daily 

 Weekly 

 Every two weeks 

 Monthly 

 Quarterly 

 Twice per year 

 Annually 

I8. When do you routinely make notes about 

your employees’ work and/or performance, 

e.g., recording achievements, positive or 

negative incidents or behaviors, progress, 

development needs, etc? Mark all that apply.

 I don’t record my employees’ performance

 I don’t have a routine but I sometimes record 

my employees’ performance

 At the completion of project milestones

 At the full completion of a project

 When a positive or negative incident occurs

 During or following individual meetings or 

discussions with employees

 At mid-year performance appraisal time

 At year-end performance appraisal time

 On a time-based schedule I set. How often?

 Daily 

 Weekly 

 Every two weeks

 Monthly 

 Quarterly 

 Twice per year

 Annually 

I9. From whom do you collect feedback to help 

you determine how well an employee is 

performing? Mark all that apply.

 Employee’s team leader

 Internal customers of the employee

 External customers of the employee

 Employee’s peers

 Employee’s subordinates

 Employee’s suppliers, vendors, or 

contractors

 Other supervisors or managers who are not 

the employee’s customers

 Other than the above 

 I don’t collect feedback from others 

100% 
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

102 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 14- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

I10. Organizations sometimes include employees who are performing at or just above minimum 

standards but who could perform better if they invested more effort in their work. Consider the last 

time you directly supervised an employee of this type. What actions did you take? 

 I have not yet had experience with this type of employee Î Skip to Question I11

 I have had experience with this type of employee, but I did not take any special actions to help the employee 

improve Î Skip to Question I11 

If you have had experience with this type of employee and took actions to help the employee improve, 

for each action listed below please indicate: 

Step 1. If you took that action, and 

Step 2. For each action you took, the impact of that action on the employee’s performance 

Don’t Know

Too Soon to Tell

IMPACT Resigned

Transferred

Worsened 

No Change 

Action Improved & Then Regressed 

(9) Improved 

a. Discussed with the employee why he or she was not performing to 

his or her potential ...................................................................................

b. Worked with the employee to develop and implement an informal 

improvement plan ....................................................................................

c. Discussed with the employee the benefits to him or her of improving.....

d. Explained to the employee how his or her performance affects the 

performance rating...................................................................................

e. Monitored the employee’s work more closely than other employees’ 

work .........................................................................................................

f. Provided frequent feedback and/or coaching ..........................................

g. Paired the employee with another employee...........................................

h. Reduced the employee’s workload or gave easier assignments.............

i. Increased the employee’s workload or gave more difficult 

assignments.............................................................................................

j. Encouraged the employee to transfer to another work unit where he 

or she could be more successful. ............................................................

k. Other – Please specify: ____________________________________

_____________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________ 
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 103

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 15- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

I11. Some organizations include employees who are performing at or just above minimum standards but 

who could perform better if they improved in specific knowledge, skills, abilities, personal 

characteristics or their interactions with others. Consider the last time you directly supervised an 

employee of this type. What actions did you take? 

 I have not yet had experience with this type of employee Î Skip to Question I12

 I have had experience with this type of employee, but I did not take any special actions to help the employee 

improve Î Skip to Question I12 

If you have had experience with this type of employee and took actions to help the employee improve, 

for each action listed below please indicate: 

Step 1. If you took that action, and 

Step 2. For each action you took, the impact of that action on the employee’s performance 

Don’t Know

Too Soon to Tell

IMPACT Resigned

Transferred

Worsened 

No Change 

Action Improved & Then Regressed 

(9) Improved 

a. Worked with the employee to develop and implement an informal 

improvement plan ...................................................................................

b. Monitored the employee’s work more closely than other 

employees’ work ......................................................................................

c. Provided frequent feedback and coaching..............................................

d. Paired the employee with another employee who is highly skilled in 

the employee’s weak areas ....................................................................

e. Re-assigned the employee to work more closely matched with 

abilities....................................................................................................

f. Provided the employee with training or on-the-job development 

opportunities to address weaker areas...................................................

g. Encouraged the employee to transfer to another work unit where 

he or she could be more successful .......................................................

h. Other – Please specify: ____________________________________

_____________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

104 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 16- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

I12. Some organizations include employees who are poor performers, i.e., their performance is below 

minimum standards. Consider the last time you directly supervised an employee of this type. What 

actions did you take? 

 I have not yet had experience with this type of employee Î Skip to Question I13

 I have had experience with this type of employee, but I did not take any special actions to help the employee 

improve Î Skip to Question I13 

If you have had experience with this type of employee and took actions to help the employee improve, 

for each action listed below please indicate: 

Step 1. If you took that action, and 

Step 2. For each action you took, the impact of that action on the employee’s performance 

Don’t Know

Too Soon to Tell

IMPACT Resigned

Transferred

Worsened 

No Change 

Action Improved & Then Regressed 

(9) Improved 

a. Met frequently with the employee to provide feedback and 

coaching..................................................................................................

b. Closely monitored the employee’s work. .................................................

c. Discussed with the employee the possible reasons for poor 

performance............................................................................................

d. Asked the employee how I could help and provided appropriate 

help .........................................................................................................

e. Communicated expectations and provided direction orally.....................

f. Communicated expectations and provided direction through a 

written memo ..........................................................................................

g. Discussed with the employee possible negative consequences for 

continued inadequate performance ........................................................

h. Changed the employee’s work assignments ..........................................

i. Worked with the employee to develop an informal plan for 

improvement ...........................................................................................

j. Prepared a formal Performance Improvement Plan. ..............................

k. Paired the person with a good performer as a guide or mentor..............

l. Gave the employee a low performance appraisal rating.........................

m. Transferred the employee to a different job, team, or work unit..............

n. Took disciplinary action such as suspension or removal........................

o. I waited for the opportunity to use conduct issues to address 

inadequate performance.........................................................................

p. Other – Please specify: ____________________________________

_____________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 105

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 17- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

I13. To which group of your employees do you 

tend to provide the most feedback and 

coaching or mentoring? 

 Top performers

 Good performers

 Marginal performers

 Low performers

I14. For each question, please indicate your 

level of agreement or disagreement with the 

statement by placing a check in the box 

under your response choice. 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

 

a. I support my employees’ 

need to balance work and 

family issues.............................     

b. I communicate high 

performance expectations 

to my employees ......................     

c. I talk with my employees 

or assist them when they 

need help .................................     

d. I explain the reasons for 

work changes to my 

employees before they 

take place.................................     

e. Employees in my work 

unit or organization can 

express their point of view 

to me without fear of 

negative consequences ...........     

I15. How would you rate your overall 

performance as a supervisor? 

 Very good

 Good

 Fair

 Poor

 Very Poor

I16. Did you receive formal supervisory training 

prior to or during your first year as a 

supervisor? 

 No Î Skip to Item I19

 Yes

I17. What were the topics of the formal 

supervisory training you received prior to 

and during your first year as a supervisor? 

Mark all that apply.

 Conducting team or work unit meetings

 Developing performance goals and 

standards for your employees

 Making work assignments

 Monitoring or reviewing employee work and 

progress

 Documenting employee performance 

(ongoing for all employees)

 Preparing performance appraisals

 Providing corrective feedback and coaching

 Providing positive feedback and coaching

 Conducting performance discussions

 Managing poor performers

 Helping employees improve their 

performance (all employees, not just poor 

performers)

 Employee development planning and 

implementation

 Improving the productivity or effectiveness of 

your work unit

 Workforce planning

 Helping employees balance work and 

personal lives

 Using the probationary period as the final 

stage of the selection process

 Conflict management

 Other Describe: _____________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________
Appendix C: The 2007 Merit Principles Survey

106 Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD - 18- FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

I18. How many total hours of supervisory 

training did you participate in prior to and 

during your first year as a supervisor? 

(8 hours equals 1 day)

 Less than one day

 1 to 2 days

 3 to 4 days

 1 week

 2 weeks

 More than 2 weeks

I19. What types of informal development did you 

participate in to help you build your 

supervisory knowledge, skills, and abilities 

during your first year as a supervisor? 

Mark all that apply.

 Self-study of books, magazines, journals, 

web sites, or other materials

 Coaching and/or feedback from my manager

 Coaching or advice from other supervisors or 

a mentor

 Feedback from my employees

 360 or multi-source feedback (Several 

different groups of people who work with me 

such as peers, supervisor, subordinates, or 

customers provide feedback)

 Discussions with friends and family members

 Participation in a professional association

 Networking

 Activities outside of work, e.g., community, 

church, or other volunteer activities

 None

 Other Describe: ____________________ 

 __________________________________ 

 __________________________________

I20. What type of supervisory training do you 

wish you had received early in your career 

as a supervisor but did not? Please list one 

to five topics. 

1. _________________________________ 

2. _________________________________ 

3. _________________________________ 

4. _________________________________ 

5. _________________________________ 

I21. According to Federal regulation, all 

supervisors must serve a one-year 

probationary period when they first become 

supervisors. When you first became a 

supervisor, were you informed that you 

would be on probation for a year? 

 No

 Yes

 Don’t remember

I22. Was your performance during your 

probationary period as a supervisor actually 

used to decide if you should continue in a 

supervisory role? 

 No

 Yes

 Don’t know

THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS SURVEY! 

PLEASE MAIL YOUR COMPLETED SURVEY IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE. 

If you have misplaced the envelope, please return the survey to: 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

c/o Westat 

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850 

If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the MSPB Survey Support Center 

Toll-free: 1-888-260-4798 

Live support Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Eastern and voice mail at all other times 

Email: MeritPrinciplesSurvey@mspb.gov 
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419

_________________________________

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

Managing for Engagement – 

Communication, Connection,

and Courage