Senior Executive Service

GAO surveyed members of the government's Senior Executive Service (SES) in 1989 and 1991 about the federal work environment, including managerial and supervisory characteristics of career executives and political appointees. In both surveys SES members were generally satisfied with most aspects of their jobs, including work challenges, job security, and the opportunity to have an impact on public affairs. The most striking change in perceptions since 1989 involved salary. While only 11 percent of the career SES members were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with their pay in 1989, about 78 percent were content in 1991, reflecting a large SES pay raise in January 1991. In addition, while the number of career SES members unhappy with the public image of federal workers has declined, many career employees still remained dissatisfied with public perceptions about government work. Few career SES members and noncareer SES respondents said that they had personally experienced abuses of the SES system. In both surveys, however, career SES members viewed career executives and political appointees differently. More than 90 percent of respondents believed that career executives made grant, contract, and loan decisions solely on the basis of merit. In contrast, just over half of the SES respondents believed this was true for political appointees, a 38-percent spread for both surveys. At some agencies, the spread was even higher--49 percent at the Department of Commerce, for example. These views may not be surprising given tensions between career executives and political appointees, but GAO believes that it is important for Congress and the executive branch to be aware of what career SES members are thinking so that improvements can be undertaken.

GAO found that: (1) in general, career executives and political appointees had similar opinions and were satisfied with many aspects of their work environment; (2) aspects that both groups were not satisfied with included the public image of federal employees; (3) career executives' perceptions regarding many aspects of their work environment were positive or improving; (4) few SES members had personal experience with abuses of the SES system; and (5) career SES members tended to believe that career executives were more likely than political appointees to base grant, contract, and loan decisions solely on merit.