Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 24
Page 2 of 4
Page 2 of 4
What I Have Learned About Supervision - Mostly The Hard Way
Total Comments: 24
Page 2 of 4
Page 2 of 4
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.7463 | +0.0008 | +0.04% |
| F | $12.5956 | +0.0340 | +0.12% |
| C | $10.4853 | -0.3174 | +0.49% |
| S | $12.3632 | -0.4115 | +1.28% |
| I | $14.3592 | -0.2050 | +0.73% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $12.5675 | -0.2638 | +0.63% |
| L 2030 | $12.6930 | -0.2335 | +0.55% |
| L 2020 | $12.9186 | -0.1958 | +0.47% |
| L 2010 | $13.8674 | -0.1008 | +0.25% |
| L Income | $12.8084 | -0.0642 | +0.19% |
January 8, 2009
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
© 2009 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Why do we rely on Hard Knocks?
DISA
Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:52 AM
Post Reply
I agree with the author that most supervisory lessons learned are through the 'school of hard knocks'. My question is 'why do we have such low expectations of leadership choices?'
I support an information technology agency, and no one would even think to hire a system administrator or a programmer without the requisite skill set to accomplish their assignments. However, we will ignore the Peter Principle regularly by putting people into supervisory positions to 'see if they work out' because they want a promotion.
It is not by accident that our private sector counterparts hire Harvard MBAs to run their companies. The leadership we choose must have the education, experience, and aptitude to be great leaders BEFORE we choose them if we want to set the bar high for public service.
The list of 10 supervisory qualities listed in the article are 'spot on' in terms of what it takes to lead a great organization. Our employees deserve people who are trained.
Antagonistic Employees
DoD
Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:52 AM
Post Reply
Mr Oppermann says:
It is often possible to teach an employee with good people skills the technical parts of a job, while an employee who has outstanding technical skills but an antagonistic personality or an uncooperative attitude can screw up a whole office.
AMEN, brother!!!!!
#6
USDA
Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:52 AM
Post Reply
Currently, we are required to treat everyone the same way. This is due to all the union grievances and EEO complaints that have been filed. We can no longer treat our subordinates fairly and equally. If someone needs a little correction, we correct everyone. This has a negative effect on morale, but no one in upper management wants to put themselves on the line to start to correct the situation.
We manage by making decisions based on what an employee "might" file, instead of what is the right decison for the agency.
Great Article
Office of Surface Mining
Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:07 AM
Post Reply
Very good article. I am a 35 + yr. employee of the Interior Department and have had supervisors of all the types you mentioned. One supervisor was so bad at not treating employees fairly and equally that all respect and trust was lost. This as you can imagine, had a major impact on work performance. How this person managed to become a supervisor was a big question mark. On a positive note, I was very fortunate to have outstanding supervisors who realized the benefits of treating employees with respect and dignity and fairness. Had an interest in you as a person and had that personal touch that you do not see much of anymore. Concern for you as a person and your family was part of who they were as supervisors. So again, great article.
Have a nice day.
Utopian Ideals
HUD
Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:55 AM
Post Reply
I have worked for HUD for 20 years and never come across a supervisor that more than one or two of the traits you describe.
Number 9: "Selects the right people for vacant positions" violates HUD policy. HUD policy requires that minority and female candidates receive preferential consideration. Managers are rated and rewarded for meeting race and gender goals.
Good article
DOD
Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:07 AM
Post Reply
I have worked for 2 people who did pretty well on those items. One was highly enough placed to affect the culture of the whole activity. The other was a supervisory/lead.
Now we have a nightmare who would think she rated highly on all of those but in reality....well, she is a nightmare. Now, with all those able bailing to other jobs, (mine has no openings just now,) she is replacing a skilled and motivated team with people who are rigid and not terribly skilled. Every job has been replaced at a lower level, one that doesn't expect to be as autonomous as we have been. (means that no one takes any initiative or responsibility,) with personalities that are not seeking anything but what they are told. It is aggravating when you have to add a week to every process for the boss to make 5 re-writes and end up back where you submitted it in the first place. (routine stuff)
Thanks for this article!
Outside looking in
Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:34 AM
Post Reply
Wow. Who has all 10 of these qualities? I'd like to meet her/his parents!
You label these 10 as "qualities" and "items", but I see them as "skills" or "talents" -- to be studied and learned (never mastered) over a lifetime. Most of us will need to keep the "Opperman 10" in front of us for years and decades -- hoping to get better and better. We'll need to check with others around us to see how we're doing.
We'll also have to contend with an executive layer of management that may value loyalty (to themselves) over all of these. They may view our most government's most outstanding supervisors as mediocre. It's a hazard of hierarchies, fuzzy/politicized missions, and the Peter Principle.
A great Federal supervisor also has a sense of patriotism (not necessarily military) that transcends the politics of the moment. S/He believes that the work we do is "...of, by, and for the People." Thanks again for the article.
Re: Thanks for this article!
Dept. of VA
Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:25 AM