2012 government management report
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
1/65
2012
Feer Eee Viei Srve Ress
EmployEES InFluEncIng changE
goVERnmEntwIdE managEmEnt REpoRt
United StateS
Oice O PerSOnnel ManageMent
over687,000
FeerEees
oiis
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
2/65
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
3/65
a message from the Director
In the spring o 2012, OPM asked 1.6 million Federal employees to provide their perspective on the business
o Government, and to tell us about their experience what they see working, and what needs to be xed.
Over 687,000 answered the call, more than twice as many as any previous survey.
For the rst time since it began as the Federal Human Capital Survey, the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
attempted to reach every ull- or part-time, permanent, civilian Government employee, with very ew
exceptions. Such a large data collection presents the opportunity to get the views o employees, making this
the most inclusive survey to date.
At the broadest level, employees continue to believe their work is important and are willing to contribute
extra eort to get the job done. At the governmentwide level, telework opportunities show a clear positive
impact, with clearly higher engagement and satisaction scores among teleworkers at all pay levels. elework-
eligible employees also grew as a population, rom one out o our to one out o three Federal employees.
However, stresses on public servants including continued tight budgets and pay reezes are reected inour Global Satisaction indicator, even while more than two-thirds o employees recommend their organization
as a good place to work.
At the agency level, the greater volume o responses collected this year will enable a closer look at their
results. For the rst time, agencies can dive deeper into their data and create customized reports. Te real
value in the FEVS is how it is used by agencies to improve services or the American people. I encourage
managers and leaders at every agency to use the greater granularity oered in this years report to identiy
and learn rom successul groups within their agency.
OPM continues to work to make employee viewpoint survey inormation more readily available. As always,
many results are available at our survey website: www.FedView.opm.gov.
On behal o President Obama, I want to thank the many participating Federal employees or sharing their
insights on the survey, and or their continued dedication and service to America.
Sincerely,
John BerryDirector
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
4/65
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
5/65
table of contents
euv Summ 1
iouo 2
eVS is 5
Supvso 15
lshp 17
Sp tops 19
cousos 25
ad
app a: govm rspo chss 26
app B: Pp as rspos rs 29
app c: 2012 empo Vpo Suv Mhos 32
app d: t ass 35
app e: Hcaa i ts 40
app : gob Sso i ts 48
app g: empo em i ts 50
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
6/65
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
7/65executive summary
executive summaryTe 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) attempted to reach every permanent civilian Government
employee in the Executive branch with very ew exceptions. A record breaking 687,687 employees made their
voices heard. Tis is the largest number o participants since the survey was rst administered in 2002, and more
than double the number o respondents rom any previous employee viewpoint survey. Tis year results will be
provided to a greater number o components within agencies. Tis broader response and increased reportingprovides agencies with more inormation to assess perormance and drive improvements than ever beore.
Te 2012 FEVS indicates the Federal workorce remains resilient hardworking, motivated and mission-ocused
even amidst the many challenges acing Government today.
t fd -d d d
Nearly all Federal employees report that their work is important, they are constantly looking or ways to do
their job better, and they are willing to put in the extra eort to get the job done. Tis nding is consistent
across the 82 Federal agencies that participated in the 2012 FEVS.
Eight out o 10 employees like the work they do, understand how their work relates to the agencys goals
and priorities, and rate the overall quality o the work done by their work unit as high.
e e
Employee Engagement scores are relatively consistent with the 2010 levels. Approximately two out o three
employees report positive conditions or engagement still exist in their agencies.
fd j, d z
d
Tis year employee responses were down two percentage points when recommending their organizationas a good place to work (67 percent) and down three percentage points with their satisaction with their job
(68 percent) and organization (59 percent).
Satisaction with pay (59 percent) had the greatest impact on the Global Satisaction scores, as it decreased
by our percentage points. Tis is pay satisactions lowest level since the 2004 survey administration.
wo out o 10 employees eel pay raises are related to their job perormance.
Tree out o 10 employees eel that their perormance is recognized in a meaningul way and that promotions
are based on merit.
Tough some areas trended downward, results vary by agency and subcomponents within agencies. Te FEVSpresents an opportunity or agency leadership to make improvements. Te real value in the FEVS is how it is
used by agencies to improve services or the American people.
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
8/65
introDuctionTe Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) is a tool that provides a snapshot o employees perceptions o
whether, and to what extent, conditions characterizing successul organizations are present in their agencies. Survey
results provide valuable insight into the challenges agency leaders ace in ensuring the Federal Government has
an eective civilian workorce.
l r fd s e!
Views rom the 2012 FEVS came rom more than 687,000 Federal employees the largest and most diverse
response to the FEVS to date.
b, d d , ?
Respondents to the FEVS represent 82 Federal agencies. Employees in agencies as large as the Department o
Deense and as small as Marine Mammal Commission voiced their opinions. Not all o these employees were in
headquarters locations; nearly two-thirds o respondents were eld employees, across the United States and
worldwide. Full-time and (new in 2012) part-time, non-seasonal employees were eligible to participate, covering
all Federal occupations including nurses, air trac controllers,
border patrol specialists, nuclear physicists, teachers, linguists,
ood inspectors, engineers, and psychologists, to name a ew.
Opinions were shared by those o all races and ages, rom entry
level to Senior Executive positions, military veterans, persons with
disabilities, and employees in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender (LGB) community. Te results o this survey truly
represent the diverse opinions o the Federal workorce. See
Appendix A or the Governmentwide Respondent Characteristics.
r rAs shown in Figure 1, the 2012 FEVS had the largest number o
respondents participating since the survey was rst administered
in 2002. Tis year more than 687,000 Federal employees responded
to the survey, or a response rate o 46 percent. O the 82 agencies
participating in the survey, 67 agencies had a response rate o 50
percent or higher. Four Departments/Large agencies are new to
the top ve response rates: the Oce o Management and Budget,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and the National Science Foundation (see Figure
2). Te National Archives and Records Administration is the
only agency rom 2011 still in the top ve response rates. O the
Small/Independent agencies that participated in the survey, the
Chemical Saety and Hazard Investigation Board had the highest
response rate in 2012 and is the only small agency that remained
in the top ve rom 2011. Te complete list o agency response
rates is available in Appendix B.
introduction
lacEy dIngman
direr, oe h Resres, SEc
increasing response rates
a he u.S. Seriies Exhe cissi,
e hieve rer hih resse re he 201
Feerl Elyee Viei Srvey by bili
riii hrh sessive iis
hrh he srvey iisri eri.Irly, e h sr r he hihes level
i r ey. t kik he srvey, he chir
he SEc, mry Shir, se ii
eri ll elyees riie. as eek
rers riii e i r opm, e
se es he chir ll he divisi
dirers. we rke ih divisi dirers
r ersl esses h hey se heir
s ebers e llbre ih r uih ls ere riii. I ii,
e erii es i SEc ty, he ily
eleri esleer h es ll SEc s.
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
9/65introduction
igUre 1 nUMBer O SUrVey reSPOndentS By year
year
2012 687,687 rp
2011 266,376
263,475
212,223
221,479
147,914
106,742
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
igUre 2 HigHeSt reSPOnSe rate By large and SMall agencieS
SMall agencieS
chm S &Hz ivsoBo
94%
Of o Sp cous
Pos ruocommsso
Of o govmehs
Of o nvo & Hopi roo
92%
89%
88%
84%
84%Ovss Pvivsm copoo
77%
46%
Of o Mm& Bu
large agencieS
75%no ahvs &ros amso
72%nu ruocommsso
70%Sus & ehcommsso
69%no Souo
gOVernMentwide
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
10/65introduction
Tree Departments/Large agencies, the U.S. Agency or International Development, the National Credit Union
Administration, and the Securities and Exchange Commission had the highest increase in response rates rom
2011: 22 percentage point, 16 percentage point, and 16 percentage point increases, respectively. Among the
Small/Independent agencies, the Oce o the U.S. rade Representative, the Occupational Saety and Health
Review Commission, and the National Mediation Board had the highest increase in response rates rom 2011: 16
percentage point, 13 percentage point, and 12 percentage point increases, respectively.
gd
Troughout this report, we acknowledge the downward trend o many o the survey items. Afer experiencing
an upward trend over the last ew survey administrations, some items have dropped to pre-2010 levels. Tese
results suggest that the continued tight budgets, salary reezes and general public opinion o Federal service are
beginning to take a toll on even the most committed employees. However, ndings still indicate that Federal
employees remain hardworking, motivated and mission-ocused.
Even aced with dicult and uncertain times, nearly all Federal employees (90 percent or more) report the work
they do is important, are constantly looking or ways to better do their jobs and are willing to put in the extra
eort to get the job done.
Over 80 percent o employees like the work they do, understand how their work relates to their agencys goals
and priorities, and rate the overall quality o the work done by their work unit as high. Employees eel they are
held accountable or achieving results and know what is expected o them. Nearly three out o our employees
believe their agency is successul at accomplishing its mission, eel that their coworkers cooperate to get the job
done, and eel they have enough inormation to do their job well.
Areas in Government that have historically been low linking pay and promotions to perormance, recognizing
dierences in perormance, dealing with poor perormers, and having sucient resources to get the job done
continue to be rated as challenges by one out o every three employees. For the rst time, hal o Federal employees
report that pay raises do not depend on perormance, while only 22 percent agree that perormance and pay
are linked.
Te remainder o this report will ocus on multiple perspectives describing the broad and varied view o the Federal
workorce. Te top perorming and most improved agencies will be identied throughout various sections o
this report. Te survey results are presented in the ollowing order:
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) Indices
Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework Index Global Satisaction Index Employee Engagement Index
Supervision Leadership
Special opics
Conclusions
Tis and other reports are available on OPMs Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey website at: www.FedView.opm.gov.
Detailed inormation on the 2012 FEVS Methods and item-by-item results can be ound in Appendix C and D,
respectively.
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
11/65indices: hcaaf
fevs inDicesh c a d a f id
Te Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF) establishes and denes ve human
capital systems that together provide a single, consistent denition o human capital management or the Federal
Government. Establishment o the HCAAF ullls OPMs mandate under the Chie Human Capital OcersAct o 2002 (CHCO Act) to design systems and set standards, including appropriate metrics, or assessing the
management o human capital by Federal agencies. Te FEVS provides one source o inormation or evaluating
success in this ramework.
Te HCAAF indices provide consistent metrics or measuring progress toward HCAAF objectives. Using the same
measurement indices across time provides an objective examination o progress in Government. A total o 39 items
make up the our indices, which are: Leadership & Knowledge Management, Results-Oriented Perormance
Culture, alent Management, and Job Satisaction. Tis section examines governmentwide and agency perormance
on these indices.
Gw hcaaf PAll governmentwide HCAAF index scores show declines rom 2011; two percentage points lower or Leadership
& Knowledge Management, Results-Oriented Perormance Culture, and Job Satisaction (see Figure 3). alent
Management remained relatively steady with a one percentage point decrease rom 2011.
igUre 3 Hcaa index ScOre trendS 2006-2012
leaderSHiP & knOwledge
ManageMent
reSUltS-Oriented
PerOrMance cUltUre
2012
2012
2011
2011
62%
54%
2010
2010
61%
54%
2008
2008
59%
54%
2006
2006
58%
53%
60%
52%
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
12/65indices: hcaaf
Findings rom 2006 indicate similar HCAAF trends, with stable indices and very little movement rom year to
year and over time. Te Leadership & Knowledge Management index increased two percentage points since
2006, while the Perormance Culture and Job Satisaction indices dropped one percentage point. Te alent
Management index remained unchanged since 2006.
ag hcaaf P
While the governmentwide HCAAF index results are relatively stable, agencies dier noticeably on the our
indices. As shown in Figure 4, agency HCAAF index ranges were the largest or the Leadership & Knowledge
Management index, with a 26 percentage point dierence between the high and low score, ollowed by alent
Management (24 percentage point range), Result-Oriented Perormance Culture (20 percentage point range),
and Job Satisaction (15 percentage point range).
Leadership & Knowledge Management ranged rom a low o 48 percent positive (Broadcasting Board o
Governors) to a high o 74 percent positive (Nuclear Regulatory Commission).
Results-Oriented Perormance Culture ranged rom 46 percent positive (Broadcasting Board o Governors
and Department o Homeland Security) to 66 percent positive (Federal rade Commission).
igUre 3 Hcaa index ScOre trendS 2006-2012 (o')
talent ManageMent
jOB SatiSactiOn
2012
2012
2011
2011
60%
68%
2010
2010
60%
69%
2008
2008
60%
67%
2006
2006
59%
67%
59%
66%
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
13/65indices: hcaaf
alent Management ranged rom 48 percent positive (Broadcasting Board o Governors) to 72 percent positive
(Nuclear Regulatory Commission).
Job Satisaction ranged rom 59 percent positive (National Archives and Records Administration) to 74 percent
positive (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).
See Appendix E or a ull list o HCAAF agency scores and trends rom 2006.
Te National Credit Union Administration joined the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration as the top perorming agencies across all our indices. Both the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and National Aeronautics and Space Administration were top perorming agencies in
all indices in 2011. Te Federal rade Commission was also a top perorming agency across three o the our
indices, as shown in able 1.
igUre 4 Hcaa ratingS - HigHeSt, lOweSt and gOVernMentwide
lshp &
ko
Mm
48%
46%
48%
59%
rsus-O
Pom
cuu
t
Mm
job Sso
74%
66%
72%
74%
60%
52%
59%
66%
lOweSt
lOweSt
lOweSt
lOweSt
HigHeSt
HigHeSt
HigHeSt
HigHeSt
g'wide aVerage
g'wide aVerage
g'wide aVerage
g'wide aVerage
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
14/65indices: hcaaf
taBle 1 tOP PerOrMing agencieS By Hcaa index, 2012
2012 Iex Sre
Lp & Kwlg mg
gvereie 60
ner Rer cissi 74
ni aeris Se aiisri 73
Feer tre cissi 72
ni crei ui aiisri 67
Feer Eer Rer cissi 67
rl-o P cl
gvereie 52
Feer tre cissi 66
ni aeris Se aiisri 65
ner Rer cissi 64
ni crei ui aiisri 62
dere cere 61
tl mg
gvereie 59
ner Rer cissi 72
ni aeris Se aiisri 71
Feer tre cissi 70
ni crei ui aiisri 68
oe mee Be 65
Feer Eer Rer cissi 65
cr Servies oeer Servisi ae 65
J s
gvereie 66
ni aeris Se aiisri 74
ner Rer cissi 73
oe mee Be 72
ni crei ui aiisri 72
dere Se 71
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
15/65indices: hcaaf
ag hcaaf ip
An index is a more stable measure o a concept, but also a more
dicult measure on which to show improvement. o increase
an index score, an agency must improve scores on several o
the items which make up the index. Because o the diculty o
improving an index score, only a ew agencies had substantial
increases o three or more percentage points. See Appendix E or
a ull listing o agency HCAAF index trend scores.
hg i hcaaf s s 2011
As shown in able 2, the Oce o Management and Budget had
the largest increases across every HCAAF index: 10 percentage
points in Leadership & Knowledge Management; nine percentage
points in Results-Oriented Perormance Culture; and seven
percentage points in both alent Management and Job Satisaction.
Te National Credit Union Administration improved six
percentage points in Leadership & Knowledge Management.
Te Securities and Exchange Commission increased six
percentage points in alent Management.
hg i hcaaf s s 2006: ag t
It is dicult to demonstrate improvement in an index rom year
to year, so we have taken a closer look at top perorming agency
HCAAF improvement scores over the last six years. We are using
the survey administration rom 2006 as the baseline or HCAAF
trending because all survey items are consistent rom that point
orward.
taBle 2 tOP agency Hcaa index ScOre increaSeS 2011-2012
2011 2012 Irese
Lp & Kwlg mg
oe mee Be 51 61 +10
ni crei ui aiisri 61 67 +6
rl-o P cl
oe mee Be 51 60 +9
tl mg
oe mee Be 58 65 +7
Seri Exe cissi 51 57 +6
J s
oe mee Be 65 72 +7
JEFFREy d. ZIEntS
de direr mee, omB
increasing hcaaf scores
Every y, omB res Feerl eies se
h is rki h is. I
gvere, s i bsiess, e k h rel
lysis le srer erre
irese riviy. opms l Feerl
Elyee Viei Srvey rvies ers i
riil r i heir rkles. a om
e ke he FEVS very serisly rss he ls
yer every e r ers hs issse he
resls ih heir s ieiy riies r
irvee. we re very lese ih his yers
resls. I refes he eie ers omB
ers elyees ke irvees
i res h he FEVS hihlihe. we l
ie hese ers i he i yer
ere ll ey leers he se.
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
16/65indices: hcaaf
taBle 3 tOP agency Hcaa index ScOre increaSeS 2006-2012
Te Small Business Administration and Department o ransportation had the largest increases in Leadership
& Knowledge Management since 2006, both increasing nine percentage points; Railroad Retirement Board
and the National Credit Union Administration each had seven percentage point increases. See able 3.
Te Oce o Personnel Management and the Department o ransportation had the largest increases in the
Results-Oriented Perormance Culture index, six and ve percentage points, respectively.
Under alent Management, the Oce o Personnel Management increased nine percentage points since 2006.
Te Small Business Administration increased six percentage points. Up ve percentage points over thesame period were the Department o ransportation, Railroad Retirement Board, and Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
Te highest Job Satisaction score increases came rom the Oce o Personnel Management and the Small
Business Administration (ve percentage points) and Railroad Retirement Board, Department o ransportation,
and Court Services and Oender Supervision Agency (our percentage points).
Since 2006, the Department o ransportation is the only agency with top improvement scores in each o the
our HCAAF indices.
2006
2008
2010
2011
2012overIrese
Lp & Kwlg mg
S Bsiess aiisri 51 60 59 61 60 +9
dere trsri 50 51 55 57 59 +9
Rir Reiree Br 56 59 60 61 63 +7
ni crei ui aiisri 60 56 58 61 67 +7
rl-o P cloe perse mee 53 57 58 60 59 +6
dere trsri 46 47 49 49 51 +5
tl mg
oe perse mee 52 58 60 63 61 +9
S Bsiess aiisri 46 55 50 53 52 +6
dere trsri 54 54 57 57 59 +5
Rir Reiree Br 53 55 57 55 58 +5
Eq Ee ori cissi 50 51 52 56 55 +5
J s
oe perse mee 64 67 70 71 69 +5
S Bsiess aiisri 61 66 67 67 66 +5
cr Servies oeer Servisi ae 64 70 73 70 68 +4
dere trsri 65 63 69 68 69 +4
Rir Reiree Br 65 68 69 68 69 +4
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
17/65indices: GLobaL satisfaction
2008
63%
2010
67%
2011
66%
2012
63%
Gll
s
job
Satisfac
tion
OrganizationS
atis
factio
n Gll s w 2008 ll.
g s id
Global Satisaction is a combination o employees satisaction with their job, their pay, and their organization,
plus their willingness to recommend their organization as a good place to work. As shown in Figure 5, the overall
governmentwide Global Satisaction rating is 63 percent, down three percentage points rom 2011.
Te overall gains experienced between 2008 and 2011 have disappeared. All our items have decreased rom
2011. Tis year employee responses were down two percentage points when recommending their organizationas a good place to work (67 percent), and down three percentage points with their satisaction with their job (68
percent) and their organization (59 percent). Satisaction with pay (59 percent) had the greatest impact on the
Global Satisaction scores, decreasing by our percentage points. Tis is pay satisactions lowest level since the
2004 survey administration. See Appendix D (Q.70).
Agency level Global Satisaction scores have shown variation over the years. While many agency scores are still
relatively high, the overwhelming majority o agencies scores declined rom 2011 to 2012, and approximately 40
percent are at or below 2008 levels (see Appendix F or ull list o agency Global Satisaction scores).
Individual agency scores ranged rom a high o 75 percent positive or Nuclear Regulatory Commission to a low
o 50 percent positive or National Archives and Records Administration. o illustrate this overall downwardtrend, although Nuclear Regulatory Commission retained their top spot in 2012, their score is down ve
percentage points rom 2011. able 4 shows the agencies with Global Satisaction scores over 70 percent.
igUre 5 glOBal SatiSactiOn
PayS
atisfaction
recomme
ndOrg
aniz
atio
n
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
18/65indices: emPLoyee enGaGement
e e id
Engaged employees are passionate and dedicated to their job and organization. Tey are immersed in their work
and energized to spend extra eort to do their jobs well. Te 2012 FEVS does not contain direct measurements oemployee engagement. However, the survey does cover most, i not all, o the conditions likely to lead to employee
engagement (or example, eective leadership, work which provides meaning to employees, the opportunity or
employees to learn/grow on the job, etc.).
Te FEVS Employee Engagement Index is an overarching model comprised o three subactors: Leaders Lead,
Supervisors, and Intrinsic Work Experiences. See Appendix G or the list o subactor scores by agency.
As shown in Figure 6, Employee Engagement scores are relatively consistent with the 2010 levels. Approximately
two out o three employees report positive conditions or engagement still exist in their agencies. Te individual
subactors that make up the Employee Engagement Index have also remained consistent over time. Te Leaders
Lead subactor score (54 percent) is 17 percentage points lower than the Supervisors and the Intrinsic Work
Experiences subactors (71 percent), respectively. Engagement scores across agencies ranged rom a high o 76
percent to a low o 56 percent. Te 2012 range is slightly lower than the high and low scores or 2011. able 5
shows the agencies with engagement scores over 70 percent.
Since 2010, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Federal
rade Commission have been the three highest scoring agencies or engagement (see Appendix G). However,
Oce o Management and Budget and National Credit Union Administration had the largest one and two year
increases in overall engagement. Over the last year, Oce o Management and Budget and National Credit Union
Administration scores increased 10 and ve percentage points respectively, and both had seven percentage point
increases since 2010.
taBle 4 agencieS witH a glOBal SatiSactiOn index ScOre OVer 70 Percent
2012 pere
Gw 65
ner Rer cissi 75
ni aeris Se aiisri 74
dere Se 72
oe mee Be 71
ni crei ui aiisri 71
geer Servies aiisri 71
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
19/65indices: emPLoyee enGaGement
taBle 5 agencieS witH an eMPlOyee engageMent index ScOre OVer 70 Percent
2012 pere
leers le
Servisrs
Irisi wrkExeriees
EeeEee Iex
Gw 54 71 71 65
ni aeris Se aiisri 68 82 79 76
ner Rer cissi 69 81 77 76
Feer tre cissi 70 76 77 74
oe mee Be 62 82 75 73
ni crei ui aiisri 65 79 75 73
oe perse mee 62 77 73 71
dere Se 63 76 74 71
2010
66%
2011
67%
2012
65%
epl
egg
epl egg w 2 pg
p 2011.
lea
ders
lead
Supervisors
igUre 6 eMPlOyee engageMent
intrinsicworkexp
erie
nces
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
20/65indices: emPLoyee enGaGement
i d
Individually, Global Satisaction and Employee Engagement do not provide the entire picture. Te components
o Employee Engagement Leaders Lead, Supervisors, and Intrinsic Work Experiences and Global Satisaction
combine to create a dynamic relationship that drives results.
Our analysis o the interaction between Employee Engagement and Global Satisaction indicates that 42 percent
o employees are highly engaged and highly satised (see Figure 7). Another 31 percent o employees are classiedas moderately engaged, with high satisaction. Te moderately engaged and low satised group o respondents
makeup 21 percent o the Employee Engagement/satisaction continuum.
When examining employee intentions to leave in relation to their levels o engagement and satisaction an interesting
picture emerges. Employees classied as moderately engaged with high satisaction are twice as likely as highly
engaged with high satisaction employees to report they are considering leaving their organization within the
next year, or reasons other than retirement. Te moderately engaged with low satisaction group is ve times
more likely than the highly engaged with high satisaction group to consider leaving their organization.
igUre 7 engageMent, SatiSactiOn, and leaVing intentiOnS O tHe ederal wOrkOrce
O tHOSe wHO are:
HigHly engaged
MOderately engaged
diSengaged
42%Hh Sso
31%Hh Sso
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
21/65suPervision
supervisionTe supervisor is the organizations personal representative to the employee and has the most immediate eect
on an employees work environment. Employees' day-to-day interactions with their supervisors are important
driver o engagement and satisaction, as well as a recognized inuence on employee turnover. Responses to
survey items addressing employees supervisors, although slightly down in 2012, have been consistently strong
over the last ew survey administrations.
gd
Governmentwide, employees are satised with their supervisors. As shown in able 6, employees rate their
supervisors highly on items relating to eective supervision. Approximately three out o our employees indicate
that their supervisor:
reats them with respect,
Has talked with them about their perormance,
Supports their need to balance work and other lie issues, and
Listens to what they have to say.
In addition, about two out o three employees agree that:
Teir supervisor is doing a good job overall,
Tey have trust and condence in their supervisor,
Teir supervisor provides opportunity to demonstrate leadership skills,
Teir supervisor is committed to the workorce, and
Teir supervisor supports employee development.
taBle 6 SUPerViSiOn iteM reSUltS
pere psiive
2010 2011 2012
m servisr/e eer res e i rese. 80 80 79
I e s six s, servisr/e eer s ke i e b erre. 76 77 77
m servisr srs ee be rk er ie isses. 76 77 77
m servisr/e eer ises I ve s. 75 75 74
over, jb ee is bei e b r ieie servisr/e eer? 68 69 68
I ve rs ee i servisr. 67 67 66
m servisr/e eer rvies e i riies esre eersi skis. 66 67 65
Servisrs/e eers i rk i sr eee evee. 66 67 65
m servisr/e eer is ie rkre rereseive sees sie. 65 66 64
disssis i servisr/e eer b erre re rie. 62 63 62
m servisr/e eer rvies e i srive sesis irve jb erre. 61 62 61
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
22/65suPervision
a
Although governmentwide results regarding Supervision were airly consistent over the last two years, there
were some notable improvements in the 2012 results or specic agencies. Overall, nine agencies improved on
ve or more items. Tree agencies improved on 10 or more items: the Oce o Management and Budget, the
National Credit Union Administration, and the Railroad Retirement Board.
Te Oce o Management and Budget showed signicant improvement on all 11 Supervision items rom2011 to 2012. Te largest improvements were in:
Supervisor/employee perormance discussion (up 24 percentage points) Supervisor support o work and lie balance (up 19 percentage points)
Overall supervisor approval (up 16 percentage points)
Te National Credit Union Administration also showed signicant improvement in 11 Supervision items
rom 2011 to 2012. Te largest improvements were:
Supervisor/employee perormance discussion (up six percentage points) Employee empowerment (up ve percentage points)
Worthwhile discussions about perormance between supervisor and employee, supervisor listeningto employee, supervisor supporting employee development, and overall supervisor approval (up our
percentage points)
Te Railroad Retirement Board showed signicant improvement rom 2011 to 2012 in 10 Supervision items.
Te largest increases in positive responses were:
Supervisors supporting employee development and listening to employees (up our percentage points)
Supervisors showing commitment to a representative workorce, providing opportunities or leadership,and having worthwhile perormance discussions with employees, as well as employee trust and con-
dence in supervisors (up three percentage points).
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
23/65LeadershiP
leaDershipodays Federal leaders are acing signicant challenges in keeping the workorce motivated and engaged in light
o rozen salaries, slashed budgets, and recent public sentiment toward Federal employees. Research tells us that
while money is important, it is not the deciding actor in how engaged an employee will be. Is the employees job
providing an opportunity or success, growth, and recognition? Is the employees work meaningul and is that
employee personally valued by the organization? Te answer lies in an eective senior leadership cadre that caninspire employees through the toughest o challenges.
gd
Over the years, leadership results have gradually increased with many items at benchmark highs in 2011. However,
the majority o FEVS items addressing leadership or 2012 show a modest downward trend, with no items showing
a notable increase (see able 7). Considering what Federal employees have weathered over the past survey
administrations, and continue to weather in this evolving climate, declines in leadership results are not surprising.
Now more than ever, the leadership support o the Federal workorce is o critical importance.
taBle 7 leaderSHiP iteM reSUltS
pere psiive
2010 2011 2012
mers/servisrs/e eers rk e i eees iere bkrs. 64 65 63
mers ie e s ririies e rizi. 64 64 62
mers revie eve e rizi's rress r eei is s bjeives. 64 64 62
over, jb ee is bei e b e er ire bve r ieie servisr/e eer.
57 58 58
mers sr bri rss rk is is rk bjeives. 58 58 57
m rizi's eers ii i srs es ieri. 56 57 55
mers re ii iere rk is (r exe, b rjes, s,eee resres).
54 55 53
I ve i eve rese r rizis seir eers. 56 57 54
Seir eers esre sr r wrk/lie rrs. 55 55 54
h sise re i e iies ries r seir eers? 45 46 43
I rizi, eers eere i eves ivi ie i e rkre. 44 45 43
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
24/65LeadershiP
While results show declines, nearly two out o every three employees report that managers:
Communicate the goals and priorities o the organization,
Review and evaluate the organizations progress towards meeting goals and objectives, and
Work well with employees o dierent backgrounds.
Over hal o employees: Have a high level o respect or senior leaders,
Feel senior leaders support Work/Lie programs, and
Believe senior leaders maintain high standards o honesty
and integrity.
However, only our out o 10 employees report satisaction with
senior leaders policies and practices and agree that their leaders
generate high levels o motivation and commitment in the
workorce.
a
While governmentwide results showed a slight downward trend,
some agencies had considerable leadership gains in 2012. Both the
Oce o Management and Budget and the National Credit Union
Administration experienced gains on each o the leadership items.
Oce o Management and Budgets ratings increased by at
least nine percentage points, including a 25 percentage point
jump on senior leaders supporting Work/Lie programs.
National Credit Union Administrations increases ranged
rom two to 10 percentage points, with eight items increasing
by ve or more percentage points.
When asked about the perormance o their managers directly
above their immediate supervisors, employee ratings at
National Labor Relations Board were eight percentage points
higher in 2012 than in 2011. Te Securities and Exchange
Commission, U.S. Agency or International Development, and
Department o Energy all saw ve percentage point increases
or this item.
Fifeen agencies showed increases o at least two percentage
points on leadership supporting Work/Lie programs.
dEBBIE matZ
cir, ncua
increasing leaDership scores
whe I bee ncua chir, I se l r
ncua be elyer hie relible
rer ih elee lbr rereseives,
ersi h elyees re r s
ir sse. I is esseil r elyees
rs h ee is eer lise
res heir ers. all ers re hel
ble r irvi iis ih
heir ire rers. a s he ey he, I
rvele eh e e ih elyees;
hel qrerly ebirs s elyees l
exress heir ers e ire sers
heir qesis; eere i rershi ih
ntEu s h il rkle isses l be
reslve eher he erlies ie; ree
Ierl ciis wrki gr;
ire eekly ierl e-il esleer;
, s ir, rese isses rise b
elyees. ms reely, i resse he
Feerl y reeze, he ncua Br rve
ehe bees ke r ll elyees
ili 401(K) l slee he tSp.
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
25/65sPeciaL toPics
special topicsTe Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) provides the opportunity to more ully understand and appreciate
the issues and concerns aced by Federal employees. opics o special interest ollow:
t
Emerging evidence has shown that employees who telework are as productive as, i not more productive than,
those who do not. For employers, telework has been shown to reduce operating costs, reduce the number o sick
days taken, increase employee motivation, and increase workorce exibility in scheduling. Additionally, there
are social and environmental benets such as a reduction in the number o cars on the road. Tis cuts down on
air pollution and eases rush hour trac, which benets commuters.
Te elework Act o 2010 paved the way or agencies to develop telework policies and procedures. With the
requirement that employees be notied o their telework eligibility, the Act served to increase agency and employee
awareness o osite working options. An employees teleworking situation can range rom unscheduled/short-term
telework to working osite several days per week. Any report o teleworking o short or long duration
was considered teleworking in our analysis.
Governmentwide, teleworking has increased since 2011. One out
o three employees were notied they were eligible to telework in
2012 (up rom one out o our employees last year) and almost a
quarter o the Federal workorce reported teleworking in some orm.
elework participation varies by agency. Te General Services
Administration and Pension Benet Guaranty Corporation both
top the participation list, with more than eight out o 10 employees
reporting they telework. Both o these agencies also report high
levels o telework on a consistent basis, with more than six out o10 employees teleworking at least once or twice a month. Te
National Science Foundation, Department o Education, and Oce
o Personnel Management results all indicate that approximately
three out o our o their employees telework in some orm. Te
Oce o Management and Budget had the greatest increase in
teleworking, with participation rates increasing over 30 percentage
points rom 2011.
As shown in Figure 8, the ability to telework has an eect on an
employees Global Satisaction as well as Employee Engagement
scores. Governmentwide, employees who teleworked had higherGlobal Satisaction and Employee Engagement scores when
compared to those reporting that they did not telework, a dierence
o seven percentage points in both cases.
anthony coSta
cie h ci oer, gSa
increasing telework
opportunities
gSa is eleri he e elerk r
Feerl gvere elyees is lei
by exle. gSas elerk iviies hve bee
sessl i rei hihy r esi
ssie vehile eissis. gSas seir
leershi lly ebres elerk by ively
ii elerk, vi ehly
sr bile rk evire,
ersi rii ehsize he bees. gSa
lhe ry rii ee elye
he hi lre gSa ehsize
he bees rki sesslly i bile
rk evire. thrh seir leershi
eee ie, elerk gSa
hs rvie reer ble r rk lie
ressibiliies r elyees.
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
26/65sPeciaL toPics
taBle 8 eMPlOyee engageMent and glOBal SatiSactiOn By telewOrk StatUS and Pay grade
igUre 8 eMPlOyee engageMent and glOBal SatiSactiOn By telewOrk StatUS
eMPlOyee
engageMent
glOBal
SatiSactiOn
to
to
71%
69%
do no to
do no to
64%
62%
Dierences in Employee Engagement and Global Satisaction or teleworkers are even more pronounced in
the context o pay. As shown in able 8, employees at the lowest pay categories who telework show the greatest
increases (12 percentage points) in Employee Engagement and Global Satisaction.
For jobs where telework is an option or the employee, agencies should give serious consideration to expanding
opportunities or all eligible workers.
teerk
d nteerk
dieree
epl egg
gS 1-6 66 54 12
gS 7-12 67 62 5
gS 13-15 70 67 3
SES 80 77 3
Gll s
gS 1-6 74 62 12
gS 7-12 70 64 6
gS 13-15 71 67 4
SES 86 82 4
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
27/65sPeciaL toPics
n d 2012 fevs
Prior to the 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administration, OPM received several requests rom Federal
agencies, as well as outside groups, requesting the inclusion o additional demographics on the governmentwide
survey. Historically, the FEVS has limited the number o demographic questions to only the most commonly used
categories or research, in an eort to provide protections or certain groups. However, proponents o expanding
the demographic base indicate that because we have not included protected groups in the collection o data, we
do not have hard evidence o the potential challenges these groups ace in Government service.
As part o the 2011 FEVS, a pilot study was conducted to test several new demographics in a ew agencies in
order to evaluate privacy issues, robustness o responses, and the potential research value in including these
questions. Te pilot questions added were:
1. Have you ever served on Active Duty in the US Armed Forces (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force or
Coast Guard)?
a. Yes
b. No
2. Are you an individual with a disability?a. Yes
b. No
3. Do you consider yoursel to be:
a. Heterosexual or Straight
b. Lesbian or Gay
c. Bisexual
d. ransgender
Promoting diversity in the broadest sense is an Oce o Personnel Management and governmentwide commitment.
Afer an analysis o the 2011 pilot results, a determination was made to include these additional demographicitems on the 2012 FEVS, with one slight change: the response category, I Preer Not o Say, was included on
Question 3. Te Oce o Personnel Management adheres to its strict practice o not releasing or reporting data
that would compromise the privacy o any group.
2012 results or these items indicate:
Approximately one third o respondents served on Active Duty;
13 percent o respondents shared they had a disability; and
Responses rom the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGB) community were just over two percent.
Tis survey administration will serve as a baseline year or uture analyses. A comparison o the major FEVS index
scores by group yielded some notable ndings (see able 9). While dierences in Veteran Status and part-time/
ull-time work schedule had no discernible dierences in scores on any index, considerable dierences were
noted across disability status and the LGB-inclusion item. Employees who indicated having a disability responded
substantially less positive across all index scores. Similar ndings are evident or those employees who sel-identied
as a member o the LGB community.
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
28/65sPeciaL toPics
Te Oce o Personnel Management will continue to look at these and other demographics in relation to survey
results when creating potential new HR policies and procedures.
taBle 9 index ScOre SUMMary Or new deMOgraPHicS
wrk See Veer Ss disbii Ss oriei
Ftie
prtie
Veer
nVeer
disbe
ndisbe
lgBt
nlgBt
h cpl a & al fwk
leersi & Kee mee 60 61 60 61 56 61 56 62
Ress-oriee perre cre 52 51 52 53 49 53 50 54
te mee 58 60 58 59 53 60 55 60
Jb Sisi 66 65 66 66 62 67 62 67
epl egg 65 65 65 66 61 66 62 67
leers le 54 55 54 55 50 55 50 56
Servisrs 71 72 70 71 65 72 68 72
Irisi wrk Exeriees 71 69 71 71 67 72 67 72
Gll s 63 62 62 64 57 64 59 65
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
29/65sPeciaL toPics
p-
In response to requests rom agencies that the FEVS be more inclusive, more than 33,000 part-time employees
were invited to take the FEVS or the rst time. O these employees, approximately 11,000 responded. Te largest
number o responses rom part-timers came rom the Department o Homeland Security (43 percent), the
Social Security Administration (6 percent), and the Department o the reasury (6 percent).
Part-time and ull-time employee responses to non-demographic items were similar in many ways, but there
were some striking dierences in their demographic makeup.
More part-time than ull-time employees:
were emale (67 vs. 56 percent)
worked or the Federal Government 10 years or ewer (65 vs. 45 percent)
worked in the eld rather than headquarters (76 vs. 64 percent)
were under 50 years o age (65 vs. 52 percent)
More ull-time than part-time employees:
had been with their agency six years or more (66 vs. 53 percent)
were supervisors, managers or executives (20 vs. 3 percent)
worked in the General Schedule (GS) pay plan rather than Wage Grade or other pay plans (86 vs. 63 percent)
had served in the U.S. Armed Forces (33 vs. 13 percent)
were disabled (13 vs. 7 percent)
For the most part, part-time and ull-time employees answered the surveys attitude items the same way. Many
o the dierences could be traced to the nature o part-time work, such as benets that are available to ull-time
employees but not to part-time employees. Tere were other dierences, however.
More part-time than ull-time employees said that:
their workload was reasonable (64 vs. 59 percent)
their training needs were assessed (59 vs. 53 percent)
pay raises depended on perormance (26 vs. 22 percent)
they believed the survey results would be used to improve their agency (49 vs. 42 percent)
More ull-time than part-time employees said that:
they elt encouraged to innovate (58 vs. 51 percent)
creativity and innovation were rewarded (39 vs. 34 percent)
the people they worked with cooperated to get the job done (73 vs. 68 percent)
employees were protected rom hazards on the job (77 vs. 72 percent)
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
30/65sPeciaL toPics
their supervisors supported their need to balance work and other lie issues (77 vs. 72 percent)
they were satised with their pay (59 vs. 53 percent)
they had been notied that they were eligible to telework (37 vs. 24 percent)*
*Note: 47 percent o part-time employees said that they did not telework because they had to be physically present
on their job, whereas only 35 percent o ull-time employees said the same thing.
When governmentwide index scores (HCAAF, Global Satisaction, and Employee Engagement) were compared
or part-time and ull-time employees, there were no notable dierences (see able 9).
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
31/65concLusions
conclusionsEach Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) administration provides a snapshot o Federal employees
candid opinions about their work, their agencies and their leaders. Over the past 10 years we have seen a steady
and considerable improvement in governmentwide results in all these areas. Te FEVS continues to document
the strong work commitment o Federal employees, their steadast view that the work they do or America is
important, and personal commitment to put in the extra eort when necessary to get a job done. Te Federalworkorces deep dedication remains unchanged.
However, this year the steady trend o improvement has changed; governmentwide scores have dropped on
every index, and 36 items decreased between two and ve percentage points rom 2011 to 2012. While the
Federal workorce still holds strong and positive views on many critical items, the combined voices o more than
687,000 employees cannot be dismissed.
Many will speculate about the reasons or this drop current environment o salary reezes, threats o shutdowns,
continued tight budgets, public opinion o Government work however, eective solutions may be harder to
ormulate. Te Federal Government is still an employer o choice, attracting the best and the brightest to Gov-
ernment service, but the time to careully consider the message o the FEVS is now. A complete review o resultswill take place in every agency, and eective action planning is more important than ever. Federal leadership
must ocus on renewing and re-energizing their workorce.
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
32/65aPPendix a
appenDix a
aPPendix a gOVernMentwide reSPOndent cHaracteriSticS (UnweigHted)
c peree
Wk L
heqrers 230,860 36.2
Fie 406,847 63.8
sp s
n-Servisr 421,305 65.5
te leer 92,344 14.3
Servisr 83,457 13.0
mer 40,003 6.2
Exeive 6,511 1.0
G
me 354,840 55.5
Fee 284,301 44.5
e
hisi/li 58,230 9.2
n hisi/li 575,073 90.8
r nl og
aeri Ii r ask nive 12,252 2.0
asi 28,623 4.7
Bk r ari aeri 95,166 15.5
nive hii r oer pi Iser 5,115 0.8
wie 452,573 73.6
t r re res 21,499 3.5
ag Gp
25 er 9,618 1.5
26-29 28,276 4.5
30-39 109,125 17.2
40-49 183,138 28.9
50-59 225,003 35.5
60 r er 79,028 12.5
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
33/65aPPendix a
aPPendix a gOVernMentwide reSPOndent cHaracteriSticS (UnweigHted) (o')
c peree
P cg
Feer we Sse 40,469 6.3
gS 1-6 38,315 6.0
gS 7-12 304,719 47.6
gS 13-15 205,488 32.1
Seir Exeive Servie 4,660 0.7
Seir leve (Sl) r Siei r pressi (St) 1,561 0.2
oer 45,444 7.1
fl t
less 1 er 10,056 1.6
1 3 ers 95,532 14.9
4 5 ers 64,152 10.0
6 10 ers 123,381 19.2
11 14 ers 70,478 11.0
15 20 ers 59,965 9.3
mre 20 ers 217,789 34.0
ag t
less 1 er 17,021 2.7
1 3 ers 121,641 19.0
4 5 ers 76,864 12.0
6 10 ers 133,883 20.9
11 20 ers 128,489 20.1
mre 20 ers 161,501 25.3
Plg L
n 442,364 69.1
yes, reire 39,267 6.1
yes, ke er jb ii e Feer gvere 109,900 17.2
yes, ke er jb sie e Feer gvere 20,353 3.2
yes, oer 28,393 4.4
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
34/65aPPendix a
aPPendix a gOVernMentwide reSPOndent cHaracteriSticS (UnweigHted) (o')
c peree
Plg r
wii e er 23,421 3.7
Beee e ree ers 61,187 9.7
Beee ree ve ers 64,375 10.2
Five r re ers 482,676 76.4
sl o
heersex r Sri 529,860 87.0
g, lesbi, Bisex, r trseer 13,579 2.2
I reer s 65,562 10.8
v s
Veer 206,903 32.4
n veer 431,695 67.6
dl s
disbe 83,306 13.1
n isbe 553,909 86.9
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
35/65aPPendix b
appenDix b
aPPendix B ParticiPating agencieS and reSPOnSe rateS
Resse Re
Gw 46.1
deres/lre aeies
Brsi Br gverrs 53.0
cr Servies oeer Servisi ae 47.7
dere arire 56.8
dere cere 58.6
dere Ei 64.8
dere Eer 47.3
dere he h Servies 48.9
dere he Seri 46.5
dere hsi urb devee 57.1
dere Jsie 37.3
dere lbr 49.6
dere Se 47.9
dere e Ierir 53.1
dere e tresr 59.4
dere trsri 62.3
dere Veers airs 30.9
Evire prei ae 52.7
Eq Ee ori cissi 54.7
Feer ciis cissi 42.6
Feer Eer Rer cissi 53.4
Feer tre cissi 54.9
geer Servies aiisri 54.2
ni aeris Se aiisri 54.3
ni arives Rers aiisri 75.2
ni crei ui aiisri 65.3
ni lbr Reis Br 48.9
ni Siee Fi 68.5
ner Rer cissi 71.7
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
36/65aPPendix b
aPPendix B ParticiPating agencieS and reSPOnSe rateS (o')
Resse Re
Gw 46.1
deres/lre aeies
oe mee Be 77.4
oe perse mee 62.2
pesi Bee gr crri 65.1
Rir Reiree Br 65.8
Seriies Exe cissi 69.6
S Bsiess aiisri 65.2
Si Seri aiisri 63.4
u.S. ae r Ieri devee 61.7
dere deese 38.3
uie Ses dere e ar 34.2
uie Ses ar crs Eieers 32.9
uie Ses dere e nv 40.2
uie Ses mrie crs 46.8
uie Ses dere e air Fre 40.7
oSd, Ji S, deese aeies, Fie aiviies 42.5
S/Ieee aeies
avisr ci hisri preservi 77.4
ari devee Fi 56.3
aeri Be mes cissi 48.1
cei Se hzr Ivesii Br 94.3
cissi civi Ris 68.0
ciee r prse r pee w are Bi r Severe disbe 70.4
ci Fres tri cissi 57.3
cser pr Se cissi 53.3
crri r ni ci Servie 61.6
deese ner Fiiies Se Br 82.5
Exr-Ir Bk e uie Ses 46.4
Feer Eei cissi 44.1
Feer hsi Fie ae 67.5
Feer lbr Reis ari 74.8
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
37/65aPPendix b
aPPendix B ParticiPating agencieS and reSPOnSe rateS (o')
Resse Re
Gw 46.1
S/Ieee aeies
Feer mriie cissi 77.7
Feer meii ciii Servie 66.8
Feer Reiree tri Ivese Br 66.7
Isie mse librr Servies 80.3
Ier-aeri Fi 77.4
Ieri Br wer cissi: u.S. mexi 70.8
Kee ceer 55.6
mrie m cissi 83.3
meri Sses prei Br 69.3
ni ci pi cissi 82.9
ni ci disbii 55.6
ni Ee r e ars 62.3
ni Ee r e hiies 70.9
ni ger ar 44.2
ni Ii gi cissi 74.7
ni meii Br 69.0
ni trsri Se Br 66.4
ner wse tei Revie Br 36.4
oi Se he Revie cissi 82.0
oe nvj hi Ii Rei 84.2
oe e u.S. tre Rereseive 60.3
overses prive Ivese crri 83.7
ps Rer cissi 89.1
Seeive Servie Sse 81.7
Sre trsri Br 70.4
tre devee ae 73.5
u.S. Ieri tre cissi 44.3
u.S. oe gvere Eis 88.1
u.S. oe Sei cse 92.1
uS aess Br 79.3
wr wis Ieri ceer r Srs 64.7
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
38/65aPPendix c
appenDix c2012 fd e v s (fevs) d
Te FEVS measures employees perceptions o conditions within their agencies which contribute to their organi-
zations success. Te survey provides general indicators o how well the Federal Government manages personnel.
OPM and agency managers use these indicators in developing policy and planning actions to improve agencyperormance and evaluate individual agencies progress towards long-term goals.
Federal employees have an intimate knowledge o the workings o the Government at every level. Te FEVS
gives them the voice they need to point out ineciencies and jobs well done. Senior managers can then use this
inormation to make Government more eective, and more responsive to the needs o the American people.
Tis year, the FEVS reaches deeper into the Government than it has in previous survey administrations. Reports
are now oered to help managers at lower levels, resulting in a greater potential to celebrate successes and identiy
opportunities or change across each agency.
s
Te 98-item survey included 14 demographic questions and 84 items that measured Federal employees perceptions
about how eectively agencies manage their workorces. Te 98 items in the questionnaire are grouped into
eight topic areas that respondents see as they proceed through the survey: Personal Work Experiences, Work
Unit, Agency, Supervisor/eam Leader, Leadership, Satisaction, Work/Lie, and Demographics.
s
Te 2012 survey was directed at ull-time and part-time, permanent, non-seasonal employees. A total o 82
agencies participated in the survey eort, consisting o 37 Departments/large agencies and 45 small/independent
agencies. Nearly all participating agencies chose to have the survey administered as a census, that is, they
wanted all o their eligible employees to be invited to take the survey.
Te sampling rame was based on lists o employees rom all agencies participating in the survey. Employees
were grouped into 1,754 sample subgroups corresponding to agency, subagency, and supervisory status reporting
requirements. A total o 1,622,375 employees were invited to participate rom 82 agencies. Tese agencies comprise
97 percent o the Executive branch workorce.
D
s
Te survey was administered rom April-June 2012. Agency launch dates were staggered throughout this timerame,
and each agency was oered a six week administration period but could opt or a shorter administration period.
s
Te 2012 FEVS was a sel-administered Web survey. OPM distributed paper versions o the survey to components
o agencies that did not have internet access (less than 1 percent).
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
39/65aPPendix c
rp
O the 1,492,418 employees receiving the FEVS, 687,687 completed the survey or a governmentwide response
rate o 46.1 percent.
D
Data collected rom the 2012 survey respondents were weighted to produce survey estimates that accurately
represent the survey population. Unweighted data could produce biased estimates o population statistics. Teweights developed or the 2012 FEVS take into account the variable probabilities o selection across the sample
domains, nonresponse, and known demographic characteristics o the survey population. Tus, the nal data
set reects the agency composition and demographic makeup o the Federal workorce within plus or minus 1
percentage point.
D
In perorming statistical analyses or this report, OPM employed a number o grouping procedures to simpliy
presentations. Most o 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 or the various
demographic categories. More detailed survey statistics are available in the published Federal Employee Viewpoint
Survey Data volumes or this survey and can be downloaded rom OPMs Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
website: www.FedView.opm.gov.
d n Kw n b Jg p
Responses o Do Not Know/No Basis to Judge were removed beore calculation o percentages. In 2006 and
2008, all responses were included in the calculations. o ensure comparability, data rom previous years were
recalculated, removing Do Not Know/No Basis to Judge responses, beore any calculations with prior survey
data were carried out.
s w Wk/L pg
In 2012, the work/lie program satisaction ratings only include employees who indicated that they participate in
the specic work/lie program. Te 2011 work/lie program satisaction data were recalculated or comparison
purposes.
id d
Te 2012 FEVS includes six indices: the our HCAAF (Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework)
Indices, the Employee Engagement Index, and the Global Satisaction Index. Tese indices provide a dependable
and consistent method or Federal agencies to assess dierent acets o the workorce.
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
40/65aPPendix c
hcaaf i
Te HCAAF Indices were developed to help agencies meet the requirements o OPMs mandate under the Chie
Human Capital Ocers Act o 2002 to design systems, set standards, and development metrics or assessing the
management o Federal employees. Te FEVS provides supplementary inormation to evaluate Leadership &
Knowledge Management, Results-Oriented Perormance Culture, and alent Management, and provides an
additional index on Job Satisaction.
Te Index scores were calculated by averaging the percent positive responses on the items within the Index.
For example, i the item-level percent positive responses or a our-item Index were 20 percent, 40 percent, 60
percent, and 80 percent, the HCAAF rating would be the average o these our percentages (20 + 40 + 60 + 80)
divided by 4 = 50 percent.
epl egg i
Te Employee Engagement Index was developed using a combination o theory and statistical analysis. Several
items rom the FEVS were selected based on a rationalization they would be representative o dimensions similar
to other engagement driver measures. Items which used a satisaction scale were excluded so as to dierentiate
between satisaction and engagement.
An initial exploratory actor analysis revealed three actors consisting o 16 items (Leadership, Supervision, and
Intrinsic Work Experiences) with a single, underlying actor (Conditions Conducive to Employee Engagement). A
conrmatory actor analysis was repeated with an independent dataset, which urther supported the three-actor
model. One item was removed or theoretical and statistical reasons, resulting in the 15-item, three-actor
model.
Gll s i
OPM created the Global Satisaction Index to provide a more comprehensive indicator o employees overall work
satisaction. Te index is a combination o employees satisaction with their job, their pay, and their organization,
plus their willingness to recommend their organization as a good place to work.
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
41/65aPPendix d
appenDix Dtd : 2008 . 2010 . 2011 . 2012
Appendix D consists o a set o trend tables which displays governmentwide positive results or each item or
the last our survey administrations. Te last column o the table indicates whether or not there were signicant
increases, decreases, or no changes in positive ratings rom 2008 to 2010 (the rst arrow), rom 2010 to 2011(the second arrow), and rom 2011 to 2012 (the last arrow). Arrows slanting up indicate a statistically signicant
increase, and arrows slanting down indicate a statistically signicant decrease. Horizontal arrows indicate the
change was not statistically signicant. For example, symbols indicate there was no signicant change in
positive ratings rom 2008 to 2010, but there was a signicant increase in positive ratings rom 2010 to 2011,
and rom 2011 to 2012. Similarly, symbols indicate there was a signicant decrease rom 2008 to 2010,
but there were no signicant changes in positive ratings rom 2010 to 2011 or rom 2011 to 2012.
aPPendix d trend analySiS
pere psiive Siiitres2008 2010 2011 2012
1. I ive re ri irve skis i rizi. 64.0 65.9 65.1 63.2
2. I ve e iri jb e. 73.4 72.9 73.2 71.9
3. I ee ere e i e beer s i is. 60.7 59.9 59.4 57.8
4. m rk ives e eei ers ise. 73.4 74.7 73.9 72.4
5. I ike e ki rk I . 83.8 85.6 85.0 83.8
6. I k is exee e e jb. 80.8 80.2 80.1 na
7. we eee I ii i e exr er e jb e. 96.7 96.9 96.5 na
8. I s ki r s jb beer. 91.7 91.8 91.4 na
9. I ve sie resres (r exe, ee, eris, be) e jb e.
51.6 50.1 47.8 48.0
10. m rk is resbe. 60.3 59.1 59.0 58.9
11. m es re se e i e rke. 62.8 60.4 60.5 59.5
12. I k rk rees e e's s ririies. 84.5 84.4 84.6 83.7
13. te rk I is ir. 91.0 92.2 91.8 91.2
14. psi iis (r exe, ise eve, eerre, ii,eiess i e rke) eees err eir jbs e.
67.5 67.0 67.3 67.5
ne: Ies ie e a Eee Srve re e b be er (). a "na" iies e ie s ie i e srve er.
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
42/65
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
43/65aPPendix d
aPPendix d trend analySiS (o)
pere psiive Siii
tres2008 2010 2011 2012
ne: Ies ie e a Eee Srve re e b be er (). a "na" iies e ie s ie i e srve er.
35. Eees re ree r e se zrs e jb. 77.0 76.4 77.7 76.9
36. m rizi s rere eees r ei seri res. 75.1 76.3 78.1 78.0
37. arbirr i, ers vriis eri r ris iirses re ere.
51.5 51.3 52.4 51.2
38. pribie perse pries (r exe, ie isriiir r is eee/i, bsri erss ri ee r ee, ki vii veers reereereqirees) re ere.
66.2 65.7 67.1 65.9
39. m e is sess isi is issi. 77.6 78.9 76.4 na
40. I ree rizi s e rk. 65.5 69.7 68.9 66.8
41. I beieve e ress is srve i be se ke e beer e rk.
44.5 45.3 42.4 na
42. m servisr srs ee be rk er ie isses. 75.8 76.2 77.2 76.7
43. m servisr/e eer rvies e i riies esre eersi skis.
66.0 66.6 65.2 na
44. disssis i servisr/e eer b errere rie.
57.2 62.4 63.3 62.2
45. m servisr/e eer is ie rkre rereseive sees sie.
65.3 66.0 64.5 na
46. m servisr e eer rvies e i srive sesis irve jb erre.
60.9 61.9 60.8 na
47. Servisrs/e eers i rk i sr eee evee. 65.1 65.9 66.9 65.1
48. m servisr/e eer ises I ve s. 74.8 75.2 74.3 na
49. m servisr/e eer res e i rese. 79.9 80.2 79.4 na
50. I e s six s, servisr/e eer s ke i eb erre.
76.4 76.9 76.8 na
51. I ve rs ee i servisr. 64.2 66.5 67.2 65.8
52. over, jb ee is bei e b r ieieservisr/e eer?
66.2 68.4 69.3 68.4
53. I rizi, eers eere i eves ivi ie i e rkre.
40.2 44.5 45.0 42.9
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
44/65
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
45/65aPPendix d
pere psiive Siiitres2008 2010 2011 2012
aPPendix d trend analySiS (o)
79 -84. h sise re i e i wrk/lie rrs ir e?*
79. teerk 69.7 72.9 na na
80. aerive wrk Sees (awS) 89.4 88.5 na na
81. he weess prrs (r exe, exerise, eisreei, qi ski rrs)
81.4 80.0 na na
82. Eee assise prr (Eap) 78.2 75.6 na na
83. ci cre prrs (r exe, re, reisses, rei sr rs)
72.8 72.0 na na
84. Eer cre prrs (r exe, sr rs, sekers) 66.6 67.9 na na
* te 2012 2011 rk/ie rr sisi ress ie eees iie e riie i e rr. Bese riii qesis
ere e i 2011, erees r revis ers re ise.
ne: Ies ie e a Eee Srve re e b be er (). a "na" iies e ie s ie i e srve er.
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
46/65aPPendix e
appenDix e
aPPendix e1 Hcaa index trendS: leaderSHiP & knOwledge ManageMent
2006 2008 2010 2011 2012
gvereie 58 59 61 62 60
Brsi Br gverrs 42 41 46 49 48
cr Servies oeer Servisi ae 56 63 63 65 61
dere arire 58 57 57 58 56
dere cere 59 63 64 65 65
dere deese 60 62 64 64 63
dere Ei 55 58 59 60 60
dere Eer 60 61 61 60 61
dere he h Servies 58 59 60 60 60
dere he Seri 47 53 55 55 52
dere hsi urb devee 56 56 54 57 57
dere Jsie 60 61 63 64 62
dere lbr 60 60 61 61 60
dere Se 62 64 66 67 66
dere e Ierir 52 53 56 56 56
dere e tresr 59 60 64 66 65
dere trsri 50 51 55 57 59
dere Veers airs 57 59 58 59 56
Evire prei ae 58 61 61 61 62
Eq Ee ori cissi 56 56 56 60 61
Feer ciis cissi 57 67 67 65
Feer Eer Rer cissi 65 69 67 68 67
Feer tre cissi 66 70 73 73 72
geer Servies aiisri 63 63 66 67 66
ni aeris Se aiisri 67 69 72 72 73
ni arives Rers aiisri 54 55 56 55 53
ni crei ui aiisri 60 56 58 61 67
ni lbr Reis Br 61 58 57 62 59
ni Siee Fi 67 69 64 59 57
ner Rer cissi 70 76 78 78 74
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
47/65aPPendix e
aPPendix e1 Hcaa index trendS: leaderSHiP & knOwledge ManageMent (o')
2006 2008 2010 2011 2012
gvereie 58 59 61 62 60
oe mee Be 63 66 54 51 61
oe perse mee 59 62 63 66 65
pesi Bee gr crri 62 66 65 63
Rir Reiree Br 56 59 60 61 63
Seriies Exe cissi 65 61 57 55 56
S Bsiess aiisri 51 60 59 61 60
Si Seri aiisri 62 63 66 69 65
u.S. ae r Ieri devee 58 62 57 60 62
te leaderSHiP & knOwledge ManageMent index iies e exe i eees eir eersi i i rer, b ver sei
es eersi. I is e ies:
10. m rk is resbe.35. Eees re ree r e se zrs e jb.
36. m rizi s rere eees r ei seri res.
51. I ve rs ee i servisr.52. over, jb ee is bei e b r ieie servisr/e eer?
53. I rizi, eers eere i eves ivi ie i e rkre.
55. mers/servisrs/e eers rk e i eees iere bkrs.56. mers ie e s ririies e rizi.
57. mers revie eve e rizi's rress r eei is s bjeives.
61. I ve i eve rese r rizis seir eers.64. h sise re i e iri reeive r ee 's i i r rizi?
66. h sise re i e iies ries r seir eers?
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
48/65aPPendix e
aPPendix e2 Hcaa index trendS: reSUltS-Oriented PerOrMance cUltUre
2006 2008 2010 2011 2012
gvereie 53 54 54 54 52
Brsi Br gverrs 44 42 45 48 46
cr Servies oeer Servisi ae 58 62 61 58 56
dere arire 52 52 51 53 51
dere cere 58 61 60 61 61
dere deese 55 55 56 55 54
dere Ei 50 53 52 53 53
dere Eer 54 55 54 53 53
dere he h Servies 55 56 56 55 55
dere he Seri 43 47 49 48 46
dere hsi urb devee 53 50 49 49 50
dere Jsie 53 54 55 56 54
dere lbr 56 56 54 53 53
dere Se 56 58 58 58 58
dere e Ierir 51 52 54 53 53
dere e tresr 56 56 57 59 57
dere trsri 46 47 49 49 51
dere Veers airs 49 52 51 52 49
Evire prei ae 56 58 56 56 56
Eq Ee ori cissi 52 53 52 55 54
Feer ciis cissi 54 59 59 58
Feer Eer Rer cissi 60 64 61 60 58
Feer tre cissi 64 66 68 66 66
geer Servies aiisri 57 57 60 59 58
ni aeris Se aiisri 63 65 64 64 65
ni arives Rers aiisri 53 54 54 53 49
ni crei ui aiisri 60 58 59 62 62
ni lbr Reis Br 54 50 51 52 51
ni Siee Fi 65 67 61 58 56
ner Rer cissi 62 67 69 68 64
oe mee Be 60 63 57 51 60
oe perse mee 53 57 58 60 59
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
49/65aPPendix e
aPPendix e2 Hcaa index trendS: reSUltS-Oriented PerOrMance cUltUre (o')
2006 2008 2010 2011 2012
gvereie 53 54 54 54 52
pesi Bee gr crri 59 63 61 57
Rir Reiree Br 55 55 55 55 56
Seriies Exe cissi 60 53 50 47 48
S Bsiess aiisri 50 54 53 54 53
Si Seri aiisri 53 54 54 56 52
u.S. ae r Ieri devee 59 58 54 53 53
tereSUltS-Oriented PerOrMance cUltUre index iies e exe i eees beieve eir rizi re res irvee i
resses, rs servies rizi es. I is e ies:
12. I k rk rees e e's s ririies.
14. psi iis (r exe, ise eve, eerre, ii, eiess i e rke) eees err eir jbs e.
15. m erre ris is ir refei erre.
20. te ee I rk i ere e e jb e.
22. pris i rk i re bse eri.
23. I rk i, ses re ke e i r errer r i irve.
24. I rk i, ierees i erre re reize i ei .
30. Eees ve eei ers eere i rese rk resses.
32. creivi ivi re rere.
33. p rises ee e eees err eir jbs.
42. m servisr srs ee be rk er ie isses.
44. disssis i servisr/e eer b erre re rie.
65. h sise re i e reii reeive r i jb?
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
50/65aPPendix e
aPPendix e3 Hcaa index trendS: talent ManageMent
2006 2008 2010 2011 2012
gvereie 59 60 60 60 59
Brsi Br gverrs 45 42 46 50 48
cr Servies oeer Servisi ae 64 70 70 69 65
dere arire 59 59 57 58 55
dere cere 62 64 62 63 63
dere deese 61 61 62 61 60
dere Ei 55 59 54 58 57
dere Eer 59 62 60 58 59
dere he h Servies 59 60 61 59 59
dere he Seri 49 54 54 53 50
dere hsi urb devee 49 49 46 49 50
dere Jsie 62 61 62 62 60
dere lbr 57 57 55 54 55
dere Se 62 65 66 65 63
dere e Ierir 56 57 58 57 57
dere e tresr 61 60 62 63 61
dere trsri 54 54 57 57 59
dere Veers airs 58 62 58 60 57
Evire prei ae 61 62 60 60 58
Eq Ee ori cissi 50 51 52 56 55
Feer ciis cissi 60 63 61 61
Feer Eer Rer cissi 65 67 65 65 65
Feer tre cissi 66 69 72 70 70
geer Servies aiisri 64 65 66 65 64
ni aeris Se aiisri 68 71 71 70 71
ni arives Rers aiisri 55 57 56 55 51
ni crei ui aiisri 70 67 66 66 68
ni lbr Reis Br 62 57 58 60 60
ni Siee Fi 68 71 64 61 60
ner Rer cissi 72 76 77 76 72
oe mee Be 65 69 63 58 65
oe perse mee 52 58 60 63 61
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
51/65
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
52/65aPPendix e
2006 2008 2010 2011 2012
gvereie 67 67 69 68 66
Brsi Br gverrs 59 59 62 64 61
cr Servies oeer Servisi ae 64 70 73 70 68
dere arire 68 67 68 68 65
dere cere 66 68 70 69 69
dere deese 67 67 70 68 67
dere Ei 61 64 65 65 64
dere Eer 66 67 68 65 65
dere he h Servies 66 67 70 68 67
dere he Seri 58 63 65 64 61
dere hsi urb devee 64 64 64 63 63
dere Jsie 70 69 72 70 68
dere lbr 67 67 67 66 65
dere Se 70 71 74 73 71
dere e Ierir 66 66 69 68 67
dere e tresr 67 66 70 70 67
dere trsri 65 63 69 68 69
dere Veers airs 67 68 69 68 64
Evire prei ae 68 69 70 69 68
Eq Ee ori cissi 66 67 68 68 67
Feer ciis cissi 59 68 67 66
Feer Eer Rer cissi 66 70 70 67 65
Feer tre cissi 67 68 73 71 70
geer Servies aiisri 69 69 72 70 70
ni aeris Se aiisri 72 72 75 74 74
ni arives Rers aiisri 63 64 65 63 59
ni crei ui aiisri 70 68 71 71 72
ni lbr Reis Br 66 63 67 67 64
ni Siee Fi 71 73 72 68 64
ner Rer cissi 74 78 79 77 73
oe mee Be 74 78 71 65 72
oe perse mee 64 67 70 71 69
aPPendix e4 Hcaa index trendS: jOB SatiSactiOn
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
53/65aPPendix e
aPPendix e4 Hcaa index trendS: jOB SatiSactiOn (o')
2006 2008 2010 2011 2012
gvereie 67 67 69 68 66
pesi Bee gr crri 67 72 69 67
Rir Reiree Br 65 68 69 68 69
Seriies Exe cissi 68 65 64 61 62
S Bsiess aiisri 61 66 67 67 66
Si Seri aiisri 69 70 73 72 68
u.S. ae r Ieri devee 69 70 69 66 66
te jOB SatiSactiOn index iies e exe i eees re sise i eir jbs vris ses ere. I is e ies:
4. m rk ives e eei ers ise.5. I ike e ki rk I .
13. te rk I is ir.
63. h sise re i r ivvee i eisis e r rk?67. h sise re i r ri e beer jb i r rizi?
69. csieri everi, sise re i r jb?
70. csieri everi, sise re i r ?
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
54/65aPPendix f
appenDix f
aPPendix glOBal SatiSactiOn index trendS
2008 2010 2011 2012
gvereie 63 67 66 63
Brsi Br gverrs 48 55 57 53
cr Servies oeer Servisi ae 66 73 70 67
dere arire 61 65 64 60
dere cere 66 71 71 69
dere deese 63 67 66 64
dere Ei 59 62 62 60
dere Eer 64 67 63 62
dere he h Servies 63 67 65 65
dere he Seri 57 62 61 56
dere hsi urb devee 61 62 60 59
dere Jsie 68 73 72 68
dere lbr 64 66 63 61
dere Se 67 74 74 72
dere e Ierir 62 67 65 64
dere e tresr 63 70 70 66
dere trsri 54 63 63 66
dere Veers airs 64 65 64 59
Evire prei ae 69 72 70 69
Eq Ee ori cissi 59 62 64 64
Feer ciis cissi 58 71 69 67
Feer Eer Rer cissi 71 73 70 68
Feer tre cissi 69 75 72 70
geer Servies aiisri 67 74 73 71
ni aeris Se aiisri 72 77 75 74
ni arives Rers aiisri 56 58 55 50
ni crei ui aiisri 62 68 69 71
ni lbr Reis Br 58 64 65 59
ni Siee Fi 76 75 69 63
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
55/65aPPendix f
aPPendix glOBal SatiSactiOn index trendS (o')
2008 2010 2011 2012
gvereie 63 67 66 63
ner Rer cissi 80 83 80 75
oe mee Be 77 69 60 71
oe perse mee 65 70 71 69
pesi Bee gr crri 63 71 67 63
Rir Reiree Br 67 72 68 68
Seriies Exe cissi 67 66 61 59
S Bsiess aiisri 59 62 61 60
Si Seri aiisri 68 74 73 69
u.S. ae r Ieri devee 67 65 63 62
te glOBal SatiSactiOn index is e ies:
40. I ree rizi s e rk.
69. csieri everi, sise re i r jb?
70. csieri everi, sise re i r ?
71. csieri everi, sise re i r rizi?
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
56/65aPPendix G
appenDix g
aPPendix g1 eMPlOyee engageMent index trendS
2010 2011 2012
gvereie 66 67 65
Brsi Br gverrs 56 57 56
cr Servies oeer Servisi ae 71 70 67
dere arire 63 65 63
dere cere 69 70 70
dere deese 68 68 67
dere Ei 63 64 65
dere Eer 65 63 65
dere he h Servies 66 65 66
dere he Seri 61 60 58
dere hsi urb devee 59 61 62
dere Jsie 68 69 67
dere lbr 64 64 64
dere Se 72 72 71
dere e Ierir 64 64 64
dere e tresr 69 70 69
dere trsri 61 63 64
dere Veers airs 63 65 62
Evire prei ae 67 67 68
Eq Ee ori cissi 63 65 67
Feer ciis cissi 70 69 69
Feer Eer Rer cissi 71 71 70
Feer tre cissi 76 76 74
geer Servies aiisri 70 71 69
ni aeris Se aiisri 76 75 76
ni arives Rers aiisri 63 62 59
ni crei ui aiisri 66 68 73
ni lbr Reis Br 63 66 65
ni Siee Fi 71 67 65
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
57/65aPPendix G
aPPendix g1 eMPlOyee engageMent index trendS (o')
2010 2011 2012
gvereie 66 67 65
ner Rer cissi 80 79 76
oe mee Be 66 63 73
oe perse mee 69 72 71
pesi Bee gr crri 70 69 67
Rir Reiree Br 66 66 68
Seriies Exe cissi 61 61 62
S Bsiess aiisri 63 65 64
Si Seri aiisri 70 72 69
u.S. ae r Ieri devee 65 65 67
te eMPlOyee engageMent index ssess e rii iis ive r eee eee (e.., eeive eersi, rk i rvies ei
eees, e.). I is e ree sbrs: leers le, Servisrs, Irisi wrk Exeriees.
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
58/65aPPendix G
aPPendix g2 eMPlOyee engageMent index trendS: leaderS lead
2010 2011 2012
gvereie 55 56 54
Brsi Br gverrs 41 43 41
cr Servies oeer Servisi ae 63 64 58
dere arire 50 51 49
dere cere 57 60 59
dere deese 58 58 57
dere Ei 53 55 54
dere Eer 53 51 53
dere he h Servies 55 55 56
dere he Seri 49 48 46
dere hsi urb devee 49 53 53
dere Jsie 59 59 57
dere lbr 54 54 55
dere Se 63 65 63
dere e Ierir 50 51 51
dere e tresr 58 61 60
dere trsri 45 48 50
dere Veers airs 52 54 50
Evire prei ae 54 54 56
Eq Ee ori cissi 50 55 56
Feer ciis cissi 61 61 60
Feer Eer Rer cissi 64 65 63
Feer tre cissi 70 72 70
geer Servies aiisri 62 62 59
ni aeris Se aiisri 68 68 68
ni arives Rers aiisri 49 47 44
ni crei ui aiisri 54 57 65
ni lbr Reis Br 52 57 55
ni Siee Fi 61 56 52
ner Rer cissi 76 74 69
oe mee Be 50 50 62
oe perse mee 60 63 62
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
59/65aPPendix G
2010 2011 2012
gvereie 55 56 54
pesi Bee gr crri 58 58 57
Rir Reiree Br 55 57 58
Seriies Exe cissi 50 47 49
S Bsiess aiisri 52 56 54
Si Seri aiisri 64 66 62
u.S. ae r Ieri devee 52 56 59
dere he Seri 68 68 66
dere hsi urb devee 64 67 68
aPPendix g2 eMPlOyee engageMent index trendS: leaderS lead (o')
leaderS lead refes e eees' ereis e ieri eersi, s e s eersi bevirs s s ii rkre ivi.
I is e ies:
53. I rizi, eers eere i eves ivi ie i e rkre.
54. m rizi's eers ii i srs es ieri.56. mers ie e s ririies e rizi.
60. over, jb ee is bei e b e er ire bve r ieie servisr/e eer?
61. I ve i eve rese r rizis seir eers.
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
60/65aPPendix G
aPPendix g3 eMPlOyee engageMent index trendS: SUPerViSOrS
2010 2011 2012
gvereie 71 72 71
Brsi Br gverrs 62 63 63
cr Servies oeer Servisi ae 74 74 71
dere arire 71 73 72
dere cere 76 77 77
dere deese 73 72 72
dere Ei 69 71 73
dere Eer 72 71 72
dere he h Servies 70 70 70
dere he Seri 68 68 66
dere hsi urb devee 64 67 68
dere Jsie 72 75 71
dere lbr 70 70 70
dere Se 78 77 76
dere e Ierir 70 70 70
dere e tresr 75 77 76
dere trsri 69 70 72
dere Veers airs 65 67 65
Evire prei ae 74 75 76
Eq Ee ori cissi 69 70 72
Feer ciis cissi 78 78 78
Feer Eer Rer cissi 77 78 78
Feer tre cissi 79 78 76
geer Servies aiisri 74 76 75
ni aeris Se aiisri 81 82 82
ni arives Rers aiisri 70 69 68
ni crei ui aiisri 73 75 79
ni lbr Reis Br 69 71 71
ni Siee Fi 74 72 72
ner Rer cissi 83 83 81
oe mee Be 75 71 82
oe perse mee 75 78 77
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
61/65aPPendix G
2010 2011 2012
gvereie 71 72 71
pesi Bee gr crri 75 76 72
Rir Reiree Br 70 70 72
Seriies Exe cissi 69 70 72
S Bsiess aiisri 69 70 70
Si Seri aiisri 70 73 71
u.S. ae r Ieri devee 72 72 74
aPPendix g3 eMPlOyee engageMent index trendS: SUPerViSOrS (o')
SUPerViSOrS refes e ierers reisi beee rker servisr, ii rs, rese sr. I is e ies
47. Servisrs/e eers i rk i sr eee evee.48. m servisr/e eer ises I ve s.
49. m servisr/e-eer res e i rese.
51. I ve rs ee i servisr.52. over, jb ee is bei e b r ieie servisr/e eer?
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
62/65aPPendix G
aPPendix g4 eMPlOyee engageMent index trendS: intrinSic wOrk exPerienceS
2010 2011 2012
gvereie 72 72 71
Brsi Br gverrs 64 66 63
cr Servies oeer Servisi ae 76 74 73
dere arire 69 71 69
dere cere 73 73 73
dere deese 74 73 72
dere Ei 66 67 67
dere Eer 70 68 69
dere he h Servies 73 71 72
dere he Seri 65 64 62
dere hsi urb devee 65 65 65
dere Jsie 73 73 71
dere lbr 68 68 68
dere Se 75 76 74
dere e Ierir 72 71 71
dere e tresr 73 73 73
dere trsri 68 69 71
dere Veers airs 73 73 70
ni crei ui aiisri 72 71 75
Evire prei ae 72 72 72
Eq Ee ori cissi 70 71 71
Feer ciis cissi 70 69 71
Feer Eer Rer cissi 72 71 69
Feer tre cissi 78 77 77
geer Servies aiisri 74 74 74
ni aeris Se aiisri 78 77 79
ni arives Rers aiisri 70 68 66
ni lbr Reis Br 69 71 70
ni Siee Fi 77 74 71
ner Rer cissi 81 79 77
oe mee Be 72 67 75
oe perse mee 72 73 73
-
7/30/2019 2012 Government Management Report
63/65aPPendix G
2010 2011 2012
gvereie 72 72 71
pesi Bee gr crri 77 75 73
Rir Reiree Br 72 71 73
Seriies Exe cissi 64 65 65
S Bsiess aiisri 68 69 70
Si Seri aiisri 75 76 73
u.S. ae r Ieri devee 71 67 69
intrinSic wOrk exPerienceS refes e eees' eeis ivi ee rei eir re i e rke. I is e ies:
3. I ee ere e i e b