The Value of Feedback 

OPM regulations state that an “appraisal period generally shall be 

12 months so that employees are provided a rating of record on an 

annual basis.” (5 C.F.R. § 430.206-02.) Longer cycles are permitted 

if the nature of assignments make it more appropriate. Current 

regulations do not require a supervisor to wait for the annual 

appraisal to tell employees what they are doing well or doing poorly; 

instead, an appraisal program is expected to include “ongoing 

appraisal.” 

However, merely judging the quality of performance, even on an 

ongoing basis, is not the same thing as managing that performance. 

Good performance management requires ongoing feedback in 

which an employee is not only kept informed about how he or she 

is doing, but is also given guidance and assistance to do even better 

in the future. The precise information that the feedback contains 

should vary based on the performance of the individual and the 

needs of the position. 

In our 2007 Merit Principles Survey (MPS), we asked respondents a series of questions about the 

feedback they receive, including the frequency of “formal or informal feedback” from the 

supervisor. The more often such feedback occurred, the more likely the respondent was to also 

rate highly the supervisor’s performance as a supervisor. We also asked how helpful the feedback 

was and, as shown in the chart below, those who received feedback more frequently were more 

likely to report that the feedback was very helpful. 

MPS 2007. Perceived Helpfulness of Performance Feedback, by Reported Frequency of Feedback

A Publication of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 

Performance Management Is More than an Appraisal 

December 2015 

INSIDE: 

The Value of Feedback 1 

Feedback Matters, Even at 

the Top 3 

Feedback Should Focus on 

the Future, not the Past 5 

Rating Levels – Giving 

Context to the Numbers 6 

Materials for Reference 8 

57%

36% 32%

22% 14% 7% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Weekly Every 2

Weeks

Monthly Quarterly 2x Per

Year

Annually Less than

Annually

Very Helpful

Somewhat

Helpful

Not Helpful

Harmful
Quality and 

timely 

feedback can 

offer 

a good return 

on investment. 

The Value of Feedback (Continued) 

We also asked: (1) how frequently the respondent reported meeting with his or her 

supervisor to discuss the progress of the employee’s work; and (2) the extent of the 

respondent’s agreement that the supervisor had a good understanding of the 

employee’s performance and accomplishments. As shown in the chart below, the 

more frequent the discussions, the more likely the respondent was to agree that the 

supervisor understood the employee’s performance and accomplishments. This 

may be a result of the conversations leading the supervisor to better understand 

what is happening with the employee or the conversations leading the employee to 

recognize that the supervisor is aware of how the employee is performing. Either of 

these – or a combination of the two – has value for the organization. 

MPS2007. Agreement that Supervisor Understood Employee’s Performance, by 

Reported Frequency of Performance Discussions 

In our 2010 MPS, we asked whether respondents agreed with the statement, “The 

harder I try, the more I am able to achieve my work goals and objectives.” Those 

respondents who reported that their supervisor provided timely feedback and 

constructive feedback were more likely to agree that hard work resulted in the 

achievement of goals and objectives than those with less timely or less constructive 

feedback. 

Thoughtful feedback can take time for both the giver and recipient. However, 

agencies invest their budgets in employee salaries with the goal of accomplishing a 

particular mission or missions. Survey respondents in 2007 who reported receiving 

feedback the most often were twice as likely to strongly agree that their agency was 

successful in accomplishing its mission compared to those who received feedback 

the least often (32.8% vs. 14.6%). In other words, quality and timely feedback can 

offer a good return on investment. 

Performance Management is More than an Appraisal Page 2 

6% 10% 9% 12% 21% 30%

51%

10%

16% 15% 17%

22%

25%

25%

84%

73% 76% 70%

57%

45%

24%

Weekly Every 2

Weeks

Monthly Quarterly 2x Per

Year

Annually Less than

Annually

Agree

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

Disagree
Feedback Matters, Even at the Top 

A major purpose of the performance review process is to identify the employee’s 

strengths and weaknesses in important aspects of a job so that an individual can 

perform better. This is particularly true in pay-for-performance systems where the 

hope is that by tying pay to performance ratings, the individual will become more 

motivated to use their strengths and improve their weaknesses. So, we looked at data 

from a 2011 OPM survey of the Senior Executive Service (SES) to examine 

executives’ perceptions of the effect that performance reviews were having on their 

ability to improve their performance. 

As shown in the chart below, only 7 percent of career SES employees strongly agreed 

that their last performance review helped them to identify areas for improvement. 

The total of those who agreed to any extent was less than half. The performance 

review process was perceived as only slightly better at helping the respondents to 

identify their strengths, with 11 percent of career SES employees strongly agreeing. 

Once again, the total of those who agreed was less than half. 

SES Survey 2011. Agreement among Career SES Employees that Performance 

Reviews Helped to Identify Strengths and Weaknesses 

Non-career SES employees had even lower rates of agreement and strong 

agreement with these two statements. However, this does not mean that 

agencies should give up on discussing executive performance with their 

executives. The survey also asked whether the respondents agreed that 

discussions with their supervisors about their performance was worthwhile. 

Continued on page 4

7% 7%

19% 21%

25% 29%

38%

36%

11% 7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Helped Identify Strengths Helped Identify Areas for

Improvement

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Only 7 percent 

of career SES 

employees 

strongly 

agreed that 

their last 

performance 

review helped 

them to 

identify areas 

for 

improvement. 

Page 3 Performance Management is More than an Appraisal 
Regardless of an employee’s place in the organization, the data show that an annual 

performance appraisal is not the same thing as good performance management. 

Good performance management means giving employees at all levels timely 

feedback to enhance their individual performance. 

In MSPB’s 2007 MPS, we asked respondents at several levels of supervisory 

responsibility how helpful their supervisor’s feedback was in helping them to 

enhance or improve their performance. As shown in the chart below, employees at 

all levels found feedback helpful, but executives found it most helpful of all. 

MPS 2007. Perceived Value of Performance Feedback, by Supervisory Level

Feedback Matters, Even at the Top (Continued) 

As shown in the chart below, more than 20 percent of both career and non-career 

SES strongly agreed that performance discussions were worthwhile, and the total that 

agreed to some extent exceeded 60 percent for both groups. 

SES Survey 2011. Agreement that Performance Discussions were Worthwhile, 

by Type of Appointment 

7% 3%

11%

8%

18%

19%

43%

47%

20% 24%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Career Non-Career

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Non-Supervisor Supervisor Manager Executive

Very Helpful 32% 32% 35% 41%

Somewhat Helpful 45% 47% 47% 44%

Not Helpful 21% 18% 16% 13%

Harmful 3% 2% 2% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Performance Management is More than an Appraisal Page 4 

Good 

 performance 

management 

means giving 

employees at 

all levels 

timely 

feedback. 
Feedback Should Focus on the Future, not the Past 

If traffic makes you 20 minutes late for a meeting, someone might point out 

after the meeting, “If you’d checked the traffic report, you would have known 

to take an alternate route.” This information, while perhaps accurate, does not 

change that you missed the first 20 minutes. So, would hearing it make you 

more likely to feel grateful or annoyed? Not surprisingly, most people do not 

enjoy being told what they did wrong after it is too late to fix it. Similarly, 

feedback that reminds an employee what the employee wishes he or she had 

done differently tends not to be as well-received as guidance that concentrates 

more on how the employee can do better in the future. 

In order to get employees’ attention on how to do better in the future, it is 

helpful for supervisors to use future-focused feedback. The past should be seen 

as an opportunity to offer lessons learned, but the emphasis should be on how 

to take advantage of that information to grow. 

One way to think of this is as “feed-forward” rather than feedback. The 

supervisor is feeding forward-looking growth. When feed-forward applies to 

projects the employee is currently facing, or will soon face, the feed-forward can 

be particularly helpful. In a feed-forward conversation, positive reinforcement 

can be a valuable step because people tend to prefer praise over criticism. In 

feed-forward, rather than telling an employee, “You’re slipping,” a supervisor 

might get better results by saying, for example, “You did a great job on ‘project 

x’ a few months ago when you created the product log to track movement. 

How do you think we can use that approach for your current project?” 

A forward-focused approach can be challenging for supervisors who are 

focusing on using performance conversations to comply with performance 

appraisal systems that are designed around the ability to remove poor 

performers for past performance. Such systems tend to place the emphasis on 

documenting past errors in order to justify a future adverse action. While this 

can be one important part of dealing with the relatively few employees who fail 

to fully meet the critical elements of their performance standards, it is a poor 

way to manage the performance of the overwhelming majority of employees 

who meet their performance requirements but may be able to do even better. 

Fortunately, not every feedback discussion needs to be a formal meeting 

designed to comply with the performance appraisal system. If necessary, 

supervisors may benefit from thinking of the feed-forward conversations with 

their acceptable performers as an entirely different part of performance 

management. 

Remember, as discussed previously, the more timely and relevant the feedback 

(or feed-forward), the greater the potential that employees will find it helpful. 

Page 5 Performance Management is More than an Appraisal 

The emphasis 

should be 

on how to take 

advantage of 

lessons 

learned 

in order 

to grow. 
Rating Levels – Giving Context to the Numbers 

Regulations issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) permit agencies 

to create performance appraisal systems with anywhere from two to five levels for 

designating the employee’s degree of success. While the Department of Defense 

(DOD) has recently utilized several different systems with varying numbers of 

levels, last summer it announced that it is moving the “vast majority” of its civilian 

employees to a three-level system and expects that it will be able to make 

“meaningful distinctions in levels of performance” in this new system.1 

A system can only have one category that means outright failure and must have at 

least one category that means success. To see whether the number of levels beyond 

this truly matters in the making of distinctions, we used data from the Central 

Personnel Data File (CPDF) to look at how DOD was using both: (1) a two-level 

system (pass/fail); and (2) a five-level system. (While the precise wording can vary, a 

five-level system typically has the following types of categories: (5) Outstanding; 

(4) Above Average; (3) Fully Successful; (2) Needs Improvement; and 

(1) Unsuccessful.) 

In 2013, DOD had 218,560 employees who received a rating of record in a twolevel system and 270,263 employees who received a rating of record in a five-level 

system.2 In both Navy and Air Force, the percent of employees rated at level 1 in a 

two-level system was 0.1 percent. (Army and the “DOD Other” group – which is 

the other DOD components combined – each had less than 1,000 employees in a 

two-level system.) 

Army, Navy, Air Force, and DOD Other all used a five-level system for 10,000 

employees or more in 2013, and each placed approximately 0.1 percent in the fail 

category there as well. In other words, the likelihood that the employing 

component would designate the employee as unsuccessful was roughly the same 

regardless of whether the component used the system with the most levels (five) or 

the least (two). 

While failure rates were approximately the same regardless of the number of levels, 

as shown in the chart on the next page, the extent to which the other rating levels 

(2 through 5) were used under a five-level system varied greatly by 

component. Within a five-level system, Army was three times as likely as Air Force 

or “DOD Other” to rate an employee as a “2” – meaning the person was less than 

fully successful without outright failing. 

How levels 3 and 5 were used particularly stood out. In Army, two-thirds of the 

employees were rated at level “5.” Thus, a level “4” Army employee was, in fact, 

below average. In contrast, a level “4” employee in Navy was well above average, 

with only 11 percent of Navy employees rated any higher. 

Performance Management is More than an Appraisal Page 6 

The likelihood 

that the 

employing 

component 

would 

designate the 

employee as 

unsuccessful 

was the same 

regardless of 

whether the 

component 

used the 

system with 

the most 

levels (five) or 

the least (two). 
Rating Levels – Giving Context to the Numbers (Continued) 

CPDF. Rating Distribution of DOD Employees Covered by a Five-Level Rating 

System, by DOD Component, 2013 

1 http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/602975/dod-to-implement-3-tier-civilianperformance-appraisal-system. 

2 Data for full-time, permanent employees only. 

This same pattern of agencies using the different “success” levels to different degrees 

emerged when we looked at 14 large, non-Defense agencies that used a five-level 

system for at least 5,000 employees. The overall average for each level was: level 

“5” (34%); level “4” (37%); level “3” (28%); level “2” (0.3%) and level 

“1” (0.1%). But, most agencies were far from these averages. For example, the 

percentage of employees who were rated at level “3” ranged from a high of 78 

percent in one agency to a low of 11 percent in another, with only 2 of 14 agencies 

within 5 percentage points of the overall non-DOD average of 28 percent. 

In other words, it appears that agencies use the same rating levels in very different 

ways. An assigned rating number that is well below average in one agency may be 

well above average in another. Thus, what matters most is not how many levels a 

system has, but rather how the system – whatever it might be – is used. In the end, a 

number cannot manage performance. For that, supervisors must give timely, 

relevant, forward-looking, and detailed feedback that is tailored to the employee and 

the position. 

0.1%

0.6%

8%

23%

68%

0.1%

0.2%

28%

37%

34%

0.1%

0.2%

32%

37%

31%

0.1%

0.4%

65%

24%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

1

2

3

4

5

 Navy Other DOD Air Force Army

Page 7 Performance Management is More than an Appraisal 

What 

matters most 

is how the 

system – 

whatever it 

might be – 

is used. 
Materials for Reference 

MSPB has been issuing reports related to the health of the civil service since 1981 and published a newsletter, 

Issues of Merit, since 1996. These publications are available at www.mspb.gov/studies. Below is a list of some 

materials that readers may find relevant to performance management issues. This list is not exhaustive and we 

encourage people and organizations seeking information on a merit-based civil service to search the MSPB studies 

website for items of interest. 

Reports: 

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

Workplaces (2013). 

Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Rewards (2013). 

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees (2010). 

Addressing Poor Performers and the Law (2009). 

Managing for Engagement—Communication, Connection, and Courage (2009). 

The Federal Government: A Model Employer or a Work in Progress? (2008). 

The Power of Federal Employee Engagement (2008) 

Designing an Effective Pay for Performance System (2006). 

Issues of Merit Articles: 

Leaders: “Recognizing” Employees” Requires More than Just Knowing Who Works for You (Fall 2015) p. 4. 

Effective Performance Discussions: Don’t Forget to Look Forward (Spring 2015) p. 1. 

Informal Recognition: A Little “Thanks!” Can Mean a Lot (Jun. 2013) p. 1 

Good Performance Management Practices: The Core of Effective Telework (Jan. 2012) p. 4. 

Incorporating Choice into Performance Rewards Systems (Sep. 2011) p. 1. 

Telework’s Negative Effect on Performance: Barrier or Myth? (Aug. 2010) p. 4. 

Moving Beyond Performance Standards (Jul. 2009) p. 2. 

Performance Appraisal Systems: Quality vs. Quantity (Sep. 2006) p. 1. 

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board is an independent, quasi-judicial agency whose mission is to protect 

the Merit System Principles and promote an effective Federal workforce free of Prohibited Personnel Practices. 

For more information, please visit www.mspb.gov or contact the Clerk of the Board at (202) 653-7200 or 

MSPB@mspb.gov. 

Performance Management is More than an Appraisal Page 8