U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Office of Policy and Evaluation Research Brief

The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee 

Performance Behaviors

August 2018

In Brief

It is a merit system principle that the “Federal work force should be used efficiently and 

effectively.”1

 Decades of social science research show that knowledge-based workers will be 

more likely to think creatively and be motivated to be high-performing employees if management 

provides a balance of feedback and autonomy. Feedback also can help employees to see the 

importance of their work and provide a basic structure to help them know what efforts will 

successfully foster a meaningful result.

This publication, building on previous MSPB research regarding employee engagement and 

motivation, presents selected data from our 2016 and 2010 Merit Principles Surveys (MPSs).

2

 It 

briefly discusses the roles of feedback, autonomy, and meaningfulness, and demonstrates their 

relationship to positive employee performance behaviors. 

Introduction

We combined several MPS questions to create composite measures for feedback, autonomy, and 

meaningfulness. We also created a “Performance Behaviors Composite” (PBC) by combining

15 questions.3 For each composite, we separated the respondents into 3 groups of approximately 

equal size based upon their composite results (stronger, moderate, and weaker) to allow for 

comparisons between groups. The Methodology Appendix provides further information on the 

construction of the composites and their measurement properties.4

Feedback

Feedback is communication about performance expectations, progress, strengths, weaknesses, 

and recommendations for the future.5

 In recent years, the importance of feedback has been 

emphasized in literature regarding performance management.6

 However, not all feedback is 

effective. Research shows that general feedback or scattershot feedback may serve to distract an 

 1 5 U.S.C. § 2301.

2 To reduce the burden on survey respondents, some questions are not asked on every iteration of the MPS. The most recent information 

has been used where it is available. See the Methodology Appendix for more information on the MPS. 

3 The items used to construct the three main composites are as follows. Feedback composite: (1) “My supervisor provides timely 

feedback on my job performance;” and (2) “My supervisor provides constructive feedback on my job performance.” Autonomy composite: (1) “I 

am empowered to do my work the way I see best;” (2) “I like the amount of autonomy and decision making in my work;” and (3) “I can apply my 

insights and ideas to my work without holding back.” Meaningfulness composite: (1) “My work supports a purpose, cause, or mission that is 

important to me;” (2) My work gives me a good opportunity to make a meaningful difference or impact;” and (3) “The work I do is important.” 

Please see the Methodology Appendix for the 15-item PBC. 

4 We also compared the three main composite measures to other “positive” items, such as overall satisfaction with supervisors, to examine 

the potential that a sense of overall positivity may be responsible for the results. However, as explained in the Methodology Appendix, the data 

indicate feedback, autonomy, and meaningfulness had an independent relationship to performance behaviors outside of satisfaction with supervisors.

5 While our feedback composite is designed around feedback from supervisors, valuable feedback can come from other sources such as 

customers, peers, or subordinates. The MPS questions did not include a definition of feedback.

6 Feedback was one of the five characteristics of the job we used to discuss employee motivation in our 2012 report, The Motivating

Potential of Job Characteristics and Rewards, available at www.mspb.gov/studies.
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 2

employee from the goal, while feedback that is timely, specific, and future-oriented “allows 

performers to diagnose performance problems and to adjust strategies as needed.”7

 Such 

feedback also assists the employee to know which tasks or missions should receive greater

attention, and not just by having a supervisor give a directive order about priorities, as employees 

can react negatively to being micro-managed. Rather, by choosing which things to discuss, 

management is – in effect – sending a message about which things matter while still empowering 

employees to organize their work appropriately. Research shows that timely and specific 

feedback can make a task more attractive to the employee.

8

 “By resolving feelings of 

uncertainty, feedback keeps people’s work-related activities focused on... organizational goals. 

The quicker and more direct the feedback, the more useful it is.”9

Feedback’s Relationship to Performance Behaviors

The 2016 MPS data show that respondents with stronger feedback (timely and constructive) were 

more than twice as likely to report stronger performance behaviors compared to those who 

reported moderate or weaker feedback, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Strength of Feedback and Performance Behavior Composite (PBC) Results

Note: Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.

To adapt to rapidly evolving challenges, the civil service needs people who can (and will) think 

creatively and innovatively. Academic research shows that when feedback is seen as 

“constructive, informative, understanding, and supportive,” the feedback recipient is more likely 

to maintain or increase his or her level of creativity.10 MPS respondents with stronger feedback 

were more than twice as likely to report they were creative/innovative to a great extent compared 

to those with weaker feedback (43% vs. 19%). (See Figure A in the Data Appendix.)

 7 Gregory B. Northcraft and Aaron M. Schmidt, “Feedback and the Rationing of Time and Effort Among Competing Tasks,” Journal of 

Applied Psychology (2011), Vol. 96, No. 5, at 1076, 1083. 

8 Id.

9 Gretchen Spreitzer and Christine Porath, “Creating Sustainable Performance,” Harvard Business Review (Jan.-Feb. 2012) available at

https://hbr.org/2012/01/creating-sustainable-performance. We discussed the importance of timely and constructive feedback in our 2015 publication, 

Performance is More than an Appraisal, available at www.mspb.gov/studies/noteworthyarchive.htm.

10 Jing Zhou, “Feedback Valence, Feedback Style, Task Autonomy, and Achievement Orientation: Interactive Effects on Creative 

Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology (1998), Vol. 83, No. 2, at 261, 262-63.

55%

25% 22%

32%

39% 36%

12%

37% 42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Stronger Feedback Moderate Feedback Weaker Feedback

Weaker

PBC

Moderate

PBC

Stronger

PBC

Respondents with 

stronger feedback 

were more than 

twice as likely to 

report stronger 

performance 

behaviors 

compared to those 

who reported 

moderate or weaker 

feedback.
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 3

Feedback’s Relationship to Performance Appraisals

Timely and constructive feedback is a major component of effective performance management. 

Survey respondents with stronger feedback were more likely to report receiving the highest 

possible performance appraisal rating from their supervisors compared to those with moderate or 

weaker feedback (61%, 50%, and 42%, respectively).11 Respondents in the stronger feedback 

group were also more likely to strongly agree that they know what is expected of them on the job 

compared to those with moderate or poor feedback (73%, 25%, and 17%, respectively). (See

Figure B in the Data Appendix for more detail.)

The data also show that good feedback is associated with a better annual performance review 

experience. The 2016 MPS asked respondents if they agreed that, “My last annual performance 

review made me feel more enthusiastic about my work.” Nearly three-quarters of those with 

good feedback agreed, while slightly less than half of those with moderate feedback and 17% of 

those with poor feedback agreed. (See Figure C in the Data Appendix for more detail.) If an 

employee is given guidance along the way, then the destination (annual review) should serve as 

positive reinforcement that the employee has done what was asked. In contrast, if the employee 

is not given timely and constructive feedback, the employee may feel frustrated about expending

so much effort while being denied the necessary guidance to direct the effort more effectively.12

Timeliness and Constructiveness

Timely Feedback. In the private sector, many companies are either abandoning the annual 

appraisal or limiting its importance in favor of continuous feedback.13 In the civil service, both 

statute and regulations require the use of an appraisal system that provides annual summary levels 

of performance. But, they do not mandate that agencies rely on the annual cycle to provide 

communication. Rather, the regulations instruct that there will be “one or more progress reviews 

during each appraisal period.”14 While agencies are free to perform this function in whatever 

manner their (OPM-approved) systems require, the MPS data show that – for good performance 

management – timely feedback may be an excellent way to accomplish this communication. 

Data from our 2010 MPS show that employees who receive feedback more frequently are more 

likely to find that feedback helpful. For example, of those who received weekly feedback, 57%

said feedback was very helpful, while of those who received feedback two or fewer times per 

year, less than 15% said that feedback was very helpful. To make feedback helpful, supervisors 

can – and should – discuss performance with employees beyond formal appraisal meetings. 

 11 Percentage of those with the highest possible rating in an appraisal system with multiple levels of success. 

12 See also Rose Mueller-Hanson and Elaine Pulakos, Transforming Performance Management to Drive Performance: An Evidence-based 

Roadmap (2018), at 6 (explaining that employees can become “resentful” if negative feedback was not shared with them prior to the formal 

performance review). 

13 See, e.g., Jeff Kauflin, “Hate Performance Reviews? Good News: They're Getting Shorter and Simpler,” Forbes (Mar. 9, 2017) available 

at https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffkauflin/2017/03/09/hate-performance-reviews-good-news-theyre-getting-shorter-and-simpler/#2e1d3506384e

(explaining that instead of relying on annual reviews, “companies are adopting shorter, more continuous feedback practices and it’s having a positive 

impact on their business”); Patrick May, “Companies Reimagining the Annual Performance Review,” Detroit News (Sep. 13, 2015) available at

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/personal-finance/2015/09/13/companies-re-imagining-annual-performance-review/72232702/

(explaining that companies are abandoning annual performance reviews in favor of ongoing feedback); Dana Wilkie, “Is the Annual Performance 

Review Dead,” Society for Human Resource Management (Aug. 19, 2015) available at https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employeerelations/pages/performance-reviews-are-dead.aspx (explaining that “Progressive HR leaders are realizing that they need continuous, real-time 

feedback”). Cf. Google, “Google’s Manager Feedback Study, re: Work, available at https://rework.withgoogle.com/guides/managers-givefeedback-to-managers/steps/try-googles-manager-feedback-survey (on the importance of providing “actionable feedback on a regular basis”).

14 5 U.S.C. § 4314(a); 5 C.F.R. § 430.206 (“The appraisal period generally shall be 12 months so that employees are provided a rating of 

record on an annual basis.”).

Survey respondents 

with stronger 

feedback were more 

likely to report 

receiving the 

highest possible 

performance 

appraisal rating 

from their 

supervisors.
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 4

Constructive Feedback. Constructiveness also plays an important role in the value of feedback. 

The data from our 2010 MPS show that if feedback is timely but not constructive, only 41% will 

report feeling inspired to do their best work, while if it is constructive but not timely, then 58%

will feel inspired. Among those who agreed that the feedback was both constructive and timely, 

88% felt inspired to do their best work. One thing that can help make feedback more constructive 

is the tone of that feedback. Research shows that “discouraging feedback” can have “a strong 

negative effect on subsequent performance.” Rather than focus on past mistakes, feedback 

should be forward-focused on how the employee can have the ability to do better in the future.15

Autonomy

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

accomplish their work. Research shows that, generally, the more freedom employees have to 

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

work. As we explained in our 2012 report on motivation, “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.”16 The report recommended increasing 

employee autonomy to the extent permitted by mission requirements and employees’ capabilities. 

Autonomy’s Relationship to Performance Behaviors

As with feedback, autonomy had a strong relationship to the 15-item PBC, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Strength of Autonomy and Performance Behavior Composite Results

Note: Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.

 15 Elaine Y. Chou, et al., “The Goldilocks Contract: The Synergistic Benefits of Combining Structure and Autonomy for Persistence, 

Creativity, and Cooperation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2017), Vol. 113, No. 3, 393, 394. There is even evidence that different 

parts of the brain are involved in responding to different styles of feedback. Fuhong Li, et al., “Electrophysiological Response to the Informative 

Value of Feedback Revealed in a Segmented Wisconsin Card Sorting Test,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, Art. 57 (Feb. 5, 2018), at 2. See U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Performance Is More than an Appraisal, “Feedback Should Focus on the Future, not the Past” (Dec. 2015) at 5, 

available at www.mspb.gov/studies/noteworthyarchive.htm. 

16 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Rewards

(2012), at 9, ii, available at www.mspb.gov/studies. Studies also have shown other positive benefits from autonomy, including increased job 

satisfaction, increased productivity, reductions in stress levels, better coronary health, and lower quit rates. Quartz, “The Key to Happiness at Work 

Isn’t Money–It’s Autonomy,” available at https://qz.com/676144/why-its-your-call-is-the-best-thing-you-can-say-to-keep-employees-happy/.

The more freedom 

employees have to 

make decisions and 

to direct the 

activities of their 

work, the greater 

their motivation to 

perform that work.

55%

24%

15%

35%

39%

35%

10%

37%

49%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Stronger Autonomy Moderate Autonomy Weaker Autonomy

Weaker

PBC

Moderate

PBC

Stronger

PBC
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 5

The performance behavior with one of the strongest relationships to autonomy was trying creative 

or innovative things. As shown in Figure 3, respondents with stronger autonomy were far more 

likely to state that they try creative/innovative things in their work to a great extent compared to 

those with moderate or weaker autonomy.

Figure 3: Autonomy and Extent to Which Respondent Would Try Creative/Innovative Things

Note: Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.

For some positions with very rigid procedures or standardized tasks, this lack of creativity may be 

acceptable or even desirable. However, for agencies that would prefer innovative ideas, it seems 

that a lack of autonomy could be costly.

Our 2010 MPS asked respondents if they agreed that their jobs gave them the freedom to make 

decisions regarding how they accomplished their work. Of those who agreed, 81% also agreed 

with the statement, “I feel highly motivated in my work.” Of those who disagreed that they had 

this autonomy, only 37% felt highly motivated. The 2016 data show a similar outcome when 

employees were asked about engagement. Of those with a stronger autonomy composite result, 

71% strongly agreed that they felt engaged in their jobs, compared with 31% of those with 

moderate and 12% of those with weaker autonomy. (See Figure D in the Data Appendix for 

further details.) 

Autonomy’s Relationship to Performance Appraisals

Given autonomy’s relationship with performance behaviors, it is not surprising that stronger 

autonomy was associated with a higher appraisal rating compared to moderate or weaker 

autonomy (62%, 50%, and 37%, respectively).17 

Relationship between Autonomy and Feedback

Along with autonomy comes the expectation that employees will apply that autonomy correctly. 

Among other things, this requires that they be given the information necessary to direct their 

 17 Autonomy can often be a function of supervisory status and supervisory status often has a relationship to the appraisal rating. However, 

this pattern of stronger autonomy having a relationship to the appraisal level existed separately in both the supervisory (66%, 51%, and 45%) and 

non-supervisory (61%, 49%, and 35%) respondent groups. 

46%

18% 13%

42%

53%

37%

10%

25%

36%

1% 4%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Stronger Autonomy Moderate Autonomy Weaker Autonomy

Not at All

Small

Extent

Moderate

Extent

Great

Extent

Respondents with 

stronger autonomy 

were far more likely 

to state that they try 

creative/innovative 

things in their work 

to a great extent 

compared to those 

with moderate or 

weaker autonomy.
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 6

efforts.18 Even when employee autonomy is limited, feedback may – to varying degrees – still 

help improve performance behaviors. Figure 2 showed that autonomy, in general, is associated 

with stronger PBC results. But, our data also show that autonomy is not acting alone. For

example, within the stronger autonomy group, those with stronger feedback were more likely to 

be in the stronger PBC group than those with moderate or weaker feedback (68%, 42%, and 42%, 

respectively.) Thus, while Figure 1 shows the potential benefit of feedback and Figure 2 shows 

the potential benefit of autonomy, the two working together produce an even more beneficial 

result. (See Figure E in the Data Appendix for more details.)

One way in which feedback fosters positive outcomes is by providing structure to the autonomy. 

Feedback is a way to tell employees that they have ownership. Too little feedback, and an

employee may feel frustrated by the lack of direction. Too much, and an employee may feel like 

an automaton (a mechanical device mindlessly following orders).19 When feedback is seen as 

“informational” it can be empowering, while “controlling” feedback is more likely to be 

inhibiting or restraining.20 An employee who believes that autonomy is being unreasonably 

withheld may want to withhold his or her best efforts as a means of restoring balance.

21

We asked our 2016 MPS respondents whether it was important to “closely direct employee’s 

work so they do not make bad decisions,” and less than 20% agreed. We also asked if it was 

“important to let employees choose how to do their work, even if they sometimes make bad 

decisions,” and over 50% agreed. Supervisors were even more inclined than non-supervisors to 

state that this ability to choose was important, even if it resulted in mistakes (62% of supervisors 

vs. 50% of non-supervisors). So, both supervisors and employees appreciate – in the abstract –

the importance of autonomy. But, it is when individual supervisors make these decisions to grant 

or withhold autonomy that theory becomes practice. And supervisors may not be thinking of the 

larger questions of what it means for employees to have this autonomy when making their day-today choices.22 One of purpose of this research brief is to show why they should.

Meaningfulness

Work is meaningful when it has a significance, purpose, or value that makes a difference. It has 

been said that, “talented people demand meaningful work[.]”23 While there is a perception that 

millennials, in particular, want meaningful work, the reality is that this is a basic desire regardless 

 18 Barbara Stiglbauer and Carrie Kovacs, “The More, the Better? Curvilinear Effects of Job Autonomy on Well-Being from Vitamin Model 

and PE-Fit Theory,” Perspectives Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (Dec. 28, 2017), at 2. 

19 Elaine Y. Chou, et al., “The Goldilocks Contract: The Synergistic Benefits of Combining Structure and Autonomy for Persistence, 

Creativity, and Cooperation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2017), Vol. 113, No. 3, 393, 394. 

20 Jing Zhou, “Feedback Valence, Feedback Style, Task Autonomy, and Achievement Orientation: Interactive Effects on Creative 

Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology (1998), Vol. 83, No. 2, at 261, 262-63. 

21 See Benjamin D. Rosenberg and Jason T. Siegel, “A 50-Year Review of Psychological Reactance Theory,” Motivation Science (Dec. 21, 

2017) (discussing five decades of research into how people resist when others seek to control their behavior); Christina Steindl, et al., 

“Understanding Psychological Reactance: New Developments and Findings,” Zeitschrift für Psychologie (2015), Vol. 223(4), 205 (explaining that 

people may want to exhibit the prohibited behavior or not follow the request for the desired behavior).

22 See, e.g., “Is Your Boss Too Controlling? Many Employees Clash With Micromanagers,” National Public Radio, available at

https://www.npr.org/2017/07/17/537750774/is-your-boss-too-controlling-many-employees-clash-with-micromanagers (explaining how 

micromanagement “can kill motivation, employee creativity and job satisfaction”); Alexander Huls, “5 Ways Micromanaging Will Make Your 

Employees Hate You,” The Hartford, available at https://sba.thehartford.com/managing-employees/5-ways-micromanaging-will-make-youremployees-hate-you/ (explaining why “micromanagement is mismanagement”).

23 Rabindra Kumar Pradhan, et al., “Purpose, Passion, and Performance at the Workplace: Exploring the Nature, Structure, and 

Relationship,” The Psychologist-Manager Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4 (2017), at 239.

Feedback is a way 

to tell employees 

that they have 

ownership.
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 7

of age.24 The 2016 MPS asked employees to identify from a list of 10 items which was the most 

important factor for them to feel engaged in a job. In every age group on our survey, “supporting 

a particular purpose, mission, or calling” was selected more often than any other single factor. 

Overall, nearly a third of respondents chose that option over one of the nine other items. (See

Figure F in the Data Appendix for the complete list and percentage of respondents who chose 

each option.) This does not mean that other factors are unimportant, only that, in the eyes of the 

respondents, they were not as important as having meaningful work. This is consistent with our 

earlier research on public service motivation. For example, on the 2010 MPS, 90% of 

respondents reported agreement that public service was important to them. 

Meaningfulness’s Relationship to Performance Behaviors

Given that meaningfulness is important to employees’ personal priorities, it is not surprising that 

it also has a relationship to employees’ performance behaviors. As shown in Figure 4, 

meaningfulness, like feedback and autonomy, is associated with stronger performance behaviors.

Figure 4: Strength of Meaningfulness and Performance Behavior Composite Results

Meaningfulness’s Relationship to Performance Appraisals

As with feedback and autonomy, stronger meaningfulness also was associated with a higher 

appraisal rating compared to moderate or weaker meaningfulness (57%, 48%, and 39%, 

respectively).25

Relationship between Meaningfulness and Feedback

The 2016 MPS data also indicate an interaction between meaningfulness and feedback, just as 

there was with autonomy and feedback. Within the stronger meaningfulness group, those with 

stronger feedback were more likely to be in the stronger PBC group than those with moderate or 

weaker feedback (68%, 41%, and 37%, respectively.) Thus, while Figure 1 shows the potential 

 24 Lauren Vesty, “Millennials want purpose over paychecks. So why can't we find it at work?” The Guardian (Sep. 14, 2016) available at

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/sep/14/millennials-work-purpose-linkedin-survey. 

25 See the Methodology Appendix for the items that comprise the meaningfulness composite.

Meaningfulness, 

like feedback and 

autonomy, is 

associated with 

stronger 

performance 

behaviors.

51%

23%

10%

36%

39%

32%

13%

38%

58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Stronger

Meaningfulness

Moderate

Meaningfulness

Weaker

Meaningfulness

Weaker

PBC

Moderate

PBC

Stronger

PBC
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 8

benefit of feedback and Figure 4 shows the potential benefit of meaningfulness, the two working 

together generally tend to produce an even more beneficial result for performance behaviors. 

(See Figure G in the Data Appendix for more details.)

It is not surprising that people who are attracted to public service or meaningful work would seek 

out employment in the civil service. But, given these results, it is important for supervisors to 

emphasize the meaningfulness of the work to enhance employee performance. (Employees who 

receive services from other work units may also find it beneficial to help their providers 

understand the beneficial effects of the services being received.) In the private sector, one 

researcher found that meaningfulness was often “a thoughtful, retrospective act.”26 In other 

words, meaning is not just found by the individual when doing the work, but also when thinking 

about work that has been or will be done. 

Feedback can be an opportunity to help employees to find the meaning in the work. “Moments of 

profound meaningfulness arose when [there was a] sense of a job well done, one recognized and 

appreciated by others.”27 It would be difficult for management to make work meaningful if 

meaning was not inherent in the work. But, supervisors “can encourage people to see their work 

as meaningful by demonstrating how jobs fit with the organization’s broader purpose or serve a 

wider, societal benefit.”28 Managers can track and communicate the effects of the work being 

performed to show employees that their work matters. Researchers who conducted a series of 

135 interviews found that “[f]eeling unrecognized, unacknowledged, and unappreciated by line or 

senior managers” can make work feel pointless.29 This communication of meaningfulness may 

be especially important for jobs where tasks seem tedious. 

By using feedback, supervisors may be able to enhance how that meaningfulness relates to 

employee performance. Data from the 2010 MPS show that for employees who received poor 

feedback, yet agreed that “meaningful public service” was important to them, 56% agreed that 

they were “prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good of the agency.” For those in the 

moderate feedback group, 57% agreed they would make such sacrifices. But, for those who 

received good feedback, 71% agreed they were prepared to make enormous sacrifices.

Federal agencies have a substantial advantage over many other employers because Federal 

agencies have meaningful missions to attract employees who care about those missions. As 

expressed in the preamble to the Constitution, the purpose of the Government includes 

establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, and 

promoting the general welfare. Communications from supervisors can help employees see how 

they serve that meaning. Conversely, poor managers can create the impression that the work 

being performed is meaningless to that larger, more important agency mission. It is not enough 

that the work has meaning in some abstract way as understood by the designers of the workforce 

planning documents. Rather, employees need to feel that the work has meaning to perform their 

best. As explained above, supervisors and managers can help make this happen. 

 26 Catherine Bailey and Adrian Madden, “What Makes Work Meaningful – or Meaningless,” MIT Sloan Management Review (Summer 

2016) available at https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/what-makes-work-meaningful-or-meaningless/. 

27 Id. 

28 Id. 

29 Id. 

It is important for 

supervisors to 

emphasize the 

meaningfulness of 

the work to enhance 

employee 

performance.
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 9

Conclusion

Feedback, autonomy, and meaningful work can all play a role in employee performance 

behaviors. But, as shown in the discussion of our MPS data, these factors are most powerful and 

beneficial in combination. By providing feedback that is timely and constructive, offering the 

right degree of autonomy, and helping employees to see the meaning in their work, supervisors 

and managers can increase the potential that employees will engage in desirable performance 

behaviors. This is likely why feedback, autonomy, and meaningful work also are all associated 

with higher performance appraisal ratings. 
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 10

Methodology Appendix

Survey Methodology

In July-September 2016, MSPB administered the Merit Principles Survey (MPS). MSPB has 

conducted the MPS periodically for more than 35 years. The MPS contains some questions that

are asked in multiple administrations to track perceptions and some questions that are unique to a

single survey administration. In 2016, to reduce the demands on survey respondents, the MPS 

was divided into three paths so that all respondents would only be asked a fraction of the total 

number of questions. The data discussed in this report comes from “Path 2” of that survey. 

Overall, 37,397 civilian employees were invited to respond to Path 2 and 14,473 responded, for a 

response rate of 38.7%. While the margin of error can vary by question, the margin of error on 

Path 2, with a 95% confidence interval, ranges from 0.50% to 4.40%.30 

For information on the 2010 MPS methodology, please see our report, Federal Employee 

Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Rewards (2012), Appendix E, 

available at www.mspb.gov/studies. 

Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness Composite Measures

To measure feedback, autonomy, and meaningfulness, MSPB used factor analysis to develop

composites from a set of survey items related to each dimension. The survey items each had five 

response options (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and strongly 

disagree). The measure was the sum of the item responses, with “strongly agree” assigned a 

value of 5 and “strongly disagree” assigned a value of 1. We then assigned each employee to one

of three groups (stronger, moderate, and weaker) of approximately equal size based on the 

measure responses. The items and groupings are summarized in the table below.

Dimensions Items Groups

Feedback

(1) “My supervisor provides timely feedback

on my job performance.”

(2) “My supervisor provides constructive

feedback on my job performance.”

Stronger: 9-10 

Moderate: 7-8 

Weaker: 2-6 

Autonomy 

(1) “I like the amount of autonomy and

decision making in my work.”

(2) “I can apply my insights and ideas

without holding back.”

(3) “I am empowered to do my work the way

I see best.”

Stronger: 13-15 

Moderate: 11-12 

Weaker: 3-10 

Meaningfulness

(1) “My work supports a purpose, cause, or

mission that is important to me.”

(2) “The work I do is important.”

(3) My work gives me a good opportunity to

make a meaningful difference or impact.”

Stronger: 14-15 

Moderate: 12-13 

Weaker: 3-11 

30 For more on the methodology for the 2016 MPS, please visit MSPB’s Freedom of Information Act electronic reading room (e-FOIA), at 

www.mspb.gov. 
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 11

Performance Behavior Composite (PBC) Measure

MSPB used factor analysis to develop the PBC. The survey items each had four response options

(to a great extent, moderate extent, small extent, or not at all). The measure was the sum of the

item responses, with “great extent” assigned a value of 4 and “not at all” assigned a value of 1.

We then assigned each employee to one of three groups (stronger, moderate, and weaker) of 

approximately equal size based on the measure responses. Values of 56-60 were placed in the 

stronger PBC group, values of 47-55 were placed in the moderate PBC group, and values of 

15-46 were placed in the weaker PBC group.

The PBC asked: To what extent do you do the following things in your job? 

1. Try creative or innovative things in my work.

2. Spread excitement about work to others.

3. Try to learn ways to do my work better.

4. Suggest ideas for new or different ways of doing work.

5. Look for potential problems, obstacles, or risks related to work.

6. Express my concerns about work matters.

7. Look for ways that I can help others with their work.

8. Take the initiative to collaborate with others on work.

9. Look for ways to solve work problems.

10. Take charge rather than wait for direction on my work.

11. Try to develop myself toward my potential.

12. Foster work-related discussion among my colleagues.

13. Voluntarily put in extra effort toward my work.

14. Look for ways to better apply my abilities at work.

15. Try to help my colleagues see their value and importance at work.

Common Method Bias 

Common method bias refers to the risk that survey responses may result from a generally positive 

outlook by the respondents versus their views on the specific items being asked. To examine 

whether responses may have been influenced by a “generally positive” attitude toward each 

respondent’s supervisor and not toward the questions being asked, we compared data for each 

composite to the survey question asking for agreement with the statement, “Overall, I am satisfied 

with my supervisor.” The general trend of data associations remained. (For example, among 

those who were satisfied, the strength of feedback, autonomy, and meaningfulness still made a 

difference in the reported strength of the performance behaviors and reported annual performance 

appraisal level.) Thus, it is unlikely that general positivity can fully account for the distinctions 

found in the MPS data. 
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 12

Data Appendix

Figure A: Strength of feedback and expressed extent to which the respondent will “try creative 

or innovative things in my work”

Figure B: Strength of feedback and agreement with the statement “I know what is expected of me 

on the job”

Stronger Feedback Moderate Feedback Weaker Feedback

Not at All 2.0% 5.1% 11.5%

Small Extent 13.1% 25.3% 29.8%

Moderate Extent 41.6% 48.9% 39.8%

Great Extent 43.3% 20.8% 18.9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Stronger

Feedback

Moderate

Feedback

Weaker

Feedback

Strongly Disagree 0.2% 0.1% 5.4%

Disagree 0.5% 1.3% 8.7%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 2.0% 6.2% 20.3%

Agree 24.7% 67.6% 48.8%

Strongly Agree 72.6% 24.7% 16.9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 13

Figure C: Strength of feedback and agreement with the statement “My last annual performance 

review made me feel more enthusiastic about my work”

Figure D: Strength of autonomy and agreement with the statement “I feel engaged in my job”

Stronger

Feedback

Moderate

Feedback

Weaker

Feedback

Strongly Disagree 3.8% 8.1% 32.8%

Somewhat Disagree 2.7% 7.6% 16.7%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 19.4% 35.0% 33.4%

Somewhat Agree 23.1% 31.6% 11.0%

Strongly Agree 51.0% 17.7% 6.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Stronger

Feedback

Moderate

Feedback

Weaker

Feedback

Strongly Disagree 0.2% 0.3% 5.7%

Somewhat Disagree 0.6% 1.7% 12.2%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 1.9% 7.6% 28.7%

Somewhat Agree 26.0% 58.9% 41.3%

Strongly Agree 71.2% 31.4% 12.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 14

Figure E: Relationship between autonomy, feedback, and performance behaviors

Stronger 

PBC

Moderate 

PBC

Weaker 

PBC

Stronger 

Autonomy

Stronger 

Feedback 67.6% 26.6% 5.8%

Moderate 

Feedback 41.8% 41.9% 16.3%

Weaker 

Feedback 41.1% 45.6% 13.3%

Moderate 

Autonomy

Stronger 

Feedback 35.3% 44.8% 20.0%

Moderate 

Feedback 22.2% 38.4% 39.5%

Weaker 

Feedback 22.2% 37.1% 40.8%

Weaker 

Autonomy

Stronger 

Feedback 24.0% 41.5% 34.5%

Moderate 

Feedback 11.7% 36.9% 51.4%

Weaker 

Feedback 15.9% 33.3% 50.8%

The MPS asks questions of a comparatively small number of people in order to identify what the likely views 

would have been had we posed the same questions to the entire (much larger) population from which the sample 

was drawn. In order to generalize survey results to a larger population, it is important that each row of data 

have responses from a sufficient number of individuals. All groups shown had an unweighted population of 

688 or more respondents, except for weaker autonomy with stronger feedback, which had an unweighted 

population of 315. This provides an adequate confidence interval to demonstrate the overall pattern. 
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 15

Figure F: Respondents’ view of the most important factor to feel engaged

Note: Total does not equal 100% due to rounding..
The Roles of Feedback, Autonomy, and Meaningfulness in Employee Performance Behaviors

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 16

Figure G: Relationship between meaningfulness, feedback, and performance behaviors

Stronger 

PBC

Moderate 

PBC

Weaker 

PBC

Stronger 

Meaningfulness

Stronger 

Feedback 67.8% 26.9% 5.3%

Moderate 

Feedback 40.6% 42.2% 17.2%

Weaker 

Feedback 37.1% 44.9% 18.0%

Moderate 

Meaningfulness

Stronger 

Feedback 33.3% 45.8% 20.9%

Moderate 

Feedback 20.8% 39.4% 39.8%

Weaker 

Feedback 21.0% 35.0% 44.0%

Weaker 

Meaningfulness

Stronger 

Feedback 21.9% 37.6% 40.5%

Moderate 

Feedback 7.6% 32.3% 60.1%

Weaker 

Feedback 9.8% 31.1% 59.1%

All rows in this chart had an unweighted population of 753 or more respondents, except for weaker 

meaningfulness with stronger feedback, which had an unweighted population of 271.