Comment from Anonymous

Let me begin by questioning why this comment period is even available, when OPM has already issued guidance to agencies regarding the changes to the FEVS. Is that true compliance with the requirements for posting proposed rules? It feels like a check the box activity, which is ironically what the OPM director labeled the FEVS as. It was not a check the box activity for our agency, we viewed it as an important tool and focused on it throughout the year. Our efforts were paying off, as we were seeing consistent improvement. Furthermore, to label the survey as a vanity project is also inaccurate. It was helpful to have the Best Places to Work as a benchmark and a goal to attain. Decentralizing the survey is a decision that OPM should have made and shared much earlier in the year. At this point, agencies have insufficient time to prepare. We would start prepping in January for a May/June survey launch. There is a lot of administrative work that goes into the survey that OPM is choosing to ignore. Additionally, employees were previously already concerned about confidentiality of their responses, despite OPM collecting data through a third party contractor. Given the way this administration has treated the workforce and publicly expressed a desire to traumatize employees, the FEVS would likely have seen a meaningful decline in participation, even if OPM administered it in the same way as before. These concerns will be compounded with agencies expected to gather their own data. One could also question why it makes sense to centralize everything else related to the federal workforce and decentralize the survey. How does it save the federal government as a whole money? If centralized is the way to go for other things, I would like a thorough analysis of why it isn't best for the FEVS. I also don't believe each agency has employees who have the skills and technical knowledge to administer and analyze their own employee survey. In addition, I have some feedback on the proposed items. Item 10 should have a "do not know" option, as employees do not always have insight into the performance of their colleagues or how their supervisor is handling a poor performer. I've seen OPM claim that employees should have insight into this, which actually seems very inappropriate. Additionally, 21% selected this response option in 2024, which indicates it is a viable response option that should be included. OPM is also proposing to remove the items related to satisfaction. While we can all acknowledge that they and OMB have worked together admirably to destroy employee engagement and satisfaction, that doesn't mean they are not important constructs to measure. They should be unafraid to measure these and see how well they have done at achieving their goals. Then they should review the literature that clearly shows when employees feel engaged and valued, it leads to positive organizational outcomes (e.g., improved performance, fewer accidents, lower turnover, etc.). Whether you choose to measure engagement and satisfaction or not, they exist and they influence each agency's ability to fulfill their mission.