Federal Election Commission

Office of Inspector General

Root Causes of Low 

Employee Morale Study

July 2016

Assignment No. OIG-15-06

Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Job Performance Systems (JPS) was hired by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to report on the 

root causes of the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) low morale. This study was motivated by 

past Federal Employee Viewpoint Surveys (FEVS) that place the FEC low on the Partnership for 

Public Service’s ranking of The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government. In addition 

employees have complained to the OIG about low employee morale. 

METHODOLOGY

Following a review of the FEVS results and internal agency documents, JPS interviewed 78

individuals, facilitated 4 focus groups, and analyzed a customized survey completed by 185 

personnel. The key statistic we used in evaluating survey items was the percent of respondents 

(excluding those choosing Not Applicable) that selected either the Agree or Strongly Agree option.

From all this data, JPS identified the major factors that were contributing to low morale. The 

statements made in this report are therefore based on an aggregation of data from what FEC staff 

communicated to JPS through interviews, focus groups, and a survey, as well as an analysis of 

FEVS data.

FINDINGS

The major causes of low morale can be grouped in five categories as shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1

Causes of Low Morale at the FEC
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems ii

Commissioners’ Statements and Actions

Employees fault the Commissioners for much of the low morale at the Agency. Many stated the

negative tone set by the Commissioners impacts how employees feel about their jobs. So too do

public statements Commissioners make that criticize the Agency. Many employees do not feel that 

the Commissioners value their work. Employees also fault the Commissioners for poor staffing 

decisions within the Agency. In particular, employees feel that the Commissioners’ practice of 

leaving so many managers in an acting role negatively impacts the organization.

Ineffective Management

Many employees are also critical of top management and view them with suspicion and distrust. A 

significant number of employees do not feel the Staff Director, the Acting General Counsel, or the 

Acting Chief Financial Officer (i.e., the senior leaders) are effective. The fact that the Staff Director 

occupies two positions, head of the Office of Staff Director (OSD) and Office of Chief Information 

Officer (OCIO), is another common concern of employees. The fact that one individual holds both 

positions may contribute to the problems we heard about the quality of the information technology 

(IT) employees are provided and the support they receive. 

A number of people believe that rewards, good assignments, and promotions unfairly go to 

managers’ favorites. A sign of the major gulf between employees and upper management was the 

fear that employees have of retribution should they voice their concerns. 

Poor Communication

Almost universally, employees want more frequent and detailed communication from senior 

management. As examples, employees want to hear more quickly about changes in staffing, IT 

systems that are down, and the status of the possible building move. Inadequate communication 

may lead to the spread of rumors. Inadequate communication is also a major frustration voiced by 

employees subject to reorganizations. 

Our survey reveals a major gap exists between managers and employees on this topic. While many 

supervisors and managers think upper management communicates adequately, relatively few 

employees share this perception. Our data also indicates senior management has much work to do to 

gain the trust of employees that what they do tell them is truthful. We believe that on many 

important subjects upper management and line employees just do not have all that many honest, 

open, and trust-building exchanges.

Lack of Accountability

Another theme we heard was the failure to effectively hire, develop, and hold people accountable 

for performance at higher levels of management. Many employees, however, have positive things 

to say about their own supervisor.
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems iii

A significant number of employees are also frustrated that there still exist chronic poor performers 

who are not being dealt with appropriately by management. Employees told us that in many cases 

this means the more capable and conscientious workers are asked to pick up the slack. 

Other Factors

Perceived Lack of Diversity. It is the perception of many employees that the FEC has yet to 

implement an effective program to promote a more diverse and inclusive culture, particularly 

among higher levels of management. Some offices were frequently perceived as having

predominately white, male managers. 

Little Career Development and Limited Promotion Opportunities. Many employees face significant 

challenges in gaining promotions to higher level GS positions. These challenges include the limited 

number of openings associated with a small agency, little use of Individual Development Plans 

(IDPs), and limited career development discussions with supervisors. The widespread practice of 

filling positions in an acting rather than permanent capacity is a further frustration for some 

individuals seeking advancement. In the OGC, employees are frustrated that top management is 

hiring young attorneys from prestigious schools rather than putting more effort into developing and 

promoting from the current workforce. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JPS has identified the major causes of the low morale at the FEC. The findings we reported in this 

study are entirely consistent across the interviews, focus groups, and survey plus years of FEVS 

ratings. The Commissioners and those at the most senior levels of management now need to make a 

commitment to improve Agency morale and invest the necessary time and resources to make a real 

difference. 

While our task in this project was to clarify the factors causing low morale, this does not paint a full 

picture about working at the FEC. Employees also identified several factors which boost their 

morale. Most employees believe strongly in the mission of the organization. Many feel quite 

positive about the nature of their work. A good work-life balance was cited as a major plus and a 

major reason that many employees stay. Many individuals told us their colleagues and their 

immediate supervisor were positive factors about working at the FEC. 

Clearly, some of the problems we identified in this study are easier to address than others. In any 

plan the Agency develops there will be relatively quick wins the Agency should seek, along with 

others that may take many months or years to achieve. 

Longer term, the FEVS data and data collected in this study should serve as baseline information to 

determine if the changes being pursued are successful in improving Agency morale. Reversing the 

downward trend in FEVS ratings would be a welcome sign of success. The re-administration of 

items in the present study would be another way to quantify improvement.
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems iv

Commissioners and Management

There are a number of actions Commissioners should take that would support improved morale. All 

start with the Commissioner’s appreciation of the impact their statements and behaviors have on the 

workforce. At a more fundamental level, we encourage the Commission to rethink its approach to 

managing the workforce. Other strategies and models are possible that would require less of a need 

for input from across the Commission and result in greater delegation to Agency senior leaders on 

decisions that affect personnel. 

Such a change in course is based upon the presumption of an effective management corps that has 

the confidence of line employees. We recommend that the Agency take steps now to enhance the 

skills and knowledge of its current managers. Formal and informal training is an example along 

with the widespread use of executive coaching. Filling management positions with permanent hires 

rather than with people in an acting role should be a priority along with separately filling the Staff 

Director and CIO jobs.

Communication

We advise Agency’s senior staff to ensure more timely information covering a greater number of 

topics is regularly provided to all members of the organization. Until this happens information gaps 

will continue to be filled by rumors and speculation. This study provides a starting point for 

identifying topics of particular interest to employees. 

As good communication is a two-way street, the Commissioners and upper management need to 

also find ways to better learn the views and concerns of employees. Currently many employees 

either do not feel safe to express their views or do not believe their ideas will affect management 

decisions. 

Management Accountability

We strongly encourage that management skills and potential are better defined, assessed, and used 

in making promotions within the management ranks. In addition, supervisors and managers not 

performing to expected levels need to be dealt with appropriately.

Management must also be held accountable for putting additional efforts into raising the quantity 

and quality of output from chronically disaffected and unmotivated employees and if those efforts 

are not successful, taking the necessary steps to discipline and/or remove those employees who are 

not fulfilling their responsibilities on the job. We feel that performance management in general 

represents a good opportunity for agency leaders and managers to cooperate and make 

improvements. 

Diversity

Federal agencies make a commitment to inclusion through the implementation of a well-designed 

diversity plan. A typical element of an effective diversity program is the recruitment of applicants 
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems v

for mission critical occupations at colleges and universities that graduates relatively large numbers 

of women and minorities. Another element is a strategy to increase the number of women and 

minority in management positions within divisions where white males predominate. While the FEC 

has developed a diversity plan, the FEC needs to make full implementation of it a high priority.

Career Development and Promotion

A general conclusion of this study is that many employees feel discouraged about their chances for 

advancement and promotion. This has created high levels of frustrations among many. Some 

employees have even told us they have lost the desire to perform as a high achiever. There are 

numerous actions the Agency could take to further develop and support its people. In the case of 

the OGC it may also require focusing on development of the existing workforce.

Building on what is Already Working and New Ideas

One of the factors helping employees feel positive about the FEC is the opportunity to telework a 

few times a week. It appears that telework from an employee standpoint is working reasonably 

well. However, the FEC may want to determine what fine tuning could be done to make it more 

successful and increase the confidence in the program among top officials. Some managers told us 

they believe employees are less productive at home and communicating with them is more difficult.

In itself, more social events will certainly not turn around the poor morale at the Agency. 

Nevertheless, some more thoughtful, voluntary activities for people to interact seems worth the 

effort. An example of a professional activity offered by one survey respondent was a “lunch and 

learn” meeting where OGC attorneys could discuss noteworthy changes in campaign finance laws. 

Another suggestion was quarterly agency-wide updates by senior management on topics such as IT 

upgrades, personnel changes, or HR news. This activity would also have the benefit of improving 

Agency communications. 
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................1

 FEVS Survey Results.......................................................................................................1

 Data Collection Methods.................................................................................................1

II. Findings .........................................................................................................................2

 Commissioners................................................................................................................2

 Management....................................................................................................................4

 Communication...............................................................................................................7

 Management Accountability ..........................................................................................8

 Other Factors...................................................................................................................9

III. Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................12

 Commissioners and Management.................................................................................12

 Communication.............................................................................................................13

 Management Accountability ........................................................................................13

 Diversity........................................................................................................................13

 Career Development and Promotion ............................................................................14

 Building on What is Already Working and New Ideas................................................14

Appendix A: Analysis of the FEVS Results at the FEC....................................................15

Appendix B: JPS Data Collection Methodology ...............................................................20

Appendix C: Interview Guide for Employees ...................................................................22

Appendix D: Notice of Rights and Protections .................................................................25

Appendix E: Survey Results..............................................................................................26

Appendix F: Percent Respondents that Agreed or Strongly Agreed with Each Item .......43
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 1

I. INTRODUCTION

Job Performance Systems (JPS) was hired by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to report on 

the root causes of the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) low morale. This study was 

motivated by past Federal Employee Viewpoint Surveys (FEVS) that place the FEC low on the 

Partnership for Public Service’s ranking of The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government. 

In addition employees have complained to the OIG about low employee morale. 

FEVS SURVEY RESULTS

JPS began this study by reviewing the FEVS ratings by FEC personnel. A detailed analysis of 

these rating appears in Appendix A. Our analysis found that the FEC was ranked near the 

bottom of the list of small agencies on the major constructs that the FEVS was designed to 

measure (i.e., employee engagement, satisfaction, inclusivity). Furthermore, FEVS ratings given 

by employees at the FEC have steadily declined between 2011 and 2015. 

While FEVS data can be very helpful to alerting an Agency to morale problems, it has

limitations. In particular the FEVS does not distinguish among levels of leadership. Thus it

cannot be used to compare employee’s attitudes between Commissioners, top leadership (i.e., 

Staff Director, General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer), and other managers. Most critical 

for the present study, the FEVS leaves questions unanswered about the root causes behind 

several of the ratings. 

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

We used three methods to collect data in this effort (Appendix B provides detailed information). 

First, we conducted a large number of interviews with Commissioners, senior leaders (i.e., those 

designated as SL in the FEC’s employment databases), other manager, supervisors, and line 

employees. Over the course of several months, we interviewed a total of 78 individuals. 

Interviews typically lasted from one to one and a half hours. The individuals we talked to were 

quite forthcoming about both the challenges and rewards they experienced working at the 

Agency. 

We next ran four focus groups with 11 staff participating. This enabled us to talk with some 

additional employees and to get their feedback on the findings we had obtained from the 

individual interviews. Finally, we constructed and administered our own survey to the Agency. 

This 63 items survey was completed by 185 people, 91 or whom also took the time to provide us 

with their written comments.
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 2

II. FINDINGS

The major causes of low morale are depicted by the five blue circles in Figure 1. 

Figure 1

Causes of Low Morale at the FEC

COMMISSIONERS

Most employees told us that the morale is poor in the part of the organization where they work. 

When we asked why, we frequently heard that the Commissioners were to blame. Actions and 

statements Commissioners make to each other are perceived by employees as signs of a partisan 

culture that is too often negative, unpleasant, and adversarial. This negative tone, in turn, affects 

how employees feel about their own jobs. Results from our survey confirm this sentiment. 

Eighty-eight percent of respondents say the tone set at the top impacts how they feel about their 

jobs and only 10% feel the tone is generally positive. 

Some Commissioners have made negative public statements critical of the Agency. Our survey 

found that most (83%) of respondents believe these statements have a negative effect on the 

Agency’s work and mission. Perhaps most troubling was our finding that relatively few 

employees (only 27% overall and only 16% in OGC) feel that the Commissioners value their 

work. 

Several employees whose job includes presenting matters to the Commissioners told us of 

instances in which they felt they had been unfairly put on the spot or attacked. These employees 

felt like pawns in a larger battle between the Commissioners.
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 3

Commissioners were also faulted for their practice of leaving many management positions filled 

by people serving in acting roles. We interviewed a Commissioner and a top member of 

management who defended this practice saying it saved money hiring a new person and the 

quality of work done by managers in acting roles was unlikely to be different than would be 

achieved by hiring them permanently. 

But the vast majority of employees, supervisors, and managers we talked to saw it quite 

differently. People we interviewed were able to identify managers they liked that left the agency 

because their positions were never made permanent. Other concerns we heard about leaving 

people in acting roles were:

• It created a domino effect on others who had to pick up the work left beyond by the 

person moving to the acting role.

• It kept the person from engaging in long term planning.

• It left the person feeling they did not have full authority.

• It tended to make the manager a micro-manager out of concern that in an acting role they 

jeopardized their chances of being hired permanently if anything went wrong.

Key Survey Results

88% agreed that the overall tone set by top management (Commissioners and senior leaders) 

impacted how they felt about their job.

Only 10% agreed that the tone set at the top is generally positive.

83% agreed that public statements about the other Commissioners and the Agency have a 

negative effect on the Agency’s work and mission.

Only 27% of all respondents and 16% of OGC respondents agree that their work is valued by 

the Commissioners. 

55% of all respondents and 72% of OGC respondents agree that Commissioners generally 

view Agency staff in an adversarial or obstructionist light.

72% of all supervisors and 74% of all employees agreed that having so many management 

positions filled with people in an acting role negatively impacts the Agency’s work.

Relevant Survey Comments

The organizational tone starts at the top, and when you have Commissioners that openly speak 

negatively about the organization, openly disrespect other Commissioners or staff, and don't 

respect our time (staff meeting rarely start on time), then how are we to feel about our jobs or 

our importance? 

It is upsetting to see Commissioners insult each other at Executive and Open Sessions. This 

behavior has trickled down to their staff (EAs) [Executive Assistants] as they now treat OGC 

staff attorneys in an unprofessional manner.

It is also frustrating to see how Commissioners do not act on reports/recommendations for 

months or years themselves and when a case is finally placed on the agenda, they and their 

staff are not forthcoming with OGC on the issues that they are concerned about. The 

Commissioners need to understand that as OGC attorneys we are here to advise them as best 

as we can and we can only provide sound and well researched advice if they actually share 
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 4

their concerns with us with sufficient notice. Instead, it seems that some Commissioners want 

to play gotcha [sic] and raise new issues with us for the first time during an Executive Session.

For me, the biggest cause of low morale is that I spend lots of time working on projects that 

end up sitting for months or years because the Commission deadlocks or holds over 

discussion. Commissioners have also made derisive comments at Open Meetings about staff 

work generally (not about me in particular) that make the staff feel as if their work is not 

valued and they are not valued. 

Generally the FEC's problems start at the very top. Professionalism by staff overcomes a lot, 

but I think more permanent status for people in hold-over status or acting status, as well as 

upgrading some positions to GS-15 would go a significant distance in making improvements. 

I think first level supervisors and divisional leaders are serving admirably.

MANAGEMENT

Many employees we interviewed individually and in the focus groups wanted us to understand 

that while they felt the actions of the Commissioners were a major cause of low morale, actions 

by senior management were also a major contributing factor. In particular, we heard a large 

number of concerns and frustrations directed to the Staff Director, the Acting General Counsel 

and some of their direct reports. We even heard stories from some employees who described 

interactions in which they felt misunderstood, treated with suspicion, or unfairly attacked by the 

Staff Director.

Our survey confirms the poor opinion held by many employees about their senior leaders that 

was expressed to us in the interviews and focus groups. Only a minority of employees rated the 

Staff Director (26%), Acting General Counsel (25%), and Acting Chief Financial Officer (32%) 

as effective. These findings are also fully consistent with the latest EVS findings in which most 

FEC respondents indicated they were not satisfied with the policies and practices of their senior 

leaders and furthermore that their senior leaders failed to maintain high standards of honesty and 

integrity.

In our survey a number of employees also chose the Neither Agree Nor Disagree option in 

answering the question if they felt their top management was effective. We believe the FEC 

should be concerned about these ratings too. Good and great leaders inspire confidence and trust 

among the workforce, not ambivalence or a lack of opinion.

Another very troubling sign of the major gulf between employees and upper management is the 

fact that so many employees told us they feared retribution should they voice their concerns and 

issues to management. Our survey confirmed how widespread this sentiment is. Over half of all 

respondents (55%) say they are careful about what they say. This finding is consistent with the 

response to a similar item on the latest FEVS survey. We question how effective an organization 

can be when so many employees think management does not want to hear their ideas and 

concerns or may punish them for bringing them up. 

The fact that the Staff Director occupies two positions (Staff Director and CIO) was a common 

concern of many employees and several supervisors. The feeling was that two jobs deserved the 
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 5

full time attention of separate job holders. There was also the feeling that having one person 

occupy both positions left employees with reduced avenues of recourse should they have a 

significant technology or personnel issue that they felt was not being addressed adequately, as 

organizationally the CIO reports to the Staff Director. 

Having one person responsible full-time for IT matters appears further warranted given the 

complaints we heard about the quality of the technology employees were provided and the 

support they received. We heard of computers that were slow or would freeze. We heard 

employees complaining that their versions of software were old or inadequate. We heard stories 

of new laptops that were ordered and arrived but were delayed in being distributed due to 

difficulties in configuring them and getting them to work with other FEC software systems. One 

individual in OCIO suggested this process could take so long that new computers would 

sometimes go out of warranty before being used. The employees and supervisors we talked with 

did not seem to know how the rollout list for new equipment was made and where they stood in 

the line. The perception was that the status of current equipment was not well tracked and that 

the FEC lacked an accurate list of aging equipment. Having a full time, dedicated CIO to devote 

his or her complete attention to IT issues may well alleviate some of the problems mentioned by 

employees.

We heard from some attorneys who expressed their frustration that they did not get more support 

from OGC management when they presented cases to the Commissioners. As examples, 

employees felt management should be more willing to step in on matters in the case of reports 

that the employee did not draft (and instead were written by management), on issues of general 

enforcement policy or practice for which they were not responsible, and when asked to defend 

the time it took to prepare a case in which the hold-up was due to a lengthy management review.

 

In OGC, employees also reported that different supervisors held employees to different standards 

as to what qualified as acceptable work product. The question as relayed by employees was why

senior management did not take more effective steps to define the range of what was acceptable 

or promote uniformity. 

A number of people we interviewed told us that rewards, good assignments, and promotions 

appeared to go to managers’ favorites. We heard many stories from employees who believed that 

they and their peers had been passed over for rewards that went to those who had bonded with 

their manager due to non-work reasons. The reasons might be similarity to the manager (e.g., 

race, gender, or age), pedigree (e.g., the person graduated from a name school), personality traits 

(e.g., extroverted/people person), or a friendship that included time spent together outside of 

work activities. 

Compounding employee distrust of management, we were told that the union had uncovered in 

the past that a large portion of the bonus money had been expended on management bonuses. 

While the most recent union contract changed this practice, several employees listed this to 

support their belief that too many managers had a self-serving focus. 
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 6

Finally, there is also widespread dissatisfaction among employees with how the performance 

management system is implemented. About half (46%) of employee feel their ratings are 

predetermined by management and there is little they can do to raise them. 

Relevant Survey Results

Only 26% agreed that the Staff Director/CIO is an effective leader.

Only 25% agreed that the Acting CFO is an effective leader.

Only 32% agreed that the Acting GC is an effective leader.

70% agreed that having one person occupy both the CIO and Staff Director positions results in 

not enough time being devoted to either position and impacts Agency performance.

64% agreed that having one person occupy both the CIO and Staff Director positions results in 

too much power concentrated in one person.

Only 50% of all respondents and 40% of OGC employees agreed that they could count on 

their management team to support them should their report/work be challenged.

79% of all respondents agreed that the process followed to upgrade computers and software is 

not clear and transparent.

71% of employees (non-supervisors) agreed that too often rewards, good assignments, and 

promotions appear to go to managers’ favorites.

Only 21% of employees (non-supervisors) said that gift cards, time off, and other "on-thespot" performance awards are fairly distributed.

46% of all employees agreed that their ratings were predetermined by management and there 

is little they can do to raise them.

55% of all employees agree they are careful what they say or do for fear of being categorized 

as an “out-group” member or receiving some other type of retribution.

Relevant Survey Comments

OGC managers need management and leadership training as they only seem focused on 

meeting deadlines and do not appear to know how to lead other people.

Many managers lack the skill set necessary to effectively manage people. Communication is 

poor. Managers are stubborn with a strong sense of arrogance; they generally resist any effort 

to meet employees halfway on issues.

I think attention should be paid to the procurement of computers and iPhones and then the 

failure of the Agency to release this equipment to staff for years, though current technology is 

malfunctioning in a way that adversely affects our work and performance.

Managers in enforcement do not assign cases fairly to attorneys. Favored attorneys are given 

prime, high-profile cases, and cases with good facts or clear violations of law. Others are 

given cases with difficult fact patterns, or unsettled case law, and they are not given credit for 

working on these bad case assignments. Not only is this unfair and stifles promotion 

opportunities, but it does not allow for input from all attorneys in the enforcement division on 

the high profile cases.

There are gift cards or time off awards they could be giving us in enforcement, but managers 

just don't want to. I saw more gift cards distributed to kids at the take your kids to work day 

ceremony, than I have ever seen the attorneys in enforcement get.

Those that work hard do not seem to be acknowledged differently than those that do not 

perform as well.
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 7

COMMUNICATION

There was the general consensus among the employees we interviewed that they wanted more 

frequent and detailed communication from senior management. Examples of poor 

communication included lack of announcements when people in senior positions left, lack of a 

more timely response from IT acknowledging that systems were down, and lack of information 

about the status of a possible building move. 

Lack of communication was also a frustration for employees who were part of current or past 

reorganizations. Employees felt the reasons for the moves were never fully clarified, their input 

was not well solicited, and efforts to smooth the transition were insufficient. Employees 

remembered feeling concerned about their future, unclear if their work was valued, and surprised 

that upper management would not make time to come down and talk to them more often as the 

plan was developed and implemented.

 

Our survey reveals a major gap exists between managers and employees on the topic of 

communication. While many supervisors and managers think upper management communicates 

adequately, relatively few employees share this perception. 

Several people remarked about an all hands meeting held at the E-Street cinema. Many people 

appreciated the event and voiced a desire for additional meetings of this type. Some people 

however were disappointed that they did not get more of their questions answered at that time. 

Employees were given the opportunity to submit questions ahead of time. One suggestion we 

heard was that senior officials should have taken the time to read and directly answer each of the 

questions. 

Our study results indicate that beyond just increased communication, top management has some 

work to do to gain the confidence of the workforce that what they say can be trusted. Less than a 

third of the respondents to our survey felt senior management is truthful.

Good communication in organizations means important information flows both top-down and 

bottom-up. Unfortunately, we heard few stories in our interviews with employees in which they 

said their thoughts were solicited and acted upon my upper management. What we heard more 

frequently from employees was the belief that their thoughts were either not welcomed or 

unlikely to impact decisions of top management.

Relevant Survey Results

Only 25% of all respondents (supervisory and non-supervisory) and 18% of non-supervisory 

employees agreed that top management does a good job of communicating to them things they 

feel are important.

84% agreed they would like to get more frequent and up-to-date information on such things as 

the building move, when senior people leave, reorganizations, when IT systems are down.

While 59% agreed that they feel confident in what their supervisor tells them is true only 31% 

agreed they feel confident in what senior management tells them is true.
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 8

50% agreed that the union is an important source of information to them about what is going 

on.

81% agreed that lack of communication from management creates an information vacuum that 

gets filled with rumors and gossip.

Relevant Survey Comments

Not enough top-down communication and openness from Commissioners to all staff and/or 

senior level to all staff

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Our data indicate that there are some problems in how top leadership holds some managers 

accountable. There are likewise problems in how managers hold some supervisors accountable. 

Over half of survey respondents agreed that there are supervisors or higher level managers in

their division or office who treat employees poorly or inappropriately and yet nothing happens to 

them. Employees in confidence named to us individual supervisors and managers who they felt 

were incompetent, untrustworthy, or abusive. It is highly corrosive to morale if employees 

believe that their management chain contains members that are clearly undeserving of respect 

and yet leadership does nothing. 

It is also a function of management to ensure that supervisors carry out their responsibilities to 

motivate low performing employees and move to performance improvement plans when needed. 

But many employees we talked to could identify chronic poor performers in their unit or division 

that they felt were never dealt with appropriately. In a number of cases, employees indicated 

their workload had gone up at times by being asked to take on work held back from others that 

lacked the motivation or skills to perform. Our survey results appear to support these findings. 

Just under half of all respondents said there were one or more chronic performers in their 

division not being managed appropriately. Just under half also said they had put in extra work to 

make up for other not pulling their weight.

Relevant Survey Results

53% of all employees agreed that there are supervisors or higher level managers in their 

division/office that treat employees poorly or inappropriately and yet nothing happens to them.

48% of employees agreed that effective action is not being taken with one or more chronic 

poor performers in their division.

48% of employees agreed they had put in extra work to make up for one or more employees 

that have not been pulling their weight.

Relevant Survey Comments

Some leaders take an unprofessional, hard-nosed, punitive or bullying approach to managing 

staff, rather than seeing that they're responsible for helping to develop & to keeping staff 

motivated.
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 9

Management fails to address employees who are constantly underperforming and rarely 

volunteer to assist with special projects. As a consequence, other employees take on 

additional assignments from these underperforming employees. 

Managers need to help underperformers improve by working with them throughout the year, 

providing them training, etc.

OTHER FACTORS

Diversity

A number of women and minorities we interviewed expressed disappointment that management 

positions in parts of the organization were not held by a more diverse set of individuals. There is 

a perception by some that the lack of more African American males in upper management in 

some divisions was a major shortcoming of the Agency.

No one we interviewed told us of instances of blatant discrimination that they had experienced. 

But some suspected that race, gender, or age did somehow made them or their colleagues less 

desirable for promotion.

In our interviews with senior leaders we asked what was being done to promote the hiring and 

advancement of women and minorities. No one could tell us of any actions they were following 

that were part of the implementation of a formal program to promote diversity. As one example 

we asked about efforts to recruit individuals at schools like Howard or the University of 

Maryland. We were told this type of recruitment had been done in the past, but not anymore. 

Federal agencies can make a commitment to inclusion by the implementation of a formal 

diversity plan. A typical element of an effective diversity program is the recruitment of 

applicants for mission critical occupations at colleges and universities that graduates relatively 

large numbers of women and minorities. Another element is a strategy to increase the number of 

women and minority in management positions within divisions where white males may 

predominate. While the FEC has developed a diversity plan with actions such as this, our 

management interviews and interviews with members of the EEO office indicate that key 

elements of the plan have yet to be executed. 

Relevant Survey Results

51% of all respondents and 64% of all OGC respondents agreed that the Agency should be 

doing more outreach to attract qualified minority job candidates.

48% of all respondents and 72% of all OGC respondents agreed that they feel women and 

minorities are underrepresented in management positions.

Relevant Survey Comments

It is demoralizing to watch OGC managers reward favorites with supervisory positions and 

pass over more experienced applicants with actual prior supervisory and leadership 

experience. This has happened several times in the past. It is concerning that staff attorneys 
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 10

of color have been passed up and [Caucasian] attorneys with less experience have been 

promoted.

Career Development and Promotion

The vast majority of employees in our survey agreed that the Agency should put more emphasis 

on career development. Many employees across the FEC face significant challenges in gaining 

promotions to higher level GS positions. These challenges include the limited number of 

openings associated with a small agency, little use of individual development plans (IDPs), and 

limited career development discussions with supervisors. The widespread practice of filling 

positions with acting rather than permanent positions is a further frustration for some individuals 

seeking advancement. 

The inability to get a promotion was the number one frustration among some of the people we 

interviewed. Typically they had applied for openings one or more times without being selected. 

Many of these people had sought and obtained feedback as to what they could do to improve. 

Often, however, the feedback was not seen as very helpful because the employee was skeptical 

that it was true or felt it was something they could not fix (e.g., a trait or other basic feature of 

their personality). 

Our survey indicates that many employees are quite skeptical that promotions are based 

primarily on job relevant capabilities. In fact, only 30% of employees agreed that is was one’s 

job capabilities that got you hired rather than other factors like the school you attended, your age, 

or your race.

In the OGC, there is the widespread perception that the focus of senior leaders is on hiring young 

attorneys from prestigious schools over developing and promoting from within. This was 

particularly galling to some employees who reported they had to teach the new hires how to 

perform their jobs and in their interactions saw no level of knowledge or skill from these people 

that was greater than their own.

Relevant Survey Results

78% of all respondents (supervisory and non-supervisory) and 87% of all non-supervisory 

employees agreed that the Agency should put more emphasis on employee career 

development.

Only 46% of all employees, 33% of OGC employees, and 30% of OCFO employees agreed 

that they have discussed their career path with their supervisor.

63% of all supervisors and 30% of all employees agreed that getting hired and promoted is 

based more on your skills and capabilities than it is on things like what school you attended, 

your age, your minority status or on other things not related to job performance.

Relevant Survey Comments

For me personally, my only challenge or frustration is being stuck at the top of my grade for 

my entire career here, with no guidance how to move forward and upward.
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 11

My supervisors don't promote from within the agency when there are vacancies. This has a 

vastly negative effect on morale for several reasons: first, we feel as though there are no 

opportunities to advance, second, it makes us wonder how other divisions within the agency

view us when our own supervisors won't hire us to senior level positions, and finally, we start 

to wonder how many of our colleagues are searching for jobs elsewhere, which may make us 

reluctant to start long-term projects.

Managers should stop promoting their favorite employees and should promote employees who 

do the best/most work. 

... the Acting General Counsel has targeted staff for special positive and negative treatment. 

Persons receiving positive treatment get frequent visits and the most challenging and important 

cases. Other staff, not so fortunate, are targeted for low-level cases and basically sit around all 

day and do nothing. Most of the paralegals and targeted attorneys are never available on their 

telework days and have such a low case load we sometimes forget the employees still work 

here. 
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 12

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JPS has identified the major causes of the low morale at the FEC. The findings we reported in 

this study are entirely consistent across the interviews, focus groups, and survey plus years of 

FEVS ratings. 

Our task in this project was to clarify the underlying reasons for low morale. This means we 

focused upon factors having a negative impact on a significant number of employees. However, 

this does not paint a full picture about working at the FEC. Employees also identified several 

factors which boost their morale. Most employees believe strongly in the mission of the 

organization. Many feel quite positive about the nature of their work. A good work-life balance 

was cited as a major plus and a major reason that many employees stay. Many individuals told 

us their colleagues and their immediate supervisor were positive factors about working at the 

FEC. 

The purpose of this study is to provide information on the root causes of low morale at the FEC, 

and not to make specific recommendations for addressing the causes. Thus, we are not listing 

detailed steps or actions for management to take. We do however, offer a number of general 

recommendations for FEC Commissioners and top management to consider.

First, Commissioners and top management would not be serving the Agency well by seeking 

reasons to discount the findings in this study. Instead the Commissioners and leaders need to 

make a commitment to improve Agency morale and invest the necessary time and resources to 

make a real difference. A unified message from the Commissioners and leadership to the 

Agency acknowledging the problems identified in this study and the commitment to action could 

mean a lot to the workforce.

Clearly, some of the problems we identified in this study are easier to address than others. In any 

plan the Agency develops there will be relatively quick wins the Agency should seek, along with 

others that may take many months or years to achieve. Our thought is some relatively quick 

gains might be achievable in areas such as communications, career development, distribution of 

rewards and good assignments, and permanently filling positions now filled by acting personnel.

Longer term, the FEVS data and data collected in this study should serve as baseline information 

to determine if the changes being pursued are successful in improving Agency morale. Reversing 

the downward trend in FEVS ratings would be a welcome sign of success. The re-administration 

of items in the present study would be another way to quantify improvement.

COMMISSIONERS AND MANAGEMENT

There are a number of actions Commissioners could take that would support improved morale. 

All start with the Commissioners’ appreciation of the impact their statements and behaviors have

on the workforce. At a more fundamental level, we encourage the Commission to rethink its 

approach to managing the workforce. Other strategies and models are possible that would require 

less of a need for input from across the Commission and result in greater delegation to Agency 

top leaders on decisions that affect personnel. 
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 13

Such a change in course is based upon the presumption of an effective management corps that 

has the confidence of line employees. We recommend that the Agency take steps now to 

enhance the skills and knowledge of its current managers. Formal and informal training is an 

example along with the widespread use of executive coaching. Development and 

implementation of a succession plan is also worth considering. Filling management positions 

with permanent hires rather than with people in an acting role should be a priority as is 

separating the Staff Director and OCIO jobs. 

COMMUNICATION

It is axiomatic that managers think they communicate effectively while employees think they do 

not. We advise Agency’s senior staff to ensure more information covering a greater number of 

topics is regularly provided to all members of the organization. Until this happens, information 

gaps will continue to be filled by rumors and speculation. This study provides a starting point for 

identifying topics of particular interest to employees. The Agency may want the ongoing 

assistance of a communication specialist to help gather and disseminate information using a 

variety of communication channels.

As a side note, the high level of frustration we heard from employees about recent 

reorganizations at the FEC suggests a disregard of some basic principles of effective 

organizational change. One principle is to communicate to employees and seek input throughout 

the entire process. Employees will naturally be concerned that their jobs are at risk, the 

knowledge and skills they have developed will no longer be useful, and that their quality of work 

life may take a change for the worse. Holding information about the reorganization plans until 

they are completed may make sense to management but in practice this is rarely an effective 

strategy as it exacerbates employee concerns, fails to combat false rumors, and prevents 

management from hearing good ideas from employees.

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

We strongly encourage that management skills and potential are better defined, assessed, and 

used in making promotions within management ranks. In addition, supervisors and managers not 

performing to expected levels need to be dealt with appropriately. 

Management must also be held accountable for making appropriate efforts to raise the quantity 

and quality of output from chronically disaffected and unmotivated employees or if those efforts 

fail take the appropriate actions to discipline or remove those employees. We feel that 

performance management in general represents a good opportunity for the divisions, the Staff 

Director, and the Office of Human Resources to cooperate and make improvements. 

DIVERSITY

Federal agencies can achieve a more diverse workforce throughout its ranks by the 

implementation of a diversity plan. While the FEC has written such a plan it has yet to fully 
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 14

implement it. Among the elements of the plan that deserve attention is the recruitment of 

applicants for mission critical occupations at colleges and universities that graduates relatively 

large numbers of women and minorities. Management we talked to at the FEC stated they would 

be quite interested in supporting such recruitment efforts. 

CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION

A general conclusion of this study is that many employees feel discouraged about their chances 

for advancement and promotion. This should be a significant concern to management as it is a 

substantial cause of low morale to a large number of employees. There are numerous actions the 

Agency could take to further develop its people. But they all require attention and effort from 

management. 

BUILDING ON WHAT IS ALREADY WORKING AND NEW IDEAS

One of the factors helping employees feel positive about the FEC is the work-life balance they 

experience. One element to this is the opportunity to telework a few times a week. It appears 

that telework is working reasonably well at the FEC although some employees felt that it is not 

well-managed. The FEC may want to determine what fine tuning could be done to make it more 

successful and increase the confidence in the program among top officials. 

Another factor that supports a positive morale among employees are the working relationships

they have established with their colleagues. In itself, more social events will certainly not turn 

around the poor morale at the Agency. Nevertheless, some more thoughtful, voluntary activities 

for people to interact seems worth the effort. Such activities could either be primarily 

professional, informational, or social in nature. An example of a professional activity offered by 

one survey respondent was a “lunch and learn” meeting where OGC attorneys could discuss 

noteworthy changes in campaign finance laws. 

An additional suggestion was quarterly agency-wide updates by senior management on topics 

such as information technology upgrades, personnel changes, or human resources news. This 

activity would also have the benefit of improving Agency communications. It may make sense 

to ensure one or more people are formally assigned the role of promoting and overseeing such 

activities. 
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 15

APPENDIX A

ANALYSIS OF THE FEVS RESULTS AT THE FEC

JPS began this project by reviewing the ratings that FEC employees provided to OPM’s annual 

Federal Evaluation Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). The results of this steps helped us to compose 

interview questions, focus group questions, and our own survey that we administered to FEC 

personnel.

The FEVS is composed of 77 attitudinal items (plus several demographic questions and 

questions about participation in work/life programs). Employee ratings are made on a 5 point 

scale (i.e., Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree). 

A positive rating is considered one in which an employee selects either Strongly Agree or Agree.

Many of the items can been combined into indices measuring a similar topic. At the highest 

level are three major indices: Engagement, Global Satisfaction, and New Inclusion Quotient 

(New IQ). Engagement and New IQ can be further divided into sub-indices. 

OPM describes the Engagement Index as a measure of the employee’s sense of purpose that is 

evident in their display of dedication, persistence, and effort in their work or overall commitment 

to their organization and its mission. Global Satisfaction measures employee satisfaction about 

their job, their pay, their organization, and whether they would recommend their organization as 

a good place to work. The New IQ assesses behaviors that help create an inclusive environment. 

The table below compares ratings across small agencies with the FEC based upon the latest 

FEVS survey (i.e., 2015). As can be seen, the average percentage of employees that gave 

positive ratings across small agencies is larger than the average percentage of raters that gave 

positive ratings at the FEC on every index and sub-index.

Comparison of Small Agencies to the FEC on FEVS 2015 Indices

Index

Average Percent 

Positive Across 

Small Agencies

FEC

Average 

Percent 

Positive

Agency 

Ranking

Engagement 64 55 34th out of 38

Leaders Lead 54 33 37th out of 41

Supervisors 75 71 29th out of 41

Intrinsic Work Experience 72 61 37th out of 41

Global Satisfaction 62 43 38th out of 41

New IQ 60 51 36th out of 41

Fair 49 41 36th out of 41

Open 59 45 37th out of 41

Cooperative 53 44 35th out of 41

Supportive 78 77 26th out of 41

Empowered 60 46 38th out of 41
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 16

The authors of this report counted the number of individual small agencies whose average 

percent positive index score was greater than the FEC’s. From this data we could determine how 

the FEC ranked. This information is contained in the last column of the table. On all but two 

indices, the FEC ranks near the bottom of the list. The exceptions are 1) views about their 

supervisor and 2) the organization’s support for inclusion. For both these sub-indices the FEC 

ranks closer to the middle of the pack.

The next table provides information on how FEC’s average percent positive ratings on the 

indices have changed overtime. The general trend over time is a decline in positive ratings. In 

all instances positive ratings in 2015 have dropped by 4 or more points since 2011. The most 

significant drop is for the Leaders Lead sub-index. Only a third of all employees currently feel 

positive about their agency leaders.

FEC Trends on FEV Indices between 2011 and 2015

Index 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Engagement Overall 62 60 61 60 55

Leaders Lead 45 45 45 40 33

Supervisors 76 70 74 74 71

Intrinsic Work Experience 66 64 63 66 61

Global Satisfaction 55 50 46 44 43

New IQ 59 56 55 54 51

Fair 47 44 39 43 41

Open 60 56 53 50 45

Cooperative 53 50 51 47 44

Supportive 81 76 79 79 77

Empowered 55 53 51 52 46

The next table displays individual items from the 2015 FEVS in which employees across the 

Federal government gave significantly more positive ratings than did the FEC as whole, and as 

compared to the Office of the Staff Director (OSD), or the Office of the General Counsel (OGC). 

We defined significant as a difference of at least 10 points. With this standard, then 41 of the 77 

items represent a potential concern. Cells highlighted in yellow indicate a difference of between 

10 and 20 points. Cells highlighted in red indicate a difference of over 20 points. There are 

several observations that can be made from this table. In particular: 

• Employees in the OGC tend to provide lower ratings than those across the FEC as a 

whole or in the OSD. 

• Ratings given to items 4, 5, and 13 suggest that employees have some basic concerns 

about the value of the work they are doing. 

• Ratings to item 17 indicate that many employees, particularly in the OGC, fear reprisal if 

they were to speak up about major problems. 

• Employee’s sense of personal empowerment is quite low across the organization (item 

30).
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 17

• Employees tend to rate the organization relatively low on policies and programs that 

promote diversity (item 34).

• Some employees are raising concerns about health and safety, particularly those in the 

OGC (item 35).

• Relatively few employees think the FEC is accomplishing its mission (item 39). In 

addition, relatively few employees recommend the organization to others (item 40).

• Most employees do not believe they have good leaders (items 53 – 61).

Individual FEC FEVS items 

Diverging 10 or more Points from the Government Average

Item

# Item Gov.wide FEC OSD OGC

1 I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in 

my organization. 61.3 54.2 63.9 45.1

2 I have enough information to do my job well. 69.9 62.7 65.5 59.4

3 I feel encouraged to come up with new and better 

ways of doing things. 56.5 50.3 61.8 38.4

4 My work gives me a feeling of personal 

accomplishment. 70.4 50.7 59.6 45.5

5 I like the kind of work I do. 82.9 72.4 70.1 72.5

8 I am constantly looking for ways to do my job better. 90.5 83.7 88.6 78.6

11 My talents are used well in the workplace. 57.7 47.8 53.8 39.2

13 The work that I do is important. 90.0 76.2 84.0 68.5

17 I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or 

regulation without fear of reprisal. 61.2 54.6 67.1 42.9

18 My training needs are assessed. 51.7 42.9 60.9 28.7

24 In my work unit, differences in performance are 

recognized in a meaningful way. 32.8 30.7 37.2 20.9

26 Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with 

each other. 72.7 65.2 53.7 72.1

27 The skill level in my work unit has improved in the 

past year. 52.5 41.7 45.1 34.7

30 Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment 

with respect to work processes. 43.0 23.8 31.7 18.5

31 Employees are recognized for providing high quality 

products and services. 46.5 35.1 43.3 35.1

32 Creativity and innovation are rewarded. 36.7 28.8 35.0 25.1

34

Policies and programs promote diversity in the 

workplace (for example, recruiting minorities and 

women, training in awareness of diversity issues, 

mentoring).

56.5 41.5 35.7 46.0

35 Employees are protected from health and safety 

hazards on the job. 75.9 60.7 65.3 54.5
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 18

36 My organization has prepared employees for potential 

security threats. 75.9 61.8 60.1 60.3

38

Prohibited Personnel Practices (for example, illegally 

discriminating for or against any employee/applicant, 

obstructing a person's right to compete for 

employment, knowingly violating veterans' 

preference requirements) are not tolerated.

65.6 58.9 68.8 52.8

39 My agency is successful at accomplishing its mission. 73.2 27.7 35.1 20.7

40 I recommend my organization as a good place to 

work. 62.7 30.5 42.5 22.8

41 I believe the results of this survey will be used to 

make my agency a better place to work. 39.0 26.0 29.1 21.7

47 Supervisors in my work unit support employee 

development. 64.3 58.2 61.7 51.3

50 In the last six months, my supervisor has talked with 

me about my performance. 77.5 75.4 87.5 67.3

53

In my organization, senior leaders generate high 

levels of motivation and commitment in the 

workforce.

39.0 18.6 23.7 14.5

54 My organization's senior leaders maintain high 

standards of honesty and integrity. 50.4 31.3 36.6 28.0

55 Supervisors work well with employees of different 

backgrounds. 62.9 47.4 45.3 49.4

56 Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the 

organization. 59.1 40.0 48.4 36.4

57 Managers review and evaluate the organization's 

progress toward meeting its goals and objectives. 58.8 41.8 53.0 32.6

58

Managers promote communication among different 

work units (for example, about projects, goals, 

needed resources).

50.5 40.8 40.1 41.8

60

Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by 

the manager directly above your immediate 

supervisor?

56.8 44.2 51.7 39.0

61 I have a high level of respect for my organization's 

senior leaders. 51.4 28.9 38.8 23.3

63 How satisfied are you with your involvement in 

decisions that affect your work? 49.6 41.3 45.6 35.4

64

How satisfied are you with the information you 

receive from management on what's going on in your 

organization?

46.8 35.3 45.6 28.2

65 How satisfied are you with the recognition you 

receive for doing a good job? 46.6 43.4 54.5 35.4

66 How satisfied are you with the policies and practices 

of your senior leaders? 40.8 27.9 38.2 19.6
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 19

69 Considering everything, how satisfied are you with 

your job? 65.2 50.0 64.4 39.9

71 Considering everything, how satisfied are you with 

your organization? 55.7 31.6 41.5 25.1

80

How satisfied are you with the following Work/Life 

programs in your agency? Alternative Work 

Schedules (AWS)

89.0 84.8 92.7 75.6

82

How satisfied are you with the following Work/Life 

programs in your agency? Employee Assistance 

Program (EAP)

74.8 74.3 50.0 84.2

On the more positive side FEC employees appear to make a distinction between their own 

supervisor (whom in many cases they rate fairly positively) and their organization’s leaders 

(whom they generally rate negatively). Finally, FEC employees appear to be relatively satisfied 

with their pay and some work/life programs (i.e., telework and wellness).
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 20

APPENDIX B

JPS DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY

INTERVIEWS

JPS conducted interviews with 78 FEC individuals. Of this group five were Commissioners and 

eight were senior level managers. The OIG directly contacted all Commissioners and senior 

level managers (those with the designation SL in FEC’s employment databases) and scheduled a 

time for them to meet with us. Supervisors and other employees were invited to participate via 

an agency wide-email. JPS held office hours, three times a week at the FEC between December 

21, 2015 and March 2, 2016 to talk with supervisors and employees. We also met with a few 

employees at off-site locations. This was done at the request of the employees who told us they 

did not feel comfortable talking to us in the FEC building.

Most interviews lasted from one to one and a half hours. JPS had prepared a set of questions in 

advance (See Appendix C for a copy of the interview guide). We began each interview by 

introducing ourselves and describing the purpose of the study. We then provided respondents 

below the Senior Level with a description of their rights and an assurance of confidentiality (See 

Appendix D). We then asked our first question. In some cases we did not ask all questions in 

the interview. This was because we preferred to let the person take the lead and freely express 

their beliefs about the root causes of low morale.

We were very gratified by the interest of so many people in participating in this phase of the data 

collection effort. We heard very many heartfelt stories about both the rewards and challenges 

associated with working in the organization. Toward the end of this process we consolidated the 

information we had heard into a group of themes.

FOCUS GROUPS

Next, we conducted four small focus groups in which a total of 11 staff participated. One group 

contained only supervisors and the remaining three were composed of employees. To the extent 

possible, we also tried to place people in groups with those from different parts of the 

organization. 

We generated a standard set of questions for the sessions. Before starting, we introduced

ourselves, described the purpose of the session, clarified the ground rules, and reviewed their 

rights. We anticipated that some participants might be reluctant to share too much sensitive 

information, out of concern their fellow participants may pass their comments onto others. We 

therefore encouraged participates to meet with us individually if they felt they had something to 

tell us and do not want to disclose it in the group interview. Some of the participants chose to 

follow-up with us after their session.

The focus groups allowed us to add to the number of employees and supervisors that contributed 

to the effort. They also helped us refine and validate the themes we identified in the individual 

interviews. In these groups we described each theme and asked the group members to comment 
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 21

as to whether they agreed it was a significant cause of low morale. Members of the groups 

generally agreed that we had developed an accurate and comprehensive list. 

SURVEY

Upon completion of the individual interviews and focus group sessions we distributed an 

electronic survey to all members of the FEC. The survey contained 63 items plus a comment 

section at the end. The purpose of the survey was to provide an additional opportunity for all to 

participate. It also enabled us to more precisely quantify the extent to which certain attitudes and 

experiences were felt across the organization. 

The OIG issued an invitation to all FEC members to take the survey. The invitation explained 

that respondents needed to fully complete the survey for their responses to be analyzed. A 

reminder was sent to participants after a week had passed. The survey was open for responses 

for a total of two weeks.

 

A total of 185 people completed the survey (49 supervisors/managers and 136 non-supervisors). 

Ninety-one of the respondents also took the time to provide written comments. The table below

provides a breakdown of respondents by division and office. 

Number of Respondents by Division/Office

Division/Office Total 

Respondents

Supervisors/

Managers

Employees

All FEC 185 49 136

Office of Commissioners 5 2 3

OGC 78 15 63

OSD 65 22 43

OCIO 27 8 19

OCFO 10 2 8

OIG 0 0 0

Note: As sponsors of this study, members of the OIG did not participate in the data collection 

efforts.

Most survey items were rated on a 1 to 5 point scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) that 

also had a Not Applicable (N/A) option. Following the process used by OPM with the FEVS we 

calculated the percentage of respondents who agreed with each item by first adding together the

number of respondents that rated it as either a 4 – Agree or 5 – Strongly agree. We then divided 

this sum by the total number of respondents. In performing the division, we excluded any 

respondent who marked N/A for the item from the respondent total. The percentages appear in 

Appendix F.
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 22

APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR EMPLOYEES

I. Background Information 

Name of interviewee __________ Job title: ____________________

Organizational unit (office/division and unit) ________________

Name of interviewer(s) _______________ Date/Time ________

Rescheduled Date/Time(s)________________________________________________________

Type interview: ___Scheduled Interview ___Requested by Interviewee __Drop in office

Comments __________________________________________________________________

I. Introductions

• Introduce ourselves

• Ask what they have heard about the study

• As appropriate, describe the study: 

o OIG is the sponsor for this study

o Study being done in response to results of the FEVS and other comments OIG 

has heard about low morale

o Goal is to gain insights into causes of low morale and make recommendations 

and proposed corrective actions

o Ask if it’s OK for us to type while they talk

II. Interview Questions

Work History, Responsibility, General Morale Questions

1. What are your responsibilities in your current job? 

2. We have a number of specific questions we want to ask that come mostly from ratings to 

the FEVS. But first a few general questions. What are your thoughts about the level of 

employee morale at the FEC? 

3. If you think it is low, then what is the major reason or reasons?

IV. Specific Questions about Morale

1. FEC Leadership
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 23

1.1 What are the actions that leaders take (or fail to take) that contribute to the low FEVS 

ratings by employees?

Clarify the level of leadership they are referring to in their answer to this and the next 

three items. As appropriate, probe for respondent’s thoughts to the following levels of 

leadership:

1. Commissioners

2. Directors (Staff Director, General Counsel, CFO)

3. Deputy General Counsels, Deputy Staff Directors, Associate General Counsels

4. Assistant Staff Directors

5. Office Heads (e.g., Administrative Officer, EEO HR)

6. Assistant General Counselors, Team Leaders, other Supervisor Positions 

1.2 Are leader’s attitude and the tone having an impact on morale?

1.3 Do leaders respect chain-of-command regarding assignments?

1.4 Do you know if your supervisor/leader looks at FEVS results for your area? If yes, what 

did he/she do with the information?

2. Differences in Morale by Agency Component or Type of Worker

2.1 Are there special challenges that people in your part of the organization face that 

contribute to low morale?

2.2 Are there special challenges for certain groups of people?

(Probe for those in certain jobs, disabled employees, women over 40, etc.)

(If person is in the OGC then probe for why morale is especially low there).

3. Workload and Staffing

3.1 What is the workload like where you work? Is work assigned fairly?

Probe for possible perception that good assignments go to favored employees.

3.2 Are there key positions that are vacant or filed with people in an acting role? What 

impact does this have on morale?

3.3 What is the agency philosophy on filing such positions? 

4. Neglect or Mistreatment
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 24

4.1 Some employees report being treated unfairly or in a way that is not respectful? Have 

you seen or experienced such problems yourself?

4.2 Some employees report their work has little value. Again, why do you think this is the 

case? 

4.3 Is there a problem with favoritism? 

4.4 Do you feel safe to raise concerns or issues? Why? 

5. Performance Management

5.1 To what degree are poor performers dealt with appropriately?

6. Training, Development, Advancement

6.1 Are you able to obtain sufficient training and other opportunities to develop and advance?

6.2 Do you feel training and other opportunities are offered fairly? 

Probe for perception that some groups get more than others (e.g., only attorneys in OGC get 

offered training). 

7. Empowerment

7.1 Do you feel empowered here? Why?

8. Diversity

8.1 How active is the FEC in being an inclusive organization? What could be done to make 

the FEC a more positive and diverse organization?

9. Work/Life Programs

9.1 Two programs that employees rate somewhat low are the Employee Assistance Program 

(EAP) and Alternative Work Schedule (AWS). Have you experienced issues with these 

programs?

 Other Questions

1. What impact, if any, does the HR group have on morale?

2. Is there anything else that would help us understand the causes of low morale or what 

could be done to improve employee morale? 
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 25

APPENDIX D

NOTICE OF RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS 
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 26

APPENDIX E

SURVEY RESULTS

Q1: Are you a supervisor or manager?

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q2: How long have you worked here?

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q3: Where do you work?

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 27

Q4: Where in OGC do you work?

Answered: 78 Skipped: 107

Q5: Where in OSD do you work?

Answered: 65 Skipped: 120

Q6: The overall tone set by top management (Commissioners and senior 

leaders) impacts how I feel about my job.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 28

Q7: The tone set at the top is generally positive.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q8: Public statements by the Commissioners about other 

Commissioners and the agency have a negative effect on the 

agency’s work and mission.

Q9: My work is valued by the Commissioners.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q10: I feel the Commissioners generally view agency 

staff in an adversary or obstructionist light.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 29

Q11: The Staff Director/CIO is an effective leader.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q12: The Acting CFO is an effective leader.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q13: The Acting GC is an effective leader.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q14: Senior leaders (Staff Director/CIO, Acting CFO, and Acting GC) 

function to help ensure effective checks and balances happen with

the actions and decisions they make.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 30

Q15: Having one person occupy both the CIO and Staff 

Director positions results in not enough time being devoted to 

either position and impacts agency performance.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q16: Having one person occupy both the CIO and 

Staff Director positions results in too much power 

 Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q17: Top management does a good job of 

communicating to me things I feel are 

important.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q18: My supervisor does a good job of communicating 

to me about things I feel are important.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 31

Q19: I would like to get more frequent and up-to-date information on such 

things as the building move, when senior people leave, reorganizations, 

when IT systems are down.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q20: The union is an important source of 

information to me about what is going on here.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q21: Lack of communication from management creates an 

information vacuum that gets filled with rumors and gossip.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q22: The agency should put more emphasis on employee 

career development.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 32

Q23: I have discussed my career path with my supervisor.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q24: Getting hired and promoted is based more on your skills and 

capabilities than it is on things like what school you attended, your age, 

your minority status or on other things not related to job performance.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q25: Too often rewards, good assignments, promotions 

appear to go to manager’s favorites.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q26: The agency should be doing more outreach to attract 

qualified minority job candidates.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 33

Q27: I feel women and minorities are underrepresented in 

management positions.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q28: I feel confident in what my supervisor tells me is true.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q29: I feel confident in what senior management tells me is true.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q30: My supervisor is an effective advocate to higher 

management for those of us who perform well on the job.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 34

Q31: I believe my performance standards as currently 

written accurately reflect my job.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q32: I feel my ratings reflect the quality of my work.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q33: Too many employees receive inflated ratings.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q34: I feel my ratings are predetermined by 

management and there is little I can do to raise them.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 35

Q35: I feel that employees are rewarded or punished on factors 

divorced from their contributions to the work.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q36: I am careful what I say or do for fear of being categorized 

as an “out-group” member or receiving some other type of 

retribution.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q37: The most important concern to my management is that 

we get reports/work completed on time.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q38: I can count on my management team to support me 

should my report/work be challenged.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 36

Q39: There are supervisors or higher level managers in my 

division/office that treat employees poorly or inappropriately and 

yet nothing happens to them.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q40: My workload is generally less than it has been in the past.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q41: If it did not take so long to hire and train in replacements, 

my workload would be more reasonable.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q42: My work is interesting to me.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 37

Q43: I suspect my job may be classified at too low a level.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q44: I am doing work that does not match my job 

description.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q45: I wish I had more work to do.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q46: Effective action is not being taken with one or more 

chronic poor performers in my division.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 38

Q47: I have put in extra work to make up for one or more 

employees that have not been pulling their weight.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q48: I cannot make full use of telework because my supervisor 

says the nature of my job prevents it.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q49: I believe I could telework more without it negatively 

impacting my work.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q50: People are not as productive when they work from home.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 39

Q51: I find it more difficult to contact employees when they 

telework.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q52: I believe in the mission of this 

organization. Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q53: The work-life balance is an important factor in why I stay 

here.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q54: There are aspects to the physical work environment I do not 

like (e.g., lack of cafeteria, no gym, too hot/cold, few windows).

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 40

Q55: Having so many management positions filled with people 

in an acting role negatively impacts the agency’s work.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q56: The process followed here to upgrade computers and software 

is not clear and transparent.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q57: I have been generally satisfied with the support I have gotten 

from HR in the past several years.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q58: Over the past several months I have seen an improvement 

in HR services.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 41

Q59: I would welcome more opportunities for interaction between 

members of divisions (e.g., agency-wide picnics, parties, information 

meetings).

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q60: My work friends at the agency help me feel more positive about 

being here.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q61: Certain offices and divisions are favored over others 

when it comes to computer and technology upgrades.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0

Q62: I have received a gift card as a performance award in the 

past two years.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 42

Q63: Gift cards, time off, and other "on-the-spot" performance 

awards are fairly distributed.

Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 43

APPENDIX F

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS THAT AGREED OR STRONGLY AGREED WITH EACH 

SURVEY ITEM

Total Organization OGC OSD OCIO OCFO Comm

All Sup/Mgr Employees All Sup/Mgr Employees All Sup/Mgr Employees All ALL All

185 N=49 N=136 N=78 N=15 N=63 N=65 N=22 N=43 N=27 N=10 N=5

Q6 87.9 87.8 88.0 93.3 93.3 93.3 87.7 90.9 86.0 85.2 60.0 80.0

Q7 9.9 16.3 7.5 5.3 0.0 6.7 6.2 9.1 4.7 29.6 20.0 0.0

Q8 83.3 81.6 84.0 86.3 86.7 86.2 89.2 90.9 88.4 66.7 80.0 60.0

Q9 26.5 31.3 24.8 16.0 20.0 15.0 29.2 27.3 30.2 40.7 30.0 75.0

Q10 54.5 38.8 60.5 71.6 66.7 72.9 46.9 36.4 52.4 32.0 50.0 20.0

Q11 26.3 47.9 17.9 14.5 40.0 7.4 32.3 50.0 22.5 40.0 40.0 20.0

Q12 25.2 44.7 17.2 22.1 64.3 11.1 22.8 33.3 16.7 33.3 33.3 40.0

Q13 32.3 45.5 27.5 42.1 60.0 37.7 21.2 44.4 8.8 22.7 44.4 20.0

Q14 26.6 44.7 19.8 23.6 57.1 15.5 30.6 40.9 25.0 28.0 20.0 25.0

Q15 70.1 64.6 72.2 67.6 53.3 71.4 76.6 71.4 79.1 72.0 50.0 50.0

Q16 64.4 39.6 73.6 63.5 33.3 71.2 68.8 52.4 76.7 56.0 80.0 25.0

Q17 25.1 44.7 18.2 23.0 50.0 16.7 23.4 42.9 14.0 26.9 40.0 40.0

Q18 60.9 69.6 57.9 58.1 69.2 55.7 66.2 72.7 62.8 57.7 60.0 50.0

Q19 84.1 73.5 88.0 80.3 66.7 83.6 89.2 77.3 95.3 84.6 90.0 60.0

Q20 50.3 20.7 57.3 61.4 27.3 67.8 45.7 14.3 51.3 40.0 37.5 0.0

Q21 80.8 65.3 86.5 77.6 53.3 83.6 83.1 68.2 90.7 92.3 80.0 40.0

Q22 78.5 55.1 87.1 75.0 46.7 82.0 78.5 59.1 88.4 88.5 80.0 75.0

Q23 48.9 56.8 46.2 36.5 50.0 33.3 65.6 63.2 66.7 52.0 30.0 50.0

Q24 38.6 62.5 29.7 34.2 80.0 22.4 48.4 59.1 42.9 40.0 20.0 0.0

Q25 59.9 31.3 70.5 62.2 21.4 71.7 63.5 36.4 78.0 53.8 50.0 25.0

Q26 51.4 40.4 55.4 64.0 60.0 65.0 45.2 40.0 47.6 32.0 40.0 60.0

Q27 47.5 27.1 55.0 72.0 53.3 76.7 27.0 19.0 31.0 30.8 40.0 40.0

Q28 58.7 70.2 54.5 58.7 78.6 54.1 61.5 68.2 58.1 57.7 40.0 66.7

Q29 30.9 53.2 22.9 32.4 71.4 23.3 32.3 45.5 25.6 26.9 20.0 33.3

Q30 46.0 60.9 40.8 44.0 57.1 41.0 52.4 66.7 45.2 42.3 30.0 50.0

Q31 52.5 52.2 52.7 50.0 46.2 50.8 63.1 63.6 62.8 42.3 30.0 50.0

Q32 64.4 71.7 61.7 62.5 84.6 57.6 69.2 68.2 69.8 65.4 44.4 50.0

Q33 45.3 59.2 39.7 49.3 86.7 39.3 41.0 50.0 35.9 52.0 30.0 33.3

Q34 39.8 23.4 46.0 47.2 21.4 53.4 31.7 31.8 31.7 32.0 66.7 0.0

Q35 44.5 18.8 54.4 52.7 13.3 62.7 39.3 22.7 48.7 36.0 40.0 33.3

Q36 46.4 22.9 55.0 42.1 20.0 47.5 45.3 22.7 57.1 53.8 80.0 0.0

Q37 58.2 51.1 60.8 58.1 42.9 61.7 58.5 59.1 58.1 56.0 70.0 33.3

Q38 50.3 68.1 43.8 45.9 71.4 40.0 58.7 68.2 53.7 46.2 40.0 50.0

Q39 46.2 29.2 52.8 54.2 21.4 62.1 35.0 36.4 34.2 50.0 50.0 40.0

Q40 21.1 10.6 25.0 30.1 7.1 35.6 19.0 18.2 19.5 3.7 22.2 0.0

Q41 43.8 38.5 45.6 33.8 40.0 32.1 45.8 30.8 51.4 50.0 87.5 66.7

Q42 72.7 83.7 68.7 71.1 86.7 67.2 75.4 81.8 72.1 77.8 60.0 60.0

Q43 40.3 23.9 46.2 35.6 13.3 41.4 39.7 35.0 41.9 51.9 50.0 33.3
Root Cause(s) of Low Employee Morale July 2016

Job Performance Systems. 44

Q44 26.1 14.9 30.1 26.3 13.3 29.5 23.4 14.3 27.9 25.9 44.4 25.0

Q45 22.9 8.3 28.2 32.9 13.3 37.7 17.2 9.1 21.4 11.1 22.2 0.0

Q46 45.2 37.8 47.9 42.9 33.3 45.5 46.6 42.1 48.7 48.1 55.6 0.0

Q47 46.7 44.2 47.6 37.8 46.7 35.6 56.1 35.3 65.0 44.4 77.8 0.0

Q48 19.0 17.9 19.3 19.7 15.4 20.8 18.2 25.0 15.4 24.0 0.0 25.0

Q49 62.0 44.7 68.5 53.5 20.0 62.5 63.9 57.1 67.5 76.9 77.8 50.0

Q50 17.9 24.5 15.4 19.7 46.7 13.1 16.1 13.6 17.5 7.7 30.0 40.0

Q51 28.9 36.7 26.0 40.0 80.0 30.0 18.8 18.2 19.0 15.4 30.0 60.0

Q52 83.6 83.7 83.6 85.5 80.0 86.9 83.1 90.9 79.1 85.2 70.0 80.0

Q53 80.1 81.3 79.7 88.2 93.3 86.9 84.4 81.8 85.7 66.7 40.0 50.0

Q54 75.7 56.3 82.7 81.6 73.3 83.6 75.0 47.6 88.4 66.7 55.6 80.0

Q55 73.9 72.3 74.4 73.7 80.0 72.1 77.8 70.0 81.4 66.7 77.8 60.0

Q56 78.9 65.3 84.0 86.5 80.0 88.1 76.9 63.6 83.7 74.1 55.6 60.0

Q57 19.1 20.4 18.6 9.2 0.0 11.5 19.4 22.7 17.5 44.4 33.3 0.0

Q58 30.3 32.7 29.5 18.7 6.7 21.7 37.5 45.5 33.3 44.4 44.4 0.0

Q59 67.4 64.6 68.4 56.6 40.0 60.7 76.9 81.8 74.4 70.4 80.0 66.7

Q60 67.0 73.5 64.7 64.5 73.3 62.3 70.8 77.3 67.4 70.4 60.0 50.0

Q61 53.4 45.8 56.3 55.4 53.3 55.9 51.6 52.4 51.2 53.8 55.6 33.3

Q62

Yes 62.4 57.1 64.2 53.2 33.3 57.8 73.8 68.2 76.7 70.4 60 20

No 37.6 42.9 35.8 46.8 66.7 42.2 26.2 31.8 23.3 29.6 40 80

Q63

Yes 31.2 63.3 19.7 21.5 66.7 10.9 52.3 77.3 39.5 14.8 20 20

No 39.8 16.3 48.2 50.6 26.7 56.3 26.2 13.6 32.6 44.4 50 0

NA 29 20.4 32.1 27.8 6.7 32.8 21.5 9.1 27.9 40.7 30 80

Note: Percentages in each cell for questions 6 through 61 were calculated after first excluding any respondents in 

the group marking NA for the question.
 

or toll free at 1-800-424-9530 (press 0; then dial 1015) 

Fax us at 202-501-8134 or e-mail us at oig@fec.gov 

Visit or write to us at 999 E Street, N.W., Suite 940, Washington DC 20463 

Federal Election Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

Individuals including FEC and FEC contractor employees are encouraged to alert the OIG to 

fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement of agency programs and operations. Individuals 

who contact the OIG can remain anonymous. However, persons who report allegations are encouraged 

to provide their contact information in the event additional questions arise as the OIG evaluates the 

allegations. Allegations with limited details or merit may be held in abeyance until further specific details 

are reported or obtained. Pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, the Inspector 

General will not disclose the identity of an individual who provides information without the consent of that 

individual, unless the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course 

of an investigation. To learn more about the OIG, visit our Website at: http://www.fec.gov/fecig/fecig.shtml 

Together we can make a difference. 

Fraud Hotline 

202-694-1015