In today's rapidly changing public sector environment, effective leadership and management are catalysts for organisational performance and employee engagement and well-being. This chapter explores these relationships further to identify the dimensions that most significantly influence central administration employees' perceptions of these outcomes. Additionally, it explores how different groups of employees perceive their leadership and management, and how managers themselves perceive their workplace compared to non-managerial employees. Finally, this chapter provides recommendations for policy actions based on these insights.
Workforce Insights from Central Governments
Findings of the 2024 OECD/EU Survey of Public Servants
Abstract
Public service leaders are at the forefront of building effective, efficient and ethical public service organisations. They role model and transmit public service values through their interactions with employees and communicate the priorities, direction and mission of the organisation. It is from the senior leaders that employees understand the culture, purpose and objectives of their organisations. Senior leaders are also central to driving and sustaining transformation in the public sector. They set the vision for change, mobilise support across the organisation, and ensure that reforms are aligned with core public service values. Managers also play a pivotal role in bridging the divide between senior leaders and employees. Managers help to translate the strategic direction and priorities of the organisation into team level objectives. In doing so, managers help employees to feel connected and see the contribution of their work to the organisation’s broader purpose. They are also vital in communicating and reinforcing expected and valued behaviours and attitudes through feedback, rewards and recognition, and day-to-day interactions with employees, thereby upholding the culture of the organisation (for more recent OECD work on leadership and management, see (OECD, 2021[1]) and (Gerson, 2020[2])).
Effective leadership and management therefore play a significant role in shaping employee and organisational outcomes and fostering workforces that are resilient, adaptive and productive. This chapter examines employee perceptions of their organisation’s leadership and managers. This is particularly important as survey analysis shows that senior leadership is the second strongest driver of perceived organisational performance and employee engagement; while management is the strongest driver of team performance and second strongest driver of well-being (see Chapters 2 and 3). The remainder of this chapter dives deeper into the findings of the senior leadership and management indices and looks at how they influence key outcomes including employee engagement, team and organisational performance.
Overall, employees view their managers more favourably than they do their senior leaders across EU8 countries (Figure 4.1). Perceptions of senior leaders are somewhat neutral with a mean score of 60.5 compared to 71.8 for management (11.3 p.p. higher). Perceptions of management are most positive among employees in Lithuania (75.5) while perceptions of senior leadership are most positive among employees in Bulgaria (65.2). Belgium exhibits the largest difference (14.7 p.p.) between perceptions of management and leadership while Bulgaria reports the smallest (6.5 p.p.).
Note: The figure presents line manager and senior leader index scores by country on a scale from 0 (‘strongly disagree’) to 100 (‘strongly agree’). Scores are calculated as the average of responses across the index items. For details on index construction and scoring, refer to the technical annex. The EU average for the senior leader index (EU8) includes all project countries, while the EU average for the line manager index (EU7) includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. Mean differences between the line manager and senior leader indices are statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level in all countries where both indices are available. In Denmark, line manager questions were only asked to respondents who were not in managerial positions.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Overall perceptions of senior leaders are nuanced in EU8 countries with employees generally perceiving their leaders to be values-based and strategic, but less capable in leading transformation (Figure 4.2). Most employees believe that their senior leaders uphold and defend public service values (62%) and maintain high standards of honesty and integrity (57.3%). When it comes to strategic leadership, most employees feel that their leaders are aware of global events and their possible impact (59.4%), clearly articulate the direction and priorities of the organisation (57.9%) and generally manage the organisation well (56.5%).
Conversely, employees are less positive regarding the transformational role of their senior leaders. Less than half of employees believe that their senior leaders provide evidence-based advice to political leaders, even if this advice goes against the political position (41.7%) or effectively lead change in the organisation (43.9%). These indicators suggest that further emphasis may be required to establish senior leaders as stewards of public sector organisations, responsible for long-term reforms that extend beyond political cycles and ensure the sustained capabilities of public organisations to serve elected officials of any political orientation.
Note: The figure presents the EU7 average for the underlying items of the senior leadership index, EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Positive responses represent the combined share of respondents selecting ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ neutral responses those selecting ‘neither agree nor disagree,’ and negative responses those selecting ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. For details on the exact wording of the items, please refer to the technical annex.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Overall, responding employees in EU8 countries view their immediate manager favourably (Figure 4.3). Most employees feel that they are treated with respect (85%), have reasonable levels of autonomy (82.7%), are trusted by their manager (78.9%) and will be supported by their manager if needed (76.6%). However, employees are less positive regarding how their manager handles conflict (61.7%) and develops their team. Specifically, less than two-thirds of employees feel that opportunities are provided fairly to all employees in the team (62.6%), that good performance is rewarded and recognised (63.6%) and that managers provide useful feedback to improve performance (64.8%). This suggests that while employees are generally positive regarding the direct employee-manager relationship (respect, autonomy), they are less positive regarding inter-employee relationships and team dynamics (fairness, conflict resolution), as well as manager-led development.
Note: The figure presents the EU8 average for the underlying items of the line manager index. EU8 includes all project countries. Positive responses represent the combined share of respondents selecting ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ neutral responses those selecting ‘neither agree nor disagree,’ and negative responses those selecting ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. For details on the exact wording of the items, please refer to the technical annex.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Perceptions of senior leadership and management also varies across key demographic and organisational characteristics (Figure 4.4). Managers are more favourable in their perceptions of both senior leadership (62.6) and management (72.4) compared to non-managers, for whom the average score is 60.1 and 71.8, respectively. This difference may reflect the greater proximity and access of those in managerial positions. Managers typically have more interaction with other managers as well as senior leaders within the organisation and therefore benefit from greater visibility of information and strategic decisions. It could also reflect similarity in roles as managers likely have greater understanding of managerial and leadership responsibilities and may be more inclined to evaluate behaviours more positively in light of this.
Differences also emerge across genders. While women are more favourable in their perceptions of senior leadership (61.2) compared to men (59.2), men (72.4) report slightly more positive perceptions of management than women (71.7). However, this latter difference is modest and may partially reflect the higher proportion of men in managerial positions (see Chapter 1).
Employee perceptions of senior leaders and their immediate manager are also influenced by the size of their organisation. Employees’ perceptions of their senior leadership are more positive as organisational size decreases. The gap in positive perceptions between very small and very large organisations is substantial (18.6 p. p). A similar pattern is observed for managers, though the difference is much smaller (2 p.p.). This may be because managers are typically more involved in employees’ day-to-day work, regardless of organisational size. As such, the contact and visibility employees have of their managers and their interpersonal interactions are likely to depend on the individual manager rather than size of the organisation. In contrast, as organisational size increases, employees tend to have less and less contact or visibility of their senior leadership team. This limited visibility may result in less positive perceptions owing to greater uncertainty around their vision, priorities and role within the organisation.
Perceptions also vary by employee tenure in central administration. New starters (less than one year) have the most positive perceptions of senior leadership (71.4) and their managers (79.8). This declines as tenure increases, with mid-career public servants holding the least positive perceptions. This decline may reflect increasing responsibilities and expectations as employees accumulate experience within public services. Perceptions improve among the longest-serving staff who have self-selected to remain with their organisation.
Note: The figure presents the average EU8/EU7 scores for the line manager (EU8) and senior leader indices (EU7), disaggregated by subgroups. Index scores are shown on a scale from 0 (‘strongly disagree’) to 100 (‘strongly agree’). EU8 includes all project countries, EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. For details on the exact wording of the items, please refer to the technical annex. Statistical significance between sub-groups is indicated by stars next to each bar. A single asterisk (*) indicates significance at the 90% level, two asterisks (**) at the 95% level, and three asterisks (***) at the 99% level. ‘N.S.’ denotes a non-significant difference compared to the reference group. The reference group is shown in light blue or light olive green.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
On average, only 42.2% of responding employees in EU8 countries believe that their senior leaders will take action based on survey results (Figure 4.5). However, this varies substantially across countries. In Bulgaria (62.9%) and Latvia (58%), most employees believe this to be the case, while in Belgium (28.3%) and Croatia (31.6%) less than a third of employees expect action to be taken. This question is a significant indicator of trust in organisational leadership, reflecting employees' confidence in their leaders’ willingness and ability to use their feedback to drive improvement.
Note: The figure presents the country-level and EU8 average responses to the question: “I believe that my organisation’s leadership will take actions based on the results of this survey.” EU8 includes all project countries. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Senior leaders play an important role in ensuring that employee survey results are utilised effectively to inform workforce decisions and address underlying issues. When the senior leaders actively show that actions are taken based on survey results, it can also help improve the response rate and in turn the reliability of the results. Figure 4.6 shows that response rates tend to be higher in organisations with a higher share of respondents believing that their leadership will take action based on the results.
Note: The figure presents the average organisational-level positive perceptions (combined responses of "strongly agree" and "agree") to the question: "I believe that my organisation’s leadership will take action based on the results of this survey." The y-axis shows the corresponding organisational-level response rates. The data is normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. One-percentage-point increase in the share of positive perceptions at the organisational level is associated with a 0.17-percentage-point increase in the response rate.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Senior leadership plays an important role in shaping the priorities, culture, and practices of the organisation, greatly impacting how employees experience and relate to their work, and how effectively and efficiently their organisations perform. This survey shows that, of all the drivers examined, senior leadership is the second most influential driver of employee engagement1 and perceived organisational performance.2 While important for both, how senior leaders influence employee engagement and organisational performance differs, as seen in Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5.
As shown in Figure 4.5, while all dimensions of senior leadership influence employee engagement their effects are nuanced. Engagement is higher among employees who strongly agree that their leaders trust the judgement of their employees (4.2 p.p.), recognise and appreciate their work (3.3 p.p.), clearly articulate direction and priorities (3.2 p.p.) and uphold high standards of honesty and integrity (3.1. p.p.) compared to those who neither agree nor disagree. The absence of these aspects has detrimental effects on engagement. Notably, engagement is 4.7 percentage points lower among employees who strongly disagree that senior leaders recognise and appreciate their work. In contrast, while engagement is higher among employees who strongly agree that their senior leaders promote co-operation within the organisation (2 p.p.) and effectively lead change (1.1 p.p.), engagement is not significantly diminished by the absence of these behaviours.
The results are consistent with previous research that has shown that senior leaders can inspire and motivate staff by setting a clear vision for the organisation, fostering trust, and supporting professional development (Day et al., 2014[3]). Feeling trusted and recognised by senior leadership signals that the organisation values its employees and their contributions and empowers employees by reinforcing their sense of autonomy in their work. Setting clear direction and priorities can help staff to connect their work to the broader purpose of the organisation. The absence of these, to the extent that employees feel they lack autonomy and impact, can be detrimental to their engagement with their work and the broader organisation.
Relative effect size of senior leadership dimensions on employee engagement
Note: The figure presents the relative effect sizes of senior leadership dimensions in relation to employee engagement in the EU7 countries. The model controls for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisation size, tenure, and organisational and country fixed effects. As the model does not account for other key drivers, the results should be interpreted as indicating the relative importance of the dimensions within the relevant index, rather than as standalone effects on the outcome variable. Effect sizes reflect the expected change in the outcome variable following a change in response category from the reference category ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to another category (e.g. moving from ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to ‘agree’). Non-significant effects are not displayed. EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Among all dimensions examined, the ability of senior leaders to clearly articulate the direction and priorities of the organisation and effectively lead change are equally the most influential in shaping employee perceptions of organisational performance (Figure 4.8). Perception of organisational performance are significantly higher among employees who strongly agree that their senior leaders clear articulate the direction and priorities of the organisation (3.8 p.p.) and effectively lead change (3.8 p.p.) compared to those with neutral views (‘neither agree nor disagree’). Perceptions of organisational performance are 3.8 percentage points lower among those who strongly disagree. In contrast to its importance for employee engagement, whether employees feel they are recognised and trusted by their senior leaders is less influential in shaping their perceptions of organisational performance, ranking second last among dimensions examined. For example, employees who strongly agree that their senior leaders trust employee judgement rate organisational performance slightly higher (1.4 p.p.) compared to those with neutral views and lower (1.9 p.p.) when they strongly disagree. Notably, a lack of perceived recognition had no significant impact on employee perceptions of organisational performance.
Overall, the results show that when senior leaders clearly communicate the organisation’s direction and priorities, employees are more likely to understand how their work contributes to broader goals, reinforcing a sense of purpose and enabling more coordinated efforts. Likewise, leaders who manage change effectively help the organisation adapt smoothly and with minimal resistance, strengthening its ability to respond to a changing policy environment and enhancing perceptions of organisational capability. Together these dimensions also signal to employees the future of the organisation and how well it is likely to continue to meet the evolving needs of the public. Though the direct effects of employees feeling trusted and recognised play a limited role in shaping their perceptions of performance, they do influence their sense of engagement and commitment, which can in turn impact on their performance.
Relative effect size of senior leadership dimensions on organisational performance
Note: The figure presents the relative effect sizes of senior leadership dimensions in relation to organisational performance in the EU7 countries. The model controls for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisation size, tenure, and organisational and country fixed effects. As the model does not account for other key drivers, results should be interpreted as the relative importance of dimensions within the relevant index, and not as a standalone effect in relation the outcome variable. Interpretation of effect size the expected change in the outcome variable following a change in response category from the reference category ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to another category (e.g. moving from ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to ‘agree’). Non-significant effects are not displayed. EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands, averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Promoting job autonomy is a core component of effective management, as it reflects the ability to delegate responsibility and empower employees. By allowing employees to make decisions about how they plan and carry out their work, managers not only support individual growth and motivation but also encourage a sense of ownership. These, in turn, can enhance employees’ intrinsic motivation, creativity, and commitment to work. When employees feel trusted to make decisions, they are more likely to be engaged, proactive, and satisfied in their roles. With greater autonomy, however, comes greater responsibility. If not balanced with adequate resources and support, this can lead to stress and pressure, which in turn can undermine engagement
Job autonomy is measured through the index composed of three items from both the senior leader index ‘The senior leaders of my organisation trust the judgement of their employees’ and management index ‘My line manager/supervisor trusts my judgement’ and ‘My line manager/supervisor lets me be reasonably autonomous (i.e. does not micro-manage)’. Results show that job autonomy overall increases engagement, with a coefficient of 0.049, corresponding to an effect of 0.97 percentage points in change from one answer category to another (i.e. from strongly disagree to disagree). The relationship is, however, moderated by employee well-being. Figure 4.9 demonstrates the moderating effect of well-being on the relationship between job autonomy and employee engagement, showing that job autonomy has a greater impact on engagement with higher levels of well-being. The positive relationship between job autonomy and engagement is thus strongest with employees who report already high levels of well-being, which underlines that without a supportive well-being environment the potential benefits of job autonomy are diminished. A supportive well-being environment is one in which managers prioritise their employees’ health, ensure that workloads are manageable, and enable staff to maintain a healthy work-life balance and avoid burnout (see Chapter 2).
Effect of job autonomy on employee engagement at different levels of well-being
Note: The figure presents the EU7 average results based on a mixed-effects regression model examining the relationship between the indices: employee engagement, well-being, and job autonomy. EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. The model controls for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisation size, tenure, and organisational and country fixed effects. For details on index methodology, refer to the technical annex. As the model does not account for other key drivers, the results should be interpreted as reflecting the relative importance of job autonomy and are not directly comparable with the overall findings from the full model. Well-being and job autonomy are grouped into categories based on the original index scores ranging from 0 to 100, with the categories defined as low (0–33), medium (34–66), and high (67–100). The analysis uses normalised averages, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Line managers, as employees’ direct supervisors, often work closely with their employees on a daily basis and are therefore central to shaping employees’ experiences at work, with a direct and meaningful impact on their well-being and performance. This survey shows that, of all the drivers examined, line management is the most influential driver of team performance3 and the second most influential driver of well-being.4 While important for both, how line management influences employee well-being and team performance differs, as seen in Figure 4.10 and Figure 4.11.
As shown in Figure 4.10, employees who have positive views of their manager report higher well-being compared to those with neutral views (‘neither agree nor disagree’) for most dimensions of management. Among these, the extent to which employees feel that their manager plans work well is the most influential dimension on well-being. Well-being is significantly higher among employees who strongly agree that their manager plans work well (4.3 p.p.) compared to those with neutral views. Well-being is also higher among employees who strongly agree that they can be reasonably autonomous (3 p.p.), are treated fairly (2.9 p.p.) and are trusted (2.3. p.p.). In contrast, across most dimensions of line management there are no significant difference in well-being between employees with neutral views and those with negative views of these dimensions. Notably, well-being is significantly worse among those who strongly disagree that their manager plans work well (2.7 p.p.) and provides opportunities fairly (2.4 p.p.) or disagrees that they recognise and reward good performance (1.4 p.p.) compared to those with neutral views. Interestingly, after accounting for other important dimensions of management, employees who strongly disagree that their manager shares important information report higher well-being (1.8 p.p.), while those that agree report lower well-being (0.9 p.p.).
Overall, results of this survey highlight that employees thrive when they have capable managers who empower them. Managers who plan the work well and provide clarity around roles, responsibilities and expectations are instrumental in enabling employees to manage their workloads effectively. This in turn can help to reduce job-related pressures, enabling better work-life balance and lessening the risks of burnout. Supportive managers also help to foster a positive working environment by offering emotional support, recognising employees’ efforts, and setting the tone for positive, respectful interactions within the team further promoting well-being. Managers who are perceived to show favouritism or do not provide employees with recognition may have an especially detrimental effect on well-being by undermining employees’ sense of control and agency. Results also suggest that contrary to expectations, withholding important information from employees may reduce feelings of stress. This may indicate managers playing a protective role, by filtering the information that is provided to their employees. However, this may have trade-offs for other employee and team outcomes.
Relative effect size of management dimensions on employee well-being
Note: The figure presents the relative effect sizes of line management dimensions in relation to employee well-being in the EU7 countries. The model controls for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisation size, tenure, and organisational and country fixed effects. As the model does not account for other key drivers, the results should be interpreted as indicating the relative importance of the dimensions within the relevant index, rather than as standalone effects on the outcome variable. Effect sizes represent the expected change in the outcome variable following a change in response category from the reference category ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to another category (e.g. moving from ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to ‘agree’). Non-significant effects are not displayed. EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
As is the case for employee well-being, the extent to which employees believe their manager plans work is also the most influential dimension in shaping perceptions of team performance (Figure 4.11). Perceived team performance is significantly higher among employees who strongly agree that their manager plans work well (6.0 p.p.) compared to those with neutral views (‘neither agree nor disagree’). In contrast, perceived team performance is 6.9 percentage points lower among those who strongly disagree that this is the case. The extent to which employees believe their managers maintain high standards of honesty and integrity is also highly influential. Team performance is 3.7 percentage points higher among those who strongly agree compared to those with neutral views. Among those who strongly disagree, perceptions of team performance are 4.4 percentage points lower. After accounting for other dimensions of management, perceived team performance is higher among both employees who strongly agree they can be reasonably autonomous (1.9 p.p.) and who strongly disagree (3.9 p.p.) compared to those with neutral views. Surprisingly, performance management dimensions, feedback and recognition, are largely unrelated to employees’ perceptions of their team performance. Whether employees feel their manager recognises and rewards good performance does not significantly influence perceived team performance while only employees who agree that their manager provides helpful feedback are more positive regarding team performance (0.7 p.p.).
Relative effect size of line manager dimensions on team performance
Note: The figure presents the relative effect sizes of line management dimensions in relation to perceived team performance in the EU8 countries. The model controls for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisation size, tenure, and organisational and country fixed effects. As the model does not account for other key drivers, the results should be interpreted as indicating the relative importance of the dimensions within the relevant index, rather than as standalone effects on the outcome variable. Effect sizes represent the expected change in the outcome variable following a change in response category from the reference category ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to another category (e.g. moving from ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to ‘agree’). Non-significant effects are not displayed. EU8 includes all project countries. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
The results of this survey highlight that employees feel that teams perform well when their managers plan work effectively and act with integrity. When managers plan work effectively, teams may benefit from clear priorities, realistic timelines, and better coordination. This can reduce confusion and inefficiencies, allowing team members to focus on delivering high-quality results, thereby enhancing perceptions of team performance. When managers uphold high standards of honesty and integrity, they set the tone for ethical behaviour, which can build trust within the team, enhancing team cohesion, and foster a culture of accountability thereby further contributing to teams’ delivery and performance.
Other results provide a more nuanced view of how managers shape perceptions of team performance. That perceived performance is lower among employees who are neutral regarding their ability to act with reasonable autonomy may suggest that it is not necessarily the extent of autonomy that enhances performance, but the certainty. Among employees who feel they can and cannot be autonomous, may have a better understanding of their role and responsibilities within the team. In contrast, ambiguity in these areas may lead to greater confusion and inefficiency, negatively impacting perceived performance. The limited effects of performance management behaviours (i.e. recognition and feedback) on perceived team performance may reflect that while employees benefit individually from feedback and recognition, this does not influence how they perceive the ability of their team, as a unit, to deliver.
Figure 4.12 compares how managers and non-managers perceive various aspects of their daily work and environment. Overall, managers are generally more positive compared to non-managers with the exception of well-being where non-managers (58.3) report marginally better well-being compared to managers (57.2).
As managers typically have greater access to strategic information and are more involved in decision-making processes, they may have better understanding of the rationale behind organisational initiatives. This insider perspective may lead to more positive perceptions of their workplace compared to non-managers who lack this visibility. Furthermore, managers often develop stronger ownership of organisational outcomes and greater identification with the organisation. By implementing and championing organisational initiatives, managers may become personally invested in their success and evaluate them more positively as a reflection of their own performance. Consistent with this explanation, the largest difference between managers and non-managers is in their perceptions of team performance index (4.8 p.p.). Owing to the nature of their role, managers likely view the performance of their team as an extension of their own performance leading that team. Conversely, slightly lower well-being among managers may reflect the greater responsibilities and workload typically associated with managerial roles. For line managers specifically, there can also be the cross-pressure of meeting expectations from the team they manage and the senior leadership.
Note: The figure presents the EU8/EU7 index scores on a scale from 0 (‘strongly disagree’) to 100 (‘strongly agree’). Scores are calculated as the average of responses across the index items. For details on index construction and scoring, refer to the technical annex. Country inclusion varies by index: EU8, representing all project countries, is used for all indices except those on well-being, senior leadership, learning and development, and job autonomy, which exclude the Netherlands and are therefore based on EU7. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. Mean differences between managers and non-managers are statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level across all indices.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Understanding employees’ perceptions of public service leadership and management offers valuable insights into factors that influence both employee outcomes and organisational performance. In the EU8 countries, employees tend to view their direct line managers more positively than senior leaders. However, these perceptions vary considerably across different dimensions of leadership and management.
Employees’ perceptions of senior leadership are most positive in relation to values-based and strategic leadership. Around two-thirds of employees believe their senior leaders uphold and defend public service values. In contrast, employees are less positive about their leaders’ ability to challenge the status quo and lead organisational change, only two in five report confidence in their senior leaders' capacity to drive change effectively. This latter dimension is the most important leadership factor associated with perceived organisational performance. Meanwhile, the perception that senior leaders trust employees' judgement emerges as the strongest driver of employee engagement.
When it comes to management, employee perceptions are most positive regarding the direct relationship with their line manager. Over four in five employees feel they are treated with respect. In contrast, perceptions are less favourable concerning managers’ handling of relationships among team members, only three in five believe their manager is effective at managing conflicts. Among the various aspects of management, employees’ perception that their line manager plans work well is the strongest driver of both employee well-being and perceived team performance.
Given this, public service leaders, managers and those designing reforms may wish to consider the following key considerations for policy actions:
Senior leaders who communicate a clear direction, manage change effectively, and show trust and appreciation for employees are associated with higher engagement and more positive perceptions of organisational performance. This highlights the importance of supportive, communicative leadership styles that empower employees and make change visible. Since change management is one of the lowest-scoring dimensions of the senior management index, this could be an area to improve upon.
Enhance the visibility of senior leadership and organisational responsiveness by encouraging senior leaders to recognise employee contributions, clearly communicate organisational direction and priorities, and make change efforts visible. These behaviours are linked to higher engagement and improved perceptions of performance. Strengthening supportive and transparent communication may help strengthen change management and transformation practices.
Sustaining strong team performance requires continued investment in managerial capabilities particularly in the areas of effective planning and inclusive talent management. Supporting manager with practical tools can also help build these skills. Providing guidance to managers on how to clearly communicate decisions, have career conversations with staff and structure workflows may further help to embed learning.
Identify visible, quick to implement actions and communicate them clearly to demonstrate that survey feedback is being acted upon. When employees see their input leading to meaningful change, it reinforces their sense that their feedback matters and strengthens trust in leadership. Moreover, visible follow-up actions can help maintain or even increase participation in future survey rounds.
Ensuring that employees have the necessary supports to work autonomously and allow for clear delegation of tasks. When managed effectively, job autonomy can improve employee engagement. However, greater autonomy also means greater responsibility, making a supportive environment, both in terms of well-being but also clear expectations, appropriate access to information and fair treatment is essential to fully realise its benefits.
References
[3] Day, D. et al. (2014), “Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25years of research and theory”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25/1, pp. 63-82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004.
[2] Gerson, D. (2020), “Leadership for a high performing civil service: Towards senior civil service systems in OECD countries”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 40, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ed8235c8-en.
[1] OECD (2021), Public Employment and Management 2021: The Future of the Public Service, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/938f0d65-en.
← 1. Based on results of separate mixed effect regression models which control for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/ permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisational size, tenure and country fixed effects. This model evaluated management, leadership, learning and development, innovation climate, pay satisfaction, employment security, and remote work as drivers of employee engagement.
← 2. Based on results of separate mixed effect regression models which control for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/ permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisational size, tenure and country fixed effects. This model evaluated employee well-being, employee engagement, management, leadership, learning and development, innovation climate, pay satisfaction, employment security, and remote work as drivers of organisational performance.
← 3. Based on results of separate mixed effect regression models which control for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/ permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisational size, tenure and country fixed effects. This model evaluated employee well-being, employee engagement, management, leadership, learning and development, innovation climate, pay satisfaction, employment security, and remote work as drivers of team.
← 4. Based on results of separate mixed effect regression models which control for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/ permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisational size, tenure and country fixed effects. This model evaluated management, leadership, learning and development, innovation climate, pay satisfaction, employment security, and remote work as drivers of employee well-being.