Trustworthy

(Photo credit: Department of Agriculture/Farm Production and Conservation/Preston Keres)

Public trust in the federal government has been a spotlight issue in recent years, serving as a barometer of the health of our democracy and the political environment as the country has experienced serious social, public health and economic challenges.¹

But federal employees’ trust in government institutions is largely overlooked. The importance of such trust is starting to be understood but deserves more focus. Research indicates that public servants’ trust at work is associated with their engagement and productivity as well as the longevity of their federal careers. Another study shows that engaged federal employees tend to provide better customer service, which in turn helps improve the public’s experience with and trust in government.

Recognizing that workforce trust is an indicator of government effectiveness and a driver of public trust in government,² the Partnership for Public Service, with support from Deloitte, examined civil servants’ trust in two key dimensions of the federal government—(1) government leaders and (2) civil service rules and their enforcement—and what agencies, administrations and Congress can do to improve it. Trust in leaders is a critical condition for government effectiveness as it can motivate employees to be innovative, to collaborate, to invest extra effort in their work and to perform beyond expectations.^3,4 Trust in the framework of the civil service is necessary for civil servants’ faith in the integrity and sustainability of their work and careers.

Specifically, we sought to understand the levels, drivers and effects of civil servants’ trust in:

• Politically appointed and career government leaders—including supervisors, higher-level managers and members of the Senior Executive Service.⁵
• The laws and regulations that guide and protect civil servants and hold them accountable, as well as the entities that enforce these rules to ensure fair, ethical and effective federal workplaces—which together we call the framework of the civil service.

This report includes insights gathered from 20 one-on-one interviews and two roundtable discussions with current and former civil servants, career leaders and political appointees, as well as an online survey of 475 federal employees at more than 35 agencies. It details what we learned from the more than 500 people who contributed to this study about the dynamics and impacts of federal workforce trust—and highlights opportunities to increase it. Though not statistically representative, our research findings provide an important snapshot in time of the civil service that we believe can inform efforts to increase workforce trust government-wide. (See the report’s Methodology for more details.)

According to the federal employees who shared stories and ideas for this study, there are a number of opportunities to increase their trust in leaders and in the framework of the civil service. This report includes the most practical recommendations for improving workforce trust that could be undertaken by Congress, administrations, the entities that safeguard the civil service and individual agency leaders—including supervisors, other career leaders and political appointees. These recommendations could also be useful to frontline staff and others interested in the wellbeing and effectiveness of the federal workforce.

(Photo credit: Department of Agriculture/Tom Witham)

We pursued this research to better understand the nature of trust in the federal workplace. To start, this study considered the levels of civil servants’ trust in career and politically appointed federal leaders as well as what drives their trust in them. Interpersonal trust between public servants and their leaders is important as it is associated with efficient and accountable federal agencies and public trust in government.⁸

This indicates that government leaders have a large amount of influence over federal workforce trust, which accords with other research that shows effective leadership is the key driver of federal employee satisfaction and commitment.⁹ It also suggests that leaders bear a large responsibility to act in ways that maintain if not increase the trust of their staff.

Levels of Trust in Leaders

Similar Levels of Trust in Leaders’ Intent and Competence

Through an online survey, we asked current civil servants about their levels of trust in the intent and competence—the two foundational attributes of trust—of career and politically appointed leaders relative to 11 factors that reflect commitment to civil service rules, effective leadership and employee engagement.¹⁰ As illustrated in the charts below, survey respondents¹¹ indicated that on average they have similar levels of trust in career leaders’ intent and competence but that they trust their intent slightly more. Their levels of trust in political appointees show a similar pattern.

Click to enlarge both charts.

One possible reason for this small difference may be a predisposition of public servants to preemptively trust the intent of their leaders. Civil servants’ perceptions that leaders share common motivations or mission interests could induce assumptions of their good intent.

A related reason may be the greater difficulty in assessing intent than competence. Whereas measures of competence can be objective—such as whether leaders succeed or fail to achieve stated goals—the benchmark for intent is subjective. Efforts to support diversity and inclusion can highlight this distinction. As one survey respondent wrote, “Our leaders say all the right words [about diversity], but then do not hold officials accountable to hard metrics for hiring and promotion.”

Greater Trust in Career Leaders than in Politically Appointed Leaders

Interviewees and survey respondents indicated that civil servants tend to have somewhat more trust in career leaders than in politically appointed leaders, with some noting that appointees can have difficulty earning trust if staff perceive them to lack the institutional knowledge that many career leaders have or perceive them to be driven by a political agenda. Survey respondents specifically reported on average between a “moderate extent” and a “large extent” of trust in career leaders. As seen below, this is slightly higher than their trust in politically appointed leaders, which they reported being between a “small extent” to a little more than a “moderate extent”.¹²

Click to enlarge both charts.

Survey respondents said that they most trust the intent and competence of both career and politically appointed leaders to achieve mission and to be committed public servants. This accords with the observation of many interviewees that career leaders tend to be motivated public servants dedicated to their staff and government effectiveness. Despite small differentials in trust in career and political leaders, this finding also suggests that civil servants see the potential of political appointees to be good stewards of government.

On the other end of the spectrum, survey respondents reported lower levels of trust in both career and politically appointed leaders to be transparent and to support their federal careers. They also indicated similar levels of trust in both types of leader to protect them from arbitrary action, political coercion and reprisal for whistleblowing, which may be due to communication issues. If leaders do not demonstrate their commitment to civil service rules and their motivation and ability to enforce them, federal employees may be left to assume the opposite. Regarding appointees specifically, survey respondents said they least trust them to support their federal careers, which aligns with interviewees’ perceptions that some appointed leaders are more focused on implementing political agendas than on supporting their staff.

Drivers of Civil Servants’ Trust in Leaders

Overall, our government works best when it has a full team of capable and committed individuals serving in career and politically appointed leadership positions, matched with missions, agendas and teams that align with their distinct approaches and perspectives. As prior Partnership research has shown, however, several dynamics can work against their success. The current and former federal employees who contributed to this study indicated that the trust imbalance between career leaders and political appointees is generally due to several differences in the nature of their positions, which should be better understood when developing and appointing leaders.

• Leadership Proximity: Echoing research from Deloitte, a number of interviewees said that they generally have more trust in leaders with whom they have close working relationships—such as their supervisor or a manager who is a career leader—than in senior leaders with whom they have little to no contact. This may be because the responsibilities of higher-level leadership can distract senior leaders from developing relationships with the people they oversee, according to Bob Tobias, director of the Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation at American University.¹⁵
• Institutional Knowledge and Subject Matter Expertise: Career leaders, who often rise through the ranks, generally bring institutional knowledge and program and policy expertise to their management practices. Conversely, some politically appointed leaders have little to no previous experience working in the federal government, and those new to government may face a steep learning curve even if they bring subject matter knowledge and critical managerial experience from other sectors.
• Leadership Longevity: Career leaders tend to have longer tenures than political leaders, who typically leave their federal appointments after two or three years.¹⁶ It can take considerable time to cultivate trusting relationships, and leaders with a short tenure may leave before they establish strong connections with their staff.¹⁷ Furthermore, leadership longevity is associated with stability and accomplishment, according to the National Academy of Public Administration: “Two years [of leadership] is about long enough to start new initiatives and begin to see them implemented but not long enough to see them fully carried out.”¹⁸
• Perception of Partisan Interests: Since appointees carry out the president’s policy agenda, civil servants may occasionally perceive their actions to be excessively political, particularly in comparison to the mandate of their career leaders.¹⁹ This phenomenon is not generally widespread, but it does have impact. As one survey respondent described a negative example, “I have grown to distrust and feel unprotected by the political interests of appointees and to observe them place their personal interests above the mission of the agency and the responsibilities of the career staff.”

More generally, many contributors to this project agreed that trust is personal—all trust is local—indicating that cultivating interpersonal leadership skills is a fundamental strategy of increasing civil servants’ trust in their leaders. Interviewees, roundtable participants and survey respondents identified seven interconnected attributes of interpersonal leadership that cultivate trust, which our literature review validated. These attributes can be adopted by career and politically appointed leaders at all levels, and they align with the Partnership’s Public Service Leadership Model—which is a tool career and politically appointed leaders can use to evaluate their performance, assess their leadership development and chart a course for self-improvement.

Public Service Leadership Model   Click graphic to enlarge.Based on the core values of stewardship of public trust and commitment to public good, the Partnership’s Public Service Leadership Model is a roadmap for leadership growth. The model can be used by career leaders and political appointees to cultivate workforce trust. In addition to the core values, it consists of four critical competencies for effective federal leadership, which complement the Office of Personnel Management’s Executive Core Qualifications. These competencies operationalize leadership attributes that foster trust: Critical Competencies Becoming Self-Aware Engaging Others Leading Change Achieving Results Core Values Stewardship of Public Trust Commitment to Public Good

Below are the attributes of interpersonal leadership that drive workforce trust as well as examples of them shared by contributors to this study.

Transparency, Two-Way Communication and Mutual Trust

Federal leaders can cultivate trust by being transparent in their decision-making and actions and by communicating honestly, clearly and frequently with their staff. Such demonstrations of respect are often reciprocated by mutual trust. Bilateral communication is especially effective to this end. This involves not just seeking input or inviting feedback, but also responding to it.

“If you want to build trust, you need staff to feel like they’re part of the solution not the problem,” explained John Palguta, the former MSPB official.

Examples of this attribute shared by interviewees, roundtable participants and survey respondents include the following.

Looks Like

• “We have weekly meetings with the whole branch where we can actually ask our supervisor about what his supervisor or what his leadership is doing. And we often have meetings and communication with those leaders. The leadership makes a point to come talk to us—not just me, but my colleagues and interns as well,” said Haroon Khan, a project manager at NASA’s Ames Space Center.
• “Roundtables with career staff in which the decision-makers can discuss policy in its formative stages and learn about possible implementation challenges from those who will actually have to put the policy in place,” suggested a survey respondent.

Doesn’t Look Like

• Leaders not explaining big decisions like budget and personnel cuts, leaving staff to speculate the reasons.
• Goals or recommendations derived from staff listening sessions or surveys that do not reflect the input of employees.
• Supervisors and managers sharing with only select staff news about developmental and promotion opportunities.

Reliability, Consistency and Accountability

“Promises are the building blocks of trust,” said Kevin Mahoney, senior advisor at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. “Whether staff like the outcome has less bearing on workforce trust than whether the promise is kept.” A survey respondent agreed, noting that nothing breaks trust faster than a leader saying one thing and doing the opposite, suggesting that reliability, consistency and accountability are critical factors of federal workforce trust. Furthermore, according to Palguta, “A culture of mutual accountability creates a culture of trust.”

Looks Like

• Leaders who keep their promises or explain why they are not able to follow through on them.
• Leaders’ performance plans and reviews are transparent and account for the results of employee engagement surveys.²⁰
• “Civil service rules applied equally to all employees,” wrote one survey respondent.

Doesn’t Look Like

• Leaders who do not enact agency changes in response to Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey scores.
• Unexpected or unclear changes in policy, project timelines or management practices.
• “Our agency managers are not held accountable in terms of the climate they create in their work unit, and 360-degree reviews for them are not performed,” wrote one survey respondent.
• “The worst thing leaders can do for team morale is to ignore festering personnel problems, [which can] be disruptive, distracting, and stoke feelings of unfairness and inequity among the rest of the employees,” wrote a survey respondent.

Fostering Professional Growth

Fostering professional development can engender workforce trust because it demonstrates leaders’ commitment to their staff as well as to the principles of the civil service.²¹

Looks Like

• “Development involves not just giving people key assignments,” explained former Office of Personnel Management official Rita Sampson, “but also involves feedback so that you can learn and grow from your efforts. When people do not receive timely, honest feedback, then they’re unable to make adjustments to perform and grow.”
• “My direct supervisor actually joined us when we were deployed … and worked directly with us. He was training us on our jobs and he was teaching us how to run an operation in the field,” said Nickelle Reid, an operations engineer at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center.

Doesn’t Look Like

• Leaders who do not prioritize professional development in budgets and in employee performance plans—or do not make sure staff have time to pursue growth opportunities.

Empathy and Care for the Whole Person

Genuine care for others is fundamental to gaining trust, so federal leaders need to intentionally and actively understand the perspectives and experiences of their staff. “When you care for the individuals in your workforce, they have the ability to accomplish the mission in a much more effective and sustained way,” Sampson said.

Looks Like

• “A leader who recognizes staff concerns, takes action and says, ‘You need staffing, you need more equipment, you need self-care days,’” said Amin Vafa, the lead of enterprise data strategy in the State Department’s Center for Analytics.
• “NASA has a culture of safety, and they’re very big on preventing burnout,” said Haroon Khan, “There’s been times when leaders, not just my boss, but his bosses or their bosses have literally told us take time off if you need it … I just feel like I’m encouraged to have a work-life balance.”

Doesn’t Look Like

• Senior leaders glossing over challenges related to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility instead of acknowledging the reality of biases and the tangible negative impacts they have on the workforce.
• “Too often there is talk about work-life balance or putting people first, but when the rubber meets the road, the demand is to get the job done regardless,” wrote one survey respondent.

Creating a Culture of Trust, Respect and Mutual Care

“Leadership that prioritizes creating a culture of trust can transform a workplace from one with low levels of trust to one with high levels of trust,” explained Adhir Kackar, the acting director of the federal and state division of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Community Revitalization. According to the federal employees who contributed to this study, a workplace culture of trust is built on respect and mutual care, factors that incorporate the other attributes of interpersonal leadership described here.

Looks Like

• Leaders fostering workplace values or codes of conduct—such as ethical behavior and transparency—that cultivate trust. Prioritizing such organizational ethos is especially important when onboarding new staff.
• Leaders who choose courage over comfort—for example, by speaking up and challenging the status quo, by being honest about their own strengths and weaknesses, by engaging in rather than shying away from difficult conversations, and by asking for help. Courageous leadership can be a particularly important asset for diversity, inclusion, equity and accessibility.²²

Doesn’t Look Like

• Supervisors and managers assigning tasks but not giving staff the authority and space to determine the best way to complete them.
• Leaders who do not encourage staff to contribute their ideas and perspectives, which can instill a fear of risk and stifle innovation.

Fostering Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility

To cultivate a workplace culture of trust, it is necessary to support a diverse workforce and to foster equity and inclusion for all employees. “I will trust only when I feel everyone is treated equitably and with respect,” explained one survey respondent.

While agencies government-wide have developed—per a June 2021 executive order—a strategic plan “to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the [federal] workforce” and must do so annually going forward,²³ it is critical that these plans be realized through concrete and meaningful actions. Pro forma efforts will likely be seen as hollow gestures, according to interviewees, and could undermine trust in leaders’ support of DEIA.

Looks Like

• Organizational cultures where people trust that if they’re experiencing harassment or any kind of discriminatory behavior, the processes for redress are in place and leaders will respond empathetically, consistently and fairly.
• Providing detailed education about civil service rules—especially those that bar discrimination and promote equitable employment practices like the Merit System Principles, Prohibited Personnel Practices and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act—and how to engage the agencies that enforce them.

Doesn’t Look Like

• Leaders avoiding diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility issues or limiting informed, honest and safe conversations about the experience of people of color in the federal workforce.
• Leaders who do not seek expert support. As one survey respondent wrote, “My trust would increase if there was more willingness [among leaders] to engage experts to advise them on things like disability and bias in the workplace—I believe their abstract intent is good, but they have seemed resistant to hiring experts from outside.”
• Leaders overlooking the connections between fostering diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in the federal workforce and agency program delivery.^24,25

Competent, Nonpartisan Leadership

Intention alone is not sufficient for federal leaders to cultivate workforce trust. They must also be competent administrators who are focused on mission over politics and who are deeply knowledgeable about and committed to upholding the rules of the civil service.

Looks Like

• “Leaders modeling the correct behavior in a consistent way,” according to a survey respondent.
• “Leaders’ willingness to be honest about what can be accomplished with the resources they have,” suggested a survey respondent. “The fallacy and fiction of being able to ‘do more with less’ erodes both trust in and effectiveness of public institutions and their leaders.”
• “A performance review process [for leaders] that takes into consideration the impact their leadership has made on the workforce that they are leading,” wrote a survey respondent.

Doesn’t Look Like

• Career and politically appointed leaders distracted by political pressure from agency goals and mission priorities.
• Civil servants being promoted into supervisory or other leadership roles without demonstrated leadership skills or without an interest in being a leader.

(Photo credit: Department of the Interior)

Administrations and agencies should support leadership development efforts that focus on cultivating workforce trust.

• For career leaders, professional development opportunities and resources provided by agencies should prioritize interpersonal leadership skills associated with workforce trust—such as two-way communication, transparency, reliability, consistency, accountability and empathy. A useful tool for this is the Public Service Leadership Model. The Office of Personnel Management should reexamine and update the executive core qualifications—which are a standard for joining the Senior Executive Service and used by many agencies’ performance development and management indicators—to ensure they reflect the most current thinking on the skills federal executives need to be successful.
• For political appointees, the Presidential Personnel Office—which helps recruit, vet and nominate political appointees—should implement and coordinate trust-focused professional development requirements for appointees that prioritize interpersonal leadership skills that foster workforce trust.

Administrations and agencies should emphasize the importance of trust in accountability mechanisms.

• Career leaders’ performance appraisals should include the use of a 360-degree performance assessment instrument or other comprehensive, multi-rater assessment tools to gather feedback that helps them improve their leadership competencies. Some agencies already leverage the power of such assessments, such as the Administration for Children and Families and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which use the Partnership’s Public Service Leadership Model. Other agencies use the OPM Leadership 360™ tool.
• Political appointees should have specific and measurable performance goals aligned with agency missions and effective public service leadership. Such goals can help hold appointees accountable for their roles in executing policy and shaping an agency’s organizational culture.

Congress should establish a standard for leadership development and performance for both career and politically appointed leaders. Such a standard should account for knowledge about and commitment to civil service rules as well as for interpersonal leadership skills associated with workforce trust. Currently, federal leadership development programs are fragmented across government. By offering a common leadership standard by which to develop and assess federal executives, Congress can ensure leaders receive the necessary training and are evaluated via annual performance plans according to competency standards.

Leaders should cultivate workplace cultures of trust by adopting management practices that emphasize interpersonal leadership. Specific actions toward this end could include:

• Dedicating time to engage openly with staff of all levels
• Investing in the “whole person” by extending flexibilities such as teleworking and staff-set schedules to help employees maintain work-life balance and remain focused on mission, especially during tough times like the COVID-19 pandemic
• Recognizing excellence in public service by calling out good work during staff meetings, by allocating cash or time-off awards or by nominating employees for the Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medals^®, the “Oscars” of government service award bestowed annually by the Partnership.

Administrations and agencies should strengthen leaders’ knowledge of and commitment to civil service rules and the processes and entities that enforce them.

• For politically appointed leaders, the Presidential Personnel Office and center-of-government agencies should convey the administration’s commitment to upholding civil service rules and expectation of appointees’ support of them. For example, a December 2021 Office of Management and Budget memorandum called on agency secretaries to cooperate with their inspectors general. The Presidential Personnel Office also should coordinate with individual agencies to ensure that appointees’ onboarding includes a focus on the civil service framework and their responsibilities related to it.
• For career leaders, individual agencies’ senior managers should encourage and facilitate professional development opportunities and performance management practices that prioritize knowledge about and commitment to the civil service. Furthermore, evidence of such knowledge and commitment should be tied to career leaders’ professional advancement.

Leaders should demonstrate their commitment to upholding civil service rules and their expectations of staff to do the same. This could be done by establishing values—like the Mission Values and People Values of the Government Accountability Office—that set the tone for office culture.

Leaders should encourage and facilitate professional development and other growth opportunities. Such opportunities include mentorship programs, inter- or intra-agency detail assignments, and cross-sector collaborations via the Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobility Program or talent exchanges, such as the Department of Defense’s Public-Private Talent Exchange program. These investments of time, focus and budget demonstrate leaders’ dedication to and belief in their staff—and can yield mutual trust between them. For the greatest return on such investments, they should be part of a continual effort to enhance the skills of public servants.

Congress, administrations and agencies should actively foster diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in order to ensure that all civil servants are able to thrive in public service by working in a fair and ethical environment that reflects the demographics of our country. Career and politically appointed leaders at all levels should take concrete and measurable steps to implement their agency’s annual DEIA plan²⁶—such as prioritizing equity in promotion opportunities, sponsoring staff affinity groups and proactively organizing safe spaces for honest dialogue about workplace and societal challenges. Administrations, meanwhile, should share government-wide successful DEIA strategies from individual agencies. Finally, Congress should assess each agency’s DEIA performance and hold hearings on DEIA progress.

(Photo credit: Shutterstock)

In addition to trust in leaders, this study explored public servants’ perceptions of the rules of the civil service and entities that enforce them, which were designed to help the federal government operate effectively, efficiently and equitably—all factors that drive public trust in government. Notably, when asked about the civil service framework, interviewees, roundtable participants and survey respondents focused more on their trust in federal leaders to adhere to the rules than on the actual rules and enforcement processes.

The civil service framework is also a key factor in the accountability that bolsters public trust in government. Civil service rules and enforcement processes exist to help supervisors and managers address and resolve workplace problems—such as sexism, waste and conflicts of interest—by holding federal employees accountable. They are also designed to hold leaders accountable, helping to prevent nepotism, whistleblower retaliation, inefficiency and other behaviors that erode public trust in government. By instilling a sense of responsibility in staff and leaders, the civil service framework helps ensure federal employees fulfill their missions and serve as stewards of public trust.

Familiarity with the Civil Service Framework

To understand federal employees’ trust in civil service rules and the entities that enforce them, it is first necessary to assess their knowledge about them.

For this reason, we asked survey respondents about their familiarity with the parts of the civil service framework that, according to initial research, are most prominent in federal employees’ work experience:

• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
• Inspectors general
• Merit Systems Protection Board
• Office of Government Ethics
• Office of Special Counsel
• Title 5 of U.S. Code

Together, these served as a proxy of the overall civil service framework for this study.

According to interviewees, roundtable participants and survey respondents, federal employees typically have limited, generalized awareness of the framework of the civil service. Many have some knowledge, but few have detailed understanding of specific rules, let alone the entities and processes that enforce them.

On average, survey respondents reported being “a little familiar” to “moderately familiar” with the civil service framework.²⁷ They were most familiar with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—which combats hiring and workplace discrimination—and agencies’ inspectors general, who investigate waste, fraud and abuse. They were least familiar with Title 5, the statutes that govern pay, benefits, performance management and other aspects of their day-to-day work experience.

One striking example of limited familiarity is that only 62% of survey respondents said they know how to report a violation of a civil service rule.

Survey respondents and interviewees largely attributed their lack of familiarity to insufficient efforts to educate federal employees about civil service rules and the mandates of the entities that enforce them. As one respondent wrote, “I have been a civil servant for 30 years, and almost nothing I know about these institutions came through official work channels.” This echoes a 2016 study by the Merit Systems Protection Board, which estimated that less than half of federal managers and supervisors had received extensive training on the Merit System Principles and Prohibited Personnel Practices, and that some had received no training on them.²⁸

Federal employees also cited the opacity of civil service processes such as investigations and enforcement actions as a reason for their limited knowledge. One survey respondent described the need for clearer guidance on the civil service framework, “written for laypersons and published transparently on OPM’s website.” Without additional transparency, another survey respondent explained, “I think many people get these different offices [responsible for safeguarding the civil service] confused or don’t even know that these protections exist.” Given that, according to Rita Sampson, former director of OPM’s Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility, “We have to do a better job of letting people in the [federal] workforce know that when you follow these processes or use these processes, positive change can and will happen.”

To that end, some contributors to this study called for digestible summaries of investigations of civil service violations (without identifying information). “Real case studies, better stories that government employees can read in five minutes and see the scope and values of the civil service institution reflected,” suggested one survey respondent. They also said that just aggregated data—which ensures privacy—about the number and types of civil service violations and what was done in response to them helps improve the understanding of the rules and enforcement mechanisms.

Levels of Trust in the Civil Service Framework

The federal employees we interviewed and surveyed reported modest levels of trust in the civil service framework on average, similar to their levels of familiarity with it. This finding suggests neither a crisis of faith nor overweening confidence in the existing system—and also indicates efforts to increase civil servants’ trust in the civil service framework are warranted.

For example, survey respondents who are familiar with the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Office of Special Counsel, the Office of Government Ethics, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and inspectors general reported trusting them to enforce the rules and protections of the civil service a little more than “a moderate extent” on average.²⁹ While they most trusted inspectors general and the EEOC and least trusted OGE, the trust differential is small, as seen in the following chart.

Survey respondents reported on average between “a small extent” and “a moderate extent” of trust in the laws and regulations designed to protect civil servants, which is a slightly lower than the levels of trust in the entities that enforce them. Many civil service protections are codified in Title 5 of U.S. Code—including the Merit System Principles, which guide federal workforce management, and the 14 federal Prohibited Personnel Practices—and the lower levels of trust in them echo respondents’ lower familiarity with Title 5 rules.

Respondents familiar with Title 5 rules reported trusting their effectiveness—to ensure fair hiring, employee equity, clear paths for career advancement and effective performance management—between “a small extent” and “a moderate extent” on average. They least trust Title 5 to ensure supervisors can effectively address inadequate performance. Otherwise, as seen in the following chart, their levels of trust are similar across categories.

Remarkably, of the 62% of survey respondents who know how to report a civil service violation, 90% said they would, indicating a high level of trust in protections from retribution despite a moderate level of familiarity with them.

Drivers of Trust in the Civil Service Framework

The apparent connection between respondents’ familiarity with and trust in the rules of the civil service and the entities that enforce them suggests that familiarity is a driver of workforce trust in the civil service framework. Because it is hard to fully trust something not well understood, increasing federal employees’ knowledge of the framework may be a way to improve their trust in it. Furthermore, according to a 2019 Merit Systems Protection Board study, increasing familiarity with civil service guardrails like the Prohibited Personnel Practices could improve their effectiveness, which also could increase workforce trust.³⁰

In addition, according to contributors to this study, a number of other interconnected dynamics influence workforce trust in the civil service framework. These factors are explained below:

• Expectations
• Previous experiences and perceptions
• Transparent processes
• Enforcement efficiency
• Leadership commitment

Expectations

Limited knowledge about civil service rules and the authority of the entities that enforce them can skew civil servants’ expectations about them. When federal employees’ expectations of the civil service framework are not met—even if such expectations are unrealistic—the ensuing disappointment can easily morph into mistrust.

For example, not all public servants understand the role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which adjudicates allegations of workplace discrimination and is authorized to provide “make whole” relief—such as monetary payments and job placements that put the person who experienced discrimination “as near as possible in the situation [they] would have occupied” if it had not occurred.³¹ What the EEOC does not do is discipline federal employees. Those who do not understand this may be dismayed when EEOC adjudications end without the agency directly punishing violators of civil service and EEO laws.

“They want EEOC to come in and put managers in handcuffs and bring them out of the building,” explained Dexter Brooks, associate director of EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations. “And when they don’t see that type of accountability it creates kind of a frustration and a distrust— ‘Oh, these laws are not doing anything.’”

Prior Experiences and Perceptions

Previous direct or indirect experiences federal employees have had with civil service rules and processes can also influence their trust in them. Based on personal experience with or perceptions of colleagues reporting a civil service violation, for example, many survey respondents said they think investigations of violations usually side with agency management over staff—in part because they believe agencies are better equipped than staff to navigate civil service processes. “The chances of prevailing are slim,” one wrote, “because the deck is stacked in favor of the government.” Another respondent added, “The entire structure for reporting and addressing issues is designed to put the victim in a more vulnerable position.” As a result, wondered a third, “How do you prove favoritism? You can’t really.”

Furthermore, of the 10% of survey respondents who said they know how to report a civil service violation but would not, many cited their perception of insufficient protections from retribution as the reason why. “Actual real-world evidence shows that whistleblowing remains a very dangerous endeavor,” one wrote. Similarly, fear of retaliation is one reason why employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have not reported perceived instances of political interference, according to a 2022 Government Accountability Office report.³²

Some survey respondents and interviewees, however, described frustration with the civil service framework’s ability to hold low-performing employees accountable. Others said their trust in the framework is undermined by what they described as employees’ “frivolous” claims for civil service protections.

Transparent Processes

Transparent civil service investigations, enforcement actions and other processes may be able to bolster confidence in civil service rules as accountability mechanisms. Such transparency can help ensure, according to survey respondents, “that there is no bias,” “that the civil service workforce is protected from political coercion and unfair treatment” and that “employees who abuse various systems are actually held accountable for their actions.”

Transparency can be rooted in efforts to educate federal employees about the civil service framework, including onboarding sessions, routine professional development and other trainings focused on the rules of the civil service, the enforcement entities and how to engage them to redress civil service violations.

For example, according to the Merit Systems Protection Board, when agencies conclude that alleged violations of Prohibited Personnel Practices have not occurred, they “should seek to do a better job of explaining to employees the reasons behind management decisions [perceived to be violations] so that employees can better understand the merit-based reasons for a particular outcome and avoid misperceptions in the future.”³³

Available data about investigations, enforcements and other civil service processes is another important part of this transparency—but availability alone is insufficient. Such data must also be easily accessible, widely promoted and in compliance with federal privacy rules to influence workforce trust.³⁴

“Prohibited Personnel Practices work. But I think there’s a transparency problem where not everybody sees that they work,” explained Rita Sampson, former director of OPM’s Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility. “If people don’t know what happened to the person who filed the complaint or the outcome of their complaint, then sometimes they just don’t want to go that route [of seeking redress for civil service violations].”

The No FEAR Act of 2002 requires agencies to collect and publicly report statistical data about violations of employment discrimination and whistleblower protection laws and the outcomes of the resulting investigations.³⁵ While we did not specifically ask interviewees and survey respondents about the statute, the fact that only a few federal employees acknowledged it when asked about their familiarity with civil service rules is further evidence of the need to improve awareness of and access to data that tracks civil service processes. (Awareness of such data, however, may increase with the passage of the Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2020, which updates the No FEAR Act by requiring agencies to post notifications on their website about findings of discrimination or retaliation. These notifications must remain posted for at least one year.³⁶)

Enforcement Efficiency

Another driver of trust, according to survey respondents and interviewees, is the ability of the agencies and offices charged with protecting the civil service to operate effectively. Sufficient staffing of these entities is critical as position vacancies and the disruptions of turnover can backlog investigations and delay their resolutions. Suggested one survey respondent, “Fully staff them so they can adequately respond to situations and strengthen their enforcement powers.” For example, the Merit Systems Protection Board operated without a quorum between January 2017 and March 2022, leaving it unable to issue final decisions on employee appeals of agency personnel actions. In addition, staff shortages can limit communication about these prolonged processes, leading to frustrations with the black-box effect that can harden into doubt about efficiency, integrity and reliability.

Leadership Commitment to the Civil Service Framework

According to the Merit Systems Protection Board, “The primary responsibility for avoiding [Prohibited Personnel Practices]—and attaining the ideals described in the [Merit System Principles]—lies with the employing agencies.”³⁷ This may be why the federal employees who contributed to this study indicated that the biggest driver of their trust in the civil service framework is how career and politically appointed leaders understand, adhere to and implement civil service rules. For example, consistent enforcement of rules cultivates trust in their equity, whereas inconsistency can erode that trust. Similarly, supervisors and managers who prioritize the merit principles when hiring and promoting staff may engender confidence in them, whereas those who do not might undermine faith in the guardrails designed to prevent nepotism. This underscores the importance of leaders’ commitment to the civil service framework. It also suggests that workforce trust in the framework can be bolstered by ensuring leaders have a fluent understanding of civil service protections, accountability mechanisms and the responsibilities of the entities that enforce them.

(Photo credit: Department of Housing and Urban Development)

The Office of Personnel Management and the entities that safeguard the civil service should increase the transparency of their processes and make it easier for the workforce to understand and access protections and the mechanisms of accountability.

• Safeguarding entities should optimize the user experience of their websites to ease access to their services and related information. Models for highlighting resources and services for federal employees include the websites of the Office of Government Ethics and Office of the Special Counsel, which make it easy to find things like standards of ethical conduct, contact information for each agency’s designated ethics officials and information about disclosing wrongdoings. Additionally, the entities that enforce the rules could evaluate the effectiveness of their existing efforts to educate federal employees about the civil service framework. Such reviews could result in improvements to or even create new training programs and resources.
• OPM should create an online clearinghouse of all the rules of the civil service, the roles of the entities that safeguard them, and the rights and responsibilities of staff, supervisors and agency leaders—made real through pertinent real-life examples—similar to telework.gov. As one survey respondent suggested, “A one-stop shop or a single port with options for assistance. Currently, it’s difficult to figure out which pieces of the overall rules are enforced by whom.”

Agencies and the entities that safeguard the civil service should more prominently highlight data they are authorized to share about investigations of civil service violations and related enforcement actions.

• In compliance with the No FEAR Act of 2002, agencies already release metadata about civil service violations and their efforts in response to them. The lack of familiarity with such data among the federal employees who contributed to this study, however, indicates that agencies should more widely promote the availability and utility of this data, as well as make sure it is easily accessible online.
• Similarly, the entities that safeguard the civil service should consider how they could better disseminate the data they already publish. Models for proactive data sharing are the annual reports the Office of Government Ethics sends to agencies that summarize prosecutions of violators of criminal conflicts-of-interest statutes and review compliance rates, enforcement actions and other aspects of the government-wide ethics program. “We drive home that this is your government and anyone can use these documents and have access to them,” said Patrick Shepherd, a senior instructor in the Office of Government Ethics Institute for Ethics in Government, elaborating on the agency’s commitment to transparency.

“We also work with managers and senior leaders across the federal government to ensure that they are working to advance EEO objectives and to create model EEO workplaces. We communicate a lot of this through our social media and through our various communication initiatives…. And we recently started about two years ago a community of practice. It’s our EEOC Education Consortium, which is for federal EEO practitioners. It’s a meeting place for them to come together and discuss federal laws as well as the trends and the leading and promising practices that we’re seeing for EEO across the federal government.”

The entities that safeguard the civil service—with support from administrations and Congress—should maintain adequate staff capacity to effectively support federal agencies and employees.

• Because the efficiency of enforcement actions is a driver of trust in the civil service framework, the entities charged with safeguarding the civil service should develop staff retention strategies that help prevent the loss of critical institutional knowledge that would disrupt effective operations. In addition, they should strengthen their talent pipelines, recruitment strategies and hiring capacity so they can quickly fill position vacancies as they arise and add staff capacity as necessary to ensure streamlined investigations, adjudications and other civil service processes.
• Administrations should prioritize leadership appointments for these entities as well as ensure they are well-resourced.
• Congress, meanwhile, should provide sufficient funding to the entities that enforce civil service rules and ensure timely confirmations of their politically appointed leaders to avoid disruptions of their work. An example of such a disruption is the five years that the Merit Systems Protection Board was unable to issue final decisions on employee appeals of agency personnel actions because it operated without a quorum of members.

(Photo credit: National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Joel Kowsky)

This study examined federal employees’ trust in their career and politically appointed leaders as well as their knowledge of and trust in civil service rules and the entities that enforce them.

Federal workforce trust is an important indicator of government effectiveness, as civil servants who trust their leaders and the rules that guide and protect them are more likely to be engaged in their work, dedicated to their mission and productive. As a result, workforce trust also may influence public trust in government.

Regarding workforce trust in career and politically appointed leaders, we found that:

• Leaders are a primary influence on civil servants’ trust at work.
• Civil servants appear to have slightly more trust in career leaders than political appointees, as well as more trust in leaders they work closely with. This trust gap reflects other research that has found that trust is built over time and strengthened by proximity.
• Civil servants have similar levels of trust in their leaders’ intent and competence—though they appear to have slightly more trust in their intent.
• Trust is personal, and seven interconnected attributes of interpersonal leadership are the basis for building workforce trust in leaders.

Regarding trust of the civil service rules and the entities that enforce them, we found that:

• Civil servants have limited, generalized awareness of the civil service framework, which appears to be due to the opacity of civil service rules, processes and enforcement entities as well as to insufficient efforts to educate federal employees about the civil service.
• Public servants’ level of familiarity with civil service rules and the entities that enforce them appear to mirror their trust in them—indicating that familiarity is a driver of trust.
• Trust in civil service rules and the entities that enforce them can be eroded by the lack of data about investigations of civil service violations and related enforcement actions; evidence or perceptions of civil service rules applied incorrectly or inefficiently; negative experiences with reporting a violation; and capacity limitations of the entities that safeguard the civil service.

The findings, recommendations and resources offered in this report provide practical steps to increase federal employee trust in government leaders and the civil service framework. Workforce trust cannot be taken for granted, and it is up to both career and political leaders at all levels to champion ongoing efforts to earn public servants’ trust—and in the process strengthen the workforce and make government more effective and responsive to public needs.