UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANANGEMENT WHAT DO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SAY? RESULTS FROM THE 2002 FEDERAL HUMAN CAPITAL SURVEY A MESSAGE TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ------------------------------ It is my pleasure to present the results of the 2002 Federal Human Capital Survey, the largest employee survey ever undertaken in the Federal Government. With responses obtained from 100,000 Federal employees across the Nation, this survey provides an invaluable tool as we seek to achieve President George W. Bush’s goal to improve the strategic management of the Federal workforce. The Federal Human Capital Survey serves as a uniform indicator of employee perceptions across agency lines, a single yardstick that can be used Governmentwide or with individual agencies to track progress over time. The survey findings have been fascinating. They indicate that most employees understand the importance of their work and are satisfied with their jobs and compensation. They also indicate where the Government can do better. For example, employees are not satisfied with their incentives for good performance nor with the efforts made to deal with poor performing employees. Using the results of the survey together with the entire framework of goals and measures recently established to support the President’s human capital initiative, agencies will have a solid basis for taking action to attain lasting improvement in human capital management. Kay Coles James Director ----------------- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ----------------- “…the largest survey of Federal employees ever undertaken to assess the presence and extent of conditions that characterize high performance organizations.” During the summer of 2002, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) conducted the Federal Human Capital Survey, the largest survey of Federal employees ever undertaken to assess the presence and extent of conditions that characterize high performance organizations. This report contains our findings and observations. The survey results reveal a great deal about the strengths of the Federal workplace. They also suggest areas where additional focus is needed to improve human capital management in the Government consistent with the primary initiative in the President’s Management Agenda. The Federal Workforce is Focused on its Mission. ------------------------------------------------ * Ninety-one percent of Federal employees believe they do important work. * Eighty-nine percent know how their work relates to their agency’s mission. * Eighty-one percent believe that the work they produce is of high quality, which is comparable to the 83 percent reported in a recent private industry survey. * Eighty percent agree that people in the workplace cooperate to get the job done. * Eighty percent also believe they are held accountable for achieving results. * Seven in ten agree their work gives them a sense of personal accomplishment. * Sixty-eight percent are satisfied with their jobs, compared to 67 percent in the private industry survey. The Federal Government Needs to Pay More Attention to How it Rewards Good Performance. --------------------------------------------- * Fewer than half of Federal employees are satisfied with the recognition they receive for doing a good job. * Fewer than half believe that awards depend on how well employees do their jobs. * Only 30 percent agree that the awards program gives them an incentive to do their best. A substantial proportion of Federal employees are considering leaving their current jobs. --------------------------------------------- * More than one-third of Federal employees report they are considering leaving their organizations, with 16 percent planning to retire within the next 3 years. Agencies scoring less positively on the survey as a whole tend to have the largest number of employees considering leaving, and vice versa. * Items such as those addressing the opportunity to make use of skills and get a better job in the organization link strongly to whether the employee is considering leaving. Pay satisfaction is not strongly linked. The Federal Government needs to pay more attention to the effectiveness of its leaders and their support systems. -------------------------------------------------- * Just 27 percent of Federal employees agree that steps are taken to deal with poor performers, compared to 50 percent who disagree. Employee perceptions on this issue have worsened since the early 1990s, when responses on a similar question split almost evenly between agree and disagree. * Only 36 percent agree that their leaders generate “high levels of motivation and commitment.” * Forty-three percent hold their leaders in high regard. * Forty-five percent say they get information from management about “what’s going on in the organization,” compared to 54 percent in the private industry survey. * Fifty-seven percent feel encouraged by their leaders to come up with “new and better ways of doing things,” compared to 66 percent in the private industry survey. The Federal Government needs to find better ways to recruit and deploy talent. --------------------------------------------------- * Only thirty-nine percent of Federal employees agree that their work units are able to recruit people with the right skills. * Fifty-seven percent believe the skill level in their work unit has improved in the last year. * Seventy-two percent agree that the workforce has the knowledge and skills necessary to do the job. Satisfaction with employee benefits and compensation is high. --------------------------------------- * Over four-fifths of Federal employees are satisfied with the Government programs for paid time off, such as vacation and sick days. * Seventy-seven percent believe their supervisor supports the need to balance work and family issues, and satisfaction with family friendly programs like alternative work schedules, employee assistance programs, and health and wellness programs far outweighs dissatisfaction. * Nearly two-thirds are satisfied with their retirement benefits. * Sixty-four percent are satisfied with their basic pay. * Sixty-three percent rate their benefits as “good” or better, which is comparable to private industry results. * Fifty-six percent rate their pay as “good” or better. *********** OPM will use the survey results together with other information to identify important program or policy changes that may be needed across Government to meet the challenges of managing the Federal work force. In support of the President’s Management Agenda, OPM will also use agency-specific results as one set of measures to help track agency progress and status in human capital management. The overall findings provide individual agencies a sense of the general human capital climate and information they can use as a basis for comparison with their own results. Working with this and other information, agencies can assess their own human capital management status, and develop a plan of action for improvement. ------------ OBSERVATIONS ------------ “The Federal Human Capital Survey is part of the larger effort to promote Strategic Management of Human Capital in accordance with the President’s Management Agenda.” The 2002 Federal Human Capital Survey is historic in both its scope and magnitude. Its 100 questions span the range of dimensions the Federal Government uses to assess the management of its human capital. With a sample size of 200,000, it represents the largest employee survey ever undertaken by the Federal Government and results in statistically meaningful sub-samples at the agency and subcomponent level. TECHNOLOGY HAS IMPROVED THE GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO SURVEY IT WORKERS. The 2002 Federal Human Capital Survey was conducted electronically, facilitating distribution, completion, and collection. The result was a 51 percent response rate, exceeding expectations. WHY UNDERTAKE SUCH AN AMBITIOUS STUDY? -------------------------------------- THE FEDERAL HUMAN CAPITAL SURVEY IS A TOOL FOR ASSESSING WHETHER CONDITIONS THAT CHARACTERIZE HIGH-PERFORMANCE ORGANIZATIONS ARE PRESENT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. We have asked questions about leadership, satisfaction with compensation, sense of mission, and other management issues. These are questions that help assess how effectively an organization is using its human resources management systems. We know that high-performance organizations monitor these indicators, score “high” on them, and pay attention when scores drop. THE FEDERAL HUMAN CAPITAL SURVEY IS PART OF THE LARGER EFFORT TO PROMOTE STRATEGIC MANANGEMENT OF HUMAN CAPITAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA. As the President’s strategic advisor on human capital issues, OPM is committed to develop tools and provide support to help agencies succeed in their human capital transformation efforts and to help make the Federal Government a high-performing workplace. The Federal Human Capital Survey sets a baseline for ongoing human capital assessment and provides an accountability mechanism. In effect, we now have a barometer that can be used to monitor our work environments and compare across agencies, over time, and to other sectors of the economy. THE FEDERAL HUMAN CAPITAL SURVEY PROVIDES SOME OF THE METRICS CALLED FOR IN THE CHIEF CAPITAL OFFICERS ACT OF 2002. The requirement for sound metrics to assess and improve Federal human capital management was recently established in statute. OPM must “design a set of systems, including appropriate metrics, for assessing the management of human capital by Federal agencies.” This requirement ensures a long-term commitment to the assessment and accountability begun with the 2002 Federal Human Capital Survey. WHAT DO WE KNOW AS A RESULT OF THE SURVEY? ------------------------------------------ THE PRESIDENT'S HUMAN CAPITAL INITIATIVE IS BUILDING ON A SOLID BASE OF EMPLOYEE COMPETENCE, PERSONAL COMMITMENT, AND SENSE OF MISSION. Federal employees believe they do important work, and that the work they produce is of high quality. They attest to the presence of a strong spirit of cooperation among their co-workers, which helps them get their job done. They derive a strong sense of personal accomplishment from their work, and they know how their work supports the mission of their agency. MORE ATTENTION NEEDS TO BE PAID TO DEVELOPING AND SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE LEADERS. Federal employees indicated fairly negative perceptions of the leadership performance of their supervisors and managers; fewer than half said they hold their organization’s leaders in high regard. Employees fault their leaders for failing to provide them information they need to be fully effective, and generally do not find their leaders to be a source of motivation or inspiration. The survey results correspond to findings in other studies, reinforcing the conclusion that addressing weaknesses in the Federal Government’s leadership infrastructure is a human capital imperative. WHILE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ARE RELATIVELY SATISFIED WITH THEIR BENEFITS AND, TO A LESSER EXTENT, THEIR PAY, THE GOVERNMENT'S EXCELLENT ARRAY OF FAMILY FRIENDLY PROGRAMS IS SIGNIFICANT FOR MANANGING RETENTION. Recent Corporate Leadership Council and other research findings consistently conclude that pay and benefits ranked among the least important reasons cited by employees as to why they continue to work for a particular company. Federal employees generally have access to and are satisfied with the “work/life” policies and programs that have an impact on employee retention. However, in another area that is key to retaining top talent, offering continuing training and development opportunities, many Federal employees found room for improvement. THE FACT THAT MORE THAN ONE OUT OF EVER THREE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SAY THEY ARE CONSIDERING LEAVING THEIR JOB IS A RED FLAG. As would be expected, the survey shows a strong inverse correlation between an agency’s scores on the various human capital dimensions in the survey and the percentage of its employees who are considering leaving. Given the heightened trust and demands being placed on the Federal Government in the post 9-11 environment and the coming retirement wave, this finding underscores the importance of improving human capital management. We must build organizations that engage the bright, talented people we bring in and make them want to stay and continue to make a contribution. BETTER PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ARE NEEDED. While employees believe they are held accountable for results, most are not satisfied with the recognition or the rewards they receive for doing a good job. They give especially low marks to management’s ability to reward good performance or sanction poor performance. Many do not feel rewarded for coming up with new and better ways of doing things. These results coincide with findings in OPM’s white paper, A Fresh Start for Federal Pay: The Case for Modernization, that Federal pay is largely performance insensitive, as well as the recommendations of the National Commission on the Public Service that advancement and compensation should be tied more closely to performance. They support the President’s call for establishment of a Human Capital Performance Fund as a tool to reward high-performing employees. THE SURVEY INDICATES THE GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE BETTER USE OF THE TALENT OF ITS EMPLOYEES. Employees generally do not believe their agencies are effective in bringing in high-quality talent, and they do not believe their skills and abilities are being used as well as they could be. Further, they believe they do not have the opportunities they would like to develop skills through training and experience. HOW WILL THE FEDERAL HUMAN CAPITAL SURVEY BE USED? -------------------------------------------------- The survey results contain vital and essential information. As the current human capital initiative unfolds, it will take a strong effort, by OPM and each individual agency, to learn and apply the lessons from these survey findings and other evidence. OPM AND OTHERS WILL USE THE SURVEY RESULTS TO HELP SHAPE HUMAN CAPITAL POLICIES THAT LEAD TO BETTER RESULTS FROM GOVERNMENT. It matters, for example, whether people think they have good leaders and whether they believe they are rewarded for their performance. It affects their level of motivation and how likely they are to stay. The survey will help pinpoint overall areas of human capital management that need attention. It will also suggest appropriate program or policy changes that may be needed to succeed in the war for talent, improve the quality of leadership, strengthen the Government’s performance culture, and intensify efforts to promote employee learning—to name some of the opportunities we have for improving human capital management. OPM WILL USE THE FEDERAL HUMAN CAPITAL SURVEY AS A TOOL TO ASSESS INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES AND THEIR PROGRESS TOWARD "GREEN" STATUS ON THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN CAPITAL UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA. These survey findings provide a baseline measure of agency progress in human capital management. Most survey questions tie directly to the Human Capital Standards for Success—the criteria OPM, in conjunction with OMB, uses to assess agency human capital management on a quarterly basis. Detailed guidance relating to each of these standards is reflected in the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF). Used in the context of the HCAAF, survey results indicate the presence and strength of conditions that are known to contribute to high performance within an agency. SENIOR MANAGERS CAN USE THE SURVEY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION: WHAT CAN I DO TO MAKE MY AGENCY WORK BETTER? Each surveyed agency will receive a detailed report with results from its employees. From the overall findings, agencies will gain a sense of the general human capital climate, which can help them understand their own agency and subcomponent results better. Working with this information and other measures within the framework of the HCAAF, they can make a sophisticated assessment of their own human capital management and refine their plan of action for improvement. Continued measurement will be crucial to know whether the plan is working. Subsequent survey results and other data can be used to track progress against the plan and as a gauge to make adjustments if measures start to improve or decline. In a few areas, the broad overall “snapshot” surfaces apparent contradictions. These merit further analysis and we encourage a full exploration of the more detailed data to gain a better understanding of the issues they raise. Improved Federal human capital management is an important goal—a goal that calls for a transformation in the employment, deployment, development, and evaluation of the Federal workforce with results rather than process in mind. The assessment and accountability provided through the Federal Human Capital Survey are essential tools to identify areas that need attention in order to help bring about success in human capital management. Our results indicate the goal is achievable. Some agencies are already well on their way, as demonstrated by the relatively high scores received from their employees. These agency leaders can point the way to others. At the same time, OPM will use the overall results to develop policies and guidance that will help all Federal agencies become and stay citizen-centered, results-oriented, and market-based, as the President envisions. ----------- METHODOLOGY ----------- “This was the largest survey of Federal employees ever undertaken.” The Federal Human Capital Survey was administered from May to August of 2002 to a stratified random sample of over 200,000 executive branch employees throughout the United States and around the world. This was the largest survey of Federal employees ever undertaken. By administering the survey electronically, OPM achieved an overall response rate of 51 percent, with over 100,000 employees completing the survey. WHAT IS THE FEDERAL HUMAN CAPITAL SURVEY? ----------------------------------------- The Federal Human Capital Survey is a tool that measures employees’ perceptions of whether and to what extent conditions that characterize successful organizations are present in their agencies. The results set a baseline for ongoing Human Capital assessment in the Federal Government. Specifically, the survey: * Provides general indicators of how well the Federal Government is running its human resources management systems. * Serves as a tool for OPM to assess individual agencies and their progress toward “green” status on Strategic Management of Human Capital under the President’s Management Agenda. * Gives senior managers critical information to answer the question: What can I do to make my agency work better? WHAT DOES THE FEDERAL HUMAN CAPITAL SURVEY ASK? ----------------------------------------------- The Federal Human Capital Survey was built around five major dimensions of human capital: STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT, STRATEGIC COMPETENCIES (TALENT) LEADERSHIP, PERFORMANCE CULTURE, AND LEARNING (KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT). These dimensions are part of the Human Capital Standards for Success developed jointly by OPM, OMB, and the General Accounting Office. As noted above, these standards comprise the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework, and can be accessed on OPM’s Web site at www.opm.gov/humancapital/. We added survey questions to address employee satisfaction with their job and work environment, compensation and benefits, and the “family friendly” flexibilities the Government offers its employees. Demographic items included in the survey were agency, supervisory status, location of employment (headquarters vs. field), gender, ethnicity/race, age, length of service with current agency, intention to retire within the next 5 years, and intention to leave the current organization. After review by OPM, other agencies, national unions, and other stakeholders, the final 100-question survey was ready for use. (See actual survey questions and results in Appendix A.) HOW WAS THE SURVEY SAMPLE DETERMINED? ------------------------------------- The inaugural administration of the Federal Human Capital Survey was directed at the employees of 24 major agencies represented on the President’s Management Council. Taken together, these agencies comprise approximately 93 percent of the executive branch workforce. (See Appendix B for a list of agencies surveyed and the shorthand labels and abbreviations used throughout this report.) A statistically valid sample was drawn for each of these agencies, so that each could have its own set of results. In most agencies, samples were also drawn for agency subcomponents as small in size as 1,500 employees, or 5 percent of the agency total population. Overall, 189 separate organizations were identified, making the survey results a rich source of internal comparisons across subcomponents within large departments, as well as external comparisons. The sample was also stratified by supervisory status: non-supervisors vs. supervisors vs. executives. This was important because responses across these three categories usually follow a stable and predictable pattern in Government surveys. That is, responses generally become more positive the higher up the employee is in the organization, and the Federal Human Capital Survey results were no exception. Given this fundamental difference in how the three categories of employees perceive the workplace, it was vital to give agencies statistically valid data for all three categories. In addition to using stratified random sampling techniques, we employed a second means of ensuring a representative data set. Because of the differing response rates among the various demographic groups completing the survey, the data were weighted to further ensure that the results are statistically unbiased. In this way, adjustments to response rates could be made to account for over- and under-represented groups within the sample. For example, the gender, age, and agency of respondents do not exactly reflect their actual distribution in the Federal workforce. Or, in the case of supervisors and executives, response levels are over-represented due to stratified random sampling techniques (see Figure 1). Weighting ensures that the demographic make-up of the Federal workforce is reflected in the final data set, from which the overall results reported here are taken. Stratified random sampling, use of weighting procedures to ensure a representative sample, and a large sample size all combine to maximize confidence in the statistical findings, producing a margin of error for all responses of plus or minus 1 percent. HOW WAS THE SURVEY ADMINISTERED? -------------------------------- The survey was conducted electronically with employees notified of their selection for the sample by e-mail. Accommodations were made for a limited number of employees who did not have Internet access or preferred a paper version. Electronic administration made distribution, completion, and collection of the survey much easier. Some employees reported they were able to finish within 15 minutes. Of the 208,424 employees contacted, 106,742 employees responded to the survey, resulting in a 51 percent response rate. The actual numbers of completed and usable records were 100,167 from the electronic medium and 490 from the paper version totaling 100,657 usable responses. This represents a 48 percent usable response rate. Of the 24 agencies covered by the survey, 21 had response rates of over 50 percent, with five at 65 percent or better. One agency, SBA, logged a 73 percent response rate. HOW WERE THE SURVEY DATA ANALYZED? ---------------------------------- In performing statistical analyses for this report, we 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 “Do Not Know.” These responses have been collapsed into one positive category, one negative category, and a neutral one. Other standard response categories were grouped similarly. We conducted analyses on all survey items for the various demographic categories, only a few of which are reported here among the overall results. More detailed survey statistics are available in the published FHCS Data volume for this survey and at the Web address listed at the end of this chapter. When testing the differences between selected categories for each question, a simple z-test was performed for statistical significance at the .05 level of probability. Because of the huge sample size, quite small nominal differences between responses were often statistically significant. WHO RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY? ---------------------------- Characteristics of the survey respondents are shown in Figure 1. Nearly two out of three respondents work in a field office (Q.90). Respondents are more likely to be male than female (Q.92). Three out of five respondents are non-supervisors (Q.91). The large majority are over 40 years old, with 50-59 the largest single age category among the respondents (Q.95). Survey respondents are predominantly white (Q.94). More extensive data on the survey respondents are available at OPM’s Web site, www.fhcs.opm.gov. FIGURE 1 -------- RESPONDENT PROFILES (Federal population percentages are as of December 2001) Work Location of Respondents: Field Office 64% Headquarters 36% FHCS compared to Fed. Pop. Field Office 64% to 83% Headquarters 36% to 17% Supervisory Status of Respondents: (Supervisors and executives were oversampled as part of hte stratified sampling design.) Executive 3% Non-Supervisor 60% Supervisor 37% FHCS compared to Fed. Pop. Executive 3% to >1% Non-Supervisor 60% to 88% Supervisor 37% to 12% Gender of Respondents: Female 41% Male 59% FHCS compared to Fed. Pop. Female 41% to 43% Male 59% to 57% Age of Respondents: Under 40 18% 40-49 34% 50-59 41% 60 & Older 8% FHCS compared to Fed. Pop. Under 40 18% to 27% 40-49 34% to 33% 50-59 41% to 33% 60 & Older 8% to 7% Race/National Origin of Respondents: African American 13% American Indian or Alaska Native 1% Asian, Hawaiian, & other Pacific Islander 4% Hispanic 6% White 75% Other 1% FHCS compared to Fed. Pop. African American 13% to 17% American Indian or Alaska Native 1% to 2% Asian, Hawaiian, & other Pacific Islander 4% to 5% Hispanic 6% to 7% White 75% to 70% Other 1% to 0% (Other represents mixed race respondents. OPM's Central Personnel Data File does not collect mixed race data.) ------------------------ FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY ------------------------ “Federal employees believe their work is important and most find it is fulfilling.” The primary focus of this report of findings from the inaugural Federal Human Capital Survey is on overall results across the Government, but a few specific agency or subpopulation results have also been included as appropriate. Each finding is followed by a parenthetical note identifying the relevant survey question, which can be found in Appendix A. ________________________________ Compared to What? To place the results from the 2002 Federal Human Capital Survey in broader context, OPM has used data available from other surveys for comparison purposes. The surveys are: * The Merit System Principles Questionnaire (MSPQ), an annual survey conducted by OPM until 2001. * A set of private-industry norms drawn from an average of survey data from large, primarily U.S. corporations. * The Survey of Federal Employees (SOFE), conducted by OPM in 1991–92. These sources provide rough benchmarks for comparative purposes based on best available data using similar–but not always identical–questions. While helpful in interpreting the results of the Federal Human Capital Survey, readers should be cautioned that there are limitations in applicability because of the differing methodologies, wording, timing, and other factors. The comparative survey data can be found in Appendix C. Unless otherwise indicated, MSPQ data in the text are from 2001. ________________________________ THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE IS FOCUSED ON ITS MISSION. ------------------------------------------------ FEDERAL EMPLOYEES BELIEVE THEIR WORK IS IMPORTANT AND MOST FIND IT IS FULFILLING.As shown in Figure 2, in response to the statement, “The work I do is important” (Q.19), over nine out of ten respondents agree and only 3 percent disagree. This is both the single highest positive and lowest negative response in the survey. Eighty-two percent report they like the work they do (Q.57), and 70 percent agree that their work gives them a sense of personal accomplishment (Q.56), which is similar to the 68 percent favorable response on this statement from the private sector sample for 1999–2000. Figure 2 -------- POSITIVE RESPONSES REGARDING WORK AND ITS RELATION TO MISSION (Percent Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing) Q.19 >> 91% Q.5 >> 89% Q.57 >> 82% Q.56 >> 70% (Q19) The work I do is important. (Q5) I know how my work relates to the agency's missions and goals. (Q57) I like the kind of work i do. (Q56) My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment. Eighty-nine percent of respondents also know how their work “relates to the agency’s missions and goals” (Q.5). This is comparable to the response (87 percent) to a very similar question, “I have a clear understanding of how my work contributes to the mission of my agency,” in the Survey of Federal Employees in 1992. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ALSO BELIEVE THAT THEY AND THEIR WORK UNITS GET RESULTS. Four out of five respondents agree that “I am held accountable for achieving results” (Q.39), compared to only 7 percent who disagree. This is a strong response though not quite as high as the 86 percent positive response it received in the most recent MSPQ (2001). Eighty percent also agree that people in the workplace cooperate to get the job done (Q.51), similar to the 79 percent positive response to this statement from the private industry group (1999–2000). Eighty-one percent of respondents rate the quality of work done by their work group (Q.61) as “good” or “very good,” which is close to the 83 percent positive response to this question from the private sector sample. Seventy-two percent agree that the “workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish organizational goals” (Q.7), which is almost the same as the response to a similar question, “I believe my organization can perform its function as effectively as any private sector provider” (Q.38). Another two-thirds agree that their physical surroundings allow them to perform well (Q.40). Clearly understanding how individual efforts support the achievement of broader organizational goals is often referred to as “strategic alignment.” This is an important part of the human capital initiative within the President’s Management Agenda. Two other important components of strategic alignment are setting appropriate goals and then measuring to see whether those goals are being met. Over half (55 percent) of the respondents agree that “products and services in my work unit are improved based on customer/public input” (Q.3), which links directly to the President’s goal of making the Government “citizen-centered.” There are large variances in the responses to this statement by agency, which could reflect differences in the kind of work they do or differences in the priority they have given to obtaining and using customer input. As for performance measurement, slightly over half (52 percent) also agree that “information collected on my work unit’s performance is used to improve” its performance (Q.6). This result is much higher than the positive response to the same question (42 percent) in the most recent MSPQ. Human resources management staffs seem to be doing a reasonably good job of supporting strategic alignment. Sixty-two percent of respondents agree that “In my work unit, human resources management strategies are targeted to achieve my agency’s missions and objectives” (Q.1). In addition, the statement, “I am kept informed of changes in personnel policies and employee benefits,” (Q.4) receives a more positive response (67 percent) than the 60 percent it got in the most recent MSPQ. Job satisfaction is a frequently used measure of general employee perceptions of their work and workplace conditions. Sixty-eight percent of respondents express satisfaction with their jobs (Q.68), nearly identical to the 67 percent satisfaction rate in the most recent private industry data from 1999–2000. Only 15 percent of Federal respondents rate themselves as dissatisfied. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO PAY MORE ATTENTION TO ITS PERFORMANCE CULTURE. ---------------------------------------- EMPLOYEES INDICATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DO A VERY GOOD JOB OF RECOGNIZING TOP PERFORMERS. Performance culture is defined in the survey as follows: “The agency’s culture motivates employees to achieve high performance, employees are engaged and focused on achieving the results expected of them, the agency fosters a climate that values diversity in the workplace, and the agency deals with poor performers.” Survey questions relating to performance culture in all its facets produce some of the lowest levels of positive response in the entire survey. Rewards for Good Performance ---------------------------- STATEMENTS ABOUT REWARDS FOR GOOD PERFORMANCE EVOKE A GENERALLY LOW LEVEL OF AGREEMENT.In nearly all cases, fewer than half of employees respond positively to statements about recognition for performance (Figure 3). Only three in ten agree that their organization’s awards program gives them an incentive to do their best (Q.36), while 45 percent percent disagree. Other statements regarding timeliness of awards (Q.32) and adequacy of rewards for customer service (Q.33) or creativity (Q.34) also receive low scores. Interestingly, minority responses to these statements are significantly more positive than those from non-minority respondents. Figure 3 -------- PERCEPTIONS ABOUT PERFORMANCE (Percent Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing) Q.35 >> 65% Q.31 >> 47% Q.33 >> 44% Q.32 >> 41% Q.34 >> 38% Q.36 >> 30% (35) My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance. (31) Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs. (33) Employees are rewarded for providing high quality products and services to customers. (32) High-performing employees in my work unit are recognized or rewarded on a timely basis. (34) Creativity and innovation are rewarded. (36) Our organization’s awards program provides me with an incentive to do my best. One of the highest scoring statements in this group of items is “Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs” (Q.31), which rises to 47 percent from only 41 percent in the 2001 MSPQ. Also, a comparable question about satisfaction with recognition for good performance (Q.65) gets a 46 percent positive response, which is similar to the response from employees in the private sector in 1999–2000. The weak private sector response gives an indication of how difficult it can be to create systems that effectively reward good performance. For all statements dealing with recognition and rewards, positive responses from employees working at agency headquarters (HQ) are significantly higher than those from field offices (see Table 1). Table 1 -------- POSITIVE RESPONSES REGARDING RECOGNITION AND REWARDS: Headquarters vs. Field Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs (Q.31) HQ >> 49% FIELD >> 47% High-performing employees in my unit are recognized or rewarded on a timely basis (Q.32) HQ >> 44% FIELD >> 40% Employees are rewarded for high quality products and services to customers (Q.33) HQ >> 47% FIELD >> 42% Creativity and innovation are rewarded (Q.34) HQ >> 40% FIELD >> 38% Our organization’s awards program provides me with an incentive to do my best (Q.36) HQ >> 32% FIELD >> 29% I am satisfied with the recognition I receive for doing a good job (Q.65) HQ >> 49% FIELD >> 45% The survey provides evidence that the performance appraisal or assessment aspect of the performance management system is working reasonably well. Sixty-five percent agree that their appraisal is a “fair reflection” of their performance (Q.35), compared to 63 percent in the last MSPQ. In the 1991–1992 SOFE survey, only 54 percent agreed that their performance rating was “accurate.” Fifty-eight percent of current survey respondents also find their discussions with supervisors about performance to be “worthwhile” (Q.41). Workforce Diversity ------------------- sTATEMENTS RELATING TO WORKPLACE DIVERSITY GET MODERATELY POSITIVE RESPONSES, BUT LESS SO AMONG MINORITY EMPLOYEES. There is a notable difference from the most recent MSPQ in the positive responses to the statement, “Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit are committed to a workforce representative of all segments of society” (Q.42). Fifty-seven percent respond positively in this survey compared to 68 percent in the MSPQ. The statements, “Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees of different backgrounds” (Q.44) and “Policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace (for example, recruiting minorities and women, training in awareness of diversity issues, mentoring)” (Q.43), surfaced a divergence of at least 12 percentage points between minority and non-minority respondents. Statistically, there is a strong relationship between having diversity programs in place and employees’ perception that the organization is committed to diversity(Correlation analysis shows a positive relationship between the statements, “Policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace (for example, recruiting minorities and women, training in awareness of diversity issues, mentoring)” (Q.43) and “Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit are committed to workforce representative of all segments of society” (Q.42). Standard statistical tests produce a tau-b of 0.549 and a chi square of 44305.02, with 4 degrees of freedom). This indicates that an active effort by agencies to promote diversity can yield results. A SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES REPORT THEY ARE CONSIDERING LEAVING THEIR CURRENT JOBS. ------------------------------------- MORE THAN A THIRD OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS (35 PERCENT) SAY THEY ARE CONSIDERING LEAVING THEI ORGANIZATIONS (Q.980. Some of these employees plan to retire, with 4 percent indicating intention to retire within the next year and an additional 12 percent planning to do so in 1 to 3 years (Q.99). Not surprisingly, individual agency results indicate that the agencies with more negative responses overall tend to have the largest number of employees considering leaving. Conversely, agencies that have more positive responses overall tend to have fewer employees interested in leaving. Table 2 shows in rank order the statements relating most strongly with not intending to leave the organization. (Employees intending to retire within 5 years are excluded from this analysis.) Questions relating to job satisfaction and satisfaction with the organization are most closely associated with whether an employee was not considering leaving. In other words, the more dissatisfied an employee is, the more likely it is that employee will consider leaving. These are followed by questions about potential opportunities in the present organization and how well employees believe their skills and talents are being used. By contrast, questions about pay and benefits satisfaction have little relation—positively or negatively—with whether the employee is considering leaving. In fact, respondents from the five agencies with the highest percentage considering leaving actually report greater satisfaction with pay across the board than the overall average. Table 2 -------- Survey Questions Most Related to Not Leaving the Organization (Q.98): (Ordered from Most Strongly Related to Less Strongly Related) Rank 1 Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job? (Q.68) Correlation Coefficient: .425 Rank 2 Considering everything, how would you rate your overall satisfaction in your organization at the present time? (Q.69) Correlation Coefficient: .410 Rank 3 I recommend my organization as a good place to work. (Q.13) Correlation Coefficient: .365 Rank 4 How would you rate your organization as an organization to work for compared to other organizations? (Q.62) Correlation Coefficient: .355 Rank 5 How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in your organization? (Q.66) Correlation Coefficient: .349 Rank 6 My job makes good use of my skills and abilities. (Q.55) Correlation Coefficient: .318 Rank 7 My talents are used well in the workplace. (Q.11) Correlation Coefficient: .313 Rank 8 My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment. (Q.56) Correlation Coefficient: .301 Correlation Coefficient= tau-b Note: Response patterns were recoded so that a positive correlation coefficient reflects a direct relationship between intention to not leave the organization and a positive response to the individual statement. Statements are ranked on the basis of the positive coefficient. Two of the three items relating to organizational satisfaction can be compared to the private industry composite. Fifty-five percent of Federal respondents rate themselves as “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their organizations (Q.69) compared to 63 percent in the private sector group for 1999–2000. Fifty-two percent in the Federal survey rate their organization as “above average” or better compared to other organizations, compared to 57 percent in the private industry composite in 1998–1999 (Q.62). Thirty-two percent in the Federal survey rate their organization as “average” and 17 percent indicate “below average” or worse. (Percentages on the lower end of the scale are not available for the private sector sample.) Responses on these questions are predictably higher for supervisors and especially executives, particularly on the question about how the organization compares to others, where the positive response given by executives is some 25 percentage points higher than that given by non-supervisory employees. This is one of the larger disparities for any item based on supervisory status. Individual agencies do not for the most part differ substantially from each other on these questions, and the minority status of respondents also seems to make little difference in the response. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO PAY MORE ATTENTION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ITS LEADERS AND THEIR SUPPORT SYSTEMS. ---------------------------------------- EMPLOYEES' PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR AGENCY LEADERSHIP ARE NOT STRONGLY POSITIVE. Leadership is a major component of the human capital initiative that the survey supports, and is defined in the survey as follows:“Leaders inspire, motivate, and guide others towards goals. Coaches and mentors in your agency challenge staff. The leadership adapts leadership styles to various situations. Leadership abides by high standards of honesty, integrity, trust, openness, and respect for individuals.” Dealing with Poor Performers ---------------------------- DEALING EFFECTIVELY WITH POOR PERFORMERS REQUIRES STRONG LEADERSHIP. EMPLOYEES DO NOT BELIEVE THEIR AGENCIES TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO DEAL WITH EMPLOYEES WHO DO NOT PERFORM WELL. Only 27 percent respond positively to the statement, “In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not improve” (Q.37), which is the lowest positive response for all statements with an agree/disagree response scale. Half respond negatively, which is also the highest negative response for any question, and 22 percent disagree strongly that steps are taken. The 2001 MSPQ yielded the same result, but MSPQ results from previous years show a decline over time in the positive response to this statement. This view is especially prevalent among the non-supervisory employees, where only 24 percent gave a positive response, compared to 44 percent and 51 percent of supervisors and executives, respectively. Thirty-six percent of supervisors and 29 percent of executives responded negatively. Unlike other statements assessing leadership, agency variance around the overall survey average is generally small. A comparable statement from the 1991–1992 SOFE, “My supervisor deals effectively with poor performers,” showed an almost even split between positive (33 percent), neutral (32 percent), and negative (34 percent) responses. This contrasts sharply with the substantial skew toward the negative on the current survey. General Leadership ------------------ Survey results show that many respondents do not perceive their leaders as effective in motivating or giving them the opportunity to grow and develop. Only 36 percent agree that their leaders “generated high levels of motivation and commitment” (Q.20). Executives are much more positive than either supervisors or non-supervisors, by 63 percent to 45 percent and 63 percent to 35 percent, respectively. Fewer than half of respondents agree that “employees have a feeling of personal empowerment and ownership of work processes” (39 percent agreement) (Q.21) or that “supervisors/team leaders are receptive to change” (49 percent agreement) (Q.22). On a more positive note, 57 percent of all respondents agree that employees are provided with “opportunities to demonstrate their leadership skills” (Q.17). Fifty-nine percent agree that their supervisors “encourage my development at work” (Q.18). A few of the leadership questions can be compared to the private industry sample. Table 3 shows these comparisons. Although some of the differences are small, both questions with response differences of five or more percentage points favor the private sector. TABLE 3 ------- Comparison with Private Sector on General Leadership: Positive Responses Satisfaction with involvement in decisions affecting work (Q.63) Government 52% Private Sector 50% Immediate supervisor/leader does a good job (Q.60) Government 61% Private Sector 67% (From 1998–99; all other percentages in table 1999–2000) Given real opportunity to improve skills in the organization (Q.52) Government 57% Private Sector 59% Feel encouraged to come up with new/better ways to do things (Q.54) Government 57% Private Sector 66% Integrity of Leaders/Fairness in the Workplace ----------------------------- GENERALLY, LESS THAN HALF THE RESPONDENTS ARE POSITIVE REGARDING THE INTEGRITY OF LEADERS AND THE FAIRNESS OF THE WORKPLACE. Figure 4 shows the positive responses to these statements (Q.23–Q.27). The level of agreement with the statement, “Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion for partisan political purposes are not tolerated,” (Q.26) is 45 percent, compared to 56 percent in the most recent MSPQ. On the whole many more non-supervisors than supervisors respond negatively to these statements—with a difference of over 20 percentage points for each question—and there is also a more negative response from minority respondents, who are disproportionately non-supervisory. FIGURE 4 -------- Positive Responses Regarding the Integrity of Leaders and the Fairness of the Workplace (Percent Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing) Q.27 >> 55% Q.24 >> 47% Q.26 >> 45% Q.25 >> 44% Q.23 >> 43% (27) I can disclose a suspected violation of Law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal. (24) My organization’s leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity. (26) Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion for partisan political purposes are not tolerated. (25) Complaints, disputes or grievances are resolved fairly in my work unit. 23) I hold my organization’s leaders in high regard. Fewer than two out of five minority employees (37 percent) respond favorably to the statement about arbitrary action and personal favoritism, compared to almost 48 percent of the non-minority respondents. This is the third largest minority/non-minority disparity in the entire survey, exceeded only by two questions dealing specifically with diversity in the workplace (Q.43 and Q.44). Almost as great is the minority/non-minority difference in response to the statement, “I can disclose a suspected violation of law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal” (Q.27). It is apparent from the data that minority employees have a more negative view of fairness and due process in the workplace. Women also have a consistently more negative response to these statements than men, but the difference is much smaller (in the range of three percentage points). It has sometimes been argued that because alternative personnel systems (APS) or demonstration projects give more authority to individual managers, they are likely to give rise to abuses. Responses to the statement relating to arbitrariness are actually 5 percent more positive for the demonstration/APS population than for the non-demonstration population. That is, more demonstration/APS employees agree that arbitrary actions and personal favoritism are not tolerated. MOST EMPLOYEES REPORT THAT THEY KNOW ABOUT THE MERIT SYSTEM AND THE RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS IT AFFORDS TO EMPLOYEES. Seventy-two percent of respondents agree that they know what the Merit System Principles are (Q.28), and four out of five report knowledge of the Prohibited Personnel Practices (Q.29). This is a much more positive response than was obtained in the 2001 MSPQ, where 57 percent expressed knowledge of the Merit Principles and 70 percent of the Prohibited Personnel Practices. This result may have been influenced by the fact that an abridged version of the Merit System Principles and Prohibited Personnel Practices is listed in the Definitions section of the survey, helping respondents link familiar concepts to what may have been unfamiliar terms. Respondents are also much more positive about the effectiveness of whistleblower protection, which is one of the Merit System Principles. Their level of agreement that they can “disclose a suspected violation of law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal” (Q.27) is 55 percent, compared to 41 percent in the 2001 MSPQ. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO FIND BETTER WAYS TO RECRUIT AND DEPLOY TALENT. ----------------------------------------- FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AT ALL LEVELS PERCEIVE THAT THEIR AGENCIES OFTEN CANNOT ATTRACT THE RIGHT PEOPLE FOR THE JOB. Improving each agency’s ability to recruit, develop, and retain employees with the strategic competencies for mission-critical occupations is another important element in OPM’s human capital initiative. In response to the statement, “My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills” (Q.15), positive and negative responses are almost exactly the same, 39 percent vs. 38 percent. Even supervisors, who make many of the selections, are split evenly on this statement, with two-fifths agreeing and two-fifths disagreeing. Employees do see improvement in their workplace, even if they are not particularly positive about the outcome of the recruitment process. The statement, “The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year” (Q.8), elicits a 57 percent positive response. Seventy-two percent agree that the workforce has the knowledge and skills necessary to do the job (Q.7). Respondents also express dissatisfaction about the Government’s internal hiring process. The statement, “Selections for promotions in my work unit are based on merit” (Q.16), brings a positive response of 36 percent and a 40 percent negative response. In this case, there are major differences in the responses based on supervisory status, with executives and supervisors being much more positive. This statement was also included in the MSPQ, where the percentage of positive responses has hovered around 40 percent in recent years. Variance among agency responses to the promotion questions is generally rather narrow. Using People Wisely ------------------- FEDERAL EMPLOYEES GENERALLY BELIEVE THEIR TALENTS ARE WELL UTILIZED, BUT TO A LESSER DEGREE THAT THEIR PRIVATE SECTOR COUNTERPARTS. Getting and keeping the right talent also involves making good use of employees already on board. The statement, “My job makes good use of my skills and abilities” (Q.55), produces a 64 percent positive response, compared to the private sector response in 1999–2000 of 70 percent. Another resource-related statement, “I have sufficient resources (for example, people, materials, budget, etc.) to get my job done” (Q.14), evokes a positive response from 49 percent of respondents, with 38 percent disagreeing. This is one of the rare items where supervisory responses are considerably less positive than non-supervisory ones. Another element of maintaining talent is how well employees believe they are treated. Nearly 68 percent of respondents agree that their workplace is “a friendly place to work” (Q.12). Also, the statement, “My workload is reasonable” (Q.10), gets a positive response from 65 percent (25 percent disagree), compared to 62 percent in the 2001 MSPQ. SATISFACTION WITH EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND COMPENSATION IS HIGH. ----------------------------------- Paid Time Off ------------- EMPLOYEES EXPRESS GENERALLY HIGH LEVELS OF SATISFACTION WITH THE VARIOUS TYPES OF PAID TIME OFF AVAILABLE TO THEM. Overall satisfaction with leave, or paid time off, is very high at 83 percent, easily outstripping any other benefits in level of satisfaction. Figure 5 shows satisfaction with specific types of leave, with paid vacation (Q.78) and sick leave for personal (Q.79) and family illness (Q.80) all registering very high levels of satisfaction. Dissatisfaction levels are also extremely low, with no more than 6 percent for any of the categories. There are large neutral responses (50 percent or slightly higher) to paid leave for childbirth/adoption (Q.81) and for elder care (Q.82). Many employees do not make use of these types of paid time off. FIGURE 5 -------- Satisfaction with Paid Time O (Percent Satisfied or Very Satisfied) Vacation Time >> 89% Leave for Personal Illness >> 86% Leave for Family Illness >> 76% Leave for Elder Care >> 45% Leave for Childbirth/Adoption >> 40% Employees also rank the importance to them of the various types of paid time off (Q.77), and results are shown in Table 4. These rankings line up similarly to the responses to the question about satisfaction, with vacation time rated most important. This general congruence between satisfaction and importance provides a broad indication that the Federal paid time off program is successfully meeting employee needs. Family Friendly Flexibilities ----------------------------- EMPLOYEES EXPRESS BROAD SATISFACTION WITH FAMILY FRIENDLY FLEXIBILITIES, ALTHOUGH AVAILABILITY IS AN ISSUE. Family friendly flexibilities, also known as “work/life” flexibilities, are programs that allow employees to work more flexible hours or at a location away from the office or that support them in their personal lives. They are designed to make the Federal Government a more attractive place to work. The Government has expended much effort in recent years to devise and implement such programs. Seventy-seven percent of respondents agree that “My supervisor supports my need to balance work and family issues” (Q.9). This is also more positive than the 72 percent agreement with a similar question in SOFE 10 years ago (“I am satisfied with the balance I’ve achieved between work and family life”). The survey asked respondents to rate each of these flexibilities on satisfaction (Q.83a–Q.89a), importance (Q.83b–Q.89b), and availability (Q.83c–Q.89c). Results are shown in Figure 6. Employees tend to be satisfied if the flexibility is important to them and available. Alternative work schedules are the best example of this, ranking on top in satisfaction, importance, and availability. Similarly, the health and wellness program flexibility is second only to alternative work schedules in both satisfaction and importance, and third in availability. FIGURE 6 -------- Perceptions About Family Friendly Flexibilities (Satisfaction vs. Importance vs. Availability) Telework/Telecommuting Satisfaction Positive Response 22% Importance Positive Response 34% Availability Positive Response 23% Alternative Work Schedules Satisfaction Positive Response 56% Importance Positive Response 63% Availability Positive Response 67% Child Care Subsidies Satisfaction Positive Response 9% Importance Positive Response 18% Availability Positive Response 11% Employee Assistance Programs Satisfaction Positive Response 28% Importance Positive Response 29% Availability Positive Response 66% Health and Wellness Programs Satisfaction Positive Response 33% Importance Positive Response 44% Availability Positive Response 55% Support Groups Satisfaction Positive Response 16% Importance Positive Response 20% Availability Positive Response 27% Elder Care Programs Satisfaction Positive Response 10% Importance Positive Response 23% Availability Positive Response 10% Conversely, employees tend to express dissatisfaction when a flexibility is important to them but unavailable. Telework/telecommuting has the highest level of dissatisfaction (20 percent), and the third highest level of importance (34 percent), behind only alternative work schedules and health and wellness programs. It also is perceived as least available, with 59 percent indicating lack of availability. Similarly, elder care programs register fairly low in importance (23 percent) and at the bottom in satisfaction (10 percent) and availability (also 10 percent). These 13 percentage point gaps between elder care importance, satisfaction, and availability suggest an area where agencies could take effective action. Benefits -------- Sixty-three percent of Federal employees rate their “total benefits programs” (Q.59) as “good” or “very good.” This response is comparable to the private sector survey from 1998–1999, where 63 percent also rated their benefits highly. Employee satisfaction with the Federal retirement benefit (Q.72) exceeds satisfaction with pay (Q.71) by a small margin (66 percent vs. 64 percent), and employees covered by the original Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) express more satisfaction than those under the current Federal Employ-ees Retirement System (FERS). This could reflect the fact that defined benefit plans such as CSRS, which are becoming generally less common, guarantee the amount of a retiree’s monthly annuity regardless of the rate of return on investments. Figure 7 shows satisfaction levels with the various benefits. Life insurance (Q.73) and health insurance (Q.74) trail retirement (Q.72), with health benefits registering the highest level of dissatisfaction at 29 percent. Finally, the newly created Long Term Care Insurance benefit (Q.75), not yet implemented at the time of the survey, generates a largely neutral response of 64 percent. FIGURE 7 -------- Satisfaction with Pay, Leave, and Benefits (Percent Satisfied or Very Satisfied) Paid Time Off (Leave) >> 83% Retirement Benefits >> 66% Your Pay >> 64% Life Insurance Benefits >> 56% Health Insurance Benefits >> 50% Long Term Care Insurance Benefits >> 21% Survey respondents were also asked to rank the various aspects of pay and benefits (Q.70) according to their importance. Results are shown in Table 5. Not surprisingly, the elements that represent income to sustain day-to-day living in routine conditions now and in retirement rank highest. Nor is it particularly surprising that the benefit with which employees are least familiar—long term care insurance—is ranked low in importance. TABLE 5 ------- Importance of Pay and Benefits (Q.70) Rank in Order of Importance 1 Pay 2 Retirement 3 Life Insurance 4 Health Insurance 5 Long Term Care Insurance 6 Paid Time Off(Leave) The Government’s benefits package is generally uniform across agencies except for a few anomalies such as earlier retirement for particular occupations. Fairly uniform levels of satisfaction with this package across the agencies might therefore be expected. However, some agencies show a higher level of satisfaction, perhaps indicating variations in levels of benefits education and information supplied by agencies. Pay --- Government employees appear to be more satisfied with their pay than their private sector counterparts. Overall, 64 percent of the sample respond positively to the question, “How satisfied are you with your pay?” (Q.71). Twenty-one percent express dissatisfaction. Similarly, 56 percent characterize their pay as “good” or “very good” (Q.58) compared to only 44 percent of the private sector respondents. This is the largest difference on the positive side among the items for which private sector data are available. However, the private sector data are from 1998–99 and may have yielded a different result had the question been asked in the economic conditions present in 2002. Comparing this response to the response to a similar statement (“I am satisfied with my pay”) in the 1991–1992 SOFE shows that the overall level of satisfaction with pay has increased dramatically during the past decade—from 32 percent to 64 percent. As Figure 8 shows, Government pay increases have much more closely mirrored the private sector during the 10 years between SOFE and this survey than during the 10 years before that. Private sector pay rates increased in the 1980s and early 1990s by 48.9 percent as measured by the Employment Cost Index. During the same period, pay raises for white-collar civilian Federal employees covered by the General Schedule (GS) pay system totaled only 32.1 percent. FIGURE 8 -------- Cumulative Increase 1982-92 and 1992-2002: Employment Cost Index(ECI) and GS Pay ECI 1982-1992 >> 48.9% ECI 1992-2002 >> 38.8% GS Pay 1982-1992 >> 32.1% GS Pay 1992-2002 >> 39.5% By contrast, the next 10 years (1992–2002) saw GS salaries increase by an average of 38.8 percent, only slightly below the private sector increase of 39.5 percent. While this close comparability may not have existed for all occupations, the overall rate of increase over the past decade for Federal employees has been roughly on a par with that for private sector workers. In addition, under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990, the Federal Government implemented a new locality pay program (implemented in 1994) for GS employees in the 48 contiguous states. This program has directed funds available for pay increases during the past 8 years to higher-cost locations. The increasing age of the Federal workforce also means there is a greater proportion of workers 40 or older than there was 10 years ago. Pay satisfaction within the Federal workforce is somewhat greater among older workers in the current survey (64 percent compared to 62 percent for the under 40 respondents) (Q.71). These and other factors will need to be considered carefully as the Government works to ensure its pay levels are adequate and its pay delivery systems are designed to attract and retain the workforce of the future. Pay satisfaction is lower among executives (59 percent positive) (Q.71) than other employees. Federal executive pay has generally been thought of as less competitive, a situation exacerbated by the statutory pay caps compressing executive pay at the time of the survey. FEDERAL EXPERIENCE WITH LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT -------------------------------- The survey also included questions on learning and knowledge management, another important element of human capital management under the President’s Management Agenda. Learning and knowledge management is defined in the survey as “your agency’s ability to promote a knowledge-sharing culture and a climate of openness; continuous learning and improvement.” Survey questions on this topic can be divided into those dealing with training needs assessment and delivery on the one hand and knowledge management on the other. Training Needs Assessment and Delivery -------------------------------------- Younger employees report somewhat greater satisfaction with the opportunities afforded them to improve their skills. Those under 40 give 61 percent positive responses as compared to 55 percent positive for respondents 40 and older (Q.52). Sixty percent of all respondents agree that “I receive the training I need to perform my job” (Q.48). Half of all respondents agree that their training needs are assessed (Q.46), roughly the same as in recent results from the MSPQ. This is one of the few statements in the entire survey for which executives give more negative responses than supervisors or rank and file employees. Only 45 percent of executives agree their training needs are assessed. Table 6 shows learning/knowledge management questions for which comparable private industry data are available. Satisfaction with training (Q.67) lags the private sector, although the Government employees report better access to information (Q.53). (Both private sector comparisons are from 1998–1999.) Correlation analysis shows that respondents who say their training needs are assessed are also more likely to say that they receive the training needed for the job(Correlation analysis shows a positive relationship between the statements, “My training needs are assessed ” (Q.46) and “I receive the training I need to perform my job” (Q.45). Standard statistical tests produce a tau-b of 0.524 and a chi square of 37129.8, with 4 degrees of freedom). TABLE 6 ------- Comparison with Private Sector on Learning/Knowledge Management: Positive Responses Satisfaction with training received for present job (Q.67) Federal Agencies 53% Private Sector 58%* Given real opportunity to improve skills in organization (Q.52) Federal Agencies 57% Private Sector 59%** Have enough information to do job well (Q.53) Federal Agencies 71% Private Sector 67%* *1998–1999 **1999–2000 The statement, “Employees are willing to be retrained and moved to other positions in the organization” (Q.47), receives a 49 percent positive response. Employees give more positive responses on the whole to this statement than managers. When asked to respond to the statement, “Employees have electronic access to learning and training programs readily available at their desk” (Q.45), two-thirds agree, indicating that the Government has moved rather quickly to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by “e-learning.” Some of the biggest differences among agencies register on this statement. Knowledge Management -------------------- Questions relating to knowledge management—how necessary information is made available throughout the organization—get a mixed response. The statement, “Employees in my work unit share their knowledge with each other” (Q.49), gets a 74 percent positive response. Seventy-one percent agree with “I have enough information to do my job well” (Q.53), which is greater than the 65 percent positive response a decade ago in SOFE and above the private sector response from 1998–1999 (see Table 6). Employees at all levels believe that vital information about the organization does not make its way down the chain of command. In response to the question, “How satisfied are you with the information you receive from management on what’s going on in your organization” (Q.64), only 45 percent responded positively, compared to 54 percent in the private sector survey from 1999–2000, the single biggest disparity on the negative side between the Federal and private sectors. About a third of all respondents, and even 19 percent of the executives, responded negatively to this question. Half the respondents agreed that “Managers promote communication among different work units (for example, about projects, goals, needed resources)” (Q.50). Supervisors and executives gave a much more positive response to this statement. ---------- APPENDICES ---------- APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES ------------------------------------------ Due to rounding, response percentages for each question may not always add to 100.0%. Similarly, the first column on the left (All Positive Responses) adds together the following two “favorable” response columns, but may not equal the exact sum of those percentages due to rounding. Weighting procedures have been applied to ensure that the demographic make-up of the Federal civilian non-Postal workforce is properly reflected. SURVEY RESPONSES QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES CAN BE FOUND ON THE WEB AT: http://www.fhcs.opm.gov/ APPENDIX B: LIST OF AGENCIES SURVEYED ------------------------------------- A stratified random sample of 24 member agencies of the President’s Management Council (PMC) was drawn and surveyed in the Federal Human Capital Survey. Employees in these 24 agencies represent 93.3 percent of the Federal civilian non-Postal workforce. The agencies are listed below, with the commonly used names and abbreviations that appear in this report provided in parentheses. -Department of Agriculture (USDA) -Department of Commerce (Commerce) -Department of Defense (DoD) -Department of Education (Education) -Department of Energy (Energy) -Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) -Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) -Department of the Interior (Interior) -Department of Justice (Justice) -Department of Labor (Labor) -Department of State (State) -Department of Transportation (DOT) -Department of the Treasury (Treasury) -Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) -Agency for International Development (AID) -Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) -General Services Administration (GSA) -National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) -National Science Foundation (NSF) -Office of Management and Budget (OMB) -Office of Personnel Management (OPM) -Small Business Administration (SBA) -Social Security Administration (SSA) APPENDIX C: EXISTING SURVEYS USED FOR COMPARISON ------------------------------------------------ Federal Human Capital Survey items were drawn from several sources. Many items were created to assess the dimensions of human capital developed to support the President’s Management Agenda. A slightly modified version of these dimensions is identified in the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework developed jointly by OPM, OMB, and the General Accounting Office. Well-tested questions were also taken from OPM’s Merit System Principles Questionnaire (MSPQ). The MSPQ questions came with a built-in set of previous responses over a period of years, which was very helpful in understanding the responses to the new survey. Additional questions about “personal experiences” and “job satisfaction” were also included to allow for comparison with private sector response data. Until the Federal Human Capital Survey was created in 2002, the MSPQ had been administered annually by OPM across the Federal Government since 1996. This special-purpose instrument consisted of approximately 60 questions focusing on perceptions about the content and application of the Merit System Principles. Seventeen of these questions were incorporated into the Federal Human Capital Survey. No statistical tests have been conducted comparing responses between the Federal Human Capital Survey and MSPQ. Questions with either historical trend data or current private sector response comparisons are especially valuable for providing some kind of context and meaning for the baseline data captured in the Federal Human Capital Survey. OPM also has access to data that are reflective of current private industry trends. This summary information is an average of data from large, primarily U.S. corporations that are participants in OPM's Performance America initiative. The data were gathered in a series of organizational surveys conducted from 1998 to 2000. Because individual-level data are not available, it is not possible to conduct detailed analyses comparing public sector and private sector response patterns using various statistical controls. Finally, in 1991 and 1992 the Office of Personnel Management conducted a “Survey of Federal Employees” (SOFE), which represents the earliest OPM Governmentwide survey of Federal employees from which published data are available. There are some differences in the survey methodology between the two surveys. SOFE was based on a much smaller Governmentwide sample rather than the sum of many agency and sub-agency samples. SOFE did not include Federal Wage System (FWS) employees, who constitute about 5% of the Federal Human Capital Survey sample. Despite these differences and limitations, SOFE provides a historical perspective of Governmentwide perceptions on a few comparably phrased survey questions from a decade ago. To all those who spent endless hours... OPM FEDERAL HUMAN CAPITAL SURVEY TEAM Harry Amderson Susai Anthony Wanda Baez Gladys Beltre Aaron Bonar Lora Boone Briona Brown Susan Bryant Alita Coleman John Cranor Mark Dabney Bill Dristy Donald Dristy Alice Fong Eldon Girdner Andrew Good Terri Hauser Doris Hausser Robert Heim Dawn Hively Stella Hutchins-Johnson Kamaron Kellum Loren Klein Mary Lamary Albert McDuffie Kenneth Middleton Steve Miner Angela Perkins Nancy Randa Tony Ryan Phil Sagal John Sanet Dana Sitnick Joseph Slye Darian Smith Michael Smith Soraya Smith Charlie Taylor Rhonda Taylor Barbara Thomas Paul Thompson Jose Velasquez Cassandra Walker Rob West Judy White FEDERAL AGENCIES TEAM Agriculture-Betty Waters AID-David Johnson Commerce-Michael Cohen DOD-Frank Hushek Education-Jeffrey Franks Energy-Jackie Jones-Peter EPA-Bob Cleary FEMA-Barry Socks GSA-Neil Skidmore HHS-Karen Billingslea and Nikki Bratcher-Bowman HUD-Charlene Paige Interior-Dave Anderson and Beres Muschett Justice-Paul Krumsiek Labor-Richard Kelly NASA-Bill Ingerski NSF-Cindy Mays OMB-Steve Weigler OPM-Janet Cope SBA-Robert Moffett SSA-Cary Barad State-Lisa Chichester, Laura Hall, and Lattice McNeil Transportation-Don Faulkner, Jan Karicher, and Jim Woodmansee Treasury-Randy Kruger and Jim Parker VA-Tony Horty Thanks also to the many other people in OPM who provided advice and assistance as needed, as well as to the employees in the participating Federal agencies who helped make this endeavor a major success. Although the private industry survey norm reported here is not and should not be interpreted as the Mayflower Group Norm, special thanks are due to the Mayflower Group for assisting the participating companies in sharing their survey data with OPM. And a great big “thank you” to over 100,000 Federal employees who took the time to answer the survey and share their thoughts with us.