Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 55
Page 3 of 7
Page 3 of 7
Why Have Supervisors?
Total Comments: 55
Page 3 of 7
Page 3 of 7
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.6972 | +0.0013 | +3.40% |
| F | $11.9749 | +0.0219 | +0.38% |
| C | $8.6601 | -0.6223 | -47.70% |
| S | $9.4250 | -0.7684 | -52.37% |
| I | $11.4821 | -0.6136 | -53.63% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $10.4314 | -0.5746 | -42.81% |
| L 2030 | $10.7668 | -0.5171 | -38.16% |
| L 2020 | $11.2461 | -0.4459 | -32.46% |
| L 2010 | $12.8789 | -0.2531 | -16.70% |
| L Income | $12.1740 | -0.1561 | -9.62% |
November 21, 2008
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The Great Lie
Corps of Engineers
Tue Jan 8, 2008 10:41 AM
Post Reply
Reader's comments are interesting as several attempt to agree and disagree at the same time. (Maybe it is a principal from Peter.)
For example: "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." (Strategic Planning AF Tue Jan 8, 2008 8:25 AM ) If this is true, then where does the experience come from that provides for the "super vision"?
Another example: "A good manager/supervisor doesn't necessarily have to know an engineer's or inspector's job to be able to manage them." (Administrative Officer FAA Tue Jan 8, 2008 8:47 AM) If this is true, then where does the experience come from for "super vision"?
Yet, each commenter begins by agreeing with the article.
Those who justify themselves make use of the great lie -- i.e. "A good manager doesn't need to know anything about what he is managing." Such deceptions deprive the government of the value in "Super Vision".
Supervise from the work site
Fort Carson, Colorado
Tue Jan 8, 2008 11:16 AM
Post Reply
Most Supervisors lose their connection to the work site by trying to remember what is being done rather than being there. Supervision includes getting the most out of your workers and that is accomplished by working with them to address their shortcommings and utilize the best skills to perform the best work.
How can you reward performance when you are locked away at meetings and in an office? I for one can say I have no problem performing work that I see my boss doing.
Career counseling goes with the territory
USDA
Tue Jan 8, 2008 11:19 AM
Post Reply
My best supervisors (direct or 2nd line) mentored their employees. Focusing on completing targets was important, but treated as a given. Retention of great employees in the overall organization was/is my goal as a supervisor. That means training and helping employees develop to attain their career goals, not just keep them doing great works in their current positions- unless that mets their personal goals - e.g. if they aren't mobile or if their goal was to become the best in their field in place, a local expert. It also meant supporting a sideways movement to a different series/job in order to maintain employees with great skills/potential in the overall organization, rather than watch them get burned out and stay deadheaded in their position or leave the organization. Helping folks find and hone their strengths is the best part of supervision; addressing personnel issues and paperwork, the worse. Anyone can be a mentor and mentors can't be 'assigned'. Great supervisors just do it.
best for the job ?
oo/alc
Tue Jan 8, 2008 11:26 AM
Post Reply
It has been my obsevation that it's not the best at their job that get choosen for managers but quite the oppisite it is usally those that can't or won't do the job correctly that get choosen of course the my major percent of supervisors still are choosen from the GOOD OLE BOY network if you think that the does not exsitit then your looking in the wrong direction cause it's alive and doing well here at hill af base . thanks for the oppertunity to tell the truth as i see it.
Cream of the crop - are you serious?
any and all
Tue Jan 8, 2008 11:40 AM
Post Reply
The assumption that government supervisors are supervisors because they are so-called "cream of the crop" is a misnomer. The agency I work for promotes slackers and people incapable of knowing anything because they lack motivation and ambition. These people have been around for ions and are promoted simply because they have seniority. In the federal government, the unfortunate truth is that the "cream of the crop" is consistently denied opportunity for growth, that is until they have the seniority and by that time, they have become totally aborsed in the the classic throught that crosses a a person mind when the phrase "a government employee" is uttered.
Wow, how did you last 13 years?
ICE
Tue Jan 8, 2008 11:52 AM
Post Reply
It's this type of hyperbole and faulty logic that really stirs up the troops. Whether in a small office, large office or website, comments like these serve only to cause dissention under the guise of "stirring debate."
I've served as a military officer, private sector lower-level manager and now an upper-level manager with DHS. I saw my responsibilities in each of those positions as an overseer--keeping an eye on the big picture and ensuring my employees produced quality work while meeting upper echelon goals. Through that all, I looked at promoting those that worked with me as I moved along. You list "looking the part" and “using friends and family” as how most federal supervisors are promoted. Lastly, $$ is important, but it was never the main issue behind my promotions, simply the natural progression in one’s federal career. Don't bother responding, I prefer a website (i.e, fedweek) that relates to all federal employees, not just one that panders to the anti-management ilk.
Pros & Cons
DVA
Tue Jan 8, 2008 12:12 PM
Post Reply
There's something to be said for both sides of the coin...
technical expertise vs leadership qualities...
My view is that no one ever walked into a position with 100% technical expertise that they have after a year or two under their belt. Why do people always expect the same for supervisors? And how can managers adequately supervise if they don't have the experience gained as a technical worker to know what should/could be done in a technical position? Technical and leadership (read supervisory) expertise are both acquirable qualities.