Managing Public Employees 

in the Public Interest

Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

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

 by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

 January 2013

Title 5, United States Code, 2301. Merit System Principles

(b) Federal personnel management should be implemented consistent with the following merit system principles: 

(1) Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work 

force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative 

ability, knowledge and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity. 

(2) All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of 

personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital 

status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights. 

(3) Equal pay should be provided for work of equal value, with appropriate consideration 

of both national and local rates paid by employers in the private sector, and appropriate 

incentives and recognition should be provided for excellence in performance. 

(4) All employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest. 

(5) The Federal work force should be used efficiently and effectively. 

(6) Employees should be retained on the basis of adequacy of their performance, 

inadequate performance should be corrected, and employees should be separated who 

cannot or will not improve their performance to meet required standards. 

(7) Employees should be provided effective education and training in cases in which such 

education and training would result in better organizational and individual performance. 

(8) Employees should be-- 

(A) protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes, and 

(B) prohibited from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering 

with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for election. 

(9) Employees should be protected against reprisal for the lawful disclosure of 

information which the employees reasonably believe evidences-- 

(A) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or 

(B) mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

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 U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) report, Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee 

Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces. This report discusses Federal employee perceptions 

of Federal agencies’ adherence to the merit system principles codified at 5 U.S.C. § 2301, focusing on 

stewardship – how agencies manage resources and Federal employees to accomplish agency missions and 

serve the public interest.

Most Federal employees believe that their organizations strive to maintain high standards of conduct and 

concern for the public interest. However, survey results show that many Federal employees believe that their 

leaders fall short in making the often-difficult decisions needed to make truly efficient and effective use of 

the Federal workforce. For example, among the 25 stewardship-related questions in our survey, agreement 

was lowest for items that concerned the extent to which organizations: (1) eliminate unnecessary 

functions and positions; and (2) effectively address poor performance. Federal employees also expressed 

concerns about agency support for necessary training and development and their organizations’ ability to 

retain their best employees. Our report contains recommendations to address perceptions and issues in these 

areas.

In the current environment, it is more important than ever for Federal agencies and Federal leaders to 

demonstrate that they are good stewards of the resources entrusted to them – including the Federal 

workforce. I believe you will find this report useful as you consider issues affecting the Federal Government’s 

ability to operate efficiently and effectively in these challenging times.

Respectfully,

Susan Tsui Grundmann

THE CHAIRMAN

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

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest:

Employee Perspectives on Merit

Principles in Federal Workplaces

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Deputy Director

James J. Tsugawa

Project Analysts

Cynthia H. Ferentinos, Ph.D.

J. Peter Leeds, Ph.D.

Sharon Roth, J.D.

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

Table of Contents

The Merit System Principles – 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)............................................................................................i

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................iii

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

Touchstones for a Diverse Civil Service....................................................................................................1

Methodology and Data Use.....................................................................................................................3

The Role of Stewardship in the Merit System Principles ..................................................................................7

The Interrelationship between Fairness, Protection, and Stewardship......................................................7

The MSPs Require that Federal Agencies Serve as Stewards of the Federal Workforce...........................12

Vision and Direction...................................................................................................................................... 15

The Need for Clearer Direction and Better Utilization of Staff ............................................................. 15

The Importance of Communication ......................................................................................................16

Investing in Employee and Organizational Productivity ................................................................................21

More Investment in Employees is Needed..............................................................................................21

A Long-Term View of Employee Development and Performance...........................................................26

Employees’ Responsibility to Manage Their Careers and Development .................................................30

Employee Retention....................................................................................................................................... 31

Retaining the Better Employees.............................................................................................................32

Unavoidable Decline in Retention Expected ..........................................................................................35

Addressing Retention.............................................................................................................................37

Recognition, Rewards, and Accountability.....................................................................................................39

Measuring, Rewarding, and Incentivizing Performance.........................................................................39

Addressing Performance Issues...............................................................................................................42

Conclusions and Recommendations...............................................................................................................45

Findings.................................................................................................................................................45

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................46

Appendix A: Information on the 2010 Merit Principles Survey......................................................................49

Appendix B: The 2010 Merit Principles Survey Instrument ..........................................................................53

Appendix C: Results from the 1996 Survey Questions on MSPs....................................................................77

Appendix D: Results from the 2010 Survey Questions on MSPs....................................................................79

Appendix E: The Prohibited Personnel Practices – 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)..........................................................81

Appendix F: MSPB’s Employee Engagement Questions.................................................................................85

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

Federal personnel management should be implemented consistent with the following merit system 

principles:

(1) Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor 

to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should 

be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skills, after fair and open 

competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.

(2) All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in 

all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, 

national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for 

their privacy and constitutional rights.

(3) Equal pay should be provided for work of equal value, with appropriate consideration of both 

national and local rates paid by employers in the private sector, and appropriate incentives and 

recognition should be provided for excellence in performance.

(4) All employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public 

interest.

(5) The Federal work force should be used efficiently and effectively.

(6) Employees should be retained on the basis of adequacy of their performance, inadequate 

performance should be corrected, and employees should be separated who cannot or will not 

improve their performance to meet required standards.

(7) Employees should be provided effective education and training in cases in which such education 

and training would result in better organizational and individual performance.

(8) Employees should be—

(A) protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political 

purposes, and

(B) prohibited from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with 

or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for election.

(9) Employees should be protected against reprisal for the lawful disclosure of information which the 

employees reasonably believe evidences—

(A) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or

(B) mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific 

danger to public health or safety.

The Merit System Principles

– 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)
ii Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board iii

The merit system principles (MSPs), in conjunction with the prohibited personnel practices (PPPs), provide a framework for managing public 

employees in the public interest. Much has changed since the Pendleton Act of 1883, 

which established a merit system in the Federal Government, and the subsequent Civil 

Service Reform Act of 1978, which codified the basic values of the Federal civil service 

as the merit system principles. The Federal workforce has become a knowledge-based 

workforce and the majority of Federal employees perform complex work in fast-changing 

fields. Predictable, routinized work is now the exception, not the norm. Personnel 

systems have proliferated and standardized entrance examinations and salary schedules 

have been replaced by a staggering variety of ways to hire and pay Federal employees. Yet 

the MSPs endure, covering nearly all employees, agencies, and personnel systems. The 

MSPs endure because they remain relevant: they embody the Nation’s fundamental 

values and set standards for leadership, management, and conduct in the Federal 

Government that have stood the test of time.

Over the years, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), in its Merit Principles 

Survey (MPS), has asked employees about their experiences and opinions on a variety 

of topics related to the civil service, including the nine MSPs. In 1996, the MPS asked 

15 questions related to agency adherence to the MSPs. We reported the results in our 

1997 report, Adherence to the Merit Principles in the Workplace: Federal Employees’ Views. 

In our 2010 Merit Principles Survey (MPS 2010), we asked a different and larger set of 

questions to explore the MSPs in greater depth and to emphasize agencies’ affirmative 

responsibilities for leading and managing Federal employees.

We categorized the 2010 questions into three groups: (1) fairness; (2) stewardship; and 

(3) protection. The areas of fairness and protection have been the subject of several 

recent reports and the 2010 results regarding the MSPs reinforced our findings in those 

reports. We are currently at work on additional reports in these areas. However, the 

2010 survey results indicated perceptions that stewardship is the area where organizations 

need to improve the most. Accordingly, this report focuses primarily on that theme.

In the current budgetary environment, agencies may find it more necessary to show 

Congress and the President that they are good stewards of the resources entrusted 

to them – including human capital. This is particularly true for the areas of: 

(1) eliminating unnecessary functions and positions; (2) effectively addressing poor 

performance; (3) retaining the best employees; and (4) providing necessary training. 

Executive Summary
iv Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Success in the first two areas is particularly important for Federal agencies to demonstrate 

to Congress, the President, and the American people that they have done as much 

as possible with as few resources as possible. These are also the areas where Federal 

employees perceived the greatest need for improvement.

Other areas of stewardship have more nuanced issues. Retaining the best employees is 

an area of perceived weakness. The extent to which it is a problem if people leave an 

organization depends on who is going, how many are going, how quickly they leave, 

where they are going, and why they are going. Some movement within the civil service 

that results in better skills matches, greater opportunities for talented employees to 

contribute, or employees acquiring broader skills and perspectives may be in the interest 

of the Government. However, excessive turnover or losing good performers who may be 

disillusioned by public service harms the civil service.

In the area of training, a majority of employees agree that they have received the training 

necessary to do the job today, but, given the knowledge-based duties of much of the 

workforce, more employees should believe that they have the necessary training to do the 

job as well as the training to do their jobs more efficiently.

This report includes the following recommendations:

• Educate managers at all levels, from appointed executives to first line supervisors, 

on their responsibilities related to Federal employees and the Federal workforce 

under the merit system principles. As stated in our previous report on MSPs in the 

workplace: “If managers are to be held responsible for applying the merit principles 

to their HRM decisions, they need more than a passing acquaintance with these 

principles. They need practical guidance that’s relevant to their own situations and 

that makes clear the consequences – for their work units and their agencies – of 

disregarding the merit principles in taking personnel actions.”1

• Be prepared to make the tough calls on which important programs may need to 

be trimmed or eliminated in order to provide even more crucial priorities with the 

necessary resources. Involve the workforce in efforts to locate potential methods to 

improve efficiencies and keep employees informed about what is being done and why 

it is being done.

• Identify and make appropriate investments in employee training and career 

development. The Federal workforce has become a knowledge workforce, 

with a majority of workers employed in complex, fast-changing fields such as 

information technology, medicine, security and law enforcement, and engineering. 

Unfortunately, many employees indicate that they have not received adequate 

training for their current jobs, let alone opportunities for growth and development. 

1 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Adherence to Merit Principles in the Workplace: Federal Employees’ Views, 

Washington, DC, September 1997, p. 10.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Federal Government must spend public dollars judiciously, consistent with 

the merit principles requiring concern for the public interest and efficient and 

effective use of the workforce. Yet agencies and managers must also be wary of 

pursuing short-term savings (such as reductions in training budgets or time allotted 

for training and education) at the expense of long-term organizational capability 

and performance. Accordingly, agencies should take steps to accurately determine 

competency requirements and developmental needs, to assure that training activities 

are linked to (and can fulfill) those needs, to emphasize to managers and employees 

the importance of continued education and development, and to provide supporting 

resources and mechanisms.

• Monitor trends, patterns, and factors in employee retention and employee 

engagement. In recent years, much of the Federal workforce has been characterized 

by high levels of retention and tenure, enabling many Federal agencies and Federal 

managers to pay limited attention to retention. Yet complacency is unwarranted. 

First, survey responses indicate that Federal agencies could improve at both keeping 

high performers and remediating or separating poor performers. Second, anticipated 

changes in workforce demographics, evolving employee expectations, and potential 

changes to Federal pay and benefits suggest that the future will be much less 

accommodating of passive approaches to turnover and retention. There have long 

been concerns that Federal agencies retain too many employees who do not perform 

acceptably. Federal executives and managers should take steps to ensure that this 

concern is not justified, particularly in this era of fiscal austerity.
vi Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1

Touchstones for a Diverse Civil Service

The time when the Federal civil service was monolithic in terms of demographics or human resources policy and practice is long past. Employees 

can enter the Federal government at any level, from worker-trainee to executive. 

Employees are appointed to Federal service in a variety of ways, from an open 

competitive examination to a special appointing authority targeted to a specific group.2 

Employees are paid under any number of compensation systems, from Governmentwide systems such as the General Schedule to the Federal Wage System to agency-specific 

systems tailored to particular organizations or occupations.

Yet commonalities remain. Federal agencies appoint, pay, train, and separate Federal 

employees to serve the public interest. To that end, almost all Federal employees 

work under merit systems – human resources policies and practices designed to ensure 

that people are recruited, managed, and retained on the basis of their abilities and 

performance.3

 Those systems share a common set of responsibilities and requirements: 

the merit system principles (MSPs) and the prohibited personnel practices (PPPs).

The PPPs and MSPs: Absolute Prohibitions and Affirmative 

Responsibilities

The prohibited personnel practices are just that: actions and practices that Federal 

employees are prohibited from doing.4 Those prohibitions are accompanied by 

enforcement mechanisms. For example, the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) has the 

2 One example is appointment under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA), which enables 

certain recently-discharged military veterans to compete for competitive service appointment under agency merit 

promotion procedures. (More information on the VEOA authority can be found at www.fedshirevets.gov/job/shav/.) 

Such authorities are typically established through legislation. We note that the question of whether authorities that 

target select populations can be established administratively (through regulation under 5 U.S.C. § 3302) is presently 

unresolved. See Dean v. Office of Personnel Management, 115 M.S.P.R. 157 (2010).

3 The rules for employment by an entity that operates under the authority of the U.S. Government are extremely 

complex. Individuals may be employed in the legislative, judicial, or executive branches. Executive branch 

employees are primarily employed under title 5, but they may also be employed under different titles, including 

but not limited to, 38 (Veterans Benefits), 10 (Armed Forces), 22 (Foreign Relations), 39 (Postal Service), and 49 

(Transportation). The extent to which title 5 laws or comparable provisions apply to other personnel systems varies 

greatly.

4 The PPPs are described at 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) and are listed in Appendix E.

Introduction
2 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

INTRODUCTION

authority to investigate allegations of PPPs, to pursue corrective action to rectify a PPP, 

and to seek disciplinary action against Federal employees who have committed a PPP.5 

However, a public-spirited, competent, and productive workforce cannot be attained or 

sustained solely by avoiding and prosecuting PPPs. The PPPs specify actions to avoid but 

do not say how Federal agencies should select, develop, recognize, or retain employees. 

That subject is addressed by the MSPs.

As shown in Table 1, the MSPs cover all aspects of human resources management, from 

recruitment to recognition and retention.

Table 1. Overview of the Merit System Principles

Principle and Subject Responsibilities

1 Recruitment

• Strive for a diverse, representative workforce.

• Recruit broadly, conduct fair and open competitions, and select solely on 

ability.

2 Equity

• Treat applicants and employees fairly, equitably, and with proper regard for 

their rights.

• Exclude non-merit factors from human resources decisions.

3 Compensation • Pay employees fairly, on the basis of the value of their work.

• Encourage and reward excellence.

4 Conduct • Maintain high standards of integrity and conduct.

5 Utilization • Use the Federal workforce efficiently and effectively.

6 Retention • Base retention on performance; address poor performance through 

remediation or, if necessary, termination.

7 Development • Train employees to improve individual and organizational performance.

8 Neutrality • Protect employees from arbitrary action, favoritism, and coercion.

• Maintain and enforce political neutrality.

9 Public Interest

• Act in the public interest.

• Encourage and protect lawful disclosures, including whistleblowing.

• Avoid any use of official authority to interfere with elections.

5 But see 5 U.S.C. § 2302(e)(2) (stating that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this title, no authority to 

order corrective action shall be available in connection with a prohibited personnel practice described in subsection 

(b)(11)”). Title 5, United States Code, § 1212 enumerates OSC’s powers and functions. Additional information 

about OSC and its activities is available at www.osc.gov. See also U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Prohibited 

Personnel Practices: A Study Retrospective, Washington, DC, June 2010 for a description of the PPPs and an overview 

of previous and planned MSPB research related to the PPPs.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3

INTRODUCTION

The MSPs are broad principles rather than specific prescriptions.

Adherence to the merit system principles is more difficult to assess than avoidance of 

prohibited personnel practices. The MSPs establish ideals to uphold instead of specific 

rules or procedures to follow. Agencies and managers have considerable responsibility – 

and discretion – to interpret and implement the MSPs in practice.

Some MSPs are supported by detailed guidelines or policies. For example, to implement 

the principle of fair and open competition, Federal agencies that conduct competitive 

examinations are required to provide public notice of the examination through 

USAJOBS6 and to follow defined rules for accepting applications. 7 However, most 

principles are not so definitively supported by specific rules. For example, there is no 

single regulation that describes what constitutes efficient and effective use of the Federal 

workforce; nor is there any guideline that specifies precisely how agencies should achieve 

that outcome.

Methodology and Data Use

This report is based on—

• Analysis of selected items from the MPS 2010, a Government-wide survey that 

MSPB administered to a random sample of permanent full-time Federal employees in 

24 departments and independent agencies. Appendix A provides an overview of the 

content and administration of the MPS 2010 and Appendix B provides a replica of 

the survey instrument;

• Analysis of data from the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF), a repository of 

information on the Federal workforce maintained by the U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management. We used CPDF data to develop insight into the composition of the 

Federal workforce and to examine trends in employee retention;

• Review of selected articles and research related to Federal employee attitudes and 

the management of the Federal workforce. This review was conducted to identify 

common themes and concerns in the leadership and management of the Federal 

workforce. Consistent with this purpose, and to conserve time and staff resources, 

this review was less structured and extensive than a formal literature review; and

• Previous MSPB research on issues discussed in this report, including employee 

engagement, performance management, and human resource development.

6 USAJOBS is the Federal Government’s online employment portal (www.usajobs.gov) operated by the U.S. Office 

of Personnel Management.

7 5 CFR § 330.103 and 5 CFR § 330.105 (regarding notice to OPM and USAJOBS), 5 CFR § 330.104 (regarding 

vacancy announcements), and U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Delegated Examining Operations Handbook, 

Chapters 3 and 4, available as of August 2012 at www.opm.gov/deu/Handbook_2007/DEO_Handbook.pdf.
4 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

INTRODUCTION

The 2010 Merit Principles Survey and the Merit System Principles

Over the years, MSPB’s Merit Principles Survey has asked employees about their 

experiences and opinions on a variety of topics related to workplace fairness. The MPS 

2010 included 25 items that asked employees about their organization’s adherence to 

the MSPs.8 The basic concept, consistent throughout the MSPs, is that agencies should 

create a workplace in which the Government can attract and retain the best possible 

employees and maximize the performance of those employees for the benefit of the 

American people. Our 25 questions were designed around this concept. Some items 

were derived directly from the statute with some rewording for clarity or brevity. Other 

items describe practices and outcomes (such as retaining high-performing employees) 

that are implicit in the MSPs, but are not explicitly enumerated. The MPS 2010 also 

included items on related topics such as employee engagement, work motivation, 

prohibited personnel practices, and whistleblowing. Those topics are addressed by recent 

or planned MSPB studies and are not discussed in depth in this report.9 This report 

focuses primarily on the MSPs related to stewardship of the Federal workforce.

Differences Across Roles and Agencies

In this report, we occasionally discuss the responses of nonsupervisors and supervisors. 

We do so for two reasons. First, the roles and responsibilities of nonsupervisors and 

supervisors are materially different. Non-supervisors have responsibilities related to the 

MSPs, including demonstrating concern for the public interest (including reporting 

wrongdoing) and maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. However, 

supervisors’ responsibilities are much broader, reflecting their delegated authority for 

recommending or making decisions in matters such as hiring, pay, training, recognition, 

and discipline. Second, nonsupervisors and supervisors often have different insights 

into an organization’s policies and practices and their effects. For example, supervisors 

may be more familiar than employees with the policies and considerations that affect 

personnel decisions (including management priorities, budgets, applicants’ qualifications, 

and employees’ work histories). Nonsupervisors, on the other hand, may have a clearer 

and more accurate sense of how those decisions – and the motives and competence of the 

decision-makers – are perceived by the individuals who are affected. Thus, comparing 

the responses of nonsupervisors to those of supervisors can help identify reasons for a 

particular result and suggest lines of inquiry and courses of action.

8 MSPB conducted a similar exercise in its 1996 Merit Principles Survey. See U.S. Merit Systems Protection 

Board, Adherence to the Merit Principles in the Workplace: Federal Employees’ Views, Washington, DC, September 

1997. Results from the 1996 survey are at Appendix C. Although grounded in the merit system principles, the 1996 

survey items differed in material ways from the ones discussed in this report. Consequently, direct comparison of 

results is not possible.

9 See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Blowing the Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures, 

Washington, DC, November, 2011; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Prohibited Personnel Practices: Employee 

Perspectives, Washington, DC, August 2011; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Employee Engagement: 

The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Rewards, Washington, DC, December 2012.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5

INTRODUCTION

Although the MPS was designed to produce usable results at the agency level, agencylevel results are shown on a selective basis only. First, agency-level results do not 

necessarily reflect the practices or outcomes of a single organization. That is especially 

true when agencies comprise diverse missions and workforces or highly independent 

components or bureaus. Second, differences among individual agencies are more difficult 

to interpret than differences between nonsupervisors and supervisors. Agency differences 

can reflect many factors, including mission, workforce demographics, organizational 

culture, finances, quality of leadership, and human resources policies and practices. 

Given the natural tendency to rank agencies and interpret differences as reflective of the 

fairness and competence of an agency’s leadership, we concluded that focusing on agencylevel survey results was more likely to distract or mislead than to enlighten.

Interpreting Survey Results

In this report, we generally present the percentage of respondents agreeing with a survey 

item. The 25 MPS-based survey items discussed in this report are all positively worded. 

For any item, agreement is desirable and high levels of agreement are preferable to low 

levels of agreement.10 Comparing levels of agreement across items may provide insight 

into areas of relative strength and weakness. However, we caution against a simplistic 

approach to interpreting results and comparing levels of agreement across items.

Survey responses reflect respondents’ experiences, understanding of Federal Government 

and human resources policies and practices, interpretations of events, and personal values 

and opinions. Thus, agreement cannot be directly equated with adherence to merit 

system principles, nor can disagreement be directly equated with failure to adhere to 

merit system principles or commission of a prohibited personnel practice. Respondents 

may misunderstand or simply disagree with an agency policy or leadership decision that 

is consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the law.

In this report, we present survey results, discuss possible causes and consequences, and 

outline some actions for agencies to consider. That discussion is neither definitive nor 

exhaustive. Accordingly, we suggest that readers consider the following questions while 

reviewing survey items and results in this report:

• What level of agreement is likely or plausibly attainable?

• Are the reported levels of agreement higher or lower than expected?

• Do the survey results point to strengths in organizational culture or human resources 

practice to be preserved or further developed?

10 There are exceptions. For example, a respondent could agree to an item with the intent to mislead. For several 

reasons, including the assurance of confidentiality that MSPB provides participants in its surveys, we believe that 

these exceptions do not apply to the results shown here.
6 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

INTRODUCTION

• What might cause an unexpected result?

• What are the possible consequences of a low level of agreement?

• What actions might Federal agencies, Federal managers, or Federal employees take to 

improve adherence to MSPs?

The survey results are not a report card, but rather a tool for helping agencies examine 

and improve how they manage the workforce. Actively engaging with the results 

and perspectives presented in this report is an essential first step. Tables containing 

aggregated responses to our 25 MPS questions are at Appendix D.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 7

T his chapter briefly describes the themes of fairness, stewardship, and protection. It explains why stewardship is a particular concern today but also 

why it cannot be isolated from the important responsibility of management officials to 

ensure that employees are treated fairly with full protection of their rights.

The Interrelationship between Fairness, Protection, and Stewardship

Statistical analysis of the survey results suggested that there were three themes underlying 

responses to the 25 MSP-based questions.11 We labeled those three factors as follows:

• Fairness – perceptions of the fairness of the organization’s human resources practices 

and decisions, especially matters related to hiring and pay;

• Stewardship – perceptions of the utilization and development of employees and 

organizations, including matters such as leadership, alignment, support, and 

efficiency; and

• Protection – perceptions of the effectiveness of measures to protect employees from 

inappropriate influences and improper actions, including leadership attributes such 

as openness, tolerance of criticism, and willingness to act to prevent or rectify such 

actions.

We note that many questions could plausibly be classified to multiple categories, 

reflecting the fact that the merit principles share a common vision. The three themes of 

fairness, stewardship, and protection are best understood as mutually supportive rather 

than separable or distinct. For example, supervisors are expected to reward excellent 

performance.12 The purpose of this principle is to help employees feel valued or otherwise 

encourage them so they will want to continue to perform excellently and the best 

performers will want to remain with the Government. Thus, we treated recognition as 

primarily an issue of stewardship. However, it is also a question of fairness, for when 

greater rewards are given to those whose performance is less excellent, or rewards are 

withheld from those who are not personal favorites of the supervisor, it is inherently 

11 The technique was factor analysis, following the approach used in MSPB’s 2008 study of Federal employee 

engagement. Appendix A of that report provides a brief description of factor analysis as a method for interpreting 

survey results and developing scales. See Robert F. DeVellis, Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Sage 

Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2012, pp. 115-158, for further information on the use of factor analysis in 

developing surveys and interpreting survey results.

12 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(3).

The Role of Stewardship in the

Merit System Principles
8 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

THE ROLE OF STEWARDSHIP IN THE MERIT SYSTEM PRINCIPLES

unfair. Furthermore, upper-level management’s tolerance of such conduct by supervisors 

raises the question of whether employees are being protected from this improper conduct.

The reality is that neither our 25 questions, nor the MSPs they represent, exist in 

isolation. Fairness cannot stand alone without the support of protection to ensure that 

fairness is applied; a manager who tolerates unfairness and withholds protection is not 

a good steward. Agencies should not lose sight of the fact that fairness, protection, 

and good stewardship are all necessary for a merit system to thrive. A merit system 

can be viewed as a three-legged stool supported by the legs of fairness, protection, and 

stewardship. Weaken any leg and it will wobble; remove any leg and it will fall. The 

MSPs, survey items, and associated themes are listed in Table 2, below.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 9

THE ROLE OF STEWARDSHIP IN THE MERIT SYSTEM PRINCIPLES

Table 2. MPS 2010 items based on the merit system principles

MSP and Subject Survey Items: My organization... Theme

1 Recruitment

• Recruits a diverse pool of applicants for job vacancies

• Holds fair and open competition for job vacancies

• Selects the best-qualified candidates when filling jobs

Fairness

2 Equity

• Treats employees fairly

• Takes steps to prevent prohibited discrimination

• Takes steps to rectify prohibited discrimination

3 Compensation

• Pays employees fairly

• Recognizes excellent performance

• Rewards excellent performance

Stewardship

4 Conduct • Holds employees to high standards of conduct

• Puts the public interest first

5 Utilization

• Uses the workforce efficiently and effectively

• Eliminates unnecessary functions and positions

• Makes good use of employees’ skills and talents

• Focuses employee attention and efforts on what is most 

important

• Provides employees with the resources needed to get the 

job done

6 Retention • Addresses poor performers effectively

• Retains its best employees

7 Development

• Provides employees with necessary training

• Provides employees with opportunities for growth and 

development

8 Neutrality

• Protects employees against arbitrary action

• Does not engage in favoritism*

• Protects employees from political coercion

Protection

9 Public Interest

• Protects employees against reprisal for whistleblowing

• Protects employees against reprisal for exercising a 

grievance, complaint, or appeal right

* “Favoritism” is not further defined in the eighth merit system principle, but clearly encompasses 

nepotism (i.e., taking a personnel action to benefit a family member), which is explicitly prohibited by 

5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(7).
10 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

THE ROLE OF STEWARDSHIP IN THE MERIT SYSTEM PRINCIPLES

Fairness and Protection

While the MSPs are interrelated, perceptions vary greatly about how well management 

officials adhere to the principles. As can be seen in Figure 1, many of the questions 

for which the fewest employees had positive perceptions were in the stewardship 

group. However, several items involving fairness or protection also showed room for 

improvement. Reprisal for whistleblowing or the exercise of an appeal/grievance right 

and the coercing of political activity, which also had limited positive perceptions, are 

PPPs. For more information on these and other PPPs, please see our recent reports: 

Prohibited Personnel Practices: Employee Perceptions; Whistleblower Protections for Federal 

Employees; and Blowing the Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures. 

Additionally, favoritism, which can be found near the bottom of the chart in Figure 1, 

will be the subject of a future MSPB report.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11

THE ROLE OF STEWARDSHIP IN THE MERIT SYSTEM PRINCIPLES

Figure 1. Responses to survey items on merit principle adherence by level of agreement

Prevents prohibited discrimination

My organizationHolds employees to high standards of conduct

Pays employees fairly

Recruits a diverse pool of applicants

Recties prohibited discrimination

Provides employees with necessary training

Puts the public interest rst

Provides employees with necessary resources

Treats employees fairly

Provides employees with opportunities for growth

Rewards excellence

Recognizes excellence

Protects employees from political coercion

Holds fair and open competition

Protects employees against reprisal for exercising a right

Makes good use of employees’ skills and talents

Protects employees against reprisal for whistleblowing

Protects employees against arbitrary action

Uses the workforce eciently and eectively

Retains its best employees

Selects the best-qualied candidates

Eliminates unnecessary functions and positions

Does not engage in favoritism

Addresses poor performers eectively

Protection Fairness Stewardship

0%

Focuses on what is most important

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
12 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

THE ROLE OF STEWARDSHIP IN THE MERIT SYSTEM PRINCIPLES

Stewardship Matters

Stewardship is a particularly timely issue because of budget constraints that agencies 

currently face and are expected to confront for the foreseeable future. If agencies find 

they can no longer “do more with less,” they may need to make hard decisions about 

what they can do with the resources they have. Federal employees are a valuable 

resource, and one that agencies must use as wisely as possible. Accordingly, this report 

focuses on employee perceptions surrounding stewardship of the Federal workforce.

The MSPs Require that Federal Agencies Serve as Stewards of the 

Federal Workforce

Federal supervisors and managers are entrusted with leading Federal employees to further 

the public interest. Accordingly, the merit system principles require that leaders do more 

than hire on the basis of merit and treat employees fairly. The merit system principles 

also require that leaders be good stewards of Federal organizations and the Federal 

workforce. Talent and good intentions, although necessary, are not sufficient. Figure 2, 

below, illustrates the relationship between talent, stewardship, and results. 13

Figure 2. The role of stewardship in translating talent into organizational results14

Stewardship

Vision and Direction

Investment

Utilization

Accountability

(recognition and reinforcement)

Retention

Stewardship

Talent Results

Stewardship has both immediate aspects (such as demonstrating concern for the public interest and 

focusing work efforts on organizational goals) and longer-term aspects (such as retaining employees on 

the basis of performance and providing training to improve performance). Figure 3 shows survey 

respondents’ agreement with items related to the concept of stewardship.15

13 Analysis of survey responses, using a technique called structural equation modeling, found statistical 

relationships among survey items that are consistent with the idea that stewardship is central to organizational 

efficiency and effectiveness.

14 The concepts and relationships in this diagram are similar to the systems and linkages in OPM’s Human Capital 

Accountability and Assessment Framework (HCAAF). See www.opm.gov/hcaaf_resource_center/index.asp.

15 The data in Figure 3 is the same as in Figure 1, with questions regarding fairness and protection omitted to help 

focus the reader’s attention on stewardship.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13

THE ROLE OF STEWARDSHIP IN THE MERIT SYSTEM PRINCIPLES

Figure 3. Agreement with statements related to stewardship of the organization and the workforce, MPS 2010

24%

29%

41%

42%

45%

48%

51%

51%

52%

56%

60%

60%

64%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Addresses poor performers eectively

Eliminates unnecessary functions and positions

Retains its best employees

Uses the workforce eciently and eectively

Makes good use of employees’ skills and talents

Focuses employee attention and eorts on what is most important

Rewards excellent performance

Recognizes excellent performance

Provides employees with opportunities for growth and development

Provides employees with the resources needed to get the job done

Puts the public interest rst

Provides employees with necessary training

Holds employees to high standards of conduct

My organizationOverall, Federal employees appear to view their organization’s intentions more positively 

than its actions. A majority of employees agree that their organization is attentive to the 

public interest and holds employees to high standards of conduct. However, respondent 

perceptions of human capital practices are less positive, especially in areas related to 

vision (such as focusing on what is important) and alignment (such as eliminating 

unnecessary functions and positions). In the following chapters, we discuss these issues 

related to stewardship in greater depth.
14 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

THE ROLE OF STEWARDSHIP IN THE MERIT SYSTEM PRINCIPLES
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15

Vision and direction affect how employees perceive leadership efforts to establish goals, clarify and communicate organizational priorities, and align 

organizational structures and work efforts with those goals and priorities.

The Need for Clearer Direction and Better Utilization of Staff

As illustrated in Figure 4, below, many respondents believe their organization makes 

suboptimal use of the workforce. Employees’ concerns encompass both high-level 

leadership – such as establishing a clear vision and focusing on what is most important – 

and the day-to-day management of organizations and individuals.

Figure 4. Agreement with items related to vision and direction, by supervisory status, MPS 2010

29%

41%

46%

44%

34%

50%

56%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Eliminates unnecessary functions and positions 

Uses the workforce eciently and eectively 

Focuses on what is most important

Makes good use of employees’skills 

My organization...

Supervisors

Nonsupervisors

These results, although not reassuring, are not completely surprising. Leading 

organizations is challenging, especially in the public sector. Missions are broadly defined; 

stakeholders may hold opposing views of an agency’s proper role and priorities; and law 

and regulation may limit leadership discretion in a variety of ways including functions, 

policies and procedures, organizational structure, and resource management. Such 

conditions can produce unfocused programs or organizations, making it difficult to 

Vision and Direction
16 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

VISION AND DIRECTION

define clear goals and align resources and work efforts with those goals. It has been said 

that Federal “[p]rograms are bound by multiple, often conflicting, legislative objectives. 

The complex politics of passing enabling legislation and then negotiating annual 

appropriations forces some programs to be all things to all people.”16

There are limits to what any individual employee can do to resolve problems such as 

overlapping missions, conflicting objectives, and insufficient resources.17 That does 

not, however, absolve Federal leaders of their responsibility to provide the clearest 

possible direction, make difficult decisions, and communicate important if unpalatable 

truths. That responsibility is reinforced by the Government Performance and Results 

Modernization Act of 2010, which explicitly requires the heads of Federal agencies to 

establish priority goals, evaluate progress toward those goals, and publicize associated 

strategies, results, barriers, and plans for improvement.18 We acknowledge that the 

vast majority of Federal executives take their responsibilities seriously, and many have 

served and continue to serve with distinction. Yet survey results should prompt agency 

executives and managers, both career and non-career, to ask themselves if they are truly 

providing their organizations and employees with the vision and direction they need and 

deserve. The survey results should also prompt employees who believe that vision and 

direction are lacking to ask whether they have communicated that concern to agency 

leaders – and perhaps, also, to consider taking the initiative when necessary.

The Importance of Communication

One possible contributor to employee perceptions related to leadership is a lack of 

communication and information. Some employees may not be fully aware of the 

extent of the challenges their agencies face on the budgetary and legislative fronts, 

while senior leaders may not fully recognize the difficulties that line employees face 

as a result of conflicting priorities, indecisive leadership, or inadequate or misdirected 

resources. Results from MSPB’s 2007 Merit Principles Survey (MPS 2007) indicate 

that communications from senior leaders to the workforce are often inadequate: only 

56 percent of nonsupervisors and 66 percent of first-level supervisors agreed that 

managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization.19 While goals may be 

difficult to prioritize when there is so much important work to be done, communicating 

16 From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less, Washington, DC, September 7, 

1993, p. 74.

17 See, for example, The Campaign for High Performance Government, Creating a High-Performance Government: 

A Once-in-a-Generation Opportunity, New York University, Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, June 

21, 2001. This report describes the problems of overlapping or conflicting missions and their consequences for 

accountability, organizational performance, and the public interest.

18 P.L. 111-352. 31 U.S.C. §§ 1120 and 1122, respectively, establish requirements for developing priority goals and 

transparency (i.e., publicity) of programs, priority goals, and results.

19 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing for Engagement: Communication, Connection, and Courage, 

Washington, DC, July 2009, pp. 14-17; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Call to Action: Improving First-Level 

Supervision of Federal Employees, Washington, DC, May 2010, pp. 49-51.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17

VISION AND DIRECTION

leadership decisions regarding priorities should not be as great a challenge. It is also 

quite possible that agency leaders do not receive sufficient notice from their subordinates 

about a lack of information and are therefore unaware of breakdowns in communication, 

despite initiatives such as OPM’s Employee Viewpoint Survey.20

Agencies currently face very tight budgets, and the strained fiscal situation is expected 

to remain in place – if not worsen – in coming years. One area in which employees had 

the lowest positive perception of their management officials was in officials meeting their 

responsibilities to eliminate unnecessary functions and positions. This may be a question 

of insufficient action by agency management, or a a lack of employee understanding 

about management decisions and their rationale. In either case, if cuts are required over 

the next few years, it will be vital that management and employees to work together on 

absorbing the pain with as little damage to the organization as possible.

Management should not only listen to employees about where to make cuts, but 

should actively seek the advice of employees who do the jobs and may know best where 

efficiencies can be found. And, when cuts in valuable positions and initiatives are made 

to protect even more crucial programs, management should be open with employees 

about what is being done, and particularly why it is being done. Even when the affected 

individuals who must find a way to do as much as possible with as little as possible find 

that they cannot agree with management decisions, it is important that they nevertheless 

believe that management made its decisions in good faith with a genuine focus on the 

public good.

Its effect on engagement is one reason for management to persuade employees that 

unnecessary functions and positions are being trimmed or eliminated to protect more 

crucial projects. As can be seen in Figure 5, employees who believe that management 

eliminates unnecessary functions and positions tend to be more engaged than employees 

who do not share that perception.21

20 See 5 CFR § 250, Subpart C. The Employee Viewpoint Survey (formerly the the Federal Human Capital 

Survey) is an annual employee survey administered Governmentwide by OPM pursuant to National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, which required agencies to survey their employees annually on topics 

including leadership practices and the work environment.

21 Engagement is defined as a heightened connection to some or all aspect of work (such as the job itself, the 

organization, or coworkers). See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, 

Washington, DC, September 2008, pp. 2-4 for an overview of employee engagement and its relationship to 

organizational performance. The questions used to calculate engagement scores is at Appendix F.
18 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

VISION AND DIRECTION

Figure 5. Agreement that unnecessary functions and positions are eliminated and level of engagement

73%

24%

2%

42%

48%

9%

21%

48%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Engaged Somewhat Engaged Not Engaged

Agree Neither Disagree

Similarly, as shown in Figure 6, there is a clear relationship between employee perceptions 

that management eliminates unnecessary functions and positions and employees’ 

intention to remain with the organization.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19

VISION AND DIRECTION

Figure 6. Agreement that unnecessary functions and positions are eliminated and expressed intention to leave 

the agency

78%

8%

14%

67%

13%

20%

59%

11%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Unlikely Neither Likely

Agree Neither Disagree

Thus, by eliminating unnecessary functions and positions, agency leaders can not only 

save funds that would be spent on those functions and positions, it is likely that they can 

also increase their potential to retain valuable employees and the engagement level of 

those individuals.

However, it is important to recognize that what is “unnecessary” may be a subjective 

question. That is why it is so important for supervisors, managers, and leaders to explain 

to employees what management is doing and why it is being done.
20 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

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

We define investment as providing the training, development, and other resources needed to support immediate productivity and long-term 

individual and organizational performance.

More Investment in Employees is Needed

As shown in Figure 7, below, a majority of respondents Government-wide agreed 

that their organizations provide necessary training and resources. Yet in every agency 

surveyed, a significant percentage of nonsupervisors – ranging from 11 percent to fully 

40 percent – disagreed. Concern about the adequacy of training and resources is not 

limited to nonsupervisors. Compared to other survey questions discussed in this report, 

differences in agreement between nonsupervisors and supervisors were relatively small.22

Figure 7. Agreement with statements related to support of employee performance and development, by 

supervisory status, MPS 2010

22 For almost every survey item (statement) related to fairness or protection, the difference in agreement between 

supervisors and nonsupervisors exceeded 15 percentage points. For example, there was a difference of 18 percentage 

points between nonsupervisors and supervisors in agreement to the statement “My organization treats employee 

fairly.”

50%

55%

58%

63%

58%

69%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Provides opportunities for growth

Provides necessary resources

Provides necessary training

My organization...

Supervisors

Nonsupervisors

Investing in Employee and

Organizational Productivity
22 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

INVESTING IN EMPLOYEE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY

These perceptions are disquieting. It is one thing for some employees to express 

dissatisfaction with promotions and awards, which are limited in availability and 

allocated on a competitive basis. It is entirely another for many employees to have 

reservations about whether their organizations provide the essential ingredients for 

acceptable individual and organizational performance. The provision of necessary training 

and resources should not be a matter of debate or uncertainty; yet survey results and 

previous MSPB research suggest that it is for many Federal employees.23

Additionally, there is a difference between training that is necessary to get the mission 

done and training that is necessary to get the mission done effectively and efficiently. 

Historically, our survey respondents have seen these as two very different things. In our 

1992, 1996, 2000, and 2005 surveys, we asked respondents separate questions to capture 

perceptions regarding training that respondents believed was necessary to do their jobs 

and training that they felt was necessary to do their jobs effectively.

24 As shown in Figure 

8, respondents were less likely to agree that they had the training that would help them 

function effectively.25 When looking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the 

workforce with fewer funds, agencies should be cautious about cutting training. A penny 

saved is not a penny earned if the saved penny is not invested wisely. Rather, agencies 

may find that a penny today that is wisely invested in the right training may save many 

dollars in years to come by providing more effective employees.26

23 A 1995 MSPB study reported that approximately one-third of employees believed that they needed more 

training and that many agencies believed that some training and development needs remained unmet. See U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Leadership for Change: Human Resource Development in the Federal Government,

Washington, DC, July 1995, pp. 7-9. Results from the 2005 Merit Principles Survey also show that significant 

percentages of employees perceive their training as inadequate or suboptimal. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 

Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005, February 2007, pp. 16-19.

24 Because of limited space on the survey, the 2007 and 2010 surveys did not ask about training to perform the job 

more effectively.

25 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Accomplishing our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005, 

Washington DC, February 2007, p. 16.

26 For guidance on selecting training with the greatest potential for a return on investment, please see U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board, Making the Right Connections: Targeting the Best Competencies for Training, Washington, 

DC, February 2011.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23

INVESTING IN EMPLOYEE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY

Figure 8. Divergence in perceptions of receipt of essential and valuable job training

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1992 1996 2000 2005

I receive the training I need to perform my job.

I need more training to perform my job eectively.

In addition to the challenges of providing the right training, only half of nonsupervisors 

agree that their organization provides opportunities for growth and development. 

Given the distinctive characteristics of Federal work and the Federal workforce, that 

is problematic. Figure 9, shows that the Federal workforce is increasingly composed 

of knowledge workers.27 Nearly two-thirds of Federal employees are employed in 

professional and administrative occupations such as information technology specialist, 

management analyst, attorney, and environmental engineer.28

27 There is no single, universally-accepted definition of “knowledge workers,” but generally accepted characteristics 

of knowledge workers include: (1) the worker’s personal ownership of the resources (such as skills, knowledge, and 

judgment) essential to performance and productivity; (2) non-routine work, in which the worker must define and 

decide how to accomplish assignments; and (3) a high degree of specialization – a knowledge worker’s job cannot be 

done satisfactorily by non-specialists (who may include the worker’s immediate supervisor). See, for example, Peter 

F. Drucker, Management Challenges for the 21st Century, Harper Business, New York, NY, 1999, pp. 17-22 and 142-

154.

28 Knowledge workers in the Federal Government are not confined to professional and administrative occupations, 

although those occupations are the most obvious examples of knowledge work.
24 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

INVESTING IN EMPLOYEE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY

Figure 9. Distribution of permanent full-time Federal employees by occupational category, 1990 and 201029

21%

26%

18%

16%

2%

17%

25%

39%

18%

5% 4%

10%

Professional Administrative Technical Clerical Other Blue - Collar

1990 2010

Figure 10, shows that most Federal knowledge workers have considerable tenure in the 

Federal service. In professional occupations, 52 percent of employees have 10 or more 

years of Federal service; in administrative occupations, 56 percent.

29 The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s Handbook of Occupational Groups and Series defines six categories 

for occupations in the Federal Government. Professional work requires knowledge in a field of science or learning 

characteristically acquired through education or training equivalent to a bachelor’s or higher degree with major 

study in or pertinent to the specialized field, as distinguished from general education. Work is professional when 

it requires the exercise of discretion, judgment, and personal responsibility for the application of an organized 

body of knowledge that is constantly studied to make new discoveries and interpretations, and to improve data, 

materials, and methods (for example, mathematics and engineering). Administrative work involves the exercise 

of analytical ability, judgment, discretion, and personal responsibility, and the application of a substantial body of 

knowledge of principles, concepts, and practices applicable to one or more fields of administration or management. 

While these positions do not require specialized education, they do involve the type of skills (analytical, research, 

writing, judgment) typically gained through a college level education, or through progressively responsible 

experience. Technical work is typically associated with and supportive of a professional or administrative field. It 

involves extensive practical knowledge, gained through experience and/or specific training less than that represented 

by college graduation. Work in these occupations may involve substantial elements of the work of the professional 

or administrative field, but requires less than full knowledge of the field involved. Clerical occupations involve 

structured work in support of office, business, or fiscal operations. Clerical work is performed in accordance with 

established policies, procedures, or techniques; and requires training, experience, or working knowledge related 

to the tasks to be performed. Clerical occupational series follow a one-grade interval pattern. Other white-collar 

occupations are occupations in the General Schedule that do not clearly fit into one of the above groupings. Included 

among these are series such as the Fire Protection and Prevention Series, GS-081, and Police Series, GS-083. Bluecollar occupations are occupations whose paramount requirements are trades, crafts, and labor experience and 

knowledge.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25

INVESTING IN EMPLOYEE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY

Figure 10. Distribution of employees in professional and administrative occupations by adjusted years of 

Federal service, 2010.

8%

19%

22%

20%

23%

8% 9%

14%

22%

20%

24%

12%

Less than 1 yr 1-3 yrs 4 -9 yrs 10 -19 yrs 20 -29 yrs 30 or more yrs

Professional

Administrative

These data have implications for how Federal agencies approach employee development. 

Clearly, the Federal knowledge workforce has substantial experience and institutional 

knowledge that can be quite valuable.30 However, the data also show that recent 

hires account for only a small portion of the Federal Government’s professional and 

administrative workforce. Thus, the Federal Government cannot rely solely on external 

hiring to assure that employees possess the necessary levels of knowledge and proficiency. 

In-service training and development of current employees are essential for the Federal 

workforce to possess the collective knowledge and proficiency needed to accomplish 

its various missions. Restated, unless the Federal Government makes prudent longterm investments in its employees, its human capital will depreciate. Ultimately, such 

depreciation of workforce knowledge and skills could seriously compromise the ability of 

Federal agencies to effectively discharge their responsibilities to the American people.

30 Relevant experience can provide procedural knowledge, build work relationships, and sharpen situational 

judgment. Such contributors to job performance can require considerable time (months or years) to develop. 

Nevertheless, experience must not be equated with proficiency. (That is why heavy reliance on assessments of 

training and experience (T&E) to evaluate and select job applicants can be problematic, especially when those 

assessments are mechanical. See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Identifying Talent through Technology: 

Automated Hiring Systems in Federal Agencies, Washington, DC, August 2004, pp. 7-8.) MSPB is currently 

conducting research on the appropriate use of T&E assessments in Federal employment.
26 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

INVESTING IN EMPLOYEE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY

A Long-Term View of Employee Development and Performance

Federal agencies are rightly expected to use public resources wisely. Managers and 

employees must treat training as an organizational investment – an expenditure of 

resources that will benefit the public through improved productivity or performance 

– rather than an employee benefit. Accordingly, agencies may not fund training for 

the sole purpose of obtaining a degree or certificate,31 nor may they pay for individual 

memberships in professional or trade organizations, except in limited circumstances.32 

Employee education and training must be directed to the attainment of competencies 

rather than credentials and to the attainment of public goods rather than private benefits.

However, we caution against taking a narrow, short-term view of what constitutes jobrelated, beneficial training. Some training needs are obvious: they flow directly from an 

employee’s position description, work assignments, or performance standards. However, 

important training needs are not always obvious. Training does not only enable 

employees to successfully complete today’s tasks and projects; it also prepares employees 

for the future. The accompanying discussion, “Maintaining a Knowledge Workforce in 

a Merit System,” outlines why a broad, future-oriented view of employee development is 

important.

31 We emphasize “sole purpose.” The Homeland Security Act of 2002 expanded agency ability to support training 

pursuant to an academic degree. See U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Training and Development: Fact 

Sheets with Questions & Answers,” at www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/policy/fea-00.asp for more information on the 

requirements governing such training. For information related to certification and certificate programs, See Linda 

M. Springer, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Memorandum for Chief Human Capital Officers, 

Subject: Fact Sheet on Certification and Certificate Programs” August 13, 2008, accessed in August 2011 at www.

chcoc.gov/Transmittals/Attachments/trans1489.pdf.

32 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Training Policy Handbook, “Membership in Professional Organizations,” 

available at www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/pubs/handbook/lrbsa10.asp.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27

INVESTING IN EMPLOYEE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY

Maintaining a Knowledge Workforce in a Merit System

Employees should be provided effective education and training in cases in which such education and 

training would result in better organizational and individual performance. 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(7)

The merit principle above rightly requires that agency expenditures on training be justified by 

anticipated benefits to the public. However, the wording of the merit principle should not lead 

decision-makers or stakeholders to believe that the “cases” in which education and training can 

improve performance are infrequent. Such cases arise routinely. Nor should existing restrictions on 

training lead agencies, managers, or training officials to take too narrow a view of what constitutes 

job-related, value-added employee development. Training should help employees anticipate and 

prepare for the challenges of the future, not just accomplish work in the present.

A commitment to employee training and development is important for other reasons. First, 

employer support of training and career growth surely factors into employee decisions about 

seeking alternative employment. That is particularly true of knowledge workers, who may—

• View themselves as members of a profession, not only as public servants;

• Derive satisfaction and motivation from their contributions to, and personal stature in, their 

chosen field; and

• Regard employability, rather than tenure, as their source of job security. Employability 

demands continuing education in addition to continuing performance, especially in fastchanging fields in which skills and knowledge can have a short “shelf life.”

Second, previous MSPB research confirms the importance of prospects for personal and 

professional growth to employee engagement. * Engagement – an employee’s emotional 

commitment to the organization’s success – affects both individual effort and organizational 

outcomes.** Thus, Federal agencies that do not support the continuing education of their 

employees run two additional risks: the risk of unwanted turnover and the risk of employee 

disengagement.

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

September 2008, pp. 7‐10.

** Id., pp. 3-4 and pp. 27‐35.
28 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

INVESTING IN EMPLOYEE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY

Agency support of training and development is not an all-or-nothing proposition. 

As outlined in guidance from OPM,33 agencies can support employee training and 

development without covering the full cost (e.g., tuition and time) of every activity.

Second, agencies do not have to wait for the need for training and development to 

become pressing – or for a suitable training course or developmental activity to present 

itself – to demonstrate their commitment to employees’ continuing education and 

growth. Agencies may establish individual learning accounts (ILAs), in which employees 

are allotted resources to pursue job-related training and development.34 Based on 

successful pilot experiments with ILAs in Federal agencies,35 OPM has encouraged 

broader use of this flexibility.36

We encourage agencies to take a broad view of what constitutes useful training and 

development. But this broad view must be complemented by a close attention – on 

the part of both employers and employees – to the benefits produced by training and 

development. Such attention is not only good management practice; as noted in the 

accompanying discussion, “Investing in Employees: Persuade Effectively, Spend Wisely,” 

it is critical to any effort to sustain or increase investments in training and development.

33 See U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Human Resource Development (HRD) Flexibilities, available at http://

www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/policy/flex.asp#related1 as of June 2010. Under the heading of “Sharing the Costs of 

Training and Education with Employees,” this online guide provides examples of how training costs can be shared 

under 5 U.S.C. § 4109(a)(2).

34 OPM defines an ILA as “a specified amount of resources such as dollars, hours, or learning technology 

tools... or a combination of the three that is set aside for an individual employee to use for his or her learning and 

development.” U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Individual Learning Accounts,” accessed in August 2011 at 

www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/ila/ilaguide.asp.

35 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Individual Learning Account Pilot Initiative: A Learning Tool for the 

21st Century, Washington, DC, March 30, 2001, pp. 7-9, available as of June 2011 at www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/ila/

ilarpt_3.pdf.

36 Kay Coles James, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Memorandum for Heads of Departments 

and Agencies, Subject: Individual Learning Accounts,” Washington, DC, September 7, 2001, accessed in May 2012 

at www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/ila/ilamemok.asp.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29

INVESTING IN EMPLOYEE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY

Investing in Employees: Persuade Effectively, Spend Wisely

Federal agencies have often found it difficult to obtain adequate budgets for employee learning 

and development. That obstacle is even greater in times of fiscal austerity, and agencies currently 

face a likely future of multiple years of austerity. Yet, the need to retain and sustain a highperforming workforce remains clear and compelling. Unfortunately, the survey results in this 

report, and previous MSPB research, suggest that many Federal agencies are not doing a good job 

of maintaining, let alone building, their human capital.* One contributor to this situation appears to 

be insufficient investment in training. As budgets become even tighter, this challenge may become 

greater. What can Federal agencies and Federal leaders do? Below, we offer two suggestions 

drawn from previous MSPB studies related to human resource development.

First, build a strong business case. Abstract arguments that “we need to spend more on training” 

are unlikely to persuade CFOs, agency heads, or Congressional appropriators to loosen their purse 

strings or open their wallets. Funding requests that are anchored by individual development plans, 

career programs, and human capital plans that systematically identify competency requirements 

and developmental needs – and describe the public benefits of meeting those needs – are more 

likely to succeed.*

Second, choose training investments with care. Ensure that learning activities can produce the 

desired outcomes, such as greater proficiency in a particular competency. Because competencies 

differ in trainability, it is not always possible or cost-effective to eliminate a deficiency in knowledge 

or proficiency through training. For example, competencies related to motivation and mental style 

(characteristics such as flexibility and decisiveness) are much less trainable than knowledge and 

language competencies.* Be prepared to explain to agency leaders and the Congress what the 

agency received in return for its investment in order to build trust that funds authorized for training 

will save the Government money in the end by having a more efficient and productive workforce.

There are limits to what can be accomplished through training and development. Visions 

of reengineered functions, quantum leaps in productivity or quality, and fresh insights 

into seemingly intractable problems are very appealing. We encourage managers and 

employees to appreciate that training and development can yield benefits much greater 

than incremental improvements in performance. However, managers and employees 

must not let such visions deter them from conducting a realistic and rigorous assessment 

of both training and trainee. OPM guidance (including the new Training Evaluation 

* See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Making the Right Connections: Targeting the Best Competencies 

for Training, Washington, DC, February 2011, p. 5; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal 

Workforce for the 21st Century: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2000, Washington, DC, November 2003, 

pp. 7-8; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Changing Federal Workplace: Employee Perspectives, 

Washington, DC, March 1998, pp. 12-13; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Leadership for Change: 

Human Resource Development in the Federal Government, Washington, DC, July 1995, pp. 8-9.

** See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Making Leadership for Change: Human Resource Development 

in the Federal Government, Washington, DC, July 1995, pp. 32-33, and U.S. Merit Systems Protection 

Board, “Keeping the Target on Training,” Issue of Merit, Washington, DC, June 2005.

*** U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Making the Right Connections: Targeting the Best Competencies for 

Training, Washington, DC, February 2011, pp. 13-18.
30 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

INVESTING IN EMPLOYEE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY

Field Guide)37 provides information on planning and delivering training and development 

activities that provide a good return on expectations.38

Employees’ Responsibility to Manage Their Careers and Development

We have strongly encouraged Federal agencies to examine and increase, if needed, their 

investment in the continuing education and development of their employees. That 

examination should be complemented by active efforts on the part of employees to 

manage their own development and career growth. As OPM guidance states, employee 

training and development is a shared responsibility,39 not a burden to be shouldered by 

the agency alone. Elements of that shared responsibility can include:

• Identifying training needs;

• Identifying opportunities to meet training needs and build competencies, including 

courses, on-the-job learning, and developmental assignments;

• Applying and sharing knowledge acquired through training;40

• Providing feedback on training quality and effectiveness;

• Making reasonable investments in learning and development, especially for learning 

and development that substantially increases future employability or chances for 

promotion to needed positions.41

There are also practical reasons why employees should recognize and accept that 

responsibility. Although Federal agencies must not shirk their responsibility to provide 

essential training and make sufficient investments in their human capital, Federal 

agencies cannot underwrite all the training and development that might be beneficial 

to the agency or that an employee might consider important to her or his advancement 

and employability. Accordingly, employees should examine their willingness and ability 

to invest time and money in their own development and careers – and indicate that 

willingness when preparing development plans and requesting training. As discussed 

previously, Federal agencies have the flexibility to establish ILAs and provide partial 

support of job-related training and development. Such flexibility is more likely to be 

used when employees communicate, in words and actions, that they consider their 

careers sufficiently important to be worthy of their own time or money.

37 OPM’s Training Evaluation Field Guide (January 2011) available as of August 2012 at www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/

pubs/FieldGuidetoTrainingEvaluation.pdf.

38 OPM uses the term “return on expectations” in its guidance to emphasize that planning and evaluation should 

not focus exclusively on monetary costs and benefits, as might be implied by more common term “return on 

investment.”

39 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Training and Development Fact Sheets with Questions & Answers, available 

as of August 2012 at www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/policy/fea-00.asp, states that “The responsibility for performance-based 

individual and organizational learning is shared by the employees, the supervisor, agency management, and the 

agency human resource development office.”

40 This includes supporting knowledge management programs – organizational initiatives aimed at identifying, 

collecting, distributing, and applying knowledge (both individual and institutional).

41 Of course, any agency-supported development must benefit the agency.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 31

Retention rates in the Federal Government generally have been quite high, as shown in Figure 11, below. In recent years, Federal agencies have retained 

more than 92 percent of their permanent full-time employees. The one exception 

was in 2003, when over 100,000 Federal employees were transferred to the newlycreated Department of Homeland Security (DHS).42 Otherwise, losses to retirement, 

resignation, termination, and other causes generally have been low in recent years.

Figure 11. Retention rates for permanent full-time Federal employees, by fiscal year, 2001-2010

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Fiscal Year

Retained in agency

Retained in Federal Government

However, for reasons discussed below, the issue that managers and agency leaders should 

examine is not overall retention rates. Far more important is who is leaving, why they 

go, and to where they go.

42 In March 2003, approximately 108,800 permanent full-time Federal employees were moved to DHS from other 

Federal agencies. Source: MSPB analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File.

Employee Retention
32 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

EMPLOYEE RETENTION

Retaining the Better Employees

As illustrated in Figure 12, below, there is a consensus among Federal employees at all 

levels that Federal agencies often fail to deal effectively with poor performance.43 Yet this 

issue, which we will discuss later, should not overshadow another concern: the retention 

of high-performing employees. Although a majority of managers and executives agreed 

that their organization is able to retain its best employees, first-line supervisors and 

nonsupervisory employees were less confident of this.

Figure 12. Agreement with statements related to addressing poor performers and retaining high performers, 

by supervisory status, MPS 2010

23%

39%

30%

48%

31%

54%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Addresses poor performers

eectively 

Retains its best employees

My organization...

Managers and Executives

First-level supervisors

Nonsupervisors

As odd as it may seem, it is not always in the public interest as a whole for a work unit or 

organization to retain its best employees. Some movement within Government is healthy 

for individuals and organizations because it allows talented employees to expand their 

careers, learn new ways of doing things, and advance to positions of greater responsibility. 

Even a lateral move, to a position at the same grade in a different organization, may be 

good for all involved if the new position is a better match to the employee’s skill set, 

temperament, or area of interest. Additionally, movement of a few employees allows an 

organization to bring in individuals with different experiences and new perspectives.

43 Our MPS 2010 did not define “poor performers.” Thus, it is possible that some employees defined poor 

performers as those who were less than optimal, whereas management may have looked at it from the angle of 

performance that failed to meet a critical element of the position such that an adverse action would be justified.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33

EMPLOYEE RETENTION

However, when employees move because something about the job or work environment 

is undesirable, such movement is problematic. Losing too many employees too fast 

can cause an organization to expend too much energy adapting, leaving it with too 

little energy to focus on the work that needs to be done. Thus, efforts should be made 

by organizations to make the current location as attractive as possible compared to its 

competitors. Also, if a skilled individual does not leave for another agency, but rather 

becomes disenchanted with public service because of negative experiences working for a 

particular organization or agency, then the public has lost that person’s valuable services.

When a good employee accepts a position outside the organization, there may be some 

feeling among the employees who remain that management should have done more to 

retain the departing employee. But, there can also be another point made: management 

may have done a good job growing and developing the individual to such an extent 

that some other organization thought the person was an asset worth acquiring. While 

this may be of little comfort to those who lost a good co-worker, it is nevertheless a sign 

that management did something right for the civil service. If management can make a 

legitimate case that working for the organization can one day lead to better opportunities 

for employees, those who have not yet left may be less inclined to see the lack of 

retention of the best employees as a sign of poor management.

We analyzed data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) to determine 

whether the Federal Government tends to lose its best performers. 44 In that analysis, we 

focused on resignations, rather than movement within the Federal Government (such 

as transfers and reassignments) or retirements. Internal movement can be a net gain for 

the Federal Government, rather than a loss.45 Furthermore, retirements may be briefly 

delayed but are nevertheless inevitable. As shown in Figure 13, in FY 2011, 51 percent 

of employees who did not resign had a rating that was above average (higher than Fully 

Successful), compared to 45 percent of those who resigned. Thus, high-performing 

employees do not appear to be leaving the Federal Government at a disproportionate 

rate.

44 All data on resignations discussed in this report is from the FY 2011 CPDF for the full-time permanent Federal 

workforce.

45 Also, the Central Personnel Data File does not clearly identify an employee’s motive(s) for changing jobs or 

agencies.
34 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

EMPLOYEE RETENTION

Figure 13. Performance levels of employees who resigned and who did not resign, FY 2011

100%

51%

55%

Did Not Resign Resigned

Above Fully Successful Fully Successful or Below

49% 45%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

One reason why high-performing employees stay may be the opportunity to make a 

difference. In our 2005 Merit Principles Survey, employees indicated that they were 

motivated by “personal pride or satisfaction in [their] work,” a “desire to help [the] work 

unit meet its goals,” a “desire not to let [their] coworkers down,” and their sense of “duty 

as a public employee.”46 It makes sense therefore that employees who are doing well 

would want to remain, while those who are told that their performance is not exceptional 

might be inclined to leave the Federal service.

However, agencies should not be complacent. Keeping good performers is only part of 

the issue. Keeping good performers in the positions that make the most difference to the 

mission or who are hardest to replace is even more important. While overall only 3.7 

percent of the CPDF population resigned in FY 2011, 8.9 percent of the employees in 

the “medical, hospital, dental, and public health group” resigned. This job family has a 

population of more than 80,000 Federal employees, of whom more than 7,000 were lost. 

Individuals in this job family will often possess skills that translate well to the private 

sector. This is also a skill set where the Government may find stiff competition when 

recruiting for new employees.

46 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005, 

February 2007, p. 48.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35

EMPLOYEE RETENTION

Individual occupations should also be examined. For example, the Government 

employed more than 4,000 social workers (GS-0185), and more than 6 percent of them 

resigned in FY 2011. However, it is not only the occupations that require a college 

degree which suffer disproportionate losses. Of the 1,922 Office Automation Clerks and 

Assistants employed in FY 2011, 6.9 percent resigned. This is almost double the overall 

resignation rate for the Government as a whole. Regardless of the extent to which certain 

skill sets may be widely available in the American workforce as a whole, excessive churn 

should be avoided because filling positions costs time and money.

Resignations may also make it difficult to create and maintain a workforce representative 

of society (the first merit principle). The Federal workforce currently has more men 

than women (57.5 percent versus 42.5 percent). Retention rates have implications 

for diversity because women resign from the Federal Government at a higher rate than 

men.47 As long as women are more likely than men to resign, agencies will continue to 

have difficulties achieving equity in representation among the sexes.48 Whenever an 

agency finds that it has disproportionate resignation rates, agencies should look at how 

they are matching candidates to the positions and how they treat those individuals once 

on board. We encourage agencies to use exit interviews to study both who is leaving and 

why they leave.

Unavoidable Decline in Retention Expected

Federal agencies should also anticipate increased losses to retirement. As shown in Figure 

14, below, retirement eligibility and retirement rates have diverged. Retirement eligibility 

has increased steadily while retirement rates have changed little.

47 In FY 2011, 4.1 percent of women resigned, but only 3.4 percent of men resigned.

48 For more on women in the Federal workforce, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Women in the Federal 

Government: Ambitions and Achievements, Washington, DC, May 2011.
36 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

EMPLOYEE RETENTION

Figure 14. Estimated retirement eligibility and retirement rates among permanent full-time Federal 

employees, fiscal years 2001-201049

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Retirement Eligible

Retired

This trend is not sustainable. Although many Federal employees may choose, for 

financial or personal reasons, to continue their Federal careers after becoming eligible to 

retire, they will not defer retirement indefinitely. Additionally, agencies should anticipate 

increased turnover as they replace employees who have retired. As shown in Figure 15, 

separation (both employee- and agency-initiated) is most likely during an employee’s 

early years of service. Thus, agencies should anticipate the loss of not only retirementeligible employees, but also some of the new hires brought in to fill gaps created by 

retirements.

49 Source: MSPB analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. “Retirement eligible” indicates 

eligibility for a full (unreduced) annuity at the beginning of the specified fiscal year, based on retirement system, 

occupation, age, and service creditable for leave.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 37

EMPLOYEE RETENTION

Figure 15. Average resignation and termination rates by length of service50

Addressing Retention

Table 3, outlines some actions and issues related to employee retention for agencies to 

consider. Actions and issues are placed in two categories. The first category, monitoring, 

includes actions that agencies can take to understand the nature, scope, and underlying 

causes of problems in retention. The second category, improvement, covers aspects of 

employment important to retention that may be particular areas of concern in Federal 

agencies.

50 Source: MSPB analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. Figures are averages for fiscal years 

2001 through 2010. Resignations do not include retirements or transfers (moves to another Federal agency); the 

terminations shown here do not include separations for reasons unrelated to performance, conduct, or suitability.

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

0 1 2 3-5 6-9 10 -14 15 -19 20-24 25-29 30+

Length of Service (Years)

Resignation

Termination
38 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

EMPLOYEE RETENTION

Table 3. Possible actions and issues related to retention of valued employees

Category Possible Actions and Issues

Monitoring

• Track. Examine workforce demographics (e.g., age, service, and retirement eligibility) 

and trends in retention and turnover. Data should shed light on how well the 

organization is retaining its most valuable employees and on factors contributing to 

retention, which will probably require analyses along nontraditional lines (e.g., by skill 

set or level of performance).

• Seek perspective. Use tools such as employee surveys, stay interviews,* and exit 

interviews to collect information on employee concerns and organizational strengths 

and weaknesses as an employer.

• Communicate. Encourage more frequent and substantive conversations between 

supervisors and employees. Include career goals and intentions in supervisor-employee 

discussions (e.g., performance evaluation and development planning). One-on-one 

discussions can provide information that is more specific, timely, and actionable than 

survey and statistical data.

Improvement

• Ensure that employees have the opportunity to make a difference. Does the job offer 

rewards other than a paycheck? Do employees receive challenging work assignments 

that are a good match for their skills? Does the organization establish goals that are 

ambitious yet realistic – and provide the resources needed to accomplish those goals?

• Recognize excellence. Do leaders take the time to identify and acknowledge 

organizations’ and individuals’ noteworthy achievements?

• Support growth and development. What future does the organization offer employees 

who perform well, demonstrate initiative, and seek opportunities to learn and advance?

• Provide effective supervision. Good supervisors are indispensable to productivity, 

fairness, and retention. How do supervisors view and carry out human resources 

responsibilities? Previous OPM and MSPB research have found substantial room for 

improvement in the recruitment, selection, development, and support of Federal 

supervisors.

• Monitor the work environment. Is the agency a good place to work? Attention to 

positive aspects of work must be accompanied by a willingness to acknowledge and 

address situations that can be detrimental to morale, performance, and retention. 

Those situations include misconduct, poor performance, and workplace conflict.

In our next chapter, we offer data and observations on two issues related to retention 

– the role of monetary rewards in recognition and motivation and the importance of 

addressing deficiencies in employee performance or conduct.

* A stay interview is an interview conducted with a current employee to identify factors and conditions 

that would encourage the employee to stay with the organization. See U.S. Merit Systems Protection 

Board, “Retaining High-Performing Federal Employees,” Issues of Merit, January 2012 for a fuller discussion 

of how exit interviews and stay interviews can guide and support employee retention.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 39

Measuring performance, ensuring employee recognition and incentives, and addressing deficient conduct or performance are crucial components of 

good stewardship of the Federal workforce.

Measuring, Rewarding, and Incentivizing Performance

The MSP-based items in our survey did not directly solicit employees’ views related to 

performance standards, performance evaluations, or other tools for establishing and 

assessing individual or organizational performance. However, data from other MSPB 

research51 and sources indicate that many Federal organizations struggle to define and 

implement measures of organizational and employee performance that are rigorous, 

credible, and useful.52

Comprehensive discussion of issues and potential improvements in performance 

measurement is beyond the scope of this report.53 However, readers should understand 

that full realization of the merit system principles (notably those related to pay, 

recognition, and performance-based retention) is predicated on the ability to define 

and measure organizational and individual performance, and that issues in areas of 

recognition, reinforcement, and accountability are, at least in part, issues of performance 

measurement and performance management.

The merit principles establish an expectation that Federal agencies should provide fair 

and competitive pay and recognize excellent performance. 54 Fortunately, as noted 

51 See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing for Engagement: Communication, Connection, and Courage, 

Washington, DC, July 2009, pp. 22-29, for documentation and discussion of employee perceptions and issues in 

performance management, including goal-setting and feedback.

52 See, for example, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Modern Performance 

Management Systems Are Needed to Effectively Support Pay for Performance, GAO-03-612T, April 1, 2003 and Human 

Capital: Senior Executive Performance Management Can Be Significantly Strengthened to Achieve Results, GAO-04-614, 

May 2004. We note that recent initiatives by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to improve employee 

performance evaluation (for example, the development of a Performance Appraisal Assessment Tool, www.opm.gov/

perform/paat.asp) and the United States Congress to improve organizational performance management (e.g., P.L. 

111-352, the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010) are strong, if indirect, evidence of 

this struggle.

53 MSPB has announced plans to conduct research in this area. See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2011-

2013 Research Agenda, Washington, DC, February 2011, pp. 22-23.

54 Title 5, United States Code, § 2301(b). The third merit principle states that “Equal pay should be provided for 

work of equal value, with appropriate consideration of both national and local rates paid by employers in the private 

sector, and appropriate incentives and recognition should be provided for excellence in performance.”

Recognition, Rewards, and Accountability
40 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

RECOGNITION, REWARDS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

previously, a majority of respondents agreed that they are paid fairly, which suggests that 

measures to make Federal pay more competitive have made a positive difference.55 In 

the MPS 2010, 63 percent of respondents agreed with the statement “My organization 

pays employees fairly,” with a majority of employees agreeing in every agency surveyed.56 

However, several consecutive years of pay freezes may erode some of this progress.57 

Additionally, our survey was conducted before Congress began actively debating changes 

to Federal benefits programs such as retirement plans and associated contributions. In 

a survey we conducted for our 2008 report, Attracting the Next Generation: A Look 

at Federal Entry-Level New Hires, respondents indicated that pay and benefits were 

important to their decision to work for the Government:

• 97 percent said yearly salary increases were important when considering job offers;

• 94 percent said vacation and 89 percent said sick leave were important when 

considering job offers;

• 88 percent said health insurance was important when considering job offers; and

• 84 percent said a 401(k)-type retirement plan and 77 percent said a fixed pension 

were important when considering job offers.58

Typically, these aspects of the employment package are determined by Congress and the 

President rather than Federal agencies.59 Nevertheless Federal agencies and managers 

should remain attentive to the competitiveness of their compensation systems and the 

fairness of their compensation decisions. Federal agencies will struggle to recruit highquality employees if they lack viable salary structures, competitive benefit programs, 

flexibilities to address special situations, or sufficient funds. Also, in times of fiscal 

austerity (and reduced opportunities for promotions, awards, and pay increases), 

employees may scrutinize management decisions more closely and judge them more 

stringently. Employees who believe they are underpaid or unfairly paid may quit, 

or remain with the organization while expressing dissatisfaction through increased 

complaints, reduced effort, and other costly ways.

55 The most visible and far-reaching measure is the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990, which 

established a system of locality pay and a method for adjusting pay rates to reduce differences between Federal and 

non-Federal pay rates for employees under the General Schedule. These provisions of FEPCA remain in effect.

56 We note that the 2010 MPS preceded announcements of limits on salary adjustments and awards that affect 

nearly all survey respondents.

57 Amanda Palleschi, “Feds are less satisfied with their pay, survey finds,” Government Executive, available at 

http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/05/feds-are-less-satisfied-their-pay-survey-finds/55965/# (discussing the 

Partnership for Public Service’s comparison of the results of OPM’s 2010 survey to OPM’s 2011 survey).

58 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Attracting the Next Generation: A Look at Federal Entry-Level New Hires, 

Washington, DC, January 2008, p. 33.

59 Under certain circumstances, an agency may set the annual leave accrual rate for a new employee higher than 

would otherwise be granted. See 5 U.S.C. § 6303(e); U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Questions and Answers 

on Providing Credit for Determining an Employee’s Annual Leave Accrual Rate, available at http://www.opm.gov/oca/

compmemo/2005/2005-07_QA.asp.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 41

RECOGNITION, REWARDS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Many observers have recommended changes to Federal pay – most notably the General 

Schedule pay system – to strengthen incentives for performance. We cannot predict 

what the Nation’s finances and the Federal Government’s pay systems will look like in the 

future. Currently, though, there are several reasons why Federal agencies and leaders may 

do better to view monetary rewards as a way to communicate appreciation and reinforce 

desired behaviors than as a way to motivate employees to work harder and perform 

better. 60

First, as discussed in our recent report, Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating 

Potential of Jobs and Rewards, employee motivation does not depend solely, or 

even primarily, on money. For example, there is a strong relationship between job 

characteristics (the nature of work and conditions under which work is performed) 

and motivation. When we asked Federal employees to assess the importance of 

various rewards to their decisions to seek new employment or continue their current 

employment, they rated personal satisfaction, having interesting work, and job security 

as the most important items on the list. The rewards rated least important were informal 

perks, awards and bonuses, and forgiveness for small mistakes.61 Thus, financial rewards 

are not the most effective drivers of employee performance or retention.

Second, Federal pay systems and stakeholder expectations may not support delivering 

monetary rewards that are truly reflective of the effort required to achieve outstanding 

results or the value (such as cost savings, enhancements to public health or safety, 

or technical innovations) of those results. In June 2011, OPM and the Office of 

Management and Budget jointly issued guidance instructing agencies to review and 

limit their use of performance rewards.62 The intent – to assure that rewards recognize 

outstanding rather than ordinary performance – is entirely appropriate. Yet the 

memorandum also makes it clear that there are limits on what Federal agencies may 

do with their funds and delegated authorities. An organization that claims to pay for 

performance will have little credibility if employees deliver outstanding results without 

receiving commensurate rewards.

Third, recent experience with performance-oriented pay systems in the Federal 

Government indicates that those systems require high levels of transparency, supervisory 

competence, and capability in individual performance measurement and management 

to be credible with stakeholders, including the public and the employees involved. For 

60 Monetary rewards include both one-time payments (e.g., cash awards) and continuing payments (e.g., increases 

to base pay).

61 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job 

Characteristics and Rewards, Washington, DC, December 2012.

62 John Berry, Director, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management and Jeffrey Zients, Deputy Director 

for Management & Chief Performance Officer, Office of Management & Budget, “Memorandum for Heads of 

Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject: Guidance on Awards for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012,” June 10, 2011, 

accessed in July 2011 via www.chcoc.gov.
42 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

RECOGNITION, REWARDS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

many reasons – such as a lack of clarity in organizational goals, insufficient attention to 

defining and measuring performance, and deficiencies in the selection and training of 

supervisors – those conditions are often not met. Organizations contemplating the use 

of monetary awards to drive individual and organizational performance should honestly 

assess their organizational and cultural readiness for that approach to compensation63 and 

should be realistic about how and when they will achieve that readiness under conditions 

that may include tremendous organizational and financial pressures.

Finally, the use of monetary rewards to motivate employees, although attractive in 

theory, can prove counterproductive in practice. Financial incentives can indeed focus 

attention and effort, but such incentives can also divert attention and effort from goals 

or behaviors (such as teamwork and cooperation) that are not explicitly measured 

or rewarded. Also – even assuming that the prospect of a financial reward will spur 

employees to heightened levels of effort and accomplishment – such rewards can only 

be effective if they are properly allocated. There is a risk that an employee may conclude 

that a very small reward indicates that management views the employee’s contributions as 

having very little value to the organization. As explained above, more survey respondents 

reported that serving the public and receiving appreciation were important to them than 

reported that awards and bonuses were important.64 A message to an employee that his 

or her services are inconsequential and that his or her efforts are not appreciated may be 

counterproductive. Thus, it is important that when agencies use the limited tools that 

they have for recognizing contributions, they use those tools wisely and ensure that the 

message received by an employee is the message that management intended to send.

Addressing Performance Issues

Retaining good employees cannot be separated from the issue of addressing performance 

and conduct problems. Organizations should focus most of their time and energy 

on good employees, who constitute the vast majority of the workforce. But “most” is 

not “all.” Employees rightly expect agency leaders to hold every employee accountable 

for meeting high standards of conduct and performance. An agency that explicitly or 

implicitly asks productive employees to do the work of unproductive employees is, in 

effect, punishing them for performing. Over time, that can discourage or drive out many 

good employees.

The issue of addressing problems in conduct and performance has been thoroughly 

documented in research by MSPB, OPM, and others, as are the steps that agencies can 

63 See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Designing an Effective Pay for Performance Compensation System, 

Washington, DC, January 2006, pp. 3-19, for a discussion of questions related to the objectives, design, and 

implementation of a pay for performance system.

64 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Jobs and 

Rewards, Washington, DC, December 2012.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 43

RECOGNITION, REWARDS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

and should take when such problems arise. 65 However, supervisors are not always willing 

to take those steps. Our MPS 2007 presented the following statement and question to 

respondents who were supervisors: “Some organizations include employees who are poor 

performers, i.e., their performance is below minimum standards. Consider the last time 

you directly supervised an employee of this type. What actions did you take?” Among 

respondents who indicated they had directly supervised this type of employee, thirty-four 

percent admitted that they had not taken any action – formal or informal – to address 

this situation. Notably, supervisors who reported taking no action in response to poor 

performance outnumbered supervisors who reported that they had no experience with a 

poor performer.66

Taking action is not, and should not be, limited to formal or adverse actions. Supervisors 

should take basic steps such as asking poor performers how the supervisor can help 

or providing a mentor for employees with performance issues. A failure to engage in 

this process deprives employees of an opportunity to improve and is inconsistent with 

merit system principles. The relevant principles include efficient and effective use 

of the Federal workforce; correction of inadequate performance; and educating and 

training employees to improve organizational and individual performance.67 These three 

principles are ill-served when poor performance is left unaddressed, or is addressed solely 

through formal action without first providing a real opportunity for the employee to 

understand what is necessary and have the tools to improve his or her performance.

Nevertheless, formal action may be necessary if informal action is impractical or 

unsuccessful. Data from a survey of proposing and deciding officials for removals and 

suspensions of more than 14 days, conducted by MSPB in 2008, indicate that agency 

officials are often reluctant to exercise their authority to implement formal actions for 

performance and conduct deficiencies.

Agency leaders have an affirmative obligation to the public and to employees. The merit 

system principles require concern for the public interest and fair treatment of employees. 

Fairness to employees includes mitigating the hazards (such as an increased risk of 

accident, workplace violence, and other incidents) and avoiding the impositions (such 

as additional workload or having to apologize for substandard service or products) that 

can result from ignoring or tolerating problems in performance or conduct. While we 

65 See, for example, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment 

Opportunity, Washington, DC, August 2005; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Supervisors and Poor 

Performers, Washington, DC, July 1999, and U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Office of Merit Systems 

Oversight and Effectiveness, Poor Performers In Government: A Quest for the True Story, Washington, DC, January 

1999.

66 The response options were: “I have not yet had experience with this type of employee” (7,225 responses); I have 

had experience with this type of employee, but I did not take any special actions to help the employee improve” 

(7,889 responses); and “[I] had experience with this type of employee and took actions to help the employee 

improve” (15,588 responses).

67 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(5)-(7).
44 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

RECOGNITION, REWARDS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

commend officials for wanting to be certain that an adverse action is warranted, undue 

hesitance to act when action is warranted can contribute to employee perceptions that 

management tolerates conduct or performance deficiencies. Officials cannot be good 

stewards if they ignore poor performers.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 45

The merit system principles provide a framework for managing the Federal workforce to serve the public interest. Specifically, they provide for—

• Fairness. The principles, in establishing that personnel decisions should be based 

on merit (ability and accomplishment) and free of discrimination, help the Federal 

Government recruit and retain competent employees and avoid practices that are 

inappropriate and detrimental to individual and organizational performance;

• Stewardship. The principles establish affirmative responsibilities that are much 

broader than simply treating employees evenhandedly. The principles emphasize, 

to both Federal agencies and Federal managers, that public employees are a public 

resource, to be utilized wisely, treated with respect, and developed for future 

missions; and

• Protection. The principles recognize that public service entails responsibilities that 

can transcend allegiance to individual managers and agencies. To that end, Federal 

agencies and Federal employees are charged with refraining from actions that serve 

personal or political, rather than public interests – and they have the responsibility 

to listen to and protect those employees who voice concerns about the wisdom or 

propriety of agency actions.

Findings

Stewardship appears to be an area in which employees perceive a particular need 

for improvement, and in the current budgetary environment, agencies may find it 

more necessary than ever to be able to show Congress and the President that they are 

good stewards of the resources entrusted to them – including human capital. This is 

particularly true for the areas of: (1) eliminating unnecessary functions and positions; 

(2) effectively addressing poor performance; (3) retaining the best employees; and (4) 

providing necessary training.

The first two items – eliminating unnecessary functions and positions and effectively 

addressing poor performing employees – are particularly vital for agencies if they are 

going to show Congress, the President, and the American people, that they have done as 

much as possible with as few resources as possible. These are also the stewardship areas 

for which employees indicated their agencies were the greatest need of improvement.

Conclusions and Recommendations
46 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Other areas of stewardship have more nuanced issues. Retaining the best employees is an 

area of perceived weakness. However, the extent to which it is a problem if people leave 

an organization depends on who is going, how many are going, how quickly they leave, 

where they are going, and why they are going. Some movement within the civil service 

that results in better skills matches, greater opportunities for talented employees to 

contribute, or employees acquiring broader skills and perspectives may be in the interest 

of the Government. However, excessive churn or losing good performers who may be 

disillusioned by public service harms the civil service.

In the area of training, a majority of employees feel they have the training necessary to 

do the job today, but given the knowledge-based duties of much of the workforce, more 

employees should believe that they have the necessary training to do the job as well as the 

training to do their jobs more efficiently.

Recommendations

In light of our findings, we make the following recommendations for supervisors, 

managers, and senior leaders in Federal agencies:

• Educate managers at all levels, from appointed executives to first line supervisors, 

on their responsibilities related to Federal employees and the Federal workforce 

under the merit system principles. As stated in our previous report on MSPs in the 

workplace: “If managers are to be held accountable for applying the merit principles 

to their HRM decisions, they need more than a passing acquaintance with these 

principles. They need practical guidance that’s relevant to their own situations and 

that makes clear the consequences – for their work units and their agencies – of 

disregarding the merit principles in taking personnel actions.68

• Be prepared to make the tough calls on which important programs may need to be 

trimmed or cut in order to provide even more crucial priorities with the necessary 

resources. Involve the workforce in efforts to locate potential methods to improve 

efficiencies and keep employees informed about what is being done and why it is 

being done.

• Identify and make appropriate investments in employee training and career 

development. The Federal workforce has become a knowledge workforce 

with a majority of workers employed in complex, fast-changing fields such as 

information technology, medicine, security and law enforcement, and engineering. 

Unfortunately, many employees indicate that they have not received adequate 

training for their current jobs, let alone opportunities for growth and development. 

The Federal Government must spend public dollars judiciously, consistent with 

the merit principles requiring concern for the public interest and efficient and 

68 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Adherence to the Merit Principles in the Workplace: Federal Employees’ 

Views, Washington, DC, September 1997, p. 10.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 47

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

effective use of the workforce. Yet agencies and managers must also be wary of 

pursuing short-term savings (such as reductions in training budgets or time allotted 

for training and education) at the expense of long-term organizational capability 

and performance. Accordingly, agencies should take steps to accurately determine 

competency requirements and developmental needs, assure that training activities 

are linked to (and can fulfill) those needs, emphasize to managers and employees 

the importance of continued education and development, and provide supporting 

resources and mechanisms.

• Monitor trends, patterns, and factors in employee retention and employee 

engagement. In recent years, much of the Federal workforce has been characterized 

by high levels of retention and tenure, enabling many Federal agencies and Federal 

managers to pay limited attention to retention. Yet complacency is ill-advised. First, 

survey responses indicate that Federal agencies should improve at both keeping high 

performers and remediating or separating poor performers. Second, anticipated 

changes in workforce demographics, evolving employee expectations, and potential 

changes to Federal pay and benefits suggest that the future will be much less 

accommodating of passive approaches to turnover and retention. There have long 

been concerns that Federal agencies retain too many employees who do not perform 

acceptably. Federal executives and managers should take steps to ensure that these 

concerns are not justified, particularly in this era of fiscal austerity.
48 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 49

Survey Topics

Topics covered in the MPS include—

• Employee engagement – the employee’s connection to the workplace and factors that 

influence that connection, such as pride in work, leadership, and career development

• Workforce motivation – the effects of job characteristics and performance–reward 

linkages on goal-directed work effort

• Adherence to merit system principles – adherence to values such as selection based on 

ability, effective use of the workforce, and protection from coercion and reprisal

• Fairness – the employee’s perceptions of the fairness of his or her treatment in various 

aspects of human resources management

• Prohibited personnel practices – the employee’s experience of discrimination and 

other improper or illegal personnel practices

• Leadership – perceptions of career and non-career leaders in the agency

• Disability – issues related to the agency’s employment of persons with disabilities, 

including affirmative employment and reasonable accommodation

• Whistleblowing – the observation and reporting of possible wrongdoing in the 

workplace and the consequences of any report made

• Competency requirements – the employee’s perspective on the most critical 

requirements for the current job, and sources of information about those 

requirements

Survey Sampling and Administration

The 2010 MPS was administered to permanent, full-time Federal employees in the 18 

departments and 6 independent agencies listed below. Those departments and agencies 

accounted for over 97 percent of the permanent, full-time Federal workforce as of 

September 2009. Thus, the survey results provide a good representation of Governmentwide Federal employee opinion.

Appendix A: Information on the 2010 

Merit Principles Survey
50 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX A: INFORMATION ON THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY

Table 4. Departments and Independent Agencies Participating in the MPS 2010

Departments Independent Agencies

• Department of the Air Force

• Department of the Army

• Department of the Navy

• Department of Defense

• Department of Agriculture

• Department of Commerce

• Department of Justice

• Department of Labor

• Department of Energy

• Department of Education

• Department of Health and Human Services

• Department of Homeland Security

• Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

• Department of Interior

• Department of State

• Department of Transportation

• Department of the Treasury

• Department of Veterans Affairs

• Environmental Protection Agency

• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

• General Services Administration

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration

• Office of Personnel Management

• Social Security Administration

Employees were selected through stratified random sampling drawn from records in 

OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. The strata (groups surveyed) were designed to 

provide usable measures of employee opinion by supervisory status (nonsupervisor and 

supervisor), department or agency, and (for some agencies) selected major components or 

bureaus.

For almost all employees, the survey was administered online through email invitations 

and a dedicated, secure web site. At the request of the Department of Transportation, 

MSPB distributed paper surveys to approximately 1,300 employees in the Federal 

Aviation Administration who could not receive or respond to an online survey. 

Employees were informed that survey participation was voluntary and that their 

responses would be confidential.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 51

APPENDIX A: INFORMATION ON THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY

Response Rate and Weighting

Survey distribution and return and acceptance figures are shown in Table 5. Surveys were 

reviewed for completeness and legibility (for paper surveys). To be accepted, a survey had 

to contain valid (non-missing) responses to 25 or more core items. Ultimately, MSPB 

accepted 42,020 surveys, for a final response rate of 58 percent.

Table 5. MPS 2010 distribution, return, and acceptance

Format Distributed Returned Accepted (Valid)

Electronic (web) 70,675 42,800 61% 41,680 59%

Paper 1,295 362 28% 340 26%

Total 71,970 43,162 60% 42,020 58%

The sampling plan required oversampling (surveying a higher proportion of the 

population) of some groups to provide statistically reliable results. Accordingly, MSPB 

calculated response weights to produce results that are representative of Governmentwide employee opinion. All survey results in this report are weighted unless stated 

otherwise.
52 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX A: INFORMATION ON THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 53

Appendix B: The 2010 Merit

Principles Survey Instrument

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

July 2010 

Dear Federal Colleague:

Your opinion counts! The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) asks that you take a 

few minutes to participate in our Merit Principles Survey 2010, a Government-wide survey of 

Federal employees that covers a variety of workforce issues, including prohibited personnel 

practices and whistleblower protections issues, along with other workplace issues that impact 

employees’ abilities to carry out the missions of your agency. Because you are part of a random 

sample of Government employees, your views about your work and work environment will 

represent those of the larger Federal workforce. This is an opportunity for you to inform policy 

by voicing your opinions and concerns about workforce issues. 

This survey is an important part of MSPB’s responsibility to assess the soundness of Federal 

merit systems. Your responses will help us recommend to the President, Congress, agency 

leaders, and other decision makers how to improve the Federal workplace. The information you 

share will make a positive difference!

Your responses to this survey are voluntary and strictly confidential. Only MSPB staff and our 

survey support contractor staff will have access to the surveys and no data will be disclosed to 

anyone that could be used to identify individual participants. 

On average, the survey will take about 30 minutes to complete. It may be completed at your 

work site or at home. We request that you complete the survey within the next five days and 

return it in the postage page envelope or fax it to 202-563-7211. 

Additional information about the Merit Principles Survey is available by visiting

www.mspb.gov/studies. If you have questions about this survey, please email us at 

MPS2010@mspb.gov or call our survey hotline at 1-888-581-7922. 

Thank you! We appreciate your help. 

Sincerely,

John Crum, Ph.D.

Director, Policy and Evaluation 
54 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Privacy Statement

MSPB wants to assure survey participants that 

your involvement in the Merit Principles Survey 

2010 is both voluntary and confidential. This 

Privacy Statement identifies MSPB’s 

authorization to conduct the survey and explains 

how we will manage the data we receive.

 The purpose of collecting this 

information is to study how well the 

Federal Government is managing its 

workforce in adherence to the merit 

system principles. The results of the 

survey will be shared with the President, 

Congress, and other Federal

decisionmakers to be used in developing 

policy that supports both merit and 

mission accomplishment.

 Collection of the information is 

authorized by 5 U.S.C. § 1204. 

 Your responses to this survey are 

completely voluntary. There is no 

penalty if you choose not to participate. 

However, we encourage your 

participation to ensure that our data is 

complete and representative of the 

Federal workforce.

 Only MSPB staff and our survey support 

contractor staff will have access to 

individually completed surveys. In 

accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 

(Public Law 93-579), no data will be 

disclosed that could be used to identify 

individual participants. 

Marking Instructions

 Place a √ in the box next to your response. 

 Please use a No. 2 pencil or blue or black 

ink. 

 Please print when you write in your 

response. 

 To change your answer, cross out the 

incorrect answer and put a √ in the correct 

box. Also draw a circle around the correct 

answer.

 No

 Yes

Definitions of Survey Terms

Executives are members of the Senior Executive 

Service or equivalent. 

Leaders are an agency's management team. 

This includes anyone with supervisory or 

managerial duties including supervisors, 

managers, and executives.

Organization means an agency, office, or 

division. 

Supervisors are first-line supervisors who do 

not supervise other supervisors; typically those 

who are responsible for employees' performance 

appraisals and approval of their leave. 

Team leaders are those who provide employees 

with day-to-day guidance in work projects, but 

do not have supervisory responsibilities or 

conduct performance appraisals.

Work unit means an employee’s immediate 

work unit headed by the employee’s direct 

supervisor. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 55

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

1

Demographics 

1. How many years have you been a Federal 

civil service employee?

o Under 1 year 

o 1-3 years

o 4-7 years

o 8-11 years

o 12-15 years

o 16-19 years

o 20-23 years

o 24-27 years

o 28-31 years

o 32-35 years

o More than 35 years 

2. Are you Hispanic or Latino?

o Yes

o No

3. Racial category or categories in which 

you most belong? (Please mark ALL that 

apply.) 

o American Indian or Alaska Native 

o Asian

o Black or African American

o Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander

o White 

4. What is your current education level?

o Less than a high school diploma 

o High school, equivalent diploma, or 

GED

o Some college credits but no degree 

o Associates’ college degree

o Bachelor’s college degree

o Master’s degree

o Professional degree (e.g. J.D., M.D., 

D.D.S.) 

o Academic or scientific doctorate (Ph.D.) 

5. W hat is your Supervisory status? 

o Non-Supervisor (You do not supervise 

other employees.) 

o Team Leader (You are not an official 

supervisor; you provide employees with 

day-to-day guidance in work projects, 

but do not have supervisory 

responsibilities or conduct performance 

appraisals.) 

o Supervisor (You are responsible for 

employees’ performance appraisals & 

approval of their leave, but you do not

supervise other supervisors.) 

o Manager (You are in a management 

position and supervise other 

supervisors.) 

o Executive (Member of the Senior 

Executive Service or equivalent.) 

6. Under what pay system are you working? 

o General Schedule

o Wage Grade

o Executive (Senior Executive Service)

o Other

7. If you selected other, which best describes 

your pay plan? 

o Occupation-specific pay plan

o Agency specific pay performance or pay 

banding system (wide bands with 

progression based primarily on 

performance ratings)

o Agency specific, but similar to the 

General Schedule (pay system of narrow 

grades and steps with progression based 

primarily on tenure) 

o Not sure or other 
56 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

2

8. What is your parental status? (This 

includes biological parent, adoptive 

parent, stepparent, foster parent, 

custodian of a legal ward, in loco parentis, 

or actively seeking custody or adoption of 

a person under the age of 18, or 18 or 

older but incapable of self-care because of 

physical or mental disability.) 

o I am a parent

o I am not a parent

9. Do you have caregiving responsibility 

(though not in the role of "parent" as 

described above) for a person 18 years or 

older, who may or may not live with you, 

(e.g., a related adult such as a parent, 

grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling, step or 

half relation, in-law, or unrelated adult 

with whom you have a legal or otherwise 

significant relationship, etc.) AND who is 

incapable of, or needs significant 

assistance with self-care, transportation, 

household management, or other similar 

support.) 

o I am a caregiver of such a person

o I am not a caregiver of such a person 

Engagement 

Please indicate your level of agreement or 

disagreement with the following statements. 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

1. My agency is 

successful in 

accomplishing 

its mission

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2. The work I do 

is meaningful to 

me

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

3. My work unit 

produces high 

quality products 

and services

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

4. Overall, I am 

satisfied with 

my supervisor

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5. Overall, I am 

satisfied with 

managers above 

my immediate 

supervisor

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

6. I know what is 

expected of me 

on the job

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

7. My job makes 

good use of my 

skills and 

abilities

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

8. I have the 

resources to do 

my job well

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

9. I would 

recommend my 

agency as a 

place to work

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

10. I have sufficient 

opportunities 

(such as 

challenging 

assignments or 

projects) to earn 

a high 

performance 

rating

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

11. Recognition 

and rewards are 

based on 

performance in 

my work unit

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 57

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

3

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

12. I am satisfied 

with the 

recognition and 

rewards I 

receive for my 

work

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

13. I am given a 

real opportunity 

to improve my 

skills in my 

organization

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

14. I am treated 

with respect at 

work

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

15. My opinions 

count at work ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

16. A spirit of 

cooperation and 

teamwork exists 

in my work unit

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

17. At my job, I am 

inspired to do 

my best work

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

18. My supervisor

provides 

constructive 

feedback on my 

job 

performance

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

19. My supervisor 

provides timely 

feedback on my 

job 

performance

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

20. I have the 

opportunity to 

perform well at 

challenging 

work

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

21. How likely is it 

that you will 

leave your 

agency in the 

next 12 months?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

22. The performance 

and/or conduct of 

other employees 

are the primary 

reasons my job 

performance is 

not higher

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

23. The performance 

and/or conduct of 

my supervisors 

and managers are 

primary reasons 

my job 

performance is 

not higher

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

24. Barriers to 

success, such as 

constraining rules 

or work 

processes, underinformed 

coworkers, or 

office politics, are 

the primary 

reasons my 

performance is 

not at a higher 

level

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

25. Lack of resources, 

such as more 

staff, a larger 

budget, or more 

equipment and 

supplies, is a 

primary reason 

my performance 

is not at a higher 

level

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

26. Are you or will you become eligible to 

retire within the next 12 months? 

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know 
58 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

4

Motivation

Please indicate your level of agreement or 

disagreement with the following statements.

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

1. My job allows 

me to perform a 

variety of tasks 

that require a 

wide range of 

knowledge, 

skills, and 

abilities

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2. My job allows 

me to complete 

a single piece of 

work (rather 

than bits and 

pieces) from 

beginning to 

end

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

3. My job has a 

significant 

positive impact 

on others, either 

within the 

organization or 

the public in 

general

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

4. My job gives 

me the freedom 

to make 

decisions 

regarding how I 

accomplish my 

work

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

5. I receive 

information 

about my job 

performance 

and the 

effectiveness of 

my efforts, 

either directly 

from the work 

itself or from 

others

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

6. When I put 

forth my best 

effort, I achieve 

a high 

performance 

appraisal rating

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

7. The harder I 

try, the more I 

am able to 

achieve my 

work goals and 

objectives

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Continue on next page
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 59

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

5

8. In my work unit, the better I perform on 

the job...

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

a. ...the more 

interesting work 

I receive

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. ... the more I 

feel appreciated ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. ...the greater 

the personal 

satisfaction I 

experience

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. ...the more I 

am included in 

important 

discussions and 

decisions

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. ... the greater 

my job security ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. ... the higher 

my awards and 

bonuses

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

g. ...the greater 

my opportunity 

for 

advancement

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

h. ...the more I 

am granted 

informal perks 

(not including 

training 

opportunities)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

i. ...the more I 

am forgiven for 

my small 

mistakes

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

j. ... the better my 

training and 

development 

opportunities

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

k. ... the more I 

feel I am 

serving the 

public

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

9. In each of the following questions, please 

indicate how important each job factor is 

to you in seeking and continuing 

employment in your organization. 

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge ↓

Unimportant ↓

Somewhat Unimportant ↓

Neither Important Nor 

Unimportant ↓

Somewhat Important ↓

Very Important ↓

a. Having 

interesting work ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. The 

appreciation I 

receive

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. The personal 

satisfaction I 

experience

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Being included 

in important 

discussions and 

decisions

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. My job security ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. My awards and 

bonuses ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

g. My opportunity 

for 

advancement

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

h. Being granted 

informal perks 

(not including 

training 

opportunities)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

i. Being forgiven 

for small 

mistakes

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

j. My training and 

development 

opportunities

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

k. Being able to 

serve the public ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
60 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

6

10. Please indicate your level of agreement or 

disagreement with the following 

statements.

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

a. I feel highly 

motivated in 

my work

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. The give and 

take of public 

policy making 

doesn’t appeal 

to me

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Meaningful 

public service is 

important to me

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. I am not afraid 

to go to bat for 

the rights of 

others even if it 

means I will be 

ridiculed

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. I am prepared 

to make 

enormous 

sacrifices for 

the good of the 

agency

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. I am often 

reminded by 

daily events 

about how 

dependent we 

are on one 

another

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

g. Making a 

difference in 

society means 

more to me than 

personal 

achievements

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

 

Merit Systems Principles and 

Prohibited Personnel Practices

1. My organization... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

a. ...recruits a 

diverse pool of 

applicants for 

job vacancies

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. ...holds fair and 

open 

competition for 

job vacancies

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. ...selects the 

best-qualified 

candidates 

when filling 

jobs

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. ...treats 

employees 

fairly

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. ...takes steps to 

prevent 

prohibited 

discrimination

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. ...takes steps to 

rectify 

prohibited 

discrimination

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

g. ...pays 

employees 

fairly

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

h. ...recognizes 

excellent 

performance

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

i. ...rewards 

excellent 

performance

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

j. ...holds 

employees to 

high standards 

of conduct

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 61

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

7

My organization... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

k. ... puts the 

public interest 

first

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

l. ... uses the 

workforce 

efficiently and 

effectively

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

m. ...eliminates 

unnecessary 

functions and 

positions

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

n. ...makes good 

use of 

employees’ 

skills and 

talents

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

o. ...focuses 

employee 

attention and 

efforts on what 

is most 

important

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

p. ...provides 

employees with 

the resources 

needed to get 

the job done

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

q. ...addresses 

poor performers 

effectively

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

r. ...retains its 

best employees ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

s. ...provides 

employees with 

necessary 

training

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

t. ...provides 

employees with 

opportunities 

for growth and 

development

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

My organization... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

u. ...protects 

employees 

against reprisal 

for 

whistleblowing

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

v. ... protects 

employees 

against reprisal 

for exercising a 

grievance, 

complaint, or 

appeal right

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

w. ... protects 

employees 

against arbitrary 

action

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

x. ... does not 

engage in 

favoritism

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

y. ...protects 

employees from 

political 

coercion

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

z. ...has made it 

clear that it 

prohibits 

discrimination 

based on a 

person's sexual 

orientation

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Continue on next page
62 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

8

2. In the past two years, have you been 

treated fairly in each area listed below? 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

No ↓

Yes ↓

a. Career advancement ○ ○ ○

b. Awards ○ ○ ○

c. Training ○ ○ ○

d. Performance appraisals ○ ○ ○

e. Job assignments ○ ○ ○

f. Discipline ○ ○ ○

g. Pay ○ ○ ○

3. For each item below, please indicate the 

option that you think best describes the 

situation.

In the past two years, an agency official (e.g. 

supervisor, manager, senior leader, etc.) in my 

work unit has... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

I was personally 

affected by this ↓

This has occurred in my 

work unit, but I was not 

personally affected by this ↓

This has NOT occurred in my 

work unit ↓

a. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon race

○ ○ ○ ○

b. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon age

○ ○ ○ ○

c. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon religion

○ ○ ○ ○

In the past two years, an agency official (e.g. 

supervisor, manager, senior leader, etc.) in my 

work unit has...

Don’t Know/NA ↓

I was personally 

affected by this ↓

This has occurred in my 

work unit, but I was not 

personally affected by this ↓

This has NOT occurred in my 

work unit ↓

d. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon sex

○ ○ ○ ○

e. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon national origin

○ ○ ○ ○

f. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon disabling condition

○ ○ ○ ○

g. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon marital status

○ ○ ○ ○

h. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon political affiliation

○ ○ ○ ○

i. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon sexual orientation

○ ○ ○ ○

j. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon status as a parent or 

caregiver

○ ○ ○ ○

k. ...discriminated against 

someone in a personnel 

action on the basis of offduty conduct which was 

entirely unrelated to the 

job

○ ○ ○ ○
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 63

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

9

In the past two years, an agency official (e.g. 

supervisor, manager, senior leader, etc.) in my 

work unit has... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

I was personally 

affected by this ↓

This has occurred in my 

work unit, but I was not 

personally affected by this ↓

This has NOT occurred in my 

work unit ↓

l. ...tried to pressure 

someone to support or 

oppose a particular 

candidate or party for 

elected office

○ ○ ○ ○

m. ...tried to influence 

someone to withdraw 

from competition for a 

position for the purpose 

of helping or injuring 

someone else's chances

○ ○ ○ ○

n. ...tried to define the 

scope or manner of a 

recruitment action, or the 

qualifications required, 

for the purpose of 

improving the chances of 

a particular person

○ ○ ○ ○

o. ...obstructed someone's 

right to compete for 

employment

○ ○ ○ ○

p. ... solicited or considered 

improper employment 

recommendations

○ ○ ○ ○

q. ... advocated for the 

appointment, 

employment, promotion, 

or advancement of a 

relative

○ ○ ○ ○

r. ... advocated for 

appointment, 

employment, promotion, 

or advancement of a 

personal friend of the 

agency official

○ ○ ○ ○

In the past two years, an agency official (e.g. 

supervisor, manager, senior leader, etc.) in my 

work unit has... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

I was personally 

affected by this ↓

This has occurred in my 

work unit, but I was not 

personally affected by this ↓

This has NOT occurred in my 

work unit ↓

s. ...took or threatened to 

take a personnel action 

against an employee 

because the employee 

disclosed a violation of 

law, rules, or regulations 

or reported fraud, waste, 

or abuse

○ ○ ○ ○

t. ... took or threatened to 

take a personnel action 

against an employee 

because the employee 

filed an appeal or 

grievance

○ ○ ○ ○

u. ...knowingly violated a 

lawful form of veteran's 

preference or veteran's 

protection laws

○ ○ ○ ○

v. ... inappropriately 

favored a veteran ○ ○ ○ ○

Continue on next page
64 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

10

Whistleblowing 

For the purpose of this section, the term 

“wrongdoing” refers to the creation or 

toleration in the workplace of a health or 

safety danger, unlawful behavior, fraud, waste, 

or abuse.

1. Please indicate your level of agreement 

or disagreement with the following 

statements.

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

1. My agency 

actively 

encourages 

employees to 

report 

wrongdoing.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2. If I disclosed 

wrongdoing, I 

would be 

praised for it at 

work.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

3. I feel that I 

could disclose 

wrongdoing 

without any 

concerns that 

the disclosure 

would make my 

life harder.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

4. My agency has 

educated me 

about the 

purpose of the 

Office of the 

Inspector 

General.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

5. My agency has 

educated me 

about how I can 

anonymously 

disclose 

wrongdoing.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

6. My agency has 

educated me 

about what my 

rights would be 

if I disclosed 

wrongdoing.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

7. In your opinion, how adequate or 

inadequate is the protection against 

reprisal for federal employees who report 

wrongdoing? 

o Very adequate

o Adequate 

o Neither adequate nor inadequate

o Inadequate

o Very inadequate

o Don’t Know/Can’t Judge 

8. If you were to observe or have evidence of 

wrongdoing, how important would it be 

to you that you be able to report it 

without disclosing your identity?

o Very important 

o Important 

o Somewhat important 

o Not important 

o Don’t Know/Can’t Judge 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 65

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

11

9. To what extent do you understand the 

role of each of the following organizations 

when it comes to responding to reports of 

wrongdoing? 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

a. The U.S. Office of the 

Special Counsel (OSC) ○ ○ ○ ○

b. The Government 

Accountability Office 

(GAO)

○ ○ ○ ○

c. Your agency's Office of 

the Inspector General 

(OIG)

○ ○ ○ ○

d. The Occupational Safety 

and Health 

Administration (OSHA)

○ ○ ○ ○

10. If you were to report wrongdoing to one 

of the following organizations, and asked 

that your identity be kept confidential, to 

what extent do you believe that the 

organization would keep your identity 

secret? 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

a. My agency's Office of 

the Inspector General 

(OIG)

○ ○ ○ ○

b. The U.S. Office of the 

Special Counsel (OSC) ○ ○ ○ ○

c. The Occupational Safety 

and Health 

Administration (OSHA)

○ ○ ○ ○

d. The Government 

Accountability Office 

(GAO)

○ ○ ○ ○

e. The U.S. Congress ○ ○ ○ ○

f. The Media ○ ○ ○ ○

11. If you were to report wrongdoing to one 

of the following organizations, to what 

extent do you believe the organization 

would give careful consideration to your 

allegations? 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

a. My agency's Office of 

the Inspector General 

(OIG)

○ ○ ○ ○

b. The U.S. Office of the 

Special Counsel (OSC) ○ ○ ○ ○

c. The Occupational Safety 

and Health 

Administration (OSHA)

○ ○ ○ ○

d. The Government 

Accountability Office 

(GAO)

○ ○ ○ ○

e. The U.S. Congress ○ ○ ○ ○

f. The Media ○ ○ ○ ○

12. If tomorrow you were to observe a health 

or safety danger, unlawful behavior, 

fraud, waste, or abuse, to what extent do 

you think that each of the following would 

factor into your decision on whether or 

not to report the wrongdoing? 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

a. Concern that I would be 

suspended, demoted, or 

fired

○ ○ ○ ○

b. Concern that I had 

sufficient proof ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Concern that it might not 

be serious enough ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Concern that the event 

might not rise to the level 

of fraud, waste, abuse, 

unlawful behavior, or a 

safety or health danger

○ ○ ○ ○
66 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

12

If tomorrow you were to observe a health or 

safety danger, unlawful behavior, fraud, 

waste, or abuse, to what extent do you think 

that each of the following would factor into 

your decision on whether or not to report the 

wrongdoing? 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

e. Belief that nothing would

be done to stop it ○ ○ ○ ○

f. Belief that nothing could

be done to stop it ○ ○ ○ ○

g. Belief that it would not 

happen again ○ ○ ○ ○

h. Belief that someone else 

had already reported it ○ ○ ○ ○

i. Concern that I would be 

seen as disloyal ○ ○ ○ ○

j. Concern that it might 

negatively impact my 

relationship with my coworkers

○ ○ ○ ○

k. Concern that it might get 

someone in trouble ○ ○ ○ ○

l. Concern that it might 

harm the reputation of 

my organization/agency

○ ○ ○ ○

m. Concern that it might 

cause other things to be 

investigated

○ ○ ○ ○

n. Concern that it might 

affect my performance 

appraisal

○ ○ ○ ○

o. Concern that it might 

affect my ability to get a 

performance award

○ ○ ○ ○

p. Concern that it might 

affect my ability to get 

training

○ ○ ○ ○

q. Concern that it might 

affect my ability to get a 

promotion

○ ○ ○ ○

r. Concern that 

management might 

become less tolerant of 

any small mistakes I 

might make

○ ○ ○ ○

If tomorrow you were to observe a health or 

safety danger, unlawful behavior, fraud, 

waste, or abuse, to what extent do you think 

that each of the following would factor into 

your decision on whether or not to report the 

wrongdoing? 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

s. Concern that 

management might 

become less willing to 

grant me any favors that 

are optional for them

○ ○ ○ ○

t. Concern that I might be 

retaliated against in 

another way not 

mentioned above

○ ○ ○ ○

u. A lack of knowledge 

about to whom I should 

report it

○ ○ ○ ○

13. How important, if at all, would each of 

the following be in encouraging you to 

report an illegal or wasteful activity? 

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge ↓

Unimportant ↓

Somewhat Unimportant ↓

Neither Important Nor 

Unimportant ↓

Somewhat Important ↓

Very Important ↓

a. The activity 

might endanger 

people’s lives

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. The activity 

was something 

you considered 

serious in terms 

of costs to the 

Government

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Something 

would be done 

to correct the 

activity you 

reported

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 67

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

13

How important, if at all, would each of the 

following be in encouraging you to report an 

illegal or wasteful activity? 

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge ↓

Unimportant ↓

Somewhat Unimportant ↓

Neither Important Nor 

Unimportant ↓

Somewhat Important ↓

Very Important ↓

d. The wrongdoers 

involved in the 

activities would 

be punished

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. You would be 

protected from 

any sort of 

reprisal

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. You would be 

positively 

recognized by 

management for 

a good deed

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

g. Your identity 

would be kept 

confidential by 

the people to 

whom you 

reported the 

activity

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

h. The activity 

was something 

you considered 

to be a serious 

ethical 

violation, 

although the 

monetary costs 

associated with 

it were small

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

i. You would be 

eligible to 

receive a cash 

award

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

14. How likely would you be to “blow the 

whistle” when the wrongdoer is:

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge ↓

Very Unlikely ↓

Somewhat Unlikely ↓

Neither Likely Nor Unlikely ↓

Somewhat Likely ↓

Very Likely ↓

a. Your supervisor ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. A higher level 

supervisor ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. A coworker (in 

your work 

group)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. A Federal 

employee 

outside your 

work group

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. A contractor or 

vendor ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. A political 

appointee in 

your agency

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

15. During the last 12 months, did you 

personally observe or obtain direct 

evidence of one or more illegal or wasteful 

activities involving your agency? (Note: 

Do not answer “yes” if you only heard 

about the activity in the media or heard 

about it as a rumor.) 

o Yes

o No

If you answered no to 

question 15, please skip to 

the Disabilities section on 

page 17, if you answered yes 

to question 15, please 

continue on the next page. 
68 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

14

16. If you answered yes to question 15, then 

please select the activity below that 

represents the most serious problem you 

personally observed. (Please mark only 

one.) 

o Stealing Federal funds

o Stealing Federal property

o Accepting bribes or kickbacks

o Waste caused by ineligible people 

receiving funds, goods, or services 

o Waste caused by unnecessary or 

deficient goods or services 

o Use of an official position for personal 

benefit

o Waste caused by a badly managed 

program 

o Unfair advantage in the selection of a 

contractor, consultant, or vendor 

o Tolerating a situation or practice which 

poses a substantial and specific danger to 

public health or safety 

o Other serious violation of law or 

regulation

17. Where did this activity occur or 

originate? (Please mark ALL that apply.) 

□ Your workgroup 

□ Outside your workgroup but within your 

agency

□ Another Federal agency

□ Contractor or vendor 

□ Other 

18. If a dollar value can be placed on this 

activity, what was the amount involved? 

o More than $100,000 

o $5,000-$100,000 

o $1,000-$4,999 

o $100-$999 

o Less than $100 

o A dollar value cannot be placed on the 

activity

o Don’t know/Can’t judge 

19. How frequently did this activity occur?

o Once or rarely

o Occasionally

o Frequently

o Don’t know/Can’t judge 

20. Did you report this activity to any of the 

following? (Please mark ALL that 

apply.) 

□ I did not report the activity (skip to 

disabilities section on page 17)

□ Family member or friend 

□ Co-worker 

□ Immediate supervisor 

□ Higher level supervisor 

□ Higher level agency official

□ Agency Inspector General (IG)

□ Office of Special Counsel (OSC)

□ Government Accountability Office 

(GAO)

□ Law enforcement official

□ Union representative 

□ News media

□ Congressional staff member or member 

of Congress

□ Advocacy group outside the Government 

□ Other

21. If you DID report this activity, were you 

identified as the source of the report? 

o Yes, I was identified

o No, I was not identified (skip to 

disabilities section on page 17)
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 69

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

15

22. If you were identified, what was the 

effect on you personally as a result of 

being identified? (Please mark ALL that 

apply.) 

□ I was given credit by my management 

for having reported the problem 

□ Nothing happened to me for having 

reported the problem 

□ My coworkers were unhappy with me 

for having reported the problem 

□ My supervisor was unhappy with me for 

having reported the problem 

□ Someone above my supervisor was 

unhappy with me for having reported the 

problem 

□ I was threatened with reprisal for having 

reported the problem 

□ I received an actual reprisal for having 

reported the problem 

23. Within the last 12 months, have you 

personally experienced some type of 

reprisal or threat of reprisal by 

management for having reported an 

activity? 

o Yes

o No (skip to disabilities section on page 

17) 

24. Did the reprisal or threat of reprisal take 

any of the following forms? (Please mark 

ALL that apply.) 

This was done to me ↓

I was threatened with this ↓

a. Poor performance appraisal ○ ○

b. Denial of promotion ○ ○

c. Denial of opportunity for training ○ ○

d. Denial of award ○ ○

e. Assignment to less desirable or 

less important duties ○ ○

f. Transfer or reassignment to a 

different job with less desirable 

duties

○ ○

g. Reassignment to a different 

geographical location ○ ○

h. Suspension from my job ○ ○

i. Fired from my job ○ ○

j. Grade level demotion ○ ○

k. Shunned by coworkers or 

managers ○ ○

l. Verbal harassment or intimidation ○ ○

m. Required to take a fitness for duty 

exam ○ ○

n. Other ○ ○

Continue on next page
70 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

16

25. In response to the reprisal or threat of 

reprisal, did you take any of the following 

actions? (Please mark ALL that apply.) 

□ I took no action 

□ Complained to the Office of Inspector 

General within my agency 

□ Complained to some other office within 

my agency (for example, the Personnel 

Office or EEO Office)

□ Filed a complaint through my union 

representative

□ Filed a formal grievance within my 

agency

□ Filed an EEO (discrimination) complaint

□ Filed a complaint with the Office of 

Special Counsel

□ Filed an action with the Merit Systems 

Protection Board 

□ I took an action not listed above 

26. Please indicate the extent to which each of 

the following was important to your 

decision to report or not report 

wrongdoing. 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

a. Concern that I would be 

suspended, demoted, or 

fired

○ ○ ○ ○

b. Concern that I had 

sufficient proof ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Concern that it might not 

be serious enough ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Concern that the event 

might not rise to the level 

of fraud, waste, abuse, 

unlawful behavior, or a 

safety or health danger

○ ○ ○ ○

e. Belief that nothing would

be done to stop it ○ ○ ○ ○

f. Belief that nothing could

be done to stop it ○ ○ ○ ○

g. Belief that it would not 

happen again ○ ○ ○ ○

Please indicate the extent to which each of the 

following was important to your decision to 

report or not report wrongdoing. 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

h. Belief that someone else 

had already reported it ○ ○ ○ ○

i. Concern that I would be 

seen as disloyal ○ ○ ○ ○

j. Concern that it might 

negatively impact my 

relationship with my coworkers

○ ○ ○ ○

k. Concern that it might get 

someone in trouble ○ ○ ○ ○

l. Concern that it might 

harm the reputation of my 

organization/agency

○ ○ ○ ○

m. Concern that it might 

cause other things to be 

investigated

○ ○ ○ ○

n. Concern that it might 

affect my performance 

appraisal

○ ○ ○ ○

o. Concern that it might 

affect my ability to get a 

performance award

○ ○ ○ ○

p. Concern that it might 

affect my ability to get 

training

○ ○ ○ ○

q. Concern that it might 

affect my ability to get a 

promotion

○ ○ ○ ○

r. Concern that management 

might become less tolerant 

of any small mistakes I 

might make

○ ○ ○ ○

s. Concern that management 

might become less willing 

to grant me any favors that 

are optional for them

○ ○ ○ ○

t. Concern that I might be 

retaliated against in 

another way not 

mentioned above

○ ○ ○ ○

u. A lack of knowledge 

about to whom I should 

report it

○ ○ ○ ○
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 71

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

17

Disabilities 

1. My agency has policies and procedures 

for dealing with reasonable 

accommodation requests. 

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Disagree 

o Strongly disagree 

o Don’t know/NA 

2. Contact information is readily available 

for the Disability Program Coordinator 

and/or the Selective Placement Program 

Coordinator at my department/agency. 

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Disagree 

o Strongly disagree 

o Don’t know/NA 

3. My organization is committed to offering 

equal employment opportunities to people 

with disabilities.

o Strongly agree (skip to question 5) 

o Agree (skip to question 5) 

o Neither agree nor disagree (skip to 

question 5) 

o Disagree 

o Strongly disagree 

o Don’t know/NA 

4. Select from among the following reasons 

for why you believe your agency is 

resistant to hiring people with disabilities.

(Please mark ALL that apply.) 

□ Lack of funds 

□ Unfamiliarity with specific hiring 

authorities

□ Unfamiliarity with providing reasonable 

accommodations 

□ Belief that disabled persons will have 

difficulty performing the job

□ Belief that disabled persons will require 

too much time and attention

□ Belief that disabled persons will disrupt 

the workplace 

□ Other :

_________________________________

_________________________________

□ Don’t know 

5. Do you have a physical or mental 

impairment? 

o Yes, and it substantially limits one or 

more major life activities. Major life 

activities may include walking, seeing, 

standing, sitting, breathing, bathing, etc. 

o Yes, but it does not affect a major life 

activity. 

o No (If no, skip to the leadership impact 

section on page 19) 

o I prefer not to answer (If you prefer not 

to answer this question, skip to the 

leadership impact section on page 19 ) 

Continue on next page
72 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

18

6. Please select your physical or mental 

impairment(s) from the list below. Check 

all that apply in the squares on the left.

For each impairment selected, identify the 

level of severity as either mild, moderate, 

or severe using the scale on the right. 

Severe ↓

Moderate ↓

Mild ↓

↓ I have this condition

□

Physical Movement 

Impairment (for example: 

missing a hand, partial or 

full paralysis, arthritis that 

creates some loss of ability 

to move a body part)

○ ○ ○

□

Sensory Impairment (for 

example: partial or total 

blindness, deafness, 

muteness)

○ ○ ○

□

Neurological Impairment 

(for example: epilepsy, 

multiple sclerosis, 

Parkinson's)

○ ○ ○

□

Developmental or Learning 

Impairment (for example: 

attention deficit, dyslexia, 

autism)

○ ○ ○

□

Psychological Impairment 

(for example: PTSD, 

depression, obsessive 

compulsive, phobias)

○ ○ ○

□

Chronic Health Condition 

(for example: diabetes, 

hypertension, cancer, heart 

disease)

○ ○ ○

□ Other Disability ○ ○ ○

□ Not Disabled

□ I would prefer not to answer 

this question

7. Have you identified yourself as having a 

disability on any official forms with your 

agency? 

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know 

8. Do you have documentation that 

substantiates your disability? 

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know 

9. Were you hired under the Schedule A 

hiring authority for persons with 

disabilities?

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know 

10. Have you requested reasonable 

accommodations to assist you with 

accomplishing your work?

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know 

11. Are you receiving reasonable 

accommodations? 

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know 

12. If, in the past 2 years you have been 

treated unfairly in the area of career 

advancement, do you feel the reason you 

have not been treated fairly in your 

career advancement is because of your 

disability?

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know /Not Applicable 

Continue on next page
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 73

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

19

Leadership Impact 

Please indicate your level of agreement or 

disagreement with the following statements

regarding non-military senior executives.

1. I work closely with a politically 

appointed Senior Executive (SES). 

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Disagree 

o Strongly disagree 

o Don’t know/NA 

2. I work closely with a career Senior 

Executive (SES).

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Disagree 

o Strongly disagree 

o Don’t know/NA 

The following items are intended to reflect 

your opinions about non-military political

senior executives. 

3. Political senior executives in my 

organization... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

a. ... have good 

management 

skills. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. ... work hard to 

fulfill the mission 

of the agency.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Political senior executives in my organization... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

c. ... communicate 

well. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. ... work well 

with other career 

senior 

executives.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. ... respect the 

career staff. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. ... respect the 

merit process 

when making 

hiring decisions.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

The following items are intended to reflect 

your opinions about non-military career

senior executives.

4. Career senior executives in my 

organization... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

a. ... have good 

management 

skills.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. ... work hard to 

fulfill the 

mission of the 

agency.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. ... communicate 

well. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. ... work well 

with other career 

senior 

executives.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. ... respect the 

career staff. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. ... respect the 

merit process 

when making 

hiring decisions.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
74 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

20

Union Partnership

1. Are you a dues-paying member of a union?

o Yes

o No. But my position is covered by a 

bargaining agreement

o No. I am not sure if my position is covered 

by a bargaining agreement

o No. I am not eligible to be a member of a 

union 

o Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

2. My agency’s management and unions work 

well together to:

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

a. Improve 

employee worklife balance

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Improve the 

efficiency of 

agency 

operations

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Improve 

employee 

performance

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Improve overall 

agency 

performance

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Telework 

1. In the last year, how many days, on 

average, did you telework – work from 

home or from another location such as a 

telework center? (This does not include 

field work.)

o 4 or 5 days per week 

o 2 or 3 days per week 

o 1 day per week

o On an ad hoc basis, less than 1 day per 

week

o Never

2. In the event of an emergency (e.g., 

security incident, pandemic, or major 

weather event), do you know what you 

must do to maintain continuity of 

operations?

o Yes

o No

o Not sure 

Workplace Violence

Workplace violence is defined as violent acts 

directed towards a person at work or on duty 

(e.g. physical assaults, threats of assault, 

harassment, intimidation, or bullying). 

1. My agency takes sufficient steps to ensure 

my safety from violence occurring at my 

workplace. 

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Disagree 

o Strongly disagree 

o Don’t know/NA 

2. During the past two years, have you 

observed any incidence of workplace 

violence? 

o Yes (identify on the next page the type 

and consequence of the event and mark 

whether it resulted in physical injury or 

damage to/loss of property). 

o No (skip to next section- professional 

affiliation on the next page).
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 75

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

21

3. Please identify the type and consequence 

of the event and mark whether it resulted 

in physical injury or damage to/loss of 

property. 

Don’t Know↓

Resulted in damage 

to/loss of property ↓

Resulted in physical injury↓

↓ This occurred

□

a. A violent act by a 

criminal who had no 

other connection with 

the workplace, but 

enters to commit 

robbery or another 

crime.

○ ○ ○

□

b. A violent act directed at 

employees by 

customers, clients, 

patients, students, 

inmates, or any others 

for whom your 

organization provides 

services.

○ ○ ○

□

c. A violent act against 

coworkers, supervisors, 

or managers by a 

present or former 

employee.

○ ○ ○

□

d. A violent act committed 

in the workplace by 

someone who doesn’t 

work there, but has a 

personal relationship 

with an employee (e.g., 

an abusive spouse or 

domestic partner.

○ ○ ○

Professional Affiliation

1. Federal employees may obtain information 

about the knowledge, skills and abilities 

needed to do their current job. Such 

information may come from several 

different sources. To what extent do you 

personally consider each of the following a 

good source of information about the 

knowledge, skills and abilities needed to do 

your current job? 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Very Poor Source of Information ↓

Poor Source of Information ↓

Neither a Good Nor Poor 

Source of Information ↓

Good Source of Information ↓

Excellent Source of 

Information ↓

a. Former job ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Your Coworkers ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Your 

Supervisor ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Your Agency ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. The Office of 

Personnel 

Management

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. A Professional 

Organization or 

Trade 

Association

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

g. Other ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

The name of the professional organization or 

trade association referenced above is? 

______________________________

o Not Applicable 

The other source of information referenced 

above is? 

______________________________

o Not Applicable 
76 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX B: THE 2010 MERIT PRINCIPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENT

22

2. Consider the most important knowledge, 

skill or ability needed to perform your 

current job. Which of the following 

general categories best describes that 

knowledge, skill or ability (please mark 

only one). 

o Knowledge (Facts and other 

information, including job knowledge, 

academic subjects, laws, policies, and 

regulations) 

o Language (Reading, writing, learning 

other languages, editing, preparing 

lengthy documents and preparing and 

giving speeches or presentations) 

o Social (Abilities that help us get along 

with other people, ranging from basic 

interpersonal skills and teamwork to 

more specialized abilities to negotiate, 

manage conflict, and foster diversity) 

o Reasoning (Abilities based on logic and 

mathematics, including such practical 

abilities as analysis, troubleshooting, and 

computer programming) 

o Motivation (Personal characteristics that 

affect employee willingness to perform 

work, including resilience in the face of 

difficulty, integrity, and public 

spiritedness)

o Mental Style (Long-term “mental 

habits” such as flexibility, creativity, 

ability to deal with complexity, rapid 

learning ability, and decisiveness)

3. In your own words, can you briefly 

rephrase the most important 

knowledge, skill, or ability, you 

selected? 

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

4. My agency does a good job ensuring that 

people with my kind of job possess this 

most important knowledge, skill or 

ability. 

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Disagree 

o Strongly disagree 

o Don’t know/NA 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 77

The table below summarizes responses to questions on adherence to merit system 

principles from MSPB’s 1996 Merit Principles Survey. Percentages are rounded and may 

not add to 100 percent.

Does your agency have 

a problem when it...

Minor or 

No Problem

Moderate 

Problem

Major 

Problem

Don’t 

Know

Selects well-qualified persons 

when hiring from outside the 

agency

20% 31% 20% 29%

Selects persons on the basis of 

their relative ability, knowledge, 

and skills when hiring from 

outside the agency

25% 29% 19% 28%

Promotes people on the basis of 

their relative ability, knowledge, 

and skills

21% 33% 32% 14%

Makes selections based on fair 

and open competition when 

hiring from outside the agency

24% 23% 21% 32%

Makes selections based on 

fair and open competition for 

promotions

21% 29% 32% 18%

Ensures equal pay for equal work 33% 21% 26% 21%

Promotes high standards of 

conduct, integrity, and concern 

for the public interest among 

agency employees

43% 25% 20% 12%

Retains employees on the 

basis of the adequacy of their 

performance

30% 28% 27% 15%

Takes appropriate steps to correct 

inadequate performance 17% 25% 44% 13%

Appendix C: Results from the 1996 

Survey Questions on MSPs
78 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX C: RESULTS FROM THE 1996 SURVEY QUESTIONS ON MSPS

Separates employees who 

cannot or will not improve their 

performance to meet required 

standards

11% 15% 51% 23%

Protects employees against 

arbitrary personnel actions 24% 20% 19% 37%

Protects employees against 

personal favoritism 18% 21% 38% 23%

Protects employees against 

coercion for partisan political 

activities

33% 9% 8% 50%

Protects employees against 

reprisal for whistleblowing 21% 10% 15% 55%

Provides fair and equitable 

treatment for employees and 

applicants in all aspects of 

personnel management without 

regard to their political affiliation, 

race, color, religion, national 

origin, sex, marital status, age, or 

handicapping condition

38% 20% 22% 20%

Does your agency have 

a problem when it...

Minor or 

No Problem

Moderate 

Problem

Major 

Problem

Don’t 

Know
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 79

The percentages of respondents who agreed with each of the 25 MSP-based items in the 

2010 Merit Principles Survey are shown below. The first table provides the percentage of 

the respondents who agreed, provided a neutral opinion, or disagreed with the statement 

provided. Respondents who skipped the item or selected “don’t know/can’t judge” are 

omitted.

My organization... Agree Neutral Disagree

FAIRNESS

Recruits a diverse pool of applicants for job vacancies 61% 20% 19%

Holds fair and open competition for job vacancies 48% 23% 29%

Selects the best-qualified candidates when filling jobs 38% 27% 36%

Treats employees fairly 52% 22% 26%

Takes steps to prevent prohibited discrimination 66% 20% 15%

Takes steps to rectify prohibited discrimination 60% 25% 15%

Pays employees fairly 63% 19% 18%

STEWARDSHIP

Recognizes excellent performance 51% 24% 25%

Rewards excellent performance 51% 24% 25%

Holds employees to high standards of conduct 64% 20% 17%

Puts the public interest first 60% 27% 13%

Uses the workforce efficiently and effectively 42% 26% 32%

Eliminates unnecessary functions and positions 29% 33% 38%

Makes good use of employees’ skills and talents 45% 25% 29%

Focuses employee attention and efforts on what is most 

important 48% 29% 23%

Provides employees with the resources needed to get the 

job done 56% 22% 22%

Addresses poor performers effectively 24% 28% 48%

Retains its best employees 41% 29% 30%

Provides employees with necessary training 60% 21% 19%

Provides employees with opportunities for growth and 

development 51% 25% 23%

PROTECTION

Protects employees against reprisal for whistleblowing 45% 37% 18%

Protects employees against reprisal for exercising a 

grievance, complaint, or appeal right 46% 34% 20%

Protects employees against arbitrary action 43% 39% 18%

Does not engage in favoritism 28% 27% 45%

Protects employees from political coercion 50% 39% 10%

Appendix D: Results from the 2010 

Survey Questions on MSPs
80 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX D: RESULTS FROM THE 2010 SURVEY QUESTIONS ON MSPS

The table below uses the same population as the table above, but only shows level 

of agreement for each item. The data is then provided for each of two groups: 

nonsupervisors (including line employees and team leaders, labeled “NS”) and 

supervisors (first-level supervisors, managers, and executives, labeled “S”).

My organization... Overall 

Agreement

Supervisory 

Status

NS S

FAIRNESS

Recruits a diverse pool of applicants for job vacancies 61% 60% 70%

Holds fair and open competition for job vacancies 48% 46% 65%

Selects the best-qualified candidates when filling jobs 38% 35% 52%

Treats employees fairly 52% 50% 68%

Takes steps to prevents prohibited discrimination 66% 64% 79%

Takes steps to rectify prohibited discrimination 60% 58% 76%

Pays employees fairly 63% 62% 71%

STEWARDSHIP

Recognizes excellent performance 51% 49% 62%

Rewards excellent performance 51% 50% 62%

Holds employees to high standards of conduct 64% 63% 70%

Puts the public interest first 60% 59% 67%

Uses the workforce efficiently and effectively 42% 41% 50%

Eliminates unnecessary functions and positions 29% 29% 34%

Makes good use of employees’ skills and talents 45% 44% 56%

Focuses employee attention and efforts on what is most 

important 48% 46% 56%

Provides employees with the resources needed to get the job 

done 56% 55% 58%

Addresses poor performers effectively 24% 23% 31%

Retains its best employees 41% 39% 50%

Provides employees with necessary training 60% 58% 69%

Provides employees with opportunities for growth and 

development 52% 50% 63%

PROTECTION

Protects employees against reprisal for whistleblowing 45% 42% 64%

Protects employees against reprisal for exercising a grievance, 

complaint, or appeal right 46% 42% 67%

Protects employees against arbitrary action 43% 39% 63%

Does not engage in favoritism 28% 26% 44%

Protects employees from political coercion 50% 48% 65%
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 81

Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel 

action, shall not, with respect to such authority—

(1) discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment—

(A) on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, as prohibited under section 717 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16);

(B) on the basis of age, as prohibited under sections 12 and 15 of the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. §§ 631, 633a);

(C) on the basis of sex, as prohibited under section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 

(29 U.S.C. § 206 (d));

(D) on the basis of handicapping condition, as prohibited under section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 791); or

(E) on the basis of marital status or political affiliation, as prohibited under any law, rule, or 

regulation;

(2) solicit or consider any recommendation or statement, oral or written, with respect to any 

individual who requests or is under consideration for any personnel action unless such 

recommendation or statement is based on the personal knowledge or records of the person 

furnishing it and consists of—

(A) an evaluation of the work performance, ability, aptitude, or general qualifications of such 

individual; or

(B) an evaluation of the character, loyalty, or suitability of such individual;

(3) coerce the political activity of any person (including the providing of any political contribution or 

service), or take any action against any employee or applicant for employment as a reprisal for the 

refusal of any person to engage in such political activity;

(4) deceive or willfully obstruct any person with respect to such person’s right to compete for 

employment;

(5) influence any person to withdraw from competition for any position for the purpose of improving 

or injuring the prospects of any other person for employment;

(6) grant any preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, or regulation to any employee 

or applicant for employment (including defining the scope or manner of competition or the 

requirements for any position) for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any 

particular person for employment;

Appendix E: The Prohibited Personnel

Practices – 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)
82 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX E: THE PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICES – 5 U.S.C. § 2302(B)

(7) appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or 

advancement, in or to a civilian position any individual who is a relative (as defined in section 

3110 (a)(3) of this title) of such employee if such position is in the agency in which such employee 

is serving as a public official (as defined in section 3110 (a)(2) of this title) or over which such 

employee exercises jurisdiction or control as such an official;

(8) take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action with respect to any 

employee or applicant for employment because of—

(A) any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee or applicant 

reasonably believes evidences—

(i) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or

(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and 

specific danger to public health or safety,

if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and if such information is not 

specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense 

or the conduct of foreign affairs; or

(B) any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to the Inspector General of an agency or another 

employee designated by the head of the agency to receive such disclosures, of information 

which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences—

(i) any violation (other than a violation of this section) of any law, rule, or regulation, or

(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and 

specific danger to public health or safety;

(9) take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, any personnel action against any employee or 

applicant for employment because of—

(A) the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or 

regulation—

(i) with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph (8); or

(ii) other than with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph (8);

(B) testifying for or otherwise lawfully assisting any individual in the exercise of any right 

referred to in subparagraph (A) (i) or (ii);

(C) cooperating with or disclosing information to the Inspector General of an agency, or the 

Special Counsel, in accordance with applicable provisions of law; or

(D) for refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law;

(10) discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of conduct 

which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance 

of others; except that nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit an agency from taking into account 

in determining suitability or fitness any conviction of the employee or applicant for any crime 

under the laws of any State, of the District of Columbia, or of the United States;
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 83

APPENDIX E: THE PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICES – 5 U.S.C. § 2302(B)

(11)

(A) knowingly take, recommend, or approve any personnel action if the taking of such action 

would violate a veterans’ preference requirement; or

(B) knowingly fail to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action if the failure to take 

such action would violate a veterans’ preference requirement; or

(12) take or fail to take any other personnel action if the taking of or failure to take such action violates 

any law, rule, or regulation implementing, or directly concerning, the merit system principles 

contained in section 2301 of this title.

This subsection shall not be construed to authorize the withholding of information from the Congress or 

the taking of any personnel action against an employee who discloses information to the Congress.
84 Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

APPENDIX E: THE PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICES – 5 U.S.C. § 2302(B)
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 85

The engagement scale is based on levels of agreement with the following 16 items:

Pride in one’s work or workplace

1. My agency is successful at accomplishing its mission.

2. My work unit produces high-quality products and services.

3. The work I do is meaningful to me.

4. I would recommend my agency as a place to work.

Satisfaction with leadership

5. Overall, I am satisfied with my supervisor.

6. Overall, I am satisfied with managers above my immediate supervisor.

Opportunity to perform well at work

7. I know what is expected of me on the job.

8. My job makes good use of my skills and abilities.

9. I have the resources to do my job well.

10. I have sufficient opportunities (such as challenging assignments or projects) to earn a 

high performance rating.

Satisfaction with the recognition received

11. Recognition and rewards are based on performance in my work unit.

12. I am satisfied with the recognition and rewards I receive for my work.

Prospect for future personal and professional growth

13. I am given a real opportunity to improve my skill in my organization.

Positive work environment with some focus on teamwork

14. I am treated with respect at work.

15. My opinions count at work.

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

Appendix F: MSPB’s Employee

Engagement Questions


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20419

Official Business

Penalty For Private Use $300

PRSRT STD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

WASHINGTON DC

PERMIT NO. G-113

Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest

Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces

January 2013