Federal Workforce: Opportunities Exist for OPM to Further Innovation in Performance Management

Managing employee performance has been a long-standing government-wide issue and the subject of numerous reforms since the beginning of the modern civil service. Without effective performance management, agencies risk not only losing the skills of top talent, they also risk missing the opportunity to effectively address increasingly complex and evolving mission challenges.

GAO was asked to examine federal non-Senior Executive Service performance management systems. This report examines (1) government-wide trends in employee perceptions of performance management as measured by the results of selected FEVS statements, (2) practices that selected agencies use to improve performance management, and (3) OPM's guidance and resources to support agency efforts to improve performance management government-wide.

GAO analyzed responses to selected FEVS statements related to the five performance management phases from 2010 through 2017; selected four agencies based on the highest average scores for the five phases, among other criteria, to identify practices which may contribute to improved performance management; reviewed OPM documents; and interviewed OPM and other agency officials.

GAO found that from 2010 through 2017, surveyed employees generally demonstrated positive responses to selected Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) statements related to four of the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) five performance management phases, including: planning and setting expectations, monitoring performance, developing the capacity to perform, and rating performance. Employees responded least positively to statements related to rewarding performance, with only 39 percent of employees, on average, agreeing with statements regarding this phase.

Of the four agencies with among the highest average scores for the performance management phases (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Drug Enforcement Administration, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency), GAO identified practices that may contribute to improved performance management including strong organizational culture and dedication to mission; use of FEVS and other survey data; and a focus on training.

OPM provides guidance and opportunities for agencies to share promising practices on performance management; however, some of this information is not easily accessible on its performance management website. In addition, OPM does not leverage its leadership position to formally identify and share emerging performance management research and innovation with agencies. As a result, agencies, and therefore their employees, may not benefit from the best information available.

GAO is making three recommendations, including that OPM improve its website and share innovations in performance management with agencies. OPM agreed with GAO's recommendations.

The federal government is in a period of profound transition. It faces an  array of mission challenges and opportunities to enhance performance,  ensure accountability, and position the nation for the future. As part of a  broader effort to help modernize government and improve the ability of  agencies to deliver on their missions, in March 2018, the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) released the President’s Management  Agenda (PMA). Among other things, the PMA noted the important role  that federal employees play in ensuring the smooth functioning of our  democracy, but acknowledged that the government needs to do a better  job in actively managing the workforce to better align employees’ skills  with evolving mission needs.

Consistent with this approach, in our past work, we have noted how an  organization’s workforce defines its character, affects its capacity to  perform, and represents its knowledge base. Additionally, an agency’s  workforce plays a central role in transforming an agency into a high- performing organization. High-performing organizations have attributes  such as: an effective employee performance management system that includes  expectation setting, coaching, and feedback; a clear “line of sight” between individual performance and an engaged workforce that feels a sense of connection to both the  agency and its mission.

However, managing employee performance has been a long-standing  government-wide challenge and the subject of numerous reforms since  the beginning of the modern civil service. Without effective performance  management, agencies risk not only losing (or failing to utilize) the skills  of top talent, they also risk missing the opportunity to effectively address  increasingly complex and rapidly evolving challenges.

You asked us to examine federal non-Senior Executive Service (SES)  performance management systems. This report (1) describes federal  employee perceptions of performance management as measured by the  results of selected statements from the Office of Personnel  Management’s (OPM) annual survey of federal employees, the Federal  Employment Viewpoint Survey (FEVS); (2) identifies practices that  selected agencies use to develop and implement strategies to improve  performance management; and (3) evaluates OPM’s guidance and  resources to support agency efforts to improve performance management  government-wide. The report is the latest of several studies we have  done in recent years examining how agencies can better address  employee performance and misconduct. A complete list is included at the  end of this report.

To describe government-wide trends in employee perceptions of  performance management as measured by the results of FEVS, we  selected 15 FEVS statements that generally align with OPM’s description  of an agency’s performance management cycle. We consulted with our  internal human capital (HC) experts as well as external HC experts at  OPM who concurred, as well as the Merit Systems Protection Board, to  determine the appropriateness of our FEVS statement selection and  categorization. Using the selected statements, we analyzed FEVS data,  including supervisory level, for the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO  Act) departments and agencies for the years 2010 through 2017—the  most recent data available at the time of our review. To assess the  reliability of the FEVS data, we examined descriptive statistics and data  distribution, and reviewed missing data. We also reviewed FEVS  technical documentation. On the basis of these procedures, we believe  the data were sufficiently reliable for use in the analysis presented in this  report.

To identify practices used by selected agencies to develop and implement  strategies to improve performance management, we used the results of  our government-wide analysis of FEVS data for 2015 (the most recent  data available at the time) to select four agencies as illustrative case  studies. Among other attributes, these agencies had the highest levels of  employee agreement with FEVS statements dealing with their  performance management processes. We also considered such factors  as the number of respondents, agency size, mission, and types of  employees. As such, we selected the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),  Department of Labor; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),  Department of Health and Human Services; Drug Enforcement  Administration (DEA), Department of Justice; and the Office of the  Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Department of the Treasury. We  reviewed documents and interviewed officials from the four case study  agencies.

To evaluate the guidance and resources OPM provides to agencies to  improve performance management government-wide, we analyzed both  OPM’s performance management website and the Chief Human Capital  Officers (CHCO) Council’s website to identify available guidance,  resources, and tools. We compared these documents to OMB’s  memorandum on federal agency public websites, OPM’s strategic plan for  fiscal years 2018 through 2022, and internal controls. We also reviewed  agency documentation and other OPM-referenced websites that  contained performance management-related information. To supplement  the documentary evidence obtained, we also interviewed officials from  OPM, the CHCO Council, and the four selected case study agencies to  describe the extent to which OPM provides assistance to agencies on  performance management. For further information on our scope and  methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2016 to November  2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Performance management systems can be powerful tools in helping an  agency achieve its mission and ensuring employees at every level of the  organization are working toward common ends. According to OPM  regulations, performance management is a systematic process by which  an agency involves its employees, both as individuals and members of a  group, in improving organizational effectiveness in the accomplishment of  agency mission and goals.

An agency’s performance management system defines policies and  parameters established by an agency for the administration of  performance appraisal programs. Under federal law and corresponding  regulations, agencies are required to develop at least one employee  performance appraisal system. OPM is required to review and approve an  agency’s performance appraisal system(s) to ensure it is consistent with  the requirements of applicable law, regulation, and OPM policy, and  defines the general policies and parameters the agency will use to rate  employees. Once the appraisal system is approved, the agency  establishes a performance appraisal program. The agency’s performance  appraisal program—which does not require OPM review or approval— defines the specific procedures, methods, and requirements for planning,  monitoring, and rating employee performance. The program is tailored  to the agency’s needs.

OPM policy identifies five phases to the performance management cycle:  (1) planning work and setting expectations; (2) continually monitoring  performance; (3) developing the capacity to perform; (4) rating  periodically to summarize performance; and (5) rewarding good  performance (see table 1).

According to OPM, performance management is a continuous cycle in  which an agency involves its employees, both, as individuals and  members of a group, in improving organizational effectiveness in  accomplishing agency mission and goals (see figure 1). Each phase of  the performance management cycle plays an important part in helping to  provide structure and focus to an employee’s roles and responsibilities  within the organization. Within each phase of the cycle, employees are  given the opportunity to provide input, ask questions, and request  feedback from their supervisors on their performance.

One of the tools agencies can use to determine the effectiveness of their  performance management cycle is data from OPM’s annual FEVS. To  help understand federal employees’ opinions about what matters most to  them and how they feel about their jobs, their supervisors, and their  agencies, FEVS scores can help agencies identify challenges and  improve guidance. FEVS measures employees’ perceptions of whether,  and to what extent, conditions characterizing successful organizations are  present in their agencies. According to OPM, the federal workforce is  the backbone of the government. Employee opinions shared through  FEVS provide an essential catalyst to achieving effective government.

Employees Responded Most Positively to Statements Related to Planning and Setting Expectations Phase; Least Positively to Those Related to Rewarding Performance

From 2010 through 2017, surveyed employees generally demonstrated  positive responses to FEVS statements related to four of OPM’s five  performance management phases, including: planning and setting  expectations, monitoring performance, developing the capacity to  perform, and rating performance (as shown in figure 2). Employees had  the lowest levels of agreement with statements related to rewarding  performance (or an estimated 39 percent positive response).

Phase 1: Planning Work and Setting Expectations

We have previously reported that an explicit alignment of daily activities  with broader results is one of the defining features of effective  performance management systems in high-performing organizations.  These organizations use their performance management systems to  improve performance by helping individuals see the connection between  their daily activities and organizational goals, a line of sight, and  encouraging individuals to focus on their roles and responsibilities to help  achieve these goals. Such organizations continuously review and revise  their performance management systems to support their strategic and  performance goals, as well as their core values and transformational  objectives.

Based on surveyed employees’ responses, agencies were more  successful at planning and setting expectations, which includes how an  employee’s work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities, than at all  other phases of performance management. The response to these  statements highlights the role agencies have in providing information to  employees about their responsibilities within the organization. Of the  three selected FEVS statements for this phase, “I know how my work  relates to the agency’s goals and priorities,” was the statement with the  highest percent of employees who agreed or strongly agreed across all of  our selected FEVS statements from 2010 to 2017 (see figure 3).

Phase 2: Continually Monitoring Performance

Performance management and feedback should be used to help  employees improve so that they can do the work or—in the event they  cannot do the work—so management can take appropriate action for  unacceptable performance. The first opportunity a supervisor has to  observe and correct poor performance is in day-to-day performance  management activities. We have previously reported that, in general,  agencies have three means to address employees’ poor performance,  with dismissal as a last resort: (1) day-to-day performance management  activities (which should be provided to all employees, regardless of their  performance levels); (2) dismissal during probationary periods; and (3)  use of formal procedures to dismiss employees. We have also reported  that supervisors who take performance management seriously and have  the necessary training and support can help poorly performing employees  either improve or realize they are not a good fit for the position.  However, some supervisors may lack experience and training in  performance management, as well as the understanding of the  procedures for taking corrective actions against poor performers. We  previously recommended that OPM, in conjunction with the Chief Human  Capital Officers (CHCO) Council, assess the adequacy of leadership  training that agencies provide to supervisors to help ensure supervisors  obtain the skills needed to effectively conduct performance management  responsibilities. In response, OPM conducted a survey to assess the  adequacy of leadership training that agencies provide to supervisors.  Based on the survey results, OPM issued a memorandum in May 2018  recommending a number of actions agencies should take to improve the  accessibility, adequacy, and effectiveness of supervisory training.

Of the FEVS statements we analyzed, the statement, “In my work unit,  steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not  improve,” had the lowest percent positive agreement by surveyed  employees each year from 2010 to 2017 government-wide. However,  the other two statements selected for this phase were viewed much more  positively by surveyed employees (see figure 4).

When we further analyzed the responses to the statement on poor  performance, employee responses differed in agreement based on the  respondent’s supervisory level. On average, an estimated 25 percent of  surveyed employees who identified themselves as nonsupervisors and  team leaders agreed with this statement from 2010 through 2017,  compared with an estimated average of 54 percent of surveyed  employees who identified themselves as managers (see figure 5).

Phase 3: Developing the Capacity to Perform

According to OPM guidance, the capacity to perform means having the  competencies, the resources, and the opportunities available to complete  the job. We have previously reported that the essential aim of training  and development programs is to assist an agency in achieving its mission  and goals by improving individual and, ultimately, organizational  performance. In addition, constrained budgets and the need to address  gaps in critical federal skills and competencies make it essential that  agencies identify the appropriate level of investment and establish  priorities for employee training and development. This allows the most  important training needs to be addressed first. However, fewer surveyed  employees agreed with the statement, “My training needs are assessed,”  than with the other statements in this phase (see figure 6).

Phase 4: Rating Periodically to Summarize Performance

Supervisors should establish performance standards that clearly express  what is expected of the employee. An average estimated 82 percent of  surveyed employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I am  held accountable for achieving results,” from 2010 to 2017 (see figure 7).  Overall, this statement had the second highest level of agreement of the  15 statements selected for our review. According to OPM’s website for  performance management, while accountability means being held  answerable for accomplishing a goal or assignment, the guidance  cautions against using accountability only for punishing employees as  fear and anxiety may permeate the work environment. This may prevent  employees from trying new methods or proposing new ideas for fear of  failure. According to OPM’s website for performance management, if  approached correctly, accountability can produce positive, valuable  results.

According to OPM guidance, rewards are used often and well in an  effective organization. We have previously reported that high-performing  organizations seek to create effective incentive and reward systems that  clearly link employee knowledge, skills, and contributions to  organizational results. Rewarding means recognizing employees,  individually and as members of groups, for their performance and  acknowledging their contributions to the agency’s mission. According to  OPM’s website for performance management, the types of awards  include: cash; honorary recognition; informal recognition; or time off  without charge to leave or loss of pay.

From 2010 to 2017, an estimated 39 percent of surveyed employees  consistently agreed when asked statements related to how their agency  rewards performance (see figure 8). Of the five phases of performance  management, the statements related to this phase consistently had the  least positive agreement of surveyed employees.

We have previously reported that effective performance management  requires the organization’s leadership to make meaningful distinctions  between acceptable and outstanding performance of individuals.  Approximately one-third of surveyed employees agreed or strongly  agreed with the statement, “In my work unit, differences in performance  are recognized in a meaningful way.” Meaningful distinctions in  performance ratings are the starting point for candid and constructive  conversations between supervisors and staff. These distinctions also add  transparency to the ratings and rewards process. In addition, such  distinctions help employees better understand their relative contributions  to organizational success, areas where they are doing well, and areas  where improvements are needed.

Employees in Supervisory Roles Responded More Positively to Statements Related to Rewarding Performance than Other Employees

We also found that, across our selected statements, many of the largest  gaps between supervisors and other employees were related to  rewarding performance. Specifically, the responses to the statement,  “Promotions in my work unit are based on merit,” varied the most based  upon the supervisory status of the employee (see figure 9). Senior  leaders agreed or strongly agreed with this statement at an average  estimated 40 percentage points more than employees in a  nonsupervisory role. We have previously reported that agencies must  design and administer merit promotion programs to ensure a systematic  means of selection for promotion based on merit. We have also  previously reported that perceptions of favoritism, particularly when  combined with unclear guidance, a lack of transparency, and limited  feedback, negatively impact employee morale.

Senior leaders and managers agreed or strongly agreed with the  statement, “In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in  a meaningful way,” more frequently than surveyed employees who  identified themselves as nonsupervisors (see figure 10). Those who  identified themselves as team leaders and nonsupervisors agreed with  the statement less frequently than all of the other categories of  supervisory status. For example, in 2017, an estimated 69 percent of  senior leaders agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, compared to  an estimated 48 percent of supervisors and an estimated 33 percent of  nonsupervisors and team leaders.

Finally, senior leaders and managers agreed or strongly agreed with the  statement, “Employees are recognized for providing high quality products  and services,” more frequently than nonsupervisors (see figure 11).

Selected Agencies Implement Some Similar Practices That May Help Improve Employee Performance Management

An effective performance management system can be a strategic tool to  improve employee engagement and achieve an agency’s desired results.  We found that selected agencies demonstrated some similar practices.  This may have been a contributing factor in having relatively high scores  on FEVS performance management related statements. Specifically,  employees at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Centers for  Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Drug Enforcement  Administration (DEA), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency  (OCC) consistently agreed or strongly agreed to selected FEVS  statements related to the five phases of OPM’s performance  management cycle. While these agencies developed different  performance management systems to reflect their specific structures and  priorities, we found a number of practices common to all four agencies  that are intended to help reinforce effective employee performance  management and improve agency performance (see figure 12). All four  agencies agreed that these practices helped contribute to their  employees’ responses to the selected FEVS statements and improved  performance management.

Strong Organizational Culture and Dedication to Agency Mission

We have previously reported that organizations with more constructive  cultures generally perform better and are more effective. Within  constructive cultures, employees exhibit a stronger commitment to  mission focus, accountability, coordination, and adaptability. According  to OPM FEVS guidance, climate assessments like FEVS are,  consequently, important to organizational improvement largely because of  the key role culture plays in directing organizational performance. Each of  the agencies in our review cited a strong organizational culture that was  based on and tied to their agency’s mission. Table 2 highlights examples  from CDC and DEA.

Data Driven Using FEVS and Other Survey Data

Each of the four selected agencies in our review demonstrated a focus on  analyzing FEVS data to identify areas of improvement and create action  plans around the analysis. According to OPM guidance on FEVS, the  results from the survey can be used by agency leaders to assist in  identifying areas in need of improvement as well as highlight important  agency successes. FEVS findings allow agencies to assess trends by  comparing earlier results with the 2017 results to (1) compare agency  results with the government-wide results, (2) identify current strengths  and challenges, and (3) focus on short- and long-term action targets that  will help agencies reach their strategic human resource management  goals. The recommended approach to assessing and driving change in  agencies utilizes FEVS results in conjunction with other resources, such  as results from other internal surveys, administrative data, focus groups,  exit interviews, and so on. We have previously reported that for  agencies to attain the ultimate goal of improving organizational  performance, they must take a holistic approach—analyzing data,  developing and implementing strategies to improve engagement, and  linking their efforts to improved performance.

We have also previously reported that OPM stated that agencies are  increasingly using FEVS as a management tool to help them understand  issues at all levels of an organization, and to take specific action to  improve employee engagement and performance. Further, OPM officials  noted that if agencies, managers, and supervisors know that their  employees will have the opportunity to provide feedback each year, they  are more likely to take responsibility for influencing positive change. We  found that all four of the selected agencies were building a culture of  analyzing their FEVS results to identify areas of improvement, and  develop action plans to achieve results, including improving performance  management (see table 3).

In addition, three of the four selected agencies also used other practices.  These practices include using other available survey results to  corroborate identified action plans and identify additional areas needing  support to create a more complete picture of the employee perspective.  We have previously reported that an agency’s FEVS scores should be  used as one of several data sources as leaders attempt to develop a  comprehensive picture of engagement within an organization, and better  target their engagement efforts, particularly in times of limited  resources. The key is identifying what practices to implement and how  to implement them. This can and should come from multiple sources.  Three of four of the case study agencies—BLS, CDC, and DEA—use  supplemental survey data to help focus agency efforts to improve  performance management. For example, DEA developed its own internal  survey—Leadership Engagement Survey—in 2016 because it identified  leadership as a key driver for organizational climate and employee  engagement. According to agency officials, there was a strong internal  push to use the survey results to identify areas of improvement. The  fourth agency, OCC, had administered a separate internal engagement  survey from 2013 to 2016. According to agency officials, however, they  discontinued this effort to focus exclusively on FEVS as the primary  survey data source, and to reduce the redundancy of two surveys.  However, OCC emphasized the need to consider FEVS data as only one  source of data, at a point in time, and to use a diversity of other data  (quantitative and qualitative) to inform the survey results.

As we have previously reported, agencies invest significant time and  resources in recruiting potential employees, training them, and providing  them with institutional knowledge that may not be easily or cost-effectively  replaceable. Therefore, effective performance management–which  consists of activities such as expectation-setting, coaching, and  feedback—can help sustain and improve employee performance  management. We have also reported that good supervisors are key to the  success of any performance management system. Supervisors provide  the day-to-day performance management activities that can help sustain  and improve the performance of more talented staff, and can help  marginal performers to become better. However, agencies may not be  providing supervisors with the appropriate training that prepares them for  success, such as having difficult performance management  conversations. Moreover, we have previously reported that mission- critical skills gaps across the federal government pose a high risk  because they impede the government from cost effectively serving the  public and achieving results. Strategies to address these gaps include training and development activities focused on improving employees’  skills needed for mission success.

All four selected agencies had taken steps in identifying appropriate  training for not only supervisors, but also all employees. For example,  BLS conducted a general training needs assessment (TNA) for all  employees in 2016. The officials stated that the purpose of the TNA was  to give employees an avenue to express their interests in various kinds of  training. Employee responses were used to inform elements of the BLS  training plan for fiscal year 2017. As a result of the TNA, BLS is  conducting a training evaluation of its vendor-provided writing courses.  During this evaluation, BLS hopes to determine if the techniques and  material taught in these courses have actually resulted in expected  improvements in the writing of those employees who have taken the  course as observed by their supervisors and managers. TNA results  showed that managers also expressed a strong interest in additional  training on employee leave, labor relations, and employee relations. BLS  officials stated that courses on these topics were provided as part of the  agency’s fiscal year 2017 training plan.

As another example, CDC recently developed two onboarding checklists  for new executives in 2017 for training purposes. The intent was to  provide a comprehensive, consistent onboarding experience so that new  executives are more engaged and knowledgeable. In addition, within the  last year, the agency developed a mentoring circle for new supervisors  that meets monthly. The purpose of the circle is to provide new  supervisors with insider help from their peers, such as how to handle  difficult situations. Supervisors are also provided assistance through the  agency’s performance management appraisal working group. This group  meets quarterly to discuss how to better assist supervisors and  employees with performance management related questions.

Improved Internal Communication from Agency Management

We have previously reported that successful organizations empower and  involve their employees to gain insights about operations from a frontline  perspective, increase their understanding and acceptance of  organizational goals and objectives, and improve motivation and  morale. We have also previously reported that what matters most in  improving engagement levels is valuing employees—that is, an authentic  focus on their performance, career development, and inclusion and  involvement in decisions affecting their work.

Each of the selected agencies in our review stated that they had made  efforts over the last few years to improve internal communication between  management and employees, as well as increase the transparency of  actions taken and decisions made by management. For instance, BLS  hosts quarterly breakfast sessions with the BLS Commissioner in which  employees have access to agency leadership where they can offer  suggestions or feedback. BLS also provides agency information through  its intranet website, which is updated almost daily. Examples include  features such as the BLS Daily Report, What’s Up at BLS, and BLS  tweets. Specifically, the What’s Up at BLS feature of the BLS intranet is  an internal communications hub that includes four sections, including  “Employee and Team Spotlight”—highlighting the work of employees and  teams across the agency—and “Changing Lanes,” which features stories  about employees who decided to switch their career paths by changing  occupations or programs within BLS.

According to OCC officials, the agency has increased the frequency of  agency-wide communications and those from middle management that  cascade priorities, decisions, and organizational changes to employees.  OCC has also executed enterprise change management to manage the  people side of change, including building awareness, knowledge, and  ability through stakeholder analysis and communications planning. It also  maintains an engagement portal for teams to document action plans  related to employee engagement—of which there are more than 200  action items related to improved communications using a top-down and  two-way approach.

OPM Provides Performance Management Resources to Agencies, but Some Information is Not Easily Accessible or Routinely Shared OPM Provides Performance Management Resources for Agencies on Its Website but Some Information is Not Easily Accessible or Regularly Updated

As the government’s chief human resources agency and personnel policy  leader, OPM’s role in the federal government is to, among other things,  design and promulgate regulations, policy, and guidance covering all  aspects of the employee life cycle from hire to retire, including  performance management. OPM provides such performance  management guidance and resources to agencies on its website, as  shown in figure 13, as well as in a new Performance Management Portal  (portal) accessible through the Office of Management and Budget’s  (OMB) MAX Information System (MAX).

Examples of guidance and resources include information for the five  phases of the performance management cycle, descriptions on the how  to write performance standards, critical components of effective and  timely feedback, answers to performance management frequently asked  questions, and a list of the various award programs open to employees  from all federal agencies. In addition, the Chief Human Capital Officers  (CHCO) Council’s website includes information provided by OPM on  performance management as well as various OPM memorandums to  CHCOs, human resource directors, and agency leaders.

According to OPM officials, information on the performance management  website is reserved for policy guidance based on current and applicable  law and regulation. As such, only minor updates have been made to the  website because the law and regulatory requirements for performance  management have not recently changed. However, there is no date  included on the website that indicates when it was last updated. OPM  officials stated that the last update made to the website was in June 2016  when an external entity requested that a public service award be added to  OPM’s awards list page.

However, OPM has issued training, guidance, and other performance  management related resources since the last website update in June  2016. Specifically, we examined more than 100 performance  management related online links on both OPM’s and the CHCO Council’s  websites, and found that in some instances, the CHCO Council’s website  included more up-to-date information issued by OPM that was not found  on OPM’s performance management website. Some examples include:

The release of OPM’s web-based training course, “Basic Employee  Relations: Your Accountability as a Supervisor or Manager,” dated  October 12, 2016;

Management Tools for Maximizing Employee Performance, dated  January 11, 2017;

Performance Management Guidance and Successful Practices in  Support of Agency Plans for Maximizing Employee Performance,  dated July 17, 2017;

The release of OPM’s web-based training course, “Performance  Management Plus—Engaging for Success,” dated October 6, 2017;

Federal Supervisory Training Program Survey Results, dated May 21,

Guidance for Implementation of Executive Order 13839 - Promoting  Accountability and Streamlining Removal Procedures Consistent with  Merit System Principles, dated July 5, 2018.

According to OPM officials, the agency does not coordinate with the  CHCO Council on its website postings. However, OPM officials stated  that performance management guidance approved by OPM is provided to  the CHCO Council. We did not find any reference to the CHCO Council’s  website using OPM’s internal search engine with the term “performance  management” (see figure 14). As a result, agency officials and federal  employees who are looking for comprehensive information on  performance management using OPM’s website may be unable to easily  find or access related performance management guidance or resources.

A 2016 Office of Management and Budget memorandum on federal  agency public websites and digital services states that federal agency  public websites and digital services are the primary means by which the  public receives information from and interacts with the federal  government, provides government information or services to a specific  user group across a variety of delivery platform and devices, and  supports the proper performance of an agency function. The  memorandum states that, “Federal websites and digital services should  provide quality information that is readily accessible to all.” In addition,  federal internal control standards state that management should use  quality information to achieve the entity’s objective. Quality information  should be appropriate, current, complete, accurate, accessible, and  timely. However, OPM does not have a process for regularly updating  its performance management website with new guidance and resources  to ensure that the information is readily available. Agency employees,  such as human capital specialists, who visit OPM’s performance  management website may be unable to find or access the most recent  guidance and training available.

In addition to its website, OPM officials stated that the agency recently  launched the Performance Management Portal (portal) in September  2017 on OMB MAX to communicate with agencies and provide  information and resources related to non-SES performance management,  as highlighted earlier. OPM officials said that the portal will be updated  with information regarding announcements or updated guidance as  needed, or when it is released and becomes available.

Although not as comprehensive as the information included on OPM’s  performance management website, the portal included slides from OPM’s  semiannual facilitated performance management forums and updated  information on awards guidance for non-SES employees for fiscal year  2017—neither of which were on OPM’s website. As the government’s  chief human resources agency, agencies may see OPM as their primary  source of performance management guidance. By establishing a process  to ensure that information on the performance management website is regularly updated to include the most recent guidance, agencies would  have access to the most current information.

OPM Could Better Lead Efforts to Identify and Share Emerging Performance Management Research and Innovation

OPM provides opportunities for agencies to share promising practices.  For example, OPM has several efforts in place that allow agencies to  share promising information with each other such as at its semiannual  Performance Management Forums (forums), annual Performance  Management Steering Committee meetings, and through the previously  mentioned portal. According to OPM, the forums provide agencies with  updated information, guidance, and support to encourage performance  excellence amongst employees.

In 2017, OPM began holding annual steering committee meetings which  allow interagency representatives to discuss the needs of the federal  performance management community, to identify and/or request potential  content for future forums, and to share promising practices and lessons  learned regarding performance management, according to OPM officials.  However, there is no formal process in place or mechanism for agencies  to routinely and independently share their own experiences and lessons  learned in implementing performance management efforts. For instance,  the portal does not currently allow for agencies to post and share their  own promising practices with each other in a centralized location. Instead,  agencies must rely on OPM to post such information on the portal. OPM  officials stated that, although permission to view the portal is granted to all  users in the executive branch with a MAX account, OPM is the only  agency that has permission to make edits to the portal. OPM officials said  they are exploring options to allow for an interactive experience with other  agencies. Federal internal control standards state that management  should externally communicate the necessary quality information to  achieve the entity’s objective. Additionally, our prior work on  collaboration practices has shown that agencies can enhance and sustain  collaborative efforts, and identify and address needs by leveraging  resources, such as through sharing information. Establishing a  mechanism to allow agencies to routinely share promising practices and  lessons learned from their experiences could assist agencies that are  undertaking or considering similar efforts and help inform agencies’  decision-making related to performance management.

In addition to driving modernization, OPM identified innovation as one of  its five values in its most recent strategic plan for fiscal years 2018  through 2022. Specifically, OPM stated that the agency “constantly  seeks new ways to accomplish its work and generate extraordinary  results. OPM is dedicated to delivering creative and forward-looking  solutions and advancing the modernization of human resources  management.” OPM officials stated that innovation was included as one  of OPM’s values because the agency seeks to embrace forward-leaning  policies and practices within all aspects of human capital management.

While OPM officials told us that they maintain a constant scan of the  environment to identify and follow promising practices—which could  include innovative concepts—in the private sector and other sources to  include performance management and performance management  systems, they did not specifically identify which promising practices they  incorporated into guidance or training. In addition, when we asked OPM  to identify innovative performance management practices based on its  own research, officials provided us with articles from leading experts that  focused on eliminating performance ratings, using a growth mindset  concept, and the SCARF model—status, certainty, autonomy,  relatedness, and fairness—for collaborating with and influencing others.  They also provided references and their notes on new performance  management system programs at three corporations. OPM officials said  they have not placed these articles, references, or notes on their  performance management website or shared them with agencies, and  have no plans to do so at this time.

Instead, OPM officials stated they were monitoring the progress of these  new practices to assess if the methods were effective in maximizing  employee and organizational outcomes, in addition to stimulating  collaboration and innovation. However, OPM provided no criteria in use to  determine when the results would be considered effective or when they  could be shared with agencies. Without OPM sharing their research  results, agencies may be unaware of current practices in the performance  management field because they may not be conducting their own  research. Including innovation as an agency value is not sufficient to  change an organization’s culture for it to become innovative; it is  necessary to also introduce, for example, a strategy to identify and  address emerging research and promising practices in performance  management. Such a strategic approach could include criteria that  identify what research results to share with agencies, when to share  them, and by which process (for example, by website). It would also  enable OPM to increase transparency and consistency in identifying  emerging innovations.

One of our case study agencies told us that in the absence of OPM  providing research results, the agency used its own resources to research  and identify leading practices in the private sector that could potentially  apply to their own performance management system, such as focusing on  ongoing performance conversations and recognition to increase  engagement and performance, while reducing burdensome administrative  requirements that do not add value. Officials at this agency stated that  OPM’s guidance was not modernized to the extent that the human capital  and performance management industry was changing. Without OPM  taking the lead to share emerging and innovative research, agencies, and  therefore their employees, may not benefit from the best information  available.

Although OPM identified innovation as one of its five values, we were  unable to find any recent information on innovation for performance  management in the government on OPM’s website. Specifically, we used  “innovation performance management” as a search term on the website  and found the “Promoting Innovation in Government” web page, which  included archived material and was no longer being updated (see figure  15). As a result, agencies that use OPM’s website as a source of  performance management guidance would be unable to find any current  resources on performance management innovation. OPM officials  explained that older material is archived based on the current leadership’s  vision. The officials also confirmed that OPM did not have other active  websites that contained innovative performance management practices  gathered from external sources, which could be shared with other federal  agencies. Implementing a strategic approach to sharing innovation in  performance management would then allow OPM to provide relevant and  updated information that agencies could use to modernize their  performance management systems.

Managing employee performance has been a long-standing government- wide issue. As the current administration moves to reform the federal  government to become leaner, accountable, and efficient, an effective  performance management system is necessary to increase productivity,  sustain transformation, and foster a culture of engagement that enables  high performance. Federal agencies have a primary responsibility for  managing their employees’ performance, but OPM maintains a key role in  developing and overseeing human resources programs and policies that  support the needs of federal agencies. As the government’s chief human  resources agency and personnel policy leader, OPM is responsible for  designing and promulgating regulations, policy, and guidance covering all  aspects of the employee life cycle, including performance management.  While OPM provides performance management resources on its website,  some information is not regularly updated and can be challenging to find.  Establishing a process to provide agencies with current, accurate, and  easy access to guidance and resources would provide them with the most  recent guidance and resources available.

To be at the forefront of innovation, OPM must consistently challenge  traditional performance management practices, and identify opportunities  to present and promote new and creative solutions to agencies. Although  OPM has identified potential innovative and promising practices for  performance management through its own research, OPM has not  actively shared these practices with agencies. In addition, agencies do  not have access to a common forum by which they could routinely and  independently share their own promising practices and lessons learned to  avoid common pitfalls. In times of limited resources, developing a  strategic approach to identify and share emerging research and  innovations in performance management would help agencies inform  and, as needed, reform their performance management approaches. As a  result, federal employees may have more opportunities to maximize their  performance.

We are making the following three recommendations to OPM.  Specifically:  1.  The Director of OPM, in consultation with the CHCO Council, should  establish and implement a process for regularly updating the  performance management website to include all available guidance  and resources, making this information easily accessible, and  providing links to other related websites. (Recommendation 1)  2.  The Director of OPM, in consultation with the CHCO Council, should  develop and implement a mechanism for agencies to routinely and  independently share promising practices and lessons learned, such  as through allowing agencies to post such information on OPM’s  Performance Management portal. (Recommendation 2)  3.  The Director of OPM, in consultation with the CHCO Council, should  develop a strategic approach for identifying and sharing emerging  research and innovations in performance management.  (Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of the Departments of  Health and Human Services (Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention), Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics), and Treasury (Office of  the Comptroller of the Currency), the Acting Attorney General (Drug  Enforcement Administration) and the Acting Director of OPM. In its written  comments, reproduced in appendix II, OPM agreed with our findings and  concurred with our recommendations. It added that it would establish and  implement a process for regularly updating its performance management  website, among other things. OPM and the Departments of Health and  Human Services, Labor, and Treasury also provided technical comments  that we incorporated, as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretaries of the Departments of Health and Human  Services, the Department of Labor, the Department of the Treasury, the  Acting Attorney General, the Acting Director of OPM, and other interested  parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.

FEVS provides a snapshot of employees’ perceptions about how  effectively agencies manage their workforce. Topic areas are employees’  (1) work experience, (2) work unit, (3) agency, (4) supervisor, (5)  leadership, (6) satisfaction, (7) work-life, and (8) demographics. OPM has  administered FEVS annually since 2010. From 2002 to 2010, OPM  administered the survey biennially. FEVS includes a core set of  statements. Agencies have the option of adding questions to the surveys  sent to their employees. FEVS is based on a sample of full- and part-time,  permanent, non-seasonal employees of departments and large, small,  and independent agencies. According to OPM, the sample is designed to  ensure representative survey results would be reported by agency,  subagency, and senior leader status as well as for the overall federal  workforce. Once the necessary sample size is determined for an agency,  if more than 75 percent of the workforce would be sampled, OPM  conducts a full census of all permanent, nonseasonal employees.

To describe government-wide trends in employee perceptions of  performance management, we selected 15 FEVS statements that  generally align with OPM’s five phases of performance management  cycle: (1) planning and setting expectations; (2) continually monitoring  performance; (3) developing the capacity to perform; (4) rating  periodically to summarize performance; and (5) rewarding good  performance (see table 4). We used indexes such as the Employee  Engagement Index, the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability  Framework Results-Oriented Performance Culture Index, and the Public  Partnership for Public Service’s Best Places to Work categories to help  guide our selection process of three FEVS statements per OPM  performance management phase. We did not look at how surveyed  employees responded to the statements when considering which ones to  select. Upon selection of our statements, we consulted with our internal  human capital (HC) experts as well as external HC experts at OPM and  the Merit Systems Protection Board to determine the appropriateness of  our FEVS statement selection and categorization. They generally agreed  that these statements aligned with the phases. However, FEVS was not  designed to measure performance management and, although these  statements all provide useful insights, they do not necessarily represent  all key aspects of performance management.

In addition, we analyzed the 15 FEVS performance management-related  questions by supervisory status for the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act  (CFO Act) departments and agencies for the years 2010 through 2017.  We conducted this analysis because our prior work had shown that  supervisory status was the employee population variable that displayed  the greatest degree of difference in responses between the categories of  respondents in it. For this report, we did not analyze the extent of  differences in responses in the performance management questions by  other employee population groups, such as age or gender, because that  was outside the scope of our engagement. We examined the results for  the 15 FEVS questions by supervisory groups, and report the 4 that had  the greatest degree of differences by supervisory levels. All of these 4  had differences of at least 28 percentage points between the most and  least favorable categories of respondents while the remaining 11 had  differences in the range of 2 to 25 percentage points between the views  of senior leaders and nonsupervisory employees.

We calculated the average percent of employees who agreed or strongly  agreed with the three statements comprising the phase for those who  answered all three statements to identify trends. Survey respondents who  did not answer one or more of the phase statements were not included.  Because OPM followed a probability procedure based on random  selections for most agencies, the FEVS sample is only one of a large  number of samples that could have been drawn. Since each sample  could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the  precision of the FEVS statement estimates using the margin of error at  the 95 percent level of confidence. This margin of error is the half-width of  the 95 percent confidence interval for a FEVS estimate. A 95 percent  confidence interval is the interval that would contain the actual population  value for 95 percent of the samples that OPM could have been drawn.

To assess the reliability of the FEVS data, in addition to assessing the  sampling error associated with the estimates we examined descriptive  summary statistics and the distribution of both the survey data and the  human capital framework indexes, and assessed the extent of item- missing data. We also reviewed FEVS technical documentation. On the  basis of these procedures, we believe the data were sufficiently reliable  for use in the analysis presented in this report.

To identify practices used by selected agencies to develop and implement  strategies to improve performance management, we complemented our  government-wide analysis with an additional analysis of agencies (those  agencies and units within 1 of the 24 CFO Act departments). Specifically,  we analyzed agency results for the same 15 statements in 2015 (the most  recent data available at the time) to select a nongeneralizable sample of  four agencies to obtain illustrative examples of how they approached  performance management and their strategies to improve performance  within their agencies. We calculated averages for the agencies based on  their scores for our selected statements, and rank ordered them based on  these averages. Among other attributes, these agencies had the highest  levels of employee agreement with FEVS statements dealing with their  performance management processes.

We selected agencies that had the highest average scores for the  performance management phases. In addition to the FEVS data, we also  used secondary factors such as the number of respondents, agency size,  mission, and types of employees to identify the following agencies: (1)  Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor; (2) Centers for Disease  Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services; (3)  Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice; and the (4)  Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury.  We developed a set of standard questions that asked about agency  strategies to improve performance management and relevant successes,  which we administered to human resources/human capital officials and  other officials responsible for performance management at the agencies.  We reviewed and analyzed the responses the agencies provided, and  identified and reported examples of practices that all four described,  which are intended to improve performance management. We also asked  agencies about the types of guidance and resources they obtained from  OPM. The four common practices we identified do not represent the only  practices these agencies employ to improve performance management at  their agency. In addition, the practices are not intended to be  representative of all those employed by all other federal agencies.

To evaluate the guidance and resources OPM provides to agencies to  improve performance management government-wide, we reviewed both  OPM’s performance management website and the Chief Human Capital  Officers (CHCO) Council’s website to identify available guidance,  resources, and tools. We compared these documents to OMB’s  memorandum on federal agency public websites, OPM’s strategic plan for  fiscal years 2018 through 2022, and internal controls. We observed the  Performance Management Portal, hosted on OMB’s MAX website, in July  2018 with an OPM official as we did not have access to the portal. We  also reviewed agency documentation and other OPM-referenced  websites that contained performance management-related information.  We used OPM’s internal site search engines and search terms, such as  “performance management” and “performance management innovation,”  to identify relevant guidance. During the course of our review, we  compared performance management guidance posted on the OPM and  CHCO websites as well as the portal, and identified discrepancies  between what we found on the respective websites. We discussed the  discrepancies with OPM officials and included their responses within the  report. To supplement the documentary evidence obtained, we also  interviewed officials from OPM, the CHCO Council, and selected case  study agencies to describe the extent to which OPM assists agencies on  performance management.

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Thomas Gilbert, Assistant  Director; Dewi Djunaidy, Analyst-in-Charge; Jehan Chase; Martin  DeAlteriis; Krista Loose; and Susan Sato made major contributions to this  report. Also contributing to this report were Carl Barden; Won Lee; Robert  Robinson; and Stewart Small.

Federal Employee Misconduct: Actions Needed to Ensure Agencies Have  Tools to Effectively Address Misconduct. GAO-18-48. Washington, D.C.:  July 16, 2018.

Federal Workforce: Distribution of Performance Ratings Across the  Federal Government, 2013. GAO-16-520R. Washington, D.C.: May 9,  2016.

Federal Workforce: Additional Analysis and Sharing of Promising  Practices Could Improve Employee Engagement and Performance.  GAO-15-585. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2015.

Federal Workforce: Improved Supervision and Better Use of Probationary  Periods Are Needed to Address Substandard Employee Performance.  GAO-15-191. Washington, D.C.: February 6, 2015.

Results-Oriented Management: OPM Needs to Do More to Ensure  Meaningful Distinctions Are Made in SES Ratings and Performance  Awards. GAO-15-189. Washington, D.C.: January 22, 2015.

Federal Workforce: OPM and Agencies Need to Strengthen Efforts to  Identify and Close Mission-Critical Skills Gaps. GAO-15-223. Washington,  D.C.: January 30, 2015.

Federal Workforce: Human Capital Management Challenges and the  Path to Reform. GAO-14-723T. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2014.

Office of Personnel Management: Agency Needs to Improve Outcome  Measures to Demonstrate the Value of Its Innovation Lab. GAO-14-306.  Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2014.

Federal Employees: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Performance  Management Pilot. GAO-13-755. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2013.

Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual  Performance and Organizational Success. GAO-03-488. Washington,  D.C.: March 14, 2003.

Agencies need effective performance management systems to hold employees accountable for results and achieve their missions. Although the Office of Personnel Management—the government’s central human resources agency—has identified potentially innovative performance management practices, it needs to do a better job of sharing them with agencies.

We recommended, among other things, steps OPM should take to make this information more accessible.