The Partnership Details Civil Servants Trust in Leadership, Institutions

Public trust in government is often reported; however, according to the Partnership for Public Service, public employee trust in government is often overlooked. In collaboration with Deloitte, a recent report published by the Partnership sought to understand public employee trust in the government institutions they serve. The report examines civil servants' trust in (1) government leaders and (2) civil service rules and their enforcement. Finally, the report provides recommendations to increase confidence in government.

The report's findings come from 20 one-on-one interviews, two roundtable discussions with current and former civil servants, career leaders, and political appointees, and an online survey of 475 federal employees at more than 35 agencies.

For the report, the Partnership views "trust" as "a person's belief that another person or institution will act consistently with their expectations of positive behavior." Research from Deloitte also identified four trust signals–humanity, transparency, capability, and reliability–and two foundational attributes of trust: competence and intent. The questions were formulated with these signals and foundational attributes in mind.

Trust in Career and Political Leadership

The report found that civil servants have more trust in career leaders than political appointees. Strong interpersonal relationships with leaders also resulted in more trust. On average, civil servants have the most confidence in career leaders' intent to achieve the agency's mission. Conversely, civil servants only have moderate trust in politically appointed leaders' intent to achieve the agency's mission.

The civil servants surveyed reported greater operational capacity when working with leaders they could trust. According to the report, respondents said that when they trust career leaders, they experience a moderate increase on average in:

• Ability to work effectively with colleagues;

• Commitment to agency mission;

• Overall satisfaction with their agency and with their job;

• Productivity; and,

• Sense of belonging in the workplace.

When they trust political appointees, they also experience an increase in these factors—but only between a minor and moderate extent.

The report identifies four differences in career leaders and political appointees that results in differing levels of trust:

1. Leadership proximity: Senior political leaders are disconnected from career employees, while career managers are closer to the average civil servant. The close working proximity between career managers and their subordinates breeds trust. At the same time, the higher-level work of political appointees can "distract senior leaders from developing relationships with the people they oversee."

2. Institutional Knowledge and Subject Matter Expertise: Because career leaders often rose through agency ranks, employees view these leaders as having more institutional knowledge to back their decisions. Conversely, political appointees may not have previous government experience.

3. Leadership Longevity: Cultivating trust takes time. While career leaders often stay with an agency for a long time, political leaders often leave after two or three years. The lack of leadership longevity for political appointees also undermines agency stability.

4. Perception of Partisan Interest: While not generally widespread, the perception that political employees are motivated by politics does impact employee trust. Civil servants have expressed concerns that political appointees prioritize their personal interests over the agency mission.

The partnership used this information to create a framework for leadership to build trust with their employees. The reports lists attributes of interpersonal leadership that drive workforce trust as well as examples of them shared by contributors to this study. Among the attributes are (1) transparency, two-way communication and mutual trust; (2) reliability, consistency and accountability; (3) fostering professional growth; and (4) empathy and care for the whole person; among others.

Finally, the report outlines recommendations for the administration, agencies, and Congress. The Partnership recommends that "administrations and agencies should support leadership development efforts that focus on cultivating workforce trust" and "administrations and agencies should strengthen leaders' knowledge of and commitment to civil service rules and the processes and entities that enforce them." For Congress, the Partnership recommends the body “establish a standard for leadership development and performance for both career and politically appointed leaders.”

Trust in the Civil Service Framework

For the civil service rules and their enforcement, civil servants trust the rules they are most familiar with; however, most civil servants only have limited or generalized awareness of the civil service framework. This generalized awareness is attributed 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.”

According to the report, trust in the civil service framework can be eroded by a lack of data on 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 survey found that only 62 percent of survey respondents said they know how to report a violation of a civil service rule. One respondent explained, ““I have been a civil servant for 30 years, and almost nothing I know about these institutions came through official work channels.”

Respondents expressed frustration that civil service rules are not written for laypersons or presented transparency.

As with trust in leadership, the report identified several “interconnected dynamics” influencing workforce trust in the civil service framework, including:

• Expectations;

• Previous experiences and perceptions;

• Transparent processes;

• Enforcement efficiency; and,

• Leadership commitment.

Recommendations for this section of the report focused on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), agencies, and investigators. For example. the Partnership recommended “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.”