Strong team and organisational performance are essential for public services to deliver on their mandates and provide value to citizens. Understanding what drives that performance from the perspective of employees provides valuable insights into the internal conditions that support or hinder organisational effectiveness. This chapter examines how different aspects of the employee experience shape perceptions, identifying line managers and the innovation climate as the most influential drivers of perceived team and organisational performance, respectively. It also explores how perceptions of performance vary across countries and key demographic characteristics. This chapter then provides recommendations for policy actions based on these insights.
Workforce Insights from Central Governments
Abstract
Enhancing the performance of public services to deliver for citizens is a top priority of central governments. In the face of growing fiscal pressures, greater uncertainty and increasingly complex policy challenges, public service organisations must be efficient, accountable and responsive in order to successfully meet the needs of the public and maintain trust in central government institutions. Building high-performing teams is also essential for addressing complex challenges and adapting to a dynamic environment. The remainder of this chapter explores findings from the survey on the relationships between various aspects of employees’ work experience and their perceptions of team and organisational performance and identifies key drivers of these important outcomes.
It is important to note that the analysis in this chapter relies on employees' perceptions of team and organisational performance rather than objective performance metrics. The use of perception data is useful for taking a broad, multi-faceted view of performance and sheds light on how employee experiences of HRM practices shape team and organisational dynamics. These insights enable the identification of areas for improvement and recommendations that address employees' needs and expectations to enhance collective performance.
Overall, the survey shows that employee perceptions of organisational performance across EU8 countries are somewhat neutral with a mean score of 60.3 (Figure 3.1). In contrast, perceptions of team performance are more positive than organisational performance with a mean score of 77.6 (17.3 p.p.). The Slovak Republic exhibits the largest difference (22 p.p.) between perceptions of team and organisational performance while Latvia reports the smallest (10.9 p.p.).
Note: The figure presents team and organisational 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 Annex A. The EU average for team and organisational performance (EU8) includes all project countries. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. Mean differences between the team performance and organisational performance indices are statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level in all countries where both indices are available.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Overall, employees hold nuanced views of their organisation’s performance in which they typically evaluate their organisations as effective and accountable but also limited in their efficiency and responsiveness. As illustrated in Figure 3.2, most responding employees believe that their organisation is effective in that it serves citizens and users well (72.8%) and successfully delivers on its mission and goals (59.9%). The 13-percentage point difference between these dimensions may suggest that employees are less knowledgeable in regard to the organisations mission or goals but do feel as though the work of their organisations has positive impacts on the public. Employees also believe that their organisations are acting with accountability and transparency with two-thirds reporting that their organisations make decisions based on evidence (67.9%) and are open with the public (66.8%). Evidence-based decision-making and openness are crucial drivers of public trust in both government and public services (OECD, 2024[1]). Collectively, these results suggest that employees feel that their organisation is effective in delivering results and upholding public service values.
At the same time, however, employees are less positive about the efficiency of their organisations. Less than half of employees believe that their organisation uses resources efficiently (41.2%) or is dedicating sufficient attention to reducing its environmental footprint (47.2%). Additionally, half of employees (49.7%) believe that the rules and procedures of their organisation impact its efficiency.
Note: The figure presents the EU8 average for the underlying items of the organisational performance index. EU8 includes all project countries. Positive responses refer to 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. The original item question, formulated as “has rules and procedures in place that make it difficult and complicated to work effectively and efficiently,” has been reverse-coded and reworded in the visualisation to align with the direction of other items. 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
Across EU8 countries, responding employees are very positive about the performance of their respective teams (Figure 3.3). As observed in perceptions of organisational performance, employees are particularly positive regarding the ability of their team to deliver results. Specifically, more than 4 out of 5 employees believe that their team contributes to the performance of the organisation (86.1%), produces high-quality work (82.9%) and achieves their goals (82.0%). In contrast, employees were marginally less positive (77.0%) in their perceptions of team dynamics and how well their team works together.
Note: The figure presents the EU8 average for the underlying items of the team performance index. the EU8 average for the underlying items of the team performance index. EU8 includes all project countries. Positive responses refer to 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
Employee perceptions of organisational performance vary considerably by organisational size; however, perceptions of team performance remain relatively stable (Figure 3.4). For team performance, very large organisations (more than 10 000 employees) score the lowest (76.5) while micro-organisations (less than 20 employees) score the highest (80.2), a difference of just 3.7 percentage points. Conversely, perceptions of organisational performance are highest in micro-organisations (69.8) and lowest in very large organisations (56.5), a difference of almost 13 percentage points.
Among dimensions of organisational performance, less than a third of employees in very large organisations believe their organisation is quick to respond when changes need to be made (29.2%), much lower than in micro (67.3%) or very small (53.7%) organisations. Similarly, the proportion of employees who believe their organisation uses its resources efficiently is smaller in extra-large organisations (27.3%) compared to organisations with micro (64.5%) or very small (57.3%) organisations. More than half of those in extra-large organisations (59.7%) believe the rules and procedures in place make it difficult to work effectively and efficiently, compared to only a third of employees in micro (34.6%) or very small (36.6%) organisations.
One explanation for this different could be the higher amount of bureaucracy in large organisations. As larger organisations are required to coordinate across a greater number of employees, they frequently adopt additional control processes to ensure alignment across the organisation. This additional bureaucracy can in turn result in slower decision-making. From a practical standpoint, as organisations grow, maintaining effective communication and coordination across various functions can become more challenging, increasing the risk of siloing and duplication of efforts.
Managers are marginally more positive in their perceptions of team performance (81.5) compared to non-managerial employees (76.7). However, perceptions of organisational performance remained stable across managers (61.5) and non-managerial employees (60.1). Managers may be more inclined to view their teams’ performance positively owing to their leadership role. At the same time, the greater exposure of managers to the strategic concerns of the organisation and awareness of broader challenges may explain why this positive bias does not extend to the performance of the organisation.
Note: The figure presents the average EU8 scores for the team and organisational performance 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. 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 purple or light orange.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
For public service organisations to perform effectively, their workforce must be empowered and enabled to deliver results. Employees’ experiences within their organisations have important implications for their performance, productivity and commitment. This section examines how various dimensions of the employee experience drive perceived organisational and team performance, highlighting the critical role of a supportive and engaging work environment in fostering collective success.
As described in Chapter 1, team and organisational performance are treated as outcomes influenced by various key drivers, including employee engagement and well-being. While it is also likely that employees benefit from being in high-performing teams and organisations, and subsequently may evaluate aspects of their environment more positively, the broader academic literature highlights the relevance of these drivers for performance outcomes (Shin, 2017[2]; Koys, 2001[3]).
3.5.1. Organisational Performance
Figure 3.5 illustrates the impact of key drivers on organisational performance on the horizontal axis, and the current score of those key drivers on the vertical axis. It shows that innovation climate (see Chapter 5 on “Learning, Development, and Innovation” for further analysis) is the most influential driver of organisational performance, followed by senior leadership (see chapter 4 for further analysis).
These drivers, which operate at the organisational level, have the potential for broad, top-down impacts on the organisation by shaping the overarching conditions within which individual employees operate. This highlights the critical role of strategic organisational elements in shaping performance outcomes.
Among dimensions of organisational performance, employees feel less positively about their organisation’s ability to respond quickly when change is needed (Figure 3.2). As such, high-performing organisations can be differentiated, in part, by their responsiveness. One explanation then is that innovation climate, by shaping how public service organisations evolve and respond to changes in the operating environment, influences how employees perceive the responsiveness of their organisation. By encouraging new ideas and continuous improvement, a strong innovation climate can enable organisations to be proactive in identifying when change is needed and implementing solutions.
Senior leaders are responsible for setting the mission, priorities, and strategic direction of the organisation. They are also critical in shaping the culture of the organisation including the upholding of public service values. Collectively, this shapes how public service organisations deliver on their mandate, and by extension, how effectively and efficiently they deliver for citizens. Innovation climate and senior leadership therefore may play an integral to employees’ belief in their organisation’s ability to achieve their overarching objectives and deliver sustainably.
In contrast, more tangible aspects of day-to-day work, such as pay satisfaction, remote working arrangements, and line management, were relatively less influential in driving perceptions of organisational performance. This is not to suggest, however, that these aspects of employee working life are not important for building high performing public service organisations. While the direct effects of working conditions on perceived organisational performance are weak, these conditions still influence organisational performance indirectly by enhancing employee engagement and productivity.
Chapter 2 demonstrates the significant impacts of learning and development opportunities, line management, employment security and pay for employees’ engagement with their work. The results of the survey also highlight that employee engagement, in turn, shapes perceptions of organisational performance. Thus, while innovation climate and senior leadership may shape the overarching environment in which employees deliver work, it is important that employees are engaged sufficiently to be effective within this environment.
Note: The figure presents the statistically significant drivers of organisational performance in a mixed-effects regression model that 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. All indices depicted are statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level. The x-axis presents the effect sizes of each index on organisational performance, while the y-axis shows the index scores. Pay satisfaction and employment security are not indices but represent the average scores for the questions: “I am satisfied with my salary” and “I am satisfied with the security of my employment.” The data includes the EU7, comprising all project countries except the Netherlands. An asterisk (*) denotes a negative effect of the driver.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
3.5.2. Team Performance
Figure 3.6 illustrates the impact of key drivers of team performance on the horizontal axis, and the current score of those key drivers on the vertical axis. It shows that line managers are the most influential driver of team performance (see Chapter 4 on “Leadership and management” for further analysis), followed by employee engagement.
The results of this survey show that while line managers are critical in driving team performance, perceptions of senior leaders are not. The highly influential role of managers likely reflects their role in monitoring performance, providing feedback, and identifying and supporting opportunities for the professional development of their staff, all of which can support strengthening individual and, subsequently, team performance. Line managers also play an important role in employee motivation, by helping employees connect their work to that of the organisation as well as providing practical guidance, necessary support and resources to help employees achieve. Line managers are also highly influential in the overall cohesion of their team by encouraging collaboration, resolving conflict and setting the tone of interpersonal exchanges within the team.
The results of this survey further demonstrate that team performance is strongly influenced by employee engagement. This likely reflects that in addition to be motivated and committed to performing well in their own work, engaged employees are also more willing to work beyond what is required in their formal role. Such extra-role behaviours can include supporting colleagues, pursuing team goals and acting as good organisational citizens. These extra-role efforts can help to build more collaborative, cohesive and higher-performing teams.
Results of this survey also highlight that, unlike perceptions of organisational performance, team performance is influenced by employees’ well-being and feelings of job security. This may be because employees who experience positive well-being and have clear, manageable tasks are better equipped to focus their energy and attention productively within their teams. In addition, employees’ willingness to discuss health concerns with their supervisor and felt ability to support colleagues, may also help support team cohesion and performance as members provide encouragement and support to one another. The positive effects of job security may reflect a greater willingness to take risks, both in suggesting new ideas and in their openness overall, thereby helping to promote stronger team performance and cohesion. These interpersonal dynamics may be less visible at the level of the organisation.
Note: The figure presents the statistically significant drivers of team performance in a mixed-effects regression model that 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. All indices depicted are statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level. The x-axis presents the effect sizes of each index on organisational performance, while the y-axis shows the index scores. Pay satisfaction and employment security are not indices but represent the average scores for the questions: “I am satisfied with my salary” and “I am satisfied with the security of my employment.” The data includes the EU7, comprising all project countries except the Netherlands. An asterisk (*) denotes a negative effect of the driver. Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Performance management is used widely across central administrations (OECD, 2025[4]; OECD, forthcoming[5]). When implemented effectively, performance management strengthens organisational performance by identifying staff development needs, setting clear expectations that align to organisational objectives, and correcting underperformance. For many public services, however, performance management remains a significant challenge. Bureaucratic hurdles, high time investments, and an emphasis on short-term delivery mean that performance management is often deprioritised in the face of immediate demands (Gunn, Zwickert and Hilyard, 2021[6]).
Half of responding employees (51.6%) report that within their organisations, poor performers usually stay and continue to underperform. Following this, approximately 1 in 5 employees report that there are no poor performers (18.2%) while only 16.2% report that poor performers stay and improve over time. Few employees, however, report that poor performers quit (7.7%) or are removed or transferred (6.2%), though all countries have mechanisms to dismiss employees for poor performance (OECD, forthcoming[5]).
Figure 3.7 displays the effects of drivers on the likelihood of different outcomes for poor performers compared to them staying and continuing to underperform. The likelihood that poor performers are managed effectively (or that there are no poor performers) compared to them staying and underperforming, increases with the quality of senior leadership, learning and development, and the innovation climate. In such environments, managers may be more encouraged and supported to invest in the development of their staff. In contrast, employee engagement and job security are negatively related to the effective management of poor performers. Highly engaged employees often set high standards for performance which may sometimes lead them to perceive underperformance more critically within their organisation. Additionally, high job security can further impede efforts to manage underperformance by additional bureaucracy to taking corrective measures.
Effects of drivers on likelihood of selected outcome relative to “stay and continue to underperform”
Note: The figure presents the EU7/8 coefficients from a multilogit regression analysis, illustrating the key drivers that influence the likelihood of different performance outcomes. Specifically, it displays the effects of significant drivers and change in probability of a specified outcome for poor performers relative to staying and continuing to underperform. EU8, representing all project countries, is used for all indices except those on employee well-being, senior leadership, and learning and development, which exclude the Netherlands and are therefore based on EU7. 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. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Across EU 8 countries, employees generally perceive their organisations as effective, yet many are less confident in their organisation’s ability to respond to change or use resources efficiently. This concern is particularly pronounced for large organisations where fewer than one in three employees believe their organisation responds quickly to change or uses its resources efficiently. These perceptions are shaped significantly by the innovation climate and quality of senior leadership—yet employees tend to view both these areas with ambivalence, highlighting clear opportunities for improvement.
In contrast, employees are very positive regarding the performance of their immediate teams. Employees’ evaluation of their team’s performance is highly influenced by their own engagement and the quality of their immediate management. While managers are generally well regarded, many employees report lower levels of personal engagement. Continuing to investment in strong managerial capabilities and prioritising strategies that enhance employee motivation and involvement are therefore critical to sustaining high team performance.
Given this, public service leaders, managers and those designing reforms may wish to consider the following key considerations for policy actions:
Organisations should regularly review existing policies and procedures within their organisation to reduce bureaucracy. Feedback from employees suggests that, particularly in extra-large organisations, current processes frustrate effective and efficient performance. Regularly reviewing policies and processes is important for ensuring that they remain relevant and appropriate, as well as for reducing bottlenecks.
Employees feel less positively about their organisation’s ability to respond quickly when change is needed. Organisations should consider enhancing mechanisms for bottom-up innovation and the sharing of employee views on necessary change can help ensure that change priorities are informed by both high-level strategy and the unique insights of employees on day-to-day operations. This can enhance environmental scanning and strategic planning, enabling better responsiveness to the evolving operational context.
Senior leadership plays an important role in shaping employees’ perceptions of their organisation’s performance. Organisations should consider how senior leaders can highlight organisational achievements and efforts related to continuous improvement, including monitoring and evaluation. This may help strengthen employee perceptions of organisational performance.
Managers are integral to the effective performance of teams. Organisations can strengthen management capability and accountability for team performance by investing in targeted training, providing practical resources (e.g. handbooks), and aligning performance agreements of managers to incentivise team outcomes and staff development. Organisations should also consider how the administrative burden of addressing performance issues for managers may be addressed including streamlining processes and providing clear guidance to managers on appropriate interventions, timing and documentation.
References
[6] Gunn, J., K. Zwickert and K. Hilyard (2021), “Reinventing performance management in the public sector”, in Handbook on Performance Management in the Public Sector, Edward Elgar Publishing, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789901207.00006.
[3] Koys, D. (2001), “The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organisational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54/1, pp. 101-114, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00087.x.
[4] OECD (2025), Government at a Glance 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5b378e11-en.
[1] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.
[5] OECD (forthcoming), Public Employment and Management 2025.
[2] Shin, K. (2017), “Causality Between High-Performance Work Systems and Organizational Performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43/4, pp. 973-997, https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314544746.