2012 Government Management Report

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


2/65


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


4/65


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


6/65


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.


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.


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


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.


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%


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%


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


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


ner Rer cissi 64


dere cere 61

tl mg

gvereie 59

ner Rer cissi 72


Feer tre cissi 70


oe mee Be 65

Feer Eer Rer cissi 65

cr Servies oeer Servisi ae 65

J s

gvereie 66


ner Rer cissi 73

oe mee Be 72


dere Se 71


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.


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


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


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


dere Se 72

oe mee Be 71


geer Servies aiisri 71



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



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


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


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).


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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)


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).


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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).


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.


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.


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.


42/65


43/65aPPendix d

aPPendix d trend analySiS (o)

pere psiive Siii

tres2008 2010 2011 2012


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


44/65


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.



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


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?


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?


48/65aPPendix e

aPPendix e2 Hcaa index trendS: reSUltS-Oriented PerOrMance cUltUre

2006 2008 2010 2011 2012

gvereie 53 54 54 54 52



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 Seri 43 47 49 48 46


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


Evire prei ae 56 58 56 56 56









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


49/65aPPendix e

aPPendix e2 Hcaa index trendS: reSUltS-Oriented PerOrMance cUltUre (o')

2006 2008 2010 2011 2012

gvereie 53 54 54 54 52


Rir Reiree Br 55 55 55 55 56





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?


50/65aPPendix e

aPPendix e3 Hcaa index trendS: talent ManageMent

2006 2008 2010 2011 2012

gvereie 59 60 60 60 59



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 Seri 49 54 54 53 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


Evire prei ae 61 62 60 60 58









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


51/65


52/65aPPendix e

2006 2008 2010 2011 2012

gvereie 67 67 69 68 66



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 Seri 58 63 65 64 61


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


Evire prei ae 68 69 70 69 68









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


53/65aPPendix e

aPPendix e4 Hcaa index trendS: jOB SatiSactiOn (o')

2006 2008 2010 2011 2012

gvereie 67 67 69 68 66


Rir Reiree Br 65 68 69 68 69





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 ?


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 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


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


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?


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


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.


58/65aPPendix G

aPPendix g2 eMPlOyee engageMent index trendS: leaderS lead

2010 2011 2012

gvereie 55 56 54



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 Jsie 59 59 57

dere lbr 54 54 55

dere Se 63 65 63



dere trsri 45 48 50












ni Siee Fi 61 56 52


oe mee Be 50 50 62



59/65aPPendix G

2010 2011 2012

gvereie 55 56 54









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:


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.


60/65aPPendix G

aPPendix g3 eMPlOyee engageMent index trendS: SUPerViSOrS

2010 2011 2012

gvereie 71 72 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 Jsie 72 75 71

dere lbr 70 70 70

dere Se 78 77 76



dere trsri 69 70 72












ni Siee Fi 74 72 72


oe mee Be 75 71 82



61/65aPPendix G

2010 2011 2012

gvereie 71 72 71







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?


62/65aPPendix G

aPPendix g4 eMPlOyee engageMent index trendS: intrinSic wOrk exPerienceS

2010 2011 2012

gvereie 72 72 71



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 Jsie 73 73 71

dere lbr 68 68 68

dere Se 75 76 74



dere trsri 68 69 71












ni Siee Fi 77 74 71


oe mee Be 72 67 75



63/65aPPendix G

2010 2011 2012

gvereie 72 72 71







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

Documents

2012 Government Management Report