Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 54
Page 1 of 7
Page 1 of 7
« Previous | Next »
Why Have Supervisors?
Total Comments: 54
Page 1 of 7
Page 1 of 7
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.5978 | +0.0013 | +2.59% |
| F | $12.2860 | +0.0333 | +2.98% |
| C | $14.1659 | -0.4366 | -14.46% |
| S | $17.8387 | -0.4776 | -9.86% |
| I | $19.2068 | -0.7342 | -22.43% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $15.9502 | -0.4128 | -12.55% |
| L 2030 | $15.5418 | -0.3515 | -10.73% |
| L 2020 | $15.1884 | -0.2889 | -8.78% |
| L 2010 | $14.8769 | -0.1467 | -3.77% |
| L Income | $13.3265 | -0.0801 | -1.07% |
September 5, 2008
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Peter Principle
AF
Tue Jan 8, 2008 8:25 AM
Post Reply
Your assertion that the government invariably uses the Peter Principle to pick managers is, for the most part, a correct assertion. I have been a senior manager for over 1/2 of my 30 year career, and there are only two things that will prevent the Peter Principle --- (1) the candidate for promotion is aware that he/she is changing career fields and acts accordingly, and (2) astute managers who don't pick people who just want more money and want to 'be the boss'.
I have told dozens of prospective management candidates that they don't show the salient attributes of management. Many have thanked me for keeping them from making the mistake (some after moving back to technical areas after 'trying' management).
I believe that moving to management requires a full knowledge of the implications on career, and I believe it would be a very good rule to not allow anyone to be promoted into management over a group in which they had been a technical team member.
Faulty Assumptions lead to Faulty Conclusions
USAF
Tue Jan 8, 2008 8:41 AM
Post Reply
You made the assumption that "the merit system works." The current merit system exists to keep people the boss doesn't want from advancing. Hiring is still done based on personal relationships. Why else would the position be open only one week with at least one holiday involved? (A recent example opened 21 Dec and closed 28 Dec - what kind of job search was that?) Remember that scum floats and gold sinks. Merely being good at the job only means the incompetent supervisor makes sure the good workers never get promoted out of the job except to follow incompetent brown-nosers up the chain.
(NSPS only formalized the broken process.)
Re: Faulty Assumptions lead to Faulty Conclusions
VA
Tue Jan 8, 2008 9:40 AM
Thanks for telling it like it IS!!!
Why have supervisors?
US Forest Service
Tue Jan 8, 2008 8:45 AM
Post Reply
The biggest complaint I get from my employees is that the supervisors on our district are chained to their desks and computers a large part of the time doing a multitude of administrative type tasks. Our agency has chosen dump all our personnel duties in the supervisors laps by taking away the pittance of administrative support that we had and centralize most of our personnel duties so that our main source of support is the computer. Hiring, promoting, detailing, fixing administrative problems, seeing that temps get paid, and the list goes on and on, are activities that take an inordinate amount of a supervisor's time. You are right on with the article, why can't the agencies see they need to provide the supervisors with the kind of support they need so they can exercise their Super Vision?
Re: Why have supervisors?
SSA
Wed Jan 9, 2008 9:14 AM
Why Have Supervisors?
FAA
Tue Jan 8, 2008 8:47 AM
Post Reply
You said what I have been thinking for a very long time. Someone being a great engineer or inspector doesn't make them a great supervisor or manager. The people skills needed in management often aren't required in engineering. We too often promote people to Supervisory positions who don't know a darn thing about managing people or getting the best out of them. I'd rather be paid for the work I do well instead of applying for a job I don't have the necessary skills for, just because I want a raise. A good manager/supervisor doesn't necessarily have to know an engineer's or inspector's job to be able to manage them. Most of the time spent managing involves people issues/problems not work skill.
Re: Why Have Supervisors?
USFS
Tue Jan 8, 2008 1:16 PM
No matter if they had it "in" them or not, to be a manager, those skills and behaviors can be learned but in this outfit they are not emphasized except in a fine spary of generalities supported by wrong assumptions.
What I consider to be paramount in managing are two specificic behaviors: 1. Frequent, continuous and structured communication with one's direct employees on a one basis. and 2. The same with one's team as a whole.
In my current position as a GS-11 working for a 12 supervisory type in department of 8 folks total...our last staff meeting was April of 2007. My last one on one with my supervisor was my annual performance review. Needless to say we are far short of the mark where we could and should be in productivity, effectiveness and employee satisfaction. I wonder why?
Re: Why Have Supervisors?
bank regulators
Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:10 AM
We complete our own "Accomplishment Reports" which the supervisors poach to put the top accomplishments onto their evaluations to get even bigger raises and bonuses. The saddest part is that these folks, even the few with enough self-awareness to realize they are rotten managers, won't volunteer to go back out to the field as examiners because they don't want to lose the big paychecks, the cushy offices, and they certainly don't want to go back to traveling.
I agree
Dept of Veterans Affairs
Tue Jan 8, 2008 9:02 AM
Post Reply
I agree with your statement why? I’ve worked in several Medical Centers in the DVA and I often encountered this problem. We have physicians and Nurses trained in healthcare assigned as Clinic/Nurse Managers who spend a majority of their time adhering to administrative duties. Not only does this adversely impact patient care it removes the incentive for the administrative staff to excel since there is no room for growth within their field. I’ve suggested that Physicians and RNs (Nurse Managers) in these positions should have an Administrative Assistant (GS-7/9/11) to handle the administrative duties so they can focus on their primary goal: treating our veterans with the best patient care available.
Re: I agree
vamc
Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:45 AM
Why have supervisors?
US EPA
Tue Jan 8, 2008 9:08 AM
Post Reply
I think the writer has hit it right on the head. Unfortunately, many Federal agencies cap the number of higher graded employees and there is little opportunity to reward skilled staff other than promoting them out of what they do well into supervision.
Federal agencies should monitor against payroll cost and not the number of staff in each grade.
Years ago we were promised a dual track - management and technical but again the two tracks did not get funded.
Making things worse is top executives who insist that supervisors be experts in their technical programs and also supervise. The recognition, that a good supervisor can empower good technical staff, does not seem to exist. We continue to waste our best staff by putting them into supervision. In many cases, our senior managers don't even want to talk to the technical staff but expect the supervisor to understand details of their technical programs. To accomplish this, supervision and administration of staff suffers.
Today's article
OPM
Tue Jan 8, 2008 9:22 AM
Post Reply
The old, old story - we take a top flight widgetmaker and make him/her into a supervisory widgetmaker on the unproven - and often disastrous - assumption that his/her technical excellence will carry over into the very different skill sets required of those on the first rung of the management chain. As you point out, our Federal hierarchical, organizational (and classification) structure drives much of this, as if you want more money after reaching your full performance level as a rank-and-file employee, most often your only real option to make more money is to go into management. Smart organizations - primarily in the private sector - have what are often called "two track" systems, which allow stellar widgetmakers who aren't attuned to or interested in supervsion to make comparable money without becoming a supervisor. The problem is structural and goes back to the rigid organizational system established by the Classification Act of 1949. Despite much talk, nothing is changing.