The Federal Workforce 

for the 21st Century 

Results of the Merit 

Principles Survey 2000 

A Report to the President and the 

Congress of the United States by the 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 
THE CHAIRMAN 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 


1615 M Street, NW 


Washington, DC 20419-0001


September 2003 

The President 


President of the Senate 


Speaker of the House of Representatives 


Dear Sirs: 


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, "The Federal Workforce for the 21st Century: Results of the Merit 

Principles Survey 2000." 

The prominent placement of “Strategic Human Capital Management” as the first of five 

Governmentwide initiatives in the President’s Management Agenda clearly acknowledges that the Federal 

Government is faced with one of its most serious challenges. The downsizing of the 1990s and the 

unexpected losses of senior personnel in critical positions--coupled with a relatively small influx of new 

hires and difficulties in recruiting highly qualified applicants--have raised concerns about Federal 

employees not having the right mix of skills to do the work. These skill imbalances threaten to become 

an even greater problem in the face of projected retirements and rapidly changing demands on the 

Government’s workforce. Against this backdrop, the experiences and opinions of employees can provide 

valuable insights into the impact of the downsizing on their work and the factors related to their decisions 

to stay or leave. This report consolidates and summarizes the results of a Governmentwide survey and 

identifies human resource management areas to be addressed to ensure a productive Federal workforce. 

Although the employees we surveyed generally believe that the Federal workforce is productive, 

the stresses resulting from the downsizing and the demands of a changing work environment revealed 

some potential problem areas. Among these are skill imbalances, loss of institutional memory, and 

negative personnel management experiences that can adversely affect quality of worklife and employees’ 

intentions to stay or leave their jobs. This report clarifies these issues and offers suggestions that may 

help agency managers resolve some of the problem areas we have identified. A follow-up survey is being 

planned to examine how the significant events since the survey, such as the events of 9/11, may have 

affected the perceptions of the Federal workforce. 

I believe you will find this report useful as you consider the challenge of shaping and managing a 

highly qualified Federal workforce that is fully prepared to meet the needs of the 21st century. 

Respectfully, 

Susanne T. Marshall

This page is intentionally left blank.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board


Susanne T. Marshall, 
Chairman


Neil A. G. McPhie, Member


Office of Policy and Evaluation 

Director 

Steve Nelson 

Deputy Director 

John Crum, Ph.D. 

Project Manager 

Paul van Rijn, Ph.D. 

Project Contributors 

Jamie J. Carlyle, Ph.D. 

Ligaya J. Fernandez 

Annette Butler 
This page is intentionally left blank.


iv THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii


Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


Employee Views of Staffing and Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


Decreases in Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


Erosion of Institutional Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6


Need for Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7


Productivity of the Work Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8


Quality of Work Performed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10


Employee Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11


Overall Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11


Relationship of Job Satisfaction to Performance Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


Areas in Need of Attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


Employee Views on Staying or Leaving Their Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


General Views on the Immediate Supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20


Supervisor Support for Career Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21


Supervisor’s Staffing Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21


How Supervisors Deal With Poor Performers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22


Poor Performers and Work Unit Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23


Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


Experiences and Beliefs About Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27


Perceptions About Prohibited Personnel Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37


Identifying Skill Imbalances and Planning Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38


Improving Hiring Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38


Taking Career Development Seriously . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38


Improving Supervisor Communication Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38


Elevating the Importance of Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39


Improving the Selection of Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39


Dealing with Weak Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39


Emphasizing the Positives About Federal Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39


Addressing Employee Mistrust of the Selection and Promotion Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39


Dealing More Effectively with Poor Performers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40


Ensuring a Culture Free from Reprisals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40


Appendix 1: The Merit Principles Survey 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41


A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD v

This page is intentionally left blank.


vi THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000

Executive Summary 

Periodic assessment of the health of the Federal merit systems is critical to ensuring the 

Federal workforce is able to meet the needs and expectations of the American public. 

Such an assessment is especially important today, in light of a potential “human capital 

crisis” in the Federal workforce and likely consequences of that crisis on the 

accomplishment of critical goals and missions. This report examines the health of the 

merit systems within the context of this human capital crisis. Our analyses rely primarily 

on data collected from a Governmentwide administration of a survey of Federal 

employee perceptions and experiences concerning their work. 

We found a number of problem areas that may have a significant impact on the human 

capital crisis. Although the employees we surveyed generally believe that the workforce is 

productive, the downsizing of the 1990s has resulted in skill imbalances—when workers 

don’t have the right mix of skills to do the work—that undermine the ability of the 

civilian workforce to carry out its missions. In a number of important areas, employee 

perceptions and experiences have become more negative since the 1996 administration of 

our survey. Even more disturbing is the possibility that significant events since the survey, 

such as the events of 9/11 and the restructuring of agencies into the Department of 

Homeland Security, may adversely affect the situation. A follow-up survey to be 

conducted in the coming year will examine more closely the effects recent events may 

have had on the workforce and how human capital crisis issues are being addressed. 

While the economic downturn of the last few years may have slowed the loss of critical 

skills, it may simply have delayed the crisis. We will continue to monitor and anticipate 

any imbalances in the skills needed to accomplish the Government’s mission. Ultimately, 

part of the solution will need to involve attracting candidates with the skills and abilities 

most needed by the Government. However, given the continued potential for losses with 

turnover and retirements in critical occupations, retaining the best workers is also an 

important component. The data from our Merit Principles Survey 2000 offer many 

insights into the factors related to employee decisions to stay or leave their jobs. The data 

can help identify areas to be addressed to ensure long-term success in dealing with the 

human capital crisis confronting the Federal workforce for the 21st century. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD vii 
In this report, we summarize the major results of 

MSPB’s Merit Principles Survey 2000 (or 

MPS2000). We administer the survey every three 

to four years to assess the health of Federal merit 

systems from the perspective of the Federal 

workforce. Their assessment of how well the 

Government is working can identify relationships 

among variables that can be used to improve the 

operation of Federal programs. Respondents to our 

survey are also an important source of information 

about human capital issues affecting the Federal 

workforce — issues that need attention because of 

the unprecedented changes in the workplace as 

well as expected major new challenges. Specifically, 

downsizing, restructuring, and changing 

demographics have resulted in skill imbalances in 

the Federal Government’s workforce, leading to a 

“human capital crisis” that represents a significant 

challenge to the ability of Federal agencies to meet 

their missions. 

Findings 

The Government downsizing that occurred in the 

1990s was largely accomplished through “buyouts” 

and not replacing those employees who left the 

Federal service. While this meant that relatively 

few employees were involuntarily separated from 

Government service, it also meant that many of 

the reductions that occurred were unplanned and 

not related to changes in organizational missions. 

Wherever possible, we summarize our survey 

respondent views in the context of the downsizing 

and its effect on the health of the Federal civil 

service. 

Employees Experienced Negative 

Consequences After Downsizing 

◆ While 62 percent of our respondents said they 

worked in units that had been downsized, only 

7 percent believed it had made their unit more 

efficient. 

◆ More importantly, half (50 percent) of our 

respondents said their work unit currently did 

not have enough employees to do the work. 

Only 39 percent said their unit had enough 

employees and 11 percent were not sure. This 

is a further deterioration of the working 

conditions we found in 1996. 

◆ Perhaps even more important than the 

shortage of workers is the finding that 46 

percent of our respondents believed that the 

downsizing had seriously eroded institutional 

memory or knowledge in their work unit. 

◆ The changing working environment has also 

left many employees unprepared to do their 

jobs effectively. More than a quarter of our 

respondents said they had not received the 

needed training to perform their job, and 48 

percent said they need more training to 

perform it effectively. 

Employees Still Believe They and


Their Work Units are Highly Productive


◆ Despite problems created by the downsizing, 

the majority of respondents (83 percent) rated 

their own productivity highly (7 or higher on a 

10-point scale). Additionally, 66 percent gave 

this rating or higher to the work performed by 

their work unit and 53 percent said that their 

organization was working at this level. 

◆ When asked to rate the quality of the work 

performed by their work unit, 67 percent rated 

the work of their unit as outstanding or above 

average. 

◆ Efforts to empower Federal workers are 

continuing as 51 percent said they had been 

given more flexibility in how they did their 

work during the past 2 years. Notably, having 

greater flexibility is related to greater 

productivity in the work unit. Some 66 

percent of the respondents who said they had 

been given more flexibility also reported 

improved work unit productivity. 

Employee Job Satisfaction 

Appears To Be Slipping 

◆ While 67 percent of employees still say they 

are satisfied with their jobs at the time of the 

survey in 2000, this percentage, in conjunction 

viii THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
with several other measures of satisfaction, 

suggests a downturn in overall employee job 

satisfaction since 1989 (70 percent). 

◆ The measures of job satisfaction showing a 

decline include the meaningfulness of work, 

whether employees would recommend the 

Government as a place to work, and the belief 

that a spirit of cooperation and teamwork 

exists in their work unit. 

◆ Overall, job satisfaction was highly related to 

how respondents rated many aspects of their 

job, including the productivity of their work 

unit, the quality of work performed, and their 

intentions of leaving the work unit. 

Some Planned Retirements


May Worsen the Human Capital Crisis


Additional workforce problems may arise given the 

changing demographics of the workforce. In 

particular, there is a potential for an even greater 

loss of institutional memory in many 

organizations over the next 5 to 10 years as the 

numbers of employees eligible to retire increases. 

Most significantly, there appears to be a 

relationship between planned retirements and 

problems of understaffing. 

◆ While 12 percent of the respondents said they 

were currently eligible for retirement, an 

additional 32 percent said they would become 

eligible to retire during 2001 to 2005. Of 

these, fully three-quarters said they planned to 

retire during that time. 

◆ Second only to a desire to pursue nonwork 

interests, excessive job stress was cited as the 

most important reason for planning to retire. 

Significantly, of respondents planning to retire, 

68 percent came from units where there were 

not enough employees to do the work. In 

comparison, of respondents planning to retire 

for non-stress reasons, just 41 percent came 

from such understaffed work units. 

Employees Who Plan to Leave are Also 

Dissatisfied With Their Supervisor 

◆ Although 58 percent of employees generally 

were satisfied with their supervisors, some 24 

percent were dissatisfied. Consistently, 

employees satisfied with their supervisor 

differed markedly from employees dissatisfied 

with their supervisor. For example, employees 

dissatisfied with their supervisor were about 

twice as likely to say they intended to look for 

another job in the coming year as employees 

who were satisfied with their supervisor (53 

percent vs. 28 percent). 

Employees are Concerned About Some Aspects 

of Their Supervision 

◆ Supervisors more frequently got high marks 

for their technical skill (60 percent) and 63 

percent said their supervisor promotes high 

standards of integrity and conduct. However, 

less than half (47 percent) said their supervisor 

had good management skills. 

◆ Only 41 percent of employees believed that 

their supervisor encouraged their career 

development. They were also fairly negative 

about their supervisor’s staffing decisions, such 

as whether their supervisor promotes the best 

qualified person (only 32 percent thought this) 

and uses fair and open competition when 

promoting someone (31 percent believed this). 

◆ Respondents gave their supervisor the lowest 

rating for the treatment of poor performers. 

While 45 percent of respondents said their 

supervisor retains employees based on their job 

performance, just 35 percent claimed that their 

supervisor deals effectively with misconduct on 

the job, and just 22 percent said their 

supervisor deals effectively with poor 

performers. 

◆ Of those respondents in work units with at 

least one employee who they considered 

deserving to be fired, only 9 percent reported 

that their supervisor dealt effectively with poor 

performers. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD ix 
◆ Only 20 percent of respondents said that their 

current performance appraisal system 

motivates them to do a better job and an 

identically small percentage said it had helped 

job-related communications with their 

supervisor. 

Some Employees Continue to Report Negative 

Personnel Management Experiences 

◆ Personal experiences of denials of a job or job 

benefit because of discrimination based on 

race/national origin, age, or sex continue to be 

reported by more than 10 percent of the 

respondents. 

◆ While formal disclosures of unlawful behavior, 

waste, fraud, or abuse had been made by just 7 

percent of the respondents, 44 percent of these 

respondents reported experiencing retaliation. 

◆ While only 9 percent of respondents reported 

having formally exercised their appeal rights, 

61 percent (or 6 out of 10) of these 

respondents felt that they had been retaliated 

against for taking this action. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

In the report, we examine a variety of factors that 

have contributed to the human capital crisis we 

face in the Federal workforce. Although 

respondents to our survey still consider the Federal 

workforce a productive one, the scope and 

approach to downsizing of the workforce during 

the 1990s, along with problems in bringing in new 

talent, have left the workforce with skill 

imbalances and erosion of institutional memory. 

Adding to the problem is the potential loss of 

additional seasoned employees as a large 

proportion of the workforce nears retirement 

eligibility. 

Our MPS2000 survey results provide some 

possible clues for approaches to addressing the 

challenges of a human capital crisis. Based on 

employee responses to our survey, we offer the 

following general recommendations: 

◆ Agency managers should systematically assess 

the degree to which employee skills match the 

job skills needed now and in the future to 

carry out agency missions. If imbalances exist, 

they should address those imbalances in their 

strategic plans for recruitment, hiring, and 

employee development. 

◆ Agency managers should ensure that 

supervisors within the agency have both the 

ability and the desire to communicate 

effectively with employees, even when the 

information is negative, such as that necessary 

to address performance deficiencies. This may 

involve instituting more effective supervisor 

selection, training, and development systems. 

◆ Agency managers and HR officials should 

incorporate findings from MSP2000 

concerning what attracts individuals to Federal 

service into their recruitment strategies. 

◆ Agency managers should share information 

more freely concerning their strategies for 

hiring and selecting employees and provide job 

candidates with more realistic expectations 

about the job and the opportunities for 

advancement. 

◆ Agency managers should examine their 

agency’s culture to ensure they provide 

adequate support for supervisors and managers 

who are trying to deal effectively with poor 

performers. 

◆ Agency managers should take any necessary 

steps to foster a culture where employees are 

free to exercise their appeal rights or report 

waste, fraud or abuse without reprisal or the 

fear of reprisal. 

Clearly, these recommendations and the findings 

discussed throughout this report are not the 

panacea for the Government’s HR management 

problems. However, these recommendations can 

help shed some light on the nature of the crisis 

facing the Federal workforce and suggest some 

possible ways to begin to address its major 

challenges. 

x THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
Introduction 

Every three or four years, the U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) conducts a 

Governmentwide survey of Federal employees and 

supervisors. This survey, the Merit Principles 

Survey, provides a rich source of data for assessing 

the health of the Federal merit systems. Federal 

employees share with us their views and perceptions about the human resources management 

issues affecting them—information that can be 

especially useful when tracked over time. Changes 

in employee perceptions and experiences can indicate when something else may be changing in the 

workforce—whether it is knowledge, awareness, 

attitudes, events, or behaviors. Depending on the 

changes, these indicators can often flag areas in 

human resources management that need further 

analysis or attention. 

We conducted such a survey in the spring of 2000 

(see Appendix 1). In conducting the survey, we 

randomly selected a sample of 17,250 full-time 

permanent civilian employees (supervisors and 

nonsupervisors) from the Federal workforce of 

over 1.5 million employees in executive branch 

agencies (excluding the U.S. Postal Service and 

various intelligence agencies). The sampling plan 

was stratified by the major large Federal executive 

branch agencies to help ensure that there would be 

sufficient numbers of respondents from each 

agency to permit agency-level comparisons. 

Participation in the survey was voluntary and 

responses were anonymous. Excluding 

nondeliverables, completed surveys were returned 

by 6,958 employees for a response rate of 43 

percent. This response rate is consistent with rates 

obtained in similar Governmentwide surveys 

conducted during that time period.1 

This report consolidates and discusses some of our 

survey findings that are particularly important 

given the attention that has been given in recent 

years to the management of our Federal workforce 

and the “human capital crisis” in that workforce. 

Many of the major findings have already been 

reported in our Issues of Merit newsletters and 

been shared with interested parties inside and 

outside the participating Federal agencies. 

Increased Emphasis on Human 

Resources Management Concerns 

The importance of a capable and reliable Federal 

workforce has been a consistent theme of reports 

issued by MSPB and others for a long time. 

However, when terrorists attacked the World Trade 

Centers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 

the concerns about the capabilities of our Federal 

workforce were seen in an all-new light and took 

on a new urgency. A public that perhaps had not 

previously given much thought to the work of the 

Federal workforce became very concerned about 

1 National Partnership for Reinventing Government and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2000 Government-wide Employee Survey, 

from http://web.archive.org/web/20010611173337/www.employeesurvey.gov/2000-backg.asp Dec. 2000. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 1 
that workforce’s ability to protect the Nation and 

provide services and support for those in need. 

Of course, the “human capital crisis” in the Federal 

Government, as it has come to be known, was 

recognized well before the events of September 11. 

Agency leaders and congressional policymakers 

had already identified a number of concerns about 

the Federal workforce. In May of 2000, Senator 

Fred Thompson issued “Government at the 

Brink,” a report highlighting major problems with 

the state of the Federal workforce.2 In November 

of the same year, Senator George Voinovich in a 

report to the President expressed concerns that a 

crisis that had developed in the Federal public 

service as a result of years of downsizing and 

technological change.3 Then, in January of 2001, 

the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) placed 

human capital on the Federal 

President’s Management Agenda, OPM is leading 

the Government’s Human Capital initiative and, 

in collaboration with GAO and OMB, has 

prepared a single comprehensive Human Capital 

Assessment and Accountability Framework7

 for 

agencies to use in establishing their human capital 

management standards and for gauging their 

progress. 

Certainly, the downsizing of the workforce that 

occurred during the 1990s contributed to the crisis 

facing the Federal workforce. As can be seen in 

figure 1, during the 1990s the Federal workforce 

experienced a dramatic decline. The resulting 

employment levels returned to those in the 1960’s. 

However, it wasn’t just the magnitude of the 

downsizing that led to the current situation, but 

the way it was done. Faced with targets for 

Government’s “high risk” list, 

warning of serious 

consequences of ignoring the 

growing problems in the 

Federal workforce.4 The 

executive branch, for the first 

time in 2000, included 

“human capital management” 

in the U.S. Government’s 

budget (FY2001) as a “Priority 

Management Objective”5 and 

the Bush Administration 

designated “Strategic 

Management of Human 

Capital” as the first of its five 

management initiatives for 

FY2002.6 As part of the 

Figure 1. Trend of civilian employment, 

executive branch (FY1985 FY2002) 

1,400

1,500

1,600

1,700

1,800

1,900

2,000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Number of Employees 

(in thousands) 

Source: l Management, Central Personnel Data File 

(http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/Age_Dist.htm) as of Nov. 26, 2002. 

U.S. Office of Personne

2

 Fred Thompson, Government at the Brink: Volume 1, Urgent Federal Government Management Problems Facing the Bush Administration, A report of the 

Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, 106th Congress, June 2001. 

3

 George V. Voinovich, Report to the President: The Crisis in Human Capital, A report of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 

Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, 106th Congress, December 2000. 

4

 For example, see U.S General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A Governmentwide Perspective, GAO-01-241, Jan. 2001; 

and High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-01-263, January 2001. 

5 The White House, Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, “Actions to Further Improve Management of Human Resources,” 

June 9, 2000. 

6

 Office of Management and Budget, The President’s Management Agenda: Fiscal Year 2002, Aug. 24, 2001. 

7

 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework, draft report, Nov. 1, 2002. 

2 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
substantial reductions (and hoping to minimize 

pain and disruption), many departments and 

agencies offered incentives for employees to 

separate from public service. Not surprisingly, 

those most likely to take advantage of the 

incentives offered were often those who had been 

in the Federal service the longest. While the 

incentives helped agencies accomplish targeted 

reductions with few involuntary separations, their 

use appears to have had unintended consequences. 

In some organizations, for example, unanticipated 

losses of senior personnel may have led to gaps in 

institutional memory, and at the same time many 

organizations are raising concerns about not 

having the right combination of skills to 

accomplish their mission. These skill imbalances 

threaten to become an even greater problem as the 

mix of jobs needed to carry out the Government’s 

mission changes over time; for example, to address 

the increased security needs of the nation or the 

increasing proportion of professional/ 

administrative jobs in the Federal workforce. 

As the demands for Government services and 

national security continue to increase, many 

agencies are struggling to close their skill gaps. 

After so many years in a “downsizing mode,” 

agencies are reporting difficulties in recruiting 

effectively for the skills they need. While the 

decentralization and delegation of recruitment 

seen in recent years may be beneficial for large 

agencies with adequate staffs to administer their 

recruitment programs, such changes have created 

problems for small agencies without the resources 

to recruit. Furthermore, many agencies are finding 

recruiting difficult because of salary and hiring 

restrictions that work against them in today’s 

highly competitive labor market. 

8

 For example, see Voinovich, op. cit., p. 2. 

Unfortunately, workforce demographics suggest 

evidence that the crisis may get worse before it gets 

better. The number of Federal baby boomers cited 

to become eligible for retirement is of some 

concern.8 As this cohort starts to become eligible 

for retirement, the number of retirements is 

certain to increase. Both GAO9 and OPM10 issued 

reports concerning the expected increase in 

retirements from the Federal Government as we 

enter the 21st century. 

To put the expected increase in perspective, OPM 

estimated that the projected increase in actual 

retirements would be gradual—increasing from a 

projected 3.4 percent of the Federal workforce in 

FY2001 to 4.1 percent in FY2005.11 As it turns 

out, thus far the actual rates of retirements have 

been well less than expected (2.7 percent in 

FY2001 and 2.7 percent in FY2002). Such 

deviations from expected retirement rates 

underscore that retirements are voluntary and 

influenced by many factors internal and external 

to the workplace. While the predicted and actual 

retirement rates do not appear unmanageable, 

both OPM and GAO note that there are wide 

variations among agencies and occupations and 

the delayed exodus of retirement eligibles may 

simply defer a potential skill loss. Moreover, even 

losses of just a few employees can become critical if 

these employees are in mission-critical positions 

for which replacements are difficult to find. This is 

especially true given the fact that the downsizing 

strategies of the 1990s already have impaired the 

ability of some agencies to perform their core 

missions.12 

Because no one knows for sure how many 

employees will actually leave, agencies need to take 

appropriate steps to plan for possible workforce 

9

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Employee Retirements Expected to Increase over the Next 5 Years Illustrates Need for Workforce Planning, GAO-01-509, 

Apr. 2001. 

10 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Retirement Statistics, May 2001,” see http://www.opm.gov/feddata/retire/fy99rs.pdf. 

11 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, op. cit. p. 52. 

12 U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Managing Human Capital in the 21st Century, GAO/T-GGD-00-77, Mar. 9, 2000; and Human Capital: 

Meeting the Governmentwide High-Risk Challenge, GAO-01-35T, Feb. 1, 2001. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 3 
shortages and skill imbalances, or 

face serious consequences. The 

lower-than-expected rates of 

retirement in FY2001 and 

FY2002 may simply have delayed 

the surge in retirements. Changes 

in the economy, major workforce 

restructuring, and other factors 

can quickly shift the balance 

between staying and leaving. For 

this reason, it is important that 

agencies remain vigilant to 

changes in retirement rates to 

ensure more accurate workforce 

planning. 

Figure 2 shows that the number 

of employees in the 50- to 54-

year age group is notably larger 

today than it was in 1985— 

specifically, about 107,000 

employees larger. As a result of 

the years of downsizing during 

the 1990s with relatively few new 

Figure 2. Number of full-time permanent Federal 

employees at various age groupings, 1985 and 2002 

(http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/Age

0 

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

< 24 

_Dis

25 - 29

30 - 34

35 - 39

40 - 44

45 - 49

50 - 54

55 - 59

60 - 64

 65< 

Total 

Age Group s (Years) 

1985 

t.htm) as of Nov. 26, 2002. 

2002 

Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Central Personnel Data File 

hires, employees in this age


group (who constitute a major component of the


employees who will become eligible to retire in the


coming years) increased from just 12 percent of


the Government’s workforce in September 1985 to


over 21 percent in September 2002.


While workforce demographics, retirement


eligibility statistics, and historical turnover trends


provide useful information, they don’t tell us much


about how inclined employees may actually be to


leave their jobs. In contrast, their experiences and


opinions about their jobs and worklife can give us


valuable insights into the impact of the human


capital crisis on their work and factors related to


their decisions to stay in or leave their jobs.


Responses to the Merit Principles Survey 2000 

(MPS2000) are particularly important in this 

regard, telling us not only whether the respondents 

are likely to remain Federal employees but also 

show how the human capital crisis is shaping their 

opinions and affecting agency operations. This 

report presents our findings from the survey in the 

hope that these employee and supervisor views can 

aid policymakers and other Federal officials as they 

work to ensure that our Nation’s Federal workforce 

is prepared to meet future challenges in an 

uncertain world. 

4 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
Employee Views of 

Staffing and Productivity 

Decreases in Staff 

Many of the issues raised by those warning of a 

human capital crisis in the Federal Government 

were echoed in the experiences and opinions of the 

employees we surveyed. Among employees’ 

greatest concerns is the effect that a decade of 

downsizing has had on their work 

accomplished. Not surprisingly, although it may 

have been an effective cost- and staff-cutting 

strategy, respondents saw the downsizing as having 

a decidedly negative and unintended effect on the 

efficiency of their work unit. Over two-thirds of 

our survey respondents (69 percent) disagreed with 

unit. While our respondents gave 

their work unit rather high marks 

for productivity and quality of 

work, the downsizing of the 

1990s has left its mark. As shown 

in figure 3, almost two-thirds (62 

percent) of our respondents 

worked in units that had 

undergone some downsizing in 

the 5 years preceding the survey, 

namely 1994 through 1999. 

Because agencies wanted to limit 

the number of Reduction in 

Force (RIF) actions they had to 

take, and to ensure that women 

and minorities were not unduly 

affected by the reductions, most 

of the downsizing during this 

time was accomplished by 

attrition. However, by relying 

primarily on attrition rather than 

on careful assessments of 

organizational requirements and 

future needs, many agencies were 

left with severe skill imbalances 

once the downsizing was 

Figure 3. Respondent views on downsizing 

62 

46 

39 

17 

7 

10 

26 

11 

11 

24 

28 

28 

50 

72 

69 

My work unit has been downsized in 

the last 5 years. 

Downsizing has seriously eroded 

institutional memory in my work unit. 

My work unit has a sufficient number 

of employees to do its job. 

A private sector company could 

perform the work just as effectively as 

my work unit. 

Downsizing has helped make my work 

unit more efficient. 

Agree Neither Disagree 

Source: MSPB, Principles Survey 2000, questions 4, 13, 38, 39, and 40. 

Survey Statement 

Percent 

Merit

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 5 
the statement that the downsizing had helped 

make their unit more efficient and only 7 percent 

agreed. 

Perhaps even more importantly, half (50 percent) 

of our respondents said their work unit did not 

have enough employees to do the work, while only 

39 percent said there were enough employees, and 

11 percent were unsure. Individual agencies varied 

widely in the perceived adequacy of the number of 

employees to do the work. At one extreme, 

employees of the Veterans Administration, NASA, 

Interior, and the Social Security Administration 

expressed the most concern about worker 

shortages, with more than 6 out of 10 respondents 

from those agencies saying there were not enough 

employees to do the work. Even among agencies 

with the least reported staff shortages (i.e., Energy, 

Treasury, and Navy) almost 40 percent of our 

respondents reported insufficient numbers of 

employees to do the work. 

It is important to note that we found only a weak 

link between ratings of the sufficiency of the 

number of employees to do the work and the 

extent to which an agency had actually downsized 

during the 1990s. For example, the U.S. 

Department of Defense agencies experienced some 

of the greatest reductions in personnel, yet 

respondents from those agencies were not 

particularly likely to report insufficient numbers of 

personnel at the time of our survey. Possibly, the 

workforce reductions in these agencies were 

accompanied by corresponding changes in mission 

or by reduced workloads due to closing military 

bases or contracting out some of the work. 

Erosion of Institutional Memory 

As noted previously, downsizing affects not just 

the number of employees available to do the work 

but depending on how the downsizing was 

conducted, also the quality and expertise of the 

workers remaining to do the work. To minimize 

the number of involuntary separations, the 

Government’s downsizing strategy during the 

1990s relied primarily on buyouts of senior 

employees coupled with a hiring freeze.

13 Since 

many of the most able and most knowledgeable 

employees are often among the first to leave,14 it 

comes as no surprise that almost half (46 percent) 

of our survey respondents said that downsizing 

had seriously eroded the institutional memory of 

their work unit. 

While the magnitude of the downsizing in an 

agency was only weakly linked to the extent to 

which respondents said there were sufficient 

employees to do the work, it was more strongly 

related to the perceived loss of institutional 

memory in the affected work units. The agencies 

in our sample that had experienced the greatest 

downsizing since 1993 were the DOD agencies, 

Housing and Urban Development, NASA, the 

General Services Administration, and Energy.

15 

Respondents from each of these agencies were the 

ones most likely to report erosions of institutional 

memory, with serious losses being reported by at 

least 50 percent of the respondents in those 

agencies. Justice Department employees were the 

least likely (24 percent) to report erosion of 

institutional memory. Perhaps not coincidentally, 

at the time of the survey, Justice was the agency 

with the largest employment gain (28 percent) 

since 1993. 

It is important to note that even in other agencies 

that gained employees (e.g., Commerce) or that 

lost relatively few employees (e.g., State, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and Labor), 

almost one-third of the respondents from those 

other agencies thought that their work unit had 

experienced a loss of institutional memory. This 

suggests that even when reductions are relatively 

small, those separated may have possessed 

13 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Downsizing in the Federal Government, Aug. 1998.


14 Bedeian and Armenakis, op. cit., p. 59.


15 Each of these agencies experienced reductions of at least 20 percent between January 1993 and May 2000.


6 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
f

important institutional knowledge, thus affecting 

the work of the unit. It also suggests that losses of 

institutional memory are not readily overcome by 

an influx of new hires. Although such an influx 

can fill the positions of employees who were lost, 

agencies may have to wait years before the new 

hires have the expertise of those who left, 

potentially leaving the organization with serious 

knowledge and skill gaps during that interim 

waiting period. 

Need for Training 

A 1995 MSPB report

16 on Federal training issues 

identified problems in the practice of human 

resource development in many organizations. 

Employees are often sent to training for reasons 

not related to mission or changing work 

requirements. Training resources are not always 

spent wisely, and in times of budget 

As shown in figure 4, just over half (56 percent) of 

the respondents in 2000 said that they had 

received the training needed to perform their job. 

Although not shown in the figure, one-quarter (27 

percent) said they had not received the needed 

training. It is disturbing that such a large portion 

of the 2000 workforce considered themselves 

unprepared to perform the basic tasks of their jobs. 

We note from figure 4 that the percentage of 

employees saying they had received the needed 

training increased slightly (4 percentage points) 

from 1996 to 2000, but it remains 3 percentage 

points below the 59-percent level of 1992. 

Perhaps the most striking finding depicted in 

figure 4 is the percentage of employees—48 

percent, or nearly half—saying they need more 

training to perform their jobs effectively. This is a 

dramatic increase of 11 percentage points since 

limitations—when training may 

often be most critical—training 

funds are often the first to be cut. 

The report warned that unless 

organizations change the way 

they do business and place greater 

emphasis on effective program 

evaluation and strategic planning, 

they will have difficulties 

prioritizing the use of the limited 

resources that are likely to be 

available for training. 

This warning is no less 

appropriate today, and we have 

already seen that many employees 

have reported serious erosion of 

institutional memory in their 

work unit and insufficient 

numbers of employees to do the 

work. Within this context, what 

do employees specifically say 

about the training they have 

received and their training needs? 

Figure 4. Trends in respondent perceptions of training 

received and training needed, 1992, 1996, and 2000 

56 

48 

52 

59 

32 37 

10 

30 

50 

70 

1992 1996 2000 

Survey Years 

I need more training to perform my job effectively. 

I received the training I need to per orm my job. 

Percent who "agree" or "strongly agree" 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Surveys: 2000, questions 15 and 16; 

1996, questions 5 and 6; 1992, questions 8 and 10. 

16 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Leadership for Change: Human Resources Development in the Federal Government, July 1995; pp. vii-x. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 7 
1996 and is 16 percentage points higher than in 

1992.17 Thus, more and more respondents are 

telling us that the training they have received is 

not enough and that they need more training to 

perform their jobs effectively. 

While the responses to these two training 

questions may initially appear somewhat 

contradictory, a closer examination of the 

interrelationship of these questions helps clarify 

the apparent disconnect. As would be expected, 

the 27 percent of employees who had not received 

the needed training to do their job were also very 

likely (i.e., 86 percent of them) to say they needed 

more training to perform their job effectively. 

What was less expected was the finding that so 

many employees—30 percent—of the group who 

had received needed training also said that they 

needed more training to perform their jobs 

effectively. The key terms here are “more” and 

“effectively.” While the training received may be 

adequate for employees to perform their jobs at a 

basic level, it is significant that a sizable portion of 

employees think that in order for them to perform 

their jobs effectively they need more training. 

Overall, the sharp increase in the percentage of 

employees saying they need more training should 

alert agencies that this is an area requiring 

management attention. As our survey results show, 

the skilled employees who remained in the 

workforce during the downsizing of the 1990s 

have not always been able to keep up with the 

changing technology and resultant job 

expectations. Employees may feel that they need 

more training to keep up. Traditionally, training 

resources have been additional casualties of any 

drive to downsize and reduce budgets. With gaps 

in institutional memory and workforces 

insufficiently trained to keep up with changing 

technology, many agencies may be ill prepared to 

meet the challenges they face in today’s 

environment. 

Productivity of the Work Unit 

We asked our survey respondents to rate the 

productivity of their work unit, their own 

productivity, and that of the larger organization of 

which they are a part. The respondents were asked 

to rate productivity on a 10-point scale ranging 

from 1 for “not productive at all” to 10 for 

“extremely productive.” 

Figure 5 shows that most of the productivity 

ratings were well above 6. Respondents gave their 

own work the highest productivity ratings, 

followed by that of their work unit and then that 

of the larger organization. Eighty-three (83) 

percent of the respondents gave their own 

productivity a rating of 7 or higher. Two-thirds 

(66 percent) of the respondents gave similarly high 

ratings to the work unit, and slightly over half 

(53 percent) gave such ratings to the larger 

organization. Overall, these ratings suggest that 

Federal employees generally believe that they and 

their work unit are producing at rather high 

levels.18 

In addition, despite the downsizing of the 1990s, 

nearly half (46 percent) of our survey respondents 

said the productivity of their work unit had 

improved in the past 2 years. This is down slightly 

from 49 percent in 1996. Additionally, about half 

(51 percent) of the respondents said they had been 

given more flexibility in how they did their work 

during the past 2 years. This was unchanged from 

1996. 

17 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Changing Federal Workplace: Employee Perspectives, Mar. 1998, p. 12. 

18 On the 10-point rating scale, respondents gave their own, their work unit, and their organization mean productivity ratings of 8.47, 7.90, and 7.34, 

respectively. 

8 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
Figure 5. Respondents rate their own productivity, 

that of their work unit, and that of their organization 

0 

10 

20 

30 

1 2 3 5 7 8 10 

Organization Work Unit Self 

Not at All Productive Extremely Productive

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000, questions 59a, 59b, and 59c. 

“On a 10-point scale, how would you rate the overall productivity of 

your....” 

Percent giving rating 

Productivity Ratings 

4 6 9 

As shown in figure 6, having greater 

flexibility in how employees do their 

work is related to the productivity of 

the work unit. Some 66 percent of the 

respondents who said that they had 

been given more flexibility also 

reported improved work unit 

productivity in the past 2 years. On 

the other hand, only 20 percent of the 

respondents who did not have more 

flexibility reported improved work 

unit productivity. While we have no 

evidence of a cause and effect 

relationship and we know that other 

variables are involved, the finding 

nevertheless suggests a possible link 

between the flexibility employees have 

in doing their work and the 

productivity of their work unit. 

Figure 6. Relationship of respondent views of work 

flexibility to their views of workunit productivity 

66 

20 

Responden ts 

saying they were 

given more 

fle xibility 

Responden ts 

saying they were 

not given more 

fle xibility 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000, questions 6 and 7. 

Percent of respondents who reported an 

improvem ent in work un it prod uctivity 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 9 
Quality of Work Performed 

Closely related to the productivity of 

work units is the quality of the work 

performed in those work units. To 

find out more about this issue, we 

asked employees to rate the quality 

of work performed in their work 

unit. This is the fourth time we have 

asked this question (having included 

it on our 1989, 1992, and 1996 

Merit Principles Surveys). 

As shown in figure 7, slightly over 

half of our 1989 and 1992 survey 

respondents (53 percent and 56 

percent, respectively) rated the 

quality of the work in their work 

unit as outstanding or above average. 

In 1996, this percentage jumped to 

67 percent, indicating a marked 

increase in the perception of work 

quality. In 1996, we speculated that 

some potential contributors to this 

perceived increase in work quality 

may have included the Government’s


reinvention efforts; increases in


automation; increased emphasis on results; focus


on customer-oriented service; and mandates to “do


more with less”; as well as the ongoing threat of


possible job loss.19


Our 2000 survey showed that the percentage of


employees rating their unit’s work as outstanding


or above average remaining at 67 percent. In light


of the problems cited with downsizing and a lack


of training, it is at least encouraging that two-


thirds of our respondents still believed the work of


Figure 7. Respondents saying the quality of work 

performed in their unit is “above average” 

or “outstanding,” 1989, 1992, 1996, and 2000 

56 

67 67

53 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

1989 1992 1996 2000 

Survey Years 

Sources: MSPB, Merit Principles Surveys: 2000, question 60d; 1996, 

question 46a; 1992, question 40; and 1989, question 30. 

Percent 

their unit to be of high quality. However, the 

concern must be how long this level of 

productivity and quality can be sustained, given 

the diminished “bench strength” of the workforce 

and the prospect of additional losses in critical 

occupations. Moreover, how have the problems 

associated with the downsizing affected the 

satisfaction of employees with their jobs and what 

are the implications for the long-term ability of 

agencies to accomplish their mission? 

19 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Changing Federal Workplace: Employee Perspectives, Mar. 1998, p. 23. 

10 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
Employee Job Satisfaction


Overall Job Satisfaction 

Although we have been tracking employee job 

satisfaction since 1983, changes in the survey 

permit meaningful comparisons only among the 

more recent surveys. As shown in table 1, the 

overall level of job satisfaction between 1989 and 

1996 was extremely stable. Even during the height 

of the Government’s downsizing and immediately 

following major Government shutdowns in 1996, 

job satisfaction remained relatively unchanged, 

with 71 percent of employees agreeing that in 

general, they were satisfied with their job and 87 

percent saying that their job was meaningful. At 

that time, in commenting on the reasons for the 

continued high level of job satisfaction during the 

downsizing, we noted that employees might 

simply be grateful to still have a job. We also said 

that increased flexibility in doing work and 

improvements in productivity resulting from 

Table 1. Trends in job satisfaction measures, 

1989, 1992, 1996, and 2000 

Percent who agree 

Job satisfaction measure Survey year 

1989 1992 1996 2000 

In general, I am satisfied with my job. 70 72 71 67 

The work I do on my job is meaningful to me. 88 87 87 78 

I would recommend the Federal Government 

as a place to work. 49 67 57 52 

Overall, I am satisfied with my supervisor. — 60 61 58 

Overall, I am satisfied with my pay. 28 42 50 49 

A spirit of cooperation and teamwork exists in 

my work unit. — 63 64 56 

Note: A dash (—) indicates a year in which this question was not asked. 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Surveys, 1989, 1992, 1996, and 2000. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 11 
various workplace initiatives were other likely 

reasons.20 

Table 1 shows that in 2000, the percentage of 

employees satisfied with their job dropped from 

71 percent in 1996 to 67 percent. Although this 

may not seem like a major decline, it becomes 

significant given the historical stability of 

responses to this survey item. It is also important 

to look at some of the other job satisfaction 

indicators and trends. Again, while the magnitude 

of the changes is not always large, the patterns and 

directions of the changes suggest a downward turn 

in the level of employee job satisfaction. For 

example, compared to 1996, the percentage of 

employees reporting that their work was 

meaningful dropped from a very high 87 percent 

to 78 percent. Respondents in 2000 also were less 

likely than respondents in 1996 (52 percent versus 

57 percent) to recommend the Government as a 

place to work. 

We don’t know the reasons for the downturns 

noted in job satisfaction, but a number of 

possibilities suggest themselves. One is that the 

downturn could be related to working in a unit 

with insufficient numbers of employees or in a 

unit with seriously eroded institutional memory. 

Another could be the stress associated with 

maintaining high levels of productivity and quality 

service in a fast-paced environment filled with 

demands for mastering new technologies. In 

addition to these possibilities, the general aging of 

the workforce and the possible burnout resulting 

from reduced opportunities for meaningful career 

progression could be having a serious impact on 

job satisfaction. 

Relationship of Job Satisfaction to 

Performance Outcomes 

It is generally assumed that employees who are 

satisfied with their work are more likely to provide 

high-quality service to their customers than 

employees who are not satisfied with their work. 

Over the years, extensive research on the 

relationship between employee job satisfaction and 

numerous measures of individual productivity 

have demonstrated that the relationships are 

anything but clear-cut. More recent research 

suggests that employee job satisfaction may be 

more directly related to the overall sustained 

success of their organization than to their own 

individual achievements. Not surprisingly, studies 

suggest that organizations with satisfied employees 

tend to be more successful than those whose 

employees are not satisfied.21 

Figure 8 clearly shows the magnitude of the 

relationship between job satisfaction and several 

measures closely related to work unit productivity. 

For example, a comparison of satisfied and 

dissatisfied employees shows that employees 

satisfied with their jobs were more than twice as 

likely as dissatisfied employees to agree that the 

productivity of their work unit has improved or 

that they have more flexibility in how they 

accomplish their work. 

Regardless of the reason for the downturn in 

overall job satisfaction, the potential exists for 

these attitudes to affect organizational 

productivity, and that presents a major challenge 

to agency management. But how do agency 

managers improve employee job satisfaction? Our 

respondents have provided us with their opinions 

20 Ibid., p27. 

21 Anthony J. Rucci, Steven P. Kirn, and Richard T. Quinn, “The Employee-Customer Profit Chain at Sears,” Harvard Business Review, 

Jan.-Feb. 1998, pp. 83-97. 

12 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
62 

56 

45 

73 

25 

20 

26 

49 

I have been given 

more flexibility in 

how I accomplish my 

work. 

The productivity of 

my work unit has 

improved. 

Overall productivity 

of the work unit : 

"Extremely 

productive" (ratings 

of 9 or 10). 

Overall quality of 

work performed by 

the work unit: 

"Outstanding" or 

"Above average." 

Satisfied Respondents Dissatisfied Respondents 

Source: MSPB, Principles Survey 2000, question 27 with questions 6, 7, 59f, and 60d. 

Percent who “agree” or “strongly agree” 

Survey Statement 

Figure 8. Responses to selected survey statements: 

A comparison of respondents who said they were 

satisfied with their job with those who were dissatisfied 

Merit

and their observations about their experiences 

regarding a host of areas that can provide useful 

clues for managers trying to effect change. In the 

next section we examine some of those areas, 

starting with the very things that employees have 

told us can influence their decision to stay in or 

leave their jobs. We also explore employee views of 

their supervisor—including how supportive 

supervisors are of career development, the way in 

which supervisors fill jobs, and how they deal with 

poor performers. In addition, we look at 

performance management and the impact of poor 

performers on the workgroup. Finally we explore 

the issues of discrimination and the occurrence of 

prohibited personnel practices, as they may have 

an impact on employee job satisfaction and 

willingness to stay in the workforce. If 

organizations are truly interested in addressing the 

human capital crisis, all of these areas require 

attention. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 13 
This page is intentionally left blank.


14 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000

Areas in Need of Attention


Employee Views on Staying or 

Leaving Their Jobs 

Because of our concern about potential turnover in 

the workforce over the next few years, we asked 

employees about their intentions to retire or look 

for another job and whether they were looking for 

another job inside or outside Government. We 

also asked those planning to retire or to look for 

another job about the reasons for their plans. 

Similarly, we asked those planning to stay about 

the factors that were most 

the Government. Some 6 percent of the 

respondents indicated they planned to retire. 

Retirement plans were of particular interest to us, 

especially in light of the potential loss of 

institutional memory in many organizations. 

Twelve percent of our survey respondents said they 

were eligible to retire at the time of the survey—a 

percentage that is virtually identical to the 

percentage of retirement eligibles in the Federal 

workforce in 2001, as determined from OPM’s 

important in their decision. 

These questions provide some 

indication of the variables that are 

most closely linked to employee 

decisions to stay or leave. 

Figure 9 shows that 57 percent of 

our respondents intended to stay 

in their present job in the coming 

year. Thirty-seven percent said 

they were planning to look for 

another job in the coming year. 

Most of those planning to look 

for another job (19 percent) 

intended to do so within Federal 

Government or both inside and 

outside the Government (15 

percent). Only a small percentage 

(3 percent) planned to look for 

another job exclusively outside 

Stay 

57 

Look for 

another job 

37 

In/outside Gov't 

15 

Outside Gov't 

3 

Retire 

6 

Inside Gov't 

19 

Source: MSPB, Principles Survey 2000, questions 51 and 52. 

Figure 9. Percent of respondents who plan to 

stay, retire, or look for another job in the coming year 

Merit

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 15 
Central Personnel Data File.22 Of survey 

respondents currently eligible to retire, 36 percent 

said that they planned to retire in the coming year. 

This is just slightly higher than the 30 percent rate 

(53,696 retirements out of 181,758 eligibles) that 

OPM projected to retire during 2001.23 This 

difference is not surprising, since survey responses 

reflect planned retirements, while OPM 

projections are based on actual retirements in 

previous years. Experience has demonstrated that it 

is not uncommon for employees to delay planned 

retirement. As it is, we now know that the actual 

percentage of eligibles who actually retired in 

FY2001 was well below the early projections— 

22 percent versus 30 percent.24 Downturns in the 

economy and devaluation of retirement accounts 

are suspected contributors to the lower than 

expected rates of retirement. 

When we asked survey participants in 2000 about 

their retirement eligibility in the next 5 years, 

37 percent said they were eligible or would 

become eligible within 5 years. Of those already 

eligible or to become eligible in 5 years, more than 

three-quarters (77 percent) indicated that they 

would retire in that time frame—namely 5 years.25 

Managers need to be aware that—on average— 

about one-third of their employees will become 

eligible to retire within 5 years and that as many as 

three-fourths of them report intentions of leaving 

during that time. These separations are in addition 

to the employees who will resign or leave the work 

unit for reasons other than retirement. Aside from 

the obvious implications of needing to plan for 

replacements to do the work of the unit, managers 

are likely to find that motivating employees who 

are planning to leave requires different incentives 

than those for employees planning to stay in their 

current jobs. 

These data clearly indicate that while the Federal 

workforce has a solid core of employees planning 

to stay in their current job, more than 40 percent 

of employees have other plans for the near future. 

Because many of those looking for another job 

indicated they are doing so within the 

Government, the implications for the Federal 

workforce are much less critical than for the 

individual work units that will be losing an 

employee. Job mobility within the Government 

does not result in a loss of the moving employee’s 

expertise to the Government and can often result 

in further development or better use of that 

expertise within the Federal workforce. For the 

supervisor and the work unit losing the employee, 

however, the issue can be more problematic. To 

better understand what determines whether an 

employee retires, looks for another job, or stays in 

the current job, we asked employees to share their 

thoughts. 

Reasons for retiring. To assist managers in 

motivating and possibly retaining valued 

employees who are contemplating retirement, we 

asked the 6 percent of our survey respondents who 

planned to retire in the coming year to tell us what 

factors from a list of 27 played the most important 

role in their decision to retire. Figure 10 shows the 

10 most important factors. By far, the most 

frequently cited (73 percent) reason for retiring 

was nonwork interests. This is not something a 

supervisor is likely to have much control over, 

except for possibly setting up a more flexible or 

part-time working arrangement that will permit 

some employees to pursue their nonwork interests 

while still contributing to the work of the unit. 

Excessive job stress was cited as the second most 

important reason for planning to retire, with 

45 percent rating it important or very important. 

22 Unpublished data from OPM of Feb. 8, 2001 show that 12.3 percent of the 1,480,941 full-time permanent Federal employees onboard on July 1, 2000 

were eligible to retire. 

23 Op. cit. 

24 Unpublished data from OPM’s FY2001 CPDF Dynamics Data including FY1997-FY2001 Trends, p. 3. 

25 This is not unlike the 29 percent cumulative eligibility rate OPM calculated from 2001 through 2005 in unpublished data from OPM, Feb. 8, 2001. At 

that time, OPM calculated that there would be a total of some 433,223 full-time permanent employees eligible to retire during 2001 through 2005 and that 

292,751 of these eligibles were projected to actually retire (68 percent) during that time. 

16 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
73 

45 

42 

40 

40 

37 

36 

35 

35 

33 

Nonwork interests 

Excessive job stress 

Desire to work on your own 

Better use of skills and abilities 

Too few people to handle the work 

Lack of recognition 

Desire for different work 

Family reasons 

Problems with higher level supervisors 

Inadequate equipment, supplies, etc. 

Source: MSPB Merit Principles Survey 2000, question 51 with question 53A. 

Percent saying the reason is “important” 

Reason for retiring or “very important”

Figure 10. Top 10 reasons respondents 

plan to retire in the coming year 

work unit did not have sufficient 

employees to do the work.

27 

When stress was cited as a factor 

in the decision to retire, 68 

percent of those planning to 

retire said their work unit did not 

have sufficient employees to do 

the work. When stress was not 

cited as a factor, just 41 percent 

said their work unit did not have 

sufficient employees. 

These findings suggest that 

workload is an issue that 

managers and supervisors should 

consider when encouraging 

valued retirement-eligible 

employees not to retire. Second, 

they suggest that some of the 

valued employees planning to 

retire might be retained if their 

work stress levels could be 

reduced. For some, options to 

work part-time, share work, work 

Rounding out the top 5 were the 

desire to work on one’s own (42 

percent), the desire to make better use 

of one’s skills and abilities (40 

percent), and insufficient numbers of 

employees to do the work (40 

percent).26 

The emergence of insufficient 

numbers of employees to do the work 

and excessive job stress among the top 

five reasons for retiring raises the 

question of whether the two might be 

related. Closer examination shows that 

this is indeed the case, as is shown in 

figure 11. Respondents who plan to 

retire and who cite excessive job stress 

as a factor tended to report that their 

Figure 11. Relationship of respondent views of staffing 

levels to their views of job stress as a reason to retire 

Respondents who 

said stress was a 

41 

Percent of respondents saying unit 

does not have enough employees 

68 reason to retire 

Respondents who 

said stress was 

not a reason to 

retire 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000, questions 51 and 53A9 with question 4. 

26 In addition to indicating the importance of each of 27 reasons to retire, we asked respondents to select the 3 most important reasons. Using this approach, 

the top 3 reasons and the percentage of respondents including the reason among their top 3 were: nonwork interests (50 percent), excessive job stress (24 

percent), and family reasons (22 percent). 

27 Pearson product moment correlation is r = -.25, p < .01. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 17 
at home, or work on more flexible schedules may 

induce them to work a while longer, possibly long 

enough to help train new hires. 

Reasons for looking for another job. Just as it is 

important for managers and supervisors to better 

understand the reasons employees are planning to 

retire, it is also important to find out why 

employees may be looking for another job. As 

noted previously, some 37 percent of our 

respondents said they were planning to look for 

another job in the coming year—a much larger 

proportion than the 6 percent planning to retire. 

Consequently, it is important to manage this 

segment of the workforce wisely. A supervisor’s 

focus will differ depending on whether he or she is 

trying to keep a valued employee from leaving the 

Federal workforce, or just trying 

motivations behind looking for another job were 

their desires to make better use of their skills (86 

percent) and to increase their opportunities for 

advancement (84 percent). The desire to earn 

more money (76 percent) was a close third, 

followed by the desire to improve opportunities 

for training (64 percent). The top 10 list is 

rounded out by many of the same reasons that 

were cited by employees planning to retire: Lack of 

recognition, desire for different work, too few 

people to do the work, inadequate resources to do 

the job well, and excessive stress. And, as might be 

expected, one factor playing a more important role 

for those planning to look for another job than for 

those planning to retire was the outside job 

market.28 

to ensure the continued 

productivity of one who is 

“looking around.” In either case, 

it is useful for the supervisor to 

know more about the reasons 

these employees say they are 

looking for another job. 

Figure 12 shows the top 10 

reasons respondents planned to 

look for another job. Unlike 

employees planning to retire, 

employees planning to look for 

another job cited multiple 

reasons as important rather than 

just a few. Eight of the top 10 

reasons were rated important or 

very important by over 50 

percent of the respondents. In 

contrast, just one of the top 10 

reasons for retiring was rated 

important or very important by 

over 50 percent of the 

respondents. 

According to our survey 

respondents, the primary 

86 

84 

76 

64 

62 

55 

51 

51 

47 

46 

Better use of skills and abilities 

Increase opportunities for advancement 

Desire to earn more money 

Improve opportunities for training 

Lack of recognition 

Desire for different work 

Good job market 

Too few people to handle the work 

Inadequate equipment, supplies, etc. 

Excessive job stress 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000, stion 51 with question 53A. 

Reason to look for another job 

Percent saying the reason is 

“important” or “very important” 

Figure 12. Top 10 reasons respondents plan 

to look for another job in the coming year 

que

28 When asked to select the 3 most important reasons for looking for another job, the top 3 reasons and the percentage of respondents selecting the reason 

were: better use of skills and abilities (45 percent); increase opportunities for advancement (45 percent); and desire to earn more money (44 percent). 

18 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
Most of the reasons cited suggest 

that employees planning to look 

for another job are driven by a 

desire to advance their career. 

Most do not appear to 

particularly want to leave Federal 

service, since most are planning 

to look for another job within the 

Government. To the extent these 

“lookers” are among the top 

performers, their managers and 

work unit supervisors may want 

to take appropriate steps to help 

retain these valued employees, at 

least within the Government if 

not within the work unit. 

Although supervisors themselves 

are not cited directly among the 

top reasons employees look for 

another job, supervisors certainly 

have responsibilities for and often 

exercise considerable control over 

many of the factors that were 

cited. In particular, supervisors 

should evaluate the extent to 

91 

86 

82 

77 

76 

75 

75 

74 

74 

70 

Federal benefit 

programs 

Job security 

Current job 

duties/responsibilities 

Your pay compared 

to outside Gov't. 

Current working 

schedule 

Opportunities to 

work on your own 

Desire not to relocate 

Challenging 

assignments 

Workers in your unit 

Commuting time 

Source: MSPB Merit Principles Survey 2000, question 51 with question 54A. 

Reason to stay 

Percent saying the reason is 

“important” or “very important” 

Figure 13. Top 10 reasons 

respondents plan to stay in their jobs 

which they have taken full


advantage of available resources to provide valued


employees with appropriate recognition, training


opportunities, and work assignments that promote


their growth and make better use of their skills and


abilities.


Reasons for staying. The majority of respondents—


about 6 out of 10—indicated they had no plans to


retire or look for another job in the coming year.


For this core group of employees, what are the


important reasons they cite for staying in their


jobs? Knowing more about the factors that are


important to employees who plan to stay may help


Government managers as well as work unit


supervisors to better motivate and retain this


largest component of the workforce.


Figure 13 shows that respondents planning to stay 

picked even more reasons for their decision than 

did respondents planning to look for another job. 

Not only did they cite more reasons to stay; the 

reasons to stay were judged important or very 

important by a larger portion of the respondents. 

Specifically, all of the top 10 reasons for staying 

were rated important or very important by 

70 percent or more of the respondents who said 

they planned to stay. 

Among the many incentives that employees 

indicated as reasons for staying are: Federal 

benefits (noted by 91 percent), job security 

(86 percent), and current job responsibilities 

(82 percent). These were followed closely by pay 

(77 percent), work schedule (76 percent), and 

opportunities to work on one’s own (75 percent).29 

29 When asked to select the 3 most important reasons for staying in the job, the top 3 reasons and the percentage of respondents selecting the reason were: 

Federal benefits program (41 percent); job security (33 percent); and pay compared to that outside Government (37 percent). 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 19 
General Views on the 

Immediate Supervisor 

Throughout its nearly 25-year 

history, the Board has conducted 

several studies addressing the 

critical role played by supervisors 

in ensuring that the 

Government’s workforce remains 

competent and motivated to 

effectively serve the American 

public.30 While various Board 

study reports have noted that 

supervisors generally do a 

commendable job in the 

technical aspects of their job, 

they do less well with human 

resources management aspects, 

particularly the less pleasant or 

potentially confrontational 

aspects. All too often, many 

supervisors approach human 

resource management tasks from 

a short-term rather than a longterm perspective.31 

Our current survey results show that, except for 

some aspects of performance management, 

employees generally give their supervisors 

reasonably good marks. As shown in figure 14, 

more than half of the respondents indicated that 

they were satisfied with their supervisor (58 

percent) and reported that their supervisor looks 

out for the personal welfare of employees in the 

work unit (55 percent). Almost two-thirds 

indicated that their supervisor promotes high 

standards of integrity and conduct (63 percent). 

However, as we found in previous studies, 

respondents were more likely to say their 

supervisor has good technical skills (60 percent) 

than good management skills (47 percent). 

Percent who “agree” or “strongly agree” 

63 

60 

58 

55 

47 

46 

41 

35 

22 

Promotes high standards of integrity, conduct, 

and concern for the public interest 

Has good technical sk ills 

Overall, I am satisfied with my supervisor 

Look s out for the personal welfare of members 

of my work unit 

Has good management sk ills 

Keeps me informed about how well I am doing 

Encourages my career development 

Deals effectively with misconduct on the job 

Deals effectively with poor performers 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000, questions 28-35, and 55e. 

Survey Statement 

My immediate supervisor... 

Figure 14. Respondent views on their immediate supervisor 

When we compared the views of supervisors made 

by employees who said they were satisfied with 

their supervisor and those who said they were not 

satisfied, we discovered some pervasive and 

dramatic differences. For example, while on 

average 63 percent of employees said their 

supervisor promotes high standards of integrity 

and conduct, this statistic jumps to an 

overwhelming 85 percent for those respondents 

who said they were satisfied with their supervisor. 

For the relatively small share (24 percent) of 

respondents dissatisfied with their supervisor, only 

20 percent said their supervisor promotes high 

standards. These differences manifested themselves 

not only in views about the supervisor but in views 

of virtually every aspect of human resources 

30 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Supervisors and Strategic Human Resources Management, June 1998; Federal Supervisors and Poor Performers, 

July 1999; and Federal First-Line Supervisors: How Good Are They? March 1992. 

31 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Supervisors and Strategic Human Resources Management, June 1998, p. 1. 

20 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
management examined in this survey. For 

example, respondents dissatisfied with their 

supervisor were twice as likely to say they planned 

to look for another job than respondents satisfied 

with their supervisor (58 percent versus 

31 percent). 

Supervisor Support for Career 

Development 

One area where employees were not particularly 

positive about their supervisor was the extent to 

which they believed their supervisor encouraged 

their career development. In fact, only 41 percent 

of the respondents said that their supervisor did 

this. Although employees may have differed in 

what they consider career development, training 

and opportunity for advancement undoubtedly 

figure in their views on this issue. As reported 

previously, many employees did 

Supervisor’s Staffing Practices 

We noted in a previous Board report

32 that an 

important part of the supervisor’s job involves the 

strategic management of human resources, which 

includes the hiring and promoting of people to do 

the work of the work unit. As shown in figure 15, 

in the area of staffing, large percentages of 

respondents were unable to judge their supervisor’s 

staffing practices. This is not unexpected since 

many employees are not directly involved in the 

staffing decisions of the work unit and do not have 

extensive knowledge of the applicant pool or 

procedures used. About one-fourth of all 

respondents agreed that their immediate 

supervisor elects the best qualified from outside 

the Government (27 percent) and uses fair 

and open competition (27 percent). Only about 

half as many respondents disagreed with these 

statements. 

not 

believe they were receiving the 

training they need to do their 

jobs effectively. If they were not 

receiving training for their 

current assignments, it is not 

surprising that they were also not 

receiving training for further 

advancement. In addition to 

funding problems for training 

that many agencies have faced in 

recent years, it is also likely that 

there are managers who believe 

that career development is not an 

organizational responsibility and, 

given limited training budgets, 

the organization should only 

incur training costs directly 

related to its mission. Under 

those conditions, these managers 

would not be likely to support 

requests for developmental 

training if that training didn’t 

relate directly to the current job. 

27 

27 

32 

31 

14 

15 

12 

16 

25 

24 

49 

46 

29 

30 

11 

12 

Uses fair and 

open competition 

when hiring from 

outside Gov't 

Selects the best 

qualified 

available people 

from outside 

Gov't 

Promotes the best 

qualified 

available people 

Uses fair and 

open competition 

for promotions 

Agree Neither Disagree Don't Know/Can't Judge/NA 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000, questions 55a-55d. 

Survey Statement 

My supervisor... 

Percent 

Figure 15. Respondent views on how 

their supervisor staffs the work unit 

32 Ibid., p. 1. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 21 
Even for promotions—the staffing decisions likely 

to personally involve respondents—employees 

continued to be more likely to view their 

supervisor as fair than as unfair and were more 

likely to agree than disagree that the best qualified 

available people were promoted. Although some 

30 percent of respondents were not able to make a 

judgment, about one-third of all respondents 

agreed that their supervisor promotes the best 

qualified person (32 percent) and uses fair and 

open competition for promotions (31 percent). 

How Supervisors Deal 

With Poor Performers 

A critical component in supervisor management of 

employees is how they deal with poor performers 

in the work unit. All too often, the poorest 

performer consumes a disproportionate share of 

the supervisor’s attention. When we asked 

employees about how well their supervisor deals 

with poor performers, significant portions—16 to 

25 percent—were unable to make a judgment. 

Many remedial and disciplinary 

19 percent said their supervisor deals effectively 

with poor performers. 

The supervisors themselves suggested that their 

problems in handling poor performers are not 

entirely under their control. Supervisors attributed 

difficulties they encounter in dealing with 

performance problems to a lack of confidence in 

the performance management system (74 percent) 

and insufficient support from higher level 

management (61 percent). 

To determine the magnitude of the poor 

performer problem, we asked employees to tell us 

how many of their coworkers were performing at a 

“level below what is reasonably expected from 

them on their jobs” and how many, if any, of their 

coworkers were “performing so poorly that they 

deserved to be fired.” Respondents made their 

judgments based on their direct knowledge of the 

work requirements in their work unit and their 

perceptions of the abilities and willingness of their 

coworkers to do the work. 

actions are taken in private and 

employees may not be aware of 

their supervisor’s actions in this 

area, which may account for why 

so many respondents could not 

make a judgment on this 

question. Additionally, as we 

discuss below, many employees 

may not have had an 

opportunity to see how their 

supervisor handles problem 

employees because there were no 

problem employees in their work 

unit. Nevertheless, employees 

generally did not give their 

supervisors very good marks in 

handling poor performers, as 

shown in figure 16. For example, 

just over one-fourth (28 percent) 

of all respondents claimed their 

supervisor deals effectively with 

misconduct on the job and only 

Percent 

33 

28 

19 

18 

23 

23 

23 

29 

42 

25 

19 

16 

Retains employees on the 

basis of their job 

performance 

Deals effectively with 

misconduct on the job 

Deals effectively with 

poor performers 

Agree Neither Disagree Don't Know/Can't Judge/NA 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000, questions 32, 33, 55f, and 55g. 

Survey statement 

My supervisor... 

Figure 16. Respondent views on how their 

supervisor manages employee job performance 

22 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
Based on the reported total number of employees 

in each work unit, we calculated the percentage of 

employees in each work unit who were perceived 

by our respondents as performing below 

expectations and the percentage of employees who 

deserved to be fired. Overall, we estimated that an 

average of 14.3 percent of the employees were 

judged by their coworkers to be performing below 

reasonably expected levels. This translates into 

about one in seven employees who are unable or 

unwilling to perform satisfactorily. Within this 

group, 3.7 percent or about one-fourth deserved to 

be fired, in the opinions of our respondents.33 

That is approximately one out of 

Federal Government overall.34 However, our 

respondents judged an additional 10.6 percent 

(14.3 percent minus 3.7 percent) of employees to 

be performing below expected levels of 

performance—a finding that represents a sizable 

proportion of the workforce and therefore cannot 

be ignored. 

Poor Performers and 

Work Unit Productivity 

While figure 17 shows that 37 percent of 

respondents worked in a unit that had no 

employees whom they thought worked below 

every 25 employees. Based on 

survey responses, the average 

work unit size was 13 employees, 

with most (73 percent) of the 

work units having fewer than 20 

employees. Thus, on average, 

according to our respondents, a 

typical work unit can expect to 

have about two employees 

working below expected levels of 

performance. The size of the 

work unit did not seem to affect 

the percentage of employees 

working below expectations or 

deserving to be fired. However, 

based on numbers alone, large 

work units are more likely to 

have greater numbers of 

employees judged to be 

performing below expected 

levels. 

On one hand, that 3.7 percent of 

employees deserve to be fired— 

in the eyes of their colleagues— 

in and of itself does not reflect a 

serious performance 

management problem in the 

37 

18 

20 

17 

8 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

None 1-10% 11-20% 21-40% 41+% 

Work units with various percentages of employees considered 

to be working below expectations 

Percent of respondents 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000, questions 56, 57, and 58. 

Figure 17. Respondents working in units with 

various percentages of employees whom they 

consider to be working below expectations 

33 The 3.9 percent rate reported in our Feb. 2001 Issues of Merit newsletter was for unweighted data. 

34 This figure is corroborated by research from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. See U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Poor Performers in the 

Government: A Quest for the True Story, Jan. 1999, p.9. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 23 
expectations, far too many others worked in a unit 

that was considered to have at least one marginal 

employee. Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of our 

respondents worked in units with at least one 

coworker who was viewed as performing below 

reasonable expectations. In terms of employees 

considered deserving to be fired, 70 percent of our 

respondents worked in units that had no one who 

fit that category. Conversely, 30 percent worked in 

units where at least one employee was thought to 

deserve firing. 

Unfortunately, even a small number of poor 

performers can have a disproportionately large 

impact on the productivity of a work unit. Our 

analysis of survey results reveals that employee 

productivity ratings are related to whether the 

supervisor deals effectively with poor performers 

and whether corrective actions are taken when 

employees do not meet performance standards. 

Respondents in work units with no employees 

considered to deserve firing gave twice as many 

high productivity ratings (ratings of 9 or 10) to 

their work unit as employees in work units with a 

worker considered to deserve firing—specifically, 

45 percent versus 23 percent. 

Performance Management 

Managing the performance of employees in the 

work unit is a primary responsibility of 

supervisors. In addition, it entails far more than 

completing periodic formal appraisals of employee 

performance. Rather, performance management is 

a systematic process that involves at least five 

major components, of which performance 

appraisal is perhaps the least important. These five 

components are: (a) planning work and setting 

expectations, (b) continually monitoring 

performance, (c) developing the capacity to 

perform, (d) periodically rating performance, and 

(e) rewarding good performance.35 Each 

component is important in its own right and 

applies to all the employees in the work unit, 

including poor performers. Taken together in a 

balanced and appropriate manner they are key to a 

highly motivated and productive workforce. 

We now look at Federal employee views about 

each of these components of performance 

management. 

Planning work and setting expectations. It is the 

responsibility of supervisors to consider the 

mission of their organization and to divide and 

assign the work that needs to be accomplished 

among the employees in their unit in such a way as 

to best meet the goals of the organization. This is 

no trivial task and involves careful consideration of 

the workload, the skills and knowledges required, 

and the capabilities of the employees in the work 

unit. 

Although a large majority of respondents (83 

percent) reported that they knew what was 

expected of them on their jobs, a significantly 

smaller proportion—less than two thirds—said 

that their present job made good use of their skills 

(63 percent) and that they had the resources to do 

their job well (62 percent). Based on these 

responses, supervisors seem to be doing a 

reasonable job communicating expectations to 

their employees; but from the perspectives of the 

subordinates, they are doing less well at matching 

employee skills to the work and ensuring that 

adequate resources are provided. Unfortunately, 

these latter two aspects of supervisory work are 

critical to productive performance. 

Monitoring work and motivating employees. The 

ongoing interactions between employees and their 

supervisor about the work being accomplished are 

perhaps the most important component of 

performance management. This component, more 

than any other, can give employees a sense of how 

they are doing and can motivate them to be as 

effective as possible. Ideally, through these ongoing 

35 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, A Handbook for Measuring Employee Performance: Aligning Employee Performance with Organizational Goals, 

rev. Jan. 2001, p. 3. 

24 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
interactions between employees 

and supervisors, employees learn 

how their work fits into the goals 

of the work unit and how it 

contributes to the larger mission 

of the agency. 

When we asked employees about 

information sharing on the job, 

some 60 percent of our 

respondents said that workrelated information was shared 

freely in their work unit. While 

this is encouraging, just 46 

percent of employees indicated 

that their supervisor kept them 

informed about how well they are 

doing. Notably, when we looked 

at the responses of employees 

who were satisfied with their 

supervisor, this percentage 

increased to 70 percent. Perhaps 

even more importantly, among 

employees who were not satisfied 

with their supervisor, only 8 

percent said they were informed 

about how they were doing. 

As part of performance 

80 

54 

27 

23 

21 

19 

14 

14 

10 

Personal pride or 

satisfaction in my work 

Personal desire to 

make a contribution 

Monetary award 

My duty as a public 

employee 

Desire to help my work 

unit meet its goals 

Increasing my chances 

for a promotion 

Good working 

environment overall 

Availability of flexible 

working conditions 

Desire to get a good 

performance rating 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000, question 43. 

Percent who included the factor among their top three 

Note: Respondents were asked to mark the three factors that most motivate them to do a good job. 

Six additional motivators selected by less than 10% of the respondents are not shown here. 

Factor 

Figure 18. Respondents identify the factors 

that most motivate them to do a good job 

monitoring, it is important for 

supervisors to be fully aware of the factors that 

motivate their employees so they can tailor their 

daily interactions accordingly. From the results of 

our survey, we find that most employees are selfmotivated and want to contribute to their 

organization. When asked to select 3 of 15 factors 

that motivate them to do a good job, an 

overwhelming majority (80 percent) said they are 

motivated to do a good job by personal pride or 

satisfaction with their work, as shown in figure 18. 

Their second greatest motivator was a personal 

desire to make a contribution (54 percent). 

Monetary awards came in a distant third, selected 

by just 27 percent of the respondents. 

Developing a capacity to perform. As discussed 

earlier, changes in technology, insufficient staff, 

skill imbalances, and erosion of institutional 

memory have resulted in nearly half the workforce 

saying they need more training to perform their 

job effectively. The challenge for organizations will 

be to strategically plan to address this issue and to 

ensure that adequate funding is available for the 

implementation of the plan. The challenge for 

supervisors will be to work with their employees to 

identify training needs based on where their 

organizations are headed and to support employees 

in their efforts to develop the skills and 

knowledges they need to do their work effectively, 

today, and in the future. 

Performance appraisal. One of the tools managers 

have available to help manage the performance of 

employees in their work unit is the formal 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 25 
performance appraisal. However, over the years, 

agencies have struggled with their performance 

appraisal systems, and for a variety of reasons an 

increasingly large percentage of employees receive 

very high ratings. For example, 32 percent of 

GS13-15 employees received ratings of 

“Outstanding” in FY1991. By FY1996, this 

proportion had risen to 49 percent.36 

Employee responses to our survey clearly confirm 

that many current performance appraisal systems 

are not a meaningful performance management 

tool. For example, only 20 percent of the 

respondents said that their performance appraisal 

system motivated them to do a better job, as 

shown in figure 19. 

While performance appraisal systems can also be 

used as tools to communicate to employees what is 

expected from them and how their work is related 

to the goals of the organization, it appears that 

these objectives are not being met. Only 20 

percent of our respondents said that their 

performance appraisal system had helped 

communication with the supervisor about their 

job, and only 55 percent of respondents said their 

performance standards were clearly linked to 

organizational goals. 

While these responses about the performance 

appraisal systems suggest that employees do not 

know what is expected of them, this is not the 

case. In fact, as discussed earlier, a large majority 

(83 percent) of respondents said 

Percent who “agree” or “strongly agree” 

55 

51 

37 

33 

20 

20 

My performance standards are clearly linked 

to my organization's goals 

The standards used to evaluate my 

performance are fair 

I am satisfied with the recognition I receive for 

my work 

Recognition and rewards are based on merit in 

my work unit 

The performance appraisal system motivates 

me to do a better job 

The performance appraisal rating system has 

helped increase communications about my job 

between my supervisor and me 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000, questions 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, and 25. 

Survey statement 

Figure 19. Respondents agreeing with statements 

about their performance standards and feedback 

they know what is expected from 

them on their job. What is clear 

from these responses is that their 

knowledge did not derive from 

the performance appraisal 

process. It also appears that it 

may be time for the Government 

to define what role, if any, it 

wants performance appraisals to 

have. More often than not, 

current systems do little to 

communicate expectations, do 

not meaningfully distinguish 

among levels of performance, 

and may be more demotivating 

than motivating. 

Rewarding outstanding 

performance. Successful 

organizations make effective use 

of performance feedback and 

appropriately award and 

recognize individuals and teams 

for their valued contributions to 

the organization. Because 

effective behavior is so 

significantly shaped by its 

36 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, The Fact Book: Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics, 1999 Edition, Sept. 1999, pp. 70-71. 

26 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
consequences, it is important that employees 

receive the recognition they deserve and perceive a 

clear link between awards and performance. 

While Federal employees may be largely motivated 

by personal pride to do a good job, this does not 

mean they do not need or deserve recognition. 

Figure 20 shows that some 58 percent of our 

58 

35 

31 

23 

Informal 

recognition 

More pay 

Nonpay reward 

Time-off award 

Percent saying consequence is "likely" 

or "very likely" Consequence 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000, question 44. 

Figure 20. Respondents identify 

the likely consequences of doing 

better in their present job 

respondents noted that informal recognition (e.g., 

being told they do good work) was the most likely 

consequence of their performing better on the job. 

Only about one-third of the respondents said that 

more pay (35 percent) and nonpay rewards, such 

as letters of commendation (31 percent), were 

likely consequences of doing better in their jobs. 

Time-off awards were even less likely 

consequences—only 23 percent of employees 

indicated this was a likely consequence of good 

performance. 

Overall, just 33 percent of respondents said that 

recognition and awards in their work unit were 

based on merit. Many employees clearly feel that 

they don’t get the recognition they deserve. Only 

about one-third (37 percent) of our respondents 

were satisfied with the recognition they received 

for their work. Even among respondents who were 

satisfied with their supervisor, barely over half (53 

percent) said they were satisfied with the 

recognition they received. Thus, while informal 

recognition may be the most likely consequence of 

good performance, supervisors are either providing 

it far less than employees feel they deserve, or 

employees want some other type of recognition. 

There are still many supervisors who don’t know 

how to provide recognition, are unaware of the 

need to do so, or simply are not interested in 

providing such recognition to their deserving 

employees. 

This is not to imply that all employees deserve 

equal recognition. Effective performance 

management must communicate standards and 

expectations and must link recognition and awards 

to the relative value of contributions made to the 

organization. However, in the views of our 

respondents, this is not currently happening. 

Experiences and Beliefs About 

Discrimination 

The Merit Principles clearly state that in an 

endeavor to achieve a Federal workforce from all 

segments of society, selection and advancement 

should be determined solely on the basis of relative 

ability, knowledge and skills....37 Conversely, the 

Prohibited Personnel Practices specifically forbid 

discrimination for or against any employee or 

applicant based on race, color, religion, sex, 

national origin, age, handicapping condition, 

marital status, or political affiliation.38 

37 Section 2301, Title 5, USC. 

38 Section 2302, Title 5, USC. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 27 
Table 2. Trend of respondents who said they 

were denied a job, promotion, or other job 

benefit because of unlawful discrimination, 

1992, 1996, and 2000

Basis of the

unlawful

discrimination

Percent who “agree” 

or “strongly agree”

Survey Year

1992 1996 2000

Race/national origin 12 15 12

Sex 12 3 1

Age 10 1 1

Handicapping condition 3 2 3

Religion 2 2 2

Marital status 3 3 2

Political affiliation 2 3 1

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000.

1 1

1 1

In accordance with these statutory mandates and 

its oversight responsibilities, MSPB has 

continuously monitored the representation of 

“protected” subgroups in the Federal workforce.39 

During the last decade, significant gains in 

representation have occurred for many of the 

protected subgroups in most occupational groups, 

including improvements at higher grade levels and 

in executive positions. The importance of this issue 

is reflected in the changing attitudes of current 

Federal employees, with 52 percent of our survey 

respondents agreeing that workforce diversity 

should be taken into account in the hiring process, 

compared to 44 percent in 1992. 

Over the years, in addition to monitoring the 

demographic diversity of the workforce, we have 

been asking employees about their perceptions and 

personal experiences with various types of 

discrimination.40 Generally, the results have 

changed very little over time, although there are 

clear differences among types of discrimination 

involved. 

Personal experiences with discrimination. As in prior 

administrations of the merit principles survey, we 

asked employees to tell us if they felt they had 

been denied a job, promotion, or other job benefit 

in the preceding 2 years based on their race/ 

national origin, sex, age, handicapping condition, 

religion, marital status, or political affiliation. As 

shown in table 2, for the three most recent 

administrations (1992, 1996, and 2000) of the 

Merit Principles Survey, respondents varied 

relatively little in the frequency with which they 

reported experiencing each type of discrimination 

across time. However, the reported experiences 

with discrimination did vary considerably based 

on the type of discrimination involved. While 

discrimination based on handicapping conditions, 

religion, marital status, and political affiliation 

were reported by 3 percent or less of our survey 

respondents, discrimination based on race/national 

origin, sex, and age, were consistently reported by 

10 percent or more. 

It is important to recognize that overall levels of 

reported discrimination often mask some notably 

higher levels of discrimination reported by 

members of some subgroups. For example, based 

on responses to our MPS2000 survey, minority 

employees were on average three times as likely to 

report experiencing race-based discrimination than 

were nonminority employees (23 percent versus 7 

percent). Similarly, older employees were twice as 

likely as younger ones to report age-based 

discrimination (19 percent versus 9 percent). 

Although table 2 shows that employees reported 

significant levels of discrimination based on sex, 

39 For example, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Progress Report on Minority Employment in the Federal Government, Aug. 

1996; A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling in the Federal Government, Oct. 1992. 

40 Because sexual orientation is not a statutorily protected class category, it was not included among our list of categories of discrimination. However, this is 

an issue that might need to be addressed in future surveys. Many survey respondents suggested that this item needed to be included on our next survey. 

28 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
there were no differences between the perceptions 

of men and women on this question. Eleven 

percent of women and 10 percent of men reported 

being victims of discrimination based on sex. 

However, although there were no differences 

between the two groups, it is nonetheless 

disturbing that about 1 out of every 10 men and 

women in 2000 still believed they had been 

discriminated against because of their sex. 

Perceptions of discrimination. On our MPS2000 

survey, we replicated some questions from a special 

survey we conducted in 1993 about minority 

career advancement in the Federal workforce. In 

that 1993 survey we asked respondents to tell us 

their views about the incidents of flagrant 

discrimination based on race or national origin. At 

that time, we found perceptual differences so large 

that they suggested that minority and nonminority 

employees may have a difficult time understanding 

one another’s perspectives and that much work still 

needed to be done to replace misinformation with 

facts and stereotypes with awareness.41 Given the 

magnitude of the perceptual differences we found, 

it was important to determine if any of the 

perceptions had changed since 1993. 

Accordingly, we asked our MPS2000 survey 

respondents the same question that was part of our 

1993 study, “In your organization, to what extent 

do you believe that employees from each of the 

following groups are subjected to flagrant and 

obvious discriminatory practices that hinder their 

career development?” 

The information in table 3, which compares how 

employees responded on the two occasions, shows 

a continuation of dramatic and almost identical 

differences among minority and nonminority 

subgroups in perceptions of flagrant 

discrimination. Large proportions of employees 

from each minority subgroup believed that 

members of their own subgroup were subjected to 

flagrant discrimination. This view was most 

prevalent among African Americans, 54 percent of 

whom thought in 2000 (55 percent in 1993) that 

African Americans were victims of discrimination 

to a “great extent” or “moderate extent.” 

Consistently, each minority subgroup perceived 

the greatest flagrant discrimination against 

members of their own subgroup. On the other 

hand, nonminority employees (Whites) seldom 

reported (less than 5 percent in both survey years) 

that they perceived flagrant discrimination against 

members of any of the minority subgroups. 

Intermediate levels of flagrant discrimination were 

reported when minority employees were asked 

about incidents of flagrant discrimination against 

members of another minority subgroup. 

We also looked at race/national origin subgroup 

differences in a number of other areas related to 

the job. While we found differences among 

minorities and nonminorities about how they 

think they are treated on the job, as shown in table 

4 the differences were small compared to those 

reported above. The largest differences concerned 

flexibility and information sharing: a higher 

percentage of minority respondents than 

nonminorities said they had flexibility to 

accomplish their work and a higher percentage of 

nonminorities than minorities said information 

was being shared freely in their work unit. 

Notably, when asked about being treated with 

respect in the work unit, receiving recognition for 

their work, their job making good use of their 

skills, and rewards being based on merit, the 

differences between minority and nonminority 

respondents were virtually nonexistent. 

Perceptions About Prohibited 

Personnel Practices 

In addition to being prohibited from 

discriminating against employees, agency officials 

in our Federal civil service system are expressly 

prohibited from engaging in a variety of other 

41 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Progress Report on Minority Employment in the Federal Government, Aug. 1996, p. xiv. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 29 
Table 3. Extent to which respondents believe minorities are subjected 

to discrimination based on their race/national origin, 1993 and 2000 

Percent of respondents in each of 4 subgroups who perceived flagrant discrimination 

against each minority subgroup to a “moderate” or “great extent,” 1993 and 2000 

Survey year 

Percentage who perceived discrimination 

against African Americans 

African Americans Other 

Minority Whites 

1993 55 15 4 

2000 54 13 3 

Survey year 

Percentage who perceived discrimination 

against Asian Americans 

Asian 

Americans 

Other 

Minority Whites 

1993 21 14 3 

2000 23 13 1 

Survey year 

Percentage who perceived discrimination 

against Hispanics 

Hispanics Other 

Minority Whites 

1993 28 23 3 

2000 31 20 2 

Survey year 

Percentage who perceived discrimination 

against Native Americans 

Native 

Americans 

Other 

Minority Whites 

1993 19 15 5 

2000 27 11 2 

Notes: Percentages are based on all respondents, including those who marked “Don’t Know/Can’t Judge.” The percentage of 

respondents marking “Don’t Know/Can’t Judge” ranged from 20% to 50%, depending on whether the subgroup that was 

perceived to be discriminated against was their own or another subgroup. 

Source: MSPB, Survey of Federal Employees 1993, question 46; Merit Principles Survey 2000, question 63. 

30 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
Table 4. Minority versus nonminority views about treatment on the job 

Percent who “agree” or 

Survey statement “strongly agree” 

Minority Nonminority 

I have been given more flexibility in how I accomplish my work. 56 49 

I receive the training I need to perform my job. 59 55 

Recognition and rewards are based on merit in my work unit. 34 34 

In general, I am satisfied with my job. 66 67 

I am satisfied with the recognition I receive for my work. 36 38 

My present job makes good use of my skills and abilities. 62 64 

I am treated with respect in my work unit. 69 72 

Overall, I am satisfied with my supervisor. 55 59 

A spirit of cooperation and teamwork exists in my work unit. 52 57 

Information is shared freely in my work unit. 55 62 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000, questions 1, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 20, 21, 27, and 35. 

personnel practices. These prohibitions are 

designed, in part, to help ensure that Federal 

employment decisions are made without regard to 

political affiliation or favoritism and to ensure that 

employees have appeal rights that they can exercise 

freely without fear of retaliation. 

Participation in political activities. Agency officials 

are expressly prohibited from pressuring employees 

or applicants to engage in partisan political activity 

or to act for or against others for political reasons. 

While certain restrictions of the Hatch Act

42 were 

lifted in 1993 and many Federal employees have 

been legally permitted to participate more actively 

in a variety of partisan political activities, the 

prohibited personnel practices specified for agency 

officials remain illegal. 

In our December 2000 Issues of Merit newsletter 

we reported that based on the results of our 

MPS2000 survey, most Federal employees are not 

particularly active in partisan political activity. We 

found that only 11 percent had participated in 

some partisan political activity in the past 2 years, 

up from 7 percent in 1996. We do not know if the 

11-percent participation rate might have been 

higher had our survey—conducted in the spring of 

2000—been conducted closer to the time of the 

presidential election. We do know, however, that 

the 11-percent participation rate is substantially 

42 While the Civil Service Act of 1883 was traditionally designed to prevent Federal employees from being forced to provide political service, the Hatch Act 

in 1939 went further and prohibited Federal employees from active participation in partisan political activity even if it were done voluntarily. Over time these 

prohibitions came to be considered too restrictive and in 1993, with some exceptions, most Federal employees were permitted to engage actively in a wide 

variety of partisan political activities when off duty and outside of their workplace. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 31 
lower than the 31 percent of employees who said 

in our 1992 Merit Principles Survey that they 

wanted to participate more fully in partisan 

political activity. 

Without a basis for comparison, it is impossible to 

say if an 11 percent participation rate is high or 

low. However, a University of Michigan national 

survey of voting-age citizens found that just 5 

percent of their respondents had participated in 

political activity, where participation was defined 

as attendance at any public meetings, rallies, 

speeches, dinners, and similar affairs in support of 

a particular candidate.43 

Based on these comparisons with voting-age 

citizens, it may be that Federal employees are 

slightly more likely to participate in partisan 

political activities than the average voter. This 

greater level of participation is what might be 

expected from our earlier findings that an 

important motivator for many Federal employees 

is a desire to make a contribution. This view would 

comport with the long-held view in the public 

administration literature that Government service 

attracts individuals with a service orientation.44 

While Federal employees may personally and 

voluntarily participate in lawful partisan political 

activities, as discussed above, they may not be 

coerced by any agency official into doing so. 

Fortunately, this prohibited personnel practice 

occurs very rarely. Only 1 percent of our 

respondents reported unlawful pressure from an 

agency official to engage in partisan political 

activities. Similarly, only 1 percent reported that 

they had been pressured to retaliate or act for or 

against another employee or applicant for political 

reasons. 

Unlawful influence on personnel actions. Agency 

officials also are prohibited from giving unfair 

advantages to anyone involved in a personnel 

action or to use their position of influence to 

unfairly affect the outcome of any such action. 

While we saw earlier that about half of our 

respondents who felt able to make a judgment 

agreed that their supervisor used fair and open 

competition and selected the best-qualified 

candidates for selection and promotion, not every 

respondent agreed. In fact, about 30 percent of the 

respondents able to make a judgment disagreed. 

Table 5 confirms that not all employees view the 

staffing practices in their agency favorably. About 

one in five (22 percent) of our respondents 

believed they have been denied a job because an 

unfair advantage was given to another. Some 14 

percent reported that they were misled about their 

right to compete for a job. A few respondents 

reported nepotism and pressure to withdraw from 

competition (both 4 percent). 

The data for these prohibited personnel practices 

are quite stable and do not notably differ from 

data obtained in previous administrations of our 

merit principles surveys. Nevertheless, the results 

suggest that there remains an unacceptably large 

portion of employees who believe that agency 

selecting officials provide employees with 

misleading information about their right to 

compete for jobs or that these officials use the 

system to give an unfair advantage to another. 

As with other perceptual data, the information 

presented in table 5 may not always give an 

entirely accurate picture of the actual incidence 

rate of these prohibited personnel practices. 

Employees who are not selected for a job or 

43 The National Election Studies (NES), Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan, “The 1998 NES Post-Election Survey,” in the NES Guide to 

Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior from http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/nesguide.htm on Mar. 13, 2001. 

44 Gene E. Brewer, Sally Coleman Selden, and Rex L. Facer II, “Individual Conceptions of Public Service Motivation,” Public Administration Review, 

May 2000, v. 60i3, p. 254. 

32 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
Table 5. Trend of respondent experiences with prohibited 

personnel practices, 1986, 1989, 1992, 1996, and 2000 

Percent who “agree” 

or “strongly agree” 

Survey statement Survey Year 

1986 1989 1992 1996 2000 

In the past 2 years, do you feel you have been... 

Denied a job or promotion because one of the selecting or 

recommending officials gave an unfair advantage to another 

applicant 

Deliberately misled by an agency official about your right to 

compete for a job or promotion 

Influenced by an agency official to withdraw from competition for 

a Federal job or promotion in order to help another person’s 

chances of getting that job or promotion? 

Denied a job or promotion which went instead to the relative of 

one of the selecting or recommending officials? 

— — 19 25 22 

— — 16 18 14 

4 5 5 5 4 

6 6 4 5 4 

Note: A dash (—) indicates a year in which this question was not asked.


Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Surveys: 1986, question 12; 1989, question 33; 1992, question 48; 1996, question 49; and 


2000, question 66. 

promotion far outnumber those who are selected. 

It is human nature (and likely very often the case) 

for employees not selected to attribute their 

nonselection to factors other than any deficiencies 

in their own qualifications. Nonselected employees 

may also not be fully aware of the selection 

criteria, the qualifications of other candidates, or 

details of the selection/promotion process to make 

an accurate assessment, as evidenced by the sizable 

portion of respondents saying they were unable to 

make a judgment. Also, there is evidence that a 

significant portion of competitions for internal 

merit promotion actions may be conducted to 

conclusion even when the selecting official already 

has a clear “best candidate” in mind based on a 

knowledge of the actual job performance of the 

candidates involved. Factors such as these can 

certainly affect how employees view the personnel 

actions of their supervisors and their reports of 

these prohibited personnel practices.45 

Formal disclosures, appeals, and retaliation. The 

prohibited personnel practices and whistleblower 

protection laws were designed to give employees 

rights to grieve or appeal many personnel actions 

and to permit employees to make lawful 

disclosures concerning issues of health and safety 

dangers, unlawful behaviors, and fraud, waste, or 

abuse. In particular, the laws place strong sanctions 

against any individual who retaliates against 

another for exercising such lawful rights or for 

making such lawful disclosures. 

45 For a more in-depth discussion of this issue, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Merit Promotion Program: Process vs. Outcome, Dec. 2001. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 33 
Table 6. Trend of respondent experiences with retaliation 

or threats of retaliation, 1992, 1996, and 2000 

Percent who “agree” 

or “strongly agree” 

Survey statement Survey Year 

1992 1996 2000 

In the past 2 years, do you feel you have been retaliated against or 

threatened with retaliation for... 

Exercising any appeal, complaint, or grievance right? * 11 12 9 

Making a disclosure concerning health and safety dangers, unlawful 

behavior, and/or fraud, waste, and abuse? * 8 7 7 

Testifying for or otherwise assisting any individual in the exercise of 

whistleblowing, equal opportunity, or appeal right? 6 6 5 

Refusing to obey an unlawful order? 4 3 2 

Reporting unwanted sexual attention or sexual harassment? — 2 1 

Notes: In the two questions with an asterisk (*), the retaliation reported could be the result of either formal or informal actions or 

disclosures. A dash (—) indicates a year in which this question was not asked. 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000, question 67. 

As we reported in our December 2000 Issues of 

Merit newsletter and as table 6 shows, survey 

respondents—overall—reported feeling retaliated 

against for making lawful disclosures or for 

exercising an appeal right less than 10 percent of 

the time (7 percent and 9 percent, respectively). 

These percentages were quite similar to those 

found in our 1996 and 1992 surveys. It is 

important to note that these reported feelings of 

retaliation derived from respondents who may or 

may not have made any formal disclosures or 

appeals. 

While this overall perception of retaliation is 

relatively low, it is important to look at this rate 

separately for employees who actually had taken 

some formal action versus those who had not. One 

would expect few, if any, reports of retaliation 

from employees who had not made any disclosures 

or exercised any appeals rights. Therefore, a more 

precise measure of the perceived rate of retaliation 

is that derived from the survey respondents who 

had actually taken some formal action. 

It turns out that 7 percent of our respondents said 

they had made a formal disclosure of unlawful 

behaviors, waste, fraud, or abuse and 9 percent 

reported that they had exercised a formal appeal, 

complaint, or grievance right. (It is coincidental 

that these percentages are identical to the 

percentages of respondents reporting feeling 

retaliated against, but the respondents involved are 

not identical.) It is difficult to say whether the 

magnitude of these percentages should be a source 

of concern. Without knowing more about the 

nature of the formal actions taken or their context 

(e.g., level of actual or alleged wrongdoing), an 

evaluation of the findings is impossible without 

further exploration. For example, while both 

questions asked respondents about formal actions 

they had taken, it is not clear how respondents 

may have interpreted “formal.” Also, rates of 

34 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
Figure 21. Retaliation experienced by respondents who 

had or had not made formal disclosures or appeals 

4 

61 

4 

44 

Had not made a formal 

disclosure 

Had made a formal 

disclosure 

Had not made a formal 

appeal 

Had made a formal 

appeal 

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2000, questions 61a, 61b, 67a, and 67b. 

Percent reporting 

experiences of retaliation Respondents who... 

disclosure or appeals are affected not only by the 

level of perceived wrongdoing but by how 

confident employees are that they will not be 

retaliated against for taking any formal action. 

These are questions worth pursuing in future 

possible studies. 

Figure 21 compares respondents who had taken 

formal action with those who had not and shows 

the extent to which they perceived retaliation. The 

differences are dramatic. Respondents who had 

made a formal disclosure reported retaliation 44 

percent of the time—a rate not unlike the 37 

percent rate reported in a special Board report on 

whistleblowing in 1993.46 Even more disturbing, 

some 61 percent of respondents (or 6 out of 10) 

who had exercised a formal appeal right felt they 

had been retaliated against for their action. On the 

other hand, the over 90 percent majority of 

respondents who had not taken any formal actions 

reported virtually no retaliation—just 4 percent. 

This 4 percent may reflect perceptions of 

retaliation in response to some informal actions 

that may have been taken by these respondents. 

Even if the facts do not support the high levels of 

retaliation reported, that such a large proportion of 

respondents perceived retaliation after having 

taken formal action could have a profoundly 

negative impact on workplace dynamics, future 

lawful disclosures or exercise of appeal rights, 

employee morale, and productivity. 

46 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Whistleblowing in the Federal Government: An Update, Oct. 1993, p. ii. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 35 
This page is intentionally left blank.


36 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000

Conclusions and Recommendations


The opinions and experiences of our survey 

respondents clearly attest to the fact that a human 

capital crisis is now occurring in the Federal 

Government. Ignoring this crisis can only further 

weaken the Federal civil service, but trying to 

address it will not be easy. In this report, we have 

tried to highlight a number of problem areas— 

based on employee experiences and perceptions— 

that may be significant contributors to the 

weakening of the health of the Federal civil service. 

It is up to agency management to address those 

problems, if we are to make progress in improving 

the current state of affairs. 

While the Federal employees responding to our 

survey consider the Government’s workforce to be 

productive, the scope and manner of the 

downsizing of the last decade and the limited 

influx of new hires have left many work units with 

what they perceive to be insufficient staff and a 

serious erosion of institutional memory. Employee 

job satisfaction ratings, which have generally been 

extremely stable, have taken a downward turn, and 

many of our respondents believe they need more 

training to perform their jobs effectively—a 

possible consequence of the unprecedented rate of 

technological and organizational change in recent 

years. 

Against this backdrop, the Federal workforce must 

face a number of potentially serious changes. For 

example, it is quite likely that the number of 

retirements will increase as more and more baby 

boomers reach retirement eligibility. The 

magnitude of the increase will vary greatly from 

organization to organization and work unit to 

work unit. No one knows for sure if the baby 

boomers will follow the traditional pattern of 

turnover or whether external factors such as the 

economy or job market will significantly alter 

current projections. 

In addition to dealing with the challenges of 

employee departures, Federal agencies must be 

concerned about their ability to attract and retain 

employees to fill in behind those who leave. There 

are already serious skill shortages in many 

occupations and in many agencies. Based on 

sound workforce analyses and strategic plans, the 

Government needs to improve the quality of its 

hiring decisions to begin to offset current worker 

shortages and skill imbalances and to prepare the 

workforce for future knowledge losses. 

However, while there is great potential that 

turnover in the coming 5 to 10 years could 

exacerbate the present human capital crisis, we do 

have some insight into potential incentives for 

avoiding excessive turnover. Overall, declines in 

job satisfaction help to bring home the point that 

there are problems in the workplace. We have 

noted some of the factors that affect employee 

decisions to leave or stay in the job. We have also 

discussed numerous issues—from employee views 

of their supervisor’s performance to the occurrence 

of prohibited personnel practices—that have the 

potential to threaten workforce productivity as 

well as to discourage employees from staying in 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 37 
the Federal service. It is imperative that Federal 

managers address these challenges in order to have 

an impact on the worsening human capital crisis. 

Some of the more critical management challenges 

raised in this report and the responses we 

recommend to address them are discussed below. 

Identifying Skill Imbalances and 

Planning Corrections 

Agency managers need to ensure an appropriate 

match between employee skills and the skills 

needed for jobs in the agency. If skill shortages or 

imbalances exist, agency managers need to ensure 

that the agency is engaging in strategic planning to 

correct those shortcomings by incorporating such 

planning into recruitment and hiring practices, as 

well as employee development initiatives. 

The right balance of skills between employees and 

jobs is critical not only for enabling employees to 

be productive but also to discourage valued 

employees from leaving the agency because of 

dissatisfaction with the work. To ensure an 

appropriate match between skills needed and skills 

on hand, agency managers need to involve 

supervisors in the strategic planning process and 

ensure that the supervisors understand how their 

human resource management actions (e.g., with 

regard to recruitment, selection, and development) 

have direct impact on the agency’s ability to meet 

its long-range goals. 

Improving Hiring Practices 

Once skill imbalances are identified, many 

agencies will need to improve their hiring 

strategies in order to address those imbalances. 

This will likely involve making the hiring process 

faster, since some candidates with needed skills will 

be in demand, and prolonged hiring processes may 

mean losing good candidates. However, 

effectiveness of the hiring process in identifying 

the best available candidates (especially when 

trying to address skill imbalances in the workforce) 

is perhaps even more critical, and must be 

addressed. As noted in previous Board reports, 

agencies need to ensure that the best assessment 

tools available and practical for use are 

incorporated into their selection strategies. 

Taking Career Development Seriously 

Another important aspect of addressing skill 

imbalances concerns the development of 

employees. Agency supervisors need to realize that 

employee development is part of their jobs as 

supervisors and is critical to long-term mission 

accomplishment. Decisions about training and 

other developmental activities need to be based on 

what is most appropriate for the organization’s 

needs in the long run. Previous Board studies have 

found that agency training decisions are often 

based on self-nomination by employees rather 

than a thoughtful collaborative effort between 

employees and their supervisors to address agency 

skill needs. Supervisors should be much more 

strategically involved in training decisions, looking 

more closely at their work unit to identify training 

needs that should be addressed. Supervisors should 

place greater emphasis on continuous learning 

programs and become much more involved in 

their agency’s strategic planning to ensure that 

program budgets adequately support necessary 

training. Previous Board studies have found that 

commitment to training budgets is lacking in 

many agencies (with training budgets often being 

the first cut during times of fiscal constraint). If 

skill needs in the current workforce are to be 

adequately addressed, training programs must be 

adequately funded and supported by agency 

management. 

Improving Supervisor 

Communication Skills 

Agencies should work to ensure that all current 

supervisors have the interpersonal skills needed to 

communicate effectively with their employees. 

And agency managers must select future 

supervisors who have the ability to communicate 

effectively with their employees, even when the 

information to be communicated is negative; who 

are fully aware of the critical importance of 

38 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
communicating well with their employees; and 

who have the desire to do this. 

To this end, agency managers should begin now to 

promote a culture in which supervisors understand 

that communicating effectively with employees on 

a regular basis is a critical aspect of their jobs. 

Supervisors should view the responsibility as 

critical because it helps employees understand the 

role their work plays in the accomplishment of 

organizational goals, provides employees with 

feedback concerning their performance (both to 

encourage the continuance of good performance 

and to help correct poor performance); promotes 

better relations among members of the workgroup 

when perceived inequities exist; and creates an 

“open” environment in which employees feel safe 

in disclosing observations of illegal or 

inappropriate acts. 

Elevating the Importance of 

Performance Management 

In terms of performance feedback, agency 

managers should take a close look at their 

performance management and appraisal systems to 

ensure that they encourage ongoing and frequent 

discussions about performance between supervisors 

and employees. More importantly, agency 

managers need to ensure that all supervisors 

understand that while the performance appraisal is 

a tool to aid supervisor communication about 

performance with their employees, effective 

performance management must be an ongoing 

interaction between supervisors and their 

employees. 

Improving the Selection of 

Supervisors 

Agencies need to ensure that their supervisory 

selection systems focus on critical supervisory skills 

and abilities—such as communication skills—to 

the same extent that they focus on technical skills. 

As the Board has previously reported, many 

agencies promote individuals into supervisory 

positions based on their technical skill rather than 

on their “human relations” skills and abilities. 

Agencies should focus on selecting for supervisory 

positions only those who possess necessary 

competencies, and seek other ways to reward 

employees who just perform well in technical 

aspects of the job. 

Dealing with Weak Supervisors 

At the same time, agencies should address ways to 

handle current supervisory employees who are not 

well suited to perform in those positions, such as 

through additional training and development, or 

movement to a nonsupervisory role in the 

organization. 

Emphasizing the Positives About 

Federal Employment 

Our survey respondents have provided us insight 

into the aspects of Federal employment that 

people who choose to work for (and stay with) the 

Federal Government find most appealing. Federal 

recruiters in their campaigns to attract talented 

individuals to Federal jobs should emphasize this 

information. This is especially important when 

trying to compete against private sector employers 

in tight labor markets where salary differences have 

tended to give private sector recruiters the edge. 

For example, Federal recruiters should emphasize 

the highly regarded benefits programs and job 

security associated with Federal employment, as 

well as the varied types of duties and challenging 

responsibilities that Federal jobs can offer. 

Addressing Employee Mistrust of the 

Selection and Promotion Process 

Agency management should be as open as possible 

about how they hire and promote employees 

within the agency. Information such as the 

number of anticipated promotional opportunities 

and requirements for promotion should be widely 

disseminated so that employees have a fuller 

understanding of their chances for being 

promoted. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 39 
As discussed in a previous Board report,47 one 

reason that so many employees are unhappy with 

and distrust their organization’s selection and merit 

promotion processes is that they do not always 

have a complete understanding of what their 

opportunities for selection and advancement 

actually are. In addition, applicants and employees 

often do not understand the basis for the selection/ 

promotion decisions. 

By sharing information about the criteria that will 

be applied by managers making selection and 

promotion decisions, and how candidate 

qualifications match with those criteria, agencies 

will help applicants make better choices about 

which jobs to apply for. Such information will 

help reduce the number of applications from 

unqualified candidates. Moreover, by educating 

employees about agency statistics concerning 

hiring and promotion rates and patterns, 

employees already onboard can develop more 

realistic expectations about their own 

opportunities for advancement within their career 

fields. For example, our research has shown that 

many employees expect to be promoted within 2 

years of achieving a particular grade. In fact, 

however, employees may stay at the same grade 

level for 10 to 15 years once they reach journey 

levels in their occupations. 

Dealing More Effectively with Poor 

Performers 

Agency managers need to ensure that they have 

created a culture that supports supervisors in more 

effectively addressing the problem of poor 

performers. 

Over the past two decades, the Board has 

frequently addressed the issue of dealing with poor 

performers. However, based on responses in the 

MPS2000 survey, this is still an issue of great 

concern to employees and supervisors alike. While 

it is easy to blame supervisors for not dealing 

effectively with problem performers, there are a 

number of factors that can impede supervisors 

from doing so. It is an issue that agencies must 

address from the top of the organization. To that 

end, we encourage agency management to: 

◆ Provide supervisors advice and assistance when 

they are trying to take appropriate action 

against a problem performer, or aid them in 

placing the poor performer into a position that 

might be a better match of skills and abilities. 

◆ Reward supervisors who, by addressing 

performance problems, are taking a strategic 

approach to performance management and goal 

accomplishment, even when it means that 

short-term goals might go unmet. Also make 

the organization’s other supervisors aware when 

one has been so rewarded. 

◆ Work to find less costly, more efficient, and less 

disruptive strategies for handling performance 

problems rather than taking formal actions. 

◆ Ensure that their supervisors are both willing 

and able to handle performance problems as 

they arise. This may mean adopting new ways of 

selecting individuals for supervisory positions, as 

well as training current supervisors or moving 

current supervisors to nonsupervisory jobs. 

Ensuring a Culture Free from 

Reprisals 

Agency managers need to ensure that they have 

created a culture in their organization that protects 

employees from reprisals for exercising their appeal 

rights or for blowing the whistle on instances of 

waste, fraud, or abuse. 

47 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Merit Promotion Program: Process vs. Outcome, Dec. 2001. 

40 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
Appendix 1: The Merit Principles Survey 2000


U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

1120 Vermont Avenue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20419 

January 2000 

MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 

Dear Federal Coworker: 

We are interested in what you think about your work and your work environment. 

I know how busy people are these days, but I hope you will be able to spare a little time to 

help us by responding to this survey. all random sample of 

government employees whose views will represent the views of the larger federal 

workforce. ake a difference. 

This effort is an important part of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB) 

oversight of the “health” of the federal civil service. 

approximately every three years since 1983. 

Congress, federal managers, and other decision makers. 

All your responses to this survey will be strictly confidential. The survey should take you 

about 20 to 30 minutes to complete, depending on the number of questions you are asked 

to answer. may be completed at your work site or at home. Additional 

information about this survey—and a summary of the eventual findings—will be available 

by clicking the “STUDIES” icon on MSPB’s website (www.mspb.gov). 

Please complete the survey and return it in the enclosed prepaid envelope within 5 days 

after you receive it. If you have any questions about this survey, please contact us on our 

survey hotline at (202) 653-6772, Ext. 1337 or via e-mail at SURVEY2000@mspb.gov. 

Thank you very much for contributing to this important project. 

Sincerely, 

John M. Palguta 

Director, Policy and Evaluation 

You are part of a relatively sm

You can m

MSPB has been conducting this survey 

The findings will go to the President, 

The survey 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 41

- 2 -

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

WASHINGTON, DC 

MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 

This survey asks for your opinions on a variety of personnel issues. You will not be asked to answer every question 

on this survey and instructions will tell you which questions to skip. 

The survey is divided into the following three sections: 

DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS SURVEY 

Throughout the federal government there are many different interpretations of work, work units, and levels of 

supervision. To guide your interpretation and for the purposes of this survey, your: 

WORK UNIT is the group of people you work with on a regular basis and with whom you most identify. This will usually 

be the group of employees working for the same immediate supervisor. A work unit is generally larger than a "team" and 

may include one or more teams led by "team leaders." 

IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR is the person who generally is the first person to sign your performance appraisal rating. 

ORGANIZATION refers to the next higher unit to which your work unit belongs. This is usually a level between your 

work unit and your AGENCY. 

AGENCY is the governmental component where you work. If you work in an independent agency, such as the 

Environmental Protection Agency or the Office of Personnel Management, that would be "your agency." If you work in 

one of the large cabinet-level departments, such as the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, or the 

Department of Defense, "your agency" would be a major component of that department. For example, major 

departmental components include "Bureaus" (e.g., Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Land Management); large 

components such as the Army, Navy, and Air Force; "Services" (e.g., the Forest Service, the Internal Revenue Service), 

"Administrations" (e.g., Food and Drug Administration, Drug Enforcement Administration). 

ATTENTION SUPERVISORS: If you are a supervisor, consider your WORK UNIT to be the group of people you 

directly supervise. 

SECTION I, COMPLETED BY ALL EMPLOYEES, covers a wide range of topics, including your job, your work 

unit, your supervisor and coworkers, reasons for staying or leaving government, personnel practices, and 

individual and organizational performance. 

SECTION II, COMPLETED BY SUPERVISORS, specifically covers difficulties encountered in filling vacancies, 

selection procedures used, and problems in dealing with poor performers. 

SECTION III, COMPLETED BY ALL EMPLOYEES, covers individual background information for use in 

comparing the perceptions of different employee subgroups. 

PRIVACY ACT NOTICE 

Collection of the requested information is authorized by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Your 

participation in this survey is completely voluntary and none of the information you choose to 

supply will be associated with you individually. 

REPORT REQUEST INFORMATION 

If you would like a copy of the report published as a result of this survey, contact us at: 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Office of Policy and Evaluation 

1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20419 

(202) 653-6772 Ext. 1350 

E-mail: SURVEY2000@mspb.gov. 

42 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
- 3 -

Information is shared freely in 

my work unit 

I have the resources to do my 

job well 

At the place I work, my opinions 

seem to count 

My work unit has a sufficient 

number of employees to do its job 

A spirit of cooperation and 

teamwork exists in my work unit 

In the past 2 years, I have been 

given more flexibility in how I 

accomplish my work 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

..................... 

......................... 

................... 

.. 

... 

.............. 

In the past 2 years, the productivity 

of my work unit has improved 

I am often bored with my job 

I would recommend the 

Government as a place to work 

The work I do is meaningful to me 

I know what is expected of me 

on the job 

I am treated with respect in my 

work unit 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

My work unit has been downsized 

in the last 5 years 

My present job makes good use 

of my skills and abilities 

13. 

14. 

The performance appraisal 

system motivates me to do a 

better job 

I am satisfied with the recognition 

I receive for my work 

Recognition and rewards are 

based on merit in my work unit 

In my work unit, corrective actions 

are taken when employees do not 

meet performance standards 

In my work unit, steps are taken to 

deal with a poor performer who 

cannot or will not improve 

The standards used to evaluate 

my performace are fair 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

The performance appraisal rating 

system has helped increase 

communications about my job 

between my supervisor and me 

25. 

Employees participate in 

developing long-range plans in 

my work unit 

My performance standards are 

clearly linked to my organization's 

goals and objectives 

17. 

18. 

I receive the training I need to 

perform my job 

I need more training to perform 

my job effectively 

15. 

16. 

..... 

...... 

.... 

.. 

....................... 

........................ 

................ 

........... 

.................. 

................ 

.................... 

............. 

....................... 

............. 

.... 

...... 

........ 

........... 

.... 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

Don't Know/Can't Judge 

SECTION I: ALL EMPLOYEES 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

Don't Know/Can't Judge 

- 3 -

MARKING INSTRUCTIONS 

• Use a No. 2 pencil or blue or black ink pen. 

• Fill in the oval completely. 

• Do not make any stray marks on this survey. 

CORRECT MARK: INCORRECT MARKS: 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 43 
- 4 -

........ 

....... 

...... 

......................... 

receive more pay (e.g., bonus, 

promotion, cash award) 

receive a time-off award 

receive a non-pay reward 

(e.g., letter of recognition) 

receive informal recognition 

(e.g., being told you do good 

work) 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

Monetary award 

My supervisor's encouragement 

Recognition from my coworkers 

Personal desire to make a contribution 

Desire to get a good performance rating 

My duty as a public employee 

Desire to make my supervisor look good 

Increasing my chances for a promotion 

Desire to help my work unit meet its goals 

Personal pride or satisfaction in my work 

Desire not to let my supervisor down 

Desire not to let my coworkers down 

Good working environment overall 

Availability of flexible working conditions 

(e.g., hours or work) 

Other (specify) 

44. If you perform better in your present 

job, how likely is it that you will: 

31. 

32. 

33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

37. 

38. 

39. 

40. 

My supervisor keeps me informed 

about how well I am doing 

My supervisor deals effectively 

with poor performers 

My supervisor deals effectively 

with misconduct on the job 

My immediate supervisor 

encourages my career 

development 

Overall, I am satisfied with my 

supervisor 

Overall, I am satisfied with 

managers above my immediate 

supervisor 

Workforce diversity should be 

taken into account when choosing 

among the best-qualified 

candidates 

Downsizing has seriously eroded 

the institutional memory or 

knowledge in my work unit 

Downsizing has helped make my 

work unit more efficient 

A private sector company could 

perform the work of my work unit 

just as effectively as my work unit 

28. 

29. 

30. 

41. 

42. 

During the past 2 years, I have 

participated in legally permitted 

partisan political activities 

I am familiar with the Government 

Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) 

26. 

27. 

Overall, I am satisfied with my 

current pay 

In general, I am satisfied with 

my job 

My supervisor has good 

management skills 

My supervisor has good technical 

skills 

My supervisor looks out for the 

personal welfare of members of 

my work unit 

..................... 

.......................... 

............... 

........................... 

.................... 

........ 

............. 

....... 

.................... 

...................... 

...................... 

...................... 

........ 

........... 

... 

........ 

......................... 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

Don't Know/Can't Judge 

Very Unlikely 

Somewhat Unlikely 

Neither Likely nor Unlikely 

Somewhat Likely 

Very Likely 

No Basis to Judge 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

Don't Know/Can't Judge 

43. Of the following, mark the 3 factors that most motivate 

you to do a good job. 

- 4 -

Please mark no more than 3. 

44 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
- 5 -

52. In the coming year, do you plan to look for another job? 

No – skip to question 54. 

Yes, but only within the Federal Government 

Yes, but only outside the Federal Government 

Yes, I plan to look both inside and outside the 

Federal Government 

................ 

............ 

......... 

45. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Contribution to Agency Mission No 

Basis 

to 

Judge 

To a Very 

To No Extent Great Extent On a 10-point scale, to what extent do you feel 

that each of the following contributes to the 

accomplishment of your agency's mission? 

leave your current work unit 

to work in another work unit 

in your agency? 

leave your current agency 

to work in another Federal 

agency? 

a. 

b. 

48. Are you currently eligible to retire? 

Yes – skip to question 50. 

No 

Don't Know/Not Sure 

49. Will you become eligible to retire within the next 5 years? 

Yes 

No 

Don't Know/Not Sure 

retire from the Federal 

Government 

leave your work unit for another 

Federal Government job 

leave your work unit for a job 

outside the Federal 

Government 

a. 

b. 

c. 

............... 

...................... 

.................. 

....... 

.................. 

51. In the coming year, do you plan to retire? 

Yes – skip to question 53. 

No 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

7 

7 

7 

8 

8 

8 

9 

9 

9 

10 

10 

10 

Very Unlikely 

Somewhat Unlikely 

Neither Likely nor Unlikely 

Somewhat Likely 

Very Likely 

Not Sure 

............... 

... 

........................ 

a. 

b. 

c. 

resigning before you become 

eligible to retire? 

retiring within 6 months after 

you become eligible to retire? 

retiring more than 6 months 

after you become eligible to 

retire? 50. Within the next 5 years, 

how likely are you to: 

46. Considering your Federal career 

overall, how likely is it that you 

will be leaving the Federal 

Government by: 

47. Before you retire or resign from 

the Federal Government, how 

likely is it that you will: 

The work you personally perform 

The work performed by your work unit 

The work performed by your organization 

a. 

b. 

c. 

Very Unlikely 

Somewhat Unlikely 

Neither Likely nor Unlikely 

Somewhat Likely 

Very Likely 

Not Sure 

Very Unlikely 

Somewhat Unlikely 

Neither Likely nor Unlikely 

Somewhat Likely 

Very Likely 

Not Sure 

- 5 -

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 45 
- 6 -

Very Important 

.......................... 

........................ 

.................................. 

........................................... 

............................................ 

- 6 -

Important 

Neither Important nor Unimportant 

Unimportant 

Very Unimportant 

Desire to pursue nonwork interests 

Desire to move to another city or town 

Excessive commuting time 

Health problems 

Family reasons 

PERSONAL 

53A. If you plan to retire or look for another job in the coming year, how important, 53B.

if at all, is each of the following as a reason for your decision? 

(If you are NOT planning to retire or look for another job in the coming year, 

SKIP TO question 54.) 

........... 

................... 

............................ 

....................................... 

........................................ 

Desire to make better use of your skills and abilities 

Desire to change to a different type of work 

Desire to work more on your own 

Excessive job stress 

Lack of job security 

YOUR WORK 

................................... 

......................... 

......................... 

..................... 

....................... 

Problems with coworkers 

Problems with workers in other units 

Problems with customers you serve 

Problems with your immediate supervisor 

Problems with higher-level supervisors 

WORKING RELATIONSHIPS 

............................ 

...................... 

.............. 

........................ 

Improve opportunities for training 

Increase opportunities for advancement 

Lack of recognition for outstanding performance 

Poor public image of Federal workers 

ADVANCEMENT/RECOGNITION 

................................. 

...................................... 

......... 

Desire to earn more money 

Unsatisfactory benefit program (e.g., retirement, leave, 

health, Thrift Savings) 

Concerns about possible changes to benefit programs 

COMPENSATION/BENEFITS 

............................ 

....................... 

......................................... 

........................................... 

............................ 

Good job market for what you do 

Too few people to handle the workload 

Inadequate support (equipment, supplies, office 

assistance, etc.) 

Unsatisfactory working conditions (space, temperature, 

furniture, etc.) 

Unsatisfactory working schedule 

OTHER 

Select and mark 

the 3 reasons 

that are the most 

important in your 

decision to retire 

or to look for 

another job. 

Do not mark 

more than 3. 

Then, SKIP TO 

question 55. 

Please be sure to continue to question 53B 

- 6 -

46 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
- 7 -

Very Important 

Important 

Neither Important nor Unimportant 

Unimportant 

Very Unimportant 

54A. If you are NOT planning to retire or look for another job in the coming year, how important, 54B.

if at all, is each of the following as a reason for you to stay in your present job? 

(If you ARE planning to retire or look for another job in the coming year, be sure you 

answered both parts of question 53, then SKIP TO question 55.) 

........................ 

............. 

........................... 

......................................... 

............................................... 

Current job duties and responsibilities 

Opportunities to work on challenging assignments 

Opportunities to work on your own 

Level of job stress 

Job security 

YOUR WORK 

........................................ 

................................. 

....................................... 

.................................. 

...................... 

Workers in your unit 

Workers in other work units 

Customers you serve 

Your immediate supervisor 

Higher-level supervisors in your agency 

WORKING RELATIONSHIPS 

................................... 

.................... 

..................... 

........ 

Opportunities for training 

Chances of getting promoted in the future 

Recognition for outstanding performance 

Reputation of the Federal Government as an employer 

ADVANCEMENT/RECOGNITION 

................................. 

........................................... 

Your pay (excluding benefits) compared to pay for similar 

jobs outside Government 

Federal benefit programs (e.g., retirement, leave, health, 

Thrift Savings) 

COMPENSATION/BENEFITS 

............................. 

................. 

............... 

........ 

.............................. 

Poor job market for what you do 

The number of people to handle the workload 

Availability of resources and support equipment 

Physical work environment (office space, facilities, etc.) 

Your current working schedule 

OTHER 

Please be sure to continue to question 54B 

Select and mark 

the 3 reasons 

that are the most 

important in your 

decision to stay in 

your present job. 

Do not mark 

more than 3. 

...................................... 

........................................... 

............................................ 

............................................ 

Desire not to relocate 

Commuting time 

Health reasons 

Family reasons 

PERSONAL 

- 7 -

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 47 
- 8 -

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

Not Applicable 

...... 

.................... 

.................. 

................ 

My immediate supervisor . . . 

Selects the best-qualified 

available people when hiring 

from outside Government 

Promotes the best-qualified 

available people for the jobs 

to be filled 

Uses fair and open competition 

when hiring from outside 

Government 

Uses fair and open competition 

for promotions 

Promotes high standards of 

integrity, conduct, and concern 

for the public interest 

Retains employees on the 

basis of their job performance 

Has let the fear of being 

charged with discrimination 

adversely affect the way work 

is assigned, performance is 

evaluated, or awards are given 

Would try to remove an 

employee who even after 

counseling refused to perform 

satisfactorily 

Would try to remove an 

employee who even after 

coaching was not able to 

perform satisfactorily 

Would try to help a poor 

performer improve 

Would encourage a poor 

performer to resign or transfer 

out of the work unit 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

i. 

j. 

k. 

56. What is the total number of employees in your 

immediate work unit, including the supervisor and 

team leader(s)? 

- 8 -

58. In your opinion, how many employees in your 

immediate work unit, if any, are performing so 

poorly that they deserve to be fired? 

57. In your opinion, how many employees in your 

immediate work unit, if any, are performing 

below what is reasonably expected from 

them on their job? 

55. Indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with 

the following statements about the performance of your 

immediate supervisor. 

.......... 

... 

.. 

.................. 

........... 

............. 

............ 

Write the number and mark the 

matching ovals below each box. 

Use leading zeroes, if less than 

100, e.g., 031 or 009. 

Write in the number and mark the 

matching ovals below each box. 

Use leading zeroes, if less than 

10, e.g., 05 or 01. 

Write in the number and mark the 

matching ovals below each box. 

Use leading zeroes, if less than 

10, e.g., 05 or 01. 

Don't Know/Can't Judge 

- 8 -

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

48 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
- 9 -

Poor 

Below Average 

Average 

Above Average 

Outstanding 

No Basis to Judge 

...................... 

......................... 

......................... 

...... 

......... 

........................ 

Yourself 

People who have joined your 

work unit in the past 2 years, 

if any 

People who have left your 

work unit in the last 2 years, 

if any 

Your work unit as a whole 

The larger organization that 

includes your work unit 

The Federal workforce as a 

whole 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

To No Extent 

To a Little Extent 

To Some Extent 

To a Considerable Extent 

To a Very Great Extent 

No Basis to Judge 

................... 

...................... 

...................... 

.. 

..................... 

.............. 

Promotions 

Awards 

Training 

Annual performance appraisals 

Discipline 

Job assignments 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

To No Extent 

To a Minimal Extent 

To a Moderate Extent 

To a Great Extent 

Don't Know/Can't Judge 

............... 

.......... 

....................... 

................ 

.......................... 

African Americans 

Asian Pacific Americans 

Hispanics 

Native Americans 

Whites 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

................................... 

.............................. 

........................... 

59. 

Yourself 

Your work unit 

Your organization 

a. 

b. 

c. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not at all 

Productive On a 10-point scale, how would you rate 

the overall productivity of: 

Extremely 

Productive 

No 

Basis 

to 

Judge 

.................. 

........ 

a. 

b. 

61. In the past 2 years, have you: 

Made any formal disclosure of 

unlawful behaviors, fraud, waste 

or abuse at work? 

Exercised any formal appeal, 

complaint, or grievance right? 

Yes No

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

7 

7 

7 

8 

8 

8 

9 

9 

9 

10 

10 

10 

60. Overall, how would you rate the quality of work 

performed by: 

62. In the past 2 years, to what extent do you believe you 

have been treated fairly regarding the following? 

63. In your organization, to what extent do you believe 

that employees from each of the following groups are 

subjected to flagrant and obviously discriminatory 

practices which hinder their career development? 

(Mark a response for each group.) 

Level of Productivity 

- 9 -

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 49 
- 10 -

Race/national origin 

Sex 

Age 

Handicapping condition 

Religion 

Marital Status 

Political affiliation 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

64. In the past 2 years, do you feel you 

have been denied a job, promotion 

or other job benefit because of 

unlawful discrimination based upon: 

To engage in partisan political 

activity 

To retaliate against or take action in 

favor of another Federal Employee 

or applicant for political reasons 

a. 

b. 

65. In the past 2 years, do you feel you have 

been pressured by an agency official: 

Deliberately misled by an agency 

official about your right to compete for 

a job or promotion 

Influenced by an agency official to 

withdraw from competition for a 

Federal job or promotion in order to 

help another person's chances of 

getting that job or promotion 

Denied a job or promotion because 

one of the selecting or recommending 

officials gave an unfair advantage to 

another applicant 

Denied a job or promotion which went 

instead to the relative of one of the 

selecting or recommending officials 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

66. In the past 2 years, do you feel you 

have been: 

Making disclosure concerning 

health and safety dangers, unlawful 

behavior, and/or fraud, waste, and 

abuse 

Exercising any appeal, complaint, 

or grievance right 

Testifying for or otherwise assisting 

any individual in the exercise of 

whistleblowing, equal opportunity, 

or appeal rights 

Refusing to obey an unlawful order 

Reporting unwanted sexual 

attention or sexual harassment 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

67. In the past 2 years, do you feel you 

have been retaliated against or 

threatened with retaliation for: 

............................... 

..................... 

....................... 

..... 

......... 

- 10 -

......... 

....................... 

....................... 

..... 

................... 

.............. 

........... 

............................... 

........ 

No 

Yes 

Don't Know/Can't Judge 

..................... 

............ 

..................... 

..... 

No 

Yes 

Don't Know/Can't Judge 

- 10 -

50 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
- 11 -

70. Are you a supervisor (i.e., do you sign the performance appraisal ratings for your immediate subordinates)? 

No – Skip to Section III, question 89 on page 15. 

Yes 

- 11 -

68A. 

Are the following 

programs available 

to you at work? 

Programs 

Be Sure to Answer Both Parts 

of This Question 

68B. 

How important is each program 

to you personally (even if it is 

not currently available to you)? 

Yes No 

Don't 

Know/ 

Not 

Sure 

Very Important Important Neither Important nor Unimportant Unimportant Very Unimportant Don't Know/ Can't Judge 

Flexible work schedule (i.e., variable starting and 

ending times) 

Compressed work schedule (i.e., working more than 

8-hour days) 

Opportunity to work part-time 

Opportunity for job sharing 

Opportunity to work away from the main work site 

(telecommuting) 

Child care resource and referral services 

Elder care resource and referral services 

Onsite/near site child care center 

Sick leave for family care, bereavement, or adoption 

Leave sharing 

Commuter fare subsidies 

Employee assistance programs (EAP) 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

i. 

j. 

k. 

l. 

Sources of 

Information 

69A. 

Indicate which of the following 

sources of information are 

readily available 

to you at work. 

69B. 

How often do you use each 

as part of your work? 

Hourly Daily Weekly Monthly Less than Monthly Not at All 

Available? 

Yes No

Fax 

Voice-mail 

E-mail 

Internet 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 51 
- 12 -

71. Have you filled a vacant position in the last 2 years? 

No – Skip to question 79 on page 13. 

Yes 

Professional/Administrative 

Technical/Clerical 

Wage Grade 

Other 

Not sure 

72. Please tell us about the position you filled most recently 

within the last 2 years. 

What job category was it in? 

Federal employees from within your agency 

Federal employees from outside your agency 

Former Federal employees 

Applicants who have never been Federal employees 

Unsure/Don't know 

73. Which of the following types of applicants were referred 

to you for your most recent selection? 

(Mark all that apply) 

Federal employees from within your agency 

Federal employees from outside your agency 

Former Federal employees 

Applicants who have never been Federal employees 

Unsure/Don't know 

74. From which type of applicant did you make your most 

recent selection? 

Yes 

No 

Don't know/Can't Judge 

75. Do you think you filled this job more quickly than you 

would have 2 years ago? 

76. Have you filled any entry-level professional/administrative 

vacancies in your work unit in the last 2 years? 

No – Skip to question 78 on page 13. 

Yes 

SECTION II: VISORS ONLY 

- 12 -

(Mark one) 

(Mark only one) 

SUPER

77A. 

When filling entry-level 

professional/ administrative 

vacancies in your work unit, to 

what extent do you rely on the 

following sources of information in 

making your hiring decisions? 

Source of Information 

Be Sure to Answer Both Parts 

of This Question 

77B. 

In your opinion, to what extent 

is each of these sources of 

information a good predictor of 

professional/administrative 

job performance? 

To a Great Extent To a Moderate Extent To a Minimal Extent To No Extent Don't Know/ Can't Judge To a Moderate TExtent 

o a Great 

Extent To No Extent To a Minimal Extent Don't Know/ Can't Judge 

Written test scores 

Prior work experience 

Level of education achieved 

Reputation of educational 

institution attended 

Major field of study 

College grade point average 

Interviews 

Quality of the application or 

resumé 

Reference checks 

Personal recommendations 

Other (Please specify) 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

i. 

j. 

k. 

52 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
- 13 -

Greatly Worsened 

Somewhat Worsened 

Remained the Same 

Somewhat Improved 

Greatly Improved 

Don't Know/Can't Judge 

................... 

........ 

................. 

................ 

... 

................... 

Wage grade (trades or 

crafts) 

Clerical or support 

Technical (e.g., 

engineering, biological 

or medical technician 

or aide) 

Entry-level professional 

or administrative 

positions 

Mid- or senior-level 

professional or 

administrative positions 

Senior Executive Service 

(SES) 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

Not Applicable 

Strongly Disagree 

Disagree 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 

Agree 

Strongly Agree 

Don't Know/Can't Judge 

....... 

..................... 

Since 1993, I have gained 

additional flexibilities in 

taking personnel actions 

High employee turnover is 

a major problem in my 

work unit 

a. 

b. 

79. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the 

following statements? 

83. 

No – Skip to Section III, question 89 on page 15. 

Yes 

During the past 2 years, have you taken any formal 

action (e.g., demotion, removal) against an employee 

for a performance problem? 

84. 

No 

Yes 

Is the employee against whom you took formal action 

still in the work unit? 

employee, answer in terms of the most recent action 

taken.) 

80. 

Temporary/Term-limited employees 

Contract employees 

Students (interns, co-ops, summer hires, etc.) 

81. 

Increase 

Stay the same 

Decrease 

Don't Know/Not Sure 

In the next 5 years, is the reliance of your work unit on 

contingent employees likely to: 

82. 

No – Skip to Section III, question 89 on page 15. 

Yes, misconduct 

Yes, poor performance 

Yes, both poor performance and misconduct 

During the past 2 years, have you supervised 

employees with performance or misconduct problems? 

Does your work unit rely on any of the following types 

of contingent employees to get the work done? 

(Mark all that apply.) 

78. For all the vacancies you filled in your work unit in the 

past 2 years, has the quality of applicants improved or 

worsened with regard to each of the following 

categories of positions? 

- 13 -

(If there was more than one 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 53 
- 14 -

86. 

No – Skip to question 88. 

Yes 

Neither Easy nor Difficult 

Easy 

Very Easy 

Don't Know/Not Applicable 

Identify specific performance 

deficiencies 

Relate the performance 

deficiencies to the employee's 

critical job elements 

Discuss the performance 

deficiencies with the employee 

Provide the employee an 

opportunity to demonstrate 

acceptable performance 

Develop a performance 

improvement plan (PIP) 

Supervise an employee who 

is on a PIP 

Document the employee's 

performance 

Defend the decision to remove 

or demote the poor performer 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

.................. 

........... 

.. 

....... 

........ 

................... 

.................. 

... 

Difficult 

Very Difficult 

85. How easy or difficult was it for you to do the following 

tasks in dealing with an employee with a performance 

problem? 

............................. 

.................. 

.............. 

......................... 

............ 

............................ 

Of the difficulty you had in dealing with an employee with a 

performance problem, were any of the following a reason 

for the difficulty? 

87. 

Yes No 

Got Worse 

Stayed the Same 

Improved 

The poor performer involved 

Your immediate supervisor 

Upper management 

Other workers in the same work 

unit as the poor performer 

Union representatives 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

...... 

....... 

............. 

........ 

............ 

Don't Know 

Not Applicable 

- 14 -

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

i. 

j. 

k. 

l. 

Insufficient time to devote to the 

problem 

Your lack of training on how to deal 

with poor performers 

You didn't believe your action would 

be upheld by a third party 

Insufficient support from higher-level 

management 

Inadequate advice from the human 

resources (personnel) office 

Lack of objectivity of the performance 

standards 

Your dislike of confrontation 

Your concern that the employee might 

file a discrimination complaint 

Employee filed a discrimination 

complaint 

Poor agency guidelines regarding the 

performance management process 

Your lack of confidence in the 

performance management system 

Other (Please specify) 

............ 

.......... 

............................ 

..... 

...... 

.. 

88. Generally, how did taking formal action to deal with a poor 

performer affect your working relationship with each of the 

following? 

Did you have any difficulty in dealing with an employee 

with a performance problem? 

- 14 -

54 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

- 15 -

SECTION III: ALL EMPLOYEES 

Less than 1 year 

1 to 5 years 

6 to 10 years 

11 to 15 years 

- 15 -

89. How many years have you been a Federal Government 

employee (excluding military service)? 

Headquarters 

90. Do you work at your agency's headquarters office 

(typically in Washington, DC), or in a field location? 

Male 

91. Are you: 

Under 20 

20-29 

30-39 

40-49 

92. What is your age? 

Less than high school diploma 

High school diploma or GED 

High school diploma or GED plus some college 

or technical school 

2-year college degree (AA, AS) 

4-year college degree (BA, BS, or other 

bachelor's degree) 

Some graduate or professional school 

Graduate or professional degree 

93. What is your highest educational level? 

General schedule or similar 

Wage grade 

Executive (SES or equivalent) 

Other 

94. What is your pay category? 

95. What is your current pay grade? 

Yes 

96. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin? 

American Indian or Alaskan Native 

Asian 

Black or African American 

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

White 

97. What race do you consider yourself to be? 

(Mark one or more.) 

Agriculture 

Commerce 

98. Where do you work? 

Air Force 

Army 

Navy 

Other DOD 

Defense 

Education 

Energy 

Environmental Protection Agency 

General Services Administration 

Health and Human Services 

Housing and Urban Development 

Justice 

Labor 

Interior 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Social Security Administration 

State 

Transportation (not FAA) 

Transportation (FAA) 

Treasury 

Veterans Affairs 

Other 

50-54 

55-59 

60-64 

65 or older 

Female 

Field 

FERS 

CSRS 

Other 

Don't know 

99. To which retirement system do you belong? ES 1-6 (SES pay grades) 

Other 

16 to 20 years 

21 to 25 years 

26 to 30 years 

31 years or more 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

No 

A REPORT BY THE U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 55 
- 16 - R15583-PFI-54321 

Comments may also be sent via e-mail to SURVEY2000@mspb.gov. 

THANK YOU for your participation in this survey. 

For questions, current status, and results of this survey, check the "STUDIES" area at 

www.mspb.gov 

Please return the completed survey in the prepaid envelope to the Merit Systems Protection Board in care of: 

RESEARCH APPLICATIONS, Incorporated 

ATTN: MSPB-MPS2000 

414 Hungerford Drive, Suite 220 

Rockville, MD 

COMMENTS: 

(Enclose extra sheets, if needed) 

20850-4125 

56 THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RESULTS OF THE MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY 2000