FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE

Opportunities Exist for 

OPM to Further 

Innovation in 

Performance 

Management

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, U.S. Senate 

November 2018

GAO-19-35

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-19-35, a report to

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

November 2018

FEDERAL WORKFORCE

Opportunities Exist for OPM to Further 

Innovation in Performance Management

What GAO Found

GAO found that from 2010 through 2017, surveyed employees generally 

demonstrated positive responses to selected Federal Employee Viewpoint 

Survey (FEVS) statements related to four of the Office of Personnel 

Management’s (OPM) five performance management phases, including: 

planning and setting expectations, monitoring performance, developing the 

capacity to perform, and rating performance. Employees responded least 

positively to statements related to rewarding performance, with only 39 percent 

of employees, on average, agreeing with statements regarding this phase. 

Results of Selected FEVS Statements Related to OPM’s Performance Management Phases

Government-wide, 2010 to 2017

Note: The margin of error for all estimates was within plus or minus 1 percent, except for 2010, when 

the margin was within plus or minus 2 percent.

Of the four agencies with among the highest average scores for the performance 

management phases (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, Drug Enforcement Administration, and Office of the Comptroller 

of the Currency), GAO identified practices that may contribute to improved 

performance management including strong organizational culture and dedication 

to mission; use of FEVS and other survey data; and a focus on training.

OPM provides guidance and opportunities for agencies to share promising 

practices on performance management; however, some of this information is not 

easily accessible on its performance management website. In addition, OPM 

does not leverage its leadership position to formally identify and share emerging 

performance management research and innovation with agencies. As a result, 

agencies, and therefore their employees, may not benefit from the best 

information available.

View GAO-19-35. For more information, 

contact Robert Goldenkoff, (202) 512-2757, 

goldenkoffr@gao.gov

Why GAO Did This Study

Managing employee performance has 

been a long-standing government-wide 

issue and the subject of numerous 

reforms since the beginning of the 

modern civil service. Without effective 

performance management, agencies 

risk not only losing the skills of top 

talent, they also risk missing the 

opportunity to effectively address 

increasingly complex and evolving

mission challenges. 

GAO was asked to examine federal

non-Senior Executive Service

performance management systems. 

This report examines (1) governmentwide trends in employee perceptions of 

performance management as 

measured by the results of selected 

FEVS statements, (2) practices that 

selected agencies use to improve 

performance management, and (3) 

OPM’s guidance and resources to 

support agency efforts to improve 

performance management 

government-wide.

GAO analyzed responses to selected 

FEVS statements related to the five 

performance management phases 

from 2010 through 2017; selected four 

agencies based on the highest 

average scores for the five phases, 

among other criteria, to identify 

practices which may contribute to 

improved performance management;

reviewed OPM documents; and 

interviewed OPM and other agency 

officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making three 

recommendations, including that OPM 

improve its website and share 

innovations in performance 

management with agencies. OPM 

agreed with GAO’s recommendations.
Page i GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Letter 1

Background 4

Employees Responded Most Positively to Statements Related to 

Planning and Setting Expectations Phase; Least Positively to 

Those Related to Rewarding Performance 8

Selected Agencies Implement Some Similar Practices That May 

Help Improve Employee Performance Management 24

OPM Provides Performance Management Resources to Agencies, 

But Some Information is Not Easily Accessible or Routinely 

Shared 32

Conclusions 43

Recommendations for Executive Action 43

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 44

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 46

Appendix II Comments from the Office of Personnel Management 52

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 54

Related GAO Products 55

Tables

Table 1: Description of OPM’s Five Phases of Performance 

Management 6

Table 2: Selected Agencies’ Mission Statements May Help Define 

an Employees’ Purpose and Role within the Organization 26

Table 3: Selected Agencies Analyzed FEVS Results and 

Developed Action Plans 28

Table 4: Selected FEVS Statements by OPM Performance 

Management Phase (Survey Statement Number in 

Parenthesis) 47

Contents
Page ii GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Figures

Figure 1: Five Phases of OPM’s Performance Management Cycle 7

Figure 2: Estimated Employee Responses on Statements Related 

to Performance Management Phases Government-wide, 

2010 to 2017 9

Figure 3: Estimated Employee Responses on Statements Related 

to Planning Work and Setting Expectations Governmentwide, 2010 to 2017 11

Figure 4: Estimated Employee Responses on Statements Related 

to Continually Monitoring Performance Phase 

Government-wide, 2010 to 2017 13

Figure 5: Estimated Employee Responses on Statement on Poor 

Performers by Supervisory Status Government-wide, 

2010 to 2017 14

Figure 6: Estimated Employee Responses on Statements 

Related to Developing the Capacity to Perform Phase 

Government-wide, 2010 to 2017 16

Figure 7: Estimated Employee Responses on Statements Related 

to Rating Periodically to Summarize Performance Phase 

Government-wide, 2010 to 2017 17

Figure 8: Estimated Employee Responses on Statements Related 

to Rewarding Performance Phase Government-wide, 

2010 to 2017 19

Figure 9: Estimated Employee Responses on Statement about 

Promotions Based on Merit by Supervisory Status 

Government-wide, 2010 to 2017 21

Figure 10: Estimated Employee Responses on Statement on 

Meaningful Recognition of Differences in Performance by 

Supervisory Status Government-wide, 2010 to 2017 22

Figure 11: Estimated Employee Responses on Statement on 

Employee Recognition by Supervisory Status 

Government-wide, 2010 to 2017 23

Figure 12: Similar Practices Demonstrated at Four Selected 

Agencies that May Help Improve Performance 

Management Systems 25

Figure 13: OPM’s Website Includes Links to Performance 

Management Guidance and Resources 34

Figure 14: CHCO Council Website Not Referenced on OPM’s 

Main Website Using the Term “Performance 

Management” 37

Figure 15: OPM is No Longer Updating Their Web Page on 

“Promoting Innovation in Government” 42
Page iii GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Abbreviations

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CFO Chief Financial Officers 

CHCO Chief Human Capital Officers

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

forums Performance Management Forums

HC human capital

MAX MAX Information System

OCC Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

PMA President’s Management Agenda

portal Performance Management Portal

SES Senior Executive Service

TNA Training Needs Assessment

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 20, 2018

The Honorable Ron Johnson

Chairman

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The federal government is in a period of profound transition. It faces an 

array of mission challenges and opportunities to enhance performance,

ensure accountability, and position the nation for the future. As part of a 

broader effort to help modernize government and improve the ability of 

agencies to deliver on their missions, in March 2018, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) released the President’s Management 

Agenda (PMA).1 Among other things, the PMA noted the important role 

that federal employees play in ensuring the smooth functioning of our 

democracy, but acknowledged that the government needs to do a better 

job in actively managing the workforce to better align employees’ skills 

with evolving mission needs.

Consistent with this approach, in our past work, we have noted how an 

organization’s workforce defines its character, affects its capacity to 

perform, and represents its knowledge base.2 Additionally, an agency’s 

workforce plays a central role in transforming an agency into a highperforming organization. High-performing organizations have attributes

such as:

• an effective employee performance management system that includes 

expectation setting, coaching, and feedback;

 1

See https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/pma/ for the President’s 

Management Agenda. Accessed on August 24, 2018.

2

For relevant prior work, see GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic 

Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003); Government Printing 

Office: Advancing GPO’s Transformation Effort through Strategic Human Capital 

Management, GAO-04-85 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 2003); and A Model of Strategic 

Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

• a clear “line of sight” between individual performance and 

organizational success;3 and

• an engaged workforce that feels a sense of connection to both the 

agency and its mission.

However, managing employee performance has been a long-standing 

government-wide challenge and the subject of numerous reforms since 

the beginning of the modern civil service. Without effective performance 

management, agencies risk not only losing (or failing to utilize) the skills 

of top talent, they also risk missing the opportunity to effectively address 

increasingly complex and rapidly evolving challenges.

You asked us to examine federal non-Senior Executive Service (SES) 

performance management systems. This report (1) describes federal 

employee perceptions of performance management as measured by the 

results of selected statements from the Office of Personnel 

Management’s (OPM) annual survey of federal employees, the Federal 

Employment Viewpoint Survey (FEVS); (2) identifies practices that 

selected agencies use to develop and implement strategies to improve 

performance management; and (3) evaluates OPM’s guidance and 

resources to support agency efforts to improve performance management 

government-wide. The report is the latest of several studies we have 

done in recent years examining how agencies can better address 

employee performance and misconduct. A complete list is included at the 

end of this report.

To describe government-wide trends in employee perceptions of 

performance management as measured by the results of FEVS, we 

selected 15 FEVS statements that generally align with OPM’s description 

of an agency’s performance management cycle. We consulted with our 

internal human capital (HC) experts as well as external HC experts at 

OPM who concurred, as well as the Merit Systems Protection Board, to 

determine the appropriateness of our FEVS statement selection and 

categorization.4 Using the selected statements, we analyzed FEVS data, 

including supervisory level, for the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO 

Act) departments and agencies for the years 2010 through 2017—the 

 3

GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual 

Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 4, 2003). 

4

The Merit Systems Protection Board’s mission is to protect the merit system principles 

and promote an effective federal workforce free of prohibited personnel practices. 
Page 3 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

most recent data available at the time of our review.5 To assess the 

reliability of the FEVS data, we examined descriptive statistics and data 

distribution, and reviewed missing data.6 We also reviewed FEVS 

technical documentation. On the basis of these procedures, we believe 

the data were sufficiently reliable for use in the analysis presented in this 

report.

To identify practices used by selected agencies to develop and implement 

strategies to improve performance management, we used the results of 

our government-wide analysis of FEVS data for 2015 (the most recent 

data available at the time) to select four agencies as illustrative case 

studies. Among other attributes, these agencies had the highest levels of 

employee agreement with FEVS statements dealing with their 

performance management processes. We also considered such factors 

as the number of respondents, agency size, mission, and types of 

employees. As such, we selected the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 

Department of Labor; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 

Department of Health and Human Services; Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), Department of Justice; and the Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Department of the Treasury. We 

reviewed documents and interviewed officials from the four case study 

agencies.7

To evaluate the guidance and resources OPM provides to agencies to 

improve performance management government-wide, we analyzed both 

 5

The CFO Act agencies are the executive branch agencies listed at 31 U.S.C. § 

901(b).The agencies covered by the CFO Act of 1990, as amended, are generally the 

largest federal agencies and accounted for an estimated 90 percent of career SES in 

fiscal year 2013. The 24 CFO Act agencies are the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland 

Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, 

Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the U.S. Agency for 

International Development, Environmental Protection Agency, General Services 

Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science 

Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OPM, Small Business Administration, and 

Social Security Administration. The agencies covered by the CFO Act, as amended, are 

generally the largest federal agencies and account for more than 98 percent of the federal 

workforce.

6

OPM’s FEVS was administered biennially prior to 2010 and annually thereafter. We did 

not include the results before 2010 because FEVS did not include all of the statements 

currently used in our analysis.

7

For purposes of this report, we are referring to bureaus or components within 

departments as “agencies.”
Page 4 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

OPM’s performance management website and the Chief Human Capital 

Officers (CHCO) Council’s website to identify available guidance, 

resources, and tools.8 We compared these documents to OMB’s 

memorandum on federal agency public websites, OPM’s strategic plan for

fiscal years 2018 through 2022, and internal controls.9 We also reviewed 

agency documentation and other OPM-referenced websites that 

contained performance management-related information. To supplement 

the documentary evidence obtained, we also interviewed officials from 

OPM, the CHCO Council, and the four selected case study agencies to 

describe the extent to which OPM provides assistance to agencies on 

performance management. For further information on our scope and 

methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2016 to November 

2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Performance management systems can be powerful tools in helping an 

agency achieve its mission and ensuring employees at every level of the 

organization are working toward common ends. According to OPM 

regulations, performance management is a systematic process by which 

an agency involves its employees, both as individuals and members of a 

group, in improving organizational effectiveness in the accomplishment of 

agency mission and goals.10

 8

The CHCO Council was established under the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002, 

enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, to advise and coordinate the 

activities of members’ agencies on such matters as the modernization of human resource 

systems, improved quality of human resource information, and legislation affecting human 

resource operations and organizations. See, Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 1303(a)(1) and (b), 

116 Stat. 2135, 2288 (Nov. 25, 2002), at 5 U.S.C. § 1401 note.

9

Office of Management and Budget, Policies for Federal Agency Public Websites and 

Digital Services, Memorandum M-17-06 (Nov. 8, 2016); OPM Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 

2018-2022; and GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

GAO-14-704G (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014).

105 C.F.R. § 430.102(a).

Background
Page 5 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

An agency’s performance management system defines policies and 

parameters established by an agency for the administration of 

performance appraisal programs. Under federal law and corresponding 

regulations, agencies are required to develop at least one employee 

performance appraisal system. OPM is required to review and approve an 

agency’s performance appraisal system(s) to ensure it is consistent with 

the requirements of applicable law, regulation, and OPM policy, and 

defines the general policies and parameters the agency will use to rate 

employees. Once the appraisal system is approved, the agency 

establishes a performance appraisal program. The agency’s performance 

appraisal program—which does not require OPM review or approval—

defines the specific procedures, methods, and requirements for planning, 

monitoring, and rating employee performance.11 The program is tailored 

to the agency’s needs.12

OPM policy identifies five phases to the performance management cycle: 

(1) planning work and setting expectations; (2) continually monitoring 

performance; (3) developing the capacity to perform; (4) rating 

periodically to summarize performance; and (5) rewarding good 

performance (see table 1).

 11An agency’s performance appraisal program(s) must also comply with all legal and 

regulatory requirements, and the requirements of the applicable agency appraisal system. 

125 U.S.C. § 4302 and 4304(b)(1), 5 C.F.R. § 430.204-205.
Page 6 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Table 1: Description of OPM’s Five Phases of Performance Management

Performance 

Management Phase Description

Planning and Setting 

Expectationsa

• Setting performance expectations and goals for employees that should be measurable, 

understandable, verifiable, equitable, and achievable.

• Helps employees channel their efforts toward achieving organizational objectives. 

Continually 

Monitoring 

Performanceb

• Monitoring well means consistently measuring performance and providing ongoing feedback to 

employees and work groups on their progress toward reaching their goals.

• By monitoring continually, supervisors can identify unacceptable performance at any time during the 

appraisal period, and provide assistance to address such performance rather than wait until the end of 

the period when summary rating levels are assigned.

Developing the 

Capacity to Perform

• In an effective organization, employee developmental needs are evaluated and addressed.

• Developing in this instance means increasing the capacity to perform through training, giving 

assignments that introduce new skills or higher levels of responsibility, improving work processes, or 

other methods. 

Rating Periodically 

to Summarize 

Performance

• Rating means evaluating employee or group performance against the elements and standards in an 

employee’s performance plan, and assigning a summary rating of record.

• It is based on work performed during an entire appraisal period and the final rating should not be a 

surprise to the employee, particularly when the supervisor and the employee should have had 

numerous performance discussions during the rating period.

• This includes, but is not limited to, conducting one or more progress reviews during each appraisal 

period.

Rewarding Good 

Performance

• In an effective organization, rewards are used often and well, and recognition is an ongoing, natural 

part of day-to-day experience.

• Rewarding means recognizing employees, individually and as members of groups, for their 

performance and acknowledging their contributions to the agency’s mission.

• Awards regulations provide a broad range of forms that more formal rewards can take, such as cash, 

time off, and many recognition items.13

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Personnel Management (OPM), A Handbook for Measuring Employee Performance, (September 2011). I GAO-19-35

a

The regulatory requirements for planning employees’ performance include establishing the elements 

and standards of their performance appraisal plans. 5 C.F.R. § 430.206(b).

b

The regulatory requirements for monitoring performance include conducting progress reviews with 

employees where their performance is compared against their elements and standards. 5 C.F.R. § 

430.207(b).

According to OPM, performance management is a continuous cycle in 

which an agency involves its employees, both, as individuals and 

members of a group, in improving organizational effectiveness in 

accomplishing agency mission and goals (see figure 1). Each phase of 

the performance management cycle plays an important part in helping to 

provide structure and focus to an employee’s roles and responsibilities 

within the organization. Within each phase of the cycle, employees are 

 135 C.F.R. § 451.104(a)-(c); 5 C.F.R. § 451.104(a) and (f), 5 U.S.C. § 4502(e). 
Page 7 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

given the opportunity to provide input, ask questions, and request 

feedback from their supervisors on their performance.

Figure 1: Five Phases of OPM’s Performance Management Cycle

One of the tools agencies can use to determine the effectiveness of their 

performance management cycle is data from OPM’s annual FEVS. To 

help understand federal employees’ opinions about what matters most to 

them and how they feel about their jobs, their supervisors, and their 

agencies, FEVS scores can help agencies identify challenges and 

improve guidance. FEVS measures employees’ perceptions of whether, 

and to what extent, conditions characterizing successful organizations are 
Page 8 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

present in their agencies.14 According to OPM, the federal workforce is 

the backbone of the government. Employee opinions shared through 

FEVS provide an essential catalyst to achieving effective government.

From 2010 through 2017, surveyed employees generally demonstrated 

positive responses to FEVS statements related to four of OPM’s five 

performance management phases, including: planning and setting 

expectations, monitoring performance, developing the capacity to 

perform, and rating performance (as shown in figure 2).15 Employees had 

the lowest levels of agreement with statements related to rewarding 

performance (or an estimated 39 percent positive response).16

 14FEVS statements are grouped into eight topic areas: (1) work experience, (2) work unit, 

(3) agency, (4) supervisor, (5) leadership, (6) satisfaction, (7) work-life, and (8) 

demographics.

15For purposes of this report, we selected, in consultation with human capital specialists, 3 

FEVS statements that best described each phase of OPM’s performance management 

system for a total of 15 selected statements. The statements we identified primarily focus 

on employees’ perceptions of their roles and responsibilities, as well as their direct 

relationships with their supervisors. FEVS was not designed to measure performance 

management and the selected FEVS statements do not necessarily represent all key 

aspects of performance management. See appendix I for the selected FEVS statements.

16For purposes of this report, we are using the term “percent positive” to refer to the 

combined percentages of respondents who answered Strongly Agree or Agree; Very 

Satisfied or Satisfied; or Very Good or Good, depending on the item’s response 

categories.

Employees 

Responded Most 

Positively to 

Statements Related 

to Planning and 

Setting Expectations 

Phase; Least 

Positively to Those 

Related to Rewarding 

Performance
Page 9 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Figure 2: Estimated Employee Responses on Statements Related to Performance 

Management Phases Government-wide, 2010 to 2017

Note: We calculated the average percent of employees who agreed or strongly agreed with the three 

statements comprising the phase for those who answered all three statements to identify these trend 

lines. The number of respondents varied by year and statement, ranging from a low of 227,320 for 

statement 23 in 2010 to a high of 669,834 for statement 1 in 2012. The margin of error for all 

estimates was within plus or minus 1 percent, except for 2010, when the margin was within plus or 

minus 2 percent.

In addition, many more supervisors than nonsupervisors agreed with 

statements concerning how well their agencies deal with poor performers 

and reward good performance. Collectively, the results help point 

agencies and OPM to performance management processes where there 

is room for improvement. Details on each phase are as follows:
Page 10 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

We have previously reported that an explicit alignment of daily activities 

with broader results is one of the defining features of effective 

performance management systems in high-performing organizations.17

These organizations use their performance management systems to 

improve performance by helping individuals see the connection between 

their daily activities and organizational goals, a line of sight, and 

encouraging individuals to focus on their roles and responsibilities to help 

achieve these goals. Such organizations continuously review and revise 

their performance management systems to support their strategic and 

performance goals, as well as their core values and transformational 

objectives.

Based on surveyed employees’ responses, agencies were more 

successful at planning and setting expectations, which includes how an 

employee’s work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities, than at all 

other phases of performance management. The response to these 

statements highlights the role agencies have in providing information to 

employees about their responsibilities within the organization. Of the 

three selected FEVS statements for this phase, “I know how my work 

relates to the agency’s goals and priorities,” was the statement with the 

highest percent of employees who agreed or strongly agreed across all of 

our selected FEVS statements from 2010 to 2017 (see figure 3).

 17GAO-03-488.

Phase 1: Planning Work 

and Setting Expectations
Page 11 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Figure 3: Estimated Employee Responses on Statements Related to Planning Work 

and Setting Expectations Government-wide, 2010 to 2017

Note: We calculated the average percent of employees who agreed or strongly agreed with the three 

statements comprising the phase for those who answered all three statements to identify these trend 

lines. The number of respondents varied by year and statement, ranging from a low of 245,906 for 

statement 12 in 2010 to a high of 668,204 for statement 6 in 2012. The margin of error for all 

estimates was within plus or minus 1 percent, except for 2010, when the margin was within plus or 

minus 2 percent.

Performance management and feedback should be used to help 

employees improve so that they can do the work or—in the event they 

cannot do the work—so management can take appropriate action for 

unacceptable performance. The first opportunity a supervisor has to 

observe and correct poor performance is in day-to-day performance 

management activities. We have previously reported that, in general, 

agencies have three means to address employees’ poor performance, 

with dismissal as a last resort: (1) day-to-day performance management 

activities (which should be provided to all employees, regardless of their 

Phase 2: Continually 

Monitoring Performance
Page 12 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

performance levels); (2) dismissal during probationary periods; and (3) 

use of formal procedures to dismiss employees.18 We have also reported 

that supervisors who take performance management seriously and have 

the necessary training and support can help poorly performing employees 

either improve or realize they are not a good fit for the position.19

However, some supervisors may lack experience and training in 

performance management, as well as the understanding of the 

procedures for taking corrective actions against poor performers. We 

previously recommended that OPM, in conjunction with the Chief Human 

Capital Officers (CHCO) Council, assess the adequacy of leadership 

training that agencies provide to supervisors to help ensure supervisors 

obtain the skills needed to effectively conduct performance management 

responsibilities.20 In response, OPM conducted a survey to assess the 

adequacy of leadership training that agencies provide to supervisors. 

Based on the survey results, OPM issued a memorandum in May 2018 

recommending a number of actions agencies should take to improve the 

accessibility, adequacy, and effectiveness of supervisory training.

Of the FEVS statements we analyzed, the statement, “In my work unit, 

steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not 

improve,” had the lowest percent positive agreement by surveyed 

employees each year from 2010 to 2017 government-wide.21 However, 

the other two statements selected for this phase were viewed much more 

positively by surveyed employees (see figure 4).

 18GAO, Federal Workforce: Improved Supervision and Better Use of Probationary Periods 

Are Needed to Address Substandard Employee Performance, GAO-15-191 (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 6, 2015).

19GAO-15-191.

20GAO-15-191.

21Although poor performance is not defined by statute, title 5 of the United States Code 

defines “unacceptable performance” as “performance of an employee which fails to meet 

established performance standards in one or more critical elements of such employee’s 

position.” 5 U.S.C. § 4301(3). See also, 5 C.F.R. § 432.103(h). 
Page 13 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Figure 4: Estimated Employee Responses on Statements Related to Continually 

Monitoring Performance Phase Government-wide, 2010 to 2017

Note: We calculated the average percent of employees who agreed or strongly agreed with the three 

statements comprising the phase for those who answered all three statements to identify these trend 

lines. The number of respondents varied by year and statement, ranging from a low of 227,320 for 

statement 23 in 2010 to a high of 647,751 for statement 50 in 2012. The margin of error for all 

estimates was within plus or minus 1 percent, except for 2010, when the margin was within plus or 

minus 2 percent.

When we further analyzed the responses to the statement on poor 

performance, employee responses differed in agreement based on the 

respondent’s supervisory level.22 On average, an estimated 25 percent of 

surveyed employees who identified themselves as nonsupervisors and 

team leaders agreed with this statement from 2010 through 2017, 

 22FEVS survey statement 86 asks respondents what is their supervisory status. We 

further analyzed the results of the 15 selected FEVS statements by the supervisory status 

demographic. 
Page 14 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

compared with an estimated average of 54 percent of surveyed 

employees who identified themselves as managers (see figure 5).

Figure 5: Estimated Employee Responses on Statement on Poor Performers by 

Supervisory Status Government-wide, 2010 to 2017

Note: The number of respondents varied by year, ranging from a low of 227,320 in 2010 to a high of 

617,439 in 2012. The margin of error for all estimates was within plus or minus 1 percent, except for 

2010, when the margin was within plus or minus 2 percent and for the response from senior leaders, 

where the margin was within plus or minus 3 percent.

a

Nonsupervisor means anyone who does not have supervisory responsibilities.

b

Team leader means someone who provides employees with day-to-day-guidance, but does not have 

supervisory responsibilities or conduct performance appraisals.

c

Supervisor means first-line supervisors typically responsible for employees’ performance appraisals 

but who do not supervise other supervisors.

d

Manager means those in management positions who typically supervise one or more supervisors.

e

Senior leader means the political or career agency or department head or a member of the 

immediate leadership team responsible for directing the policies and priorities of the department or 

agency. The individual is typically a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES) or equivalent. 

Prior to 2014, this category was called Executive and was defined as a member of the SES or 

equivalent. Career SES members are individuals with civil service status (permanent) who are 

appointed competitively to SES positions and serve in positions below the top political appointees in 

the executive branch of government.
Page 15 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

According to OPM guidance, the capacity to perform means having the 

competencies, the resources, and the opportunities available to complete 

the job.23 We have previously reported that the essential aim of training 

and development programs is to assist an agency in achieving its mission 

and goals by improving individual and, ultimately, organizational 

performance.24 In addition, constrained budgets and the need to address 

gaps in critical federal skills and competencies make it essential that 

agencies identify the appropriate level of investment and establish 

priorities for employee training and development. This allows the most 

important training needs to be addressed first.25 However, fewer surveyed 

employees agreed with the statement, “My training needs are assessed,” 

than with the other statements in this phase (see figure 6).

 23Office of Personnel Management, A Handbook for Measuring Employee Performance, 

(September 2011), page 6. 

24GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development 

Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004). 

25GAO, Federal Training Investments: Office of Personnel Management and Agencies 

Can Do More to Ensure Cost-Effective Decisions, GAO-12-878 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept.17, 2012). 

Phase 3: Developing the 

Capacity to Perform
Page 16 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Figure 6: Estimated Employee Responses on Statements Related to Developing the 

Capacity to Perform Phase Government-wide, 2010 to 2017

Note: We calculated the average percent of employees who agreed or strongly agreed with the three 

statements comprising the phase for those who answered all three statements to identify these trend 

lines. The number of respondents varied by year and statement, ranging from a low of 241,527 for 

statement 43 in 2010 to a high of 669,834 for statement 1 in 2012. The margin of error for all 

estimates was within plus or minus 1 percent, except for 2010, when the margin was within plus or 

minus 2 percent.

Supervisors should establish performance standards that clearly express 

what is expected of the employee. An average estimated 82 percent of 

surveyed employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I am 

held accountable for achieving results,” from 2010 to 2017 (see figure 7). 

Overall, this statement had the second highest level of agreement of the 

15 statements selected for our review. According to OPM’s website for 

performance management, while accountability means being held 

answerable for accomplishing a goal or assignment, the guidance 

cautions against using accountability only for punishing employees as 

Phase 4: Rating 

Periodically to Summarize 

Performance
Page 17 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

fear and anxiety may permeate the work environment.26 This may prevent 

employees from trying new methods or proposing new ideas for fear of 

failure. According to OPM’s website for performance management, if 

approached correctly, accountability can produce positive, valuable 

results.

Figure 7: Estimated Employee Responses on Statements Related to Rating 

Periodically to Summarize Performance Phase Government-wide, 2010 to 2017

Note: We calculated the average percent of employees who agreed or strongly agreed with the three 

statements comprising the phase for those who answered all three statements to identify these trend 

lines. The number of respondents varied by year and statement, ranging from a low of 243,652 for 

statement 19 in 2010 to a high of 664,618 for statement 16 in 2012. The margin of error for all 

estimates was within plus or minus 1 percent, except for 2010, when the margin was within plus or 

minus 2 percent.

 26See https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/performance-management/referencematerials/more-topics/accountability-can-have-positive-results/. Accessed on August 14, 

2018.
Page 18 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

According to OPM guidance, rewards are used often and well in an 

effective organization.27 We have previously reported that high-performing 

organizations seek to create effective incentive and reward systems that 

clearly link employee knowledge, skills, and contributions to 

organizational results.28 Rewarding means recognizing employees, 

individually and as members of groups, for their performance and 

acknowledging their contributions to the agency’s mission. According to 

OPM’s website for performance management, the types of awards 

include: cash; honorary recognition; informal recognition; or time off 

without charge to leave or loss of pay.29

From 2010 to 2017, an estimated 39 percent of surveyed employees 

consistently agreed when asked statements related to how their agency 

rewards performance (see figure 8). Of the five phases of performance 

management, the statements related to this phase consistently had the 

least positive agreement of surveyed employees.

 27Office of Personnel Management, A Handbook for Measuring Employee Performance, 

Ch. 1, at 6 (September 2011). 

28GAO-03-488.

29See https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/performance-management/performancemanagement-cycle/rewarding/supervisors-quick-review-of-awards/. Accessed on August 

14, 2018.

Phase 5: Rewarding Good 

Performance
Page 19 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Figure 8: Estimated Employee Responses on Statements Related to Rewarding 

Performance Phase Government-wide, 2010 to 2017

Note: We calculated the average percent of employees who agreed or strongly agreed with the three 

statements comprising the phase for those who answered all three statements to identify these trend 

lines. The number of respondents varied by year and statement, ranging from a low of 233,131 for 

statement 22 in 2010 to a high of 642,628 for statement 31 in 2012. The margin of error for all 

estimates was within plus or minus 1 percent, except for 2010, when the margin was within plus or 

minus 2 percent.

We have previously reported that effective performance management 

requires the organization’s leadership to make meaningful distinctions 

between acceptable and outstanding performance of individuals.30

Approximately one-third of surveyed employees agreed or strongly 

agreed with the statement, “In my work unit, differences in performance 

are recognized in a meaningful way.” Meaningful distinctions in 

performance ratings are the starting point for candid and constructive 

conversations between supervisors and staff. These distinctions also add 

 30GAO-03-488.
Page 20 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

transparency to the ratings and rewards process. In addition, such 

distinctions help employees better understand their relative contributions 

to organizational success, areas where they are doing well, and areas 

where improvements are needed.31

We also found that, across our selected statements, many of the largest 

gaps between supervisors and other employees were related to 

rewarding performance. Specifically, the responses to the statement, 

“Promotions in my work unit are based on merit,” varied the most based 

upon the supervisory status of the employee (see figure 9). Senior 

leaders agreed or strongly agreed with this statement at an average 

estimated 40 percentage points more than employees in a 

nonsupervisory role. We have previously reported that agencies must 

design and administer merit promotion programs to ensure a systematic 

means of selection for promotion based on merit.32 We have also 

previously reported that perceptions of favoritism, particularly when 

combined with unclear guidance, a lack of transparency, and limited 

feedback, negatively impact employee morale.33

 31GAO, Federal Workforce: Distribution of Performance Ratings Across the Federal 

Government, 2013, GAO-16-520R (Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2016).

32GAO, U.S. Marshals Service: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of Merit 

Promotion Process and Address Employee Perceptions of Favoritism, GAO-18-8 

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 17, 2017).

33GAO-18-8.

Employees in Supervisory 

Roles Responded More 

Positively to Statements 

Related to Rewarding 

Performance than Other 

Employees
Page 21 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Figure 9: Estimated Employee Responses on Statement about Promotions Based 

on Merit by Supervisory Status Government-wide, 2010 to 2017

Note: The number of respondents varied by year, ranging from a low of 233,131 in 2010 to a high of 

629,808 in 2012. The margin of error for all estimates was within plus or minus 1 percent, except for 

2010 and 2011, when the margin was within plus or minus 2 percent and for the response from senior 

leaders, where the margin was within plus or minus 3 percent.

a

Nonsupervisor means anyone who does not have supervisory responsibilities.

b

Team leader means someone who provides employees with day-to-day-guidance, but does not have 

supervisory responsibilities or conduct performance appraisals.

c

Supervisor means first-line supervisors typically responsible for employees’ performance appraisals 

but who do not supervise other supervisors.

d

Manager means those in management positions who typically supervise one or more supervisors.

e

Senior leader means the political or career agency or department head or a member of the 

immediate leadership team responsible for directing the policies and priorities of the department or 

agency. The individual is typically a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES) or equivalent. 

Prior to 2014, this category was called Executive and was defined as a member of the SES or 

equivalent. Career SES members are individuals with civil service status (permanent) who are 

appointed competitively to SES positions and serve in positions below the top political appointees in 

the executive branch of government.
Page 22 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Senior leaders and managers agreed or strongly agreed with the 

statement, “In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in 

a meaningful way,” more frequently than surveyed employees who 

identified themselves as nonsupervisors (see figure 10). Those who 

identified themselves as team leaders and nonsupervisors agreed with 

the statement less frequently than all of the other categories of 

supervisory status. For example, in 2017, an estimated 69 percent of 

senior leaders agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, compared to 

an estimated 48 percent of supervisors and an estimated 33 percent of 

nonsupervisors and team leaders.

Figure 10: Estimated Employee Responses on Statement on Meaningful 

Recognition of Differences in Performance by Supervisory Status Governmentwide, 2010 to 2017

Note: The number of respondents varied by year, ranging from a low of 234,404 in 2010 to a high of 

636,554 in 2012. The margin of error for all estimates was within plus or minus 1 percent, except for 

2010, when the margin was within plus or minus 2 percent and for the response from senior leaders, 

where the margin was within plus or minus 4 percent.

a

Nonsupervisor means anyone who does not have supervisory responsibilities.
Page 23 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

b

Team leader means someone who provides employees with day-to-day-guidance, but does not have 

supervisory responsibilities or conduct performance appraisals.

c

Supervisor means first-line supervisors typically responsible for employees’ performance appraisals 

but who do not supervise other supervisors.

d

Manager means those in management positions who typically supervise one or more supervisors.

e

Senior leader means the political or career agency or department head or a member of the 

immediate leadership team responsible for directing the policies and priorities of the department or 

agency. The individual is typically a member of the SES or equivalent. Prior to 2014, this category 

was called Executive and was defined as a member of the SES or equivalent. Career SES members 

are individuals with civil service status (permanent) who are appointed competitively to SES positions 

and serve in positions below the top political appointees in the executive branch of government.

Finally, senior leaders and managers agreed or strongly agreed with the 

statement, “Employees are recognized for providing high quality products 

and services,” more frequently than nonsupervisors (see figure 11).

Figure 11: Estimated Employee Responses on Statement on Employee Recognition 

by Supervisory Status Government-wide, 2010 to 2017

Note: The number of respondents varied by year, ranging from a low of 239,398 in 2010 to a high of 

642,628 in 2012. The margin of error for all estimates was within plus or minus 1 percent, except for 
Page 24 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

2010, when the margin was within plus or minus 2 percent and for the response from senior leaders, 

where the margin was within plus or minus 3 percent.

a

Nonsupervisor means anyone who does not have supervisory responsibilities.

b

Team leader means someone who provides employees with day-to-day-guidance, but does not have 

supervisory responsibilities or conduct performance appraisals.

c

Supervisor means first-line supervisors typically responsible for employees’ performance appraisals 

but who do not supervise other supervisors.

d

Manager means those in management positions who typically supervise one or more supervisors.

e

Senior leader means the political or career agency or department head or a member of the 

immediate leadership team responsible for directing the policies and priorities of the department or 

agency. The individual is typically a member of the SES or equivalent. Prior to 2014, this category 

was called Executive and was defined as a member of the SES or equivalent. Career SES members 

are individuals with civil service status (permanent) who are appointed competitively to SES positions 

and serve in positions below the top political appointees in the executive branch of government.

An effective performance management system can be a strategic tool to 

improve employee engagement and achieve an agency’s desired results. 

We found that selected agencies demonstrated some similar practices. 

This may have been a contributing factor in having relatively high scores 

on FEVS performance management related statements.34 Specifically, 

employees at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 

(OCC) consistently agreed or strongly agreed to selected FEVS 

statements related to the five phases of OPM’s performance 

management cycle. While these agencies developed different 

performance management systems to reflect their specific structures and 

priorities, we found a number of practices common to all four agencies 

that are intended to help reinforce effective employee performance 

management and improve agency performance (see figure 12). All four 

agencies agreed that these practices helped contribute to their 

employees’ responses to the selected FEVS statements and improved 

performance management.

 34We reviewed 2017 FEVS data, when available, and the results for the four selected 

agencies—BLS, CDC, DEA, and OCC—remained high and generally similar for the 

selected FEVS statements. 

Selected Agencies 

Implement Some 

Similar Practices That 

May Help Improve 

Employee 

Performance 

Management
Page 25 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Figure 12: Similar Practices Demonstrated at Four Selected Agencies That May 

Help Improve Performance Management Systems

We have previously reported that organizations with more constructive 

cultures generally perform better and are more effective.35 Within 

constructive cultures, employees exhibit a stronger commitment to 

mission focus, accountability, coordination, and adaptability.36 According 

to OPM FEVS guidance, climate assessments like FEVS are, 

consequently, important to organizational improvement largely because of 

the key role culture plays in directing organizational performance. Each of 

the agencies in our review cited a strong organizational culture that was 

based on and tied to their agency’s mission. Table 2 highlights examples 

from CDC and DEA.

 35GAO, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Additional Actions Needed to Support a 

Fair and Inclusive Workplace, GAO-16-62 (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2016). 

Organizational culture is defined as the underlying assumptions, beliefs, values, attitudes, 

and expectations shared by an organization’s members that affect their behavior and the 

behavior of the organization as a whole.

36GAO, Securities and Exchange Commission: Improving Personnel Management Is 

Critical for Agency’s Effectiveness, GAO-13-621 (Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2013). In that 

report, we stated that in organizations with a more constructive culture, employees exhibit 

a stronger commitment to (1) mission focus (pursuing goals that define the best course of 

action for an organization); (2) accountability (empowering employees and holding them 

responsible for their decisions and actions); (3) coordination (involving other employees in 

decisions affecting them, resolving differences collaboratively, and cooperating across 

organizational lines); and (4) adaptability (accepting new approaches and responding 

positively to demands and opportunities posed from within and outside of the 

organization). 

Strong Organizational 

Culture and Dedication to 

Agency Mission
Page 26 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Table 2: Selected Agencies’ Mission Statements May Help Define an Employees’ Purpose and Role within the Organization 

Selected Agency Mission Examples of Reinforcing Mission 

CDC CDC conducts critical science 

and provides health 

information that protects our 

nation against expensive and 

dangerous health threats, and 

responds when these arise. 

According to CDC officials, the agency promotes a culture of learning and 

improvement. For instance, it embeds a program evaluation component in one 

of its funding programs to achieve continuous program improvement. The 

program’s staff monitor implementation and provide feedback to recipients as 

standard practice, but the agency also recognizes staff have an important role 

in monitoring how their organizational units are performing, and 

recommending changes to leadership that will lead to improvement. At the 

agency level, CDC routinely brings leadership together for data-driven reviews 

to understand the drivers of program performance and collaboratively 

strategize solutions to performance challenges.

DEA DEA is responsible for 

enforcing the controlled 

substances laws and 

regulations of the United 

States. 

DEA officials stated that the agency’s unique mission not only attracts 

individuals to the agency, but also contributes to low levels of attrition. 

However, officials stated that due to the nature of the agency’s work, DEA 

personnel (in particular agents) are at greater risk to become victims of 

traumatic incidents. Such incidents not only have the potential to be 

emotionally painful, but can adversely impact employee safety, productivity 

and readiness. As a result, the agency tries to keep employees engaged 

across the life cycles of their respective careers. For example, DEA has an 

active Employee Assistance Program which provides free counseling services 

for all employees, including a “signature” Trauma Team. 

Source: Information from CDC and DEA. I GAO-19-35

Each of the four selected agencies in our review demonstrated a focus on 

analyzing FEVS data to identify areas of improvement and create action 

plans around the analysis. According to OPM guidance on FEVS, the 

results from the survey can be used by agency leaders to assist in 

identifying areas in need of improvement as well as highlight important 

agency successes. FEVS findings allow agencies to assess trends by 

comparing earlier results with the 2017 results to (1) compare agency 

results with the government-wide results, (2) identify current strengths 

and challenges, and (3) focus on short- and long-term action targets that 

will help agencies reach their strategic human resource management 

goals. The recommended approach to assessing and driving change in 

agencies utilizes FEVS results in conjunction with other resources, such 

as results from other internal surveys, administrative data, focus groups, 

exit interviews, and so on.37 We have previously reported that for 

agencies to attain the ultimate goal of improving organizational 

performance, they must take a holistic approach—analyzing data, 

 37OPM, 2017 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey: Empowering Employees. Inspiring 

Change. Government Management Report (Washington, D.C.: 2017). 

Data Driven Using FEVS 

and Other Survey Data
Page 27 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

developing and implementing strategies to improve engagement, and 

linking their efforts to improved performance.38

We have also previously reported that OPM stated that agencies are 

increasingly using FEVS as a management tool to help them understand 

issues at all levels of an organization, and to take specific action to 

improve employee engagement and performance. Further, OPM officials 

noted that if agencies, managers, and supervisors know that their 

employees will have the opportunity to provide feedback each year, they 

are more likely to take responsibility for influencing positive change.39 We 

found that all four of the selected agencies were building a culture of 

analyzing their FEVS results to identify areas of improvement, and 

develop action plans to achieve results, including improving performance 

management (see table 3).40

 38GAO, Federal Workforce: Additional Analysis and Sharing of Promising Practices Could 

Improve Employee Engagement and Performance, GAO-15-585 (Washington, D.C.: July 

14, 2015).

39GAO-15-585.

40FEVS calculates the response rate by the number of eligible employees returning 

completed surveys divided by the number of eligible employees.
Page 28 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Table 3: Selected Agencies Analyzed FEVS Results and Developed Action Plans 

Agency Description of FEVS Analysis and Action Plans

BLS • Using its FEVS results from fiscal years 2016 and 2017, BLS developed agency-wide action plans that 

were shared with all employees.

• In addition, each of the nine Associate Commissioners was encouraged to analyze results for their 

organizations, and to develop an office-specific action plan to address areas in which employee responses 

indicated a need to improve. For instance, two of the focus areas targeted for improvement were employee 

recognition and training, which were documented in the fiscal year 2016 and 2017 action plans.

CDC • Each CDC center, institute, and office has a FEVS coordinator who analyzes and interprets FEVS data.

• According to CDC officials, FEVS action plans are developed by and tailored to the needs of each center, 

institute, and office. The results are presented to CDC’s senior leadership who commit to improving FEVS 

scores. For example, CDC’s Human Resources Office developed 2017 FEVS Action Plans (based on the 

2016 results) at the office and activity level. As a result, CDC launched improvement initiatives to address 

engagement, communication, recognition, and diversity targeted to improve employee engagement and 

overall organizational performance.

• According to CDC officials, going forward, the agency will continue to use FEVS results to build upon 

strategic human capital planning efforts, and design action plans to drive higher employee engagement, 

satisfaction, and organizational performance.

DEA • DEA delved further into the areas where the agency’s FEVS results were not as high in comparison to other 

agencies, for example in the area of work-life.

• DEA officials stated that the agency is committed to offering flexible work/life options to employees that, 

consistent with mission requirements, will better enable them to balance the demands of their work and 

personal lives.

• As a result, DEA’s plans include expanding its work-life program flexibilities for all employees contingent on 

the job requirements, such as major investments in technology that support a secure and adaptable 

workforce, and compressed work schedules, part-time schedules, and job sharing.

OCC • As of 2017, each of the nine lines of business within OCC has conducted its own analysis of FEVS data,

and communicated the results to its employees.

• In addition, OCC has an internal organizational development team that: manages the overall strategy for 

FEVS administration; provides resources, guidance and consulting to the lines of business to interpret 

FEVS data; identifies areas that need improvement; provides coaching to managers; and helps facilitate 

discussion.

• Further, FEVS results were used to help build a case for the agency to redesign its performance 

management system (currently in the development process), and also helped target specific questions to 

track any improvements. 

Source: GAO analysis of selected agencies’ information. I GAO-19-35

In addition, three of the four selected agencies also used other practices. 

These practices include using other available survey results to 

corroborate identified action plans and identify additional areas needing 

support to create a more complete picture of the employee perspective. 

We have previously reported that an agency’s FEVS scores should be 

used as one of several data sources as leaders attempt to develop a 

comprehensive picture of engagement within an organization, and better 
Page 29 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

target their engagement efforts, particularly in times of limited 

resources.

41 The key is identifying what practices to implement and how 

to implement them. This can and should come from multiple sources. 

Three of four of the case study agencies—BLS, CDC, and DEA—use 

supplemental survey data to help focus agency efforts to improve

performance management. For example, DEA developed its own internal 

survey—Leadership Engagement Survey—in 2016 because it identified 

leadership as a key driver for organizational climate and employee 

engagement. According to agency officials, there was a strong internal 

push to use the survey results to identify areas of improvement. The 

fourth agency, OCC, had administered a separate internal engagement 

survey from 2013 to 2016. According to agency officials, however, they 

discontinued this effort to focus exclusively on FEVS as the primary 

survey data source, and to reduce the redundancy of two surveys.

However, OCC emphasized the need to consider FEVS data as only one 

source of data, at a point in time, and to use a diversity of other data 

(quantitative and qualitative) to inform the survey results.

As we have previously reported, agencies invest significant time and 

resources in recruiting potential employees, training them, and providing 

them with institutional knowledge that may not be easily or cost-effectively 

replaceable. Therefore, effective performance management–which 

consists of activities such as expectation-setting, coaching, and 

feedback—can help sustain and improve employee performance 

management. We have also reported that good supervisors are key to the 

success of any performance management system. Supervisors provide 

the day-to-day performance management activities that can help sustain 

and improve the performance of more talented staff, and can help 

marginal performers to become better.42 However, agencies may not be 

providing supervisors with the appropriate training that prepares them for 

success, such as having difficult performance management 

conversations. Moreover, we have previously reported that missioncritical skills gaps across the federal government pose a high risk 

because they impede the government from cost effectively serving the 

public and achieving results.43 Strategies to address these gaps include 

 41GAO-15-585.

42See, for example, GAO-15-191.

43GAO, Federal Workforce: OPM and Agencies Need to Strengthen Efforts to Identify and 

Close Mission-Critical Skills Gaps, GAO-15-223 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2015). 

Focus on Training
Page 30 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

training and development activities focused on improving employees’ 

skills needed for mission success.44

All four selected agencies had taken steps in identifying appropriate 

training for not only supervisors, but also all employees. For example, 

BLS conducted a general training needs assessment (TNA) for all 

employees in 2016. The officials stated that the purpose of the TNA was 

to give employees an avenue to express their interests in various kinds of 

training. Employee responses were used to inform elements of the BLS 

training plan for fiscal year 2017. As a result of the TNA, BLS is 

conducting a training evaluation of its vendor-provided writing courses. 

During this evaluation, BLS hopes to determine if the techniques and 

material taught in these courses have actually resulted in expected 

improvements in the writing of those employees who have taken the 

course as observed by their supervisors and managers. TNA results 

showed that managers also expressed a strong interest in additional 

training on employee leave, labor relations, and employee relations. BLS 

officials stated that courses on these topics were provided as part of the 

agency’s fiscal year 2017 training plan.

As another example, CDC recently developed two onboarding checklists 

for new executives in 2017 for training purposes. The intent was to 

provide a comprehensive, consistent onboarding experience so that new 

executives are more engaged and knowledgeable. In addition, within the 

last year, the agency developed a mentoring circle for new supervisors 

that meets monthly. The purpose of the circle is to provide new 

supervisors with insider help from their peers, such as how to handle 

difficult situations. Supervisors are also provided assistance through the 

agency’s performance management appraisal working group. This group 

meets quarterly to discuss how to better assist supervisors and 

employees with performance management related questions.

 44Training refers to in-person, virtual instructor-led, self-paced virtual courses, and a 

combination of virtual instructor-led and self-paced courses. 
Page 31 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

We have previously reported that successful organizations empower and 

involve their employees to gain insights about operations from a frontline 

perspective, increase their understanding and acceptance of 

organizational goals and objectives, and improve motivation and 

morale.45 We have also previously reported that what matters most in 

improving engagement levels is valuing employees—that is, an authentic 

focus on their performance, career development, and inclusion and 

involvement in decisions affecting their work.46

Each of the selected agencies in our review stated that they had made 

efforts over the last few years to improve internal communication between 

management and employees, as well as increase the transparency of 

actions taken and decisions made by management. For instance, BLS 

hosts quarterly breakfast sessions with the BLS Commissioner in which 

employees have access to agency leadership where they can offer 

suggestions or feedback. BLS also provides agency information through 

its intranet website, which is updated almost daily. Examples include 

features such as the BLS Daily Report, What’s Up at BLS, and BLS 

tweets. Specifically, the What’s Up at BLS feature of the BLS intranet is 

an internal communications hub that includes four sections, including 

“Employee and Team Spotlight”—highlighting the work of employees and 

teams across the agency—and “Changing Lanes,” which features stories 

about employees who decided to switch their career paths by changing 

occupations or programs within BLS.

According to OCC officials, the agency has increased the frequency of 

agency-wide communications and those from middle management that 

cascade priorities, decisions, and organizational changes to employees. 

OCC has also executed enterprise change management to manage the 

people side of change, including building awareness, knowledge, and 

ability through stakeholder analysis and communications planning. It also 

maintains an engagement portal for teams to document action plans 

related to employee engagement—of which there are more than 200 

action items related to improved communications using a top-down and 

two-way approach.

 45GAO, Department Of Homeland Security: Taking Further Action to Better Determine 

Causes of Morale Problems Would Assist in Targeting Action Plans, GAO-12-940 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2012).

46GAO-15-585.

Improved Internal 

Communication from 

Agency Management
Page 32 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

As the government’s chief human resources agency and personnel policy 

leader, OPM’s role in the federal government is to, among other things, 

design and promulgate regulations, policy, and guidance covering all 

aspects of the employee life cycle from hire to retire, including 

performance management. OPM provides such performance 

management guidance and resources to agencies on its website, as 

shown in figure 13, as well as in a new Performance Management Portal 

(portal) accessible through the Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) MAX Information System (MAX).47

Examples of guidance and resources include information for the five 

phases of the performance management cycle, descriptions on the how 

to write performance standards, critical components of effective and 

timely feedback, answers to performance management frequently asked 

questions, and a list of the various award programs open to employees 

from all federal agencies. In addition, the Chief Human Capital Officers 

 47OMB uses the MAX Information System to collect, validate, analyze, model, collaborate 

with agencies on, and publish information relating to its government-wide management 

and budgeting activities. Additional examples of performance management resources that 

OPM provides include: (1) performance management facilitated forums held semiannually to provide agencies with updated information, guidance, training, and support to 

design, implement, and apply non-SES performance appraisal systems and programs; 

and (2) performance and employee accountability workshop for agencies to collaborate 

with their peers and speak to policy experts as they developed their agency reform plans 

to maximize employee performance. OPM also hosts the UnlockTalent Connect 

Community of Practice, which is designed to serve as an online platform for federal 

agencies to share promising practices to help create an engaged federal workforce. 

UnlockTalent is divided into six sections—engagement, talent management, performance 

culture, strategic planning and alignment, evaluation, and tools.

OPM Provides 

Performance 

Management 

Resources to 

Agencies, but Some 

Information is Not 

Easily Accessible or 

Routinely Shared

OPM Provides 

Performance Management 

Resources for Agencies 

on Its Website but Some 

Information is Not Easily 

Accessible or Regularly 

Updated
Page 33 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

(CHCO) Council’s website includes information provided by OPM on 

performance management as well as various OPM memorandums to 

CHCOs, human resource directors, and agency leaders.48

 48The council supports OPM in the strategic management of human capital at federal 

agencies, and provides a forum for senior management officials to exchange human 

resources best practices. The council includes 25 members drawn from the 15 executive 

departments and eight additional agencies designated by OPM’s director. The CHCO 

Council is chaired by the Director of OPM, and serves to coordinate and collaborate on 

the development and implementation of federal human capital policies.
Page 34 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Figure 13: OPM’s Website Includes Links to Performance Management Guidance and Resources

According to OPM officials, information on the performance management 

website is reserved for policy guidance based on current and applicable 

law and regulation. As such, only minor updates have been made to the 

website because the law and regulatory requirements for performance 

management have not recently changed. However, there is no date 

included on the website that indicates when it was last updated. OPM 
Page 35 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

officials stated that the last update made to the website was in June 2016 

when an external entity requested that a public service award be added to 

OPM’s awards list page.

However, OPM has issued training, guidance, and other performance 

management related resources since the last website update in June 

2016. Specifically, we examined more than 100 performance 

management related online links on both OPM’s and the CHCO Council’s 

websites, and found that in some instances, the CHCO Council’s website 

included more up-to-date information issued by OPM that was not found 

on OPM’s performance management website. Some examples include:

• The release of OPM’s web-based training course, “Basic Employee 

Relations: Your Accountability as a Supervisor or Manager,” dated 

October 12, 2016;

• Management Tools for Maximizing Employee Performance, dated 

January 11, 2017;

• Performance Management Guidance and Successful Practices in 

Support of Agency Plans for Maximizing Employee Performance, 

dated July 17, 2017;

• The release of OPM’s web-based training course, “Performance 

Management Plus—Engaging for Success,” dated October 6, 2017;

• Federal Supervisory Training Program Survey Results, dated May 21, 

2018; and

• Guidance for Implementation of Executive Order 13839 - Promoting 

Accountability and Streamlining Removal Procedures Consistent with 

Merit System Principles, dated July 5, 2018.49

According to OPM officials, the agency does not coordinate with the 

CHCO Council on its website postings. However, OPM officials stated 

that performance management guidance approved by OPM is provided to 

the CHCO Council. We did not find any reference to the CHCO Council’s 

website using OPM’s internal search engine with the term “performance 

management” (see figure 14). As a result, agency officials and federal 

employees who are looking for comprehensive information on 

 49While the web-based training course on basic employee relations and federal 

supervisory training program survey results could be found on OPM’s wiki page for 

supervisory leadership development, they could not be located on OPM’s website for 

performance management. 
Page 36 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

performance management using OPM’s website may be unable to easily 

find or access related performance management guidance or resources.
Page 37 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Figure 14: CHCO Council Website Not Referenced on OPM’s Main Website Using the Term “Performance Management” 
Page 38 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

A 2016 Office of Management and Budget memorandum on federal 

agency public websites and digital services states that federal agency 

public websites and digital services are the primary means by which the 

public receives information from and interacts with the federal 

government, provides government information or services to a specific 

user group across a variety of delivery platform and devices, and 

supports the proper performance of an agency function.50 The 

memorandum states that, “Federal websites and digital services should 

provide quality information that is readily accessible to all.” In addition, 

federal internal control standards state that management should use 

quality information to achieve the entity’s objective. Quality information 

should be appropriate, current, complete, accurate, accessible, and 

timely.51 However, OPM does not have a process for regularly updating 

its performance management website with new guidance and resources 

to ensure that the information is readily available. Agency employees, 

such as human capital specialists, who visit OPM’s performance 

management website may be unable to find or access the most recent 

guidance and training available.

In addition to its website, OPM officials stated that the agency recently 

launched the Performance Management Portal (portal) in September 

2017 on OMB MAX to communicate with agencies and provide 

information and resources related to non-SES performance management, 

as highlighted earlier. OPM officials said that the portal will be updated 

with information regarding announcements or updated guidance as 

needed, or when it is released and becomes available.

Although not as comprehensive as the information included on OPM’s 

performance management website, the portal included slides from OPM’s 

semiannual facilitated performance management forums and updated 

information on awards guidance for non-SES employees for fiscal year 

2017—neither of which were on OPM’s website. As the government’s 

chief human resources agency, agencies may see OPM as their primary 

source of performance management guidance. By establishing a process 

to ensure that information on the performance management website is 

 50Office of Management and Budget, Policies for Federal Agency Public Websites and 

Digital Services, Memorandum M-17-06 (Nov. 8, 2016). For purposes of this report, the 

public also includes federal agency employees, such as human capital specialists, who 

use federal websites to gather information for their agencies’ human capital activities, 

including performance management. 

51GAO-14-704G. 
Page 39 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

regularly updated to include the most recent guidance, agencies would 

have access to the most current information.

OPM provides opportunities for agencies to share promising practices. 

For example, OPM has several efforts in place that allow agencies to 

share promising information with each other such as at its semiannual 

Performance Management Forums (forums), annual Performance 

Management Steering Committee meetings, and through the previously 

mentioned portal.52 According to OPM, the forums provide agencies with 

updated information, guidance, and support to encourage performance 

excellence amongst employees. 

In 2017, OPM began holding annual steering committee meetings which 

allow interagency representatives to discuss the needs of the federal 

performance management community, to identify and/or request potential 

content for future forums, and to share promising practices and lessons 

learned regarding performance management, according to OPM officials. 

However, there is no formal process in place or mechanism for agencies 

to routinely and independently share their own experiences and lessons 

learned in implementing performance management efforts. For instance, 

the portal does not currently allow for agencies to post and share their 

own promising practices with each other in a centralized location. Instead, 

agencies must rely on OPM to post such information on the portal. OPM 

officials stated that, although permission to view the portal is granted to all 

users in the executive branch with a MAX account, OPM is the only 

agency that has permission to make edits to the portal. OPM officials said 

they are exploring options to allow for an interactive experience with other 

agencies. Federal internal control standards state that management 

should externally communicate the necessary quality information to 

achieve the entity’s objective.53 Additionally, our prior work on 

collaboration practices has shown that agencies can enhance and sustain 

collaborative efforts, and identify and address needs by leveraging 

resources, such as through sharing information.54 Establishing a 

 52OPM officials provided additional avenues for sharing performance management 

information related to the SES including quarterly executive resource forums and annual 

SES workshops. 

53GAO-14-704G. 

54GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15, (Washington D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

OPM Could Better Lead 

Efforts to Identify and 

Share Emerging 

Performance Management 

Research and Innovation
Page 40 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

mechanism to allow agencies to routinely share promising practices and 

lessons learned from their experiences could assist agencies that are 

undertaking or considering similar efforts and help inform agencies’ 

decision-making related to performance management.

In addition to driving modernization, OPM identified innovation as one of 

its five values in its most recent strategic plan for fiscal years 2018 

through 2022.55 Specifically, OPM stated that the agency “constantly 

seeks new ways to accomplish its work and generate extraordinary 

results. OPM is dedicated to delivering creative and forward-looking 

solutions and advancing the modernization of human resources 

management.” OPM officials stated that innovation was included as one 

of OPM’s values because the agency seeks to embrace forward-leaning 

policies and practices within all aspects of human capital management.

While OPM officials told us that they maintain a constant scan of the 

environment to identify and follow promising practices—which could 

include innovative concepts—in the private sector and other sources to 

include performance management and performance management 

systems, they did not specifically identify which promising practices they 

incorporated into guidance or training. In addition, when we asked OPM 

to identify innovative performance management practices based on its 

own research, officials provided us with articles from leading experts that 

focused on eliminating performance ratings, using a growth mindset 

concept, and the SCARF model—status, certainty, autonomy, 

relatedness, and fairness—for collaborating with and influencing others.56

They also provided references and their notes on new performance 

management system programs at three corporations. OPM officials said 

they have not placed these articles, references, or notes on their 

 55OPM Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2018-2022. The other four values are integrity, 

excellence, service, and leadership. In addition, OPM officials stated that innovation is 

linked to strategic goal 3.1 on strengthening coordination of policy, service delivery, and 

oversight resulting in agencies’ achievement of human capital objectives. 

56The concept of growth mindset focuses on the idea that people can grow at every level. 

For instance, setting goals that are growth-mindset driven from stating “I will show 

everyone I am the best at customer service” to “I will study the art and thus gain mastery 

with serving customers.” The SCARF model involves five domains of human social 

experience: status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness. Understanding these 

drivers can help individuals and organizations to function more effectively, reducing 

conflicts that occur so easily amongst people, and increasing the amount of time people 

spend in the approach state, a concept synonymous with good performance. 
Page 41 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

performance management website or shared them with agencies, and 

have no plans to do so at this time.

Instead, OPM officials stated they were monitoring the progress of these 

new practices to assess if the methods were effective in maximizing 

employee and organizational outcomes, in addition to stimulating 

collaboration and innovation. However, OPM provided no criteria in use to 

determine when the results would be considered effective or when they 

could be shared with agencies. Without OPM sharing their research 

results, agencies may be unaware of current practices in the performance 

management field because they may not be conducting their own 

research. Including innovation as an agency value is not sufficient to 

change an organization’s culture for it to become innovative; it is 

necessary to also introduce, for example, a strategy to identify and 

address emerging research and promising practices in performance 

management. Such a strategic approach could include criteria that 

identify what research results to share with agencies, when to share 

them, and by which process (for example, by website). It would also 

enable OPM to increase transparency and consistency in identifying 

emerging innovations.

One of our case study agencies told us that in the absence of OPM 

providing research results, the agency used its own resources to research 

and identify leading practices in the private sector that could potentially 

apply to their own performance management system, such as focusing on 

ongoing performance conversations and recognition to increase 

engagement and performance, while reducing burdensome administrative 

requirements that do not add value. Officials at this agency stated that 

OPM’s guidance was not modernized to the extent that the human capital 

and performance management industry was changing. Without OPM 

taking the lead to share emerging and innovative research, agencies, and 

therefore their employees, may not benefit from the best information 

available.

Although OPM identified innovation as one of its five values, we were 

unable to find any recent information on innovation for performance 

management in the government on OPM’s website. Specifically, we used 

“innovation performance management” as a search term on the website 

and found the “Promoting Innovation in Government” web page, which 

included archived material and was no longer being updated (see figure 

15). As a result, agencies that use OPM’s website as a source of 

performance management guidance would be unable to find any current 

resources on performance management innovation. OPM officials 
Page 42 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

explained that older material is archived based on the current leadership’s 

vision. The officials also confirmed that OPM did not have other active 

websites that contained innovative performance management practices 

gathered from external sources, which could be shared with other federal 

agencies. Implementing a strategic approach to sharing innovation in 

performance management would then allow OPM to provide relevant and 

updated information that agencies could use to modernize their 

performance management systems.

Figure 15: OPM is No Longer Updating Their Web Page on “Promoting Innovation in Government”
Page 43 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Managing employee performance has been a long-standing governmentwide issue. As the current administration moves to reform the federal 

government to become leaner, accountable, and efficient, an effective 

performance management system is necessary to increase productivity, 

sustain transformation, and foster a culture of engagement that enables 

high performance. Federal agencies have a primary responsibility for 

managing their employees’ performance, but OPM maintains a key role in 

developing and overseeing human resources programs and policies that 

support the needs of federal agencies. As the government’s chief human 

resources agency and personnel policy leader, OPM is responsible for 

designing and promulgating regulations, policy, and guidance covering all 

aspects of the employee life cycle, including performance management. 

While OPM provides performance management resources on its website, 

some information is not regularly updated and can be challenging to find. 

Establishing a process to provide agencies with current, accurate, and 

easy access to guidance and resources would provide them with the most 

recent guidance and resources available.

To be at the forefront of innovation, OPM must consistently challenge 

traditional performance management practices, and identify opportunities 

to present and promote new and creative solutions to agencies. Although 

OPM has identified potential innovative and promising practices for 

performance management through its own research, OPM has not 

actively shared these practices with agencies. In addition, agencies do 

not have access to a common forum by which they could routinely and 

independently share their own promising practices and lessons learned to 

avoid common pitfalls. In times of limited resources, developing a 

strategic approach to identify and share emerging research and 

innovations in performance management would help agencies inform 

and, as needed, reform their performance management approaches. As a 

result, federal employees may have more opportunities to maximize their 

performance.

We are making the following three recommendations to OPM. 

Specifically:

1. The Director of OPM, in consultation with the CHCO Council, should 

establish and implement a process for regularly updating the 

performance management website to include all available guidance 

and resources, making this information easily accessible, and 

providing links to other related websites. (Recommendation 1)

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 44 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

2. The Director of OPM, in consultation with the CHCO Council, should 

develop and implement a mechanism for agencies to routinely and 

independently share promising practices and lessons learned, such 

as through allowing agencies to post such information on OPM’s 

Performance Management portal. (Recommendation 2)

3. The Director of OPM, in consultation with the CHCO Council, should 

develop a strategic approach for identifying and sharing emerging 

research and innovations in performance management. 

(Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of the Departments of

Health and Human Services (Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention), Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics), and Treasury (Office of 

the Comptroller of the Currency), the Acting Attorney General (Drug 

Enforcement Administration) and the Acting Director of OPM. In its written 

comments, reproduced in appendix II, OPM agreed with our findings and 

concurred with our recommendations. It added that it would establish and 

implement a process for regularly updating its performance management 

website, among other things. OPM and the Departments of Health and 

Human Services, Labor, and Treasury also provided technical comments 

that we incorporated, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretaries of the Departments of Health and Human 

Services, the Department of Labor, the Department of the Treasury, the 

Acting Attorney General, the Acting Director of OPM, and other interested 

parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 45 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Robert Goldenkoff

Director, Strategic Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

This report (1) describes federal employee perceptions of performance 

management as measured by the results of selected statements from the 

Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) annual survey of federal 

employees, the Federal Employment Viewpoint Survey (FEVS); (2) 

identifies practices that selected agencies use to develop and implement 

strategies to improve performance management; and (3) evaluates 

OPM’s guidance and resources to support agency efforts to improve 

performance management government-wide.

FEVS provides a snapshot of employees’ perceptions about how 

effectively agencies manage their workforce. Topic areas are employees’ 

(1) work experience, (2) work unit, (3) agency, (4) supervisor, (5) 

leadership, (6) satisfaction, (7) work-life, and (8) demographics. OPM has 

administered FEVS annually since 2010. From 2002 to 2010, OPM 

administered the survey biennially. FEVS includes a core set of 

statements. Agencies have the option of adding questions to the surveys 

sent to their employees. FEVS is based on a sample of full- and part-time, 

permanent, non-seasonal employees of departments and large, small, 

and independent agencies. According to OPM, the sample is designed to 

ensure representative survey results would be reported by agency, 

subagency, and senior leader status as well as for the overall federal 

workforce. Once the necessary sample size is determined for an agency, 

if more than 75 percent of the workforce would be sampled, OPM 

conducts a full census of all permanent, nonseasonal employees.

To describe government-wide trends in employee perceptions of 

performance management, we selected 15 FEVS statements that 

generally align with OPM’s five phases of performance management 

cycle: (1) planning and setting expectations; (2) continually monitoring 

performance; (3) developing the capacity to perform; (4) rating 

periodically to summarize performance; and (5) rewarding good 

performance (see table 4). We used indexes such as the Employee 

Engagement Index, the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability 

Framework Results-Oriented Performance Culture Index, and the Public 

Partnership for Public Service’s Best Places to Work categories to help 

guide our selection process of three FEVS statements per OPM 

performance management phase. We did not look at how surveyed 

employees responded to the statements when considering which ones to 

select. Upon selection of our statements, we consulted with our internal 

human capital (HC) experts as well as external HC experts at OPM and 

the Merit Systems Protection Board to determine the appropriateness of 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

our FEVS statement selection and categorization. They generally agreed 

that these statements aligned with the phases.1 However, FEVS was not 

designed to measure performance management and, although these 

statements all provide useful insights, they do not necessarily represent 

all key aspects of performance management.

Table 4: Selected FEVS Statements by OPM Performance Management Phase (Survey Statement Number in Parenthesis)

Phase 1—Planning 

Work And Setting 

Expectations

Phase 2—Continually 

Monitoring 

Performance

Phase 3—Developing the 

Capacity To Perform

Phase 4—Rating 

Periodically 

To Summarize 

Performance

Phase 5— Rewarding 

Good Performance

I have enough 

information to do my 

job well. (2)

My supervisor provides 

me with constructive 

suggestions to improve 

my job performance. 

(46)

I am given a real 

opportunity to improve my 

skills in my organization. 

(1)

My performance 

appraisal is a fair 

reflection of my 

performance. (15)

Promotions in my work 

unit are based on merit. 

(22)

I know what is 

expected of me on the 

job. (6)

In the last six months, 

my supervisor has 

talked with me about my 

performance. (50)

My training needs are 

assessed. (18)

I am held accountable 

for achieving results. 

(16)

In my work unit, 

differences in 

performance are 

recognized in a

meaningful way. (24)

I know how my work 

relates to the 

agency’s goals and 

priorities. (12)

In my work unit, steps 

are taken to deal with a 

poor performer who 

cannot or will not 

improve. (23)

My supervisor provides 

me with opportunities to 

demonstrate my 

leadership skills. (43)

In my most recent 

performance appraisal, 

I understood what I had 

to do to be rated at 

different performance 

levels (for example, 

Fully Successful, 

Outstanding). (19)

Employees are 

recognized for 

providing high quality 

products and services. 

(31)

Source: GAO analysis of OPM FEVS Statements. I GAO-19-35

 1

The Merit Systems Protection Board’s mission is to protect the merit system principles 

and promote an effective federal workforce free of prohibited personnel practices. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

In addition, we analyzed the 15 FEVS performance management-related 

questions by supervisory status for the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act 

(CFO Act) departments and agencies for the years 2010 through 2017.2

We conducted this analysis because our prior work had shown that 

supervisory status was the employee population variable that displayed 

the greatest degree of difference in responses between the categories of 

respondents in it.

3 For this report, we did not analyze the extent of 

differences in responses in the performance management questions by 

other employee population groups, such as age or gender, because that 

was outside the scope of our engagement. We examined the results for 

the 15 FEVS questions by supervisory groups, and report the 4 that had 

the greatest degree of differences by supervisory levels.4 All of these 4 

had differences of at least 28 percentage points between the most and 

least favorable categories of respondents while the remaining 11 had 

differences in the range of 2 to 25 percentage points between the views 

of senior leaders and nonsupervisory employees.

We calculated the average percent of employees who agreed or strongly 

agreed with the three statements comprising the phase for those who 

answered all three statements to identify trends. Survey respondents who 

did not answer one or more of the phase statements were not included. 

Because OPM followed a probability procedure based on random 

selections for most agencies, the FEVS sample is only one of a large 

number of samples that could have been drawn. Since each sample 

could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the 

precision of the FEVS statement estimates using the margin of error at 

 2

The CFO Act agencies are the executive branch agencies listed at 31 U.S.C. § 

901(b).The agencies covered by the CFO Act of 1990, as amended, are generally the 

largest federal agencies and accounted for an estimated 90 percent of career Senior 

Executive Service in fiscal year 2013. The 24 CFO Act agencies are the U.S. Departments 

of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, 

Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the U.S. Agency for 

International Development, Environmental Protection Agency, General Services 

Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science 

Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OPM, Small Business Administration, and 

Social Security Administration. The agencies covered by the CFO Act, as amended, are 

generally the largest federal agencies and account for more than 98 percent of the federal 

workforce.

3

GAO-15-585. 

4

Supervisory groups include nonsupervisor, team leader, supervisor, manager, and senior 

leader. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 49 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

the 95 percent level of confidence. This margin of error is the half-width of 

the 95 percent confidence interval for a FEVS estimate. A 95 percent 

confidence interval is the interval that would contain the actual population 

value for 95 percent of the samples that OPM could have been drawn.

To assess the reliability of the FEVS data, in addition to assessing the 

sampling error associated with the estimates we examined descriptive 

summary statistics and the distribution of both the survey data and the 

human capital framework indexes, and assessed the extent of itemmissing data. We also reviewed FEVS technical documentation. On the 

basis of these procedures, we believe the data were sufficiently reliable 

for use in the analysis presented in this report.

To identify practices used by selected agencies to develop and implement 

strategies to improve performance management, we complemented our 

government-wide analysis with an additional analysis of agencies (those 

agencies and units within 1 of the 24 CFO Act departments). Specifically, 

we analyzed agency results for the same 15 statements in 2015 (the most 

recent data available at the time) to select a nongeneralizable sample of 

four agencies to obtain illustrative examples of how they approached 

performance management and their strategies to improve performance 

within their agencies. We calculated averages for the agencies based on 

their scores for our selected statements, and rank ordered them based on 

these averages. Among other attributes, these agencies had the highest 

levels of employee agreement with FEVS statements dealing with their 

performance management processes.

We selected agencies that had the highest average scores for the 

performance management phases. In addition to the FEVS data, we also 

used secondary factors such as the number of respondents, agency size, 

mission, and types of employees to identify the following agencies: (1) 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor; (2) Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services; (3) 

Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice; and the (4) 

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury. 

We developed a set of standard questions that asked about agency 

strategies to improve performance management and relevant successes, 

which we administered to human resources/human capital officials and 

other officials responsible for performance management at the agencies. 

We reviewed and analyzed the responses the agencies provided, and 

identified and reported examples of practices that all four described, 

which are intended to improve performance management. We also asked 

agencies about the types of guidance and resources they obtained from 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 50 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

OPM. The four common practices we identified do not represent the only 

practices these agencies employ to improve performance management at 

their agency. In addition, the practices are not intended to be 

representative of all those employed by all other federal agencies.

To evaluate the guidance and resources OPM provides to agencies to 

improve performance management government-wide, we reviewed both 

OPM’s performance management website and the Chief Human Capital 

Officers (CHCO) Council’s website to identify available guidance, 

resources, and tools.5 We compared these documents to OMB’s 

memorandum on federal agency public websites, OPM’s strategic plan for 

fiscal years 2018 through 2022, and internal controls.6 We observed the 

Performance Management Portal, hosted on OMB’s MAX website, in July 

2018 with an OPM official as we did not have access to the portal.7 We 

also reviewed agency documentation and other OPM-referenced 

websites that contained performance management-related information. 

We used OPM’s internal site search engines and search terms, such as 

“performance management” and “performance management innovation,” 

to identify relevant guidance. During the course of our review, we 

compared performance management guidance posted on the OPM and 

CHCO websites as well as the portal, and identified discrepancies

between what we found on the respective websites. We discussed the 

discrepancies with OPM officials and included their responses within the 

report. To supplement the documentary evidence obtained, we also 

interviewed officials from OPM, the CHCO Council, and selected case 

study agencies to describe the extent to which OPM assists agencies on 

performance management.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2016 to November 

2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

 5

The CHCO Council was established under the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002, 

enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, to advise and coordinate the 

activities of members’ agencies on such matters as the modernization of human resource 

systems, improved quality of human resource information, and legislation affecting human 

resource operations and organizations. See, Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 1303(a)(1) and (b), 

116 Stat. 2135, 2288 (Nov. 25, 2002), at 5 U.S.C. § 1401 note.

6

Office of Management and Budget, Policies for Federal Agency Public Websites and 

Digital Services, Memorandum M-17-06 (Nov. 8, 2016); OPM Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 

2018-2022; and GAO-14-704G.

7

Access to OPM’s Performance Management Portal on OMB MAX is restricted to 

executive branch employees only.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 51 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 52 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management
Appendix II: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 53 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 54 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Robert Goldenkoff, (202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Thomas Gilbert, Assistant 

Director; Dewi Djunaidy, Analyst-in-Charge; Jehan Chase; Martin 

DeAlteriis; Krista Loose; and Susan Sato made major contributions to this 

report. Also contributing to this report were Carl Barden; Won Lee; Robert 

Robinson; and Stewart Small.

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 55 GAO-19-35 Federal Workforce

Federal Employee Misconduct: Actions Needed to Ensure Agencies Have 

Tools to Effectively Address Misconduct. GAO-18-48. Washington, D.C.: 

July 16, 2018.

Federal Workforce: Distribution of Performance Ratings Across the 

Federal Government, 2013. GAO-16-520R. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 

2016.

Federal Workforce: Additional Analysis and Sharing of Promising 

Practices Could Improve Employee Engagement and Performance. 

GAO-15-585. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2015.

Federal Workforce: Improved Supervision and Better Use of Probationary 

Periods Are Needed to Address Substandard Employee Performance. 

GAO-15-191. Washington, D.C.: February 6, 2015.

Results-Oriented Management: OPM Needs to Do More to Ensure 

Meaningful Distinctions Are Made in SES Ratings and Performance 

Awards. GAO-15-189. Washington, D.C.: January 22, 2015.

Federal Workforce: OPM and Agencies Need to Strengthen Efforts to 

Identify and Close Mission-Critical Skills Gaps. GAO-15-223. Washington,

D.C.: January 30, 2015.

Federal Workforce: Human Capital Management Challenges and the 

Path to Reform. GAO-14-723T. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2014.

Office of Personnel Management: Agency Needs to Improve Outcome 

Measures to Demonstrate the Value of Its Innovation Lab. GAO-14-306. 

Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2014.

Federal Employees: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Performance 

Management Pilot. GAO-13-755. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2013.

Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual 

Performance and Organizational Success. GAO-03-488. Washington, 

D.C.: March 14, 2003.

Related GAO Products

(101314)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.