Accomplishing

 Ou

 Missio

Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

m e r i t p r i n c i p l e s s u r v e y 2 0 0 5

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

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
THE CHAIRMAN

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

February 2007

The President

President of the Senate

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Dear Sirs:

In accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 1204(a)(3), it is my honor to submit this Merit Systems 

Protection Board report, “Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005.”

We administered the Merit Principles Survey 2005 to determine how successful Federal agencies are at 

achieving their missions as they attempt to build a well-qualified workforce, overcome barriers to mission 

accomplishment, and preserve individual and organization success through rewards, recognition, and 

retention. We found that Federal employees generally believe that they are managed well, have jobs that 

they like, and are highly motivated by the opportunity to help their agencies succeed. 

This report also explores several challenges that agencies face in the workplace. For example, hiring 

officials are often not satisfied with the applicant pool they must draw from to fill Federal job openings. 

Employees already on the job would like additional training to accomplish their jobs at a higher level of 

performance. Nonsupervisory employees feel uninformed about performance evaluation, organizational 

changes, and other issues at times. 

The importance of trust between employees and their supervisors is a primary finding of this report. 

Agencies, supervisors, and employees should continue to strengthen the working relationship between 

supervisors and their employees. Ensuring that the lines of communication are open and used are keys 

to maintaining this trust. 

I believe you will find this report useful as you continue your efforts to improve the management and 

performance of the Federal civil service.

 Respectfully,

 Neil A. G. McPhie 

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

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Accomplishing Our Mission: 

Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Neil A. G. McPhie, Chairman

Mary M. Rose, Vice Chairman

Barbara J. Sapin, Member

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Director

Steve Nelson

Deputy Director

John Crum, Ph.D.

Project Manager

John M. Ford, Ph.D.

Project Analysts

Laura Shugrue

Paul van Rijn, Ph.D.

Annette Butler

Doug Nierle

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

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

The Merit Principles Survey 2005 Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Administration of the Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Employee Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Content and Organization of this Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Presentation of the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Committing the Agency to Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Understanding Agency Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Accomplishment of Agency Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Preparing for Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Skills and Abilities of the Current Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Attracting the Right Talent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Getting Enough Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Getting the Right Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Overcoming Barriers to Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

An Information Gap Between Employees and Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Employee Perceptions of Unfair Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Conflict in the Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

Conflicts Related to Disagreement with Management Decisions . . . . . . . . . . 38 

Trust—the Key to Overcoming Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Preserving Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Job Satisfaction and Job Security—the Bottom Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Rewarding Successful Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Retaining Successful Performers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Some Perspective on Survey Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Appendix B: Participating Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

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

Executive Summary

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is responsible for assessing the health of 

Federal merit systems to ensure they adhere to the Federal merit system principles and do 

not result in prohibited personnel practices. As part of this responsibility, MSPB conducts 

the periodic Merit Principles Survey to gauge the perspectives of nonsupervisory and supervisory 

employees regarding working conditions, job satisfaction, and the quality of their coworkers and 

supervisors. This report discusses the views of Federal employees provided in response to the Merit 

Principles Survey 2005 (MPS 2005).

The MPS 2005 specifically explored the performance of the Federal workforce. In particular, we 

wanted to know how successful agencies are at achieving their mission, particularly in terms of 

preparing for success by assembling a well-qualified workforce, overcoming barriers to successful 

mission accomplishment, and preserving success through rewards, recognition, and retention. This 

report summarizes the responses of 36,926 Federal employees who completed the mostly online 

survey as part of a randomly drawn, representative sample of the 1.8 million full-time permanent 

members of the Federal workforce. The results confirm that employees at all levels are dedicated 

to ensuring that their agencies achieve their missions, but are concerned about how the Federal 

Government can maintain a dedicated, qualified workforce. We also found continuing high job 

satisfaction despite perceptions of less organizational stability and fear of changes in the pay system.

Findings

Employees are committed. We found that Federal employees, whether 

nonsupervisory or supervisory, are highly committed to the missions of their 

agencies and work to further those missions. Employees understand the missions 

of their agencies (95 percent) and believe that their agency’s mission is important 

(95 percent). On an individual level, employees understand how their work 

contributes to the agency’s overall mission (92 percent) and find the work they do 

personally meaningful (88 percent).

Agencies are successful. We asked employees to evaluate how successful their 

agency is in accomplishing its mission. A large majority (76 percent) believe their 

agency accomplishes its mission successfully and an equal percentage (76 percent) 

report that their agency produces high-quality products and services for the public.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board i
ii Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

The current workforce has the necessary skills. Three-quarters of our 

survey participants believe that their agency’s workforce has the knowledge and 

skills necessary to accomplish its mission.

There are barriers to recruiting a high-quality workforce. Over threequarters of all employees (76 percent) would recommend the Government as a 

place to work. Despite this glowing endorsement, first-line supervisors and other 

managers still indicate that they have problems recruiting highly qualified applicants. 

These problems may be due to insufficient recruitment strategies or incentives, the 

slowness of the hiring process, or the use of inadequate assessment instruments, and 

agencies should examine them further.

Employees would like more training.1 Although a majority of survey 

participants report that they receive sufficient training to do their jobs (63 percent), 

a sizable minority (48 percent) would like additional training to improve their job 

performance.

There is an information gap between nonsupervisory employees and 

supervisors. Nonsupervisory employees do not believe they are as well informed 

as their supervisors are, particularly about issues surrounding performance. 

Employees generally believe they are treated fairly in employment 

matters. Most survey participants (60 percent) believe their agency treats them 

fairly in matters related to employment. Additionally, employees report fewer 

prohibited personnel practices during the 2 years preceding the survey than at any 

other time in the last 2 decades. 

There is a moderate level of workplace conflict in the Federal 

Government. Nearly half of the supervisory participants report dealing with at 

least one serious workplace conflict during the past year, and more than one-third 

of employees had experienced a serious workplace conflict during the past 2 years. 

Fortunately, the data speak highly of supervisor efforts to clarify and resolve conflicts 

through open communication.

Employees trust their supervisors. Fair treatment and successful 

communication both build trust—and their absence creates distrust and a host of 

accompanying problems. There is clear evidence that employees tend to trust their 

immediate supervisors but not necessarily their upper level management.

Employees are satisfied and secure. Job security and satisfaction are 

important factors to employee retention. Currently, a vast majority of Federal 

employees are satisfied with their work and feel secure, perceiving that their jobs 

are stable. 

Executive Summary

 1 The term “employees” refers to both nonsupervisory and supervisory employees unless otherwise 

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

Executive Summary

Employees are satisfied with pay but not rewards. Employees value 

recognition for a job well done. In general, a majority of employees are satisfied with 

the pay they receive (60 percent) but not with the recognition and rewards granted to 

them (39 percent). And while they support the concept of performance-based pay, 

they are unsure about how well it can be implemented in the Federal sector. 

Employees may be leaving. Nearly a quarter of survey participants said they 

were likely to leave their agency in the next year. Of those planning to leave, almost 

a third planned to retire, just over a third planned to move to another Federal job, 

and a small number (5 percent) planned to resign from Government employment. 

The rest were unsure of their plans. Employees planning to leave were primarily 

concerned with the opportunity to earn more money and increased opportunities 

for career advancement. 

Recommendations 

While the MPS 2005 results indicate that the Federal Government does a fairly good 

job of managing its workforce in adherence to the merit system principles, there are 

several areas in which agencies can improve.

1. Because the data indicate that difficulty in recruiting highly qualified 

applicants is a barrier to preparing the workforce to achieve its mission, 

agencies need to identify why they may not be reaching a high-quality 

applicant pool through their recruitment and selection procedures. 

2. Employees would like more training, but their supervisors cannot always 

justify or fund the training. Therefore, supervisors and their employees 

should work together to: identify training needs that will support the 

organization’s mission and prioritize the organization’s training activities 

accordingly. One way to accomplish these goals is to institute career 

development plans, as appropriate.

3. A primary finding throughout this report is the importance of trust between 

employees and their first-line supervisors. Therefore, agencies, supervisors, 

and nonsupervisory employees should work together to continue 

strengthening the trust and working relationship between supervisors and 

their employees. Ensuring that the lines of communication are not only 

open but also used and that employees are comfortable talking with their 

supervisors are key to building this trust and should strengthen supervisors’ 

ability to resolve conflicts by working with their employees.

4. Although there has been significant progress in achieving fair and equitable 

treatment of employees in the Federal workplace, agencies must remain 

vigilant. They must continue to educate managers and all other employees 

in proper workplace behavior, and to monitor adherence to merit system 

principles and prevention of prohibited personnel practices.
iv Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Executive Summary

5. Agencies must create a culture in which employees trust that their 

performance will be accurately rated, that they will be treated fairly, 

and that adequate resources are available to reward and recognize them.

6. Agencies should implement workforce planning strategies that utilize 

recruitment, retention, and training methods to build and sustain a highquality workforce. This is especially essential in the many agencies whose 

supervisors report too few high-quality applicants for their open positions.

Instituting these recommendations should help agencies improve their ability 

to accomplish their individual missions by consciously committing to success, 

preparing for it by attracting and developing the right talent, overcoming obstacles 

to success, and preserving the success that is achieved.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1

Introduction

The Merit Systems Protection Board has been entrusted with the statutory 

responsibility to study the hiring, development, and management of Federal 

civilian employees to ensure that agencies follow the Federal merit principles 

and do not allow prohibited personnel practices to occur. MSPB’s studies examine 

the “health” of Federal merit systems to ensure that employees are managed fairly, 

efficiently, and effectively. For the past two decades, MSPB has conducted periodic 

Governmentwide Merit Principles Surveys of Federal employees to solicit their 

perceptions of their jobs, work environment, supervisors, and agencies. MSPB uses 

the survey results to identify areas of success and areas that require improvement to 

assist Federal leaders in building and sustaining a highly qualified and productive 

Federal workforce through adherence to the merit system principles. This report 

presents the key findings from the Merit Principles Survey administered in 2005 

(MPS 2005). 

The Merit Principles Survey 2005 Instrument

The MPS 2005 consisted of 69 questions, with 59 to be answered by all employees 

and 10 to be answered only by supervisory employees. Many of the questions were 

comprised of multiple subparts. Of the 69 questions, 11 sought demographic 

information pertaining to the employee’s agency affiliation, years of Federal service, 

salary, age, gender, and other characteristics. The remaining questions queried 

employees on the following topics:

 Agency mission and work environment

 Employee’s own job

 Employee’s work unit

 Job performance standards and appraisal

 Pay and rewards

 Fairness

 Employee’s supervisor

 Training

 Career plans

 Supervisors’ perspective at all levels (team leaders, first-line supervisors, 

upper managers, and executives)
2 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

We included many questions used in previous MSPB surveys to allow us to track 

changes over time. The remaining questions were newly developed to provide 

insight into how Federal agencies manage their employees to best accomplish their 

missions and other areas of concern or special interest to the Federal workforce. The 

questions were reviewed by human resources leaders in several agencies, and we pilot 

tested and revised the entire survey as needed before administration.

The Administration of the Survey

The MPS 2005 was completed by employees during the summer and fall of 

2005. It was the first MPS administered online via the World Wide Web. MSPB 

values the collaboration of agency leaders, Human Resource Directors, and Chief 

Human Capital Officers who identified points of contact to work with us and who 

encouraged employees to participate. Agency information technology personnel 

provided invaluable help to ensure that agency SPAM defenses, firewalls, and other 

security mechanisms were configured to allow employees to access the MPS 2005 

Web site from their desktop computers.

Employee Participation

Twenty-four Federal agencies participated in the survey. These agencies are listed 

in Appendix B. Within each of the 24 participating agencies, MSPB selected a 

representative, random sample of full-time, permanent, nonseasonal employees in 

each subagency or major division to participate in the survey. We selected a total 

of about 74,000 employees to participate.

For many questions, we compared the responses of nonsupervisors to supervisors. 

Our previous reports as well as other research about Federal employees suggest that 

nonsupervisory and supervisory employees’ job experiences, perceptions, and views of 

their roles in Government service often differ significantly. To fulfill our responsibilities 

it is an important part of MSPB’s strategy to detect these differences and assess their 

implications for the effective and efficient management of the Federal workforce. 

Therefore, we ensured that our sample of employees selected for participation included 

appropriate numbers of nonsupervisory and supervisory employees. “Supervisors” 

include team leaders, first-line supervisors, managers, and executives. 

The employees selected to participate in the survey were sent invitations via an 

e-mail message with an accompanying link to the survey Web site. Employees in 

four agencies that did not have easily configurable Web or e-mail access were sent 

paper invitations and survey packets via postal mail. A total of 36,926 employees 

completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of approximately 50 percent.

Introduction
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3

Content and Organization of this Report

This report reviews a number of key findings from the Merit Principles Survey 2005. 

Additional survey results will be presented in forthcoming reports and in our Issues 

of Merit newsletter. The results presented here are organized around four elements 

essential to managing the Federal workforce to achieve organizational goals. The 

four elements are:

1. Committing the Agency to Success. This section discusses employees’ 

understanding of the mission of their agency and their contributions 

to achieving the mission as well as the agency’s need to ensure that all 

employees understand and support the mission. 

2. Preparing for Success. This section looks at whether employees believe their 

agencies are using effective recruiting and training practices.

3. Overcoming Barriers to Success. Here we discuss how employees perceive they 

are treated in the workplace, including any violation of merit principles. 

4. Preserving Success. Finally, we examine survey participants’ views of agencies’ 

efforts to retain valuable employees.

The report closes with our conclusions and recommendations for agencies as they 

face the ongoing challenge of managing their employees to continuously improve 

agency performance. 

Presentation of the Results 

Definitions. Throughout this report, we will use the following definitions for 

terms used:

 “Participants” or “survey participants” refers to all employees who responded 

to the question, including nonsupervisory employees, team leaders, first-line 

supervisors, higher level managers, and executives;

 “Employees” or “employee” refers to the entire Federal workforce;

 “Nonsupervisors” or “nonsupervisory employees” refers to those survey 

participants who do not have any supervisory responsibilities;

 “Supervisors” refers to all who have responsibility for employee performance 

appraisals and leave, from first-line supervisors to higher level managers and 

executives;

 “Team leaders” refers to those who do not have official supervisory 

responsibilities or conduct performance appraisals, but provide employees 

with day-to-day guidance in work projects.

 “Managers” refers to those who supervise one or more supervisors; and 

 “Executives” are members of the Senior Executive Service or its equivalent.

Introduction
4 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Response Categories. Many survey questions offered five response choices, 

such as Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, and Strongly 

Disagree. We reported the results of such questions by combining the first two 

choices as if they were a single response and the last two choices as if they were a 

single response. For example, to the question “I understand my agency mission,” 

participants who chose either the Strongly Agree or Agree were reported as 

understanding their agency’s mission. The participants who chose Disagree or 

Strongly Disagree were considered to not understand their agency’s mission. This 

method helps us to categorize our responses either positively or negatively, assisting 

us in analyzing and clearly communicating the results.2

Introduction

2 The decision to collapse or “recode” five response categories into three was made for the purpose 

and audience of the current report. The MPS 2005 data which will be archived with the U.S. National 

Archives and Records Administration (NARA) will serve the needs of many researchers with different 

purposes and perhaps different audiences. MSPB has included both the collapsed, three-valued data 

and the original five-valued data in this archive. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5

Committing the Agency to Success

As public servants, Federal employees are entrusted with the responsibility 

of serving the public good by helping their agency accomplish its 

organizational mission. Newly appointed Federal employees formally swear 

an oath to serve the interests of their Nation to the best of their ability. This ability 

depends on both the employees’ personal commitment to their agency and the 

competencies they bring to support accomplishing its mission. In turn, the agency 

must consciously make a commitment to successful mission accomplishment by 

clearly communicating its mission, goals, and strategies to employees and providing 

employees with inspirational leadership, clear performance standards, a safe and 

comfortable work environment, and the tools, information, and other resources 

needed to perform effectively. 

In this section of the report we look at survey participants’ understanding of their 

agency’s mission, their contribution to that mission, and their perceptions of the 

performance of their agency and work units. Work units are the group of people 

with whom an employee works on a regular basis; typically all work for the same 

immediate supervisor. A work unit may include multiple teams, each led by an 

individual team leader.

Understanding Agency Mission

Our survey results show that Federal agencies have been very successful in 

communicating both their missions and their employees’ roles in achieving those 

missions. Survey questions about agency mission produced the highest rates of 

agreement on the Merit Principles Survey 2005.

Figure 1 presents the results of several questions about agency mission. Some 95 

percent of survey participants understand the mission of their agencies and 95 

percent believe that their agency’s mission is important. On an individual level, 

participants also understand how their work contributes to the agency’s overall 

mission (92 percent) and find the work they do personally meaningful (88 percent). 
6 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

There is little variation in the high levels of understanding of organizational 

mission across different types of Federal employees. For example, the percentage of 

nonsupervisory employees who regard their agency’s mission as important to them 

(94 percent) is close to the percentage of supervisors who do so (98 percent). 

There are moderate differences in the understanding of organizational mission 

among participants working in different agencies, with the percentages of all 

employees who say they understand their agency’s mission varying from 89 percent 

through 97 percent as depicted in Figure 2.

Committing the Agency to Success

Figure 1. Percent of participants indicating agreement with the listed 

statements about agency mission and personal contributions to it

76

88

92

95

95

 Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, questions 1a-c, 1i, and 2k. 

I understand my agency’s mission.

My agency’s mission is important to me.

I understand how I contribute to 

my agency’s mission.

The work I do is meaningful to me.

My agency is successful in 

accomplishing its mission.

Figure 2. Percent of participants agreeing with the statement 

“I understand my agency’s mission,” by agency

0 20 40 60 80

Transportation

DHS

OPM

HUD

FDIC

NASA

GSA

Agriculture

Energy

Interior

Treasury

Education

Army

HHS

Commerce Defense

Labor

Justice

Navy

SSA

Veterans Affairs

EPA

Air Force

State 97

97

97

96

96

96

96

95

95

95

94

94

94

94

94

94

94

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 1a.

92

92

92

93

93

90

89

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 7

It is possible that the lower reported understanding of agency mission in some 

agencies is due to less effective communication from leadership or it may be 

due to recent or current reorganizations at the time the survey was completed. 

Reorganizations have apparently been common throughout the Government in 

recent years. In fact, just over a third of our survey participants (37 percent) report 

that their agency’s organizational structure remained stable over the 2 years preceding 

the survey. A recently restructured organization is still defining its mission and 

communicating the nature of that mission to its employees. Even employees who do 

not change jobs in such a reorganization can be expected to be somewhat unsure that 

their mission remains the same. A comparison of the degree to which agency mission 

is understood in recently restructured organizations (92 percent) versus relatively 

stable organizations (98 percent) provides some support for this assertion.

Because work requirements and the work force itself continue to change rapidly, 

reorganizations may even be required more frequently in the present and future 

than they have been in the past. When they are going to occur, it is important 

for agencies to create and implement a detailed change management and 

communication plan that specifies the methods, message content, and timing for 

keeping employees informed of and involved in management actions before, during, 

and after the reorganization. It is essential for the plan to require agencies to fully 

and candidly explain how the reorganization will affect employees at all levels 

and what roles employees will have in ensuring a smooth transition to the revised 

organization. Employees are much more likely to retain, and even enhance, their 

understanding of their agency’s mission during and after a reorganization when they 

are treated as collaborative partners in change rather than as recipients of change.

Accomplishment of Agency Mission

The MPS 2005 also asked participants to evaluate how successful their agency is 

in accomplishing its mission. A large majority of participants (76 percent) report 

that their agency accomplishes its mission successfully, with the range of responses 

varying by agency from 61 percent to 84 percent. 

A large percentage of participants (76 percent) also report that their agency produces 

high-quality products and services for the public. However, responses varied widely 

among agencies, with 90 percent of participants in the highest ranking agency 

stating that their agency provides high-quality products and services, but only 51 

percent of participants in the lowest ranking agency doing so. These results are 

summarized by agency in Figure 3. Survey data also show that four-fifths (80 

percent) of the survey participants believe that their own work units produce highquality products and services, with agreement ranging from 65 percent to 87 percent 

by agency. 

Committing the Agency to Success
8 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

The wide disparity that Figure 3 depicts among the 24 participating agencies 

regarding the quality of their products and services may be worthy of further 

investigation by agencies. For instance, why is there such a range of confidence 

in agency outcomes? What is driving participants’ beliefs about their agencies? 

How do participants think their agency’s products and services can be improved? 

The time and effort agencies expend in answering these questions could be a 

wise investment and point the way to significant performance improvement 

in Federal agencies.

Committing the Agency to Success

Figure 3. Percent of participants agreeing with the statement “My 

agency produces high quality products and services,” by agency

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 1f. 

51

64

65

67

70

70

71

72

72

75

75

76

77

78

78

79

79

80

81

82

82

84

87

90

0 30 60 90

DHS

HUD

Treasury

Transportation

Justice

SSA

Interior

Agriculture

Education

Energy

EPA

Labor

OPM

HHS

State

GSA

Defense

Veterans Affairs

Air Force

Army

Commerce

FDIC

Navy

NASA

I 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 9

Preparing for Success

Federal employees at every level have reason to be proud of their dedication 

to their agency’s mission and of the success they are achieving toward 

accomplishing this mission. This pride is appropriate because success is 

not accidental—it is the combination of several important factors. Hard work 

from Federal employees is one key factor. In this section we address several others. 

To sustain this success, the Federal workforce must have the skills and abilities 

needed to do its job. This means that agencies must attract job applicants with the 

abilities needed to succeed and excel at their work. Federal employees already on 

the job must receive sufficient training to perform effectively and make a strong 

contribution to the accomplishment of their agency’s mission.

Skills and Abilities of the Current Workforce

Three-quarters of the MPS 2005 survey participants (75 percent) believe that their 

agency’s workforce has the knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish its 

mission. This is a high and encouraging level of endorsement, but leaves room 

for improvement.

Figure 4 displays the differences among agencies’ responses to this question. While 

the data reflect a high confidence in the skills and abilities of Federal employees 

across all agencies, some agencies do appear at the lower end of the rating scale. 

Differences in perception of workforce skill level across agencies are likely to be 

influenced by several factors, as discussed next.
10 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Preparing for Success

Although agencies share many of the same types of jobs—supply specialists and 

administrative assistants, for example—differences in agency mission also mean that 

there are specialized occupations in each agency. Each occupation has its own job 

market and its own rate of change in the skills and abilities needed for successful 

performance. In agencies where one or more key occupations have rapid skill 

change and a competitive job market, perceptions of a higher skill gap may exist 

because skilled workers are difficult to recruit. 

The degree to which employees have needed job skills is also partly a function of the 

training available, but the degree to which training is a solution is constrained by 

several factors. Agencies vary in the level of funding available for training. Some 

agencies may be able to achieve economies of scale in developing and offering 

training to relatively large populations of employees with the same technical 

specialties. Other agencies may include employees with a broader range of technical 

specialties, and as a result may be forced to provide a greater selection of training 

to meet their needs, increasing the overall cost of training. Another factor is that 

not all abilities can be developed equally well through training. It is reasonable for 

agencies to conserve resources by identifying which skills are better to train for and 

which are better to recruit for.

Figure 4. Percent of participants agreeing with the statement 

“The workforce has job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary 

to accomplish organizational goals,” by agency

0 30 60 90

FDIC

Air Force

NASA

Justice

Army

Navy

Commerce

EPA

Veterans Affairs HHS

Defense

Labor

Transportation

State

Interior GSA

Energy

Treasury

Agriculture

Education

SSA

OPM

HUD

DHS

83

82

81

80

78

78

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 1d.

77

77

76

76

75

74

73

72

71

71

71

70

69

68

65

62

61

78
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11

Preparing for Success

Attracting the Right Talent

Historically, Federal turnover rates have been relatively low compared to those 

in other employment sectors.3 Very low turnover, however, limits the “positive 

turnover” that can provide organizations with opportunities to hire fresh talent—

with abilities that match the job as it currently needs to be done. The current 

human capital crisis, however, may provide the Federal Government with the 

challenge and opportunity to acquire a workforce with new skills and abilities during 

the next decade. The Office of Personnel Management recently projected that nearly 

60 percent of the Federal workforce will be eligible for retirement over the next 10 

years.4 The opportunity to fill these positions allows agencies to use recruitment to 

target the skills and abilities they need most.

Word of Mouth Recruiting. Recognizing the importance of attracting the right 

talent to Federal service, MSPB has investigated the recruiting practices used by 

agencies to attract highly qualified individuals to job opportunities. Information 

provided by agencies about the relative effectiveness of different recruiting strategies 

highlights the importance of “word of mouth” advertising.5 Potential job applicants 

give greater weight to the informal information about an agency that comes from 

friends or acquaintances who work for an agency than they do to formal job 

descriptions or other official communications.

What do Federal employees say when asked if they recommend the Government 

or their agency as a place to work? A large percentage of survey participants 

(76 percent) recommend the Government as a place to work. As shown in 

Figure 5, this percentage represents a dramatic increase, not only since the 2000 

administration of the Merit Principles Survey, but across the 13 years, 1992 

through 2005. The decreasing trend from 1992 through 2000 of participants who 

would recommend the Government as an employer has reversed. Almost as many 

participants in 2005 (66 percent) would make a similar recommendation about 

employment in their current agency.

 3 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employee Tenure in 2006,” News, 

Sept. 8, 2006.

4 Office of Personnel Management, “OPM Director Addresses the Need for the Federal Government 

to Cultivate the Next Generation,” Washington, D.C., Feb. 3, 2006.

5 For instance, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Competing for Federal Jobs: Job Experiences 

of New Hires, February 2000; Managing Federal Recruitment: Issues, Insights, and Illustrations, 

Washington, D.C., September 2004.
12 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Figure 6 shows differences in the degree to which nonsupervisors and supervisors 

at four levels of supervisory responsibility recommend the Government in general 

and their specific agency as a place to work. There is a clear trend for greater 

endorsement of the agency as one moves up the supervisory chain of command. At 

the same time, most employees below the supervisory level tend to endorse Federal 

employment in general more than employment with their agency. Because of the 

trend of higher agency endorsement by agency leaders, such employees may assume, 

based on their own experience, that nonsupervisory employees have perceptions of 

agency and Government employment that match their own. This assumption may 

be incorrect and may reduce the effectiveness of agency recruiting efforts as word 

of mouth information from some employees contradicts official agency recruitment 

efforts and the recommendations of agency leadership.

Preparing for Success

Figure 5. Percent of participants agreeing with the statement 

“I would recommend the Government as a place to work,” in 

1992, 1996, 2000 and 2005

76

52

67

57

0

30

60

90

1992 1996 2000 2005

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Surveys: 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2005, question 1k.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13

Figure 7 summarizes agency differences in the degree to which all survey participants 

recommend their particular agency and the Federal Government as a whole as 

places of employment. In agencies where there is a “recommendation gap” between 

these two endorsements, employees who are generally enthusiastic about Federal 

employment have some reason to be less pleased with their current agency. This 

state of affairs will certainly have an effect on what these employees say to potential 

employees as part of recruiting efforts and should be investigated at the agency level.

Preparing for Success

Figure 6. Percent of participants agreeing with two statements about 

recommending Federal employment, by level of responsibility

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, questions 1j and 1k.

Executive/SES

Manager

First-Line Supervisor

Team Leader

Nonsupervisor

I would recommend my agency as a place to work

I would recommend the Government as a place to work

Figure 7. Percent of participants agreeing with two statements about 

recommending Federal employment, by agency

0 30 60

NASA

EPA

Veterans Affairs

State

GSA

SSA

Commerce

Air Force

Justice

Labor

Army

Navy

Interior

HHS

Agriculture

Defense

Treasury

FDIC

Energy

Transportation

HUD

OPM

DHS

Education

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, questions 1j and 1k.

83

73

72

71

71

70

77

79

81

77

80

77

74

70

69

68

67

67

66

80

81

78

80

71

64

64

63

62

62

61

60

60

57

55

51

50

69

73

72

74

76

77

70

68

81

79

75

74

I would recommend the Government as a place to work

I would recommend my agency as a place to work

• 

• 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

• 

• 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I I I I I I 

I I I I I I 

I I I I I I 

I I I I I I 

I I I I I I 

I I I 

I I I I I I I I 

I 

I I I I I I 

I 

I I I I I I 

I 

I I I I I 

I I 

I I I I 

11 I 

I I I 
14 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Agency Recruiting—Efforts and Obstacles. Recruiting should be a key 

component of each agency’s strategy to attract the right talent. Job analysis 

establishes the skills and abilities needed for each position. Staffing plans determine 

the number of positions needed with each profile of qualifications. Effective 

job announcements communicate the agency’s expectations to those who may 

be qualified to apply for a job. These and other well-designed and effectively 

implemented recruitment activities should attract applicants who have the needed 

skills and abilities and are motivated and prepared to enter Federal service. But 

there are a number of obstacles to Federal recruitment and selection.

The MPS 2005 asked first-line supervisors and other managers who have been 

involved in making recent hires to describe the primary obstacle they face in hiring 

employees. These survey participants were asked to type a brief narrative response 

to this question rather than to select from a list of potential obstacles. This allowed 

us to learn what obstacles look like from the perspective of, and in the language 

of, those who experience them. We sorted the responses to this question into the 

categories in Table 1.

6

The greatest perceived obstacle, reported by well over a third (38 percent) of those 

responding to this question, was a shortage of qualified applicants. When these 

hiring officials consider the applicants available to them to choose from, many 

are dissatisfied with their qualifications. The second two most frequent categories 

reflect the frustration experienced by first-line supervisors and other managers with 

processes internal to their agencies. Thirteen percent see agency-imposed hiring 

freezes and limits on the number of full-time employees as a hiring obstacle—one 

which stops the hiring process before it begins. A nearly equal number (13 percent) 

cite the limits of agency budgets, both to pay for additional positions and to allow 

employees to devote time to hiring processes.

 6 The results in Table 1 are based on the responses of 7,898 MPS 2005 participants who answered 

this question. Responses in smaller categories that account for fewer than 1 percent of the total 

number of responses are grouped together in the “Other” category.

Preparing for Success

Table 1. Primary Obstacle in Hiring Employees

Shortage of Qualified Applicants 38%

No Approval for Position 13%

Lack of Funding 13%

Process is Slow and Bureaucratic 11%

Constraints of Federal Hiring Regulations 6%

Not Enough Manager Involvement 6%

Low Salaries Offered to New Hires 4%

Inadequate Selection Tools 2%

Problems with Specific People and Offices 1%

Other 2%

No Significant Barriers to Hiring 5%

Total 100%
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15

Just over 1 in 10 (11 percent) of hiring managers give voice to a common 

frustration with Federal hiring—that it is a slow process that includes a great deal 

of unnecessary process and red tape. This frustration is similar in nature to that 

expressed by 6 percent of hiring managers who feel blocked by specific hiring 

regulations and requirements. A nearly equal share (6 percent) would like to have 

a more direct and greater role in hiring, taking over some responsibilities currently 

held by their human resources offices or by their headquarters staff. These findings 

are consistent with findings from other MSPB research.

These perceptions of MPS 2005 survey participants involved in hiring are similar 

to the symptoms reported to a medical practitioner. They are accurate descriptions 

of the “pain” being experienced, but may not be directly related to the underlying 

cause of the problem. As with physical illness, solutions that address only the 

symptoms of the hiring problem may seem satisfactory in the short term, but are not 

a substitute for a deeper cure of Federal hiring ailments.

Continuing with this analogy, let’s look at what is causing hiring officials’ major 

complaint—dissatisfaction with the pool of qualified applicants. For some 

occupations there may be a shortage of applicants in general—as is currently the case 

for the nursing occupation. Another possible explanation is that qualified applicants 

are finding employment elsewhere—possibly with faster responding employers—while 

the Federal hiring process drags on. In addition, job seekers may find it easier to apply 

for jobs with other employers because they do not require long narrative statements 

or skill assessment questionnaires. Agency managers and human resources personnel 

can investigate this last possibility by examining the qualifications of applicants who 

request removal from consideration before a hiring decision is made.

One additional possibility deserves consideration. A relatively small number 

(2 percent) of hiring officials indicate that the selection tools used were an obstacle 

to hiring. This could be a wider problem, though. Because first-line supervisors 

and hiring managers may not know how to evaluate whether appropriate assessment 

tools are being used for their hiring processes, they may not be aware of a problem. 

Most employees who make hiring decisions have some familiarity with interviews, 

reference checks, and other typical selection tools. They may be less familiar with 

best practices—as opposed to common practices—in the use of these tools and would 

not be able to detect the presence of poor selection tools. The primary effect of poor 

selection tools is a resulting pool of highly scored but poorly qualified applicants.

MSPB advises agencies to examine the quality of the selection tools used in their 

hiring processes. As they work to reduce the time it takes to hire—a reasonable 

goal—it is important that agencies do not avoid tools or remove other elements of 

the process that can enhance the quality of the resulting candidate pool. Speed is 

important, but quality needs to be maintained and increased if hiring officials are 

to be given more qualified applicants to choose from.

Preparing for Success
16 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Workforce data indicate that applicants hired into Federal jobs are likely to remain 

in Federal service for a long time. It is worth additional attention to selection 

processes to ensure that the most qualified individuals join the workforce and 

contribute to the long-term success of Federal agencies. When staffing ceilings, 

talent shortages, or other factors reduce the feasibility of selection as a strategy to 

add needed skills to the workforce, agencies will need to acquire these skills through 

contracting or by developing them in their current employees.

Getting Enough Training

Training is a familiar and often-used strategy for developing skills in existing 

employees. The rate of change in workplace procedures means that employees 

must expect to learn continuously throughout their employment. The MPS 2005 

asked participants several questions about training to gauge their perceptions and 

expectations about training opportunities. Sixty percent of our survey participants 

believe that their organization gives them a significant opportunity to improve 

their skills. Although this section focuses on training as a key strategy in skill 

development, also key are developmental assignments, access to fellow employees 

with expertise, and time away from work duties for skill development.

Figure 8 summarizes responses to two training questions that have appeared on the 

last four administrations of our Merit Principles Survey. Historical trends show an 

overall increase in the percentage of participants who believe they receive the basic 

training needed to perform their jobs (“I receive the training I need to perform my 

job.”). The number of participants who believe they need additional training (“I 

need more training to perform my job effectively.”) increased during the 1990s and 

then leveled off across the last two survey administrations.

Preparing for Success

Figure 8. Percent of participants agreeing with two statements about 

their training needs in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2005

0

20

40

60

80

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Surveys: 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2005, questions 2e and 2f.

1992 1996 2000 2005

63

48

59

52 56

48

37

32

I receive the training I need to perform my job.

I need more training to

perform my job effectively.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17

As we discovered in our previous MPS research using these two training questions,7 

the first question addresses the training employees need to perform the basic 

functions of their jobs. This is the training equivalent of “minimum qualifications” 

that assure that the employee knows enough to do basic, acceptable work on the job. 

The second question addresses the training employees believe they need to tune their 

performance to a higher level.

These explanations allow us to interpret the historical trends in Figure 8. These data 

show the Federal Government improving at the task of training for basic job skills, 

ensuring that all employees have the minimum qualifications to do their jobs. When 

it comes to tuning the skills of the workforce to higher levels beyond the minimum, 

agencies remain at the same point as in 2000. Nearly half of the workforce (48 

percent) believes they need more training to perform their job effectively. 

Employees who believe they need more training will have to consider their 

assessments in the context of organizational realities. First, even for the most 

accurately perceived training need, the training may not be available. In a climate of 

decreasing agency budgets training dollars are vulnerable and may be less available 

than other pieces of the agency’s budget, no matter how legitimate the training need. 

Second, the supervisor may determine that the performance or skill gap perceived 

by the employee has an organizational solution, such as hiring another employee to 

fill in where the first employee lacks the required skill or ability or reorganizing how 

work is performed in the work unit. Either approach may solve the organization’s 

need for an additional skill set without training. Nevertheless, organizations may 

need to do a better job of understanding what training employees may need to 

perform their jobs better.

It is noteworthy that only half (47 percent) of MPS 2005 participants see their 

supervisors as a source of opportunities to improve their skills and performance, 

which would include training opportunities. Figure 9 compares agencies on the 

degree to which employees view their supervisors as resources to help them obtain 

training or other means to improve their performance. While there appears to be 

a large gap in the extent to which employees believe that their supervisors provide 

the training and developmental opportunities they think are needed, there may be 

legitimate reasons why supervisors are not meeting these perceived needs. On the 

one hand, as discussed earlier, funds for training are often limited and supervisors 

may be forced to prioritize what training is to be funded. In many instances 

supervisors may be making carefully calculated decisions about which employees to 

invest resources in to better achieve the agency’s mission under resource constraints. 

In other cases, supervisors may disagree with employee assessments of the need for 

or the value of the training that employees think they could use. In either case, 

supervisors and their employees both have the responsibility to communicate with 

each other about their expectations and how best to make the most productive 

training decisions. 

 7 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Workforce for the 21st Century: Results of the Merit 

Principles Survey 2000, Washington, D.C., September, 2003. 

Preparing for Success
18 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Figure 10 compares the responses of participants in different agencies in terms of 

the opportunity they believe their agency gives them to improve their skills. This 

question addresses the general climate within an agency to support employee 

development, whether that development comes through formal training, less formal 

rotational assignments, or other agency-funded, but self-directed learning through 

reading or e-learning. 

Preparing for Success

Figure 9. Percent of participants agreeing with the statement 

“My supervisor provides coaching, training opportunities, or other 

assistance to help me improve my skills and performance,” by agency

55

55

54

54

52

51

51

49

48

48

47

47

45

45

45

45

44

43

42

42

41

38

49

49

0 20 40 60

State

GSA

OPM

NASA

Veterans Affairs

Agriculture

Commerce

Treasury

Air Force

Defense

FDIC

EPA

HHS

Energy

Labor

SSA

Justice

Transportation

Navy

Army

HUD

Interior

Education

DHS

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Surevey 2005, question 35e. 

Figure 10. Percent of participants agreeing with the statement 

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

organization,” by agency

0 25 50 75

NASA

State

EPA

FDIC

Army

Navy

HHS

Commerce

Veterans Affairs

Justice

GSA

Air Force

Defense

Agriculture

Energy

Treasury

Labor

Education

OPM

Interior

SSA

Transportation

HUD

DHS

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 1e.

75

67

67

65

65

64

64

63

63

63

63

63

63

62

61

60

58

57

57

45

49

59

59

59

I 

I 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19

While Figure 10’s data are positive overall, there is room for improvement for all 

agencies, even those that are apparently meeting employee expectations better 

than others. MSPB encourages agencies to examine the processes employees use 

to request training and the criteria used to approve such requests. In addition, 

agencies should identify barriers to training. In some cases, funding may constrain 

access to needed training. In some cases, employees may not have time to attend 

training because of a fast-paced work environment. In still other cases, lack of 

communication between supervisors and their employees about what type of 

training is needed and how it can be obtained may constitute a barrier. Once 

the barriers have been identified, agencies should facilitate employees and their 

supervisors working together to identify how to meet training needs within the 

constraints of the organization.

Getting the Right Training

It is not sufficient just to have “more training” available. It needs to be the 

appropriate training offered to an employee with the right preparation in terms 

of pre-training planning with the supervisor to ensure the training’s likelihood of 

contributing to agency mission achievement. Then the training must be offered 

at the right time and be conducted in an effective manner. The responsibility for 

this alignment lies with the employees who need training, the supervisors who 

approve the training, and the training specialists who provide access to training 

opportunities.

Linking Training to Agency Mission. It is easy to assume that all training 

and development opportunities are beneficial and result in increased employee 

skill levels—and that this increased skill set will help improve an agency’s ability to 

accomplish its mission. Unfortunately, some of the time, employee development has 

no such impact. As MSPB found in previous research, many employees seek—and 

are given—training opportunities as a reward or as an excuse for travel to be trained 

in an interesting location.8 Sometimes employees seek training that may be an 

enhancement to their post-Government career, an addition to their personal skill 

set, or just an opportunity to accompany friends who are attending a training event. 

When funds for training are limited, these off-target training occurrences should 

be minimized.

Supervisors need to work with their employees so that expectations for training 

are set accurately for both supervisors and those they supervise. Employees have a 

responsibility to communicate their learning needs to their supervisors and explain 

how these needs are related to their job and the agency’s mission.

 8 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Leadership for Change: Human Resources Development in the 

Federal Government, Washington, D.C., July 1995. 

Preparing for Success
20 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Supervisors have a responsibility to ensure that their employees understand several 

important things. First, training requested is not training guaranteed. Training 

requested from a supervisor must pass several additional hurdles. The training must 

make the employee more effective in his or her current job to improve the employee’s 

contribution to agency mission achievement. If it contributes to the employee’s 

future career development, this is a benefit for the employee, but its primary purpose 

is to contribute to performance on the current job if the organization is to pay for 

it. The second issue is that funds must be available to pay for the training. Training 

funds—even for well-justified, job-related training—are often simply not available. 

Finally, supervisors need to be sure that their employees understand that supervisors 

often cannot send all of their employees to training for the same skill. They may 

send only one or a few employees so that the trained skill will be present in their 

work unit so the work will be done more effectively. They need to decide, using a 

number of factors, which employee(s) it makes the most sense to send.

Supervisors also need information that must come directly from those whom 

they supervise or that they must obtain by working with each of their employees. 

Employees need to inform supervisors of any difficulties they are having doing their 

work that might be eased by additional training. Because supervisors monitor the 

quality of their employees’ contributions, they can often gain perspective on this 

from their monitoring activities. However, employees should not be trapped in 

a “gap analysis” view of training—that it is only useful to remediate weaknesses. 

Supervisors should also encourage their employees to inform them about strengths 

they would like to develop that might move their acceptable performance to 

higher levels. As a practical matter, employees may also need to be proactive about 

informing their supervisors about specific training events or opportunities that are a 

match for the skills they want to develop.

Discussions between supervisors and employees about training should often be 

documented and available for review by management as well as by employees and 

supervisors. One way of documenting these discussions with proper attention to 

agency mission achievement is with a formal career development plan.9 The MPS 

2005 found that one-third (33 percent) of survey participants had specified the skill 

they most need to perform well in their current job in a career development plan. 

It is hoped that the remaining two-thirds are thoroughly discussing training and 

development needs with their supervisors as well. For some employees it is possible 

that the linkage of training to the agency’s mission has already been achieved by 

being listed in an occupation development plan that applies to many employees in 

an agency who have the same training needs. Other employees in jobs with more 

unique or rapidly changing requirements, such as scientists or technical specialists, 

may need to have more frequent discussions with their supervisors to update their 

 9 Career development plans, sometimes known as Individual Development Plans (IDP’s), are 

formal documents which describe the training and development experiences—including rotational 

assignments and other special duties—that an employee will undertake to develop job-related skills. 

Such documents clarify training plans for the employee, supervisor, and others in the agency such 

as upper management and training and development specialists who may be called on to assist in 

obtaining training opportunities. 

Preparing for Success
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 21

common understanding of the training and development opportunities they need. 

When these and the other steps called for in this section are followed, training can 

become a strong factor contributing to agency mission accomplishment, not just 

another expense. 

In concluding this section on linking training and agency mission, we note that 

some agencies do not stress the importance of career development plans—and their 

choice may be correct for the mix of occupations they contain. Figure 11 compares 

participant responses in different agencies in terms of whether they specified their 

most important learning need in such a plan. Agencies in which this form of 

specification is not used should take steps to ensure that other channels—such as 

employee-supervisor discussions—are available to address development needs and 

set appropriate expectations for both employees and their supervisors.

Type of Training. The MPS 2005 asked all participants to describe the skill for 

which they most crucially needed to obtain training in order to take the next step in 

their career path. After survey participants identified their most important training 

need, they responded to a series of additional questions about the form this training 

should take and how it should be funded. This provides us a view not just of 

employees’ thoughts about training in general, but also of their thoughts about the 

training they believe they need most.

We first asked participants to indicate how training for their most needed skill fit 

into their personal learning histories. The results are displayed in Figure 12, which 

contrasts supervisors and nonsupervisory employees. Most survey participants 

Preparing for Success

Figure 11. Percent of participants agreeing with the statement 

“This skill or ability is described on my formal career development 

plan,” by agency

0 20 40

GSA

Defense

OPM

Justice

Energy

Army

Agriculture

Interior

Veterans Affairs

Navy

State

NASA

HHS

HUD

Transportation

Treasury

Commerce

Education

DHS

EPA

Air Force

FDIC

SSA

Labor

45

44

38

37

37

37

37

35

35

33

33

33

32

31

30

30

25

23

29

29

28

29

29

29

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 37f. 
22 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

would be fine-tuning a skill in an area of personal strength (73 percent of supervisors 

and 72 percent of nonsupervisors), indicating that most employees want to use 

training to extend and improve their existing skills to achieve high performance. 

Only just over one-fourth of survey participants (27 percent of supervisors and 28 

percent of nonsupervisors) would be attempting to learn something that they have 

been unsuccessful at learning in the past. These results indicate that, for the most 

part, Federal employees are trying to use training to improve themselves by building 

on their strengths rather than struggling with weaknesses or past failures. This is 

consistent with our earlier picture of a generally well-prepared workforce whose 

members have largely mastered the basic skills needed to do their jobs and want 

to extend them.

Our second training follow-up question asked participants to indicate the relative 

effectiveness of five different modes of training to help them learn their most needed 

skill. As shown in Figure 13, nonsupervisory employees and their supervisors prefer 

traditional modes of employee development such as classroom training, mentoring, 

and developmental assignments. Many are less convinced that online learning or 

e-learning is an effective solution for their most critical training needs.

Preparing for Success

Figure 12. Percent of participants agreeing with the listed statements 

about developing targeted skills or ability, by supervisory status

28

39

52

66

72

27

31

51

67

73

Supervisor

Nonsupervisor

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, questions 37a-37e.

Extending or fine-tuning my skills in 

an area of personal strength

Overcoming a deficiency or closing a gap 

in my skill set

Updating my proficiency in an area that has 

changed since I learned it last

Acquiring a new skill I have not 

attempted to learn before

“Trying again” to learn something I was 

not successful in learning in the past

• 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23

Finally, we were interested in where participants place the responsibility to provide 

resources and support for training. The patterns in Figure 14 are clear. Most 

participants believe that development of their skills should be funded by agencies 

through formal training (81 percent) and on-the-job developmental experiences 

(78 percent).

Preparing for Success

Figure 13. Percent of participants indicating effectiveness of 

the listed strategies for developing targeted skills or ability, 

by supervisory status

88

83

78

62

59

89

85

85

69

65

Supervisor Nonsupervisor

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 38a-38e. 

Self-directed study using books, Web 

sites, CDs, DVDs, videos, etc

Online classroom learning with an 

instructor and other class members

Developmental assignments or other 

on-the-job training

Mentoring or coaching from a more 

experienced coworker

Face-to-face classroom training classes or 

educational coursework

Figure 14. Percent of participants agreeing with the listed statements 

about how to support improving targeted skills or ability, by 

supervisory status

20

34

78

82

24

41

75

80

Supervisor

Nonsupervisor

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 39a-39d. 

My agency should support this improvement by paying for training or education

My agency should support this improvement through special assignments, 

mentoring or other on-the-job experiences

I should personally support this improvement by finding appropriate opportunities 

or experiences outside of the workplace

I should personally support this improvement by paying for training or education

• • 
24 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Responses to a related question about training reveal that neither supervisors nor 

nonsupervisors expect automation or ready-to-hand reference manuals to excuse 

them from learning their new skill—only 16 percent believe that some form of work 

redesign would make their new learning unnecessary. Automation of some job tasks 

and the availability of good reference materials will make some jobs easier, but will 

not be a cure-all that replaces the need for new skill development. Nor do most 

survey participants expect them to be.

Training in Perspective. While training is not the answer for every need to 

build skill sets in the workplace, it is often the answer. Training is either the first 

choice for easily trainable job skills or the choice of last recourse when current 

employees must be trained because hiring new ones is not an option.

When training is the answer, it should of course be done efficiently as well as 

effectively. As the Board’s recent study of best practices in recruiting found, it can 

be very useful for agencies to share best practices in areas of common interest, such 

as training. This sharing allows agencies that have discovered or developed effective 

processes to offer their insights to colleagues in agencies looking for better solutions. 

All of this can occur through informal exchanges between training specialists, 

common in informal working groups, and discussions in the relevant professional 

associations.10 Such efforts may also provide the opportunity for agencies to pool 

resources to train employees in similar occupations, with similar needs. Such 

pooling has the potential to reduce the cost of training for employees in smaller 

occupations and for smaller agencies.

 10 The Training Manager’s Network initiated this year by training specialists who belong to the 

International Personnel Management Association for Human Resources (IPMA-HR) is one example of 

an effective communication channel that exists outside the organizational structure of Federal agencies. 

A great deal of information about training best practices—and practices to avoid—is shared through 

this group’s email list (trainingmgr@ipma-hr.org).

The National Association for Government Training and Development (NAGTAD, www.nagtad.org) 

organizes an annual conference for Federal, state, and local training professionals and is a source of 

information about training in the public sector.

Although its membership includes private sector training specialists as well as Federal and other public 

sector trainers, the Web site of the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD, www.astd.

org) is another source of best practices information about employee development.

Preparing for Success
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25

Overcoming Barriers to Success

A Federal workforce that is well prepared to succeed can still fall short of 

success. Unresolved problems in the workplace create barriers to success 

that divert energy from working on the agency’s mission and, over time, 

discourage even the best employees from trying their hardest. When Federal 

employees do not feel well informed, when they believe they are not treated fairly, 

when the workplace is disrupted by a major conflict between employees or between 

an employee and a supervisor, working becomes more difficult. When trust is not 

present between employees and their supervisors, efforts to overcome these barriers 

may be marked for failure before they begin. In this section we review responses to 

questions we asked participants about whether these are problems they encounter 

while working as Federal employees.

An Information Gap Between Employees and Supervisors

According to the MPS 2005 results, fewer nonsupervisory employees than 

supervisors believe they are well-informed in the Federal workplace. For example, 

more supervisors (78 percent versus 57 percent for nonsupervisors) believe 

information is shared freely in their work units. Fewer nonsupervisors (63 percent 

versus 80 percent of supervisors) report that a spirit of cooperation and teamwork 

conducive to information sharing exists in their work units. Supervisors have 

a moderate level of trust in their own supervisors (69 percent) and in upper 

management (60 percent) to keep them informed. Nonsupervisors have less trust 

that they will be given important information by their supervisors (59 percent) and 

upper management (49 percent). It is not possible to determine from our survey 

data whether these perceptions reflect reality, but it is clear that the level of belief 

that they are well informed is lower for nonsupervisors than for supervisors.

The information gap is also evident in responses to a set of questions about employee 

performance and performance ratings. Supervisors and nonsupervisors alike 

overwhelmingly agree (99 percent) that pay should be based on job performance. 

Nonsupervisory employees may be at a relative disadvantage in their grasp of how 

the performance rating system works to achieve this, however.

Employees specifically report that they are not as well-informed as many would like 

about issues surrounding evaluation of their performance. While most employees 

know what is expected of them on the job (85 percent) and understand the basis for 

their most recent performance rating (81 percent), fewer understand what they must 
26 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

do to receive a higher performance rating in the next appraisal cycle (69 percent). 

As we might expect, fewer nonsupervisory employees (68 percent) than supervisory 

employees (75 percent) understand how their performance rating is determined. 

Only half (49 percent) of nonsupervisory employees participate in setting the 

goals and standards on which they will be evaluated. One fifth of nonsupervisory 

employees (22 percent) are even unsure about the number of rating levels in their 

performance appraisal system. Although the rationale for their performance ratings 

may be made clear when, or shortly after, they receive their ratings, too many 

nonsupervisory employees do not understand how their performance appraisal 

system is structured and how it will be used to evaluate them.

As indicated above, supervisors are better informed about these matters. Only 

5 percent of supervisors report that they are unaware of the structure of their 

performance appraisal system. Also, a higher percentage of supervisors (60 percent 

versus 49 percent) participate in setting the standards and goals that will be used to 

evaluate their performance.

Why do nonsupervisory employees believe that they are less informed than they 

would like? One explanation is that supervisors are not sharing information as 

effectively as they could, or in as timely a manner. For example, only 61 percent 

of nonsupervisory employees believe that discussions with their supervisors about 

performance are worthwhile, that their supervisors provide constructive feedback 

about their job performance (57 percent), or that their supervisors keep them 

informed about how well they are doing (57 percent). While these numbers 

represent a majority, clearly many nonsupervisory employees believe that their 

supervisors could be communicating more effectively.

Figure 15 shows a cross-agency comparison of the degree to which survey 

respondents participate in setting the standards and goals that will be used 

to evaluate their performance. This participation allows for a specific type of 

communication between employees and their supervisors that should be occurring 

if employees at all levels are to make the contribution to their agency’s mission that 

their supervisors expect. This communication must occur if all employees are to be 

evaluated according to their expected contribution to this mission.11

Overcoming Barriers to Success

 11 In fact communication of goals and performance standards is more than good management 

practice, it is a legal requirement. See 5 U.S.C. § 4302.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27

It is important for agency leaders, from political appointees to first-level 

supervisors, to realize that many of their front-line employees believe they need to 

be better informed—and most likely can be. In a Federal workforce where fewer 

nonsupervisory employees than supervisors believe they can openly express concerns 

(66 percent versus 76 percent), or that their opinions count at work (52 percent 

versus 70 percent), many nonsupervisory employees themselves may not express this 

need directly.

Leaders from first-line supervisors to senior executives should take the initiative to 

close any information gaps in their own agencies, organizations, and work units. 

Nonsupervisory employees also have a responsibility to facilitate information 

sharing by reducing barriers to communication and having realistic expectations 

in case the information they want is not available. Cooperation on both sides of 

the supervisory “fence” will open the gate and allow information to pass freely in 

both directions. Agency leaders are gatekeepers for information about the agency’s 

mission and how those they supervise are expected to contribute to it. As a practical 

matter it is they, rather than the employees they supervise, who must take the first 

steps toward bridging the information gap.

Employee Perceptions of Unfair Treatment

Fair and equitable treatment has been a recurring topic of MSPB interest. 

Employees who do not believe they are treated fairly will not be able to make their 

strongest contribution to their agencies’ missions. They will be less comfortable 

working with—and communicating with—those they believe treat them unfairly, 

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Figure 15. Percent of participants agreeing with the statement 

“I participate in setting standards and goals used to evaluate my 

job performance,” by agency

68

67

64

62

60

58

57

54

51

49

49

49

48

47

47

43

42

39

39

37

35

33

27

0 20 40 60 80

State

Army

NASA

Interior

EPA

Energy

Education

GSA

HHS

Commerce

Navy

Defense

Air Force

Agriculture

Veterans Affairs

Treasury

Justice

Transportation

DHS

OPM

Labor

HUD

FDIC

SSA

74

Source: MSPB, Principles Survey 2005, question 12c.
28 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

and they will generally be more uncomfortable in their work environment.

This topic is of such importance that the Board studies it in depth on a recurring 

basis.12 The Board is currently conducting a study of fair treatment that will 

address the topic in greater depth than we do here. In this section, we review 

some of the general findings about perceptions of unfair treatment from the 

MPS 2005 and consider how such perceptions may create barriers to agency 

mission accomplishment.

Agency and Supervisor Fairness. We asked our sample of Federal employees 

several direct questions about how they are treated in the workplace. Some of these 

questions have also been asked in previous administrations of the MPS, allowing us 

to examine trends in fair treatment over time.

Most of our survey participants (60 percent) believe that their agency treats them 

fairly in matters related to employment, but there is room for improvement. 

Figure 16 shows that a greater number of supervisory employees (71 percent) 

than nonsupervisory employees (58 percent) believe their agency treats them fairly. 

Figure 17 compares agencies on the perception of general fair treatment by their 

employees.

Overcoming Barriers to Success

 12 For instance, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Question of Equity: Women and the 

Glass Ceiling in the Federal Government, October 1992; Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Progress Report 

on Minority Employment in the Federal Government, August 1996; Achieving a Representative Federal 

Workforce: Addressing the Barriers to Hispanic Participation, September 1997. 

Figure 16. Percent of participants agreeing with the statement 

“I believe my agency treats me fairly in matters related to my 

employment,” by supervisory status

71

58

Supervisor Nonsupervisor

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 31d.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29

Figure 18 presents the results of MPS 2005 questions about fair treatment in 

six specific areas of employee and agency concern. Using data from previous 

administrations of the Merit Principles Survey, we compared 2005 responses with 

responses in previous years. For all six categories the MPS 2005 survey found 

that the same or a slightly greater percentage of employees believed their agency 

treated them fairly. Perceptions of fair treatment divide into two sets of issues. Just 

over half of MPS 2005 participants believe they are treated fairly with respect to 

performance appraisals (55 percent), job assignments (52 percent), and discipline 

for employee misconduct (53 percent). Over a third of our participants believe 

they are treated fairly with respect to training (41 percent), awards (38 percent), and 

promotion opportunities (37 percent). Although agencies are not losing ground 

with respect to their employees’ perceptions of fair treatment by their agency, there 

is room for improvement according to employees.

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Figure 17. Percent of participants agreeing with the statement 

“I believe my agency treats me fairly in matters related to my 

employment,” by agency

72

65

64

63

62

61

61

61

60

60

60

60

60

56

53

51

51

47

57

58

0 20 40 60 80

NASA

Navy

Air Force

Army

State

EPA

Labor

SSA

Agriculture

Defense

Justice

Veterans Affairs

Interior

Commerce

Energy

HHS

HUD

GSA

Treasury

OPM

Education

FDIC

Transportation

DHS

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 31d. 

59

59

59

59

I 
30 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

When survey participants are asked about the fairness of their supervisors, an 

interesting pattern emerges—supervisors are consistently regarded as treating their 

employees with a relatively high degree of fairness. Large majorities of supervisory and 

nonsupervisory employees agree that their supervisors fairly assess their performance 

and contributions (71 percent), listen fairly to their concerns (71 percent), apply 

discipline fairly (64 percent), and fairly and accurately rate their performance (62 

percent). Although responses to the specific questions about agency and supervisor 

fairness differ, there is a pattern of greater perceived supervisor fairness than overall 

agency fairness. In this sense, supervisors are well regarded by their employees.

The key to reducing perceived unfairness may rest with the relationship between 

employees and their supervisors. When employees trust their supervisors to treat 

them fairly, this greatly improves the working relationship and enables work units to 

accomplish much more than when an environment of distrust exists. For example, 

trust facilitates communication, which enables supervisors and their employees to 

work together more effectively, with the ultimate result of greater opportunities for 

accomplishing the agency’s mission.13

Overcoming Barriers to Success

 13 Ronald W. Perry, “The Relationship of Affective Organizational Commitment with Supervisory 

Trust,” Review of Public Personnel Administration, vol. 24, No. 2, 133-149 (2004).

Figure 18. Percent of participants agreeing with the statement 

“In the past 2 years, to what extent do you believe you have been 

treated fairly regarding various aspects of your job,” in 1992, 1996, 

2000, 2005

0

15

30

45

1992 1996 2000 2005

Appraisals

Assignments

Discipline

Training

Awards

Advancement

Note: Line breaks occur during years the question was not asked.

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Surveys: 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2005, questions 22a-22f.

~-- -- ~---------:: -- --=~· -

• 

)I( 

---0---

... 

---•---

• 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 31

Prohibited Personnel Practices. One specific reason that the Merit Systems 

Protection Board conducts our recurring survey is to track the prevalence of specific 

personnel practices that agencies must avoid.14 These “prohibited personnel 

practices” (PPP’s) include specific forms of discrimination, nepotism, retaliation 

for employee whistleblowing, and interference with merit-based hiring and efficient 

management of the workforce.

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Table 2 contains data from Merit Principles Surveys conducted across the 19-year 

period 1986-2005. In responses to questions about PPP’s, employees reported fewer 

of these practices during the 2 years prior to the MPS 2005 survey administration 

than at any other time in the two decades under review. There could be several 

explanations for this apparent improvement. Recent emphasis on improving 

supervisory skills may be a contributing factor. Additionally, the fact that today’s 

Government has an older, more knowledgeable, and more tenured workforce may 

play a role in reducing the rates at which PPP’s are committed and/or reported. 

Whatever the explanation, this downward trend is grounds for cautious optimism 

that Federal supervisors and other managers and their employees are internalizing 

merit principles and behaving in increasingly appropriate ways at work. The trend 

data may also be an indicator that the efforts of MSPB and other agencies that 

safeguard the Federal workforce are achieving success. 

To understand more about the situation, we have included questions on each MPS 

asking participants about their experiences with specific prohibited personnel 

practices. Figure 19 presents responses to questions about retaliation for 

whistleblowing from the present Merit Principles Survey and the preceding three 

most recent surveys. Here, there is also a slight decreasing trend, perhaps indicating 

decreased retaliation by agencies against employees who stand up for their rights. 

 14 These prohibited personnel practices are specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302.

Table 2. Percent of participants reporting the occurrence of select 

prohibited personnel practices

1986 1989 1992 1996 2000 2005

—

 — 19 25 22 17

—

 — 16 18 14 12

 4 5 5 5 4 3

 6 6 4 5 4 3

 

, From Merit Principles Surveys conducted in 1986, 1989, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2005.

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

Denied a job or promotion because one of the selecting 

or recommending officials gave an unfair advantage to 

another applicant?

Deliberately misled by an agency official about your right to 

compete for a job or promotion

Influenced by an agency official to withdraw from competition 

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

chances of getting that job or promotion?

Denied a job or promotion which went instead to the relative 

of one of the selecting or recommending officials?
32 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Figure 20 presents the percentage of employees who believe they have been denied 

promotions for seven different nonmerit—and therefore illegal—reasons across 

these same four administrations of the Merit Principles Survey. Although the chart 

indicates decreases in all of these practices in 2005, these decreases represent very 

small differences and could be due to chance. Therefore, our focus should be not 

so much on downward trends, which may be due to chance, but on the fact that 

the incidence of most prohibited personnel practices is low and certainly not rising.

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Figure 19. Percent of participants responding “yes” to statements 

about whistleblowing and retaliation in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2005

0

10

20

1992 1996 2000 2005

Unfairly denied a

job or promotion

Retaliated against

for exercising

appeal rights

Retaliated against

because of lawful

disclosures

Retaliated against

for helping others

appeal

Retaliated against

for refusing to obey

lawful orders

Lost job due to

nepotism

Influenced to

withdraw from

competition

Retaliated against

for reporting sexual

harassment

Note: Line breaks occur during years the question was not asked.

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Surveys: 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2005 questions 26b-26d, and 27a-27e.

.----X. )K· - -- -

',K, 

------

---)K---

-e-

-a-
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33

These positive findings do not mean that agencies should rest easy. Achieving a 

100 percent safety record on a factory production line does not mean workers 

or managers can cease their concerns about employee safety. Similarly, Federal 

employees at every level must continually attend to the merit principles to maintain 

the improving record and eventually surpass it.

Conflict in the Workplace

The MPS 2005 gathered information on several issues that MSPB has not studied in 

previous years. One such issue is conflict in the workplace. We chose to explore this 

issue because the way agencies, supervisors, and nonsupervisory employees identify 

and resolve workplace conflicts can materially affect organizational and employee 

performance, employee morale, and ultimately employee retention. Accordingly, the MPS 

2005 included questions designed to help us better understand the prevalence of serious 

workplace conflict, the sources of such conflict, and how supervisors respond to it.

Prevalence of Conflict. The MPS asked all employees, both supervisory and 

nonsupervisory, whether they had experienced a serious conflict within their work 

units.15 Survey responses from all participants confirm our suspicion that conflicts 

 15 We provided survey participants with the following definition of serious conflict: “A serious conflict 

is one that you felt if not addressed would result in negative workforce consequences such as low 

morale, low organizational productivity or performance, perceived unfairness, absenteeism, attrition or 

even fear.”

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Figure 20. Percent of participants saying “yes” to having been denied 

a job benefit because of unlawful discrimination based upon the listed 

reasons, in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2005

0

5

10

15

1992 1996 2000 2005

Race/national origin

Sex

Age

Handicapping condition

Religion

Marital status

Political affiliation

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Surveys: 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2005, questions 25a-25g.

-+-

-----

->+-

-1⁄4-

---+--

--+-
34 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

in the workplace are common. Nearly half of supervisors (49 percent) report dealing 

with at least one conflict during the past year. As Figure 21 shows, more than 

one third of employees (37 percent) indicate that they had experienced a serious 

conflict in their work unit during the past 2 years. In addition, Figure 21 puts this 

percentage in perspective. Workplace conflicts are separate from and actually much 

more common than instances of individual mistreatment such as bullying and sexual 

harassment. 

Sources of Conflict. To understand the nature of workplace conflict, we asked 

supervisors which sources lead to workplace conflict. Their responses are displayed 

in Figure 22. 

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Figure 21. Percent of participants indicating they experienced the 

listed incidents in the past 2 years

37

14

3

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, questions 28, 29, and 30.

A serious conflict in your work unit

Any repeated unwanted nonsexual 

attention, humiliation, harassment,

bullying on the job

Any repeated unwanted sexual 

attention or harassment on the job

Figure 22. Percent of supervisors indicating the source of a conflict 

they encountered in their work unit in the past 2 years

8

15

16

23

24

39

43

56

61

Employee conduct 71

Relationship between employees

Employee performance

Work assignment

Relationship between manager/employee

Opportunities for promotion

Performance appraisal

Awards

Opportunities for training or development

Salary/pay

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 52.

I 

I 

J 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

::::J 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35

As indicated by the chart, the two most frequently reported sources of conflict 

are employee conduct problems (71 percent) and issues arising from relationships 

between employees (61 percent). The next most common sources of conflict are 

employee performance (56 percent), work assignments (43 percent), and problems 

in the supervisor/employee relationship (39 percent). Matters such as opportunities 

for promotion, awards, training, and salary were the least frequently cited.

These findings indicate two interesting patterns. First, serious workplace conflicts 

are more likely to stem from people themselves (e.g., from their conduct and work 

relationships) than from events or personnel actions (e.g., actions about training 

opportunities or awards). Second, serious conflicts are more likely to relate to local 

issues within the purview of the supervisor (e.g., employee relationships and work 

assignments) than to issues governed by agency policy or organizational structure. 

With this in mind, we explore how supervisors respond to workplace conflicts.

Responses to Conflict. Figure 23 displays the different strategies used by 

supervisors to resolve “the most memorable conflict within the past two years” in 

their work unit. The data are encouraging and speak highly of supervisor efforts 

to resolve conflict. The most often used tool in the supervisor’s conflict resolution 

repertoire is informal discussion with employees, brought into play in attempts 

to resolve more than three quarters of workplace conflicts (77 percent). In 

addition, supervisors often address conflicts by conducting formal meetings with 

the employee(s) involved in the conflict (59 percent), providing information (50 

percent), or holding general meetings such as staff meetings or “town hall” meetings 

(41 percent). This seems to indicate that supervisors clearly understand 

the importance of communication in clarifying and resolving conflict. 

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Figure 23. Percent of supervisors indicating their strategies for 

internally resolving conflicts

20

24

30

41

50

53

59

77 Informal discussion

Formal meeting(s) with employee(s) or 

employee representative(s)

Officially documented source of conflict 

and/or took (or attempted) formal

Provided information to employees

General meeting

Gave the conflict time to resolve itself

Internal process using a neutral 

third party moderator

Formal agency process

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 53.

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
36 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Supervisors do use formal or structured processes, such as disciplinary action (53 

percent) or third-party intervention (24 percent), but less frequently than several 

methods focusing on communication.16 Another strategy that supervisors use with 

some frequency is the “wait and see” approach. Nearly one-third of supervisors 

indicate that they simply give the conflict time to resolve itself.

The data seem to indicate that although formal conflict resolution processes are 

necessary and important, agencies cannot solely rely on such mechanisms to prevent 

or resolve workplace conflicts. The most important “mechanisms” are communication 

between people (i.e., first-line supervisors and their employees) and establishing an 

organizational culture in which there is trust between supervisors and their employees 

(we discuss the topic of trust in more depth in a following section of this report). 

In a related question, we asked participants for their perceptions of how 

constructively their agency deals with workplace conflict. Figure 24 summarizes 

the responses by agency. These data should not be viewed as a ranking of how well 

individual agencies deal with conflict. Instead, we show this data to make two 

points. First, the Federal Government has considerable room for improvement in 

dealing with workplace conflict.17 There is no agency in which more than half of 

the employees are satisfied with the agency’s approach to conflict resolution. Second, 

agencies can contribute to the situation in a positive or negative way. Although 

 16 Because our survey did not ask supervisors why they chose a particular strategy, we cannot 

determine how their choice was affected by factors such as the nature of the conflict, supervisory 

preference, or agency policy.

17 Employees’ responses to this question may also reflect differences in the organization’s mission and 

work environment. For example, an organization with “24/7” workplace coverage requirements may 

be more likely to have conflicts related to work scheduling than a “9 to 5” organization—and may be 

perceived by employees as less flexible or constructive when such conflicts arise.

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Figure 24. Percent of participants agreeing with the statement “My 

agency responds constructively to workplace conflicts,” by agency

0 20 40

NASA

Air Force

Veterans Affairs

Navy

Army

GSA

Defense

Justice

State

Labor

Agriculture

Treasury

Commerce

SSA

OPM

HHS

EPA

Interior

HUD

Transportation

Education

Energy

DHS

FDIC

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 1h.

48

47

46

43

43

42

41

40

40

35

35

39

38

34

34

33

33

33

30

30

29

28

25

23
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 37

differences among agencies cannot be attributed solely to how constructively 

they respond to workplace conflict, the differences are large enough to make it 

clear that organizational culture, agency policy and practice, and supervisory and 

nonsupervisory employee behaviors do matter.

Outcomes of Conflict. Figure 25 displays the outcomes of conflicts as reported 

by supervisors. Just over half (52 percent) of supervisors indicate that the most 

recent workplace conflict they dealt with was resolved in a way that satisfied most 

employees, while nearly one-tenth (9 percent) indicated it was resolved in a way 

that left some employees dissatisfied. About one-eighth (12 percent) of the conflicts 

involved referral to a third party, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, Federal Labor Relations Authority, or the MSPB. Finally, a small 

percentage of the workplace conflicts (3 percent) resolved themselves. In one way 

or another, about three out of four conflicts were resolved.

Thus, about one in four of the recent conflicts described by supervisors were 

unresolved. Nearly half of these unresolved conflicts—roughly 12 percent of all the 

serious conflicts reported by supervisors—negatively affected the performance of the 

work unit or the broader organization. This reinforces two points. First, agencies must 

have tools to manage and resolve workplace conflicts. These tools range from ensuring 

that supervisors and their employees are equipped with good problem-solving and 

interpersonal skills to instituting alternative dispute resolution to taking formal actions. 

Second, agencies must be willing to use those tools to resolve workplace conflicts. 

Although informal, low-level resolution of conflicts is generally desirable, agency 

leaders and other supervisors must persist in efforts to resolve conflicts—including 

taking formal personnel actions and third-party involvement—when informal 

measures are unsuccessful or inappropriate. Inaction is not an adequate response to 

serious workplace conflict. As shown above, few serious conflicts will simply disappear. 

Moreover, supervisors who take a “wait and see” approach to a serious conflict are 

considerably more likely to report that the conflict remained unresolved with serious 

consequences (17 percent) than are supervisors who use an active strategy (10 percent). 

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Figure 25. Percent of supervisors indicating the listed conflict outcome

3

9

12

12

12

52

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 54.

Resolved-internally most satisfied

Referred-external third party

Unresolved-negative consequences

Unresolved-few/minor consequences

Resolved-minority satisfied

Resolved itself
38 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Conflicts Related to Disagreement with Management Decisions

The MPS 2005 asked about the degree to which participants believe they were 

retaliated against for disagreeing with management decisions. As shown in Figure 

26, nearly three times as many survey participants (15 percent) report that managers 

have retaliated against them for this reason than for engaging in activities such as 

whistleblowing or reporting sexual harassment (5 percent).18

 18 Note that the six issues listed in Figure 26 are not necessarily mutually exclusive in the minds of 

our survey participants or under the law. Instances of “disagreeing with management decisions” may 

also constitute “whistleblowing” under some circumstances. Nevertheless, our point remains that 

“disagreeing with management decisions” is regarded by our survey participants as a more frequent 

elicitor of retaliation than other issues presented on the MPS 2005.

Although disagreeing with management decisions is not necessarily legally protected, 

Federal employees’ ability and willingness to voice constructive concerns about 

management decisions are nevertheless a matter of public concern. Agencies—and 

the American public—can benefit when managerial decisions give due weight to 

relevant considerations and facts, including those provided by employee subject 

matter experts. That cannot happen unless employees freely share their knowledge 

and perspectives with agency leaders and managers. 

It appears that a great deal of frustration and concern surrounds this topic. MPS 

2005 results indicate that many Federal employees believe their views are unheard, 

disregarded, or discouraged. For instance, 17 percent of survey participants 

disagreed with the statement “I am able to openly express concerns at work” and 22 

percent disagreed with “My opinions count at work.” From the agency perspective, 

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Figure 26. Percent of participants responding “yes” to the question 

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

threatened with retaliation for...”

1

2

3

5

6

15

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, questions 27a-27f.

Disagreeing with management decisions?

Exercising any appeal, complaint, or 

grievance right?

Disclosing health and safety dangers, unlawful 

behavior, and/or fraud, waste, and abuse?

Testifying for or otherwise assisting any individual in 

the exercise of whistleblowing, equal employment 

opportunity, or appeal rights?

Refusing to obey an unlawful order?

Reporting unwanted sexual attention or

sexual harassment?
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 39

reactions to proposed changes to personnel systems in the Department of Homeland 

Security and the Department of Defense seem to suggest that there is concern 

about agency ability to enforce workplace rules and hold employees accountable for 

supporting legitimate management goals and priorities.

Figure 27 presents a cross-agency comparison of the degree to which survey 

participants believe they have been retaliated against for challenging management 

decisions.19 The variation across agencies is striking, but not surprising. As noted 

previously, agencies have diverse missions, work environments, and organizational 

cultures. It would be surprising if that diversity was not reflected in differences 

in employee perceptions of how agencies deal with employees who disagree with 

management decisions.

 19 We emphasize that these figures reflect employees’ characterization of the agency’s response to 

their disagreement with a management decision. Thus, the perceived “retaliation” is not necessarily 

inappropriate or illegal. For example, there are circumstances under which an agency may reasonably 

reassign or change the job duties of an employee who disagrees with a particular agency project. This 

may even be done with regard for the employee, the supervisor believing that the employee would 

appreciate not being required to work directly in support of something with which he or she does 

not agree. The agency may not, of course, take such action in response to an employee expression of 

disagreement that is protected under 5 U.S.C § 2302(b)(8).

However, it is also clear that the Federal Government, as a whole, can do better 

in dealing with these situations. Fifteen percent of survey participants report 

threatened or actual retaliation for disagreeing with management decisions. 

Improvement will require agencies to make progress in two areas. First, they must 

do more to foster trust and good working relationships between supervisors and 

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Figure 27. Percent of participants responding “yes” to the question 

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

or threatened with retaliation for disagreeing with management 

decisions,” by agency

24

17

16

16

16

16

15

15

15

14

14

14

14

14

14

13

13

13

12

12

11

10

10

9

0 5 10 15 20 25

DHS

HUD

Education

Air Force

Transportation

HHS

Interior

EPA

Justice

State

Navy

GSA

Energy

Treasury

Defense

Veterans Affairs

OPM

SSA

Agriculture

Army

Labor

Commerce

FDIC

NASA

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 27f. 
40 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

their employees to open up or improve communication and increase the opportunity 

to resolve disagreements more successfully. Second, agencies should establish an 

organizational culture that accepts reasoned disagreement while maintaining cohesion 

and discipline. Specifically, they could introduce guidelines and practices that protect 

employees from retaliation for expressing legitimate concerns while permitting 

managers to hold employees accountable for their performance and conduct. 

In support of this approach, we note that Federal employees have guidelines for 

dealing with many other matters related to their employment. There are complaint 

procedures for EEO issues; grievance procedures for other work-related matters; 

ethics guidelines for conflict of interest issues; and rules for official travel and use of 

Government credit cards. However, we have observed that Federal employees and 

supervisors receive little guidance on working through questions and disagreements 

over management priorities, policies, or decisions. Therefore, as suggested above, 

it may be helpful for agencies to establish some “ground rules” for expressing and 

resolving disagreements related to management decisions.20 

Trust—the Key to Overcoming Barriers

Fair and equitable treatment and successful communication both build trust—and 

their absence can create distrust and a host of accompanying problems. We asked all 

survey participants about their satisfaction with their supervisors and other managers 

and their trust in them. The results are presented in Figures 28 and 29, respectively.

 20 The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Federal Employees (5 U.S.C. 2635.101) outline general 

responsibilities of Federal employees, but do not discuss in detail employee rights and responsibilities in 

relation to agency leadership. The standards of conduct of some other nations are much more explicit. 

For example, Canada’s Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service (available at http://www.tbs-sct.

gc.ca), includes statements that “Public servants shall give honest and impartial advice and make all 

information relevant to a decision available to Ministers,” that “Public servants shall loyally implement 

ministerial decisions, lawfully taken,” and that “Ministers are responsible for...maintaining the 

tradition of political neutrality of the Public Service and its continuing ability to provide professional, 

candid and frank advice.”

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Figure 28. Percent of participants agreeing with statements 

about their satisfaction with their management officials, by 

supervisory status

71

57 63

45

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, questions 35n and 

Supervisor Nonsupervisor

Overall, I am satisfied 

with my supervisor.

Overall, I am satisfied 

with the managers above my 

immediate supervisor.

• • 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 41

Figure 28 presents supervisors’ and nonsupervisors’ level of satisfaction with their 

immediate supervisors and with upper management. Substantial majorities of both 

supervisors (71 percent) and nonsupervisors (63 percent) are satisfied with their 

immediate supervisors. Both groups report less satisfaction with upper agency 

management, although supervisors report being more satisfied with higher level 

managers than nonsupervisors do.

Figure 29 compares participants’ trust in two levels of supervisors on four specific 

issues. For each issue, there is a clear pattern of employees trusting their immediate 

supervisors more than they trust the next level of supervision. First-line supervisors 

are trusted more to act with integrity (by a difference of 13 percent), listen fairly 

to employees’ concerns (by a difference of 20 percent), apply discipline fairly (by a 

difference of 15 percent), and refrain from favoritism (by a difference of 16 percent). 

Because trust is such a fundamental issue, it affects a large number of even more 

specific attitudes that employees have toward their supervisors, their agency, and 

their agency’s mission. As agencies seek to revamp their personnel management 

systems, including implementing pay for performance compensation systems, it 

will be especially important for them to do more to foster and maintain the trust 

of their employees.

Figure 30 expands our discussion of employee trust. We asked survey participants 

their views about certain internal or external interventions used to deal with issues 

of fair treatment. Although 6 in 10 participants believe that their agency treats 

them fairly in matters of employment, there is far less trust that third-party agencies 

(43 percent), employment appeals systems (39 percent), or employment grievance 

systems (39 percent) can resolve conflicts and resolve unfairness.

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Figure 29. Percent of participants indicating trust in their first- and 

second-level supervisors to do the listed 

0 20 40 60 80

Trust first-level supervisor Trust second-level supervisor

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, questions 33c, d, f and g and 34c-34f.

To act with integrity

To listen fairly to my concerns

To apply discipline fairly and only 

when justified

To refrain from favoritism

• • 
42 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

What implications do these findings have for removing barriers to the 

accomplishment of agency missions? The most obvious is that agency leadership and 

third-party investigative and adjudicatory agencies have a serious need to improve 

trust in their processes, and should work to do so. However, since such a small 

number of employees seek redress through internal or external procedures, agencies 

may encourage greater workforce commitment to their mission by doing all they can 

to strengthen and maintain trust between employees and their supervisors. To foster 

this relationship, supervisors themselves need to behave with integrity and make a 

conscious effort to gain or retain the trust of their employees.

In administering the MPS 2005 we wanted to learn participants’ views about their 

supervisors’ qualifications. As illustrated in Figure 31, our survey found that more 

employees believe their supervisors are technically qualified (68 percent) than believe 

they have good management skills (56 percent). This greater respect for technical 

than managerial skills repeats a finding from the MPS 2000, but employees surveyed 

in 2005 have higher regard for both skill sets in their supervisors than MPS 2000 

participants reported. In many cases, supervisors can gain their employees’ trust by 

building on the respect they have earned in technical areas of common experience 

with their employees. This “technical credibility” is a core competency in the Office 

of Personnel Management’s leadership competency model for several good reasons—

not only does it allow managers to make better substantive decisions, but it is a basis 

for employee respect and improved communication. It is a building block of trust. 

It is also important to note that employees will also respect and trust supervisors 

more if supervisors’ skill in managing and communicating with their employees 

is strengthened.

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Figure 30. Percent of participants agreeing with the listed statements 

about fair treatment

39

39

43

60

Source MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 31a-31d. 

I believe my agency treats me fairly in 

matters related to my employment

I trust third party investigative or adjudicatory 

agencies (such as the OSC, EEOC, FLRA, 

MSPB) to respond appropriately to complaints

I believe that the current employment 

grievance system, if I had occasion to use it, 

would be fair

I believe that the current employment 

appeals system, if I had occasion to use it, 

would be fair

I 

I 

I 

I 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 43

A key recommendation throughout this report is that agencies, supervisors, 

and employees work to strengthen the trust and working relationship between 

supervisors and their employees. This relationship is a key element in effectively 

disseminating information to employees, in improving the flow of information 

in both directions between employees and their supervisors, and in diffusing and 

resolving conflicts in the workplace. It is equally crucial in identifying or expressing 

perceptions of unfair treatment and in eliminating such treatment. For this reason, 

we believe that strengthening the trust, and therefore the working relationship, 

between employees and their supervisors is likely to be the most effective strategy 

for increasing an agency’s ability to accomplish its mission.

Overcoming Barriers to Success

Figure 31. Percent of participants who agreed with two statements 

about their immediate supervisor, in 2000 and 2005

56

68

60

0

25

50

75

2000 2005

My supervisor has good management skills

My supervisor has good technical skills

47

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Surveys: 2000, and 2005, questions 35l and 35m.

____________ .. 
44 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 45

Preserving Success

Recognizing the commitment of Federal employees to the mission of their 

agencies, preparing the workforce to succeed, and removing barriers to 

success are essential components of a successful strategy to achieve each 

agency’s mission. Once this strategy is working, agencies must also take steps to 

preserve success by rewarding employee performance and by working to retain those 

employees who might consider leaving Federal service for opportunities elsewhere.

What motivates Federal employees? There is no shortage of personal opinions on 

this issue, ranging from the claim that public servants are uniquely inspired by their duty 

to their country to the belief that they are driven primarily by concerns about job security 

and pay. We asked employees directly about their views. The following sections present 

their responses to these questions and review differences between employees who are 

considering leaving the Federal workforce and those more likely to remain.

Job Satisfaction and Job Security—the Bottom Line

The majority of Federal employees are satisfied with their jobs (71 percent). As with 

other dimensions assessed in the MPS 2005, there is a clear trend for supervisors to 

be more satisfied with their jobs than nonsupervisors. Beginning with moderately 

high job satisfaction among nonsupervisors (69 percent), satisfaction rises through 

the ranks, reaching its peak among the Senior Executive Service (85 percent). 

While it is possible that people who are more satisfied with their job to begin 

with are more likely to be promoted over time, it is perhaps easier to imagine that 

managers actually have jobs that they find more satisfying. Whatever its source, job 

satisfaction proves essential at all levels, and can aid the retention of high-performing 

employees. Hence, we should look more closely at how agencies can improve job 

satisfaction at all levels.

Figure 32 presents an agency comparison of responses to the job satisfaction 

question. Differences in job satisfaction among agencies may have multiple causes, 

including some that are unique to a particular agency. For purposes of our research, 

it is interesting to see that, across agencies, employees with high job satisfaction also 

respond positively to most other attitude questions on the survey. For example, 

satisfied employees are highly likely to agree that their job is meaningful, they know 

what is expected of them, they have a real chance to improve their skills, and they 

would recommend their agency as a place to work. Job satisfaction is related to 

attitudes about so many other aspects of the workplace that job dissatisfaction may be 

due to any one or a combination of these factors.
46 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Job security is another important factor in retaining—or preserving—a high-quality 

workforce. While job satisfaction and job security are related,21 it is important to 

recognize that they are conceptually distinct. Recognizing the need to assess both 

concepts, we asked the MPS 2005 participants if they agree or disagree with the 

statement “My job is secure.” Just over half (57 percent) believe that their job is 

secure. Not surprisingly, more supervisors (64 percent) view their job as secure than 

nonsupervisors (56 percent). Fewer employees in field locations (56 percent) than 

those working at their agency’s headquarters (64 percent) believe their jobs are secure. 

Our results also reveal a tendency for employees who do not believe their job is secure 

to indicate that they might change jobs to find greater job security—as one would 

expect. Older employees believe they have more job security than younger employees. 

Those closer to retirement, with more years of service, believe their jobs are more 

secure. Perceptions of low job security seem more closely related to specific experiences 

employees have had, such as believing they have been discriminated against or 

having failed to learn a skill in the past. It may be that asking about specific negative 

experiences in an employee’s recent past may be a better way to understand perceptions 

of job security, an approach we will consider in future Board research.

Retaining Federal employees does not depend solely on their satisfaction with their 

jobs and their perception of security in those jobs. Another key factor is whether 

they believe there are really opportunities for them elsewhere. We asked our survey 

participants if there are private sector jobs that require their current skills and 

 21 The correlation between level of agreement with the statement “My job is secure” and “In general, 

I am satisfied with my job” is .41. This indicates a moderate tendency for employees to answer these 

two questions the same way. (This statistic ranges from -1.00 to 1.00, with 1.00 representing exactly 

the same answers to both questions.)

Preserving Success

Figure 32. Percent of participants agreeing with the statement 

“In general, I am satisfied with my job,” by agency

NASA

SSA

State

Veterans Affairs

Justice

Air Force

Army

Agriculture

EPA

Interior

Navy

Commerce

Defense

Labor

Treasury

HHS

Transportation

Energy

GSA

FDIC

OPM

HUD

Education

DHS

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 2m.

77

76

73

73

73

72

72

72

72

71

71

70

70

70

70

68

67

67

66

66

65

64

79

58

0 20 40 60 80
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 47

abilities. In response, nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of participants agreed. 

Supervisors are more likely to regard their skills as portable (78 percent) than 

nonsupervisory employees (72 percent). Figure 33 shows a distribution of employee 

responses across agencies. Agencies where there are many employees who believe 

that there are private sector jobs that match their skills cannot pursue a retentionthrough-lack-of-options strategy. Their employees who are dissatisfied or believe 

their job is insecure may look for greener pastures. In fact, it is unlikely that Federal 

employees across the Government remain employed with the Government because 

of a lack of opportunities elsewhere. 

Rewarding Successful Performance

Employees want to be recognized for a job well done—that is human nature. But 

there are many ways to recognize successful performance, from increasing pay to 

providing monetary awards to simply recognizing an employee for a job well done. 

There are also many challenges to face in rewarding successful performance. So what 

do nonsupervisory employees and supervisors say about preserving the success of the 

organization through rewarding performance?

Employee Motivation. The first step in effectively recognizing employee 

performance is to understand employees’ basic motivations for doing good work. 

This will tell us what kinds of rewards are really important to employees and will 

positively affect their work behavior. The MPS 2005 asked participants to rate 

how important 12 different factors are in motivating them to do a good job. These 

factors range from the very concrete awards of cash or time off to the emotional 

outcomes of personal satisfaction and duty as a public servant. The responses for 

supervisors and nonsupervisors are summarized in Figure 34.

Preserving Success

Figure 33. Percent of participants agreeing with two statements about 

job security and their skills,” by agency

0 25 50 75

FDIC

OPM

Defense

Navy

DHS

Treasury

Agriculture

GSA

Army

Transportation

Interior

NASA

Energy

Education

Labor

Air Force

HUD

HHS

Commerce

EPA

Veterans Affairs

Justice

State

SSA

“My job is secure” “There are private sector jobs which require the same skills and abilities as my job”

37

38

45

48

49

51

52

53

53

55

55

57

57

61

61

63

65

66

67

68

80

80

78

68

63

70

60

66

70

72

81

59

67

77

71

66

66

79

78

75

72

70

87

74

70

53

59

60

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, questions 2i and 2l.

• • 
48 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Supervisors and nonsupervisors are similarly motivated by most of the reward 

factors. Both groups are more highly motivated to do a good job by emotional 

outcomes as opposed to the more concrete cash or nonmonetary awards. 

Specifically, a greater number of all participants are motivated by such factors as 

pride in their work (98 percent) and their duty as a public employee (90 percent) 

than by direct rewards such as a hypothetical cash award of $1,000 (71 percent) or 

increased chances of promotion (71 percent). 

These findings reinforce our picture of a Federal workforce that is well motivated 

by personal factors. These findings also mean that it may be more difficult 

to externally motivate employees because they are largely driven by internal 

motivations. Therefore, as pointed out in our report Designing an Effective Pay 

for Performance Compensation System,

22 agencies should not rely solely on money 

to improve individual or organizational performance. They should also track and 

be concerned with measures of internal employee attitudes, such as employee 

engagement and satisfaction.

That does not mean, however, that issues of pay and monetary awards should be 

ignored. Over 70 percent of participants still indicate that increased chances for 

promotion (which could be translated as increased pay) and awards of over $1,000 

are important motivators. So, how satisfied are employees with the pay and rewards 

they receive from their employers?

 22 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Designing an Effective Pay for Performance Compensation 

System, Washington, D.C., March 2006.

Preserving Success

Figure 34. Percent of participants indicating the listed factors as 

important in motivating them to do a good job, by supervisory status

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Non-cash recognition

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, questions 16a-16l.

Personal pride or satisfaction in my work

Desire to help my work unit meet its goals

Desire not to let my coworkers down

My duty as a public employee

Desire not to let my supervisor down

Desire for a good performance rating

Recognition from my coworkers

A cash award of $1,000

Increased chances for promotion

A time off award of 8 hours

A cash award of $100

• Nonsupervisor • Supervisor
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 49

Satisfaction With Pay. While only 6 out of 10 participants (60 percent) are 

satisfied with their pay, the level of satisfaction has increased across the last four 

Merit Principles surveys, since 1992. This trend is displayed in Figure 35. 

There are a number of possible reasons for this historical trend. Federal job stability, 

pay, and benefits may be viewed more favorably in today’s economic climate than 

they were during the economic boom of the late 1990’s. In addition, Federal health 

benefits, retirement plans, and workplace flexibilities compare favorably to those of 

many private sector employers, perhaps leading Federal employees to consider their 

pay as only one aspect of their total compensation. It is clear that, whatever the 

reason, Federal employee satisfaction with pay is the highest in recent history.

Determining Pay. To explore why Federal employees may be satisfied or 

dissatisfied with their pay, we asked participants what factors they think should be 

most important in determining their pay. The results are displayed in Figure 36.

The most striking finding displayed on the chart is the overwhelming agreement that pay 

should be largely based on factors related to the individual employee—first and foremost, 

individual job performance. The clear positive implication of this result is that employees 

support the basic concept of a system that ties financial rewards to performance. 

The next two factors employees believe should determine pay are job-related skills 

and training and job-related work experience. Given that the top three factors are 

related to the individual employee, it seems clear that employees prefer to have 

their pay based on factors they can control. They cannot control the performance 

of others in their work unit or agency or the economic fluctuations that determine 

Preserving Success

Figure 35. Percent of participants who agreed with the statement 

“Overall, I am satisfied with my current pay,” in 1992, 1996, 2000, 

and 2005

60

49

50

42

0

20

40

60

1992 1996 2000 2005

Source: MSPB Merit Principles Surveys: 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2005, question 20d.
50 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

salary levels in their field or geographic location. In addition, they cannot do 

anything to expand their length of service, other than do their job and let time 

pass. In contrast, individual performance, skills, and experience are factors 

they can personally manage and shape in the immediate future to increase their 

earning potential. 

These findings about personal control may help to explain why Federal employees’ 

satisfaction with pay is not higher than 60 percent. The salary progression 

for a majority of Federal employees is determined by the General Schedule, 

which largely relies on length of service, an uncontrollable factor, rather than 

individual performance. 

Figure 37 shows the percentage of participants in each Federal agency who believe 

that length of service in the Federal Government should have an important role 

in determining pay. While there is no agency in which more than half of the 

participants seem to believe this, this idea has greater hold on some agencies 

than others. Agency leaders should consider the expectations of their employees 

about this issue and how to change these expectations if need be as they work to 

implement more performance-oriented reward systems in their agencies.

Preserving Success

Figure 36. Percent of participants indicating the importance of the 

listed factors in determining cash awards and pay increases

40

55

65

71

73

82

84

99

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 17a-17h. 

Your job performance

Job-related skills and training

Job-related work experience

Overall performance of your work unit

Salary levels in your geographical area

Overall performance of your agency

Length of service in the Federal Government

Salary levels in your field of work

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 51

Barriers to Changing the Current Pay System. As discussed above, the 

MPS 2005 data indicate that a large percentage of Federal employees believe that 

pay should be based on individual performance. In addition, employees believe 

that a pay for performance compensation system would be likely to increase their 

individual pay, motivate employees to work harder, and help retain high performers, 

as shown in Figure 38. 

Preserving Success

Figure 37. Percent of participants saying that “length of service in 

the Government” should be an important factor in “determining cash 

awards and pay increases,” by agency

0 20 40

DHS

Veterans Affairs

Justice

Air Force

HHS

OPM

Labor

Treasury

Agriculture

Defense

Commerce

GSA

Navy

Interior

Army

SSA

FDIC

NASA

Transportation

HUD

EPA

State

Energy

Education

48

48

47

42

42

41

40

40

39

39

38

37

37

37

36

35

33

33

33

31

30

29

29

27

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 17c. 

Figure 38. Percent of participants agreeing that basing pay on 

performance would have the listed effects, by supervisory status

0 20 40 60 80

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 18a-18g. 

Increase my pay

Motivate employees to work harder

Help my agency retain 

high performers

Increase employee morale

Encourage teamwork

Make employees more vulnerable 

to political coercion

Result in unfair treatment 

of employees

Supervisor Nonsupervisor • • 
52 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

The MPS results displayed in Figure 38 also indicate some mixed feelings 

regarding pay for performance compensation systems. While survey participants 

see the advantages of basing pay on performance, many also think there will 

be disadvantages. Many participants are concerned about the effect pay for 

performance will have on morale, teamwork, vulnerability to political coercion, 

and fair treatment. 

Furthermore, for employees to be satisfied with a pay for performance system, they 

have to believe that their performance is fairly and accurately rated and that their 

supervisors and managers will treat them fairly in pay decisions. Unfortunately, 

employees may not be able to accurately assess their own performance, a fact that 

makes it difficult for them to accept lower, but perhaps more realistic performance 

ratings by their supervisors. For example, when asked to rate their performance 

in comparison to others in their work unit, nearly 7 out of 10 (69 percent) survey 

participants rated their performance as above average. About 30 percent regarded 

their performance as average, while less than 1 percent of the survey participants 

were willing to consider their performance below average. 

Although performance ratings in a particular organization are rarely distributed 

evenly across the range of possible ratings, these findings suggest that most 

employees have high expectations regarding the kind of performance ratings they 

deserve. This situation creates a challenge when there is a potential mismatch 

between supervisor ratings and employee expectations. Part of the reason for the 

mismatch may lie in the fact that while participants generally trust their immediate 

supervisor to assess their performance and contributions (71 percent), fewer 

participants understand how the supervisor will rate their performance (63 percent), 

actually believe their supervisor rates their performance fairly and accurately (62 

percent), and believe that their supervisor is held accountable for rating employee 

performance fairly and accurately (48 percent). Finally, barely a majority trust their 

supervisor to support them in pay and award discussions with upper management 

(58 percent).

Employee relationships with upper management may also affect their attitude toward 

pay for performance. In a pay for performance system, upper management generally 

has a role in determining pay increases, although the extent of this influence on 

individual pay raises varies widely. MPS 2005 survey data indicate that not even half 

of our participants trust upper management to fairly assess their performance and 

contributions (49 percent) and refrain from favoritism (42 percent) in management 

decisions. So while Federal employees appear to support the concept of pay for 

performance, attitudinal changes must occur at the organizational level for this type 

of system to work as well as possible. Until employees trust that their performance 

will be accurately rated and that they will be treated fairly, without regard to factors 

other than their performance, they will continue to fear change. 

Preserving Success
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 53

Recognition. Although a sizable minority of survey participants are not satisfied 

with their pay, even more are dissatisfied with the recognition and awards they 

receive for their work with only 4 in 10 (39 percent) participants reporting being 

satisfied. Figure 39 demonstrates that this general dissatisfaction with recognition 

and awards exists for both supervisors and nonsupervisors, and that nonsupervisors 

are less satisfied with both pay (59 percent) and recognition and awards (37 percent) 

than supervisors (70 percent and 50 percent, respectively).

Recall from our discussion of employees’ motivation that personal or “internal” 

motivators, such as pride in their work and doing their duty as a public servant, are 

more important than monetary rewards, such as $1,000 in cash or rewards related 

to money, such as improved chances for promotion. Although our data show how 

highly employees value adequate pay for their performance, it is also clear that 

recognition for their contribution is a key motivator for Federal employees.

Figure 40 contains responses to a follow-up question asked of those participants 

who were not satisfied with the awards and recognition they received. While many 

participants were not satisfied with the size of the award (57 percent), many others 

were concerned with intangible aspects of the award or recognition—that it was 

not given effectively (59 percent) or in a timely manner (48 percent). Two-thirds 

of participants report dissatisfaction with the way recognition and awards are 

distributed among their coworkers—for instance, that other employees received 

underserved recognition (75 percent) or that deserving employees were left 

unrecognized (75 percent).

Therefore, while the size of an award or recognition matters—recall the greater 

number of participants motivated by $1,000 than by $100—the intangible aspects 

of awards and recognition seem more motivating. It may even be as important to 

recognize employees for their performance as it is to pay them well.

Preserving Success

Figure 39. Percent of participants agreeing with statements about 

pay and rewards, by supervisory status

37

59

50

Nonsupervisor Supervisor 70

I am satisfied with the 

recognition and awards I 

receive for my work.

Overall, I am satisfied 

with my pay.

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, questions 20c and d.

• • 
54 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Figure 41 contrasts the differing views about recognition for performance of 

nonsupervisory employees and managers at four levels of supervisory responsibility. 

Immediately apparent is the dramatic difference in the views of employees at 

different levels of supervisory responsibility concerning the linkage between 

performance and recognition and awards. As we have seen, both supervisory 

employees and nonsupervisory employees express relatively low satisfaction with 

the recognition and awards they receive. 

Preserving Success

Figure 40. Percent of participants indicating the listed factors 

contributed to a great or moderate extent to their dissatisfaction 

with the recognition and awards they received

37

42

50

51

66

66

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 21a-21f. 

Other employees in my organization did not 

receive awards/recognition deserved

Other employees received 

undeserved awards or recognition

The award or recognition was not 

given effectively

The award or recognition was too small

The award or recognition was not timely

I did not receive an award

Figure 41. Percent of participants agreeing with the listed statements 

about recognition and performance, by level of responsibility

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, questions 5g and 5h.

Executive/SES

Manager

First-Line Supervisor

Team Leader

Nonsupervisor

Recognition and rewards are based on performance in my work unit

In my work unit, performance ratings accurately reflect job performance

Figure 41. Percent of participants agreeing with the listed statements 

about recognition and performance, 

by level of responsibility

• 

• 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 55

 23 Note that FDIC is covered by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act 

of 1989, which granted the agency the authority to develop its own pay system.

The differences in perception between nonsupervisors and supervisors at every level 

are likely to affect whether agency decision makers recognize this as an issue. From 

team leaders to executives, those at any of the four levels of supervisory responsibility 

need to take this nonsupervisory employee dissatisfaction seriously and not make 

the—quite understandable, but serious—mistake of assuming their own relative 

satisfaction with the status quo is shared by those they lead.

Barriers to Successful Awards and Recognition. As we pointed out in our 

report Designing an Effective Pay for Performance Compensation System, for a pay for 

performance system to be effective, employees must value the pay the organization 

offers in return for high performance. The same is true of recognition and awards. 

Employees must value the rewards they receive in return for their hard work for the 

system to be viewed favorably. The fact that our data showed all employees valuing 

intangibles above awards and recognition does not negate this principle.

We asked supervisors if they had sufficient resources and authority to reward high 

performance. Overall, fewer than half of supervisors believe their agency has the 

resources to reward high performers (47 percent), and a slightly lower percent 

say they have the authority to actually draw on these resources to reward high 

performance (43 percent). Figure 42 compares responses regarding sufficiency of 

funds for the 24 agencies we surveyed. Clear differences are revealed across agencies 

in supervisor perceptions about available funds.23 The two measurements are 

both important because agencies cannot effectively use recognition and awards to 

reward and motivate employees unless they first ensure that sufficient resources are 

available to make the recognition and awards valuable to the employee and that their 

supervisors have the authority to make full use of those resources. 

Preserving Success

Figure 42. Percent of participants agreeing with the statement 

“My organization has sufficient funds to appropriately reward 

high performance,” by agency

0 20 40 60 80

FDIC

GSA

Army

Commerce

Defense

Education

EPA

NASA

HHS

Treasury

Navy

Air Force

Energy

SSA

Agriculture

Labor

Veterans Affairs

State

Interior

Transportation

OPM

DHS

Justice

HUD

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 47a. 

83

64

62

62

55

55

51

51

50

42

40

40

40

39

36

35

34

34

34

31

58

59

48

49
56 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

What role does teamwork play in rewarding performance? One of the 

challenges that both supervisors and nonsupervisors face is distinguishing between 

individual performance and contribution to team achievement. Most Federal 

employees work in a team environment, but are rewarded, promoted, and hired into 

their next jobs as individuals. As previously discussed, employees at all levels believe 

that individual performance should be more important to determining pay than the 

outcomes of the work unit or agency. 

Finally, employees appear to believe that individual performance is valued in 

their agency somewhat more than team contributions. When asked about the 

likely outcomes of team contributions and individual performance, 34 percent of 

participants indicate that if their team performs well, they will receive an award or 

pay increase. At the individual level, participants were a little more likely to believe 

they would receive an award or pay increase if they performed well (40 percent). 

However, these Governmentwide percentages do not provide the complete picture.

Figure 43 compares the responses of participants in different agencies to our survey 

questions about the rewards of individual and team performance. The results are 

telling. In only a single agency (Veterans Affairs) is there a greater percentage of 

participants who believe they are likely to be rewarded for team performance than 

for individual performance. The rest of participating agencies show “competition 

gaps” ranging from a few percentage points to much larger differences.

Preserving Success

Figure 43. Percent of participants agreeing with the listed statements 

about rewards, by agency

0 20 40 60

Commerce

HUD

NASA

SSA

Treasury

Air Force

EPA

Labor

Army

Defense

Navy

HHS

Education

Energy

OPM

GSA

FDIC

Agriculture

Justice

Interior

Transportation

State

Veterans Affairs

DHS

 If your team performs well, how likely is it that you will receive a cash award or pay increase

 If I perform well, it is likely I will receive a cash award or pay increase

52

50

53

43

31

47

44

45

43

36

39

39

32

37

29

38

26

29

24

25

24

24

25

19

62

62

59

57

57

56

54

53

49

46

43

41

41

41

41

41

34

31

30

28

25

25

23

21

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, “questions 15 and 20b.” 

• 

• 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 57

Agencies should consider this information in addressing the amount of competition 

their culture encourages between employees and work units, as opposed to 

encouraging cooperation to achieve the overall agency mission. For instance, while 

65 percent of participants indicate that a spirit of cooperation and teamwork exists 

in their work unit, only 53 percent said the same for cooperation between work 

units. Agencies need to consider that this apparent focus on individual performance 

may come at the cost of cooperative behavior at the work unit and agency level. 

Unchecked, this tendency may be a threat, rather than a facilitator, to agency 

mission accomplishment.

Retaining Successful Performers

It goes without saying that, having prepared their employees to succeed and worked 

to remove barriers to that success, agencies prefer that successful employees remain in 

the agency to contribute to its mission. Even though many employees who leave their 

agency contribute elsewhere in the Federal Government, agency leaders prefer to have 

their investments in time and talent bring returns where the investment was made.

Because there has been much discussion in recent years about the impending 

human capital crisis in which large numbers of Federal employees are anticipated to 

retire, we will focus this section on the retirement issue. As previously mentioned, 

the Office of Personnel Management has projected that 60 percent of the Federal 

workforce will be eligible to retire over the next 10 years. To get a sense of likely 

turnover in the near future, we asked our survey participants how likely they were 

to leave their agency in the next 12 months.

About one quarter (24 percent) indicated that they were likely to leave their agency 

in the next year. Of those planning to leave, just under a third (31 percent) planned 

to retire from Federal service, just over a third (38 percent) planned to move to 

another job within the Federal Government, a small number (5 percent) planned 

to resign from Government employment, and the remaining quarter (25 percent) 

were unsure about their plans. Figure 44 presents the percentage of participants 

who expect to leave each agency in the next year. Clearly some agencies face more 

potential turnover than others, although no agency has more than a third of its 

workforce planning to leave in the next year.

Preserving Success
58 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Why are some employees planning to leave their agency? We asked our survey 

participants who were planning to leave to indicate the importance of seven 

common reasons for leaving a job. Figure 45 displays some of the responses to this 

question for supervisors and for nonsupervisory employees. Both types of employees 

who plan to leave are primarily concerned with two related goals—the opportunity 

to earn more money (65 percent of supervisors and 73 percent of nonsupervisors) 

and having increased opportunities for advancement (64 percent and 73 percent 

for supervisors and nonsupervisors, respectively). A sizable minority (43 percent of 

nonsupervisors and 35 percent of supervisors) cited unfair treatment or harassment 

as a reason for leaving. Therefore, it is again clear that agencies still need to work 

toward the goal of eliminating the perception of unfair treatment of employees 

through trust-building efforts and better communication.

Preserving Success

Figure 44. Percent of participants saying “likely” to the question 

“How likely is it that you will leave your agency in the next 12 months,” 

by agency

0 15 30

DHS

OPM

Army

Education

Defense

Energy

HUD

HHS

Navy

GSA

Air Force

Labor

Interior

Transportation

Veterans Affairs

State

Commerce

Agriculture

EPA

FDIC

Treasury

SSA

Justice

NASA

35

29

28

28

28

26

26

26

25

25

25

24

23

22

22

21

20

18

19

19

19

29

19

19

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 40. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 59

Figure 46 tracks the factors that survey participants cite as possible reasons for 

leaving their current agency across the last four administrations of the Merit 

Principles Survey, from 1992 to the most recent MPS 2005. Interestingly, the rank 

ordering by frequency remains remarkably consistent across survey administrations. 

Increasing opportunities for advancement and the desire to earn more money are 

the reasons participants most frequently cited as important in a decision to leave 

their agency. 

Considering that a sizable portion of the workforce is becoming eligible to retire 

in the next few years, it is interesting to investigate whether retirement-eligible 

employees differ from other employees. This could be an important question for 

agency leaders who want to persuade employees with valuable experience to remain 

with the agency. Retention of such retirement eligibles helps in two ways. First, 

these employees can continue to make valuable contributions to the organization. 

But perhaps even more importantly, their retention gives the agency more time to 

transfer their knowledge to the next generation workforce. Unfortunately, what 

we have found is that there do not seem to be many distinct leverage points to 

convince retirement-eligible employees to stay, although there are a few, as discussed 

below. Overall, our survey data reveal that retirement eligible employees are not 

that different from nonretirement eligible employees. They believe equally that the 

mission of their agency is important (95 percent), and that the work they do 

is meaningful (87 percent retirement eligible, 86 percent nonretirement eligible), 

and that they are satisfied with their job (71 percent), pay (61 percent eligible, 

60 percent noneligible), and supervisor (64 percent eligible, 65 percent noneligible). 

Preserving Success

Figure 45. Percent of participants who indicated that if they left 

their agency, the listed factors would be important in their decision 

to leave, by supervisory status 

43

50

50

54

56

73

73

35

39

44

39

47

64

65

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Survey 2005, question 43.

Nonsupervisor Supervisor

Opportunity to earn more money

Increased opportunities for advancement

Opportunity for recognition 

for performance

Opportunity for greater organizational 

stability

Improved opportunities for training

Increased job security

Unfair treatment or harassment

• • 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
60 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

We found that both groups also tend to be motivated by the same top factors—pride 

in their work, desire to help the work unit meet its goals, and duty as a public 

servant. However, as shown in Table 3, retirement-eligible employees are much 

less motivated than nonretirement eligibles by awards, chances for promotion, and 

the desire for a good performance rating. It is understandable that someone who is 

seriously considering retirement may not be as motivated by these factors because 

he or she is looking toward a future that does not depend on these factors. For an 

employee who plans to retire within a year or two, a performance rating has less 

relevance and even a promotion may make a negligible contribution to retirement 

salary (which is based on the highest—often the most recent—3 years of pay). 

Preserving Success

Figure 46. Trends of participants citing how important the listed 

factors would be in a decision to leave, in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2005

0

25

50

75

1992 1996 2000 2005

Source: MSPB, Merit Principles Surveys: 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2005, question 43.

Lack of job security

Increase 

opportunities for

advancement

Problems with

supervisor

Opportunity to earn 

more money

Improved

opportunities for

training

Table 3. Percentage of participants citing factors that motivate 

employees to do a good job, by retirement status

Cash award of $1,000

Increased chances for promotion

Desire for a good performance rating

Retirement Eligible (%)

66 73

58 74

79 84

Not eligible (%)

-----0--

------

···)K··· 

----+-
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 61

We also asked our survey participants in the two retirement status groups to rank 

how important different workplace factors would be to a decision to leave their 

agency. Again, as seen in Table 4, there was little difference in the ranking of 

these factors by retirement eligibles and other employees—the top four factors that 

would be important to a decision to leave were the same for both groups. What 

is noteworthy, however, is the difference in the level of agreement between the 

two groups. While they ranked the same factors as the top four in importance, 

the difference between the two groups ranged from 21 to 32 percent. Particularly 

striking is the fact that no factors were important to more than 50 percent of the 

retirement eligibles. This seems to indicate that these workplace factors would have 

less influence in these employees’ decision to retire, making it more difficult to use 

them to find convincing leverage for them to stay.

As mentioned at the beginning of this section, we did find other differences between 

retirement eligibles and other participants, specifically regarding fairness of training 

and career advancement opportunities. For instance, though retirement eligibles 

believe that they have less need for training than other participants (39 percent 

versus 50 percent, respectively) and are less motivated by promotions, they are more 

likely to believe that they are treated unfairly in terms of training (42 percent versus 

36 percent) and career advancement (39 percent versus 29 percent). Furthermore, 

they were more likely to report being denied job benefits due to age (13 percent 

versus 6 percent). 

So, it appears that when employees become retirement eligible, they may 

unconsciously (or even consciously) be preparing to leave the workforce by partially 

shifting their priorities and what they value. While they are still committed to 

their employer, satisfied with their job, and concerned about being recognized for 

their work and properly prepared for their job, they seem to be less engaged in 

terms of motivation and concerns about everyday workplace factors. Similarly, 

their organizations may also be preparing for their departures by not investing 

as much in their training and career progression. Therefore, if agencies wish to 

encourage valuable employees to stay past the time they are eligible to retire, they 

need to attend to those interested in furthering their skills (50 percent) and career 

opportunities (46 percent) and those who believe that they are not treated fairly with 

Preserving Success

Table 4. Percentage of participants citing factors that would be 

important in a decision to leave their agency, by retirement status. . 

Opportunity to better use skills and 

abilities

Opportunity to earn more money

Desire to make more of a difference

Increased opportunities for 

advancement

Not Eligible (%)

77

78

78

Retirement Eligible (%)

50

49

46

46

67
62 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

regard to training and career advancement. Although these factors are unlikely to 

change the minds of many of those who are eligible for retirement, they appear to 

be some of the few points of leverage that agencies can use to persuade retirement 

eligibles to stay. 

Given the challenges of retaining a workforce with all the desired knowledge and 

experience, agencies may want to try to implement workforce planning strategies that 

are better tailored to meet the circumstances of individual employees. This means 

tracking the retirement eligibility of the workforce, identifying those retirement 

eligibles who are critical to keep and those who are not, and “re-recruiting” needed 

employees on an individual basis. Supervisors may also ask critical retirement eligible 

employees what the agency can do to keep them. This simple and direct approach 

could also be used for other critically needed employees regardless of their retirement 

status. Not only may this help the agency identify how to keep highly valued 

employees at any stage of their career, but the individual recognition will undoubtedly 

be appreciated. In cases where the suggested strategy is insufficient to retain the valued 

skills, agencies should also be proactive in identifying other sources of these skills and 

plan accordingly to replace retirement eligible employees. Preferably their planning 

should build in an overlap period to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and skills 

between the incumbent who is retiring and the successor. 

Some Perspective on Survey Data

Before offering our conclusions and recommendations, it is important that we express 

two cautions regarding interpretation of survey results. First of all, it is important 

to keep in mind that the data reviewed in this report, as well as that from other 

Governmentwide, agencywide, and private sector surveys, are based on employee 

perceptions. Even questions about objective facts, such as the number of levels in an 

agency’s performance appraisal system, are reported to us through the perceptions and 

memories of Federal employees who respond to our surveys. We have to consider the 

implications of this as we use the results of this survey to recommend needed changes 

in the work environments of public servants.

The second lesson is that perceptions are reality for those who hold them. For 

example, if employees who perceive that their jobs are not secure are mistaken, it does 

not really matter. They will still look for another job. And the confused supervisors 

left behind, who did not communicate effectively with these employees, may learn 

this lesson too late. Similarly, all of those employees who believe their performance 

is above average may benefit from improved, ongoing communication with their 

supervisors, too, if they are to understand why their performance ratings are not 

always what they expect.

Our goal in conducting this survey is to provide information that will help agency 

leaders, supervisors, and nonsupervisory employees understand each others’ 

perceptions, as well as the realities, of their workplace. We also hope agencies will 

then use this information to help create a satisfying and successful workplace in which 

all employees make their full contribution to accomplishing their agency’s mission.

Preserving Success
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 63

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

The results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005 provide a useful context for 

exploring how agencies manage their employees to achieve organizational 

goals. The perspective of our survey participants is that the Federal 

Government does a fairly good job managing its workforce—though there are areas 

in which improvements could help the Government better manage the workforce 

to accomplish its diverse missions. Based on what we have learned from our survey 

participants, MSPB offers the following conclusions and recommendations. 

Federal employees are committed to and understand their agency’s 

mission. Employees’ ability to carry out their responsibilities in supporting their 

agency’s work depends on both their personal commitment to the organization 

and their understanding of what the organization aims to accomplish. We found 

that Federal employees excel in both areas. They understand the mission of their 

agency and believe that the mission is important. On an individual level, employees 

understand how their work contributes to the agency’s overall mission and find the 

work they do personally meaningful. This high level of engagement can serve as the 

cornerstone to necessary management improvements. 

There are barriers to preparing the workforce to accomplish the 

agency’s mission. To help agencies accomplish their missions, Federal employees 

must possess the skills and abilities needed to do their jobs. Agencies can ensure that 

the workforce has the necessary skills by: (1) recruiting for these skills and/or (2) 

training for them. Unfortunately, there are obstacles to both strategies. 

From the recruitment standpoint, first-line supervisors and other hiring officials 

participating in our survey are concerned that they are not receiving highly qualified 

applicants. This quality problem may be due to insufficient recruitment strategies 

or incentives, the slowness of the hiring process, or the use of inadequate assessment 

instruments. From the training standpoint, survey participants generally believe 

they receive the training they need to perform the basic functions of their jobs. They 

report that they need additional training to perform their jobs more effectively. 

There may be several reasons an agency does not provide the additional training, 

from budgetary or time constraints to questions of whether the training will actually 

help further its mission.
64 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Employees generally believe they are treated fairly in matters related 

to their employment, though the data indicate a moderate level of 

workplace conflict. A majority of survey participants believe that their agency 

treats them fairly in matters related to employment. Employees also report generally 

fewer prohibited personnel practices during the 2 years preceding the survey than 

at any other time in the two decades 1985 through 2005. This finding is grounds 

for cautious optimism that the efforts of supervisors and agencies that safeguard the 

Federal workforce are achieving success.

However, there are areas of discord that cause concern. For instance, nearly half 

of the supervisory participants report dealing with at least one serious workplace 

conflict during the past year, and more than one-third of nonsupervisory employees 

had experienced a serious workplace conflict during the past 2 years. Fortunately, 

the data speak highly of supervisor efforts to clarify and resolve conflicts through 

open communication, using such means as informal discussions with their 

employees, formal meetings, providing information, or general meetings. 

Fair treatment and successful communication both build trust, and their absence 

may create distrust and a host of accompanying problems. Survey results provide 

evidence that employees tend to trust their immediate supervisors, but not 

necessarily their upper level management. Therefore, the key to reducing perceived 

unfairness and workplace conflict may lie in further strengthening employees’ 

relationship not just with their first-line supervisors, but also with higher levels 

of management.

Agencies may face challenges in preserving a high-quality workforce. 

Once agencies are committed to success, prepare for success, and attempt to 

overcome obstacles to success, they must take steps to preserve success by rewarding 

employee performance and by working to retain valued employees. In terms of 

rewards, both nonsupervisory employees and supervisors are generally satisfied with 

the pay they receive but not with the recognition and rewards granted to them. And 

while they support the concept of performance-based pay, they are unsure about 

how well it can be implemented in the Federal sector. 

In terms of retention, nearly a quarter of survey participants indicated that they were 

likely to leave their agency in the next year. Employees who said they were planning 

to leave were primarily concerned with the opportunity to earn more money and 

increased opportunities for career advancement. While those statements of intent 

to leave may not actually translate into a quarter of the workforce leaving, they are 

something that should concern agencies. 

Recommendations

While the results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005 indicate that the Federal 

Government does a fairly good job of managing its workforce in adherence to the 

merit system principles, there are several areas in which agencies can improve. The 

Conclusions
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 65

Federal Government’s strengths revolve around the commitment and dedication of 

its workforce as well as the trust the workforce generally has in front-line supervisors. 

These two attributes can serve as the foundation for further improvements. To this 

end, the Board recommends the following actions:

1. Because the data indicate that difficulties in recruiting highly qualified applicants 

is a barrier to preparing the workforce to achieve its mission, agencies need to 

identify why they may not be reaching a high-quality applicant pool through their 

recruitment and selection procedures. Key areas to examine include:

 The types of recruitment strategies being used and how well they attract 

applicants with the right skill sets;

 The length and complexity of the agency hiring process and how that affects 

applicant turnover; and 

 The effectiveness of the assessment instruments being used to identify the 

candidates who are best qualified.24

2. Employees would like more training to prepare them to perform their job duties 

more effectively. Because there are often barriers to employee training, such as 

absence of sufficient funding, supervisors and employees should work together to: 

identify training needs that will support the organization’s mission; set employee 

expectations regarding the availability of training opportunities; and prioritize the 

organization’s training activities. One way to accomplish these goals is to institute 

career development plans, as appropriate, throughout the organization. Often, 

these types of plans aid communication between employees and supervisors about 

what training is needed and with what priority.

3. A primary finding throughout this report is the importance of trust between 

employees and their first-line supervisors. Therefore, a key recommendation 

is for agencies, supervisors, and their employees to work together to continue 

strengthening the trust and working relationship between supervisors and their 

employees. This strengthened relationship is the key to reducing perceptions of 

unfair treatment in the workplace and the repercussions of workplace conflict. 

Ensuring that the lines of communication are not just open but used and that 

employees are comfortable talking with supervisors is the key to building trust 

and should strengthen supervisors’ ability to resolve conflicts by working with 

their employees.

4. Although there has been significant progress in achieving fair and equitable 

treatment of employees in the Federal workplace, agencies must remain vigilant. 

They must continue to educate their managers and nonsupervisory employees 

in proper workplace behavior, and to monitor adherence to merit system 

principles and prevention of prohibited personnel practices in support of ongoing 

monitoring by oversight authorities.

 24 For more information on how to improve agency hiring processes, see U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board, Reforming Federal Hiring: Beyond Faster and Cheaper, Washington, D.C., July 2006.

Conclusions
66 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

5. Agencies must recognize the motivational importance of nonpay factors such as 

formal awards and recognition from supervisors and peers and create a culture in 

which employees trust that their performance will be accurately rated and that 

they will be treated fairly. If agencies are to effectively use recognition and awards 

to reward and motivate employees, they need to ensure that resources are available 

to make the recognition valuable to the employee and that supervisors have the 

authority to make full use of those resources. Our data indicate that in too many 

agencies neither is the case. 

6. Agencies should implement workforce planning strategies that use recruitment, 

retention efforts, and training to build and sustain a high-quality workforce. 

Governmentwide projections indicate that over the next 10 years, agencies 

could be facing high turnover rates because of retirements. While we cannot 

be certain that these projections will come to fruition, it is safe to say that the 

Government will be facing higher turnover rates and should be prepared for 

them. Recruitment strategies help to hire people with skills the agency workforce 

does not possess and for which it is difficult to train. Retention strategies assist 

in keeping valuable skills in the agency and can also provide a good opportunity 

to gain the time for knowledge transfer from those nearing retirement to the next 

generation workforce. Training is also an important component of the workforce 

planning strategy for skills that are readily trainable. 

By instituting these recommendations, and other actions that fit their particular 

needs, agencies should improve their ability to accomplish their individual missions 

on behalf of the Government and the Nation by committing to success, preparing 

for success, overcoming obstacles to success, and preserving success.

Conclusions
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 67

Appendix A: The Merit Principles 

 Survey 2005

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

May 2005

Dear Federal Coworker:

Your opinion counts! The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) asks that you take a few 

minutes to participate in our Merit Principles Survey 2005. The Federal Government is facing many 

workforce challenges in the years ahead, and the results of this survey will help the President, Congress, 

and other Federal decision-makers develop policy that supports both merit and mission accomplishment. 

Because you are part of a random sample of Government employees, your views about your work and 

work environment will represent those of the larger Federal workforce. 

This effort is an important part of MSPB’s responsibility to study the efficiency and effectiveness of the 

Federal civil service. We have been periodically conducting this survey for over 20 years. Using this 

year’s survey results, we will be able to report how well the Federal workforce is being managed. 

Your participation in this survey is voluntary and all of your responses will be confidential. The survey 

should take you about 30 minutes to complete via the internet and may be completed at your work 

site or at home using the survey website and unique password emailed to you by Caliber Associates, 

our survey support contractor. Additional information about this effort is available by clicking the 

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

If you have any other questions about this survey, please contact us on our survey hotline at 

(202) 653-6772, Ext. 1337 or via e-mail at meritsurvey2005@caliber.com. Thank you in advance 

for contributing to this important effort. 

 Sincerely,

 Steve Nelson 

 Director, Policy and Evaluation
68 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005 

DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

- 1 -

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

Merit Principles Survey 2005

The Merit Principles Survey 2005 is divided into different sections that contain a short series of

questions about your work and work environment. Please provide an answer for each question.

The entire survey should take approximately 30 minutes to complete. The U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board (MSPB) appreciates your participation in this Governmentwide survey.

Confidentiality: The data provided to MSPB are confidential. Only MSPB staff and our survey

support contractor staff will have access to individually completed surveys, and no data will be

disclosed to anyone that could be used to identify individual participants.

Merit Principles Survey 2005

MARKING INSTRUCTIONS

INCORRECT MARKS

CORRECT MARK 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Use leading zeros. For example, if your

answer is three, you would enter ‘003’

in the boxes and fill in the corresponding

circles below.

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

Fill in the circle completely.

Do not make any stray marks on this form.

•

•

•

Some questions may ask you for a numeric

response, please follow the example below

when marking your responses.

•

o e oo 

~00000000000000000000000 

•• 0 

__,Q 

::)0. ::)0 

::)0 

:)QC 

:)QC 

0 

0 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 69

- 2 -

JOB

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

 Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

AGENCY

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

 Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Yes

No

Yes

No

Do you provide technical guidance to or oversee

the technical work of contractors?

3.

Were you formally delegated by the contracting

officer to perform this role with contractors?

4.

(Skip to question 5)

Please indicate your level of agreement or

disagreement with each of the following

statements about your job and work setting:

2.

Please indicate your level of agreement or

disagreement with each of the following

statements about your agency:

1.

a. I am treated with respect at work . . . . . .

b.

c. My opinions count at work . . . . . . . . . . . .

d. I know what is expected of me on

the job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

e. I receive the training I need to

perform my job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

f. I need more training to perform my

job effectively . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

g. My job makes good use of my

skills and abilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i. There are private sector jobs which

require the same skills and abilities

as my job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

j. I have the resources to do my job well . .

k. The work I do is meaningful to me . . . .

l. My job is secure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I am able to openly express concerns

at work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

m. In general, I am satisfied with my job . .

Your agency is the governmental component where you

work. If you work for an "independent agency," such as

the Office of Personnel Management or the

Environmental Protection Agency, this organization is

your agency. If you work in one of the large cabinet-level

departments, such as the Department of the Treasury,

Department of Justice, or the Department of Defense,

then "your agency" will be a major component of that

department.

a. I understand my agency’s mission. . . . .

b. My agency’s mission is important to me .

c.

d. The workforce has the job-relevant

knowledge and skills necessary to

accomplish organizational goals . . . . . .

e. I am given a real opportunity to

improve my skills in my organization . .

f.

g. During the last two years, my

agency’s organizational structure

has been stable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

h. My agency responds constructively

to workplace conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i. My agency is successful in

accomplishing its mission . . . . . . . . . . . .

j. I would recommend my agency as

a place to work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

k. I would recommend the Government

as a place to work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I understand how I contribute to my

agency’s mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

My agency produces high quality

products and services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

h. Creativity and innovation are rewarded .

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005

I I 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 00000 

00000 00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 00000 

00000 

0 

00000 0 - 00000 

0 

0 
70 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

- 3 -

How many employees were hired into

your immediate work unit in the past

year?

7.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

How many employees left your

work unit in the past year?

8.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

In your opinion, how many

employees in your immediate work

unit, if any, are performing below

what is reasonably expected from

them on the job?

9.

How many employees in your

immediate work unit, if any, are

performing so poorly that they

deserve to be fired?

10.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

WORK UNIT

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

 Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

How would you rate your own performance in

comparison to those in your immediate work unit?

11.

Above average

Average

Below average

Please indicate your level of agreement or

disagreement with each of the following

statements about your work unit:

5.

How many employees are in your

immediate work unit, including the

supervisor and team leaders?

(Your immediate supervisor is usually

the first person to sign your performance

appraisal rating.)

6.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

(Use leading zeros. For example, if there

were three employees in your work unit,

you would enter ‘003’ in the boxes and

fill in the corresponding circles below.)

Your work unit is the group of people you work with on a

regular basis and with whom you most identify. This will

usually be a group of employees working for the same

immediate supervisor. A work unit is often larger than a

"team" and may include one or more "teams" lead by

"team leaders." If you are a supervisor, please consider

your work unit to be the group of people that you directly

supervise.

b. Information is shared freely in my

work unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

d. A spirit of cooperation and teamwork

exists between my work unit and

other work units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

e. My work unit responds flexibly to

changing conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

f. My work unit produces high quality

products and services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

g. In my work unit, performance ratings

accurately reflect job performance . . . .

h. Recognition and rewards are based

on performance in my work unit . . . . . . .

c. A spirit of cooperation and teamwork

exists in my work unit

a. My work unit is able to recruit people

with the right skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005 

I 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

I I 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

0 

0 

0 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 71

How important are each of the following in

motivating you to do a good job?

16.

- 4 -

JOB PERFORMANCE

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

 Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

How many rating levels are in your performance

appraisal system?

14.

2

3

4

5

6 or more

Don’t know

If your team performs well how likely is it that you

will receive a cash award or pay increase?

15.

Very Likely

Likely

Neither Likely nor Unlikely

Unlikely

Very Unlikely

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

PAY AND REWARDS

Very Unimportant

Unimportant

Neither Important nor Unimportant

Important

Very Important

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Objective measures are used to evaluate my

performance.

13.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

Please indicate your level of agreement or

disagreement with each of the following

statements about job performance:

12.

a. I understand the basis for my most

recent performance rating . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

c. I participate in setting standards

and goals used to evaluate my job

performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

d. I understand what I must do to

receive a high performance rating . . . . .

e. I have sufficient opportunities (such as

challenging assignments or projects)

to earn a high performance rating. . . . . .

f. I know how my performance rating

compares to others in my

organization who have similar jobs . . . .

g. I am satisfied with my organization’s

performance appraisal system . . . . . . . .

b. The standards used to appraise my

performance are appropriate

a. A cash award of $100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

d. Desire not to let my coworkers down . .

e. Recognition from my coworkers . . . . . .

f. Desire for a good performance rating. . .

g. My duty as a public employee . . . . . . . .

h. Increased chances for promotion . . . . .

b. A cash award of $1,000

c. Desire not to let my supervisor down . .

i. Desire to help my work unit meet its

goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

j. Personal pride or satisfaction in my

work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

k. A time off reward of 8 hours . . . . . . . . . .

l. Non-cash recognition (e.g., letter of

appreciation, plaque) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005

I 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

00000 I 

00000 

00000 

00000 00000 

00000 

00000 00000 

00000 

00000 00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

0 

0 00000 

0 

0 

0 00000 

0 00000 

00000 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
72 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

18. In my opinion, basing pay on performance:

If you are not satisfied with the recognition and

awards you receive for your work, to what extent

do the following factors contribute to your lack of

satisfaction with recognition and awards?

21.

Please indicate your level of agreement or

disagreement with each of the following

statements about your pay and awards:

20.

How important should each of the following be

in determining cash awards and pay increases?

17.

- 5 -

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6

Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

PAY AND REWARDS (continued)

Very Unimportant

Unimportant

Neither Important nor Unimportant

Important

Very Important

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

I understand how my pay relates to my job

performance.

19.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

No Extent

Minimal Extent

Moderate Extent

Great Extent

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

a. Motivates employees to work harder .

b. Would increase my pay . . . . . . . . . . . .

c. Would help my agency retain high

performers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

d. Encourages teamwork . . . . . . . . . . . .

e. Results in unfair treatment of

employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

f. Increases employee morale . . . . . . .

g. Makes employees more vulnerable

to political coercion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a. My organization takes steps to

ensure that employees are

appropriately paid and rewarded . . . . . .

. .

d. Overall, I am satisfied with my pay . . . .

b. If I perform well, it is likely I will

receive a cash award or pay increase

c. I am satisfied with the recognition

and awards I receive for my work . . . . .

a. Job-related skills and training . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

d. Your job performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

e. Overall performance of your work unit .

f. Overall performance of your agency. . . .

g. Salary levels in your geographical

area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

h. Salary levels in your field of work . . . . .

b. Job-related work experience

c. Length of service in the Federal

Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a. The award or recognition was too

small . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

d. Other employees received

undeserved awards or recognition . . . .

b. The award or recognition was not

timely

c. The award or recognition was not

given effectively . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

e. Other employees in my organization

did not receive the awards or

recognition they deserved . . . . . . . . . . . .

f. I did not receive an award . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005 

I 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

000000 

000000 

000000 

000000 

000000 

000000 

000000 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 73

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

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

denied a job, promotion, pay or other job benefit

because of unlawful discrimination based upon:

25.

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

you have been treated fairly regarding the

following?

22.

- 6 -

No Extent

Little Extent

Some Extent

Considerable Extent

Very Great Extent

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

In the past 2 years, have you made any formal

disclosure of fraud, waste, abuse, or unlawful

behavior at work?

23.

Yes

In the past 2 years, have you exercised any formal

appeal, complaint, or grievance right?

24.

Yes

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

No

Yes

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

FAIRNESS

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

No

Yes

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

No

No

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

No

Yes

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

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

retaliated against or threatened with retaliation

for:

27.

Career advancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

c.

d. Performance appraisals . . . . . . . . . . . .

e. Job assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

f. Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a.

Awardsb.

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a. Discouraged from competing for a job or

promotion by an agency official . . . . . . . . . . .

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

d. Denied a job or promotion because it

was given to a relative of a selecting or

recommending official . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

e. Denied an award based on favoritism by

the nominating or approving officials . . . . . .

b. Influenced by an agency official to

withdraw from competition for a Federal

job or promotion in order to help another

person’s chances of getting that job or

promotion

c. Denied a job or promotion because

one of the selecting or recommending

officials gave an unfair advantage to

another recipient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a. Race/national origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

d. Disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

e. Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

f. Marital status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

g. Political affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b. Sex

c. Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sexual orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a. Disclosing health and safety dangers,

unlawful behavior, and/or fraud, waste,

and abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

d. Refusing to obey an unlawful order . . . . . . .

e. Reporting unwanted sexual attention or

sexual harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

f. Disagreeing with management decisions . . .

b. Exercising any appeal, complaint, or

grievance right

c. Testifying for or otherwise assisting any

individual in the exercise of whistleblowing,

equal opportunity, or appeal rights . . . . . . . . .

g.

h.

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005

I 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

0 0 

0 0 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 
74 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

32. To what extent do you think your supervisor will

exercise each of the following authorities in a

fair and effective manner?

31. Please indicate your level of agreement or

disagreement with each of the following

statements:

- 7 -

FAIRNESS (continued)

28.

Yes

No

In the past 2 years, have you experienced a serious

conflict in your work unit?

30.

Yes

No

In the past 2 years, have you experienced any

repeated unwanted non-sexual attention,

humiliation, harassment, bullying, or other

malicious or offensive behavior on the job?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

No Extent

Minimal Extent

Moderate Extent

Great Extent

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

29. In the past 2 years, have you experienced any

repeated unwanted sexual attention or harassment

on the job?

YOUR SUPERVISOR

Yes

No

A serious conflict is one that you felt if not addressed would

result in negative workforce consequences such as low

morale, low organizational productivity or performance,

perceived unfairness, absenteeism, attrition, or even fear.

Please continue on the next page.

a. I trust third party investigative or

adjudicatory agencies (such as the

OSC, EEOC, FLRA, MSPB) to

respond appropriately to complaints . .

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

d. I believe my agency treats me fairly

in matters related to my employment .

c. I believe that the current

employment appeals system, if I had

occasion to use it, would be fair . . . . . .

b. I believe that the current employment

grievance system, if I had occasion

to use it, would be fair

a. Rating the qualifications of

applicants for jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

d. Setting individual employees’ pay

within broad pay bands . . . . . . . . . . . . .

c. Determining pay increases and

awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b. Selecting people for vacancies

or promotions based on their

qualifications

e. Taking adverse actions such as

suspensions and removals . . . . . . . . . .

Please answer the following questions about your

supervisor and agency leadership.

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

I 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

I 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 75

35. Please indicate your level of agreement or

disagreement with each of the following

statements about your supervisor and

agency leadership:

34. I trust managers above my immediate

supervisor to:

- 8 -

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

YOUR SUPERVISOR (continued)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

33. I trust my supervisor to:

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

a. Clearly communicate organizational

performance expectations . . . . . . . . . . .

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

d. Apply discipline fairly and only

when justified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

c. Listen fairly to my concerns . . . . . . . . . .

b. Fairly assess my performance and

contributions

e. Act with integrity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

f. Refrain from favoritism . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

g. Keep the organization informed . . . . . .

. . . .

e. My supervisor provides coaching,

training opportunities, or other

assistance to help me improve my

skills and performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

d. My supervisor provides timely

feedback on my job performance . . . . .

c. My supervisor provides constructive

feedback on my job performance

f. I understand how my supervisor will

evaluate my performance . . . . . . . . . . .

g. My supervisor rates my performance

fairly and accurately . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

h. My supervisor is held accountable

for rating employee performance

fairly and accurately . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i. My supervisor deals effectively with

poor performers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

j. I am comfortable discussing workplace conflicts with my supervisor. . . .

k. My supervisor responds

constructively to workplace conflicts . .

l. My supervisor has good technical

skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

m. My supervisor has good

management skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

n. Overall, I am satisfied with my

supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

o. Overall, I am satisfied with managers

above my immediate supervisor . . . . .

b. My supervisor keeps me informed

about how well I am doing . . . . . . . . . . .

a. Discussions with my supervisor

about my performance are

worthwhile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a. Fairly assess my performance and

contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

d. Apply discipline fairly and only

when justified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

c. Listen fairly to my concerns . . . . . . . . . .

b. Support me in pay and award

discussions with upper management

e. Clearly communicate conduct

expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

f. Act with integrity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

g. Refrain from favoritism . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

h. Keep me informed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005

I 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 00000 

00000 00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 00000 

00000 
76 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

- 9 -

Very Ineffective

Somewhat Ineffective

Somewhat Effective

Very Effective

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

TRAINING

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

39. Please indicate your level of agreement or

disagreement with each of the following

statements about improving this skill or ability:

38. How effective do you think each of the following

strategies would be for developing the particular

skill or ability you have targeted?

37. Please indicate your level of agreement or

disagreement with each of the following

statements about developing this skill or ability:

a. Developmental assignments or other

on-the-job training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a. I would be overcoming a deficiency

or closing a gap in my skill set . . . . . . .

b. I would be extending or fine-tuning

my skills in an area of personal

strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

c. I would be acquiring a new skill I

have not attempted to learn before . . .

d. I would be “trying again” to learn

something I was not fully successful

in learning in the past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

e. I would be updating my proficiency

in an area that has changed since I

learned it last . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

f. This skill or ability is described on

my formal career development plan . .

b. Face-to-face classroom training

classes or educational coursework . . . . .

c. Mentoring or coaching from a more

experienced co-worker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

d. Online classroom learning with an

instructor and other class members . . . . .

e. Self-directed study using books, web

sites, CDs, DVDs, videos, etc. . . . . . . . . . .

a. My agency should support this

improvement by paying for training

or education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b. My agency should support this

improvement through special

assignments, mentoring, or other

on-the-job experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . .

c. I should personally support this

improvement by paying for training

or education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

d. I should personally support this

improvement by finding appropriate

opportunities or experiences

outside of the workplace . . . . . . . . . . . .

e. My job should be redesigned using

automation, reference materials, or

other aids so that this ability is less

necessary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36. Briefly describe, in one or two sentences, the

most important skill or ability you could learn to

improve your performance in your current job.

Please describe this skill or ability well enough

that a training specialist who does not know

your job could understand what you need to

learn.

Please answer the following question about your

training needs.

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005 

I 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

0000 

0000 

0000 

0000 

0000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 77

43. If you left your agency in the near future, how

important would each of the following have been

in your decision?

- 10 -

CAREER PLANS

40. How likely is it that you will leave your agency in

the next 12 months?

Very Likely

Somewhat Likely

Neither Likely nor Unlikely

Somewhat Unlikely

Very Unlikely

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

Very Unimportant

Unimportant

Neither Important nor Unimportant

Important

Very Important

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

42. Are you or will you become eligible to retire within

the next 12 months?

No

Very Unimportant

Unimportant

Neither Important nor Unimportant

Important

Very Important

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

SUPERVISORY STATUS

44. What is your supervisory status?

Non-Supervisor (You do not supervise other

employees)

Team Leader (You do not have official supervisory

responsbilities or conduct performance appraisals,

but you do provide employees with day-to-day

guidance in work projects)

Supervisor (You are responsible for employee

performance appraisals and approval of their leave,

but you do not supervise other supervisors)

Manager (You are in a management position and

supervise one or more supervisors)

Executive (SES or equivalent)

45. How many

years have

you been a

supervisor?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

41. If you plan to leave your present job, would

you be:

Retiring from Federal service?

Resigning from Federal service?

Moving to another job within the Federal

Government?

Not sure.

MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE

Yes

(Skip to question 55)

(Skip to question 55)

46. About how many hires

total have you

personally made in

the past 2 years?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Desire to make more of a difference . .

b.

Problems with coworkers . . . . . . . . . . .

d.

Opportunity to make better use of

your skills and abilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

e.

Increased opportunities for

advancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

j. Opportunity to change to a different

type of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a.

Problems with supervisor. . . . . . . . . . . .

c.

Unfair treatment or harassment . . . . . .

f.

g. Opportunity to earn more money . . . . .

h. Improved opportunities for training . . .

Opportunity for recognition for

performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

k. Opportunity for greater

organizational stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

l. Increased job security . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

m. Opportunity to move to another

geographical location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Please answer the following questions about your

experiences as a supervisor, manager, or executive. If

you are a non-supervisor or a team leader, please skip

to question 55.

Please answer the following questions about your

career plans.

i.

If you selected supervisor, manager, or executive,

please continue with question 45.

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 0 

I 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

I 

---

I 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 00000 

00 00000 

00 00000 

00 00000 

00 00000 

00 00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 

00000 
78 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

47. Please indicate your level of agreement or

disagreement with each of the following

statements:

- 11 -

49. Why did the employee(s) receive that rating?

(Mark all that apply.)

Flawed performance standards or measures

Lack of information about an employee’s

performance

Lack of time

Lack of training on rating employee performance

Lack of authority

Lack of support from higher-level management

A history of inflated performance ratings

A forced distribution or quota for performance

ratings

Documentation requirements

The possibility of a grievance or complaint

The employee(s) filed a grievance or complaint

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

48. During the past year, did you rate any employee

higher or lower than you believe the employee

deserved?

Yes

No (Skip to question 50)

51. In the past two years as a supervisor, have

you encountered serious conflicts in your work

unit?

Yes

No

52. The conflicts concerned: (Mark all that apply.)

Work assignment

Opportunities for training or development

Opportunities for promotion

Performance appraisal

Awards

Salary/pay

Employee conduct

Employee performance

Relationship between employees

Relationship between manager(s)

and employee(s)

Other

53. For the most memorable conflict within the

past two years, what attempts did you make

internally to resolve the conflict?

(Mark all that apply.)

Gave the conflict time to resolve itself

Informal discussion

General meeting (e.g., staff meeting or “all hands”

meeting)

Provided information to employees

Formal meeting(s) with employee(s) or employee

representative(s)

Officially documented the source of the conflict

and/or took (or attempted to take) formal

disciplinary actions

Internal process using a neutral third party

moderator (such as alternative dispute resolution,

mediation, or conciliation)

Formal agency process (EEO complaint,

grievance, etc.)

(Skip to question 55)

(Go on to the next question)

50. My employees are comfortable discussing

workplace conflicts with me.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

54. What best describes the outcome of the above

conflict?

Conflict resolved itself without intervention

Conflict was resolved internally to the satisfaction

of many or most involved

Conflict was resolved internally to the satisfaction

of a minority of those involved

Conflict was referred to an external third party

adjudicator for resolution (such as EEOC, MSPB,

FLRA, OSC)

Conflict was not resolved but only few or minor

negative consequences have occurred

Conflict was not resolved and negative

consequences have occurred affecting the overall

performance of the unit

(Go on to the next question)

MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE (continued)

a. My organization has sufficient

funds to appropriately reward high

performance (Your organization

refers to the next higher level unit

to which your work unit belongs.

This is usually the level between

your work unit and your agency.) . . . . .

b. I have enough authority to reward

high performance through pay

increases or awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Please answer this set of questions about your

experiences dealing with workplace conflicts.

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005 

0 

0 --- -

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

I 

00000 

00000 

0 --- 0 -

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 79

- 12 -

EMPLOYMENT FACTS

55. Where do you work?

Agriculture - Food Safety and Inspection Service

Agriculture - Forest Service

Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation

Service

Agriculture - Other

Air Force

Army - US Army Corps of Engineers

Army - Other

Commerce - Census

Commerce - National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Commerce - National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Commerce - Patent and Trademark Office

Commerce - Other

Defense - Defense Contract Management Agency

Defense - Defense Finance and Accounting

Service

Defense - Defense Logistics Agency

Defense - Other

Education

Energy

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

General Services Administration - Public Buildings

Service

General Services Administration - Other

Health and Human Services - Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention

Health and Human Services - Indian Health Service

Health and Human Services - National Institutes

of Health

Health and Human Services - Other 56. Do you work at your agency’s headquarters

office (typically in Washington, DC) or in a field

location?

Headquarters

55. (continued)

Homeland Security - Bureau of Customs and

Border Protection

Homeland Security - Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement

Homeland Security - Federal Emergency

Management Agency

Homeland Security - Transportation Security

Administration

Homeland Security - U.S. Coast Guard

Homeland Security - U.S. Secret Service

Homeland Security - Other

Housing and Urban Development

Interior - Bureau of Land Management

Interior - Indian Affairs

Interior - National Park Service

Interior - Other

Justice - Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives

Justice - Bureau of Prisons/Federal Prison System

Justice - Drug Enforcement Administration

Justice - Executive Office of the U.S. Attorney

Justice - Federal Bureau of Investigation

Justice - Other

Labor

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Navy - U.S. Marine Corps

Navy - Other

Office of Personnel Management

Social Security Administration

State Department

Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration

Transportation - Other

Treasury - Internal Revenue Service

Treasury - Office of the Comptroller of Currency

Treasury - Other

Veterans Affairs - Veterans Benefits Administration

Veterans Affairs - Veterans Health Administration

Veterans Affairs - Other

Field

Please tell us a few facts about yourself. (This

information will only be used to create statistical

summaries.)

ALL EMPLOYEES:

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

I 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
80 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

- 13 -

57. How many years have you been a Federal civil

service employee? (Please round to the nearest

year.)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

58. How many years have you been with your

current Federal agency? (Please round to the

nearest year.)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

59. How many years of work experience did you

have before working for the Federal

Government? (Please round to the nearest year.)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

60. What is your pay plan?

Federal Wage System (e.g., WG, WS, WL)

GS - General Schedule

ES - Senior Executive Service

AD - Administratively Determined

AT - Air Traffic Controller

FG - FAA Similar to General Schedule

FV - FAA Core Compensation Plan

GG - Grades Similar to General Schedule

ND - Navy Demonstration Scientific & Engineering

NH - DoD Acquisition Demonstration Professional

SV - Transportation Security Administration

VM - Veterans Medical & Dental

Veterans Affairs Nursing

$ , 000.00

61. What is your approximate annual salary? (Please

round to the nearest $1,000.)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

DEMOGRAPHICS

62. Are you a dues-paying member of a union?

Yes

No, but my position is covered by a bargaining

agreement

No. I am not sure if my position is covered by a

bargaining agreement

No. My position is either not covered by a

bargaining agreement or I am otherwise not eligible

to be a member of a union

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

EMPLOYMENT FACTS (continued)

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

I 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

000 

I 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 81

- 14 -

63. Are you:

Male

Female

64. What is your age?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

65. What is your current education level?

High school, GED, or equivalent

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

Master’s degree

Doctorate or equivalent

None of the above

66. What race or ethnic category do you consider

yourself to be? (Mark all that apply.)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Asian

Black/African American

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

White

Hispanic or Latino

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS SURVEY.

For help or other questions, please contact meritsurvey2005@caliber.com

DEMOGRAPHICS (continued) OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS

67. Please describe the most important change

your agency could make to more effectively

accomplish its mission.

68. Please describe one improvement or change to

your work situation your agency or supervisor

could make that would improve your personal

job performance.

69. If you are a supervisor, what is the primary

obstacle you face in hiring employees?

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

I I 
82 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

- 15 -

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE

ON THIS PAGE.

Appendix A: The Merit Principles Survey 2005
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 83

Appendix B: Participating Agencies

For each department and independent agency, MSPB selected a representative, agency-wide 

random sample of nonsupervisory employees and all levels of supervisors. In many cases, we 

also selected representative samples from the agencies’ major components. The departments 

and independent agencies that participated in the survey are listed below:

Department/ Agency 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Defense 

Air Force 

Army 

Navy 

Department of Education 

Department of Energy 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

General Services Administration 

Department of Homeland Security 

Department of Health and Human 

Services 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

Department of Justice 

Department of Labor 

Department of Interior 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

Office of Personnel Management 

Social Security Administration 

Department of State 

Department of Transportation 

Department of Treasury 

Department of Veterans Affairs 
84 Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005
U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20419

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE

PRST STD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

WASHINGTON DC

PERMIT NO. G-113

m e r i t p r i n c i p l e s s u r v e y 2 0 0 5