Commentary: The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey: A Practitioner's View of Using the Data

• Author: Robert Goldenkoff
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12375
• Published date: 01 May 2015
• Date: 01 May 2015

Commentary

The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey: A Practitioner’s View of Using the Data 397

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 75, Iss. 3, pp. 397–398. Published 2015.

This article is a U.S. Government work and

is in the public domain in the USA.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12375.

Robert Goldenkoff has over 25 years

of program evaluation experience with

the U.S. Government Accountability Off‌i ce.

Currently, he is director on GAO ’ s Strategic

Issues team where he is responsible for

reviewing the government ’ s efforts to mod-

ernize the federal civil service. He received

his BA (political science) and MPA degrees

from the George Washington University.

E-mail : goldenkoffr@gao.gov

 e Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey: A Practitioner ’ s

View of Using the Data

T he drive to improve the performance and

accountability of federal agencies, combined

with the Obama Administration ’ s commit-

ment to data-driven personnel management, has

elevated the importance of the Federal Employee

Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) compared to its predeces-

sors. From its roots in the Federal Employee Attitudes

Survey 35 years ago, the FEVS has morphed from

an instrument largely used to gauge the pulse of

the federal workforce and evaluate the Civil Service

Reform Act to one that is now used as a diagnostic

and management accountability tool for agencies and

their leaders.

The article by Sergio Fernandez et al. discusses the

strengths of the FEVS and recommends refinements

to help enhance the accuracy and value of FEVS data

for the academic community. Given the increasing

significance of the FEVS for improving the manage-

ment and culture of federal agencies, practitioners,

too, will need to understand the survey ’ s strengths

and limitations, as well as actively contribute to the

dialogue on the future of the FEVS that the article

hopes to foster.

The FEVS is key to assessing agencies’ progress toward

the administration ’ s goal of strengthening the engage-

ment levels of federal employees. In a December 2014

memorandum to the heads of all federal agencies, the

Directors of the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), Office of Personnel Management (OPM),

and other senior officials underscored the linkage

between employee engagement and organizational

performance and noted that agency leaders would be

held accountable for making employee engagement

a priority, as well as an integral part of their agency ’ s

performance-management system. The memo also

included a performance target: by the issuance of

the 2016 FEVS results, the federal government is

to increase employee engagement—as measured by

the FEVS Employee Engagement Index (EEI)—

from 63 percent to 67 percent. Each member of the

Senior Executive Service (SES) will have to improve

employee engagement within their organization and

create inclusive work environments, as part of their

annual performance plans and appraisals.

OPM has made available several resources to help

agencies analyze their FEVS data. They include

UnlockTalent.gov. Managers can access this dash-

board of engagement and satisfaction indices to

review data for their own components and compare

it to the rest of their agency and the government as a

whole. Agencies also have access to the EVS Online

Tool, which allows selected agency personnel to view

item-by-item results, response rates, and other data at

various component levels.

There are several compelling reasons to use the

EEI—which is derived from respondents’ answers to

FEVS questions on leadership, supervisors, and their

intrinsic work experiences—to gauge the government ’ s

progress in strengthening employee engagement. In

addition to the general strengths of the FEVS noted

by the authors such as its breadth of content and

coverage of the federal workforce, indices are more

stable from year to year than results from a single

item. Indices are also easier for senior-level managers

to interpret.

While the FEVS has certain strengths, because of

the direct line of sight between the FEVS, employee

engagement, and SES performance appraisals (and

perhaps, too, SES performance bonuses), it is impor-

tant for practitioners to understand its limitations and

those of the engagement index. In addition to those

already noted by the authors, managers should be

mindful of the following:

• The engagement index is based only on positive

responses : Although the FEVS has six response

categories for most items (Strongly Agree, Agree,

Neither Agree Nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly

Disagree, and No Basis to Judge/Do Not Know),

the engagement index is based on a single,

consolidated positive category (Strongly Agree

Robert Goldenkoff

U.S. Government Accountability Off‌i ce