2013

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results

Employees Influencing Change

Governmentwide Management Report

United States Office of 

Personnel Management
A Message from the Director 

Since 2002, OPM has called on Federal employees to provide their candid opinions on all aspects of 

their Federal employment – their supervisors, their work experience, their agency and their senior 

leaders. This year, 376,577 employees provided their input to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

(FEVS) to influence change at their agencies.

The 2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results present two very clear conclusions. 

First, the Federal workforce remains resilient in the face of historic challenges. Over 90 percent continue to 

be willing to put in extra effort, are constantly looking for ways to do their job better, and feel their work is 

important. Their levels of engagement are generally holding steady despite declining satisfaction. 

Second, despite the tremendous strengths and dedication shown by Federal employees, the 2013 responses 

demonstrate a significant drop in employee satisfaction and continue last year’s declines across the 

majority of questions, which are cause for concern. In addition to continued decreases in satisfaction with 

pay, one of the biggest drops this year was whether employees had sufficient resources needed to get their 

jobs done. This drop contributed to fewer employees recommending their organizations as good places to 

work. Any employer seeing this meaningful level of decline would be very concerned. 

Factors such as an unprecedented 3-year pay freeze, automatic reductions from sequester that included 

furloughs for hundreds of thousands of employees, and reductions in training and other areas are 

clearly taking their toll on the Federal workforce – and this survey was administered prior to the 

recent Government shutdown. The survey results serve as an important warning about the long-term 

consequences of the sequestration and budget uncertainty. Without a more predictable and responsible 

budget situation, we risk losing our most talented employees, as well as hurting our ability to recruit top 

talent for the future.

Finally, in addition to providing information on broad trends, the FEVS is also an important management 

tool that allows leaders and managers to receive feedback from their employees and to take actions to 

increase satisfaction and engagement with the ultimate goal of improving services to the American public. 

This year, agencies will receive even more granular survey results at manager levels that will allow them to 

identify challenges and to take specific actions. 

Together, Federal employees at all levels face challenges, uncertainties, and changes. Nonetheless, we 

strongly believe that our agencies are good places to work and that our employees will continue to be 

dedicated to doing their work, serving the public in the best and most effective way.

I thank all the employees who took the time to make their voices heard and their opinions known. 

In doing so, they have expressed an ongoing belief in the future of a dedicated and effective Federal 

workforce.

Katherine Archuleta

Director
Table of Contents 

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

Results at a Glance.....................................................................................................................................................2

Who Responded?.......................................................................................................................................................3

Indices .......................................................................................................................................................................5

Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework Index (HCAAF) ........................................................5

Employee Engagement Index...............................................................................................................................7

Global Satisfaction Index .....................................................................................................................................9

Leveraging Results-Oriented Performance Culture..................................................................................................11

Generations in the Workforce .................................................................................................................................13

Supporting Diversity................................................................................................................................................17

Veterans............................................................................................................................................................18

LGBT .................................................................................................................................................................20

People with Disabilities.....................................................................................................................................22

Employees Influencing Change ...............................................................................................................................24

Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................................26

Appendices

Appendix A: 2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Methods......................................................................... 27

Appendix B: Trend Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix C: Governmentwide Respondent Characteristics ................................................................................. 33

Appendix D: Agency Response Rates................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix E: HCAAF Index Trends ........................................................................................................................ 40

Appendix F: Employee Engagement Index Trends................................................................................................ 48

Appendix G: Global Satisfaction Index Trends ..................................................................................................... 56
Tables

Response Rate for Key Demographics ....................................................................................................................4

Results-Oriented Performance Culture Index Items ............................................................................................. 11

Generation Profiles.............................................................................................................................................. 13

Generation Comparisons..................................................................................................................................... 14

Top 2013 Items with Greatest Gap by Generation – Percent Positive .................................................................. 16

Comparison of Survey Results for Veterans & Non-Veterans – Percent Positive................................................... 19

Comparison of Survey Results for LGBT & Heterosexual/Straight – Percent Positive............................................ 21

Comparison of Survey Results for People With & Without Disabilities – Percent Positive..................................... 23

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ..................................................................................... 24

Department of Agriculture (USDA) ...................................................................................................................... 25

Figures

Governmentwide Response Rate by Year ...............................................................................................................3

Top 2013 Department/Large Agency Response Rates.............................................................................................3

Top 2013 Small/Independent Agency Response Rates............................................................................................3

HCAAF Indices – Percent Positive...........................................................................................................................5

Top 2013 Department/Large Agency HCAAF Scores................................................................................................6

Top 2013 Small/Independent Agency HCAAF Scores...............................................................................................6

Employee Engagement Index – Percent Positive.....................................................................................................7

Top 2013 Department/Large Agency Employee Engagement Scores – Percent Positive ..........................................8

Top 2013 Small/Independent Agency Employee Engagement Scores – Percent Positive .........................................8

Global Satisfaction Index – Percent Positive...........................................................................................................9

Top 2013 Department/Large Agency Global Satisfaction Scores – Percent Positive ............................................. 10

Top 2013 Small/Independent Agency Global Satisfaction Scores – Percent Positive ............................................ 10

Satisfaction Group by Generation ....................................................................................................................... 15

Demographic Profile for Veterans in the 2013 FEVS ............................................................................................ 18

Non-Defense Agencies With the Highest Percentage of Veteran Employees ........................................................ 19

Demographic Profile for LGBT ............................................................................................................................. 20

Demographic Profile for People with Disabilities................................................................................................. 22
Introduction 1

Introduction

The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) is a tool that allows employees to share their perceptions in many 

critical areas including their work experiences, their agency, and leadership. The results of the survey provide agency 

leaders insight into areas where improvement has been made, as well as areas where improvements are needed. 

Agencies are encouraged to share innovative ideas and practices with one another in order to meet the challenges 

faced by the Federal Government. 

Many respondents voiced concerns that the 2013 FEVS was administered during a less than ideal time. The pay freeze 

was extended, employee reductions and furloughs were being implemented in many agencies, medical insurance 

premiums, payroll tax, and employee pension contributions all increased while it appears that the public opinion of 

the Federal Government is on the decline. 

The 2013 FEVS documents the Federal workforce’s resilience and strong commitment to government – employees are 

willing to put in extra effort to get the job done, find ways to do their job better, and emphasize the importance and 

quality of their work. However, while still strong, governmentwide results have markedly decreased from 2012. The 

challenges faced in past years continue to be challenges: insufficient resources, recognition of performance differences, 

dealing with poor performers, the opportunity to get a better job in the organization, and pay satisfaction.

In a time when agencies have to do more with less, innovation and creativity are critical. Knowledge is a fundamental 

resource that agencies can share. Sharing successes, as well as lessons learned, with other similar agencies can help 

develop new programs and policies designed to target issues and increase employee satisfaction.

Change cannot happen overnight, which is why it is extremely important to continue capturing employees’ views. 

Even less than optimal results tell a story, helping us to understand the past and formulate a plan and direction for 

the future. 

This report will focus on multiple perspectives describing the diverse views of the Federal workforce. The top 

performing and most improved agencies will be identified throughout various sections of this report. 

This and other reports are available on OPM’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey website at: www.FedView.opm.gov. 

Detailed information on the 2013 FEVS Methods and item-by-item trend results can be found in Appendix A and B.

The FEVS was first 

administered in 2002 

as the Federal Human 

Capital Survey.

Did You Know? 
Results at a Glance 

Strengths & Challenges*

29 items identified as strengths

(>65% positive)

Most positively rated item: When needed 

I am willing to put in the extra effort

to get a job done. (96% positive)

8 items identified as challenges 

(>35% negative)

Most negatively rated item: Pay raises depend 

on how well employees perform their jobs. 

(55% negative)

Increases & Decreases*

1 Year Trend (2012 to 2013)

2 items increased 

from 2012

(0 items increased by 5 percentage points or more)

Greatest increase: My supervisor is committed 

to a workforce representative of all segments of 

society and My supervisor treats me with respect. 

(+1 percentage points)

53 items decreased 

from 2012

(1 item decreased by 5 percentage points or more)

Greatest decrease: Considering everything, 

how satisfied are you with your pay? 

(-5 percentage points)

2 Year Trend (2011 to 2013)

1 item increased

from 2011

(0 items increased by 5 percentage points or more)

Greatest increase: How would you rate the 

overall quality of work done by your work unit? 

(+1 percentage points)

67 items decreased 

from 2011

(20 items decreased by 5 percentage points or more)

Greatest decrease: Considering everything, 

how satisfied are you with your pay? 

(-8 percentage points)

* Work/Life Program Items (72-84) are excluded.

Index Highlights

Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF)

59% Leadership and Knowledge Management ( 1 percentage point from 2012)

51% Results Oriented Performance Culture ( 1 percentage point from 2012) 

56% Talent Management ( 3 percentage points from 2012)

64% Job Satisfaction ( 2 percentage points from 2012)

Employee Engagement

64% ( 1 percentage points from 2012) 

Global Satisfaction 

59% ( 4 percentage points from 2012)

Top Agency Performers Across the Indices

Department/Large Agencies

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Small/Independent Agencies

U.S. Trade and Development Agency

Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation

Results at a Glance 2
3

Who Responded?

Over 376,500 employees gave their feedback and made their opinions heard for a response rate of 48.2 percent. 

Survey respondents include Federal employees from over 80 agencies, both Departments/Large agencies, and Small/

Independent agencies. Respondents include full- and part-time, permanent, non-seasonal employees throughout the 

United States and worldwide. The survey provides employees of different backgrounds and across all organizational 

levels the opportunity to share their views and influence change in their agencies and the Federal Government. See 

Appendix C for the Governmentwide Respondent Characteristics.

Governmentwide and Agency Response Rates

The governmentwide response rate increased by two percentage points since 2012 (see Figure 1). Two Departments/

Large agencies remain among the top five response rates since 2012: the Office of Management and Budget and the 

National Science Foundation. Of the Small/Independent agencies that participated in the survey the Inter-American 

Foundation had the highest response rate and was the only small agency new to the top five response rates since 2012. 

See Figures 2 and 3 for the top Department/Large agency and Small/Independent agency response rates in 2013. The 

complete list of agency response rates is available in Appendix D.

Who Responded?

FIGURE 1 Governmentwide Response Rate by Year

2008

50.9%

2010

52.2%

2011

49.3%

2012

46.1%

2013

48.2%

FIGURE 2 Top 2013 Department/Large Agency Response Rates

75.1% National Science Foundation

74.0% Broadcasting Board of Governors

73.9% Office of Management and Budget

71.9% National Credit Union Administration and General Services Administration

71.4% Small Business Administration

FIGURE 3 Top 2013 Small/Independent Agency Response Rates

89.5% Inter-American Foundation

88.7% U.S. Office of Government Ethics

87.3% Postal Regulatory Commission

86.9% Overseas Private Investment Corporation

86.3% U.S. Office of Special Counsel
4

Response Rates by Key Demographics

As shown in Table 1, survey respondents vary in their rates of participation. Findings indicate that females are 

more likely to respond than males. In addition, supervisors and senior leaders respond at higher rates 

than non-supervisors. While the differences in participation rates are smaller across Federal tenure levels, 

those employees who have the shortest and longest tenure were more likely to respond to the survey than 

others. Examining participation rate across age ranges show that the older workforce respond in larger numbers 

than those in the other age ranges, particularly more so than the youngest employees. Lastly, non-minorities 

responded at greater rates than those in the minority population.

TABLE 1 Response Rate by Key Demographics 

Gender

Number 

Surveyed

Number 

Responded

Response

 Rate

Male 418,881 191,818 45.8%

Female 362,166 184,759 51.0%

Supervisory Status

SES or Equivalent 8,066 4,626 57.4%

Supervisor 104,286 56,964 54.6%

Non-Supervisor 668,695 314,987 47.1%

Federal Tenure

≤ 3 Years 55,301 27,010 48.8%

4-5 Years 110,345 51,670 46.8%

6-10 Years 155,304 72,344 46.6%

11-20 Years 174,671 83,183 47.6%

>20 Years 285,426 140,170 49.1%

Age

25 and Under 10,893 3,729 34.2%

26-29 Years 36,210 14,142 39.1%

30-39 Years 148,372 63,859 43.0%

40-49 Years 218,434 104,371 47.8%

50-59 Years 260,969 135,910 52.1%

60 and Older 106,169 54,566 51.4%

Minority Status

Minority 278,976 121,481 43.5%

Non-Minority 502,071 255,096 50.8%

Overall 781,047 376,577 48.2%

Who Responded?
5

Indices

Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF) 

The HCAAF indices were created to guide agencies in building high-performing organizations by providing 

consistent metrics for measuring progress toward HCAAF objectives. The FEVS offers one source of information 

for agencies to evaluate and measure the success in this framework. This section examines governmentwide 

and agency performance on all four indices that make up the HCAAF: Leadership & Knowledge Management, 

Results-Oriented Performance Culture, Talent Management, and Job Satisfaction.

Governmentwide HCAAF Performance 

All four HCAAF indices decreased from 2012. Talent Management had the greatest decrease, followed by Job 

Satisfaction. Figure 4 shows the 2013 governmentwide results with comparisons to 2012 on all four HCAAF 

indices. This year the Department/Large agency and Small/Independent agency with the highest scores are 

highlighted to facilitate information sharing across agencies.

FIGURE 4 HCAAF Indices – Percent Positive

Leadership & 

Knowledge Management

2013:

59%

2012: 60%

Highest Dept./Large Agency

NASA and NRC 73%

Highest Small/Ind. Agency 

U.S. Trade and Development 

Agency 81%

Leadership & Knowledge Management Index 

Indicates the extent to which employees hold their leadership in high regard, 

both overall and on specific facets of leadership. Index made up of items: 

10, 35, 36, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 61, 64, 66.

Results-Oriented 

Performance Culture 2013:

51%

2012: 52%

Highest Dept./Large Agency

NASA and FTC 64%

Highest Small/Ind. Agency 

U.S. Trade and Development 

Agency 76%

Results-Oriented Performance Culture Index 

Indicates the extent to which employees believe their organizational culture 

promotes improvement in processes, products and services, and organizational 

outcomes. Index made up of items: 12, 14, 15, 20, 22, 23, 24, 30, 32, 33, 42, 44, 65.

Talent

Management 2013:

56%

2012: 59%

Highest Dept./Large Agency

NASA 70%

Highest Small/Ind. Agency 

Federal Mediation 

and Conciliation Service 77%

Talent Management Index 

Indicates the extent to which employees think the organization has the talent 

necessary to achieve organizational goals. Index made up of items: 

1, 11, 18, 21, 29, 47, 68.

Job

Satisfaction 2013:

64%

2012: 66%

Highest Dept./Large Agency

NASA 73%

Highest Small/Ind. Agency 

Office of Navajo and Hopi 

Indian Relocation 86%

Job Satisfaction Index 

Indicates the extent to which employees are satisfied with their jobs and various 

aspects thereof. Index made up of items: 4, 5, 13, 63, 67, 69, 70.

Indices: HCAAF
Indices: HCAAF 6

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

Federal Trade 

Commission

Federal Communications 

Commission

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Federal Trade 

Commission

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Department of Commerce

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Federal Trade 

Commission

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Department of State

Talent Management

73% 64%

70% 73%

71%

62%

69% 71%

72%

61%

68% 69%

Agency HCAAF Performance 

The HCAAF allows agencies the ability to benchmark their performance over time and compare their performance 

to other agencies within each of the four indices. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was 

the top performing Department/Large agency on all four indices. NASA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 

Federal Trade Commission were the top three agencies in three of the four indices (Figure 5). See Appendix E for a 

full list of HCAAF index agency scores and trends from 2008.

The U.S. Trade and Development Agency was the top performing Small/Independent agency on two indices and 

the Surface Transportation Board scored among the top on all four indices. The top performing Small/Independent 

agencies are displayed in Figure 6. 

FIGURE 5 Top 2013 Department/Large Agency HCAAF Scores – Percent Positive

FIGURE 6 Top 2013 Small/Independent Agency HCAAF Scores – Percent Positive

Leadership & 

Knowledge Management

Results-Oriented 

Performance Culture Job Satisfaction

U.S. Trade and 

Development Agency

Surface Transportation

Board

Occupational Safety 

and Health Review 

Commission

Federal Mediation 

and Conciliation Service

U.S. Trade and 

Development Agency 

Surface Transportation 

Board

National Capital 

Planning Commission

Federal Mediation 

and Conciliation Service 

Surface Transportation 

Board

U.S. Trade and 

Development Agency

Federal Retirement 

Thrift Investment Board

Office of Navajo and 

Hopi Indian Relocation

Federal Mediation 

and Conciliation Service

Surface Transportation 

Board 

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation

Talent Management

81% 76% 77% 86%

79% 75%

76%

82%

75% 78%

72%

75%

Leadership & 

Knowledge Management

Results-Oriented 

Performance Culture Job Satisfaction

The Federal Communication 

Commission had the greatest 

increase of the Department/

Large agencies on any HCAAF 

Index (Leadership and Knowledge 

Management +6 percentage points).

Did You Know? 
Indices: Employee Engagement 7

Employee Engagement Index 

The FEVS Employee Engagement Index is an overarching model comprised of three subfactors: Leaders Lead, 

Supervisors, and Intrinsic Work Experiences (see Appendix F for the list of subfactor scores by agency). The survey 

does not directly measure employee engagement. It does, however, cover most, if not all, of the conditions likely to 

lead to employee engagement. This index provides a guide to the critical components/areas that agencies can focus 

on to create an engaged workforce. Engaged employees are passionate, energetic, and dedicated to their job and 

organization, which leads to optimum organizational performance.

Governmentwide Employee Engagement Performance

As seen in Figure 7, there were slight decreases on all three subfactors of Employee Engagement. Even with these 

decreases, Supervisors and Intrinsic Work Experiences subfactors remain strong. This year the Department/Large 

agency and Small/Independent agency with the highest scores are highlighted to facilitate information sharing 

across agencies.

FIGURE 7 Employee Engagement Index – Percent Positive

Employee 

Engagement

2013:

64 %

2012: 65%

Highest Dept./Large Agency

NASA 77%

Highest Small/Ind. Agency 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

& U.S. Trade and Development Agency 84%

Employee Engagement is comprised of:

Leaders Lead 2013: 

53%

2012: 54%

Leaders Lead

Reflects the employees’ 

perceptions of the integrity 

of leadership, as well as 

leadership behaviors such as 

communication and workforce 

motivation. It is made up of 

items 53, 54, 56, 60, and 61.

Supervisors 

2013: 

70%

2012: 71%

Supervisors 

Reflects the interpersonal 

relationship between worker 

and supervisor, including trust, 

respect, and support. It is made 

up of items 47, 48, 49, 51, 

and 52.

Intrinsic Work Experiences 

2013: 

69%

2012: 71%

Intrinsic Work

Experiences

Reflects the employees’ feelings 

of motivation and competency 

relating to their role in the 

workplace. It is made up of 

items 3, 4, 6, 11, and 12.
Indices: Employee Engagement 8

Agency Employee Engagement Performance

While 19 of the 37 Department/Large agencies’ scores decreased, 13 agencies’ scores increased from 2012. The 

Federal Communications Commission had the greatest increase (four percentage points) and the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development had the greatest decrease (five percentage points). The top performing 

Department/Large agencies are displayed in Figure 8. For a full list of Employee Engagement agency scores and 

trends from 2008 see Appendix F.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency had the highest 

Employee Engagement Index score (see Figure 9). The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation had a seven 

percentage point increase from 2012 (77% to 84%). 

FIGURE 8 Top 2013 Department/Large Agency Employee Engagement Scores – Percent Positive

FIGURE 9 Top 2013 Small/Independent Agency Employee Engagement Scores – Percent Positive

The Small agency with 

the greatest increase from 

2012 was the American Battle 

Monuments Commission 

(+10 percentage points).

Did You Know? 

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Federal Trade 

Commission

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Federal Communications 

Commission

Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation 

U.S. Trade and 

Development Agency

Surface Transportation 

Board

Office of Navajo and 

Hopi Indian Relocation

77%

84%

73%

82%

75%

83%
9

Global Satisfaction Index 

Global Satisfaction is a combination of employees’ satisfaction with their job, their pay, and their organization, plus 

their willingness to recommend their organization as a good place to work. The Global Satisfaction Index provides 

a comprehensive measure of employees’ overall work satisfaction. The components of this index provide the 

building blocks for retaining employees through inspiring a more committed workforce.

Governmentwide Global Satisfaction Performance

Overall, all four items that make up the Global Satisfaction Index have decreased by at least three percentage 

points since 2012 (see Figure 10). The item with the greatest decrease was pay satisfaction followed by employees 

recommending their organization as a good place to work. Even with these decreases, nearly two-thirds of 

employees report being satisfied with their jobs and recommend their organization as a good place to work. 

This year the Department/Large agency and Small/Independent agency with the highest scores are highlighted 

to facilitate information sharing across agencies.

FIGURE 10 Global Satisfaction Index – Percent Positive

Global 

Satisfaction

2013: 

59 %

2012: 63%

Indices: Global Satisfaction

Highest Dept./Large Agency

NASA 74%

Highest Small/Ind. Agency 

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation 88%

Global Satisfaction is comprised of:

Job Satisfaction 

2013: 

65%

2012: 68%

Job Satisfaction

Considering everything, how 

satisfied are you with your job? 

(Q. 69)

Pay Satisfaction 

2013: 

54%

2012: 59%

Pay Satisfaction

Considering everything, how 

satisfied are you with your pay? 

(Q. 70)

Organization Satisfaction 

2013: 

56%

2012: 59%

Organization 

Satisfaction

Considering everything, how 

satisfied are you with your 

organization? (Q. 71)

Recommend Organization 2013: 

63%

2012: 67%

Recommend

Organization

I recommend my organization 

as a good place to work. (Q. 40)
Indices: Global Satisfaction 10

Agency Global Satisfaction Performance

Department/Large agency scores ranged from a high of 74 percent positive at the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration to a low of 49 percent positive at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and 

the National Archives and Records. For a full list of Global Satisfaction agency scores and trends from 2008 see 

Appendix G.

Small/Independent agency scores ranged from a high of 88 percent positive at the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian 

Relocation to a low of 29 percent positive at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Figures 11 and 12 display the top Global Satisfaction scores for both Department/Large and Small/Independent agencies.

Four Department/Large agencies 

increased in Global Satisfaction: 

• Federal Communications Commission

• Broadcasting Board of Governors

• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

• Securities and Exchange Commission

Did You Know? 

FIGURE 11 Top 2013 Department/Large Agency Global Satisfaction Scores – Percent Positive

FIGURE 12 Top 2013 Small/Independent Agency Global Satisfaction Scores – Percent Positive

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Federal Communications 

Commission

Office of Navajo and 

Hopi Indian Relocation

Federal Mediation and 

Conciliation Service

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation

74%

88%

71%

81%

72%

82%
11

Leveraging Results-Oriented Performance Culture

Performance culture is one key component of organizational success. It evolves out of the policies and practices 

of the agency, the organization’s leadership at every level, and management decisions that shape the work 

environment. These elements impact every employee, every day. An effective performance culture encourages and 

motivates employees to put forth their best effort possible, while weathering changes of an uncertain environment.

This section explores the HCAAF Results-Oriented Performance Culture Index by looking at results for each item 

since 2012. Performance culture is a multi-dimensional concept. To identify specific areas for improvement the 

items that make up this index have been broadly grouped into five categories: recognition, supervision, safety, 

work connection, and performance. Table 2 below displays the year-to-year comparison.

TABLE 2 Results-Oriented Performance Culture Index Items 

Leveraging Results-Oriented Performance Culture

Recognition 2012 2013 Difference

In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way. 34 31 -3

Creativity and innovation are rewarded. 38 35 -3

How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a good job? 48 45 -3

Supervision

My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues. 77 77 0

Discussions with my supervisor/team leader about my performance are worthwhile. 62 61 -1

Safety

Physical conditions allow employees to perform their jobs well. 67 66 -1

Work Connection

The people I work with cooperate to get the job done. 73 73 0

I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities. 84 83 -1

Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect work process. 45 43 -2

Performance

My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance. 69 68 -1

In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not improve. 29 28 -1

Promotions in my work unit are based on merit. 34 32 -2

Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs. 22 19 -3
Leveraging Results-Oriented Performance Culture 12

Of the 13 items in the Results-Oriented Performance Culture Index, 11 items decreased. The recognition category 

showed the greatest decreases with all three items decreasing by three percentage points from 2012. 

What Can Federal Managers Do? 

Reversing these declining trends and making improvements in Results-Oriented Performance Culture will take 

time. Communicating to employees what they are doing well and what changes need to be made is one critical 

action that can drive effective performance management and recognition. The value of feedback is time-sensitive. 

Feedback, either positive or constructive when provided immediately to an employee has the most impact. The 

traditional mid-year and year-end reviews should hold no surprises, as these are for summarizing the day-to-day 

feedback provided, and mapping out a plan for continuous improvement. 
Generations in the Workforce 13

Generations in the Workforce

Defining Generations

As older generations extend their tenures in the workforce and younger generations enter the workforce four different 

generations are working together: Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y. The impact of 

different life experiences, historical events and where you are in your career influences values and work ethics. The 

values displayed below are not mutually exclusive but are traits that are commonly associated with particular 

generations. Understanding the core values of each generation facilitates effective communication and engagement 

within work units. This section uses governmentwide administrative data to group employees into each generation 

based on age (see Table 3).

TABLE 3 Generation Profiles*

Traditionalists Baby Boomers Generation X Generation Y

Born 1945 or Earlier 1946-1964 1965 -1980 1981 or later

Age 68 and Over 49-67 33-48 32 and under

Values Hardworking, 

Dedicated, Loyal

Driven, Collaborative

Optimistic

Seek Work/Life 

Balance, 

Independent

Ambitious, 

Multitask, 

Team-Oriented

Percent of Federal Workforce 1.7% 48.0% 37.5% 12.8%

Department/Large Agency 

with Highest Population

Broadcasting Board 

of Governors

6.8%

Railroad 

Retirement Board

62.1%

Securities and 

Exchange 

Commission

57.1%

Office of 

Management 

and Budget

25.4%

Small/Independent Agency 

with Highest Population

Nuclear Waste 

Technical Review 

Board & National 

Council on Disability

11.1%

Postal Regulatory 

Commission

97.2%

National Council 

on Disability

66.7%

Chemical Safety 

and Hazard 

Investigation Board

32.4%

Baby Boomers comprise almost half (48 percent) of the Federal population followed by Generation X which makes up 

over a third (37.5 percent). As the newest generation to enter the workforce, Generation Y is approximately 13 percent 

of the Federal population and as the oldest generation in the workforce, Traditionalists are less than two percent of the 

Federal population. 

Generation Y employees are approximately a quarter of the employees at the Office of Management and Budget, 

which is the Department/Large agency that has the highest population of this generation. The population at the Postal 

Regulatory Commission is over 97 percent of Baby Boomers. 

*Data from this table is from OPM’s Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) and can be accessed through 

www.fedscope.opm.gov.
Generations in the Workforce 14

TABLE 4 Generation Comparisons

Traditionalists Baby Boomers Generation X Generation Y Governmentwide

Recognition for Products 

and Services1 53% 46% 45% 46% 46%

Sufficient Resources2 54% 44% 42% 47% 44%

Satisfaction with Training3 58% 50% 49% 51% 50%

Telework Participation4 23% 27% 27% 25% 27%

Satisfaction with Telework5 74% 75% 76% 78% 76%

Global Satisfaction Score 67% 59% 59% 59% 59%

Employee Engagement Score 70% 64% 64% 65% 64%

Generation Comparison 

As a way to gain a better understanding of the differences and the similarities of each generation, Table 4 highlights key 

survey results for each of the four generations with governmentwide results as a comparison. 

Traditionalists had the highest Global Satisfaction score (67 percent positive) and the highest Employee Engagement 

score (70 percent positive). Traditionalists also had the highest percent positive rating for most survey items including 

recognition, sufficient resources, and satisfaction with training, while Generation X had the lowest percent positive 

rating for these items. Consistent with Generation X’s value for work/life balance and the idea that Baby Boomers may 

be caregivers for their aging parents both generations had the highest percent of employees report that they telework 

(27 percent). While Generation Y did not report the highest telework participation, they are the generation most satisfied 

(78 percent positive) with telework.

It is important for agencies to know their generational breakdown in order to create a work environment that allows each 

generation to use their skills effectively. It is also necessary for agencies to encourage the different generations to work 

and communicate with each other to improve knowledge transfer and make their agency a better place to work.

Satisfaction by Generation: What Drives Employee Satisfaction?

Satisfied and engaged employees are in high demand, as satisfied employees are more likely to enjoy the work they 

do and are more willing to put in extra effort to get the job done. With shrinking budgets and limited resources all 

during a time of uncertainty, agencies are looking for alternative approaches to help them decide where to focus 

their attention with the overall goal of increasing employee morale. 

By taking a deeper look at the Global Satisfaction Index, this section will identify the key drivers or items that 

distinguish employees with high satisfaction from those with low satisfaction. This distinction will reveal the 

satisfaction gap, which will help agencies identify areas where they can make improvements to increase satisfaction. 

1 Employees are recognized for providing high quality products and services. 

2 I have sufficient resources (for example, people, materials, budget) to get my job done. 

3 How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present job? 

4 Please select the response below that BEST describes your current teleworking situation. 

5

 How satisfied are you with the following Work/Life programs in your agency? Telework. 
Generations in the Workforce 15

First, this section looks at the difference between the generation groups. Using the Global Satisfaction Index 

two distinct groups were identified in each generation – a high satisfaction group and a low satisfaction group.* 

Figure 13 below displays the percentage of survey respondents for each generational group that fell into these two 

satisfaction groups. Traditionalists have the highest percent of employees that fall into the high satisfaction group. 

As the generations get younger the percentage of employees falling into the high satisfaction group decreases.

Next, this section will explore what drives the satisfaction gap, or the difference between the two groups, by 

calculating a gap score for each survey item. The gap score was calculated for each item by subtracting the percent 

positive scores of the high satisfaction group from the scores of the low satisfaction group. Large gaps reveal areas 

of challenge within the agency that keep employees from achieving maximum satisfaction. 

Table 5 displays the top five items with the highest gap score for each generation. When examining the satisfaction 

gap by the four generations, we find involvement in decisions that affect their work to be the biggest influence that 

differentiates those with high satisfaction from those with low satisfaction for Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, and 

Generation X. Generation Y’s greatest difference lies with being given the opportunity to improve their skills.

Identifying the greatest gap provides agencies the ability to better define areas where they should focus their 

attention toward making improvements to increase satisfaction. Overall, we find three factors that differentiate 

employees with high satisfaction from those with low satisfaction: Partnership—relationship between 

employees and their agency, Leadership—employees willingness to follow you during these uncertain times, and 

Development—investing in the potential of your employees. The five largest distinguishing survey items for the 

Federal workforce are: 

• Satisfaction with involvement in decisions that affect their work (Partnership)

• Level of respect for senior leaders (Leadership)

• Opportunity to improve their skills in organization (Development)

• Organizations leaders honesty and integrity (Leadership)

• Their talents are being used in the workplace (Partnership)

Agencies can use this information to appropriately plan an approach to decrease the satisfaction gaps within 

their workforce. Potentially, a multidimensional approach may prove most beneficial as what works best for one 

generation may not work for another.

FIGURE 13 Satisfaction Group by Generation 

Low

Satisfaction

Group 

High

Satisfaction

Group 

41%

6% 9% 10% 10%

51% 40% 40%

Traditionalists Baby Boomers Generation X Generation Y

* The satisfaction groups were determined by summing the scores for each item in the global satisfaction index 

(5=Very Satisfied, 4=Satisfied, 3=Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied, 2=Dissatisfied, 1=Very Dissatisfied), only 

respondents who answered all four items in the index were included. The high satisfaction group are respondents 

who scored 16 or higher and the low satisfaction group are respondents who scored 8 or lower. Note, respondents 

who scored between 8 and 16 were not included.
16

Traditionalists

High Sat.

Group

Low Sat.

Group Gap

How satisfied are you with your 

involvement in decisions that affect 

your work?

82% 2% 80

I have a high level of respect for my 

organization’s senior leaders. 84% 6% 79

Overall, how good a job do you feel is 

being done by the manager directly above 

your immediate supervisor/team leader?

87% 8% 79

I am given a real opportunity to improve 

my skills in my organization. 88% 8% 78

How satisfied are you with the 

information you receive from 

management on what’s going 

on in your organization?

80% 3% 77

Generations in the Workforce

Baby Boomers

High Sat.

Group

Low Sat.

Group Gap

How satisfied are you with your 

involvement in decisions that affect 

your work?

81% 5% 76

I have a high level of respect for my 

organization’s senior leaders. 81% 7% 74

My organization’s leaders maintain high 

standards of honesty and integrity. 82% 9% 73

I am given a real opportunity to improve 

my skills in my organization. 86% 13% 73

My talents are used well in the 

workplace. 86% 13% 73

Generation X

High Sat.

Group

Low Sat.

Group Gap

How satisfied are you with your 

involvement in decisions that affect 

your work?

80% 6% 74

I have a high level of respect for my 

organization’s senior leaders. 81% 8% 73

I am given a real opportunity to 

improve my skills in my organization. 86% 13% 73

My organization’s leaders maintain high 

standards of honesty and integrity. 81% 9% 72

My talents are used well in the 

workplace. 84% 13% 71

Generation Y

High Sat.

Group

Low Sat.

Group Gap

I am given a real opportunity to improve 

my skills in my organization. 88% 14% 74

I have a high level of respect for my 

organization’s senior leaders. 83% 11% 72

My work gives me a feeling of personal 

accomplishment. 90% 18% 72

My organization’s leaders maintain high 

standards of honesty and integrity. 84% 12% 72

My agency is successful at 

accomplishing its mission. 95% 25% 70

TABLE 5 Top 2013 Items with Greatest Gap by Generation – Percent Positive 
17

Supporting Diversity

The actions of the Federal Government—promoting an inclusive workforce offering a multitude of unique employee 

experiences, perspectives and knowledge—demonstrates that it values, emphasizes, and supports diversity in the 

broadest sense. Historically, diversity was viewed through a narrow lens focusing primarily on physical characteristics 

such as gender, race and age; recently the lens has expanded focusing on other types of diversity in addition to traditional 

demographic characteristics. Beginning in 2012 and carried forward into 2013, three new demographic items were 

added to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS); Veteran Status, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender 

(LGBT) Community, and People with Disabilities.

This section provides an overview of findings for and comparisons within each of the three diversity groups (veterans 

and non-veterans; LGBT and heterosexual/straight; people with disabilities and people without disabilities). Key items 

with the largest differences are highlighted throughout. These items are displayed with the intention of bringing attention 

to potential areas of concern and to encourage agencies to explore these findings at the agency level. 

Why Is It Important to Examine Diversity?

Hiring initiatives, executive orders, court rulings and the press have recently put veterans, the LGBT community, 

and people with disabilities in the spotlight. As a result there is an increasing need to better understand these three 

diversity groups. In order to meet this challenge it is critical that the Federal Government as well as the FEVS 

continuously evolve. Figure 14 displays an overview of these groups in the Federal workforce, followed by more 

in-depth findings for each group. 

Supporting Diversity: Veterans

2.7 %

LGBT in 

2013 FEVS

27.6 %

Veterans in 

2013 FEVS

13.0 %

People with 

Disabilities in 

2013 FEVS

FIGURE 14 Snapshot of Diversity in the Federal Workforce
Supporting Diversity: Veterans 18

The percentage of veterans in the 

Federal workforce is very similar in 

both the 2013 FEVS results (28%) 

and findings from Feds Hire Vets7

(27%).

Did You Know? 

FIGURE 15 Demographic Profile for Veterans in the 2013 FEVS

27.6 %

Veterans in 

2013 FEVS

Federal Tenure Age

Gender Supervisory Status

< 1 Year 2%

1 - 3 Years 15%

4 - 5 Years 14%

6 - 10 Years 22%

11 - 14 Years 14%

15 - 20 Years 11%

> 20 Years 24%

25 and Under 1%

26 - 29 Years 1%

30 - 39 Years 12%

40 - 49 Years 29%

50 - 59 Years 39%

60 or Older 18%

Male 81%

Female 19%

Non-Supervisor 64%

Team Leader 15%

Supervisor 13%

Manager 7%

Executive 1%

7

More detailed information on Feds Hire Vets can be found: 

http://www.fedshirevets.gov

Veterans 

In support of the veteran hiring and retention initiatives, such as Executive Order 135186 signed in 2010, the FEVS 

started collecting data on veterans status. Understanding the unique characteristics of the veteran population is critical 

in developing and maintaining effective policies and programs that meet the needs of veterans. With this ongoing focus 

on veterans in the workforce and the encouragement of agencies across government to ensure fair treatment and equal 

opportunity, this section offers a snapshot of who these veterans are, where they work, and how their opinions may differ 

from non-veterans in the workforce.

As shown in Figure 15, the majority of veterans are between 40-50 years old, male, and non-supervisors. Veterans’ 

Federal tenure is more evenly distributed, with the highest percentage reporting tenure of more than 20 years.

6 More detailed information on Executive Order 13518 can be found: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-veteransemployment-initiative 
Supporting Diversity: Veterans 19

TABLE 6 Comparison of Survey Results for Veterans & Non-Veterans – Percent Positive

Several of the items with the greatest differences in percent positive results between veterans and non-veterans 

are listed in Table 6. Some of the greatest differences were found in items related to the fairness of organizational 

practices and relationships with supervisors, with veterans’ results consistently lower than non-veterans’ results. 

Lower results surrounding a specific theme suggest a potential area for improvement, and in this case the results 

show that veterans’ perceptions of fairness in organizational practices and their relationships with supervisors are 

areas that could be improved. When compared to non-veterans, 53 items were lower for the veterans group. 

Veterans Non-Veterans Difference

Promotions in my work unit are based on merit. 29% 34% -5%

In the last six months, my supervisor/team leader has talked with me 

about my performance. 74% 79% -5%

Prohibited Personnel Practices are not tolerated. 63% 67% -4%

Policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace. 53% 57% -4%

Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization. 59% 63% -4%

Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee development. 62% 65% -3%

29 percent of veterans reported 

having a disability, as opposed to 

only 7 percent of non-veterans.

Did You Know? 

*Small agencies that have 50 or more eligible 

employees had the option to include the demographic 

section on the survey. 

FIGURE 16 Non-Defense Agencies with the Highest Percentage of Veteran Employees*

39% 

53% 

38% 

36% 

26% 

25% 

International Boundary 

and Water Commission

Department of Defense

Department of Transportation

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs

Department of Energy 

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Labor 

Office of Personnel Management

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Figure 16 displays the top five non-defense agencies with the highest proportion of veteran employees. These five 

agencies vary greatest in size and mission. The Department of Defense is presented for comparison.
Supporting Diversity: LGBT 20

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender 

In June of 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act 

unconstitutional8; thereby extending more than 1,100 Federal benefits9 and rights to legally married gay and lesbian 

couples. With this ruling, and attention surrounding issues such as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and Proposition 8, the 

time has never been more compelling to listen to the voices of the Federal LGBT community. 

The FEVS asked employees if they identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT), or as heterosexual/ 

straight. In addition, respondents were given the option to respond “I prefer not to say.” This year, almost 9,000 

Federal employees identified as LGBT, representing approximately three percent of the Federal workforce. The 

highest percentage of those who identified as LGBT have been in the Federal Government for more than 20 years 

and nearly two-thirds of these employees are between the ages of 40-59 (see Figure 17).

2.7 %

LGBT in 

2013 FEVS

FIGURE 17 Demographic Profile for LGBT

8 More information on the Defense of Marriage Act ruling can be found: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/

12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

9 More details can be found in the GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act Report: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

GAOREPORTS-GAO-04-353R/pdf/GAOREPORTS-GAO-04-353R.pdf

Federal Tenure Age

Gender Supervisory Status

< 1 Year 2%

1 - 3 Years 13%

4 - 5 Years 14%

6 - 10 Years 19%

11 - 14 Years 13%

15 - 20 Years 10%

> 20 Years 29%

25 and Under 2%

26 - 29 Years 6%

30 - 39 Years 20%

40 - 49 Years 32%

50 - 59 Years 33%

60 or Older 8%

Male 57%

Female 43%

Non-Supervisor 64%

Team Leader 14%

Supervisor 13%

Manager 7%

Executive 2%
Supporting Diversity: LGBT 21

Table 7 displays several of the items with the greatest differences in percent positive results between LGBT 

employees and heterosexual/straight respondents. These items present a clear picture of the potential areas of 

concern for this group. People who identified as LGBT were less likely than heterosexual respondents to positively 

rate items related to perceptions of leadership, job satisfaction, and feeling empowered on the job. Of note, 69 items 

were lower for the LGBT community, mirroring the findings for the veteran population.

Results for those who identify as LGBT were 

5 percentage points lower than for those who 

identified as Heterosexual/Straight on both the 

Employee Engagement and Job Satisfaction Indices, 

and 4 points lower on the Global Satisfaction Index. 

Did You Know? 

TABLE 7 Comparison of Survey Results for LGBT & Heterosexual/Straight – Percent Positive

LGBT

Heterosexual/

Straight Difference

Managers promote communication among different work units. 47% 54% -7%

I have a high level of respect for my organization’s senior leaders. 48% 54% -7%

Managers support collaboration across work units to accomplish 

work objectives. 51% 58% -7%

Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job? 61% 67% -6%

Senior leaders demonstrate support for Work/Life programs. 49% 55% -6%

Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect 

to work processes. 39% 45% -6%
Supporting Diversity: People with Disabilities 22

People with Disabilities 

In 2010, President Obama signed Executive Order 1354810, designed to reduce discrimination against those with 

disabilities, eliminate stigma, and encourage those with disabilities to actively seek employment with the Federal 

Government. In turn, the Federal Government is becoming the model on how to effectively recruit, hire and 

retain people with disabilities. During this year’s FEVS administration, 13 percent of employees indicated they 

have a disability (see Figure 18). Now that the Federal Government has reaffirmed its commitment to hiring 

people with disabilities and has moved towards its goal of non-discriminatory methods in hiring, it is important to 

acknowledge this population of employees and their opinions and characteristics.

FIGURE 18 Demographic Profile for People with Disabilities

13.0 %

People with 

Disabilities in 

2013 FEVS

10 More detailed information on Executive Order 13548 can be found: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-07-30/pdf/2010-18988.pdf

Federal Tenure Age

Gender Supervisory Status

< 1 Year 2%

1 - 3 Years 14%

4 - 5 Years 13%

6 - 10 Years 20%

11 - 14 Years 13%

15 - 20 Years 10%

> 20 Years 28%

25 and Under <1%

26 - 29 Years 2%

30 - 39 Years 11%

40 - 49 Years 28%

50 - 59 Years 41%

60 or Older 18%

Male 64%

Female 36%

Non-Supervisor 71%

Team Leader 13%

Supervisor 11%

Manager 5%

Executive 1%
Supporting Diversity: People with Disabilities 23

Key survey items with the largest differences between people with disabilities and those who did not report a 

disability are presented in Table 8. These items revolve around the themes of fairness in organizational practices 

and opportunities for employee development. Several of the employee development items were nearly ten 

percentage points lower for people with disabilities, strongly indicating a perceived deficiency in this area. 

Following the same pattern found for veterans and the LGBT community, most results for people with disabilities 

were lower than the comparison group (69 items).

Evolving Diversity in the Federal Government

Although these three groups appear to be very different, the results reveal that there are themes both within the 

groups and across all three groups. The items in each comparison section were chosen based on the magnitude 

of the difference in the item percent positive scores between people who identified as a member of the group and 

those who did not. 

Common themes that emerged among all groups were perceptions of leadership and support from managers/

supervisors. Agency leaders should take note of these findings, especially given the effort to increase hiring and 

retention across all groups. Understanding the perspective and feedback from all diversity groups is critical in 

meeting the needs of employees and ensuring that the Federal Government is a workplace of choice for all people.

TABLE 8 Comparison of Survey Results for People with & without Disabilities – Percent Positive

People with 

Disabilities

People Who 

Did Not Indicate 

a Disability Difference

Prohibited Personnel Practices are not tolerated. 55% 68% -13%

My supervisor/team leader provides me with opportunities to demonstrate 

my leadership skills. 57% 66% -9%

I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization. 53% 61% -8%

Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee development. 58% 65% -7%

Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion for partisan political 

purposes are not tolerated. 45% 52% -7%

Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees 

of different backgrounds. 57% 64% -7%

The greatest differences of all 

three diversity groups were 

found when comparing results 

for people with disabilities and 

people who did not indicate a 

disability.

Did You Know? 
Employees Influencing Change 24

Employees Influencing Change

Employees are the most valuable asset in the Federal Government. Their thoughts and opinions need to be heard. 

The FEVS is a useful tool for gathering information, empowering employees, and inspiring change, however, 

this tool is only as effective as the actions agencies take based on the survey results. Agencies must listen to what 

their employees are saying, implement action plans to improve performance, and convey to their employees the 

connection between the survey results and the positive actions made by their agency. 

This section starts the process of the sharing of information and practices between agencies. Innovative and 

creative ideas based on survey results will help agencies to improve policies and practices, retain valued employees, 

and improve the Federal Government as a whole.

Change Into Action

Agencies have shared the practices or actions they took to improve several areas based on their FEVS results. 

Highlighted below are two agencies that have used employee feedback to create and implement actions in order to 

make their agency a better place to work. Table 9 and Table 10 display the targeted areas where action was taken to 

make improvements. Also, displayed are survey items related to the targeted area.

The actions NASA implemented were successful toward making improvements within the agency; in each area 

NASA targeted there was a positive increase from 2012 to 2013 in related survey items. NASA was most successful 

in the targeted area of utilizing employee input. As a result, positive responses about “survey results will be used to 

make the agency better” increased by four percentage points, compared to the governmentwide average this item 

decreased by four percentage points. 

TABLE 9 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

• Rebranded telework as “Work 

from Anywhere.” 

• Created an educational messaging 

approach touching all layers of the 

organization.

• Targeted communication to all levels 

of leadership regarding connecting 

improvements made to specific 

survey results. 

• Supervisors and managers discuss 

the value of employee input from 

surveys, and explain to employees 

how the survey results were used to 

make agency-wide improvements.

• Leadership and employees 

have shared understanding of 

the scope of telework/ “Work 

from Anywhere..“

• Noteworthy increase in 

employee perceptions of senior 

leadership support for work/

life issues.

• Employees are more engaged 

and feel a part of agency 

change.

Targeted Area Action

Targeted 

Area

Leadership

Support for

Work/Life 

Balance

Using 

Employee

Input

Outcome Related Survey Items

My supervisor supports my need to 

balance work and other life issues. 

I believe the results of this survey 

will be used to make my agency a 

better place to work.

Senior leaders demonstrate support 

for work/life programs. 

How satisfied are you with your 

involvement in decisions that affect 

your work?

Have you been notified that you are 

eligible to Telework?
Employees Influencing Change 25

USDA’s actions targeted toward leadership support for Work/Life balance were successful; there was a 

13 percentage point increase from 2012 in the number of employees who reported they had been notified 

they were eligible to telework. While employee positive responses at USDA remained consistent from 2012 

regarding diversity this is noteworthy particularly when compared to the governmentwide average which decreased 

two percentage points.

TABLE 10 Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

• “Let’s Talk Telework” a webinar 

series for supervisors on how to 

implement telework.

• Supervisory training on overcoming 

biases related to telework and how 

to manage employees who are 

teleworking.

• Strategies for improving diversity and 

inclusion agency-wide.

• Training for recruiters and hiring 

managers emphasizing the value of 

a diverse and inclusive workforce. 

• Diversity and inclusion incorporated 

into the performance standards for 

leadership.

• Increase in the percentage 

of employees indicating 

telework eligibility.

• Increase in employees 

participating in regular and 

recurring telework.

• An increase in the hiring 

of veterans and minorities, 

as measured by agency 

hiring data. 

Targeted Area Action

Targeted 

Area

Leadership

Support for

Telework

Recruiting 

a Diverse 

Workforce 

Outcome Related Survey Items

My supervisor is committed to a workforce representative of all 

segment of society.

Policies and programs promote 

diversity in the workplace. 

My supervisor supports my need to 

balance work and other life issues. 

Have you been notified that you are 

eligible to Telework? 

Please select the response below that 

BEST describes your current teleworking 

situation.

The actions outlined in this section are just a sampling of the many successful actions agencies across the Federal 

Government have taken to improve their work environments. In a time when resources are limited, the need 

for agencies to communicate and share practices with one another is critical. Working smarter by learning from 

other agencies and adapting innovative ideas throughout government will help all agencies achieve a more 

engaged workforce. 

Does your agency have any practices to share? If so, please send an email to evs@opm.gov.
Conclusion 26

Conclusion 

Employees Influencing Change – this is the core purpose of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. 

From 2002 to 2013, Federal employees in all occupations and at all organizational levels have provided 

their opinions to leadership. The survey is a powerful tool for evaluating issues and driving success inside 

an agency, as well as a springboard for the sharing of ideas, practices and innovative methods with other 

agencies. The results of the survey enable agencies to identify areas where problems have been addressed, 

as well as areas where improvements are needed. Agencies can look across the years to better understand 

how internal and external forces have affected their workforce. 

This year, the survey results continued the gradual slide first signaled by the 2012 results. All four HCAAF 

indices, the Employee Engagement Index, and Global Satisfaction index have declined from 2012 to 2013. 

Ongoing budget cuts, pay freezes and the threats of government shutdown stoke a future of uncertainty 

that affects each and every Federal employee. In this environment, what is most positive is that overall 

results have not declined precipitously. The Federal workforce is strong and resolute in their belief that 

the work they do is important. Federal employees continue to put in the extra effort to get the job done 

and remain committed to the missions of their organizations. They hold fast to their belief in serving the 

American public to the best of their abilities. 

The items that had notable governmentwide increases dealt with workplace flexibilities and respect from 

supervisors. Specifically, supervisory support for balancing work and other life issues, employees feeling 

respected by their managers, and employee satisfaction with telework programs were the only items 

showing improvement at a govermentwide level. While managers are limited in their ability to provide 

financial awards and incentives to employees, efforts to support employees using levers under their control 

such as workplace flexibilities is notable. 

In summary, the 2013 FEVS shows a strong and resolute group of employees, who are devoted to their 

agency and country, but are growing weary due to current policies and practices affecting agency 

operations and resources.
27

Appendix A

Appendix A

2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Methods 

What Types of Questions are Included in the Survey? 

The 2013 survey is identical to the 2012 version. The 98-item survey includes 84 items that measure Federal 

employees’ perceptions about how effectively agencies manage their workforce, as well as 14 demographic items. 

The survey is grouped into eight topic areas: 

• Personal Work Experiences 

• Work Unit 

• Agency 

• Supervisor/Team Leader 

• Leadership 

• Satisfaction 

• Work/Life Programs 

• Demographics 

Who Participated? 

Full-time and part-time permanent, non-seasonal employees were eligible to participate in the survey. 

How Many Employees Participated? 

Employees from 81 agencies, 37 departments/large agencies and 44 small/independent agencies, participated 

in this year’s survey. Of the 781,047 employees who received the FEVS, 376,577 completed the survey for a 

governmentwide response rate of 48.2 percent. 

How Was the Survey Administered? 

The survey was a self-administered Web survey. 

When Were Employees Surveyed? 

Agency launch dates were organized in two waves this year, with approximately 6-week administration periods 

beginning April 23rd and April 30th.

Data Weighting 

Data collected from the 2013 survey respondents were weighted to produce survey estimates that accurately 

represent the survey population. Unweighted data could produce biased estimates of population statistics. The 

weights developed for the 2013 FEVS take into account the variable probabilities of selection across the sample 

domains, nonresponse, and known demographic characteristics of the survey population. Thus, the final data 

set reflects the agency composition and demographic makeup of the Federal workforce within plus or minus 

1 percentage point. 
Appendix A 28

Data Analysis 

In performing statistical analyses for this report, OPM employed a number of grouping procedures to simplify 

presentations. Most of the items had six response categories: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, 

Disagree, Strongly Disagree, and No Basis to Judge/Do Not Know. In some instances, these responses are 

collapsed into one positive category (Strongly Agree and Agree), one negative category (Strongly Disagree and 

Disagree), and a neutral category (Neither Agree nor Disagree). We conducted analyses on all survey items 

for the various demographic categories. More detailed survey statistics are available in the published Federal 

Employee Viewpoint Survey Data volumes for this survey and can be downloaded from OPM’s Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey website: www.FedView.opm.gov.

“Do Not Know” and “No Basis to Judge” Responses 

Responses of Do Not Know/No Basis to Judge were removed before calculation of percentages. In 2006 and 

2008, all responses were included in the calculations. To ensure comparability, data from previous years were 

recalculated, removing Do Not Know/No Basis to Judge responses, before any calculations with prior survey data 

were carried out. 

Index Development 

The 2013 FEVS includes six indices: the four HCAAF (Human Capital Assessment and Accountability 

Framework) Indices, the Employee Engagement Index, and the Global Satisfaction Index. These indices provide 

a dependable and consistent method for Federal agencies to assess different facets of the workforce. 

HCAAF Indices 

The HCAAF Indices were developed to help agencies meet the requirements of OPM’s mandate under the Chief 

Human Capital Officers Act of 2002 to design systems, set standards, and development metrics for assessing 

the management of Federal employees. The FEVS provides supplementary information to evaluate Leadership 

& Knowledge Management, Results-Oriented Performance Culture, and Talent Management, and provides an 

additional index on Job Satisfaction. 

The Index scores were calculated by averaging the percent positive responses on the items within the Index. For 

example, if the item-level percent positive responses for a four-item Index were 20 percent, 40 percent, 60 percent, 

and 80 percent, the HCAAF rating would be the average of these four percentages (20 + 40 + 60 + 80) divided 

by 4 = 50 percent. 

Employee Engagement Index 

The Employee Engagement Index was developed using a combination of theory and statistical analysis. Several items 

from the FEVS were selected based on a rationalization they would be representative of dimensions similar to other 

engagement “driver” measures. Items which used a satisfaction scale were excluded so as to differentiate between 

satisfaction and engagement.

An initial exploratory factor analysis revealed three factors consisting of 16 items (Leaders Lead, Supervision, and 

Intrinsic Work Experiences) with a single, underlying factor (Conditions Conducive to Employee Engagement). 

A confirmatory factor analysis was repeated with an independent dataset, which further supported the three-factor 

model. One item was removed for theoretical and statistical reasons, resulting in the 15-item, three-factor model. 

Global Satisfaction Index 

OPM created the Global Satisfaction Index to provide a more comprehensive indicator of employees’ overall work 

satisfaction. The index is a combination of employees’ satisfaction with their job, their pay, and their organization, 

plus their willingness to recommend their organization as a good place to work.
29

Appendix B

Trend Analysis: 2010 vs. 2011 vs. 2012 vs. 2013 Results

Appendix D consists of a set of trend tables displaying the governmentwide percent positive results for each item 

for the last four survey administrations. The last column indicates whether or not there were significant increases, 

deceases, or no changes in positive ratings from 2010 to 2011 (first arrow), from 2011 to 2012 (second arrow), and 

from 2012 to 2013 (last arrow). Arrows slanting up indicate a statistically significant increase, and arrows slanting 

down indicate a statistically significant decrease. Horizontal arrows indicate the change was not statistically 

significant. For example, symbols indicate there was no significant change in positive ratings from 2010 to 

2011, but there was a significant increase in positive ratings from 2011 to 2012, and from 2012 to 2013. Similarly, 

symbols indicate there was a significant decrease from 2010 to 2011, but there were no significant changes 

in positive ratings from 2011 to 2012 or from 2012 to 2013. 

APPENDIX B Trend Analysis

Percent Positive

2010 2011 2012 2013 Significant Trends

My Work Experience

‡1. I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization. 66 65 63 60 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

2. I have enough information to do my job well. 73 73 72 70 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

3. I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things. 60 59 58 56 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡4. My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment. 75 74 72 70 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡5. I like the kind of work I do. 86 85 84 83 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

6. I know what is expected of me on the job. 81 80 80 79 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡7. When needed I am willing to put in the extra effort to get a job done. 97 97 96 96 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

8. I am constantly looking for ways to do my job better. 92 92 91 90 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

9. I have sufficient resources (for example, people, materials, budget) 

to get my job done. 50 48 48 44 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡10. My workload is reasonable. 59 59 59 57 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡11. My talents are used well in the workplace. 60 61 59 57 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡12. I know how my work relates to the agency's goals and priorities. 84 85 84 83 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡13. The work I do is important. 92 92 91 90 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡14. Physical conditions (for example, noise level, temperature, lighting,

cleanliness in the workplace) allow employees to perform their jobs well. 67 67 67 66 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡15. My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance. 68 70 69 68 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

16. I am held accountable for achieving results. 84 84 83 81 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

17. I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear 

of reprisal. 62 63 61 61 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡18. My training needs are assessed. 54 54 53 50 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

Note: Items included on the Annual Employee Survey are noted by a double dagger (‡). An "NA" indicates that the item was not included in the survey that year or there 

were too few respondents to conduct trend analyses.

Appendix B

(For Excel version click here)
Appendix B 30

Percent Positive

2010 2011 2012 2013 Significant Trends

‡19. In my most recent performance appraisal, I understood what I had

to do to be rated at different performance levels (for example, Fully

Successful, Outstanding).

68 69 68 68 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡20. The people I work with cooperate to get the job done. 75 75 73 73 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡21. My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills. 46 46 43 40 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡22. Promotions in my work unit are based on merit. 35 36 34 32 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡23. In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who 

cannot or will not improve. 31 31 29 28 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡24. In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in a 

meaningful way. 36 36 34 31 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

25. Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform 

their jobs. 44 44 41 38 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

26. Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each other. 73 73 72 72 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

27. The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year. 56 57 55 52 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

28. How would you rate the overall quality of work done by your work unit? 82 82 83 83 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

My Agency

‡29. The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to 

accomplish organizational goals. 72 73 72 70 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡30. Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to 

work processes. 48 48 45 43 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

31. Employees are recognized for providing high quality products and services. 51 51 48 46 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡32. Creativity and innovation are rewarded. 41 41 38 35 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡33. Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs. 26 24 22 19 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

34. Policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace 

(for example, recruiting minorities and women, training in 

awareness of diversity issues, mentoring).

58 59 57 55 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡35. Employees are protected from health and safety hazards on the job. 76 78 77 76 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡36. My organization has prepared employees for potential security threats. 76 78 78 76 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

37. Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion for partisan political 

purposes are not tolerated. 51 52 51 51 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

38. Prohibited Personnel Practices (for example, illegally discriminating

for or against any employee/applicant, obstructing a person’s right to

compete for employment, knowingly violating veterans’ preference 

requirements) are not tolerated.

66 67 66 65 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

39. My agency is successful at accomplishing its mission. 78 79 76 74 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

40. I recommend my organization as a good place to work. 70 69 67 63 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

41. I believe the results of this survey will be used to make my agency a better 

place to work. 45 45 42 38 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

Note: Items included on the Annual Employee Survey are noted by a double dagger (‡). An "NA" indicates that the item was not included in the survey that year or there 

were too few respondents to conduct trend analyses.

APPENDIX B Trend Analysis (cont’d)
Appendix B 31

Percent Positive

2010 2011 2012 2013 Significant Trends

My Supervisor/Team Leader

‡42. My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues. 76 77 77 77 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

43. My supervisor/team leader provides me with opportunities to demonstrate my 

leadership skills. 66 67 65 65 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡44. Discussions with my supervisor/team leader about my performance 

are worthwhile. 62 63 62 61 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

45. My supervisor/team leader is committed to a workforce representative 

of all segments of society. 65 66 64 65 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

46. My supervisor team leader provides me with constructive suggestions 

to improve my job performance. 61 62 61 60 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡47. Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee development. 66 67 65 64 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

48. My supervisor/team leader listens to what I have to say. 75 75 74 74 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

49. My supervisor/team leader treats me with respect. 80 80 79 80 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

50. In the last six months, my supervisor/team leader has talked with me 

about my performance. 76 77 77 77 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡51. I have trust and confidence in my supervisor. 67 67 66 66 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡52. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your immediate 

supervisor/team leader? 68 69 68 68 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

Leadership

‡53. In my organization, leaders generate high levels of motivation and 

commitment in the workforce. 44 45 43 41 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

54. My organization's leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity. 56 57 55 54 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡55. Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees of 

different backgrounds. 64 65 63 63 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡56. Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization. 64 64 62 61 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡57. Managers review and evaluate the organization's progress toward 

meeting its goals and objectives. 64 64 62 61 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

58. Managers promote communication among different work units 

(for example, about projects, goals, needed resources). 54 55 53 52 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

59. Managers support collaboration across work units to accomplish 

work objectives. 58 58 57 56 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

60. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by the manager 

directly above your immediate supervisor/team leader? 57 58 58 57 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡61. I have a high level of respect for my organization’s senior leaders. 56 57 54 52 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

62. Senior leaders demonstrate support for Work/Life programs. 55 55 54 54 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

Note: Items included on the Annual Employee Survey are noted by a double dagger (‡). An "NA" indicates that the item was not included in the survey that year or there 

were too few respondents to conduct trend analyses.

APPENDIX B Trend Analysis (cont’d)
Appendix B 32

APPENDIX B Trend Analysis (cont’d)

Percent Positive

2010 2011 2012 2013 Significant Trends

My Satisfaction

‡63. How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect 

your work? 55 53 52 50 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡64. How satisfied are you with the information you receive from management 

on what's going on in your organization? 51 51 48 48 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡65. How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a good job? 52 51 48 45 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡66. How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders? 45 46 43 41 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡67. How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in 

your organization? 42 40 36 34 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡68. How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present job? 56 55 54 50 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡69. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job? 72 71 68 65 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

‡70. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay? 66 62 59 54 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

71. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization? 62 62 59 56 No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

 Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

Work/Life Programs

79-84. How satisfied are you with the following Work/Life programs in your agency?*

79. Telework — 70 73 76 NA Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

 Significant increase in positive ratings 

from 2012 to 2013.

80. Alternative Work Schedules (AWS) — 89 89 89 NA Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

81. Health and Wellness Programs (for example, exercise, 

medical screening, quit smoking programs) — 81 80 80 NA Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

82. Employee Assistance Program (EAP) — 78 76 74 NA Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

83. Child Care Programs (for example, daycare, parenting 

classes, parenting support groups) — 73 72 70 NA Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

84. Elder Care Programs (for example, support groups, speakers) — 67 68 66 NA Significant decrease in positive ratings 

from 2011 to 2012.

No significant change in positive ratings 

from 2010 to 2011.

* The 2011-2013 work/life program satisfaction results only include employees who indicated that they participated in the program. 

Because participation questions were new in 2011, percentages from 2010 are not displayed.

Note: Items included on the Annual Employee Survey are noted by a double dagger (‡). An “NA” indicates that the item was not included in the survey that year or there 

were too few respondents to conduct trend analyses.
33

Appendix C (For Excel version click here)

APPENDIX C Governmentwide Respondent Characteristics (unweighted)

Appendix C

Number 

Responded Percentage

Work Location

Headquarters 137,468 39

Field 212,187 61

Supervisory Status

Non-Supervisor 233,579 66

Team Leader 47,593 14

Supervisor 44,633 13

Manager 21,376 6

Executive 5,408 2

Gender

Male 179,660 52

Female 169,181 49

Ethnicity

Hispanic/Latino 28,904 8

Not Hispanic/Latino 316,530 92

Race or National Origin

American Indian or Alaska Native 7,805 2

Asian 16,310 5

Black or African American 54,014 16

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2,357 1

White 242,974 73

Two or More Races 11,645 4

Age Group

25 and Under 3,469 1

26-29 Years 12,972 4

30-39 Years 58,747 17

40-49 Years 96,647 28

50-59 Years 124,996 36

60 or Older 48,009 14
34

APPENDIX C Governmentwide Respondent Characteristics (unweighted) (cont’d)

Number 

Responded Percentage

Appendix C

Pay Category

Federal Wage System 13,376 4

GS 1-6 22,323 6

GS 7-12 145,690 42

GS 13-15 136,334 39

Senior Executive Service 4,434 1

Senior Level (SL) or Scientific or Professional (ST) 1,229 <1

Other 26,516 8

Federal Tenure

Less than 1 Year 4,715 1

1 to 3 Years 39,498 11

4 to 5 Years 39,493 11

6 to 10 Years 64,577 18

11 to 14 Years 44,943 13

15 to 20 Years 35,272 10

More than 20 Years 121,915 35

Agency Tenure

Less than 1 Year 8,820 3

1 to 3 Years 55,330 16

4 to 5 Years 47,850 14

6 to 10 Years 70,560 20

11 to 20 Years 77,172 22

More than 20 Years 89,485 26

Planning to Leave

No 239,405 68

Yes, to Retire 21,566 6

Yes, to Take Another Job Within the Federal Government 56,900 16

Yes, to Take Another Job Outside the Federal Government 15,663 4

Yes, Other 16,496 5
35

APPENDIX C Governmentwide Respondent Characteristics (unweighted) (cont’d)

Appendix C

Planning to Retire

Within One Year 12,717 4

Between One and Three Years 34,635 10

Between Three and Five Years 36,551 11

Five or More Years 261,831 76

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual or Straight 282,463 85

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgender 8,959 3

I Prefer Not to Say 41,185 12

Veteran Status

Veteran 96,194 28

Not a Veteran 252,391 72

Disability Status

Disabled 45,276 13

Not Disabled 302,706 87

Number 

Responded Percentage
36

Appendix D (For Excel version click here)

APPENDIX D Participating Agencies and Response Rates

Appendix D

Number

Surveyed

Number

Responded

Response

Rate

Governmentwide 781,047 376,577 48.2

Departments/Large Agencies

Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) 1,563 1,156 74.0

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) 1,183 714 60.4

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 22,331 13,256 59.4

Department of Commerce (DOC) 16,659 9,447 56.7

Department of Education (Educ) 3,855 2,658 68.9

Department of Energy (DOE) 13,193 6,707 50.8

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 64,618 32,329 50.0

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 81,983 39,090 47.7

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 7,990 3,741 46.8

Department of Justice (DOJ) 40,241 17,004 42.3

Department of Labor (DOL) 11,653 5,205 44.7

Department of State (State) 6,349 2,551 40.2

Department of the Interior (DOI) 35,434 18,396 51.9

Department of the Treasury (Treas) 89,995 50,010 55.6

Department of Transportation (DOT) 40,831 23,204 56.8

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 78,818 29,893 37.9

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 7,133 3,924 55.0

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 2,146 1,180 55.0

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 1,631 814 49.9

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 1,395 893 64.0

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 1,022 565 55.3

General Services Administration (GSA) 11,729 8,429 71.9

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 17,148 9,985 58.2

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) 2,531 1,617 63.9

National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) 1,111 799 71.9

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) 1,556 726 46.7
37

APPENDIX D Participating Agencies and Response Rates (cont’d)

Appendix D

Departments/Large Agencies

National Science Foundation (NSF) 1,183 888 75.1

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 3,599 2,509 69.7

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 425 314 73.9

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 5,052 2,929 58.0

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) 874 401 45.9

Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) 889 610 68.6

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 3,665 2,422 66.1

Small Business Administration (SBA) 2,116 1,511 71.4

Social Security Administration (SSA) 15,647 8,345 53.3

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 3,703 2,266 61.2

Department of Defense (DOD) 172,632 65,007 37.7

United States Department of the Army (Army) 64,102 22,130 34.5

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 8,128 2,222 27.3

United States Department of the Navy (Navy) 43,556 17,426 40.0

United States Marine Corps (USMC) 4,707 2,092 44.4

United States Department of the Air Force (Air Force) 33,389 12,129 36.3

OSD, Joint Staff, Defense Agencies, and Field Activities (DOD 4th Estate) 26,878 11,230 41.8

Small/Independent Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 32 20 62.5

African Development Foundation (USADF) 16 9 56.3

American Battle Monuments Commission (AMBC) 27 15 55.6

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) 35 30 85.7

Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) 25 18 72.0

Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (CPPBSD) 27 19 70.4

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) 641 355 55.4

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 486 306 63.0

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) 571 452 79.2

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) 109 82 75.2

Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) 346 228 65.9

Number

Surveyed

Number

Responded

Response

Rate

Governmentwide 781,047 376,577 48.2
38

APPENDIX D Participating Agencies and Response Rates (cont’d)

Appendix D

Small/Independent Agencies

Federal Election Commission (FEC) 319 237 74.3

Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) 533 424 79.5

Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) 115 96 83.5

Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) 114 95 83.3

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) 232 179 77.2

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) 112 92 82.1

Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) 56 47 83.9

Inter-American Foundation (IAF) 38 34 89.5

International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) 235 198 84.3

Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) 12 10 83.3

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) 180 135 75.0

National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) 33 21 63.6

National Council on Disability (NCD) 7 4 57.1

National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) 133 98 73.7

National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) 128 98 76.6

National Gallery of Art (NGA) 766 376 49.1

National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) 86 61 70.9

National Mediation Board (NMB) 43 29 67.4

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 385 252 65.5

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) 7 3 42.9

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) 49 42 85.7

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) 36 29 80.6

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) 171 107 62.6

Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) 191 166 86.9

Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) 71 62 87.3

Selective Service System (SSS) 111 89 80.2

Surface Transportation Board (STB) 130 98 75.4

Number

Surveyed

Number

Responded

Response

Rate

Governmentwide 781,047 376,577 48.2
39

APPENDIX D Participating Agencies and Response Rates (cont’d)

Appendix D

Small/Independent Agencies

U.S. Access Board (USAB) 27 20 74.1

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) 303 258 85.1

U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) 62 55 88.7

U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) 95 82 86.3

U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) 37 31 83.8

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (WWICS) 32 20 62.5

Number

Surveyed

Number

Responded

Response

Rate

Governmentwide 781,047 376,577 48.2
40

Appendix E

APPENDIX E1 HCAAF Index Trends: Leadership & Knowledge Management

Appendix E1

2008 2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 59 61 62 60 59

Broadcasting Board of Governors 41 46 49 48 49

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 63 63 65 61 57

Department of Agriculture 57 57 58 56 55

Department of Commerce 63 64 65 65 65

Department of Defense 62 64 64 63 61

Department of Education 58 59 60 60 61

Department of Energy 61 61 60 61 60

Department of Health and Human Services 59 60 60 60 60

Department of Homeland Security 53 55 55 52 50

Department of Housing and Urban Development 56 54 57 57 52

Department of Justice 61 63 64 62 62

Department of Labor 60 61 61 60 59

Department of State 64 66 67 66 64

Department of the Interior 53 56 56 56 54

Department of the Treasury 60 64 66 65 63

Department of Transportation 51 55 57 59 60

Department of Veterans Affairs 59 58 59 56 57

Environmental Protection Agency 61 61 61 62 59

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 56 56 60 61 59

Federal Communications Commission 57 67 67 65 71

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 69 67 68 67 70

Federal Trade Commission 70 73 73 72 72

General Services Administration 63 66 67 66 64

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 69 72 72 73 73

National Archives and Records Administration 55 56 55 53 54

National Credit Union Administration 56 58 61 67 63

National Labor Relations Board 58 57 62 59 59

National Science Foundation 69 64 59 57 60

(For Excel version click here)
41

APPENDIX E1 HCAAF Index Trends: Leadership & Knowledge Management (cont’d)

2008 2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 59 61 62 60 59

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 76 78 78 74 73

Office of Management and Budget 66 54 51 61 57

Office of Personnel Management 62 63 66 65 66

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 62 66 65 63 59

Railroad Retirement Board 59 60 61 63 64

Securities and Exchange Commission 61 57 55 56 57

Small Business Administration 60 59 61 60 60

Social Security Administration 63 66 69 65 62

U.S. Agency for International Development 62 57 60 62 60

The Leadership & Knowledge Management Index indicates the extent to which employees hold their leadership in high regard, both overall and on specific facets of 

leadership. It is made up of items: 

10. My workload is reasonable.

35. Employees are protected from health and safety hazards on the job.

36. My organization has prepared employees for potential security threats.

51. I have trust and confidence in my supervisor.

52. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your immediate supervisor/team leader?

53. In my organization, leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce.

55. Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees of different backgrounds.

56. Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization.

57. Managers review and evaluate the organization's progress toward meeting its goals and objectives.

61. I have a high level of respect for my organization’s senior leaders.

64. How satisfied are you with the information you receive from management on what's going on in your organization?

66. How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders?

Appendix E1
42

APPENDIX E2 HCAAF Index Trends: Results-Oriented Performance Culture 

Appendix E2

2008 2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 54 54 54 52 51

Broadcasting Board of Governors 42 45 48 46 46

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 62 61 58 56 51

Department of Agriculture 52 51 53 51 50

Department of Commerce 61 60 61 61 61

Department of Defense 55 56 55 54 51

Department of Education 53 52 53 53 54

Department of Energy 55 54 53 53 52

Department of Health and Human Services 56 56 55 55 54

Department of Homeland Security 47 49 48 46 44

Department of Housing and Urban Development 50 49 49 50 45

Department of Justice 54 55 56 54 53

Department of Labor 56 54 53 53 51

Department of State 58 58 58 58 56

Department of the Interior 52 54 53 53 51

Department of the Treasury 56 57 59 57 55

Department of Transportation 47 49 49 51 51

Department of Veterans Affairs 52 51 52 49 49

Environmental Protection Agency 58 56 56 56 53

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 53 52 55 54 51

Federal Communications Commission 54 59 59 58 60

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 64 61 60 58 60

Federal Trade Commission 66 68 66 66 64

General Services Administration 57 60 59 58 55

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 65 64 64 65 64

National Archives and Records Administration 54 54 53 49 49

National Credit Union Administration 58 59 62 62 58

National Labor Relations Board 50 51 52 51 51

National Science Foundation 67 61 58 56 56

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 67 69 68 64 62

Office of Management and Budget 63 57 51 60 54

Office of Personnel Management 57 58 60 59 60

(For Excel version click here)
43

APPENDIX E2 HCAAF Index Trends: Results-Oriented Performance Culture (cont’d)

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 59 63 61 57 54

Railroad Retirement Board 55 55 55 56 56

Securities and Exchange Commission 53 50 47 48 49

Small Business Administration 54 53 54 53 54

Social Security Administration 54 54 56 52 50

U.S. Agency for International Development 58 54 53 53 51

The Results-Oriented Performance Culture Index indicates the extent to which employees believe their organizational culture promotes improvement in processes, products 

and services and organizational outcomes. It is made up of items: 

12. I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities.

14. Physical conditions (for example, noise level, temperature, lighting, cleanliness in the workplace) allow employees to perform their jobs well.

15. My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance.

20. The people I work with cooperate to get the job done.

22. Promotions in my work unit are based on merit.

23. In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not improve.

24. In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way.

30. Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes.

32. Creativity and innovation are rewarded.

33. Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs.

42. My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues.

44. Discussions with my supervisor/team leader about my performance are worthwhile.

65. How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a good job?

Appendix E2

2008 2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 54 54 54 52 51
44

APPENDIX E3 HCAAF Index Trends: Talent Management

Appendix E3

2008 2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 60 60 60 59 56

Broadcasting Board of Governors 42 46 50 48 48

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 70 70 69 65 60

Department of Agriculture 59 57 58 55 54

Department of Commerce 64 62 63 63 62

Department of Defense 61 62 61 60 56

Department of Education 59 54 58 57 58

Department of Energy 62 60 58 59 57

Department of Health and Human Services 60 61 59 59 59

Department of Homeland Security 54 54 53 50 48

Department of Housing and Urban Development 49 46 49 50 44

Department of Justice 61 62 62 60 58

Department of Labor 57 55 54 55 52

Department of State 65 66 65 63 62

Department of the Interior 57 58 57 57 52

Department of the Treasury 60 62 63 61 56

Department of Transportation 54 57 57 59 57

Department of Veterans Affairs 62 58 60 57 58

Environmental Protection Agency 62 60 60 58 51

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 51 52 56 55 52

Federal Communications Commission 60 63 61 61 63

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 67 65 65 65 65

Federal Trade Commission 69 72 70 70 69

General Services Administration 65 66 65 64 59

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 71 71 70 71 70

National Archives and Records Administration 57 56 55 51 48

National Credit Union Administration 67 66 66 68 66

National Labor Relations Board 57 58 60 60 58

National Science Foundation 71 64 61 60 60

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 76 77 76 72 68

Office of Management and Budget 69 63 58 65 53

Office of Personnel Management 58 60 63 61 61

(For Excel version click here)
45

APPENDIX E3 HCAAF Index Trends: Talent Management (cont’d)

2008 2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 60 60 60 59 56

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 64 68 67 63 60

Railroad Retirement Board 55 57 55 58 58

Securities and Exchange Commission 59 53 51 57 60

Small Business Administration 55 50 53 52 52

Social Security Administration 59 61 62 59 55

U.S. Agency for International Development 60 56 58 60 58

The Talent Management Index indicates the extent to which employees think the organization has the talent necessary to achieve organizational goals. It is made up of items: 

1. I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization.

11. My talents are used well in the workplace.

18. My training needs are assessed.

21. My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills.

29. The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish organizational goals.

47. Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee development.

68. How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present job?

Appendix E3
46

APPENDIX E4 HCAAF Index Trends: Job Satisfaction

Appendix E4

2008 2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 67 69 68 66 64

Broadcasting Board of Governors 59 62 64 61 63

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 70 73 70 68 64

Department of Agriculture 67 68 68 65 64

Department of Commerce 68 70 69 69 68

Department of Defense 67 70 68 67 63

Department of Education 64 65 65 64 64

Department of Energy 67 68 65 65 64

Department of Health and Human Services 67 70 68 67 66

Department of Homeland Security 63 65 64 61 57

Department of Housing and Urban Development 64 64 63 63 56

Department of Justice 69 72 70 68 66

Department of Labor 67 67 66 65 62

Department of State 71 74 73 71 69

Department of the Interior 66 69 68 67 64

Department of the Treasury 66 70 70 67 63

Department of Transportation 63 69 68 69 67

Department of Veterans Affairs 68 69 68 64 65

Environmental Protection Agency 69 70 69 68 62

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 67 68 68 67 64

Federal Communications Commission 59 68 67 66 68

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 70 70 67 65 67

Federal Trade Commission 68 73 71 70 68

General Services Administration 69 72 70 70 67

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 72 75 74 74 73

National Archives and Records Administration 64 65 63 59 59

National Credit Union Administration 68 71 71 72 66

National Labor Relations Board 63 67 67 64 63

National Science Foundation 73 72 68 64 65

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 78 79 77 73 71

Office of Management and Budget 78 71 65 72 61

Office of Personnel Management 67 70 71 69 68

(For Excel version click here)
47

APPENDIX E4 HCAAF Index Trends: Job Satisfaction (cont’d)

2008 2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 67 69 68 66 64

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 67 72 69 67 62

Railroad Retirement Board 68 69 68 69 68

Securities and Exchange Commission 65 64 61 62 63

Small Business Administration 66 67 67 66 66

Social Security Administration 70 73 72 68 66

U.S. Agency for International Development 70 69 66 66 65

The Job Satisfaction Index indicates the extent to which employees are satisfied with their jobs and various aspects thereof. It is made up of items: 

4. My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment.

5. I like the kind of work I do.

13. The work I do is important.

63. How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect your work?

67. How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in your organization?

69. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?

70. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?

Appendix E4
Appendix F1 48

APPENDIX F1 Employee Engagement Index Trends

Appendix F

2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 66 67 65 64

Broadcasting Board of Governors 56 57 56 58

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 71 70 67 65

Department of Agriculture 63 65 63 63

Department of Commerce 69 70 70 70

Department of Defense 68 68 67 65

Department of Education 63 64 65 66

Department of Energy 65 63 65 64

Department of Health and Human Services 66 65 66 66

Department of Homeland Security 61 60 58 56

Department of Housing and Urban Development 59 61 62 57

Department of Justice 68 69 67 66

Department of Labor 64 64 64 62

Department of State 72 72 71 69

Department of the Interior 64 64 64 62

Department of the Treasury 69 70 69 67

Department of Transportation 61 63 64 65

Department of Veterans Affairs 63 65 62 63

Environmental Protection Agency 67 67 68 64

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 63 65 67 65

Federal Communications Commission 70 69 69 73

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 71 71 70 73

Federal Trade Commission 76 76 74 75

General Services Administration 70 71 69 69

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 76 75 76 77

National Archives and Records Administration 63 62 59 60

National Credit Union Administration 66 68 73 70

(For Excel version click here)
Appendix F1 49

APPENDIX F1 Employee Engagement Index Trends (cont’d)

The Employee Engagement Index assesses the critical conditions conducive for employee engagement (e.g., effective leadership, work which provides meaning to employees, 

etc.). It is made up of three subfactors: Leaders Lead, Supervisors, and Intrinsic Work Experiences.

2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 66 67 65 64

National Labor Relations Board 63 66 65 64

National Science Foundation 71 67 65 68

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 80 79 76 75

Office of Management and Budget 66 63 73 68

Office of Personnel Management 69 72 71 72

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 70 69 67 64

Railroad Retirement Board 66 66 68 69

Securities and Exchange Commission 61 61 62 62

Small Business Administration 63 65 64 65

Social Security Administration 70 72 69 67

U.S. Agency for International Development 65 65 67 66
Appendix F2 50

APPENDIX F2 Employee Engagement Index Trends: Leaders Lead

2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 55 56 54 53

Broadcasting Board of Governors 41 43 41 43

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 63 64 58 54

Department of Agriculture 50 51 49 48

Department of Commerce 57 60 59 60

Department of Defense 58 58 57 54

Department of Education 53 55 54 56

Department of Energy 53 51 53 52

Department of Health and Human Services 55 55 56 56

Department of Homeland Security 49 48 46 43

Department of Housing and Urban Development 49 53 53 45

Department of Justice 59 59 57 57

Department of Labor 54 54 55 52

Department of State 63 65 63 60

Department of the Interior 50 51 51 48

Department of the Treasury 58 61 60 57

Department of Transportation 45 48 50 52

Department of Veterans Affairs 52 54 50 51

Environmental Protection Agency 54 54 56 50

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 50 55 56 54

Federal Communications Commission 61 61 60 66

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 64 65 63 66

Federal Trade Commission 70 72 70 70

General Services Administration 62 62 59 58

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 68 68 68 70

National Archives and Records Administration 49 47 44 45

National Credit Union Administration 54 57 65 61

National Labor Relations Board 52 57 55 53

National Science Foundation 61 56 52 55

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 76 74 69 68

Office of Management and Budget 50 50 62 59

Office of Personnel Management 60 63 62 63
Appendix F2 51

APPENDIX F2 Employee Engagement Index Trends: Leaders Lead (cont’d)

2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 55 56 54 53

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 58 58 57 51

Railroad Retirement Board 55 57 58 60

Securities and Exchange Commission 50 47 49 49

Small Business Administration 52 56 54 54

Social Security Administration 64 66 62 59

U.S. Agency for International Development 52 56 59 54

Leaders Lead reflects the employees’ perceptions of the integrity of leadership, as well as leadership behaviors such as communication and workforce motivation. 

It is made up of items:

53. In my organization, leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce.

54. My organization’s leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity.

56. Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization.

60. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by the manager directly above your immediate supervisor/team leader?

61. I have a high level of respect for my organization’s senior leaders.
Appendix F3 52

APPENDIX F3 Employee Engagement Index Trends: Supervisors

2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 71 72 71 70

Broadcasting Board of Governors 62 63 63 64

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 74 74 71 69

Department of Agriculture 71 73 72 72

Department of Commerce 76 77 77 78

Department of Defense 73 72 72 71

Department of Education 69 71 73 75

Department of Energy 72 71 72 72

Department of Health and Human Services 70 70 70 71

Department of Homeland Security 68 68 66 65

Department of Housing and Urban Development 64 67 68 65

Department of Justice 72 75 71 72

Department of Labor 70 70 70 69

Department of State 78 77 76 76

Department of the Interior 70 70 70 69

Department of the Treasury 75 77 76 76

Department of Transportation 69 70 72 74

Department of Veterans Affairs 65 67 65 67

Environmental Protection Agency 74 75 76 74

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 69 70 72 71

Federal Communications Commission 78 78 78 81

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 77 78 78 80

Federal Trade Commission 79 78 76 78

General Services Administration 74 76 75 76

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 81 82 82 83

National Archives and Records Administration 70 69 68 70

National Credit Union Administration 73 75 79 77

National Labor Relations Board 69 71 71 71

National Science Foundation 74 72 72 75

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 83 83 81 81

Office of Management and Budget 75 71 82 78

Office of Personnel Management 75 78 77 78
Appendix F3 53

APPENDIX F3 Employee Engagement Index Trends: Supervisors (cont’d)

2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 71 72 71 70

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 75 76 72 70

Railroad Retirement Board 70 70 72 72

Securities and Exchange Commission 69 70 72 71

Small Business Administration 69 70 70 70

Social Security Administration 70 73 71 70

U.S. Agency for International Development 72 72 74 74

Supervisors reflects the interpersonal relationship between worker and supervisor, including trust, respect and support. It is made up of items:

47. Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee development.

48. My supervisor/team leader listens to what I have to say.

49. My supervisor/team-leader treats me with respect.

51. I have trust and confidence in my supervisor.

52. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your immediate supervisor/team leader?
Appendix F4 54

APPENDIX F4 Employee Engagement Index Trends: Intrinsic Work Experiences

2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 72 72 71 69

Broadcasting Board of Governors 64 66 63 67

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 76 74 73 71

Department of Agriculture 69 71 69 68

Department of Commerce 73 73 73 73

Department of Defense 74 73 72 69

Department of Education 66 67 67 69

Department of Energy 70 68 69 68

Department of Health and Human Services 73 71 72 72

Department of Homeland Security 65 64 62 60

Department of Housing and Urban Development 65 65 65 60

Department of Justice 73 73 71 71

Department of Labor 68 68 68 66

Department of State 75 76 74 72

Department of the Interior 72 71 71 69

Department of the Treasury 73 73 73 70

Department of Transportation 68 69 71 69

Department of Veterans Affairs 73 73 70 71

Environmental Protection Agency 72 72 72 68

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 70 71 71 70

Federal Communications Commission 70 69 71 73

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 72 71 69 72

Federal Trade Commission 78 77 77 77

General Services Administration 74 74 74 72

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 78 77 79 79

National Archives and Records Administration 70 68 66 65

National Credit Union Administration 72 71 75 71

National Labor Relations Board 69 71 70 67

National Science Foundation 77 74 71 73

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 81 79 77 76

Office of Management and Budget 72 67 75 68

Office of Personnel Management 72 73 73 74
55

APPENDIX F4 Employee Engagement Index Trends: Intrinsic Work Experiences (cont’d)

2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 72 72 71 69

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 77 75 73 71

Railroad Retirement Board 72 71 73 74

Securities and Exchange Commission 64 65 65 67

Small Business Administration 68 69 70 70

Social Security Administration 75 76 73 71

U.S. Agency for International Development 71 67 69 69

Intrinsic Work Experiences reflects the employees’ feelings of motivation and competency relating to their role in the workplace. It is made up of items: 

3. I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things.

4. My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment.

6. I know what is expected of me on the job.

11. My talents are used well in the workplace.

12. I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities.

Appendix F4
56

Appendix G

APPENDIX G Global Satisfaction Index Trends

Appendix G

2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 67 66 63 59

Broadcasting Board of Governors 55 57 53 54

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 73 70 67 61

Department of Agriculture 65 64 60 57

Department of Commerce 71 71 69 68

Department of Defense 67 66 64 58

Department of Education 62 62 60 60

Department of Energy 67 63 62 60

Department of Health and Human Services 67 65 65 63

Department of Homeland Security 62 61 56 51

Department of Housing and Urban Development 62 60 59 49

Department of Justice 73 72 68 66

Department of Labor 66 63 61 57

Department of State 74 74 72 69

Department of the Interior 67 65 64 60

Department of the Treasury 70 70 66 59

Department of Transportation 63 63 66 63

Department of Veterans Affairs 65 64 59 59

Environmental Protection Agency 72 70 69 60

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 62 64 64 59

Federal Communications Commission 71 69 67 71

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 73 70 68 70

Federal Trade Commission 75 72 70 68

General Services Administration 74 73 71 65

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 77 75 74 74

National Archives and Records Administration 58 55 50 49

National Credit Union Administration 68 69 71 61

National Labor Relations Board 64 65 59 58

National Science Foundation 75 69 63 62

(For Excel version click here)
57

APPENDIX G Global Satisfaction Index Trends (cont’d)

Appendix G

2010 2011 2012 2013

Governmentwide 67 66 63 59

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 83 80 75 72

Office of Management and Budget 69 60 71 56

Office of Personnel Management 70 71 69 69

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 71 67 63 58

Railroad Retirement Board 72 68 68 68

Securities and Exchange Commission 66 61 59 60

Small Business Administration 62 61 60 60

Social Security Administration 74 73 69 65

U.S. Agency for International Development 65 63 62 60

The Global Satisfaction Index is made up of items: 

40. I recommend my organization as a good place to work.

69. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?

70. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?

71. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization?
United States 

Office of Personnel Management

Planning and Policy Analysis

1900 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20415

www.FedView.opm.gov