Federal Employe

Engagement

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

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

December 2012

The Motivating Potential of 

Job Characteristics and Rewards

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Bo

1615 M Street, N

Washington,   20419-00

The Presiden

President of the Senate

Speaker of the House of Representative

Dear Sirs

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

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) report, Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of 

Job Characteristics and Rewards. An engaged, high-performing Federal workforce is especially important

in an era of reduced resources and heightened expectations. Using Federal employee survey data and 

insights from personnel psychology, this report discusses how Federal agencies can design jobs and 

provide rewards to encourage employees to put forth their best efforts.

First, Federal agencies can do more to make Federal jobs truly motivating. We found that employees 

who believed their jobs had desirable characteristics such as skill variety, autonomy, and performance 

feedback were more likely to perform well. However, many Federal employees reported that their job 

lacked one or more elements necessary to a high level of motivation. Accordingly, Federal agencies

should look for ways to modify jobs or working conditions to make better use of Federal employee’s 

skills, insights, and initiative. That is, Federal agencies and managers should strive to make the promise 

of public service a reality, by affording employees the greatest possible latitude to use their talents to 

accomplish meaningful and challenging work.

Second, Federal agencies can make better use of rewards, both monetary and non-monetary. 

Fortunately, most Federal employees place great importance on non-monetary rewards, such as the 

opportunity to serve the public and the opportunity to perform challenging work. Unfortunately, many 

Federal employees did not see a strong connection between their work efforts and individual results (such 

as performance ratings) and outcomes (such as performance rewards). Steps that agencies can take to 

strengthen this critical connection include improving performance management practices and providing 

rewards that Federal employees truly value.

I believe you will find this report useful as you consider issues affecting the Federal workforce and

Federal agency performance.

Respectfully

Susan Tsui Grundman

The Cha

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

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

November 2012

Federal Employee Engagement: 

The Motivating Potentia

Job Characteristics and Rewa

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Deputy Director

James J. Tsugawa

Project Manager

J. Peter Leeds, Ph.D.

Assistant Project Manager

Julie Osowski, Ph.D.

Project Analyst

Sharon Roth

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

Table of Conten

Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................................

Findings ........................................................................................................................................................ii

Recommendations........................................................................................................................................

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................

Background .................................................................................................................................................

What is engagement and why is it important?.............................................................................................

Purpose of Study ........................................................................................................................................

Merit Principles Survey 2010 Methodology..........................................................................................

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspect of Job Characteristics ...........................................

Effect of Job Characteristics on Motivation .....................................................................................

How Motivating are Federal Jobs? ...........................................................................................................

Why Does the Motivation Potential Level Matter? ..........................................................................

Key to Motivation: Improving Job Characteristics ..............................................................................

Key to Motivation  Linking the Job to Mission Accomplishment .....................................................

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspect of Rewards .............................................................

Effect of Rewards on Motivation........................................................................................................

How Motivating are Rewards in the Federal Government?.................................................................

Why Do Connections Between Effort, Performance, and Rewards Matter?.............................

Key to Motivation  Administer the Right Rewards in the Right Way .............................................

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................................2

Motivation Among Federal Employees ....................................................................................................

Recommendations...............................................................................................................................................

Job Characteristics....................................................................................................................................

Rewards ......................................................................................................................................................3

Appendix A  Measurement of the Motivation Potential of Job Characteristics ..................................

Appendix B  Measurement of the Motivation Force of Effort, Performance, and Reward C

Appendix C: MSPB’s Engagement Scale Questions ....................................................................................

Appendix D  The 2010 Merit Principles Survey ..........................................................................................

Appendix E  Overview of the Merit Principles Survey 2010 Methodology............................................

Appendix F: Agencies and Subagencies for which Analyses Are Available ..............................................

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

Executive Summ

Motivating employees to perform at a high level and encouraging their engagement 

are essential to an efficient and effective Federal Government. Having skilled, engaged 

employees is more important than ever, especially in light of austere fiscal conditions, 

budget constraints, impending retirements, and public debate over the value of Federal 

employees and their work. Previous MSPB research has shown the importance of 

employee engagement for several desirable organizational outcomes, and has discussed 

the importance of supervisory performance management practices for employee 

engagement.1 Building on that research, this report focuses on helping Federal agencies, 

Federal managers and supervisors, and other stakeholders better understand how job 

characteristics and rewards can support employee motivation and encourage engagement 

and performance. This report—

•	 Discusses the importance of 5 job characteristics for supporting employee 

motivation: (1) skill variety, (2) task identity, (3) task significance, (4) autonomy, and 

(5) feedback;

•	 Examines the relationship between Federal employees’ perceptions of these job

characteristics with their motivation and performance, and discusses results from 

a diagnostic tool (the Motivation Potential Level) used to gauge the motivational 

quality of job characteristics; 

•	 Provides strategies for improving job characteristics, such as job enlargement, 

enrichment, and rotation, as well as communicating how jobs contribute to mission 

accomplishment; 

•	 Discusses the importance of connecting desired rewards to employees’ effort and

performance, for supporting employee motivation;

•	 Examines the importance that Federal employees place on various rewards such as

awards and bonuses, personal satisfaction, and developmental opportunities;

•	 Examines employees’ perceptions of the connections between their effort and

performance and the rewards that agencies provide, and discusses results from a 

1 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, September 2008; and U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing for Engagement—Communication, Connection, and Courage, July 2009.

2 Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1975.  Development of the Job Diagnostic Surey.  Journal of App

Psychology, 60, pp. 159-170; and Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will 

The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), pp. 463-479.
ii Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Executive Summa

diagnostic tool (the Motivation Force Score) used to gauge the motivational quality 

of rewards;

•	 Provides diagnostic tools3

 (the Motivation Potential Level and the Motivation Force 

Score mentioned above) that Federal agencies can use to identify strengths and 

opportunities for improvement in job design and rewards, respectively; and

•	 Discusses elements of effective reward programs, such as using sound performance

management practices, communicating the availability of rewards and conditions 

for receiving them, providing rewards that employees value, and making fair and 

transparent reward decisions.

Findings

Motivation Among Federal Employees

Most Federal employees view themselves as motivated, with 71 percent agreeing or 

strongly agreeing with the statement, “I feel highly motivated in my work.” Agreemen

varied considerably across Federal agencies, ranging from 62 percent to 77 percent. This 

range suggests that motivation can be shaped by features of the work environment. 

Further, it is clear that there is room to improve motivation. We focused on how job 

characteristics and rewards could present opportunities for this improvement. 

Job Characteristics

Job characteristics such as autonomy (the freedom to decide how to accomplish work 

assignments), skill variety, and feedback affect employee motivation and performance. 

For example, employees in jobs with high perceived levels of autonomy are more likely to 

be highly motivated—and perform at a higher level—than employees who believe that 

they have little autonomy.

Federal agencies have considerable opportunity to design jobs or adjust working 

conditions to make them more motivating. In our survey, we computed a Motivation

Potential Level4 to gauge how a survey respondent viewed the characteristics of his or her 

3 These diagnostic tools are discussed in more detail in the body of this report. Also, see Appendi A for the ite

and procedure used to compute the Motivation Potential Level and Appendix B for the items and procedure used to

compute the Motivation Force Score.

4 This level was computed using a method adapted from Hackman and Oldham. See Hackman, J.R., & Oldha

G.R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Surve.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, pp. 159-170; a

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will e:  The future of job design resear

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), pp. 463-479. Also, see Appendi A for the items and procedure used 

compute the Motivation Potential Level.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board i

Executive Summa

job.5 Only 21 percent of Federal employees had a high Motivation Potential Level. This

finding suggests that although at a general level Federal employees feel motivated in their 

work, job characteristics are an area where potential improvements in motivation can 

be made. In other words, agencies can take action to influence motivation through job

characteristics. 

Rewards

Federal employees are not motivated solely, or even primarily, by monetary rewards. 

For example, larger percentages of Federal employees rated non-monetary rewards 

such as, “The personal satisfaction  experience,” “Having interesting work,” “My job

security,” and “Being able to serve the public,” as important to seeking and continuing 

employment with their organization than, “My awards and bonuses.” In fact, of the

eleven rewards that we asked about, eight non-monetary rewards were rated as important 

by more Federal employees than awards and bonuses. This pattern is encouraging, 

especially given the budget and resource constraints that many Federal agencies currently 

face.

However, Federal agencies can do more to design and deliver effective rewards. For 

rewards to be effective—to elicit effort and reinforce desired behaviors and results—

Federal agencies need to give the right rewards in the right way. Employees who saw

a strong connection between effort and outcomes (results achieved and the receipt of 

valued rewards) were more likely to perform at a high level than employees who viewed 

that connection as weak.

Unfortunately, most Federal employees did not see a strong connection between their 

work effort, performance rating, and rewards. In our study, we computed a Motivation

Force Score6 to gauge the strength of this connection. Only 23 percent of Federal

employees had a high Motivation Force Score. Although Federal employees appear to

value the rewards that agencies provide, many perceive the connection between their 

effort and performance or the connection between their performance and rewards as 

weak or unclear. In other words, rewards are another area where agencies can take action

to influence motivation. 

5 Fried, Y. & Ferris, G.R. (1987)  The validity of the job characteristics model A review and meta-analysi

Personnel Psychology, 40, pp. 287-322. Combining the five job characteristics into a single score was shown to be a

valid predictor of important workplace outcomes including performance and attitude across many work contexts for 

both public and private organizations.

6 The Motivation Force Score represents the motivational quality of an employee’s rewards and perceived 

connections between effort, performance, and rewards. See Appendix B for the items and procedure used to

calculate the Motivation Force Score. 
iv Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Executive Summa

Recommendations

Job Characteristics

Good job design—structuring jobs to maximize desirable characteristics—supports 

organizational efficiency and effectiveness. This is because job characteristics can 

impact employee motivation, a necessary ingredient for engagement and performance. 

Managers and supervisors should determine the extent to which their employees’ jobs 

have motivating characteristics. Such characteristics include: 

•	 Performing a variety of tasks that require a wide range of knowledge, skills, and 

abilities; 

•	 Completing whole pieces of work or projects;

•	 Having a significant impact through work; 

•	 Exercising autonomy in scheduling and performing work; and

•	 Receiving appropriate feedback.

More specific recommendations for these job characteristics can be found in the body 

and conclusion of this report. 

In the event that improvements could be made to job characteristics to better support

motivation and engagement, and to the extent permitted by mission requirements 

and employees’ capabilities, managers and supervisors should work with relevant 

organizational leaders and employee representatives to design and implement changes. 

Improvements could include:

•	 Enlarging the duties of a job to increase the knowledge and skill sets that employees

must apply to tasks; 

•	 Rotating employees among jobs to increase their skill sets; or

•	 Enriching jobs by increasing employees’ independence, responsibility, and

accountability. 

Agency leaders should also emphasize to employees the significance of their work and

how it contributes to accomplishing goals; supports the organization’s mission; and 

benefits the general public.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Executive Summa

Rewards

Employees’ perceptions of their rewards and the connection between the effort they

exert, the success they anticipate, and the rewards they receive can influence their 

motivation and job performance. Sound supervisory performance management practices 

will be critical to help employees see connections between their effort, performance, 

and rewards. However, agencies need to give the right rewards in the right way. This 

includes: 

•	 Offering a variety of rewards;

•	 Clearly communicating to employees the available types of rewards and the

conditions for receiving them;

•	 Avoiding the creation of expectations for rewards that cannot or will not be met later;

•	 Identifying the rewards that employees value and when possible, accommodating

such preferences when administering rewards. Agencies and managers should

carefully consider the readiness of their organizational culture and systems before 

proceeding. In particular, agencies must take care to assure that employees are

treated equitably—that “similarly situated employees are treated similarly”—even if 

they are not rewarded uniformly. For example, the standards for receiving rewards 

should be consistent across employees at the same performance level and the dollarvalue of different rewards should be comparable for employees in a given position at 

the same performance level; and

•	 Administering rewards in a fair and transparent manner, consistent with applicable

agency policies and procedures. 

More specific recommendations for these reward practices can be found in the body and 

conclusion of this report.
vi Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Background

The Federal Government is under increasing pressure to control spending and increase 

efficiency. At the same time, the rise in retirement eligibility and retirement rates among

Federal employees means that many Federal workplaces are facing the loss of some of 

their most experienced employees. Yet, there have also been increasing demands for

innovation and creativity. These challenges have made it more critical than ever for 

the Federal workforce to be composed of highly capable individuals who are passionate 

about their work and service to the public; committed to their jobs and organizations; 

and willing to go beyond the parameters of their job descriptions to generate effective 

work products and services for the American people. One strategy for cultivating such 

workforce—in addition to formal mechanisms such as good performance management 

practices, succession management, and knowledge transfer—is promoting the 

engagement of individual Federal employees.

Previous research by MSPB has discussed drivers and outcomes of employee 

engagement,7 as well as how organizations can influence engagement through 

supervisory performance management practices.8 This report discusses two additional 

areas where organizations can take action to influence engagement: the motivational 

aspects of jobs and rewards.9 We use and provide diagnostic tools—a Motivation 

Potential Level and a Motivation Force Score—to gauge the motivational quality of job 

characteristics and rewards, respectively.10 Agency leadership can likewise use these tools

to identify opportunities to sustain and potentially improve employee motivation within 

their organization.

7 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, September 2008.

8 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing for Engagement—Communication, Connection, and Courage, July 

2009.

9 We note that in this report, the term “rewards” includes all aspects of employment that an employee might 

value, including non-monetary elements such as challenging work, personal satisfaction through public service, and 

inclusion in important conversations and decisions.

10 The Motivation Potential Level uses employees’ perceptions of their job characteristics as an index of their 

motivation and the Motivation Force Score uses employees’ perceptions of their rewards and connections between 

their effort, performance, and rewards as an index of their motivation. These tools will be discussed in more detail 

in the following chapters. See AppendixA for the items and procedure used to compute the Motivation Potentia

Level, and Appendix B for the items and procedure used to compute the Motivation Force Score

Introducti
2 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Introductio

What is engagement and why is it important?

Previous research by MSPB, as summarized in the 2008 report, The Power of Federal 

Employee Engagement, suggested that employee engagement has three primary elements: 

(1) emotional and rational commitment to the job and the organization; (2) discretionary 

effort that produces sustained goal-directed performance; and (3) satisfaction from the 

job and its context.11 This study demonstrated that employee engagement is linked to 

several important organizational outcomes. For example, the average level of employee 

engagement in Federal agencies was significantly associated with agency-level program 

results/accountability as measured by the Office of Management and Budget’s Program

Assessment Rating Tool (PAT ).  Further, agencies with lower levels of engagemen

higher levels of intention to leave the agency among their employees. Agencies with the

highest rates of average sick leave use, equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint

and instances of work-related injuries also had lower levels of employee engagement. It

is clear that having engaged employees is desirable to Federal agencies, especially during 

challenging times.

In The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, we discussed six drivers for engaging

Federal employees:

1. Pride in one’s work and workplace: Do employees find their work

meaningful? Would they recommend the agency as a place to work?

2. Satisfaction with leadership: Do the organization’s leaders—from

first-level supervisors to career executives to agency heads—provide 

clear vision and sound direction? Are they good stewards of the public

interest and public employees?

3. The opportunity to perform well at work: Do employees know what

is expected of them and have the resources and support they need to 

succeed?

4. Satisfaction with the recognition received: Does the organization

reward excellence? Are rewards truly based on performance

5. Prospects for future personal and professional growth: Does the

organization give employees an opportunity to maintain and improve 

their skills?

6.  positive work environment with some focus on teamwork: Ar

employees treated with respect? Do their opinions count? Is th

workplace collaborative or competitive?

11 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, September 2008.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Introductio

AppendixC lists the survey questions associated with these drivers  These drivers sugges

three areas where organizations can potentially influence engagement: supervision, job 

characteristics, and rewards.

Engagement and the Influence of Supervision. As discussed in MSPB’s report,

Managing for Engagement—Communication, Connection, and Courage, supervisors can 

influence engagement through performance management practices including assigning 

work, communicating expectations, monitoring and evaluating performance, offering 

feedback, providing developmental opportunities, managing poor performance, and 

administering rewards and recognition. Analysis of survey results revealed that employees

who were fully engaged were much more likely to agree that their supervisor had good 

management skills (87%) than those employees who were not engaged (14%).

Engagement and the Influence of Job Characteristics and Rewards. The engagement 

drivers of pride in one’s work, satisfaction with leadership, and perceptions of a positive 

work environment can be viewed as characteristics of the job. Similarly, satisfaction with 

recognition, prospects for growth and development, and opportunity to perform well can 

be viewed as rewards provided by the job. These linkages facilitate discussion of where 

agencies can focus their efforts to encourage employee engagement.

Engagement and Motivation. Linking the six drivers of engagement to job 

characteristic and reward areas also allows us to draw from extensive research conducted 

in these areas. Although such research has focused on how job characteristics and

rewards influence employee performance motivation, it can be useful for understanding 

employee engagement because motivation and engagement are similar concepts. Recall

that engagement is the nexus of job commitment, discretionary effort, and satisfaction. 

Performance motivation (or simply “motivation”) has been defined as “a set of energetic 

forces that originates both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate 

work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration.”12 

Motivation drives what employees do, how they do it, how hard they will try, and how 

long they will persist in a given endeavor. It follows that an engaged employee is a

performance motivated employee and that research pertinent to motivation will have 

insights for engagement.

12 Pinder, C.C. (1998)  Motivation in Work Organizations, p. 11  Upper Saddle River, J:  Prentice H
4 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Introductio

Purpose of Study

Motivating employees to work more effectively toward the organization’s goals and 

mission accomplishment is perhaps the most basic task of Federal leaders and managers. 

As pressures mount to do more with less, organizations must reexamine what factors

are central to sustaining and increasing their employees’ productivity. Engagement

and motivation are critical to this goal and agencies are encouraged to foster conditions 

that promote them. The drivers of engagement discussed in MSPB’s previous 

research suggest that there are three areas where agencies can take action supportive of 

engagement. The first, good supervisory performance management practices, was a focus 

of our report Managing for Engagement—Communication, Connection, and Courage. The 

other two, namely the motivating aspects of job characteristics and rewards, are the focus 

of this report. 

The first chapter of this report focuses on job characteristics, such as the variety of 

skills required, and their effect on motivation. The second chapter focuses on rewards, 

specifically employees’ views about the relationship between their effort on the job and 

how that effort is recognized. Both chapters use diagnostic tools to provide insight into 

whether agencies are designing jobs and providing rewards in ways that are conducive 

to motivation, as well as to identify opportunities for improvement. The chapters also 

discuss actions that agency leadership can take to sustain or better support employee 

motivation and encourage engagement and performance in these challenging times.

Merit Principles Survey 2010 Methodology

This report is based on data from the 2010 Merit Principles Survey (MPS 2010), a 

survey that MSPB periodically conducts in support of its statutory responsibility to 

assess the health of Federal merit systems. On the MPS 2010, we asked employees what

motivates them, how important these motivators are, the job characteristics they find 

motivating, and the degree to which employees see a connection between their efforts, 

their supervisor’s view of their performance, and rewards. See AppendixD for a cop

of the MPS 2010 survey. We used two diagnostic tools—a Motivation Potential Level 

and a Motivation Force Score—to gauge the motivational quality of job characteristics 

and rewards, respectively.13 Agency leadership can likewise use these tools to identify

opportunities to sustain and improve motivation, within their organizations. 

13 These tools will be discussed in more detail in the following chapters. See AppendixA for the items an

procedure used to compute the Motivation Potential Level, and Appendix B for the items and procedure used to

compute the Motivation Force Score.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Introductio

Survey Sampling and Distribution

The MPS 2010 was distributed to 71,970 full-time, permanent, Federal employees to 

solicit their perceptions of their jobs, work environments, supervisors, and agencies. 

We oversampled certain populations to ensure sufficient responses from select agency 

bureaus or components. Therefore, responses were weighted to ensure that the results are 

representative of the Federal Government as a whole. Survey participation was voluntary. 

We received valid responses from 42,020 individuals, for a response rate of 58 percent. 

AppendixE provides a detailed description of the survey methodolog

Presentation of Results and Terminology

Six response options were provided for most of the survey questions: Strongly Agree,

Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, and Don’t 

To simplify presentation and interpretation of results, we have usually

•	 Combined the two positive responses (Strongly Agree and Agree) into a sing

positive response (Agree)

•	 Combined the two negative responses (Strongly Disagree and Disagree) into a sing

negative response (Disagree); and

•	 Excluded the response of “Don’t Know/NA ” from our tabulati

In this report, we use the following terms

•	 Employees—the entire Federal workforce as represented by the survey participants

•	 Survey participants or respondents—the employees who responded to the pertinent 

MPS 2010 questions.

•	 Individual workers—employees who are not supervisors or team leaders

•	 Team leaders—non-supervisors who provide other employees with day-to-day

guidance in work projects but who do not have official supervisory responsibilities 

such as approving leave or conducting performance appraisals.

•	 Non-supervisors—individual workers and team leaders combined

•	 Supervisors—employees who have official supervisory responsibilities, such as 

approving leave and conducting performance appraisals for individual workers and 

team leaders.

•	 Managers—employees other than executives who supervise one or more supervisors.

•	 Executives—Both career and noncareer members of the Senior Executive Service o

its equivalent.
6 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Purpose of St

•	 Leaders—all employees with supervisory responsibilities including supervisors, 

managers, and executives.

•	 Organization—an agency, office, or division

•	 Work unit—an employee’s immediate work unit headed by the employee’s direct 

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

Federal agencies are responsible for managing employees in accordance with the Merit 

System Principles codified at 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b). One of these principles states tha

the Federal workforce should be used efficiently and effectively. This principle suggests 

that jobs should be designed to encourage motivation and engagement. While it 

generally appears that Federal employees are motivated in their work (see Figure 1), 

it is also evident that there is room for improvement. This chapter discusses how job 

characteristics can present an opportunity to sustain or potentially improve employee 

motivation. 

Figure 1: Agreement with the statement, “I feel highly motivated in my work.

3.4%

9.7%

16.4%

44.4%

26.1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree

Nor Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

Encouraging Engagement— The Motivating A

Job Characteristi
8 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspect of Job Ch

Effect of Job Characteristics on Motivation

There are several theoretical perspectives on what drives employee motivation. One

perspective, the Hackman and Oldham Job Characteristics Model, asserts that whe

an employee perceives his or her job as meaningful, valuable, and worthwhile, and 

feels personally accountable and responsible for the results of his or her work, he or 

she will want to perform well.14 T﻿his model further suggests that characteristics 

the job contribute to how motivated employees will be in performing their work. 

These characteristics include: (1) skill variety, (2) task identity, (3) task significance, 

(4) autonomy, and (5) feedback. Research supports that these five characteristics are

strongly related to work motivation, as well as to a lesser degree job performance and 

absenteeism.15

We measured each of these five characteristics on our MPS 2010 to explore how 

Federal employees perceive the motivating quality of their jobs, and to increase our 

understanding of how to drive engagement. Below, we describe each job characteristic.

Skill variety is the diversity of knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the job. 

Increasing skill variety may improve employees’ perceptions of the meaningfulness

and value of their jobs and fuel their motivation. For example, a research analyst who 

performs only data entry and analysis could receive training on report writing that 

enables him or her to write summary reports of the data analysis findings. We measured 

this job characteristic by asking employees if they agreed that their jobs allow them to 

perform a variety of tasks that require a wide range of knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Task identity is the degree to which a task that an employee is asked to complete is 

experienced as a whole task from beginning to end versus as a smaller piece of a larger 

task, or the continuous repetition of a single task. Generally, a job which allows 

employees to complete entire tasks will be judged as more meaningful, and employees 

will exert more effort to accomplish these tasks. Improving the task identity of a job

may positively impact employees’ perceptions of their jobs, which would support their 

motivation and engagement. For example, involving a researcher in every step of a 

study, from design to data collection to analysis to report writing, would likely encourage 

the researcher to put forth more effort and feel more connected to the project, than if 

the researcher was only involved in one of these components. We measured this job 

characteristic by asking employees if they agreed that their jobs allow them to complete a 

single piece of work (rather than bits and pieces) from beginning to end.

14 Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1975.  Development of the Job Diagnostic Surey.  Journal of App

Psychology, 60, pp. 159-170; and Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will 

The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), pp. 463-479.

15 Fried, Y. & Ferris, G.R. (1987)  The validity of the job characteristics model A review and meta-analysi

Personnel Psychology, 40, pp. 287-322.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspect of Job Ch

Task significance is the importance that employees attach to job tasks and activities. 

Jobs with tasks of greater perceived significance, and a clearer connection between 

employees’ actions and organizational goals, generate more effort. The more removed 

a job is from the mission, the less significant that job may seem. For example, consider 

the seemingly “stand alone” task of writing a vacancy announcement. If an employee

performing this task is unable to see the task’s function in or connection to the chain 

of influences that ultimately accomplishes the agency’s mission, the employee may not 

fully appreciate the significance of the job task. Such an employee may be inspired to 

exert greater effort and to feel engaged in the work by knowing precisely how such a task 

impacts mission accomplishment—from a clear description of the job and its duties to 

effective recruitment strategies to favorable hiring to successful performance on the job. 

We measured this job characteristic by asking employees if they agreed that their jobs 

have significant positive impact on others, either within the organization or on the public 

in general.

Autonomy is the degree of freedom that employees have to make decisions about how to 

accomplish their work. Normally, the more freedom employees have to make decisions

and to direct the activities of their work, the greater their motivation to perform that 

work. Such latitude in decision making would also support employee engagement. 

Freedom to act independently varies with the job, the supervisor, the organization, 

and the agency policies and procedures. In an effort to reduce human error, some jobs

may constrain the response options of employees so much that employees begin to feel 

disempowered and bored. For example, a security officer may have so many standard 

operating procedures that there is little room for individual variation and initiative. 

For this employee, the standard operating procedures within an organization may 

be so extensive that even the smallest task is scripted. Good managers will look for 

opportunities to provide trusted employees with more latitude and discretion where 

unique situations call for unique solutions. We measured this job characteristic by 

asking employees if they agreed that their jobs give them the freedom to make decisions 

regarding how they accomplish their work.

Feedback is the mechanism by which employees receive knowledge of results of their 

work effort. The more that a job provides ways by which employees can understand 

how they are performing, the more employees will be able to monitor and correct their 

behavior to achieve better results. However, jobs vary in the quantity, quality, and 

immediacy of feedback. For example, an information technology specialist may know 

immediately how her efforts resolved a customer’s computer difficulty. Conversely, a

research analyst may have to wait years to see the results of his efforts and any interim 

performance appraisal may be difficult given the abstractness of the work products. We 

measured this job characteristic by asking employees if they agreed that they receive 
10 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspect of Job Ch

information about their job performance and the effectiveness of their efforts, either 

directly from the work itself or from others.16

How Motivating are Federal Jobs?

We calculated a Motivation Potential Level17 for each survey respondent as an indicator18

of how likely he or she was to be motivated by his or her job characteristics.19 The 

Motivation Potential Level can range from 1 to 125.  score of 1 means that the

respondent perceived that his or her job had none of the five characteristics, whereas 

a score of 125 means that the respondent believed his or her job provided all five 

characteristics to the maximum degree possible. Thus, the greater the Motivation 

Potential Level, the more favorably an individual regards his or her job characteristics and 

the higher the motivation he or she is presumed to have. 

We sorted respondents’ Motivation Potential Levels into three groups, namely low-level 

(ranging from 1 to 41.7), mid-level (ranging from 41.8 to 83.3), and high-level (ranging 

from 83.4 to 125). As Figure 2 shows, approximately 27 percent of the employees

had a low-level Motivation Potential; 52 percent had a mid-level Motivation Potential; 

and 21 percent had a high-level Motivation Potential.20 In other words, 79 percent of

employees did not have a highly favorable view of their job characteristics. This finding 

suggests that although at a general level Federal employees feel motivated in their work, 

job characteristics are an area where potential improvements in motivation can be made. 

Agencies can take action to influence motivation through job characteristics. Strategies

for potentially improving job characteristics will be discussed at the end of this chapter. 

16 For each of these questions, respondents were given the following options: Don’t Know/NA , Strongly Disagr

Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Agree, and Strongly 

17 This level was computed using a method adapted from Hackman and Oldham. See Hackman, J.R., & Oldha

G.R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Surve.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, pp. 159-170; a

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will e:  The future of job design resear

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), pp. 463-479. Also, see Appendi A for the items and procedure we us

to calculate the Motivation Potential Level.

18 Fried, Y. & Ferris, G.R. (1987)  The validity of the job characteristics model A review and meta-analysi

Personnel Psychology, 40, pp. 287-322. Combining the five job characteristics into a single score was shown to be a

valid predictor of important workplace outcomes including performance and attitude across many work contexts for 

both public and private organizations. 

19 The score is “potential” to acknowledge that there is more to motivation than the five job characteristics. 

Although skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback are important motivators, there are

other influential factors, some of which we discuss in the next chapter.

20 Supervisory level made a small difference in the percentage of employees at each Motivation Potential Level, with 

supervisors being less likely than non-supervisors to have low motivation potential (21.1 percent versus 28.2 percent), 

more likely to have mid-level potential (54.7 percent versus 51.6 percent), and more likely to have high motivation 

potential (24.2 percent versus 20.3 percent). Thus, supervisory responsibilities appear to have only a minor role in 

how employees characterize their skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback, as defined 

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

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspect of Job Ch

Figure 2: Distribution of Motivation Potential Level

The survey results depicted in Table 1 provide some direction on why so many survey

respondents had middle- and low-level Motivation Potential. 

Table 1: Responses to Survey Questions about Job Characteristic

Job Component Agree Neither Disa

Skill Variety: My job allows me to perform a variety of tasks 

that require a wide range of knowledge, skills, and abilities. 85% 8% 7%

Task Identity: My job allows me to complete a single piece of 

work (rather than bits and pieces) from beginning to end. 58% 18% 24%

Task Significance: My job has a significant positive impact 

on others, either within the organization or the public in 

general.

84% 12% 4%

Autonomy: My job gives me the freedom to make decisions 

regarding how I accomplish my work. 74% 14% 12%

Feedback: I receive information about my job performance 

and the effectiveness of my efforts, either directly from the 

work itself or from others.

74% 17% 10%

High Motivation Potential

(20.8%)

Mid-Level Motivation Potential 

(51.9%)

Low Motivation Potential (27.3%)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2 4 6 8 11 13 16 19 22 27 30 35 40 44 52 58 67 75 92 125

High Motivation 

Force (20.8%) 

Low Motivation Force

(27.3%) 

Mid-Level Motivation Force

(51.9%) 
12 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspect of Job Ch

Although a substantial majority of Federal employees agreed that their jobs require

varied skills, have a significant positive impact, and provide autonomy, and feedback, far 

fewer employees agreed with the “task identity” characteristic. Further, a relatively high 

percentage of Federal employees disagreed that their jobs have task identity. It appears

that many Federal employees perceive their jobs as being one part of a larger job rather 

than as entailing a complete set of tasks that comprise a single start-to-finish function. 

The scope of the Government’s activities and program considerations such as efficiency, 

specialization, and accountability may dictate a formal division of labor that prevents 

employees from working on every aspect of a project or seeing a project to completion. 

In other words, there may be limits to task identity in some Federal jobs that are

necessary for agency mission accomplishment.

Why Does the Motivation Potential Level Matter?

Employees’ perceptions of their job characteristics can influence their job performance.

As depicted in Figure 3, there is a clear relationship between survey respondents’

Motivation Potential Levels and their actual job performance.21 Employees at a “Fully

Successful or less” performance level were more likely to have low motivational potential 

than were employees at higher levels of performance (“Exceeds Expectations” o

“Outstanding”). Conversely, employees at the “Exceeds Expectations” or “Outstand

performance levels were more likely to have high motivational potential compared to 

employees achieving “Fully Successful or less” performance.

Figure 3: Proportion of Employees at Three Motivation Potential Levels by Job Performance Leve

21 To determine whether employee job performance is linked to Motivation Potential Level, we cross-referenced

performance appraisal ratings obtained from the Office of Personnel Management’s Central Personnel Data File f

fiscal year 2010 with the Motivation Potential Levels for those respondents evaluated under a 5-point performance 

appraisal rating scale. We classified respondents who had an appraisal rating of 5 as “Outstanding,” respondents

who had a rating of 4 as “Exceeds Expectations,” and respondents who had ratings of 3, 2, or 1 as “Fully Successfu

or less.” We combined ratings at levels 3 and below because ratings at level 2 and 1 are too infrequent to allow 

individual analysis.

38.4%

32.6%

29.0%

28.7%

34.6%

36.7%

25.0%

34.6%

40.4%

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

Fully Successful or Less

Exceeds Expectations

Outstanding

Low Motivation Potential Mid Level Motivation Potential High Motivation Potential
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspect of Job Ch

Thus, maximizing the skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and 

feedback that Federal jobs offer may improve employees’ views of their jobs, which can 

increase their motivation levels, and ultimately result in higher performance as reflected 

in their performance appraisal ratings.22 However, we acknowledge that motivation is 

not determined solely by job characteristics or other agency-controlled conditions. For 

example, the work ethic and personal circumstances of an employee also play a role. 

Although important, these within-person determinants of motivation are more difficult

to recognize, measure, and change than overt job characteristics. 

Key to Motivation: Improving Job Characteristics

There are several approaches that agencies can take to modify job characteristics to 

support employee motivation and engagement. Three broad approaches are described 

below.

Job Enlargement expands employees’ responsibilities within their current job to increase 

their knowledge and skill sets. For example, the job of a recruiter23 may be enlarged to 

include the responsibility for on-boarding the selected individuals. Being responsible 

for integrating the new hire into his or her job and environment would require the 

recruiter to use new skills and would enable the recruiter to see a more direct impact of 

his or her work, as well as allow for the completion of a whole piece of work. In terms

of job characteristics, enlargement could increase skill variety, task significance, and task 

identity.

Job Rotation assigns an employee tasks typically performed by others to broaden 

knowledge and skills. Typically, this involves cross-training in the duties of different jobs.

For example, a recruiter could be cross-trained in the fundamentals of employee benefits 

and compensation. Such cross-training would enable the recruiter to develop different 

skills and perform new functions, giving the organization more flexibility in assigning 

work. In addition to benefiting individual employees and managers, job rotation can also

help organizations disseminate and preserve staff expertise and institutional knowledge.

22 We note that these results are correlational; an association (correlation) between two variables does not mean 

that one causes the other. An alternative explanation is that general workplace satisfaction/engagement may

account for both favorable job characteristic perceptions and job performance. However, we believe that employees’ 

perceptions of their job characteristics are important to job satisfaction and engagement, and that efforts to improve 

one are likely to improve the other. The previously discussed Job Characteristics Model which was central to our

research also helps identify practical opportunities for work diagnosis and improvement. See Hackman, J.R., &

Oldham, G.R. (1975)  Development of the Job Diagnostic Survy.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, pp. 159-1

and Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will e:  The future of job des

research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), pp. 463-479.

23 We use this title for brevity. Under the General Schedule pay system, the official title of an employee in this role 

would be Human Resources Specialist (Recruitment) or Human Resources Specialist (Recruitment and Placeme
14 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspect of Job Ch

Job Enrichment provides an employee with more independence, responsibility, and 

accountability in performing assigned tasks. For example, jobs that may have previously 

had standard templates for report writing and many levels of review may be enriched by 

allowing employees to decide how to write, organize, and present pertinent information, 

with minimal review. Having more control and ownership of work products can be 

motivating for those employees who are capable of self-management. Further, shifting 

some of the task management functions to such capable employees can free supervisory 

resources for other matters. 

Considerations for Improving Job Characteristics. The nature of the work being 

performed, the specific employees involved, human resources policies, and the needs of 

the organization can affect the scope that agencies and managers have to modify jobs, 

responsibilities, or work processes. Employee or organizational constraints may make a

particular strategy infeasible or impractical. For example, not all employees will be good 

candidates for the increased responsibilities associated with job enrichment. The rules 

governing position classification may place bounds on how far management may vary 

job tasks.  collective bargaining agreement might limit management’s discretion in

assigning different roles to different employees at various times. Agency leaders should

recognize that in some occupations, enlarging a job could be impractical and compromise 

mission accomplishment. Such issues must be considered when proposing changes to 

job duties.

Additionally, since job enlargement, rotation, and enrichment involve changes to job

duties that can benefit the employee, it is critical that they are administered in a manner 

consistent with merit system values and rules. Leaders who implement these approaches 

and their associated opportunities must do so in a fair, objective, and transparent manner.

These considerations notwithstanding, managers are encouraged to work with their 

employees, relevant organizational leaders, and employee representatives to determine 

what (if any) adjustments to job characteristics can be made, and to design and 

implement these changes. Table 2 outlines questions that managers can ask to gauge

employees’ satisfaction with the characteristics of their jobs.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspect of Job Ch

Table 2: Questions for Gauging Employee Satisfaction with Job Characteristics2

Job Characteristic Question: Is the employee satisfied or likely to be satisfied wit

Skill variety

•	 The variety of knowledge, skills, and abilities required?

•	 The level of variety in duties, tasks, and activities?

•	 The degree to which the job offers opportunities to learn and grow in 

competence and proficiency?

Task identity •	 The degree to which the job provides for completion of a whole and 

identifiable piece of work from beginning to end?

Task significance •	 The difference that he or she can make to others through the job?

•	 The importance of the job compared to other jobs in the organization?

Autonomy

•	 The level of independence and discretion allowed in making decisions about 

work sequence, methods, procedures, or quality control?

•	 The degree to which the job allows for participation in work-related decisionmaking?

Feedback

•	 The clarity of performance expectations (for example, quality, quantity, 

timeliness)?

•	 The availability of feedback about job performance?

•	 The frequency of performance feedback?

•	 The level of acknowledgment or recognition received for work 

accomplishments?

•	 Access to communication channels and flows of information?

Key to Motivation: Linking the Job to Mission Accomplishment

Agencies should ensure that employees can see connections between their work and

agency mission accomplishment. As shown in Figure 4, the greater the extent to which

employees believed the efforts of their agency are successful, the higher the Motivation 

Potential Level they expressed. Conversely, employees who regarded their agencies as

less successful in accomplishing their missions tended to have lower Motivation Potential 

Levels. Notably, more than half of employees who disagreed that their agencies are

successful had a low Motivation Potential Level.25 

24 Campion, M., & Thayer, P. (1987). Job design: Approaches, outcomes, and trade-offs  Organizational Dynamics

15, pp. 66-79.

25 Total responses to the items, “My agency is successful in accomplishing its mission,” and “I would recommen

my agency as a place to work,” were both correlated with total agreement to the item, “I feel highly motivated in my

work,” r = .39 and r = .53 respectively, p < .05.  correlation (r) expresses the degree of relationship between two

sets of numbers and ranges between 0 and |1| with a correlation of 0.5 considered to be large, 0.3 moderate, and 

0.1 small. The p expresses the probability that a correlation of that size could have happened by chance.  p < .05

means that the correlation is probably not due to chance. 
16 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspect of Job Ch

Figure 4: Distribution of Motivation Potential Levels by agreement with the statement “My agency is successful in

accomplishing its mission”

Showing employees how and why their work matters may be easier in some organizations 

than others, given differences in mission, types of job, and visibility and immediacy of 

outcomes. Indeed, the data presented in Figure 5 show that employees tended to report

higher levels of motivation in agencies that have highly visible products or programs, or 

that provide service directly to individuals. Conversely, employees working in agencies

that have less direct or immediate impact (for example, missions accomplished through 

regulation or grant administration) tended to report lower levels of motivation.

43.8%

56.8%

81.6%

56.2%

43.2%

18.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Disagree

Neither

Agree

 High & Mid Level Motivation Potential Low Motivation Potential
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspect of Job Ch

Figure 5: Agreement with the statement, “I feel highly motivated in my work.

Similarly, it is especially important to link work to agency mission and success for 

employees whose work is farther removed from the agency’s services or products. To

illustrate, a Federal employee who helps predict an earthquake or warns the public about 

a hurricane can easily understand the importance of his or her work to the agency’s 

mission and the American public. The connection may be less clear to many other

Federal employees. For example, do contracting officers appreciate how the contracts 

that they award contribute to their agency’s mission? Do information technology staff

members see how the software they design or acquire makes it possible for their agency 

to work more effectively and better serve the public? From a motivation and engagement 

standpoint, such connections are important to every employee.

61.4%

64.5%

64.5%

66.5%

67.1%

67.3%

68.2%

69.2%

69.2%

70.1%

70.1%

70.5%

70.8%

71.0%

71.2%

71.4%

71.8%

72.3%

73.0%

73.1%

73.2%

73.4%

74.2%

76.5%

70.6%

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

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Education

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Labor

Department of Commerce

Department of Defense

Oce of Personnel Management

Department of Treasury

Department of Agriculture

Department of Interior

Department of Transportation

Department of the Air Force

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Department of Energy

Department of the Army

Department of State

General Services Administration

Social Security Administration

Department of Veterans Aairs

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Navy

Environmental Protection Agency

Department of Justice

National Aeronautic and Space Administration

Government-wide
18 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspect of Job Ch

Further, establishing clear connections between employees’ work and agency success has 

implications beyond employee motivation. For example, it can affect an organization’s 

ability to attract the workforce needed for future success. Previous MSPB research has 

found that “word-of-mouth” plays an important role in recruiting and selecting a high 

quality workforce.26 Agencies perceived as successful do not only have more motivated

employees; they also have employees with greater willingness to recommend the agency 

as an employer to others.27 

Linking employees’ work to the agency’s mission and success begins with the strategic 

planning process. The Government Performance And Results Act Modernization 

of 2010 (GPRAMA; P.L. 111-371, 5 U.S.C § 306(d)), requires that agencies “. 

solicit and consider the views and suggestions of those entities potentially affected by 

or interested in such a plan” during the strategic planning process. Agency employees

are clearly affected by and/or are interested in the agency’s strategic plan. The strategic 

planning process gives employees a better understanding of the agency’s goals, services, 

and products; shows employees how their particular duties and jobs link to agency goals; 

and conveys the importance of employees in accomplishing the agency’s work. The 

process can be motivating for employees by giving them a stronger sense of buy-in to the 

agency’s mission. 

26 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Attracting the Next Generation: A Look at Federal Entry-Level New 

Hires, Washington DC, January 2008; and Accomplishing Our Mission  Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005

February 2007.

27 Total responses to the item, “I would recommend my agency as a place to work,” were correlated with tota

responses to the item, “I feel highly motivated in my work,” r = .53, p < .05.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

In accordance with the Merit System Principles at 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b), agencies ar

responsible for providing appropriate incentives and for recognizing excellent employee 

performance. Linking rewards to performance is a key part of performance management, 

and can motivate employees to engage in sustained high performance.28 Although it

generally appears that Federal employees are motivated in their work, it is also evident 

that there is room for improvement. This chapter discusses how rewards can present 

an opportunity to sustain or potentially improve employee motivation, and provides 

strategies for administering rewards to support motivation. Focusing on rewards is 

especially fitting because Federal employees, compared to private sector employees, tend 

to see weak relationships between their performance and the rewards they receive.29 The 

Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM’s) 2010 Federal Employee Viewpoint Surv

results showed that less than half of the survey respondents see a relationship between 

their job performance and the rewards that they receive. We examined the motivational 

aspects of rewards to help agencies better link rewards to performance and better comply 

with the Merit System Principles. 

Effect of Rewards on Motivation

To better understand how (and whether) rewards are supporting employee motivation

and performance, we drew from the perspective of expectancy theory.30, 31 Expectancy

theory suggests that rewards (such as pay and promotions) work best when employees 

believe there is a strong link between the amount of effort they exert and the rewards they 

receive.32 As illustrated in Figure 6, for rewards to be effective, agencies must provide the

right rewards in the right ways.

28 Latham, G.P., Locke, E.A., & Fassina, N.E. (200).  The high performance cyce:  Standing the test of tie.

S. Sonnentag (Ed.), Psychological management of individual performance, pp. 201–228. Chichester, Englan:  Wil

29 Coursey, D., and Rainey, H. (1991.  “Organizational Behavior and Processes in the Public Sector,” co-edi

symposium, Public Productivity and Management Review, 14, pp. 351-414; and Rainey, H.G. (2003). Understanding

and managing public organizations (3rd Ed.). San Francisco, C:  Jossey-Ba

30 Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York  Jon Wiley & Sons, I

31 Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria:A meta-analysis

Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, pp. 575-586. The authors showed that objective measures of work effort were 

related to the various components of the expectancy model and found that expectancy theory was highly predictive 

of attractiveness or preference ratings of jobs, occupations, and organizations and predictive (to a lesser degree) of 

indicators of job performance.

32 Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria:A meta-analysis

Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), pp. 575-586; and Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York  Jo

Wiley & Sons, Inc

Encouraging Engagement

Motivating Aspect of Re
20 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspec

Figure 6: Expectancy Theory: Interrelationship of Effort, Performance, and Reward

First, employees must believe that their effort will make a difference. This means that 

Federal managers need to create conditions for employee success, so that working 

harder and working smarter will lead to better performance, and not to exhaustion and 

frustration. For example, an employee may exert great effort to complete a project if 

she believes this effort will shorten the completion time. However, if completion time 

remains unchanged because needed information is withheld from the employee, her 

motivation will likely be diminished. 

Second, employees have to believe that high levels of performance will be rewarded. For 

example, an employee may believe that completion of a project will make him more 

competitive for a valued training program. Yet, if the organization announces that

funding is no longer available for training, he may lose motivation. 

Finally, employees must value the rewards that they are given. Very simply, “carrots” do 

no good if employees do not want them. For example, the organization might grant a 

time off award to recognize an employee’s performance. However, if the employee does 

not value additional time off, the employee’s motivation is not likely to increase. 

How Motivating are Rewards in the Federal Government?

We identified eleven ways that Federal employee performance can be rewarded and 

asked employees how important each reward was in terms of seeking or continuing 

employment in their organization.33 As Figure 7 shows, responses varied widely.34

33 As noted previously, “rewards” denotes desired outcomes that an employee might attain through employment.

To the extent that rewards are contingent on performance, and within an organization’s latitude to provide, rewards

are also “incentives” in that an employee may exert effort to acquire them. Here, the term reward conveys both 

meanings unless stated otherwise.

34 The results presented are intended to generalize across the Federal Government. However, because we encourage 

agencies to identify their own employees’ preferences for specific rewards, we offer data and assistance to Federal 

agencies interested in examining their results. Upon request, MSPB’s Office of Policy and Evaluation (OPE) 

provide selected tabulations and analyses of MPS 2010 responses for those agencies or subagencies from which we 

received responses sufficient for reliable generalization. These agencies and subagencies are listed in Appendix F

Eort High

Performance

Valued

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

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspec

Particularly noteworthy is that a larger percentage of Federal employees rated nonmonetary rewards such as personal satisfaction and having interesting work as important 

compared with awards and bonuses. In fact, of the eleven rewards that we asked about,

eight non-monetary rewards were rated as important by more Federal employees than 

awards and bonuses. The attractiveness of non-monetary rewards is encouraging as many 

Federal agencies currently face fiscal constraints. Clearly, there are a variety of options for

rewarding employees that do not rely on money. 

Figure 7: Percentage of Employees Finding Each Reward Important or Very Important to Seeking and Continuing

Employment in Their Organization

To examine employees’ perceptions of the connection between their effort, performance,

and rewards, we computed a Motivation Force Score35 for each survey respondent. The 

assumption underlying this score is that an individual who values a reward and believes 

that the reward will result from performance is likely to expend effort to accomplish 

work and perform well. The score reflects how much an employee values each of the 

11 rewards and how well each reward is seen to be connected to his or her performance. 

The Motivation Force Score ranges between 1 and 250, based on: (1) the employee’s 

belief that effort results in performance; (2) the employee’s belief that performance results 

in rewards; and (3) the employee’s desire for rewards.  score of 1 indicates that the

respondent holds the most unfavorable beliefs about effort, performance, and rewards 

and is minimally motivated.  score of 250 indicates that the respondent holds the most

favorable beliefs and is maximally motivated. 

35 See Appendix B for the survey items and process we used to compute the Motivation Force Score

55.6%

61.2%

78.3%

80.1%

80.9%

82.1%

83.9%

87.3%

88.4%

93.6%

95.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Being granted informal perks (not including training...

Being forgiven for small mistakes

My awards and bonuses

My training and development opportunities

My opportunity for advancement

Being included in important discussions and decisions

The appreciation I receive

Being able to serve the public

My job security

Having interesting work

The personal satisfaction I experience
22 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspec

We sorted survey respondents’ Motivation Force Scores into three groups: low-level 

(ranging from 1 to 83.3), mid-level (ranging from 83.4 to 166.6), and high-level 

(ranging from 166.7 to 250). As Figure 8 shows, 23 percent of the workforce has a

high-level Motivation Force Score; 52 percent has a mid-level score; and 25 percent has 

a low-level score.36 In other words, 77 percent37 of Federal employees did not perceive

strong connections between the effort they expend, the performance that results, and 

the rewards that they most value. This finding suggests that although at a general level 

Federal employees feel motivated in their work, rewards are an area where potential 

improvements in motivation can be made. Strategies for administering rewards to 

support motivation will be discussed at the end of this chapter. 

Figure 8: Distribution of Motivation Force Scores

The survey results shown in Table 3 provide possible explanations for why relatively few

employees had a high Motivation Force Score.

36 Supervisory level made a small difference in the percentage of employees at each Motivation Force Score level, 

with supervisors being less likely than non-supervisors to have a low motivation force (20.8 percent versus 25.8 

percent), more likely to have a mid-level force (53.4 percent versus 52.1 percent) and more likely to have high 

motivation force (26 percent versus 22.1 percent). Thus, when it comes to how well rewards drive effort, supervisory 

status is not a major factor.

37 This outcome is similar to findings discussed earlier for the Motivation Potential Level of job characteristics 

where 20.8 percent of the Federal workforce had high-level Motivation Potential; 51.9 percent had mid-level 

Motivation Potential; and 27.3 percent had low-level Motivation Potential.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

13 25 38 51 63 75 88 100 113 125 138 150 163 175 188 200 213 225 238 250

High Motivation Force

(22.5%) 

Low Motivation Force

(25.3%) 

Mid-Level Motivation Force

(52.2%) 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspec

Table 3: Responses to Survey Items on the Connection between Effort, Performance, and Reward

Linkage and Survey Item Respons

Linkage: Effort Performance Agree Neither Disagree

When I put forth my best effort, I achieve a high performance 

appraisal rating. 60% 21% 19%

The harder I try, the more I am able to achieve my work goals 

and objectives. 63% 24% 13%

Linkage: PerformanceReward

The better I perform on the job...

Agree Neither Disagree

...the more interesting work I receive. 37% 38% 25%

...the more I feel appreciated. 51% 27% 22%

...the greater the personal satisfaction I experience. 84% 11% 6%

...the more I am included in important discussions and 

decisions. 44% 30% 26%

...the greater my job security. 42% 39% 20%

...the higher my awards and bonuses. 35% 30% 35%

...the greater my opportunity for advancement. 33% 30% 37%

...the more I am granted informal perks. 22% 38% 40%

...the more I am forgiven for small mistakes. 32% 41% 27%

...the better my training and development opportunities. 31% 38% 32%

...the more I feel I am serving the public. 76% 18% 6%

First, many Federal employees do not see a strong connection between their effort and 

outcomes. Only 60 percent of Federal employees agreed that effort results in a high

performance appraisal rating, and only 63 percent agreed that greater effort translates 

into greater achievement of goals and objectives. Second, many Federal employees 

do not see strong connections between their performance and most of the rewards we 

examined. For example, only 33 percent agreed that better performance leads to greater 
24 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspec

opportunity for advancement. Fortunately, connections could be strengthened through 

sound performance management practices, and the motivational quality of rewards 

could be improved through effective administration procedures. These strategies will be 

discussed in more detail at the end of this chapter.

Why Do Connections Between Effort, Performance, and Rewards Matter?

Employees’ perceptions of the connection between their effort, performance, and

rewards can affect their performance. Figure 9 shows that there is a relationship 

between employees’ Motivation Force Scores and their performance appraisal ratings.38 

Employees at the “Fully Successful or less” performance level were more likely to have

low Motivational Force compared to employees at the “Exceeds Expectations” o

“Outstanding” performance levels. Conversely, employees at the “Exceeds Expectatio

or “Outstanding” performance levels were more likely to have high Motivational Force

compared to employees achieving the “Fully Successful or less” performance level.

Figure 9: Proportion of Employees at Three Motivation Force Score Levels by Job Performance Leve

38 We used the same criteria to categorize performance levels as “Outstanding,” “Exceeds Expectations,” or “Ful

Successful or less” as we used for the Motivation Potential Level calculations. Specifically, for only those employees 

under a 5-level performance appraisal rating system, we classified employees rated a 5 as “Outstanding,” employees

rated a 4 as “Exceeds Expectations,” and employees rated a 3, 2, or 1 as “Fully Successful or less.  We combined th

3, 2, and 1 levels of performance into one level because ratings at the lowest levels (2 and 1) are highly infrequent 

and do not justify their own categories.

44.9%

33.9%

21.2%

27.4%

35.5%

37.1%

20.2%

32.0%

47.8%

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

Fully Successful or Less

Exceeds Expectations

Outstanding

Low Motivation Force Mid Level Motivation Force High Motivation Force
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspec

Our survey findings also suggest that employee performance can be influenced by the

specific rewards that employees receive. In other words, reward type matters. We found

that the more strongly an employee valued a specific reward and the more strongly he 

or she believed that high-level performance would help obtain that specific reward, the 

greater the likelihood that the employee was in a high performance appraisal rating 

category. Figure 10 uses the reward of “feeling appreciated” to demonstrate how 

employees’ desire for a reward and their belief that the reward was tied to performance 

were related to their actual performance appraisal rating category. 

Figure 10: Level of Performance by Strength of Desire for Feeling Appreciated and Belief that Performance Leads to

Feeling Appreciated

As depicted, a larger percentage of employees who had an “Outstanding” performanc

appraisal rating had a strong desire for feeling appreciated and a strong belief that high 

performance led to feeling appreciated, than did employees who had a “Fully Successful 

or less” performance appraisal rating. Conversely, a larger percentage of employees who

had a “Fully Successful or less” performance appraisal rating had a low desire for feeling 

appreciated and low belief that high performance would result in feeling appreciated 

than did employees who had an “Outstanding” performance appraisal rating

In summary, for rewards to motivate employees, supervisors and managers must establish

connections between employees’ effort, performance, and rewards. Supervisors and 

managers should also understand that rewards are not all equally motivating. In other

words, when it comes to choosing rewards for employee performance, “one size does not 

35.7%

34.8%

29.5%

35.2%

31.5%

33.3%

27.8%

34.0%

38.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Fully Successful or less

Exceeds Expecations

Outstanding

Low desire for appreciation AND low belief that it is linked to PA

Moderate desire for appreciation AND moderate belief that it is linked to PA

Strong desire for appreciation AND strong belief that it is linked to PA
26 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspec

fit all.” Accordingly, supervisors and managers should seek to understand the specific

reward desires of their individual employees and make reasonable efforts to provide those 

rewards for good performance. 

We acknowledge that tailoring rewards to employees’ preferences presents significant 

challenges. Agencies will need to find ways to give individual employees a greater voice

in rewards while ensuring fair and equitable treatment, as required by the second merit 

principle. That is, revised reward policies and practices will need to treat similarly 

situated employees similarly, while moving away from a “one size fits all” approach. For 

example, the standards for receiving rewards should be consistent across employees at the 

same performance level and the dollar-value of different rewards should be comparable 

for employees in a given position at the same performance level. Agencies will also need

to find ways to balance employee choice with mission requirements, including the ability 

to manage finances and workload. 

Further, agency leadership will need to ensure that the criteria for receiving different 

rewards are clearly communicated and that reward decisions are fair, transparent, and 

grounded in good performance management practices. These reward considerations 

will be discussed in more detail below. Together, these considerations underscore the

importance of dialogue between leaders and managers, and between managers and 

their employees or employees’ representatives, on the feasibility and appropriateness 

of tailoring rewards, and on strategies for effectively and fairly doing so. Ultimately, 

agency leadership will need to weigh any considerations for tailoring rewards against the 

potential benefits of tailoring rewards. 

Key to Motivation: Administer the Right Rewards in the Right Way

There are several considerations for administering rewards to support employee 

motivation and engagement. We discuss four key considerations below.

Use Sound Performance Management Practices. In addition to being critical for

effective workforce management and employee engagement,39 good performance 

management practices will be essential for helping employees see connections between 

their effort, performance, and rewards. To help employees see these connections

and therefore help support their motivation—supervisors should communicate clear 

performance expectations to employees; review employees’ effort and progress towards 

goals; provide employees with honest, specific, and timely feedback; objectively evaluate 

employees’ performance; make fair and transparent reward decisions; and address poor 

performance. Supervisors should also tailor their management style and practices to the 

needs of different employees. 

39 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing for Engagement—Communication, Connections, and Courage, 

July 2009.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspec

MSPB research has found agencies can do more to select and prepare supervisors for 

their performance management responsibilities. Specifically, some supervisors may not 

have been properly informed of the extent of supervisory duties when they applied for 

their positions; may not have been hired based on their management skills; may not 

have received appropriate training including performance management training; and 

may not be evaluated on their supervisory behaviors.40 Agencies should work with their

supervisors to determine any skill inadequacies and implement developmental measures41

as appropriate. 

Communicate Available Rewards and Conditions for Receiving Rewards. Managers 

and supervisors should discuss available reward options with their employees. This 

includes clearly specifying to employees the conditions for receiving each type of available 

reward. For example, prior to the start of each performance appraisal cycle, supervisors 

should make employees aware of the rewards and incentives that might be available 

to recognize the meeting of certain milestones, achievement of specific results, or the 

attainment of specific levels of performance. Such a discussion should be repeated if any 

rewards become more or less available, or if the criteria for earning a reward changes. 

Employees may have understandable expectations that if their performance resulted in

a certain type or level of reward in the past, the same performance level will result in a 

similar type or level of reward in the future. It is critical that managers and supervisors

do not create expectations or make explicit or implicit commitments concerning rewards 

that may not be met. Further, managers and supervisors should avoid, whenever 

possible, promising one type of reward and then giving another.

Meeting employees’ expectations for rewards is critical for both monetary and nonmonetary rewards, but may be especially important for monetary rewards in the current 

austere economic climate. Candor is key. If agencies are honest with their employee

about the actual or potential lack of money for rewards, the effects on motivation will 

be less severe than if agencies remain silent, making and then breaking an implied (or 

actual) promise that high performance would result in a financial reward.

Provide Rewards that Employees Value. As discussed previously, Federal employees

differ in the rewards that they value. Although money is important to a large percentage

40 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees, 

May 2010, pp. 35-36. Only 26 percent of new supervisors receive training on how to develop performance goals and

standards; only 25 percent receive training on reviewing employees’ work progress; only 28 percent receive training 

on documenting employee performance; only 17 percent receive training on conducting performance discussions; 

and only 24 percent receive training on giving positive feedback and coaching. 

41 Measures may require both short-term and long-term strategies. In the short-term, agencies may need to provide

supervisors with more extensive performance management training. Additionally, agencies could encourage

mentoring and feedback from other successful supervisors. In the long-term, agencies may need to adopt more firm

strategies. This may include changes in how supervisors are selected, developed, and evaluated to ensure that they 

have the appropriate competencies to successfully manage the workforce. 
28 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Encouraging Engagement—The Motivating Aspec

of Federal employees, our data show that even higher percentages of Federal employees 

rated several types of non-monetary rewards as important. Therefore, when looking at 

motivating and engaging employees, the dollar value of the reward should not be the 

only—or even the most important—consideration. What matters most is identifying the 

rewards that employees value and making these rewards available for agreed upon levels 

of performance. Unfortunately, little guidance is available as to what types of rewards 

are more or less effective for motivating and engaging particular employees. However, 

agency leaders could consider surveying their employees on reward desires and then 

working with relevant employee representatives to enact any policy changes necessary to 

design reward systems to offer such rewards. Yet, agencies and managers should carefully

consider the readiness of their organizational culture and systems before proceeding. 

In particular, agencies must take care to assure that employees are treated equitably

that “similarly situated employees are treated similarly”—even if they are not rewarded 

uniformly. For example, the standards for receiving rewards should be consistent across 

employees at the same performance level and the dollar-value of different rewards should 

be comparable for employees in a given position at the same performance level. 

Make Fair and Transparent Reward Decisions. Reward decisions have the potential to

be perceived as fair or unfair by employees. Individuals tend to compare their perception

of their inputs to outcomes with their perception of others’ inputs to outcomes.42 If

individuals perceive inequity in this comparison, they tend to experience dissatisfaction 

as well as tension which they will seek to remedy through strategies that could include 

reducing future inputs. Given that employees’ work efforts and performance levels could 

be perceived as inputs and their rewards could be perceived as outcomes, employees’ 

perceptions regarding the fairness and equity of their ratios of inputs to outcomes relative 

to other employees’ ratios are likely to have implications for their motivation at work. 

Data from our 2005 Merit Principles Survey indicates that the most likely reasons for

employees’ dissatisfaction with awards and recognition were that either other employees 

did not receive awards/recognition that they were perceived as deserving, or that other 

employees received awards/recognition that they were perceived as not deserving.43 

Additionally, in our report, Managing for Engagement—Communication, Connection,

and Courage, we discussed that only about half of Federal employees believe that: (1) 

recognition and rewards are linked to performance; (2) they are rewarded for providing 

high-quality products and services to their customers; or that (3) promotions in their 

work unit are based on merit. Further, in The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, we 

showed that agencies in which such opinions prevail tended to have lower organizational 

effectiveness and higher turnover.44 Clearly, it is critical that reward decisions are

perceived as fair, transparent, and based on employee merit. 

42 Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Psychol

vol.2, pp. 267-299. New York  Academic Pre

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

February 2007, p. 54.

44 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, September 2008.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Motivating and engaging employees is essential to an efficient and effective Federal 

Government.  committed, capable workforce is especially important in light of austere

fiscal conditions, budget constraints, impending retirements, and regular attacks on the 

value of the Federal workforce and its services. Previous MSPB research has shown that 

employee engagement contributes to a variety of desirable organizational outcomes and 

has discussed how organizations can influence engagement through effective supervisory 

performance management practices.45 Building on that research, this report discussed 

how job characteristics and rewards can influence employee motivation and support 

employee engagement and performance. We used and provided diagnostic tools—a 

Motivation Potential Level and a Motivation Force Score—to gauge the motivational 

quality of job characteristics and rewards, respectively.46 Agency leadership can likewise

use these tools to identify opportunities to sustain and potentially improve employee 

motivation within their organization.

Motivation Among Federal Employees

Most Federal employees view themselves as motivated, with 71 percent agreeing or 

strongly agreeing with the statement, “I feel highly motivated in my work.” Agreemen

varied considerably across Federal agencies, ranging from 62 percent to 77 percent. This 

range suggests that motivation can be shaped by features of the work environment. 

Further, it is clear that there is room to improve motivation. We focused on how job 

characteristics and rewards could present opportunities for sustaining and potentially 

improving motivation. 

45 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, September 2008; and U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing for Engagement—Communication, Connection, and Courage, July 2009. 

46 See AppendixA for the items and procedure used to compute the Motivation Potential Level, and Appendix

for the items and procedure used to compute the Motivation Force Score.

Conclusio
30 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Conclus

Job Characteristics 

Job characteristics such as autonomy, feedback, skill variety, task significance, and task 

identity can influence employee motivation. To gauge how likely an employee was to

be motivated by his or her job characteristics,47 we computed a Motivation Potential 

Level.48 Only 21 percent of Federal employees had a high Motivation Potential Level;

meaning that most Federal employees did not report feeling highly positive about their 

combined job characteristics. That matters, because employees’ perceptions of their 

job characteristics are related to their perceptions of their agency’s success and their job 

performance. The greater the extent to which employees believed the efforts of their 

agency are successful, the higher the motivation level they expressed. Further, employees 

who perceived their jobs as meaningful, involving a variety of activities, and representing 

an entire function (rather than pieces of a larger job), were more likely to have higher 

performance ratings than employees who perceived their jobs to be low on these 

characteristics. Similarly, employees who had jobs that offered them freedom to decide 

how their work should be done and that provided them with performance feedback 

tended to have higher performance than employees in jobs that did not offer these 

characteristics. Clearly, there is considerable opportunity to adjust job characteristics in

ways to better motivate employees. 

Rewards

Employees’ perceptions of the connection between the effort they exert, the success

they anticipate, and the rewards they receive can influence their motivation and job 

performance. However, agencies need to give the right rewards in the right way.

Most Federal employees are not motivated primarily by monetary rewards. For example, 

larger percentages of Federal employees rated non-monetary rewards such as, “The 

personal satisfaction  experience,” “Having interesting work,” “My job security,” and

“Being able to serve the public,” as important to seeking and continuing employment 

with their organization than, “My awards and bonuses.” In fact, of the eleven rewards

that we asked about, eight non-monetary rewards were rated as important by more 

Federal employees than awards and bonuses. The importance of non-monetary rewards 

to Federal employees is encouraging in light of the budget and resource constraints that 

many Federal agencies currently face.

47 Fried, Y. & Ferris, G.R. (1987)  The validity of the job characteristics model A review and meta-analysi

Personnel Psychology, 40, pp. 287-322. Combining the five job characteristics into a single score was shown to be a

valid predictor of important workplace outcomes including performance and attitude across many work contexts for 

both public and private organizations.

48 This level was computed using a method adapted from Hackman and Oldham. See Hackman, J.R., & Oldha

G.R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Surve.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, pp. 159-170; a

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will e:  The future of job design resear

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), pp. 463-479. Also, see Appendi A for the items and procedure we us

to compute the Motivation Potential Level.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Conclus

To gauge employees’ perceptions of the connection between their effort, performance,

and rewards, we computed a Motivation Force Score.49 We found that only 23 percent of 

Federal employees had a high Motivation Force Score; the majority of Federal employees 

did not see a strong connection between the effort they exerted, the performance rating 

that this effort generated, and the valued rewards that the performance garnered. This 

connection has practical implications for individual and organizational performance: 

employees who had a high Motivation Force Score were more likely to receive a high 

performance rating than employees with a low or mid-level score. Performance also 

appears to be influenced by the type of rewards an agency provides. Rewards are most

effective when they are highly valued. We found that the more strongly an employee 

valued a specific reward and the more strongly he or she believed that high-level 

performance would help obtain that specific reward, the greater the likelihood that the 

employee was in a high performance appraisal rating category.

In summary, rewards can make a difference in employee motivation and performance

when they are linked to effort and performance and when they are desired by employees.

49 See Appendix B for the items and procedure we used to compute the Motivation Force Score
32 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Job Characteristics

Good job design—structuring jobs to maximize desirable characteristics—supports 

organizational efficiency and effectiveness. This is because job characteristics can impact 

employee motivation, a necessary ingredient for engagement and performance. There are 

several ways to improve the motivational potential of Federal jobs. To the extent permitte

by mission requirements and employees’ capabilities, managers and supervisors should—

•	 Examine the characteristics of particular jobs to determine if they are conducive

to employee motivation and supportive of employee engagement. In the event

that improvements could be made to job characteristics to better support 

motivation and engagement, managers and supervisors should work with relevant 

organizational leaders and employee representatives to design and implement 

changes. Improvements could include: expanding the duties of a job to increase

the knowledge and skill sets that employees must apply to tasks; rotating employees 

among jobs to increase their skill sets; or enriching jobs by increasing employees’ 

independence, responsibility, and accountability;

•	 Assign employees work that they find interesting and meaningful, and which allows them

to perform a variety of tasks that require a wide range of knowledge, skills, and abilities;

•	 Structure assignments to enable employees to complete a whole piece of work from 

beginning to end, or to participate in every stage of a project;

•	 Give employees autonomy in areas such as scheduling work and determining 

how and when to do job tasks. This could include seeking employees’ input on 

strategies for effectively completing work; allowing employees to be involved in and 

make decisions about their work processes; and generally have more control over 

their jobs. Structure and direction are important, but an excess of either can be 

counterproductive. Jobs composed of tasks that are overly constricted by rules and 

procedures, or that require supervisor authority for small variations, may reduce 

employee motivation and result in suboptimal levels of performance;

•	 Provide honest, specific, and timely feedback in a manner that is tailored to 

employees’ needs. Feedback helps employees understand the effectiveness of their 

efforts, areas where they can develop, and future actions they can take to better meet 

expectations and attain high levels of performance. Yet, there is not one feedback

schedule that is appropriate for all jobs or for all employees within a job. Discretion

must be used to determine the appropriate frequency and level of review and 

feedback for each employee based on his or her needs; and 

Recommendatio
34 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Recommendat

•	 Emphasize to employees the significance of their work and how it contributes to

accomplishing goals; supports the organization’s mission; and benefits the general public. 

Rewards

Employees’ perceptions of the connection between desired rewards and their effort and

performance can influence their motivation. However, agencies need to give the right 

rewards in the right way. Therefore, we recommend that—

•	 Supervisors exercise sound performance management practices to help employees 

see connections between their effort, performance, and rewards. This includes 

communicating clear performance expectations to employees; reviewing employees’ 

effort and progress towards goals; providing employees with honest, specific, and 

timely feedback; objectively evaluating employees’ performance; making fair and 

transparent reward decisions; and addressing poor performance. Supervisors should 

also tailor their management style and practices to the needs of different employees;

•	 Agencies offer a variety of rewards to give supervisors flexibility in selecting rewards

that are most desired by their employees. Discussions with employees and employee

representatives may be necessary to determine which rewards should be available, and 

policy changes may be required; 

•	 Supervisors clearly communicate to employees the available types of rewards and the 

conditions for receiving them. This may require ongoing discussions with employees 

as rewards (such as money) become more or less available. Regardless of which

rewards are available, it is critical for employee motivation that supervisors do not 

create expectations for rewards that cannot or will not be met later;

•	 Supervisors identify employees’ preferences for rewards and, when possible, 

accommodate such preferences when administering rewards. Yet, agencies and

managers should carefully consider the readiness of their organizational culture 

and systems before proceeding. In particular, agencies must take care to assure

that employees are treated equitably—that “similarly situated employees are treated 

similarly”—even if they are not rewarded uniformly. For example, the standards for 

receiving rewards should be consistent across employees at the same performance level 

and the dollar-value of different rewards should be comparable for employees in a 

given position at the same performance level; and

•	 Supervisors administer rewards in a fair and transparent manner, consistent with 

applicable agency policies and procedures. Sound performance management 

practices will help supervisors ensure that they are fairly and objectively evaluating 

employees’ performance and making accurate distinctions among employees based 

on merit for reward purposes.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

We computed a Motivation Potential Level for each survey respondent using his or her 

level of agreement (that is, Don’t Know/NA, Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither

nor Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree) with each of the items in Table

Table 4: Motivation Potential Level Scale Item

Job Characteristic Merit Principles Survey 2010 I

Skill Variety My job allows me to perform a variety of tasks that require a wide range of 

knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Task Identity My job allows me to complete a single piece of work (rather than bits and pieces) 

from beginning to end.

Task Significance My job has a significant positive impact on others, either within the organization or 

the public in general.

Autonomy My job gives me the freedom to make decisions regarding how I accomplish my 

work.

Feedback I receive information about my job performance and the effectiveness of my efforts, 

either directly from the work itself or from others.

The following formula was used to calculate a Motivation Potential Level: 

Motivation Potential Level = 

((Skill Variety + Task Identity + Task Significance) ÷ 3) × Autonomy × Feedback

This motivation formula has a substantial research history and was originally developed 

and tested by Hackman and Oldham in their 1975 paper, Development of the Jo

Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, pp. 159-170  However, th

original formula proposed by Hackman and Oldham required 15 items for computation;

we adapted this method to compute our Motivation Potential Level by only using the 5 

items in Table 4

Appendix A  Measurem

of the Motivation Potent

of Job Characterist
36 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendi A:  Measurement of the Motivation Potential of J

The Motivation Potential Level for our survey respondents had a range of 1 to 125, 

with a score of 1 indicating that the respondent did not agree that his or her job had 

the five job characteristics, whereas a score of 125 indicated that the respondent agreed 

that his or her job provided all five characteristics to the maximum degree possible. For 

interpretation and discussion purposes, we partitioned the Motivation Potential Level 

range into three equal-sized bins, namely low-level (1 through 41.7), mid-level (41.8 

through 83.3), and high-level (83.4 through 125) Motivation Potential.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

We first computed a Motivation Force statistic for each employee on every one of the 11 

rewards. The Motivation Force statistic for each reward is the product of an employee’s 

response to three items measuring the extent to which: (1) effort results in performance; 

(2) performance yields the particular reward; and (3) the particular reward is desirable. 

Thus: 

Motivation Force = MFi = (Q1) x (Q2) x (Q3)

Where...

Q1 = An employee’s response to the question, “WhenI put forth my best effort I achie

a high performance appraisal rating.” Response options for this question were: Don’

Know/NA, Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Agree, S

Agree

Q2 = An employee’s response to the question, “In my work unit, the bette I perform 

the job, the greater my opportunity for...(the specific reward).” Response options for

this question were: Don’t Know/NA, Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agr

Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agr

Q3 = An employee’s indication of how important each job factor was to him or her in

seeking and continuing employment in his or her organization. Response options were:

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge, Unimportant, Somewhat Unimportant, Neither Important 

Unimportant, Somewhat Important, and Very Importan

Therefore, each employee had eleven Motivation Force statistics (one for each of the 11 

rewards). 

We then combined the eleven Motivation Force statistics for each employee into one 

Motivation Force Score for each employee. The Motivation Force Score for each 

employee is the sum of the employee’s highest Motivation Force statistic and the average 

of the employee’s remaining 10 motivation force statistics.

Motivation Force Score = MFh + ( ∑MFi / 10)

Appendix B  Measuremen

the Motivation Force of Ef

Performance, and Reward Connec
38 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendi B:  Measurement of the Motivation Force of Effort, Performance, a

Where...

MFh = the highest Motivation Force statistic among the 11 computed statistics

MFi = the individual Motivation Forces statistics for the 10 rewards other than the MFh

Thus, the Motivation Force Score formula gives equal motivational weight to the reward 

most motivating to the employee and to the combined motivating influence of the other 

rewards. It reflects, in a single number, how much an employee values each of the 11

rewards and how well each reward is seen to be connected to his or her performance. 

The Motivation Force Score for our respondents had a range of 1 to 250.  score

of 1 indicates that the respondent holds the most unfavorable beliefs about effort, 

performance, and rewards and is minimally motivated.  score of 250 indicates that the

respondent holds the most favorable beliefs and is maximally motivated. We partitioned 

the Motivation Force Score range into three equal-sized bins, namely low-level (scores 

ranging 1 through 83.3), mid-level (scores ranging 83.4 through 166.6), and high-level 

(scores ranging 166.7 through 250) Motivation Force.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

The engagement scale consists of 16 items to which respondents were asked to indicate 

their level of agreement (i.e., Don’t Know/NA, Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Ne

Agree Nor Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agre).  The 16 items and their associ

theme (“engagement driver”) appear below:

Pride in one’s work or workplace

1. My agency is successful at accomplishing its mission.

2. My work unit produces high-quality products and services.

3. The work  do is meaningful to me

4.  would recommend my agency as a place to work

Satisfaction with leadership

5. Overall,I am satisfied with my superviso

6. Overall,I am satisfied with managers above my immediate superviso

Opportunity to perform well at work

7.  know what is expected of me on the job

8. My job makes good use of my skills and abilities.

9.  have the resources to do my job well

10.  have sufficient opportunities (such as challenging assignments or projects) to earn a

high performance rating.

Satisfaction with the recognition received

11. Recognition and rewards are based on performance in my work unit

12.  am satisfied with the recognition and rewardsI receive for my wor

Appendix C: MSPB’s Enga

Scale Questio
40 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendi C:  MSPB’s Engagement S

Prospect for future personal and professional growth

13.  am given a real opportunity to improve my skill in my organization

Positive work environment with some focus on teamwork.

14.  am treated with respect at work

15. My opinions count at work.

16.  spirit of cooperation and teamwork exists in my work unit
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Appendix D  The 2010 M

Principles Sur

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

July 2010 

Dear Federal Colleague:

Your opinion counts! The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) asks that you take a 

few minutes to participate in our Merit Principles Survey 2010, a Government-wide survey of 

Federal employees that covers a variety of workforce issues, including prohibited personnel 

practices and whistleblower protections issues, along with other workplace issues that impact 

employees’ abilities to carry out the missions of your agency. Because you are part of a random 

sample of Government employees, your views about your work and work environment will 

represent those of the larger Federal workforce. This is an opportunity for you to inform policy 

by voicing your opinions and concerns about workforce issues. 

This survey is an important part of MSPB’s responsibility to assess the soundness of Federal 

merit systems. Your responses will help us recommend to the President, Congress, agency 

leaders, and other decision makers how to improve the Federal workplace. The information you 

share will make a positive difference!

Your responses to this survey are voluntary and strictly confidential. Only MSPB staff and our 

survey support contractor staff will have access to the surveys and no data will be disclosed to 

anyone that could be used to identify individual participants. 

On average, the survey will take about 30 minutes to complete. It may be completed at your 

work site or at home. We request that you complete the survey within the next five days and 

return it in the postage page envelope or fax it to 202-563-7211. 

Additional information about the Merit Principles Survey is available by visiting

www.mspb.gov/studies. If you have questions about this survey, please email us at 

MPS2010@mspb.gov or call our survey hotline at 1-888-581-7922. 

Thank you! We appreciate your help. 

Sincerely,

John Crum, Ph.D.

Director, Policy and Evaluation 
42 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

Privacy Statement

MSPB wants to assure survey participants that 

your involvement in the Merit Principles Survey 

2010 is both voluntary and confidential. This 

Privacy Statement identifies MSPB’s 

authorization to conduct the survey and explains 

how we will manage the data we receive.

 The purpose of collecting this 

information is to study how well the 

Federal Government is managing its 

workforce in adherence to the merit 

system principles. The results of the 

survey will be shared with the President, 

Congress, and other Federal

decisionmakers to be used in developing 

policy that supports both merit and 

mission accomplishment.

 Collection of the information is 

authorized by 5 U.S.C. § 1204. 

 Your responses to this survey are 

completely voluntary. There is no 

penalty if you choose not to participate. 

However, we encourage your 

participation to ensure that our data is 

complete and representative of the 

Federal workforce.

 Only MSPB staff and our survey support 

contractor staff will have access to 

individually completed surveys. In 

accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 

(Public Law 93-579), no data will be 

disclosed that could be used to identify 

individual participants. 

Marking Instructions

 Place a √ in the box next to your response. 

 Please use a No. 2 pencil or blue or black 

ink. 

 Please print when you write in your 

response. 

 To change your answer, cross out the 

incorrect answer and put a √ in the correct 

box. Also draw a circle around the correct 

answer.

 No

 Yes

Definitions of Survey Terms

Executives are members of the Senior Executive 

Service or equivalent. 

Leaders are an agency's management team. 

This includes anyone with supervisory or 

managerial duties including supervisors, 

managers, and executives.

Organization means an agency, office, or 

division. 

Supervisors are first-line supervisors who do 

not supervise other supervisors; typically those 

who are responsible for employees' performance 

appraisals and approval of their leave. 

Team leaders are those who provide employees 

with day-to-day guidance in work projects, but 

do not have supervisory responsibilities or 

conduct performance appraisals.

Work unit means an employee’s immediate 

work unit headed by the employee’s direct 

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

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

1

Demographics 

1. How many years have you been a Federal 

civil service employee?

o Under 1 year 

o 1-3 years

o 4-7 years

o 8-11 years

o 12-15 years

o 16-19 years

o 20-23 years

o 24-27 years

o 28-31 years

o 32-35 years

o More than 35 years 

2. Are you Hispanic or Latino?

o Yes

o No

3. Racial category or categories in which 

you most belong? (Please mark ALL that 

apply.) 

o American Indian or Alaska Native 

o Asian

o Black or African American

o Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander

o White 

4. What is your current education level?

o Less than a high school diploma 

o High school, equivalent diploma, or 

GED

o Some college credits but no degree 

o Associates’ college degree

o Bachelor’s college degree

o Master’s degree

o Professional degree (e.g. J.D., M.D., 

D.D.S.) 

o Academic or scientific doctorate (Ph.D.) 

5. W hat is your Supervisory status? 

o Non-Supervisor (You do not supervise 

other employees.) 

o Team Leader (You are not an official 

supervisor; you provide employees with 

day-to-day guidance in work projects, 

but do not have supervisory 

responsibilities or conduct performance 

appraisals.) 

o Supervisor (You are responsible for 

employees’ performance appraisals & 

approval of their leave, but you do not

supervise other supervisors.) 

o Manager (You are in a management 

position and supervise other 

supervisors.) 

o Executive (Member of the Senior 

Executive Service or equivalent.) 

6. Under what pay system are you working? 

o General Schedule

o Wage Grade

o Executive (Senior Executive Service)

o Other

7. If you selected other, which best describes 

your pay plan? 

o Occupation-specific pay plan

o Agency specific pay performance or pay 

banding system (wide bands with 

progression based primarily on 

performance ratings)

o Agency specific, but similar to the 

General Schedule (pay system of narrow 

grades and steps with progression based 

primarily on tenure) 

o Not sure or other 
44 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

2

8. What is your parental status? (This 

includes biological parent, adoptive 

parent, stepparent, foster parent, 

custodian of a legal ward, in loco parentis, 

or actively seeking custody or adoption of 

a person under the age of 18, or 18 or 

older but incapable of self-care because of 

physical or mental disability.) 

o I am a parent

o I am not a parent

9. Do you have caregiving responsibility 

(though not in the role of "parent" as 

described above) for a person 18 years or 

older, who may or may not live with you, 

(e.g., a related adult such as a parent, 

grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling, step or 

half relation, in-law, or unrelated adult 

with whom you have a legal or otherwise 

significant relationship, etc.) AND who is 

incapable of, or needs significant 

assistance with self-care, transportation, 

household management, or other similar 

support.) 

o I am a caregiver of such a person

o I am not a caregiver of such a person 

Engagement 

Please indicate your level of agreement or 

disagreement with the following statements. 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

1. My agency is 

successful in 

accomplishing 

its mission

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2. The work I do 

is meaningful to 

me

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

3. My work unit 

produces high 

quality products 

and services

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

4. Overall, I am 

satisfied with 

my supervisor

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5. Overall, I am 

satisfied with 

managers above 

my immediate 

supervisor

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

6. I know what is 

expected of me 

on the job

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

7. My job makes 

good use of my 

skills and 

abilities

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

8. I have the 

resources to do 

my job well

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

9. I would 

recommend my 

agency as a 

place to work

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

10. I have sufficient 

opportunities 

(such as 

challenging 

assignments or 

projects) to earn 

a high 

performance 

rating

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

11. Recognition 

and rewards are 

based on 

performance in 

my work unit

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

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

3

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

12. I am satisfied 

with the 

recognition and 

rewards I 

receive for my 

work

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

13. I am given a 

real opportunity 

to improve my 

skills in my 

organization

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

14. I am treated 

with respect at 

work

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

15. My opinions 

count at work ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

16. A spirit of 

cooperation and 

teamwork exists 

in my work unit

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

17. At my job, I am 

inspired to do 

my best work

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

18. My supervisor

provides 

constructive 

feedback on my 

job 

performance

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

19. My supervisor 

provides timely 

feedback on my 

job 

performance

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

20. I have the 

opportunity to 

perform well at 

challenging 

work

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

21. How likely is it 

that you will 

leave your 

agency in the 

next 12 months?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

22. The performance 

and/or conduct of 

other employees 

are the primary 

reasons my job 

performance is 

not higher

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

23. The performance 

and/or conduct of 

my supervisors 

and managers are 

primary reasons 

my job 

performance is 

not higher

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

24. Barriers to 

success, such as 

constraining rules 

or work 

processes, underinformed 

coworkers, or 

office politics, are 

the primary 

reasons my 

performance is 

not at a higher 

level

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

25. Lack of resources, 

such as more 

staff, a larger 

budget, or more 

equipment and 

supplies, is a 

primary reason 

my performance 

is not at a higher 

level

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

26. Are you or will you become eligible to 

retire within the next 12 months? 

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know 
46 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

4

Motivation

Please indicate your level of agreement or 

disagreement with the following statements.

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

1. My job allows 

me to perform a 

variety of tasks 

that require a 

wide range of 

knowledge, 

skills, and 

abilities

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2. My job allows 

me to complete 

a single piece of 

work (rather 

than bits and 

pieces) from 

beginning to 

end

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

3. My job has a 

significant 

positive impact 

on others, either 

within the 

organization or 

the public in 

general

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

4. My job gives 

me the freedom 

to make 

decisions 

regarding how I 

accomplish my 

work

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

5. I receive 

information 

about my job 

performance 

and the 

effectiveness of 

my efforts, 

either directly 

from the work 

itself or from 

others

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

6. When I put 

forth my best 

effort, I achieve 

a high 

performance 

appraisal rating

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

7. The harder I 

try, the more I 

am able to 

achieve my 

work goals and 

objectives

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Continue on next page
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

5

8. In my work unit, the better I perform on 

the job...

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

a. ...the more 

interesting work 

I receive

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. ... the more I 

feel appreciated ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. ...the greater 

the personal 

satisfaction I 

experience

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. ...the more I 

am included in 

important 

discussions and 

decisions

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. ... the greater 

my job security ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. ... the higher 

my awards and 

bonuses

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

g. ...the greater 

my opportunity 

for 

advancement

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

h. ...the more I 

am granted 

informal perks 

(not including 

training 

opportunities)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

i. ...the more I 

am forgiven for 

my small 

mistakes

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

j. ... the better my 

training and 

development 

opportunities

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

k. ... the more I 

feel I am 

serving the 

public

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

9. In each of the following questions, please 

indicate how important each job factor is 

to you in seeking and continuing 

employment in your organization. 

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge ↓

Unimportant ↓

Somewhat Unimportant ↓

Neither Important Nor 

Unimportant ↓

Somewhat Important ↓

Very Important ↓

a. Having 

interesting work ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. The 

appreciation I 

receive

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. The personal 

satisfaction I 

experience

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Being included 

in important 

discussions and 

decisions

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. My job security ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. My awards and 

bonuses ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

g. My opportunity 

for 

advancement

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

h. Being granted 

informal perks 

(not including 

training 

opportunities)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

i. Being forgiven 

for small 

mistakes

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

j. My training and 

development 

opportunities

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

k. Being able to 

serve the public ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
48 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

6

10. Please indicate your level of agreement or 

disagreement with the following 

statements.

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

a. I feel highly 

motivated in 

my work

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. The give and 

take of public 

policy making 

doesn’t appeal 

to me

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Meaningful 

public service is 

important to me

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. I am not afraid 

to go to bat for 

the rights of 

others even if it 

means I will be 

ridiculed

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. I am prepared 

to make 

enormous 

sacrifices for 

the good of the 

agency

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. I am often 

reminded by 

daily events 

about how 

dependent we 

are on one 

another

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

g. Making a 

difference in 

society means 

more to me than 

personal 

achievements

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

 

Merit Systems Principles and 

Prohibited Personnel Practices

1. My organization... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

a. ...recruits a 

diverse pool of 

applicants for 

job vacancies

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. ...holds fair and 

open 

competition for 

job vacancies

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. ...selects the 

best-qualified 

candidates 

when filling 

jobs

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. ...treats 

employees 

fairly

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. ...takes steps to 

prevent 

prohibited 

discrimination

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. ...takes steps to 

rectify 

prohibited 

discrimination

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

g. ...pays 

employees 

fairly

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

h. ...recognizes 

excellent 

performance

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

i. ...rewards 

excellent 

performance

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

j. ...holds 

employees to 

high standards 

of conduct

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

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

7

My organization... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

k. ... puts the 

public interest 

first

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

l. ... uses the 

workforce 

efficiently and 

effectively

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

m. ...eliminates 

unnecessary 

functions and 

positions

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

n. ...makes good 

use of 

employees’ 

skills and 

talents

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

o. ...focuses 

employee 

attention and 

efforts on what 

is most 

important

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

p. ...provides 

employees with 

the resources 

needed to get 

the job done

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

q. ...addresses 

poor performers 

effectively

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

r. ...retains its 

best employees ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

s. ...provides 

employees with 

necessary 

training

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

t. ...provides 

employees with 

opportunities 

for growth and 

development

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

My organization... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

u. ...protects 

employees 

against reprisal 

for 

whistleblowing

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

v. ... protects 

employees 

against reprisal 

for exercising a 

grievance, 

complaint, or 

appeal right

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

w. ... protects 

employees 

against arbitrary 

action

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

x. ... does not 

engage in 

favoritism

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

y. ...protects 

employees from 

political 

coercion

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

z. ...has made it 

clear that it 

prohibits 

discrimination 

based on a 

person's sexual 

orientation

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Continue on next page
50 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

8

2. In the past two years, have you been 

treated fairly in each area listed below? 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

No ↓

Yes ↓

a. Career advancement ○ ○ ○

b. Awards ○ ○ ○

c. Training ○ ○ ○

d. Performance appraisals ○ ○ ○

e. Job assignments ○ ○ ○

f. Discipline ○ ○ ○

g. Pay ○ ○ ○

3. For each item below, please indicate the 

option that you think best describes the 

situation.

In the past two years, an agency official (e.g. 

supervisor, manager, senior leader, etc.) in my 

work unit has... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

I was personally 

affected by this ↓

This has occurred in my 

work unit, but I was not 

personally affected by this ↓

This has NOT occurred in my 

work unit ↓

a. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon race

○ ○ ○ ○

b. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon age

○ ○ ○ ○

c. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon religion

○ ○ ○ ○

In the past two years, an agency official (e.g. 

supervisor, manager, senior leader, etc.) in my 

work unit has...

Don’t Know/NA ↓

I was personally 

affected by this ↓

This has occurred in my 

work unit, but I was not 

personally affected by this ↓

This has NOT occurred in my 

work unit ↓

d. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon sex

○ ○ ○ ○

e. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon national origin

○ ○ ○ ○

f. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon disabling condition

○ ○ ○ ○

g. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon marital status

○ ○ ○ ○

h. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon political affiliation

○ ○ ○ ○

i. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon sexual orientation

○ ○ ○ ○

j. ...discriminated in favor 

or against someone in a 

personnel action based 

upon status as a parent or 

caregiver

○ ○ ○ ○

k. ...discriminated against 

someone in a personnel 

action on the basis of offduty conduct which was 

entirely unrelated to the 

job

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

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

9

In the past two years, an agency official (e.g. 

supervisor, manager, senior leader, etc.) in my 

work unit has... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

I was personally 

affected by this ↓

This has occurred in my 

work unit, but I was not 

personally affected by this ↓

This has NOT occurred in my 

work unit ↓

l. ...tried to pressure 

someone to support or 

oppose a particular 

candidate or party for 

elected office

○ ○ ○ ○

m. ...tried to influence 

someone to withdraw 

from competition for a 

position for the purpose 

of helping or injuring 

someone else's chances

○ ○ ○ ○

n. ...tried to define the 

scope or manner of a 

recruitment action, or the 

qualifications required, 

for the purpose of 

improving the chances of 

a particular person

○ ○ ○ ○

o. ...obstructed someone's 

right to compete for 

employment

○ ○ ○ ○

p. ... solicited or considered 

improper employment 

recommendations

○ ○ ○ ○

q. ... advocated for the 

appointment, 

employment, promotion, 

or advancement of a 

relative

○ ○ ○ ○

r. ... advocated for 

appointment, 

employment, promotion, 

or advancement of a 

personal friend of the 

agency official

○ ○ ○ ○

In the past two years, an agency official (e.g. 

supervisor, manager, senior leader, etc.) in my 

work unit has... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

I was personally 

affected by this ↓

This has occurred in my 

work unit, but I was not 

personally affected by this ↓

This has NOT occurred in my 

work unit ↓

s. ...took or threatened to 

take a personnel action 

against an employee 

because the employee 

disclosed a violation of 

law, rules, or regulations 

or reported fraud, waste, 

or abuse

○ ○ ○ ○

t. ... took or threatened to 

take a personnel action 

against an employee 

because the employee 

filed an appeal or 

grievance

○ ○ ○ ○

u. ...knowingly violated a 

lawful form of veteran's 

preference or veteran's 

protection laws

○ ○ ○ ○

v. ... inappropriately 

favored a veteran ○ ○ ○ ○

Continue on next page
52 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

10

Whistleblowing 

For the purpose of this section, the term 

“wrongdoing” refers to the creation or 

toleration in the workplace of a health or 

safety danger, unlawful behavior, fraud, waste, 

or abuse.

1. Please indicate your level of agreement 

or disagreement with the following 

statements.

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

1. My agency 

actively 

encourages 

employees to 

report 

wrongdoing.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2. If I disclosed 

wrongdoing, I 

would be 

praised for it at 

work.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

3. I feel that I 

could disclose 

wrongdoing 

without any 

concerns that 

the disclosure 

would make my 

life harder.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

4. My agency has 

educated me 

about the 

purpose of the 

Office of the 

Inspector 

General.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

5. My agency has 

educated me 

about how I can 

anonymously 

disclose 

wrongdoing.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

6. My agency has 

educated me 

about what my 

rights would be 

if I disclosed 

wrongdoing.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

7. In your opinion, how adequate or 

inadequate is the protection against 

reprisal for federal employees who report 

wrongdoing? 

o Very adequate

o Adequate 

o Neither adequate nor inadequate

o Inadequate

o Very inadequate

o Don’t Know/Can’t Judge 

8. If you were to observe or have evidence of 

wrongdoing, how important would it be 

to you that you be able to report it 

without disclosing your identity?

o Very important 

o Important 

o Somewhat important 

o Not important 

o Don’t Know/Can’t Judge 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

11

9. To what extent do you understand the 

role of each of the following organizations 

when it comes to responding to reports of 

wrongdoing? 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

a. The U.S. Office of the 

Special Counsel (OSC) ○ ○ ○ ○

b. The Government 

Accountability Office 

(GAO)

○ ○ ○ ○

c. Your agency's Office of 

the Inspector General 

(OIG)

○ ○ ○ ○

d. The Occupational Safety 

and Health 

Administration (OSHA)

○ ○ ○ ○

10. If you were to report wrongdoing to one 

of the following organizations, and asked 

that your identity be kept confidential, to 

what extent do you believe that the 

organization would keep your identity 

secret? 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

a. My agency's Office of 

the Inspector General 

(OIG)

○ ○ ○ ○

b. The U.S. Office of the 

Special Counsel (OSC) ○ ○ ○ ○

c. The Occupational Safety 

and Health 

Administration (OSHA)

○ ○ ○ ○

d. The Government 

Accountability Office 

(GAO)

○ ○ ○ ○

e. The U.S. Congress ○ ○ ○ ○

f. The Media ○ ○ ○ ○

11. If you were to report wrongdoing to one 

of the following organizations, to what 

extent do you believe the organization 

would give careful consideration to your 

allegations? 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

a. My agency's Office of 

the Inspector General 

(OIG)

○ ○ ○ ○

b. The U.S. Office of the 

Special Counsel (OSC) ○ ○ ○ ○

c. The Occupational Safety 

and Health 

Administration (OSHA)

○ ○ ○ ○

d. The Government 

Accountability Office 

(GAO)

○ ○ ○ ○

e. The U.S. Congress ○ ○ ○ ○

f. The Media ○ ○ ○ ○

12. If tomorrow you were to observe a health 

or safety danger, unlawful behavior, 

fraud, waste, or abuse, to what extent do 

you think that each of the following would 

factor into your decision on whether or 

not to report the wrongdoing? 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

a. Concern that I would be 

suspended, demoted, or 

fired

○ ○ ○ ○

b. Concern that I had 

sufficient proof ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Concern that it might not 

be serious enough ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Concern that the event 

might not rise to the level 

of fraud, waste, abuse, 

unlawful behavior, or a 

safety or health danger

○ ○ ○ ○
54 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

12

If tomorrow you were to observe a health or 

safety danger, unlawful behavior, fraud, 

waste, or abuse, to what extent do you think 

that each of the following would factor into 

your decision on whether or not to report the 

wrongdoing? 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

e. Belief that nothing would

be done to stop it ○ ○ ○ ○

f. Belief that nothing could

be done to stop it ○ ○ ○ ○

g. Belief that it would not 

happen again ○ ○ ○ ○

h. Belief that someone else 

had already reported it ○ ○ ○ ○

i. Concern that I would be 

seen as disloyal ○ ○ ○ ○

j. Concern that it might 

negatively impact my 

relationship with my coworkers

○ ○ ○ ○

k. Concern that it might get 

someone in trouble ○ ○ ○ ○

l. Concern that it might 

harm the reputation of 

my organization/agency

○ ○ ○ ○

m. Concern that it might 

cause other things to be 

investigated

○ ○ ○ ○

n. Concern that it might 

affect my performance 

appraisal

○ ○ ○ ○

o. Concern that it might 

affect my ability to get a 

performance award

○ ○ ○ ○

p. Concern that it might 

affect my ability to get 

training

○ ○ ○ ○

q. Concern that it might 

affect my ability to get a 

promotion

○ ○ ○ ○

r. Concern that 

management might 

become less tolerant of 

any small mistakes I 

might make

○ ○ ○ ○

If tomorrow you were to observe a health or 

safety danger, unlawful behavior, fraud, 

waste, or abuse, to what extent do you think 

that each of the following would factor into 

your decision on whether or not to report the 

wrongdoing? 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

s. Concern that 

management might 

become less willing to 

grant me any favors that 

are optional for them

○ ○ ○ ○

t. Concern that I might be 

retaliated against in 

another way not 

mentioned above

○ ○ ○ ○

u. A lack of knowledge 

about to whom I should 

report it

○ ○ ○ ○

13. How important, if at all, would each of 

the following be in encouraging you to 

report an illegal or wasteful activity? 

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge ↓

Unimportant ↓

Somewhat Unimportant ↓

Neither Important Nor 

Unimportant ↓

Somewhat Important ↓

Very Important ↓

a. The activity 

might endanger 

people’s lives

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. The activity 

was something 

you considered 

serious in terms 

of costs to the 

Government

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Something 

would be done 

to correct the 

activity you 

reported

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

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

13

How important, if at all, would each of the 

following be in encouraging you to report an 

illegal or wasteful activity? 

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge ↓

Unimportant ↓

Somewhat Unimportant ↓

Neither Important Nor 

Unimportant ↓

Somewhat Important ↓

Very Important ↓

d. The wrongdoers 

involved in the 

activities would 

be punished

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. You would be 

protected from 

any sort of 

reprisal

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. You would be 

positively 

recognized by 

management for 

a good deed

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

g. Your identity 

would be kept 

confidential by 

the people to 

whom you 

reported the 

activity

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

h. The activity 

was something 

you considered 

to be a serious 

ethical 

violation, 

although the 

monetary costs 

associated with 

it were small

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

i. You would be 

eligible to 

receive a cash 

award

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

14. How likely would you be to “blow the 

whistle” when the wrongdoer is:

Don’t Know/Can’t Judge ↓

Very Unlikely ↓

Somewhat Unlikely ↓

Neither Likely Nor Unlikely ↓

Somewhat Likely ↓

Very Likely ↓

a. Your supervisor ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. A higher level 

supervisor ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. A coworker (in 

your work 

group)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. A Federal 

employee 

outside your 

work group

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. A contractor or 

vendor ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. A political 

appointee in 

your agency

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

15. During the last 12 months, did you 

personally observe or obtain direct 

evidence of one or more illegal or wasteful 

activities involving your agency? (Note: 

Do not answer “yes” if you only heard 

about the activity in the media or heard 

about it as a rumor.) 

o Yes

o No

If you answered no to 

question 15, please skip to 

the Disabilities section on 

page 17, if you answered yes 

to question 15, please 

continue on the next page. 
56 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

14

16. If you answered yes to question 15, then 

please select the activity below that 

represents the most serious problem you 

personally observed. (Please mark only 

one.) 

o Stealing Federal funds

o Stealing Federal property

o Accepting bribes or kickbacks

o Waste caused by ineligible people 

receiving funds, goods, or services 

o Waste caused by unnecessary or 

deficient goods or services 

o Use of an official position for personal 

benefit

o Waste caused by a badly managed 

program 

o Unfair advantage in the selection of a 

contractor, consultant, or vendor 

o Tolerating a situation or practice which 

poses a substantial and specific danger to 

public health or safety 

o Other serious violation of law or 

regulation

17. Where did this activity occur or 

originate? (Please mark ALL that apply.) 

□ Your workgroup 

□ Outside your workgroup but within your 

agency

□ Another Federal agency

□ Contractor or vendor 

□ Other 

18. If a dollar value can be placed on this 

activity, what was the amount involved? 

o More than $100,000 

o $5,000-$100,000 

o $1,000-$4,999 

o $100-$999 

o Less than $100 

o A dollar value cannot be placed on the 

activity

o Don’t know/Can’t judge 

19. How frequently did this activity occur?

o Once or rarely

o Occasionally

o Frequently

o Don’t know/Can’t judge 

20. Did you report this activity to any of the 

following? (Please mark ALL that 

apply.) 

□ I did not report the activity (skip to 

disabilities section on page 17)

□ Family member or friend 

□ Co-worker 

□ Immediate supervisor 

□ Higher level supervisor 

□ Higher level agency official

□ Agency Inspector General (IG)

□ Office of Special Counsel (OSC)

□ Government Accountability Office 

(GAO)

□ Law enforcement official

□ Union representative 

□ News media

□ Congressional staff member or member 

of Congress

□ Advocacy group outside the Government 

□ Other

21. If you DID report this activity, were you 

identified as the source of the report? 

o Yes, I was identified

o No, I was not identified (skip to 

disabilities section on page 17)
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

15

22. If you were identified, what was the 

effect on you personally as a result of 

being identified? (Please mark ALL that 

apply.) 

□ I was given credit by my management 

for having reported the problem 

□ Nothing happened to me for having 

reported the problem 

□ My coworkers were unhappy with me 

for having reported the problem 

□ My supervisor was unhappy with me for 

having reported the problem 

□ Someone above my supervisor was 

unhappy with me for having reported the 

problem 

□ I was threatened with reprisal for having 

reported the problem 

□ I received an actual reprisal for having 

reported the problem 

23. Within the last 12 months, have you 

personally experienced some type of 

reprisal or threat of reprisal by 

management for having reported an 

activity? 

o Yes

o No (skip to disabilities section on page 

17) 

24. Did the reprisal or threat of reprisal take 

any of the following forms? (Please mark 

ALL that apply.) 

This was done to me ↓

I was threatened with this ↓

a. Poor performance appraisal ○ ○

b. Denial of promotion ○ ○

c. Denial of opportunity for training ○ ○

d. Denial of award ○ ○

e. Assignment to less desirable or 

less important duties ○ ○

f. Transfer or reassignment to a 

different job with less desirable 

duties

○ ○

g. Reassignment to a different 

geographical location ○ ○

h. Suspension from my job ○ ○

i. Fired from my job ○ ○

j. Grade level demotion ○ ○

k. Shunned by coworkers or 

managers ○ ○

l. Verbal harassment or intimidation ○ ○

m. Required to take a fitness for duty 

exam ○ ○

n. Other ○ ○

Continue on next page
58 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

16

25. In response to the reprisal or threat of 

reprisal, did you take any of the following 

actions? (Please mark ALL that apply.) 

□ I took no action 

□ Complained to the Office of Inspector 

General within my agency 

□ Complained to some other office within 

my agency (for example, the Personnel 

Office or EEO Office)

□ Filed a complaint through my union 

representative

□ Filed a formal grievance within my 

agency

□ Filed an EEO (discrimination) complaint

□ Filed a complaint with the Office of 

Special Counsel

□ Filed an action with the Merit Systems 

Protection Board 

□ I took an action not listed above 

26. Please indicate the extent to which each of 

the following was important to your 

decision to report or not report 

wrongdoing. 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

a. Concern that I would be 

suspended, demoted, or 

fired

○ ○ ○ ○

b. Concern that I had 

sufficient proof ○ ○ ○ ○ c. Concern that it might not 

be serious enough ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Concern that the event 

might not rise to the level 

of fraud, waste, abuse, 

unlawful behavior, or a 

safety or health danger

○ ○ ○ ○

e. Belief that nothing would

be done to stop it ○ ○ ○ ○

f. Belief that nothing could

be done to stop it ○ ○ ○ ○

g. Belief that it would not 

happen again ○ ○ ○ ○

Please indicate the extent to which each of the 

following was important to your decision to 

report or not report wrongdoing. 

Not at All ↓

Little Extent ↓

Some Extent ↓

Great Extent ↓

h. Belief that someone else 

had already reported it ○ ○ ○ ○

i. Concern that I would be 

seen as disloyal ○ ○ ○ ○

j. Concern that it might 

negatively impact my 

relationship with my coworkers

○ ○ ○ ○

k. Concern that it might get 

someone in trouble ○ ○ ○ ○

l. Concern that it might 

harm the reputation of my 

organization/agency

○ ○ ○ ○

m. Concern that it might 

cause other things to be 

investigated

○ ○ ○ ○

n. Concern that it might 

affect my performance 

appraisal

○ ○ ○ ○

o. Concern that it might 

affect my ability to get a 

performance award

○ ○ ○ ○

p. Concern that it might 

affect my ability to get 

training

○ ○ ○ ○

q. Concern that it might 

affect my ability to get a 

promotion

○ ○ ○ ○

r. Concern that management 

might become less tolerant 

of any small mistakes I 

might make

○ ○ ○ ○

s. Concern that management 

might become less willing 

to grant me any favors that 

are optional for them

○ ○ ○ ○

t. Concern that I might be 

retaliated against in 

another way not 

mentioned above

○ ○ ○ ○

u. A lack of knowledge 

about to whom I should 

report it

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

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

17

Disabilities 

1. My agency has policies and procedures 

for dealing with reasonable 

accommodation requests. 

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Disagree 

o Strongly disagree 

o Don’t know/NA 

2. Contact information is readily available 

for the Disability Program Coordinator 

and/or the Selective Placement Program 

Coordinator at my department/agency. 

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Disagree 

o Strongly disagree 

o Don’t know/NA 

3. My organization is committed to offering 

equal employment opportunities to people 

with disabilities.

o Strongly agree (skip to question 5) 

o Agree (skip to question 5) 

o Neither agree nor disagree (skip to 

question 5) 

o Disagree 

o Strongly disagree 

o Don’t know/NA 

4. Select from among the following reasons 

for why you believe your agency is 

resistant to hiring people with disabilities.

(Please mark ALL that apply.) 

□ Lack of funds 

□ Unfamiliarity with specific hiring 

authorities

□ Unfamiliarity with providing reasonable 

accommodations 

□ Belief that disabled persons will have 

difficulty performing the job

□ Belief that disabled persons will require 

too much time and attention

□ Belief that disabled persons will disrupt 

the workplace 

□ Other :

_________________________________

_________________________________

□ Don’t know 

5. Do you have a physical or mental 

impairment? 

o Yes, and it substantially limits one or 

more major life activities. Major life 

activities may include walking, seeing, 

standing, sitting, breathing, bathing, etc. 

o Yes, but it does not affect a major life 

activity. 

o No (If no, skip to the leadership impact 

section on page 19) 

o I prefer not to answer (If you prefer not 

to answer this question, skip to the 

leadership impact section on page 19 ) 

Continue on next page
60 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

18

6. Please select your physical or mental 

impairment(s) from the list below. Check 

all that apply in the squares on the left.

For each impairment selected, identify the 

level of severity as either mild, moderate, 

or severe using the scale on the right. 

Severe ↓

Moderate ↓

Mild ↓

↓ I have this condition

□

Physical Movement 

Impairment (for example: 

missing a hand, partial or 

full paralysis, arthritis that 

creates some loss of ability 

to move a body part)

○ ○ ○

□

Sensory Impairment (for 

example: partial or total 

blindness, deafness, 

muteness)

○ ○ ○

□

Neurological Impairment 

(for example: epilepsy, 

multiple sclerosis, 

Parkinson's)

○ ○ ○

□

Developmental or Learning 

Impairment (for example: 

attention deficit, dyslexia, 

autism)

○ ○ ○

□

Psychological Impairment 

(for example: PTSD, 

depression, obsessive 

compulsive, phobias)

○ ○ ○

□

Chronic Health Condition 

(for example: diabetes, 

hypertension, cancer, heart 

disease)

○ ○ ○

□ Other Disability ○ ○ ○

□ Not Disabled

□ I would prefer not to answer 

this question

7. Have you identified yourself as having a 

disability on any official forms with your 

agency? 

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know 

8. Do you have documentation that 

substantiates your disability? 

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know 

9. Were you hired under the Schedule A 

hiring authority for persons with 

disabilities?

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know 

10. Have you requested reasonable 

accommodations to assist you with 

accomplishing your work?

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know 

11. Are you receiving reasonable 

accommodations? 

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know 

12. If, in the past 2 years you have been 

treated unfairly in the area of career 

advancement, do you feel the reason you 

have not been treated fairly in your 

career advancement is because of your 

disability?

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know /Not Applicable 

Continue on next page
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

19

Leadership Impact 

Please indicate your level of agreement or 

disagreement with the following statements

regarding non-military senior executives.

1. I work closely with a politically 

appointed Senior Executive (SES). 

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Disagree 

o Strongly disagree 

o Don’t know/NA 

2. I work closely with a career Senior 

Executive (SES).

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Disagree 

o Strongly disagree 

o Don’t know/NA 

The following items are intended to reflect 

your opinions about non-military political

senior executives. 

3. Political senior executives in my 

organization... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

a. ... have good 

management 

skills. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. ... work hard to 

fulfill the mission 

of the agency.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Political senior executives in my organization... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

c. ... communicate 

well. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. ... work well 

with other career 

senior 

executives.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. ... respect the 

career staff. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. ... respect the 

merit process 

when making 

hiring decisions.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

The following items are intended to reflect 

your opinions about non-military career

senior executives.

4. Career senior executives in my 

organization... 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

a. ... have good 

management 

skills.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. ... work hard to 

fulfill the 

mission of the 

agency.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. ... communicate 

well. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. ... work well 

with other career 

senior 

executives.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. ... respect the 

career staff. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. ... respect the 

merit process 

when making 

hiring decisions.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
62 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

20

Union Partnership

1. Are you a dues-paying member of a union?

o Yes

o No. But my position is covered by a 

bargaining agreement

o No. I am not sure if my position is covered 

by a bargaining agreement

o No. I am not eligible to be a member of a 

union 

o Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

2. My agency’s management and unions work 

well together to:

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Strongly Disagree ↓

Disagree ↓

Neither Agree Nor Disagree ↓

Agree ↓

Strongly Agree ↓

a. Improve 

employee worklife balance

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Improve the 

efficiency of 

agency 

operations

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Improve 

employee 

performance

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Improve overall 

agency 

performance

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Telework 

1. In the last year, how many days, on 

average, did you telework – work from 

home or from another location such as a 

telework center? (This does not include 

field work.)

o 4 or 5 days per week 

o 2 or 3 days per week 

o 1 day per week

o On an ad hoc basis, less than 1 day per 

week

o Never

2. In the event of an emergency (e.g., 

security incident, pandemic, or major 

weather event), do you know what you 

must do to maintain continuity of 

operations?

o Yes

o No

o Not sure 

Workplace Violence

Workplace violence is defined as violent acts 

directed towards a person at work or on duty 

(e.g. physical assaults, threats of assault, 

harassment, intimidation, or bullying). 

1. My agency takes sufficient steps to ensure 

my safety from violence occurring at my 

workplace. 

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Disagree 

o Strongly disagree 

o Don’t know/NA 

2. During the past two years, have you 

observed any incidence of workplace 

violence? 

o Yes (identify on the next page the type 

and consequence of the event and mark 

whether it resulted in physical injury or 

damage to/loss of property). 

o No (skip to next section- professional 

affiliation on the next page).
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

21

3. Please identify the type and consequence 

of the event and mark whether it resulted 

in physical injury or damage to/loss of 

property. 

Don’t Know↓

Resulted in damage 

to/loss of property ↓

Resulted in physical injury↓

↓ This occurred

□

a. A violent act by a 

criminal who had no 

other connection with 

the workplace, but 

enters to commit 

robbery or another 

crime.

○ ○ ○

□

b. A violent act directed at 

employees by 

customers, clients, 

patients, students, 

inmates, or any others 

for whom your 

organization provides 

services.

○ ○ ○

□

c. A violent act against 

coworkers, supervisors, 

or managers by a 

present or former 

employee.

○ ○ ○

□

d. A violent act committed 

in the workplace by 

someone who doesn’t 

work there, but has a 

personal relationship 

with an employee (e.g., 

an abusive spouse or 

domestic partner.

○ ○ ○

Professional Affiliation

1. Federal employees may obtain information 

about the knowledge, skills and abilities 

needed to do their current job. Such 

information may come from several 

different sources. To what extent do you 

personally consider each of the following a 

good source of information about the 

knowledge, skills and abilities needed to do 

your current job? 

Don’t Know/NA ↓

Very Poor Source of Information ↓

Poor Source of Information ↓

Neither a Good Nor Poor 

Source of Information ↓

Good Source of Information ↓

Excellent Source of 

Information ↓

a. Former job ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Your Coworkers ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Your 

Supervisor ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Your Agency ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

e. The Office of 

Personnel 

Management

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

f. A Professional 

Organization or 

Trade 

Association

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

g. Other ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

The name of the professional organization or 

trade association referenced above is? 

______________________________

o Not Applicable 

The other source of information referenced 

above is? 

______________________________

o Not Applicable 
64 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

Appendix D: The 2010 Merit Pri

22

2. Consider the most important knowledge, 

skill or ability needed to perform your 

current job. Which of the following 

general categories best describes that 

knowledge, skill or ability (please mark 

only one). 

o Knowledge (Facts and other 

information, including job knowledge, 

academic subjects, laws, policies, and 

regulations) 

o Language (Reading, writing, learning 

other languages, editing, preparing 

lengthy documents and preparing and 

giving speeches or presentations) 

o Social (Abilities that help us get along 

with other people, ranging from basic 

interpersonal skills and teamwork to 

more specialized abilities to negotiate, 

manage conflict, and foster diversity) 

o Reasoning (Abilities based on logic and 

mathematics, including such practical 

abilities as analysis, troubleshooting, and 

computer programming) 

o Motivation (Personal characteristics that 

affect employee willingness to perform 

work, including resilience in the face of 

difficulty, integrity, and public 

spiritedness)

o Mental Style (Long-term “mental 

habits” such as flexibility, creativity, 

ability to deal with complexity, rapid 

learning ability, and decisiveness)

3. In your own words, can you briefly 

rephrase the most important 

knowledge, skill, or ability, you 

selected? 

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

4. My agency does a good job ensuring that 

people with my kind of job possess this 

most important knowledge, skill or 

ability. 

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Disagree 

o Strongly disagree 

o Don’t know/NA 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

The Merit Principles Survey (MPS) is a Governmentwide survey of Federal employees 

that periodically solicits their opinions and experiences related to their careers and agency 

human resources practices and leadership. The 2010 survey content and methodology 

are summarized below.

Survey Topics

Topics covered in the 2010 MPS included

•	 Employee engagement—employees’ perceptions of their connection to their work,

their workplace, and their organization, and factors that influence that connection, 

such as pride in work, leadership, and career development opportunities;

•	 Workforce motivation—employees’ perceptions of the effect of their job 

characteristics and performance-reward linkages on work effort;

•	 Adherence to merit system principles—managements’ adherence to values such as

selection based on ability, effective use of the workforce, and protection of employees 

from coercion and reprisal;

•	 Fairness—employees’ perceptions of the fairness of their treatment in various aspects 

of human resources management;

•	 Prohibited personnel practices—employees’ perceptions of discrimination and other 

improper or illegal personnel practices;

•	 Leadership—employees’ perceptions of the career and noncareer executive leaders in 

the agency;

•	 Disability—issues related to the agency’s employment of persons with disabilities,

including affirmative employment and reasonable accommodation practices;

•	 Whistleblowing—the observation and reporting of possible wrongdoing in the 

workplace and the consequences of any report made; and

•	 Competency requirements—employees’ perceptions of the critical requirements for

their current jobs and sources of information about those requirements.

Survey Sampling and Administration

The 2010 MPS was administered to permanent, full-time Federal employees in the 18 

departments and 6 independent agencies listed in Table 5. Those departments and

Appendix E  Overview of the 

Principles Survey 2010 Methodo
66 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

AppendixE:  Overview of the Merit Principles Surve

agencies accounted for approximately 98 percent of the permanent, full-time Federal 

workforce as of September 2009. Thus, the survey results provide a good representation 

of Federal employee opinion Governmentwide.

Table 5: Departments and Independent Agencies Participating in the MPS 2010

Departments Independent Agenc

•	 Department of the Air Force

•	 Department of the Army

•	 Department of the Navy

•	 Department of Defense

•	 Department of Agriculture

•	 Department of Commerce

•	 Department of Justice

•	 Department of Labor

•	 Department of Energy

•	 Department of Education

•	 Department of Health and Human Services

•	 Department of Homeland Security

•	 Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

•	 Department of the Interior

•	 Department of State

•	 Department of Transportation

•	 Department of the Treasury

•	 Department of Veterans Affairs

•	 Environmental Protection Agency

•	 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

•	 General Services Administration

•	 National Aeronautics and Space Administration

•	 Office of Personnel Management

•	 Social Security Administration

Employees were selected through stratified random sampling drawn from records in

OPM’s Central Personnel Data Fil.  The strata (groups surveyed) were designed 

provide usable measures of employee opinions by supervisory status (non-supervisor and 

supervisor) and department or agency. For some departments, the sampling plan was 

designed to also provide usable results for selected major components or bureaus.

For almost all employees, the survey was administered online through email invitations 

and a dedicated, secure web site. At the request of the Department of Transportatio

MSPB distributed paper surveys to approximately 1,300 employees in the Federal 

Aviation Administration who could not receive or respond to an online survey  A

employees were informed that survey participation was voluntary and that their responses 

would be strictly confidential and that only MSPB staff and survey support contractor 

staff would have access to surveys. Further, employees were assured that no data that 

could be used to identify individual participants would be disclosed to anyone.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

AppendixE:  Overview of the Merit Principles Surve

Response Rate and Weighting

Survey distribution, return, and acceptance figures are shown in Table 6. Returned survey

were reviewed for completeness and, for paper surveys, legibility. Ultimately, MSPB 

accepted 42,020 surveys, for a final response rate of 58 percent, as shown in Table 6.5

Table 6: Merit Principles Survey 2010 Distribution, Return, and Acceptance

Format Distributed Returned Accepted (V

Electronic (web) 70,675 42,800 61% 41,680 59%

Paper 1,295 362 28% 340 26%

Total 71,970 43,162 60% 42,020 58%

The sampling plan required oversampling (surveying a higher proportion of the 

population) of some groups to provide statistically reliable results. Accordingly, MSPB

calculated response weights to produce results that are representative of Governmentwide 

employee opinions. All survey results in this report are weighted unless stated otherwise

50 To be accepted, a survey had to contain valid (nonmissing) responses to 25 or more core items.
68 Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Re

AppendixE:  Overview of the Merit Principles Surve
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Analyses are available for agencies and subagencies that had sufficient survey response

rates to permit reliable generalizations from survey data. These agencies and subagencies 

are listed below. Analyses can include descriptive statistics of responses to survey items,

motivation/engagement scale scores, Motivation Potential Levels (motivational effect of 

employees’ perceptions of job characteristics), and Motivation Force Scores (motivational 

effect of employees’ perceptions of the connection between their effort, performance, and 

rewards). To request one of these analyses or another analysis, please contact MSPB’s

Office of Policy and Evaluation at STUDIES@msp

Agencies

•	 Department of Agricultu

•	 Department of the Air For

•	 Department of the Ar

•	 Department of Commer

•	 Department of Defen

•	 Department of Ener

•	 Department of Health and Human Service

•	 Department of Homeland Security(DH

•	 Department of the Interi

•	 Department of the Na

•	 Department of Transportati

•	 Department of Treasu

•	 Department of Veterans Affairs (

•	 Environmental Protection Agen

•	 National Aeronautics and Space Administrat

•	 Social Security Administratio

Subagencies

•	 Agriculture— Forest Servic

•	 DHS—Bureau of Customs and Border Protecti

•	 DHS—Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforce

•	 DHS—Transportation Security Administrat

•	 Transportation—Federal Aviation Administrat

•	 Treasury—Internal Revenue Serv

•	 VA—Veterans Benefits Administrati

•	 VA—Veterans Health Administrati

Appendix F: Agencies and Subage

for which Analyses Are Avai


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20419

Official Business

Penalty For Private Use $300

PRSRT STD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

WASHINGTON DC

PERMIT NO. G-113

Federal Employee Engagemen

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

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

December 2012

The Motivating Potential of 

Job Characteristics and Rewards