CHAPTER 5

Engaging the Best People

By: Aileen G. Zaballero and Jennifer Myers

It has become both more difficult and more imperative for federal leaders to find ways to reward and recognize high-performing employees. Despite the complex challenges confronting the federal workforce—pay freezes, furloughs, budget cutbacks, and an impending surge of retirees—demand continues to increase for these services and for them to be delivered with the highest possible quality. Yet, employees who are engaged with their work and committed to their jobs are critical to achieving the government’s core purpose of supporting the general welfare of the American public. The federal government’s approximately 2 million employees execute a wide range of fundamental services and functions: overseeing financial institutions, supervising the aviation system, ensuring the safety of food and drugs, providing national security, caring for veterans, and promoting diplomacy around the globe, just to name a few. The role of agency leaders in motivating employees and keeping them focused on each agency’s core mission and values is thus particularly important today.

According to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), there is a strong relationship between employee engagement (“a heightened connection between employees and their work, their organization, or the people they work for or with”) and agency outcomes. “Engaged employees find personal meaning in their work, take pride in what they do and where they do it, and believe that their organization values them,” leading to improved efficiency and effectiveness (MSPB, 2008b).

Developing an engaged workforce is vital to the continued success of each agency, and federal department leaders are taking steps to improve worker satisfaction and commitment. To achieve this goal, they must overcome barriers to engaging the federal workforce, including lack of commitment. Based on data gathered from the Merit Principles Surveys and Federal Employee Viewpoint (FedView) surveys, which collect feedback from federal employees to help identify these barriers, various recommendations have been made and initiatives begun that may increase engagement in the workplace. Workplace reputation or branding is another area of ongoing effort.

BARRIERS TO ENGAGING THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE

Employee engagement has three primary elements: (1) emotional and rational commitment to the job and the organization; (2) discretionary effort that produces sustained goal-directed performance; and (3) satisfaction in the job and its context (MSPB, 2008b). Employees who are engaged have a heightened emotional connection to their work, their organization, and the people they work for that causes them to produce better results for the organization. According to Towers Watson, a global professional services and human resources (HR) consulting firm that has conducted several engagement studies, “[e]ngagement means employees know what their business is trying to achieve, understand their role in that effort, and feel motivated to play a part in the company’s success” (Lawrence, 2011:7). According to the 2013 FedView Survey results, “Federal employees remain committed to the missions of their agencies despite a number of challenges, including continued pay freezes, agency furloughs, and a climate of uncertainty” (OPM, 2013:3).

However, engagement is not a singular activity that can be isolated. It is complex and requires commitment from everyone in the agency, particularly the leadership. To develop an engaged workforce, it is imperative to understand the barriers to engagement, such as difficulties integrating new employees, poor job design or job characteristics, the diverse needs of a multigenerational workforce, outdated communication and information-sharing structures, and lack of leadership commitment.

Onboarding New Employees

Recruiting top talent is only one component of a broader approach. The process of integrating new employees into their agency work environments, known as onboarding, has been widely overlooked. In recent years, the need to revitalize the federal workforce has brought increased attention to this process.

The Partnership for Public Service (PPS), a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization whose goal is to help government work better by identifying problems and finding their solutions, has published white papers and reports providing strategies to help federal agencies with several fundamental HR challenges: attracting and hiring the most promising individuals, improving performance to reach organizational goals, and being accountable for progress. A 2008 report (PPS and Booz Allen Hamilton [Booz Allen], 2008) examined how the federal government onboards and orients new employees. Although most agencies work hard to make a favorable first impression during the recruitment process, this favorable impression is not necessarily reinforced during new employees’ first year on the job. According to the report, the federal government has fallen short in the opportunity to leverage onboarding as a way to engage new employees and accelerate productivity. The study was based on a literature review, focus groups with 16 federal employees, and interviews with 29 officials from 11 agencies. The results were as follows:

•  There is no consistent approach to onboarding in the federal government.

•  Onboarding-related activities often lack a focus on the mission, vision, and culture of the organization.

•  The onboarding process typically fails to integrate the activities of stakeholders or hold them accountable for success or failure.

•  Onboarding is inconsistently executed across employee groups and locations.

•  Agencies are interested in using technology to support onboarding, but few have invested in developing these capabilities.

•  Most agencies gather immediate feedback on orientation but do not measure the long-term impact of onboarding activities.

•  Agencies with more sophisticated onboarding activities often integrate them as part of larger retention strategies. (PPS and Booz Allen, 2008:iv)

Many agencies are preparing for the surge of pending retirees by planning recruitment strategies to fill the imminent vacancies. However, most agencies are not recognizing and capitalizing on the critical impact of an effective onboarding process. The looming retirement wave will require comprehensive onboarding programs to quickly and effectively engage a large cohort of new employees.

Job Design

Good job design supports organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Federal agencies have considerable leeway in designing jobs or adjusting working conditions to increase motivational qualities, but MSPB reports that job characteristics remain “an area where potential improvements in motivation can be made” (MSPB, 2012:i–iii).

The job characteristics model (derived by Hackman and Oldham, 1980), describes the worker’s response to a task, such as variable levels of satisfaction or motivation. The theory identifies five variables or components (Faturochman, 1997) as interpreted by MSPB:

•  Skill variety is the diversity of knowledge, skills, and abilities required for a task. Increasing skill variety may improve employees’ perceptions of the meaningfulness and value of their jobs and fuel their motivation.

•  Task identity is the degree of completion associated with a task as experienced by individual employees. Generally, a job that allows employees to complete entire tasks will be judged as more meaningful, and employees will exert more effort to accomplish these tasks.

•  Task significance is the importance that employees attach to job tasks and activities, especially in terms of the perceived impact on stakeholders (internal and external). Jobs with tasks of greater perceived significance, and a clearer connection between employees’ actions and organizational goals, generate more effort. The more removed a job is from the mission, the less significant that job may seem.

•  Autonomy is the degree of independence employees have in making decisions about how to accomplish their work. Normally, the more freedom employees have to make decisions and to direct the activities of their work, the greater their motivation to perform that work.

•  Feedback is the mechanism by which employees receive information about the effectiveness of their job performance. The more that jobs provide ways by which employees can understand how they are performing, the more employees will be able to monitor and correct their behavior to achieve better results. (MSPB 2012:8–9)

MSPB conducts a survey that explores how well the federal government is managing its workforce. The survey focuses on employees’ perceptions of a variety of management practices. Table 5.1 summarizes MSPB 2010 engagement survey responses about job characteristics and illustrates how federal employees perceived the motivating quality of their jobs.

TABLE 5.1. Responses to Questions About Job Characteristics and Survey Questions by Job Component

MSPB, 2012.

Multigenerational Workforce

Although gender inequalities and cultural discrimination still exist in the workforce, laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Civil Rights Act of 1991 prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, multigenerational issues are becoming more prevalent, particularly in terms of communication and engagement. Each age group has a very different work and communication style and has impacted the workplace accordingly. Many social and demographic trends have changed the workforce, such as Baby Boomers retiring and Millennials entering the labor market. Therefore, recruiting, hiring, and knowledge retention strategies must change in response to create an inclusive and diverse work environment, and agency leaders and human capital specialists must consider the unique attributes of each group.

Communication preferences vary considerably among multigenerational groups. According to the generational cohort model devised by Strauss and Howe (1991), each cohort tends to have key traits, and different cohorts have different attitudes toward work (Table 5.2). Communication between groups can be challenging as a result, and work engagement initiatives must consider these variations. It is not uncommon for managers to adapt their management style to their own generation, rather than fully considering how to manage a multigenerational workforce (Deloitte, 2012). However, overgeneralization of each cohort can create other barriers. It is always important to consider employees as individuals and be cognizant of stereotyping, whether positive or negative.

TABLE 5.2. Differences Among Generational Cohorts

Adapted with permission from Strauss and Howe, 1991.

Most agency leaders believe that “generational differences have a moderate or significant impact on their human capital management,” describing these differences both as “a source of conflict” and as “a catalyst for progress.” (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2013:8). In light of these mixed perspectives, consulting firm Deloitte made three recommendations for managing a multigenerational workforce:

1. Clearly define success in achieving a multigenerational workforce. Defining specific metrics allows agencies to work toward tangible and measurable goals.

2. Focus on cultivating a multigenerational workforce, not just recruiting Millennials. Establishing a solid talent pipeline for Millennial employees is important for the future but very challenging. Engaging all segments of the workforce and balancing their preferences is the critical success factor.

3. Effectively manage numerous, sometimes competing, generational interests. Encouraging the strengths and preferences of all segments, including generational differences, helps to achieve mission goals and increase efficiency. (Deloitte, 2012:2)

OPM agrees that “a commitment to equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion is critical to accomplishing the Federal government’s missions…. Seeking to attain a diverse, qualified workforce is a cornerstone of the merit-based civil service.” (OPM, 2011a:3). Agencies and human capital specialists must consider the unique attributes of various subgroups, including generational cohorts, to promote employee engagement and to cultivate high performance.

Communications and Information Sharing

One of the key challenges for the Department of Energy (DOE) that is typical of the federal government as a whole is that it employs more than 15,000 geographically dispersed full-time workers. The size and decentralized structure of DOE make it difficult for employees to share information, collaborate, or take advantage of in-house expertise. The absence of a strong central intranet system further complicates employees’ communication and coordination. Clearly, DOE’s branches and facilities require a quicker way to access critical and real-time information while maintaining a reliable, secure communications infrastructure (PPS and McKinsey, 2013).

The expanded use of information and communications technology (ICT) creates risks as well as opportunities. Budget constraints continue to impact key implementation decisions, even at the risk of contracting with questionable vendors and suppliers. In addition, the need to continuously upgrade hardware and software may result in obsolete systems. Finally, hackers and malicious coding can compromise sensitive data and put the security of government data in jeopardy (Bartol and Moss, 2012). However, ICT initiatives across the federal government have demonstrated significant benefits, such as potential energy savings through smart technology and enhanced collaboration among federal employees (Seidel and Ye, 2012).

Nevertheless, the federal government has not always kept up with the ICT revolution that has taken place in the private sector. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the federal government has fallen behind in using ICT because of

To address these challenges, OMB’s Office of E-Government and Information Technology was formed to assist agencies in the use of ICT “and make it easier for citizens and businesses to interact with the Federal Government, save taxpayer dollars, and streamline citizen participation.”

The Obama administration has declared its commitment to achieving efficient, effective, transparent, and open government through the use of ICT. Underscoring this commitment, the White House released a Digital Government Strategy in 2012. The initiative emphasized that the federal government needs to evolve with an increasingly mobile public and established three objectives:

1. Enable the American people and an increasingly mobile workforce to access high-quality digital government information and services anywhere, anytime, on any device.

2. Ensure that as the government adjusts to this new digital world, we seize the opportunity to procure and manage devices, applications, and data in smart, secure, and affordable ways.

3. Unlock the power of government data to spur innovation across our nation and improve the quality of services for the American people. (White House Office, 2012:2)

The question for the federal government is thus: “How can these technologies be used more effectively to improve, perhaps dramatically, how agencies carry out their work, fulfill their missions and engage with stakeholders in a collaborative environment?” (PPS and Booz Allen, 2013:3).

Leadership Commitment

Engaging employees requires a clear and concise communication effort from the leaders of each agency, who are responsible for defining and communicating agency goals. Employees will be less engaged if they are having a difficult time connecting to the agency’s vision, do not see their role in accomplishing it, or do not agree with the direction of the agency.

Making the case for employee engagement can be a challenge for federal agencies, given current budgetary constraints. In addition, the majority of supporting research has come from the private sector, where the business case for engagement is supported by causal relationships extracted from financial statements and performance reports. That approach is difficult to carry out in the public sector, particularly with research-based and regulatory agencies. Performance measurement is the basis for accountability reporting and program decision-making, specifically the allocation of funds. However, the size and scope of the U.S. federal government, as well as the structural diversity of federal programs, has made it difficult to establish a standard performance measure (Radin, 2011). As a result, full buy-in is hard to get from key federal leaders who are busy attending to more pressing issues, such as budget constraints.

Leadership commitment from all levels determines the practices and priorities that set the tone for an organization’s climate and creates a culture of engagement. Leaders’ acknowledgement of employees’ performance outcomes, through both formal and informal feedback, has a tremendous impact on overall job satisfaction and work performance. For example, encouraging employees to be innovative and to look for alternative ways to perform their jobs is a solution to the problem of limited resources. However, many federal employees say that they lack their leaders’ support to do so, and few say that creativity and innovation are rewarded in the workplace. According to the 2013 FedView Survey, only 38 percent believe that creativity and innovation are rewarded (OPM, 2013).

Inspiring a culture of innovation also requires leadership commitment at all levels, from top executives to front-line supervisors. Front-line supervisors play a critical role in the daily lives of employees. They assess performance directly and have an immediate impact on each employee’s day-to-day work experience. Therefore, getting front-line supervisors’ commitment to employee engagement is critical. Finally, leaders must support employees’ professional growth and provide clear career paths for high-potential and high-achieving individuals. Leadership is directly related to job satisfaction, engagement, and commitment:

It is also imperative that leaders recognize and value their employees. Doing so contributes to a positive workplace culture and appreciation for those employees whose high performance sets them apart. Just the perception that an employee’s supervisor has good management skills can result in a higher level of engagement. In a report analyzing the results of its 2005 Merit Principles Survey (one of a series conducted periodically to assess the health of federal merit systems), MSPB reported that “of those employees who are engaged, 87 percent agreed or strongly agreed that their supervisors had good management skills. Conversely, of the employees who were not engaged, only 13.7 percent agreed or strongly agreed that their supervisors had good management skills” (MSPB, 2008b:37).

The level of employee engagement in the federal workforce varies according to the following factors:

•  Level of organizational responsibility: Members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) are more engaged than supervisors, who in turn are more engaged than nonsupervisors.

•  Salary: Differences in employee engagement by salary are not as pronounced as those based on organizational responsibility level.

•  Level of education: The more education employees have, the higher their engagement level.

•  Race/ethnicity: The engagement level of different racial/ethnic groups ranged from 43.2 percent of respondents of Asian origin engaged to 26.7 percent of Native Americans engaged. Differences between the groups remained after the analysis accounted for education levels and average salaries.

•  Specific agency: There are marked differences in engagement by agency. At the high end of the spectrum, about half of all agency employees are engaged; only about one-quarter of employees at other agencies are engaged. (MSPB, 2008b:iii)

In addition to leadership commitment, communication and information sharing, onboarding, and balancing the needs of a multigenerational workforce, other barriers to engagement include poor reward and recognition programs, minimal training and career development opportunities, and minimal resources.

ASSESSING THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT

When employees feel included and perceive that they have opportunities to contribute to the direction of an initiative, engagement is the outcome. Therefore, it is important for agencies to assess their workforces and examine not only employee satisfaction but also employee engagement. OPM encourages agencies to review and analyze existing programs, policies, and procedures to ensure that they are inclusive, transparent, and fair to all employees, and that employees perceive them as such. Data about engagement factors can also be gathered from exit interviews, new employee follow-up, and meetings with focus, affinity, or employee resource groups.

OPM oversees, conducts, and supports various governmentwide and agency surveys. Results of these surveys inform and impact HR policy and agency-specific initiatives. These surveys are an important management tool allowing leaders and managers to receive feedback from their employees and enabling them to take steps to increase employee satisfaction and engagement, improving the services provided to the American public. The 2005 and 2010 Merit Principles Surveys (MSPB) and the 2012 and 2013 FedViewSurveys (OPM) focused on employee engagement.

2005 Merit Principles Survey

To help agencies better meet the challenges of engaging employees, MSPB conducted a study of employee engagement in 2005, distributing a survey to full-time, permanent, nonseasonal federal employees. The response rate was just over 50 percent, with 24 agencies participating and 36,926 employees completing the survey (MSPB, 2008b). The purposes of the study were to

•  Measure the level of employee engagement in the federal government to determine whether different organizations or groups exhibited different levels of engagement

•  Determine whether increased levels of employee engagement are related to better results and outcomes for federal agencies

•  Identify how federal agencies can improve the engagement level of their employees. (MSPB, 2008b:5)

MSPB found that several factors were important for engaging federal employees (MSPB, 2008b:ii):

•  Pride in one’s work or workplace. Do employees find their work meaningful? Would they recommend the agency as a place to work?

•  Satisfaction with leadership. Do the organization’s leaders—from first-level supervisors to career executives to agency heads—provide clear vision and sound direction? Are they good stewards of the public interest and public employees?

•  The opportunity to perform well at work. Do employees know what is expected of them and have the resources and support they need to succeed?

•  Satisfaction with the recognition received. Does the organization reward excellence? Are rewards truly based on performance?

•  Prospects for future personal and professional growth. Does the organization give employees an opportunity to maintain and improve their skills?

•  A positive work environment with some focus on teamwork. Are employees treated with respect? Do their opinions count? Is the workplace collaborative, or competitive?

2010 Merit Principles Survey

In 2012, MSPB reported on the results of its 2010 Merit Principles Survey. The report discussed the motivational aspects of jobs and rewards as an area where organizations can take action to influence engagement. The survey was distributed to 71,970 full-time, permanent, nonseasonal federal employees to solicit their perceptions about what motivates them and how important these motivators are. The response rate was 58 percent, with 42,020 responses.

Although the study found that most federal employees viewed themselves as motivated, most employees did not see a strong connection between their effort and outcomes such as performance ratings and rewards: only 60 percent of federal employees agreed that effort results in a high performance appraisal rating. Only 63 percent agreed that greater effort translates into greater achievement of goals and objectives; even worse, only 33 percent agreed that better performance leads to greater opportunity for advancement. Finally, the survey expanded on the question of how likely an employee is to be motivated by his or her job characteristics. Seventy-nine percent of employees did not have a highly favorable view of their job characteristics. This finding suggests that job characteristics, including skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback, are areas where potential improvements in motivation can be made (see Table 5.1; MSPB, 2012).

2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

In 2012, OPM surveyed federal employees to learn their perspectives on the business of government and the experience of working for the federal government. The survey did not directly measure employee engagement but did assess conditions likely to lead to employee engagement such as effective leadership, work that provides meaning to employees, and opportunities for employees to learn and grow. More than 687,000 federal employees responded to the survey, for a response rate of 46 percent; 67 of 82 agencies participated in the survey. Employee engagement scores were relatively consistent with 2010 levels. Figure 5.1 compares the level of employee engagement from the years 2010, 2011, and 2012.

Like the 2010 Merit Principles Survey, this study found that most federal employees view themselves as motivated:

FIGURE 5.1. Federal Employee Engagement, 2010–2012

OPM, 2012:13.

But with the federal government experiencing increasing pressure to control spending and increase efficiency, a higher commitment by federal employees to their jobs and their organizations is required. Meeting these challenges will require agency leaders to implement formal structures for improving hiring, retention, performance management, succession management, and knowledge transfer and, ultimately, creating a culture of engagement.

2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

The 2013 survey was administered during a less-than-ideal time for federal employees: A pay freeze was extended, employee reductions and furloughs were implemented, medical insurance premiums increased, and the payroll tax escalated, while public opinion regarding the federal government declined. For this survey, 376,577 employees provided their input, for a response rate of 48.2 percent. Survey respondents included federal employees from more than 80 agencies and included both full-and part-time, permanent, nonseasonal employees. The results showed that:

•  Over 90 percent of federal employees continued to be willing to put in extra effort and were constantly looking for ways to do their jobs better. The majority of respondents felt their work was important, and their levels of engagement were steady despite a significant drop in employee satisfaction.

•  The decline in employee satisfaction continued as fewer employees recommended their organizations as good places to work. This causes concern about long-term consequences and the risk of losing the future talent pipeline.

•  Finally, satisfaction with pay continued to decrease, but the biggest drop from 2012 was in employees having sufficient resources needed to get their jobs done. (OPM, 2013)

The 2013 FedView survey indicated a slight decrease in all three subfactors of employee engagement: employee’s perceptions of the integrity of leadership (from 54 percent to 53 percent), interpersonal relationships between workers and supervisors (from 71 percent to 70 percent), and employees’ feelings of motivation and competency relating to their role in the workplace (71 percent to 69 percent). Overall, scores dropped governmentwide since the previous survey, another cause for concern.

ENGAGEMENT INITIATIVES

Developing a culture of engagement will be essential for the federal workforce as it continues to face human capital challenges.

Improving the Work and the Workplace

MSPB has recommended (2012:iv) that agencies modify jobs based on their motivating characteristics. It proposed the following approaches to implementing these modifications:

•  Job enlargement expands employees’ responsibilities within their current jobs to increase their knowledge and skill sets. For example, the job of a recruiter may be enlarged to include responsibility for onboarding selected candidates. Responsibility for integrating new hires into their jobs and environment would develop new skills and enable the recruiter to see the direct impact of his or her work, in addition to allowing completion of a whole piece of work. Thus, job enlargement could increase skill variety, task significance, and task identity.

•  Job rotation assigns tasks typically performed by other employees to broaden an individual’s knowledge and skills. Typically, this involves cross-training in the duties of other peoples’ jobs. For example, a recruiter could be cross-trained in the fundamentals of employee benefits and compensation, allowing the recruiter to develop new skills and perform new functions. In addition to benefiting individual employees and managers, job rotation can give organizations increased flexibility in assigning work and help disseminate and preserve staff expertise and institutional knowledge.

•  Job enrichment provides employees with increased independence, responsibility, and accountability in performing assigned tasks. For example, jobs that may previously have required standard templates for writing reports and many levels of review may be enriched by allowing employees to decide how to write, organize, and present information, with minimal review. Having more control and ownership of work products can be motivating for employees who are capable of self-management. Further, shifting some task-management functions to capable employees can free up supervisory resources. (MSPB, 2012:13–14)

Best Practices in Job Redesign

Improving Leadership

Employees’ respect for their organization’s leaders is important, but they must also feel respected by their leaders. Organization leadership and management at all levels are responsible for maximizing employee engagement, to increase not only their organization’s chances for success but also those of their employees, who are at their most creative and engaged when they are given the responsibility and flexibility to take initiative, make decisions, and develop their own skills and leadership abilities. This explains why the leaders who are most successful in engaging their employees rarely rely on their own technical expertise or positional power to generate innovative results, but instead create an environment where employees are empowered and engaged (PPS, 2011:2).

Managers themselves are key to establishing a culture of engagement: “While the corner offices provide inspiration and strategies, managers bring ideas to life with the help of the rank and file. Managers’ daily contact with employees affects employee performance and morale” (Tucker, 2012:75). Leadership at all levels can manage engagement in a positive way by

•  Providing resources and making engagement a priority

•  Offering clear communication and vision for the organization

•  Developing clear policies and implementing practices that support employee engagement

•  Building and improving engagement directly within departments. (Tucker, 2012; Bakker and Xanthopoulou, 2013; Tuckey et al., 2012)

Developing Federal Employees and Supervisors

Agency leaders recognize the connections between agency policies, employee engagement, and productivity. Supervisors should strive to engender their employees’ emotional commitment to their work and to the people they work with by emphasizing the importance of the work. They should take an active interest in developing their employees and breaking down organizational barriers that may be keeping them from being more successful. Supervisors should not merely tell their employees what to do, but encourage them to take ownership of their work by entrusting appropriate decision-making authority to them and holding them accountable for the results, both good and bad.

Best Practices in Developing Federal Employees and Supervisors

Increase Opportunities to Perform

Another challenge for senior managers in the public sector is to provide incentives and support for employee innovation: the process of improving, adapting, or developing an alternative product, system, or service. Given the government’s limited resources, federal agencies must embrace innovation and find ways to inspire employees to seek continuous improvement. Yet, federal agencies generally fail to support employees’ desire to innovate.

PPS examined the views of federal employees toward innovation in the workplace by analyzing data from the 2011 FedView Survey. It reported that

These responses, when averaged, produce a “governmentwide innovation score” of 63.2 percent, a slight drop from 2010. Clearly, federal workers’ desire to innovate was not matched by the level of support they received from their agencies. PPS identified six workplace conditions that best predicted this score:

1. Opportunity to improve skills

2. Opportunity to demonstrate leadership skills

3. Level of respect for senior leaders

4. Satisfaction with involvement in decisions that affect work

5. Reward for providing high-quality products and services

6. Feeling of personal empowerment regarding work processes.

Improving workplace conditions by addressing the items in the above list can significantly increase employee engagement. Empowering workers to be creative and to find ways to improve agency performance can resolve many of the challenges that federal leaders face today. Promoting a culture of innovation and rewarding creativity can increase the level of engagement of their employees, who will become more invested in the success of their respective agencies.

Best Practices in Innovation

Improve Recognition and Performance Review System

Performance management is the process of aligning employees’ work with mission requirements, inspiring high performance and engagement, and holding employees accountable for achieving results. In practice, most performance management approaches fall short of this goal. Employees and managers alike tend to complain that performance management processes in their agencies are cumbersome and do little to actually improve performance. Managers should use their agencies’ processes to establish clear goals that align with agencies’ missions and objectives—that is, to clearly show employees how they personally contribute to the larger agency mission. Doing so should encourage cooperation and teamwork and allow engagement to flourish.

PPS examined federal employees’ satisfaction with performance-based rewards and advancement in their agencies by analyzing the data from the 2012 FedView Survey, specifically responses to questions assessing agreement with the following six statements/questions:

1. Performance appraisal is a fair reflection of performance.

2. Promotions are based on merit.

3. Employees are recognized for providing high-quality products and services.

4. Creativity and innovation are awarded.

5. Satisfaction with recognition received for doing a good job.

6. Satisfaction with opportunity to get a better job in current organization.

Four out of ten employees believed that they will be rewarded or promoted for doing good work. Only three out of ten employees were satisfied with their opportunities to advance and their feeling that promotions are based on merit. The dissatisfaction may be due to limited opportunities for promotion as well as that some promotions are based primarily on length of service as employees. Only four out of ten employees said they were rewarded for providing high-quality products and were satisfied with the recognition they received for doing a good job. Only 36 percent believed that creativity and innovation are rewarded in their agencies (PPS, 2013b).

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified nine best practices to promote successful data-driven performance reviews:

1. Agency leaders use data-driven reviews to drive performance improvement.

2. Key players attend reviews to facilitate problem solving.

3. Reviews are designed to ensure alignment between agency goals, program activities, and resources.

4. Agency leaders hold managers accountable for diagnosing performance problems and identifying strategies for improvement.

5. Agency develops the capacity to collect accurate, useful, and timely performance data.

6. Agency staff have the skills to analyze and clearly communicate complex data for decision-making.

7. Rigorous preparations enable meaningful performance discussions.

8. Reviews are conducted on a frequent and regular basis.

9. Participants engage in rigorous and sustained follow-up on issues identified during reviews. (GAO, 2013a)

Best Practices in Performance Review

Provide Career Paths and Developmental Opportunities

Prospects for future career growth are a critical driver for employee engagement. Through the creation and application of an individual development plan (IDP), an employee should be able to clarify professional aspirations, and the supervisor can provide insights on potential career tracks. An IDP that provides a career path increases not only an individual employee’s motivation but also overall workforce retention. IDPs are used to guide employees and should be aligned with an agency’s mission, goals, and objectives. The principal purpose is to support employees in reaching their short- and long-term career goals while simultaneously improving their job performance. Although no regulatory requirements mandate employees to complete IDPs within the federal government, it is considered good management practice; many agencies expect their employees to complete or update their IDPs annually. An IDP planning process has some key benefits:

•  Identifies and tracks development needs

•  Supports agency’s training and development plans

•  Aligns employee’s training and development efforts with the mission, goals, and objectives of the agency. (OPM, 2013i)

Many agencies have developed their own IDP planning processes, but all require communication and interaction between the supervisor and employee. OPM has recommended the following five phases when implementing and IDP planning process:

1. Preplanning. Supervisor and employee prepare independently for meeting.

2. Employee-supervisor meeting. Parties discuss employee strengths, areas for improvement, interests, goals, and organizational requirements.

3. Prepare IDP. Employee, in consultation with supervisor, completes plan for individual development.

4. Implement plan. Employee pursues training and development identified in plan.

5. Evaluate outcomes. Supervisor and employee evaluate usefulness of training and development experiences. (OPM, 2013i)

Individual development planning encourages employees to take ownership of their own career paths and can be a strong contributor to their overall engagement. Although an IDP is not a performance evaluation tool, it can help employees and supervisors set expectations for specific learning objectives, competencies, and performance outcomes.

Best Practices in Implementing Individual Development Plans

Create a Positive Work Environment

As previously discussed, OPM conducts annual governmentwide FedViewSurveys to assess federal employees’ satisfaction and use the data to improve their work environments. Every year, PPS compiles and analyzes these data to provide an index score for each agency, thus creating a rankings list. These rankings were first published as Best Places to Work in the Federal Government in 2003, and they provide a comprehensive assessment of the federal work environment. The Best Places to Work score averages the responses to three survey statements/questions:

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

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

3. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization? (PPS and Deloitte, 2013:2)

In addition, percentages of positive responses are averaged to produce an index score for questions in ten workplace categories:

1. Effective leadership

2. Employee skills/mission match

3. Pay

4. Strategic management

5. Teamwork

6. Training and development

7. Work-life balance

8. Support for diversity

9. Performance-based rewards and advancements

10. Alternative work and employee support programs. (PPS and Deloitte, 2013:2)

From 2011 to 2012, governmentwide employee satisfaction declined 5 percent (from 64 points to 60.8). All ten workplace category scores declined; the largest drop was in satisfaction with pay (a 6.9 percent decline), and the next highest was in satisfaction with rewards and advancement (a 5.4 percent decline; PPS and Deloitte, 2012).

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was ranked in first place for “best place to work” among large agencies (15,000 or more employees) in 2012, followed by the intelligence community and the U.S. Department of State. Among midsized agencies (1,000–14,999 employees), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was ranked in first place and GAO came in second (PPS and Deloitte, 2012).

Best Practices in Developing a Positive Work Environment

REBRANDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

It may be that attracting, retaining, and engaging the best job candidates will require a rebranding of the federal government, whose reputation has been tarnished. Such a rebranding will require an extensive focus on the following environmental factors:

•  Pride in one’s work or workplace

•  Satisfaction with leadership

•  The opportunity to perform well at work

•  Satisfaction with the recognition received

•  Prospects for future personal and professional growth

•  A positive work environment with some focus on teamwork.

As the federal government moves toward increased transparency and public participation, agencies are recognizing the impact good branding can have in creating an emotional connection between organization and stakeholders, including employees. Rebranding gives agencies the opportunity to improve the public’s perception of them, as well as their reputations as workplaces.

Several initiatives have been implemented governmentwide to promote engagement among federal employees: the Open Culture Plan, implementation of the Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan, creation of labor-management forums and the National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations, and integration of the Goals-Engagement-Accountability-Results (GEAR) model into agency training plans.

Open Culture Plan

In the Open Government Directive memorandum issued on December 8, 2009, executive departments and agencies were told to take specific actions to implement the principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration:

•  Transparency promotes accountability by providing the public with information about what the government is doing.

•  Participation allows members of the public to contribute ideas and expertise so that the government can set policies incorporating information that is widely dispersed in society.

•  Collaboration improves the effectiveness of government by encouraging partnership and cooperation within the federal government, across levels of government, and between the government and private institutions. (Orszag, 2009)

The memorandum required executive departments and agencies to take the following steps:

1. Publish government information online.

2. Improve the quality of government information.

3. Create and institutionalize a culture of open government.

4. Create an enabling policy framework for open government. (Orszag, 2009)

Specifically, this directive is used by federal agencies to host online citizen engagement and public dialogue to promote transparency initiatives and improve existing communication infrastructures. The directive was also intended to enhance employee engagement and promote stronger commitment to improving government through hiring only the best people. In addition, the initiative is intended to foster a culture of ownership and accountability that values everyone’s contributions:

Office of Public Engagement

Formerly known as the Office of Public Liaison, the Office of Public Engagement (OPE) is a unit of the White House Office in the Executive Offices of the President. In 2009, President Obama announced that the “office would seek to engage as many Americans as possible in the difficult work of changing this country, through meetings and conversations with groups and individuals held in Washington and across the country.” Under the Obama administration, OPE acts as a “point of coordination for public speaking engagement for the Administration and the various departments of the Executive Offices of the President” (White House Office, 2009). It seeks to remove obstacles and barriers to engagement and improve public awareness of and involvement in the work of the administration.

Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan

U.S. demographics are shifting, requiring the federal government to serve a more culturally diverse population than ever before. For our government to effectively meet the nation’s needs, its workforce must reflect the rich diversity and varied viewpoints of the American people. This necessitates creation of inclusive work environments that not only welcome and support employees from all backgrounds but also help agencies promote job satisfaction, improve organizational performance, and better achieve their missions.

President Obama issued an executive order “to promote the Federal workplace as a model of equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion” (E.O. 13583). The Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan, OPM’s implementation of E.O. 13583, is an initiative to improve federal workplace diversity and inclusion in a coordinated, collaborative, and integrated manner, providing guidance and shared direction for all agencies. Under it, three key goals should direct agency diversity and inclusion efforts: workforce diversity, workplace inclusion, and sustainability. Diversity is not enough; creating a workplace that is inclusive as well, regardless of an individual’s background, ensures that all employees feel included, connected, and engaged. The specific recommended actions to achieve each goal are listed in Table 5.3 (OPM, 2011a).

TABLE 5.3. Federal Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion Goals

OPM, 2011a.

National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations

In response to the president’s 2009 executive order creating labor-management forums, described therein as

the National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations (LMR) was established in 2010. LMR provides general guidelines for establishing collaborative relations among federal employees, union representatives, and management agencies. It examines employee performance, evaluates labor-management relations, inspects departments’ and agencies’ processes, and advises the president on “matters involving labor-management relations in the executive branch” (E.O. 13522, 2009). Labor-management collaboration is an essential step toward increasing efficiency and includes the establishment of performance metrics. Furthermore, to increase employee engagement, collective bargaining can provide a structured framework giving employees a voice in workplace matters.

A working group (the “Employee Performance Management Workgroup”) of LMR and the federal Chief Human Capital Officers Council (created to advise and coordinate member agencies’ activities in modernizing and improving HR systems) established a strategy for developing better ways of selecting the right people for supervisory positions, adequately training them, and subsequently supporting them in meeting their responsibilities. Noting that federal employees continue to give low marks to their performance management systems for fairness—so that the need to engage and enable federal employees at all levels has become a critical issue—the group recommended the implementation of the GEAR model to improve federal performance, better connect employees and supervisors, and implement bottom-up employee performance management while also setting bureaucratic organizational performance requirements (Employee Performance Management Workgroup, 2011).

Goals-Engagement-Accountability-Results

The GEAR model is a strategy for creating high-performing organizations that are “aligned, accountable, and focused on results” (Employee Performance Management Workgroup, 2011:4). Although GEAR is a governmentwide initiative, it did not make changes to the existing personnel system. It was initially piloted by OPM and four other agencies: DOE, the U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Table 5.4 summarizes the recommendations of the workgroup; the recommendations are interrelated processes intended to create a culture of engagement, thus helping to rebrand federal agencies as efficient, effective workplaces.

TABLE 5.4. GEAR Recommendations

Employee Performance Management Workgroup, 2011.

Best Practices in GEAR