1. There should be a formalized training program for supervisors to be. Not after they become supervisors.
2. If top management expects 1st liners to be good performance mangers they need to set the example. Far too often top managers asks subordinates to write their reviews for them.
3. It's far easier for a good leader to be recognized on the field of battle where innovation opportunities frequently exist. The Fed system stifles leadership, even at times discourages it.
4. Supervisors need to be paid more and be made to earn that pay. They should be 24/7 employees in return for that higher pay, not 80 hours per pay period with earned comp time when they exceed 80 hours.
5. Far too often I have seen employees who do not really want to supervise jump into supervision to get a higher pay grade and then look for a reassignment out of supervison at the same pay grade. This happens all the ........ran out of of charcters.....drat.
Re: Supervision
Specialist Federal Mon May 18, 2009 10:06 AM
I agree with your tenets however the last thing we need is for our middle managers to be paid more! They are already drawing far more money than the job they are doing is worth. Every middle manager should have a 360 evaluation once a year at a minimum and that should represent 50% of their evaluation when their annual comes up. If the employees are so-so the 360 will be too but for those whose strong work ethic makes them the unrecognized "support of the office" the 360 will be honest which should trigger evaluator conversations of greater depth.
Incompetent leadership
Compliance officer Dept. of Labor Mon May 18, 2009 8:24 AM
After working at OFCCP, Midwest Region, it became clear that incompetent and arrogant leadership was not just ignored, but rewarded. If the leadership there was ever evaluated on criteria such as ability to develop and train employees, retain and promote competent staff, make timely and consistent policy directions, then they would be fired ia long time ago. But instead, supervision by intimidation, harassment, and unethical treatment of employees, making arbitary and capricious decisions, inability to provide sound policy and decision making, appear to be what is acceptable and rewarded. Hopefully, Hilda Solis will not find this style of management acceptable and clean house. Hold managers accountable.
Re: Incompetent leadership
STAFF VA Mon May 18, 2009 4:15 PM
Hey, here's a thought---how about basing a supervisors abilities on their ABILITIES (i.e working their work, leading the way, giving encouragement to ALL lower level staff, not just the one's they want to see get aheead, etc.) as opposed to what the majority of our Supervisor's supervisors do---give the bonuses, promotions and kudo's to the supes that sit in their (upper mgmt) office and bull**** and brown-nose.
What a concept that would be, huh????
Improving Supervision
Program Specialist FAA Mon May 18, 2009 8:27 AM
1. A paradigm shift is required away from the traditional hierachical mind set to one of servant leadership.
2. Top management cannot and therefore should not evaluate a middle manager's performance as a supervisor without soliciting feedback from the employees they are supervising.
3. Top management should do everything they can do to remove fear as the middle manager's basis for decision making. Decisions, or lack thereof, based on fear must be recognized as self interest job preservers and not what's best for the staff employee or organization.
4. Include staff level employees in meetings where project decisions are made.
5. Supervisors should put instructions and explanations in writing so they can be held accountable and not so easily cover up their failings and/or pass off blame.
6. And most important of all, management should be forced to read these type communication features!
Above article
HR Specialist OPM Mon May 18, 2009 8:31 AM
The points in the article are cogent and persuasive, but, unfortunately, they represent an unrealsitic assessment of supervisory skills of most incumbents, based on research as well as personal, empirical observation, i.e., that most current first line supervisors in particular are capable of carrying through on the recommendations it contains. It goes back, inevitbly, to the long standing problem of supervisory selection, an issue which many researchers, including MSPB in studies going back at leat to 1989, have decried as jejune and simplistic. Despite all the caveats to the contrary, most agencies still use as their primary criterion for selections to first line supervisory jobs the technical competence factor, on the erroneous supposition that a good widget maker will no doubt be an even better supervisory widget maker. NOT. However, our hierarchical classification structure incentivizes the Peter Principle as an operative reality, as the ill-equipped move into management.
Re: Above article
Robbie Kunreuther Author Mon May 18, 2009 9:43 AM
I am disturbed by this comment more than others because it comes from someone in OPM. I don't know the specialist who posted it, but question her/his agency's willingness to lead us in "Personnel Management" with this kind of perspective.
Supervisors all over America and beyond are selected more for their technical abilities than their supervisory talents -- public and private sector alike. Given that, why is it "...an unrealsitic assessment of supervisory skills of most incumbents..." to require quarterly reviews and a diary in exchange for higher performance ratings?
These appraisal criteria don't ask for inspirational skills. Just better work habits. They are habits you and I can acquire over time.
Please don't indict and give up on supervision at OPM!! If we are ever going to improve management, rather than despair, it will require folks in OPM to lead us. Raising the white flag isn't an option.
Director Berry -- take note! Carpe Diem
Re: Above article
Karl Nervous Hospital Mon May 18, 2009 12:38 PM
Careful Robbie,
That poster may not really be from OPM. After all many people here make comments but aren't really who they say they are. I need to stay away from the coffee. Coffee makes me nervous when I drink it.
Re: Above article
worker Fed Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 AM
To Robbie K
You ask why it is not reasonable to ask for quarterly reviews and a diary for higher pay. You comment that
supervisors are selected more for their technical ability.
I agree that supervisors should keep their job for more than technical ability. They need people skills which is the ability to work with their subordinates and others in a positive way rather than in a negative way. In order to do this they need technical skills as well as people skills.
Writing evaluations every quarter as opposed to every half year will not accomplish these goals. They will instead provide the supervisors with more unnecessary work.
Great Article
Water Resources Bureau of Reclamation Mon May 18, 2009 8:34 AM
Thanks for the great article! I too have seen people go for managment just to get the grade increase. We lose some excellent technical folks because they are maxed out in their grade levels, and want more money. Too often, a problem or poor employee is promoted into supervision just to get rid of him/her. Yet the question persists - why is moral bad in the agency? This article points to a lot of it.
A great start
Director USDA Mon May 18, 2009 9:06 AM
This article is a great start to something better. I hope it doesn't turn into a manager-bashing article, based on the comments that are left.
I agree with Mr. McFeebee on his 5 points and wish he had more characters to write more.
I was hired from the private sector and had management experience - proven. My superiors loved that however the way I do business with my staff is stiffled. Why did the Gov't want me in a management position again?
Supervisory improvement
secretary USACE Mon May 18, 2009 9:19 AM
Notes and reviews will not provide a stick to keep employees in line; let's not put the horse in front of the carriage. To supervise one must have authority; our supervisors have none! These things must come first:
1. Direct hire of qualified people, not shuffle off rejects from other departments.
2. Updated job requirements customized for that job.
3. Clear instructions to new hires re: requirements of
job, probationary period, etc. along with a solid
knowledge that unsatisfactory performance will
lead to dismissal at any time.
4. Drop allowing the propagation of appeals for
persons fired for good solid reason and don't
let unions dictate treatment of employees they
don't cover the payroll for.
4.
In over their heads
Specialist Federal Mon May 18, 2009 9:59 AM
Since I've been with this particular agency (9 years) I've never had a supervisor that wasn't in over their heads and they have definitely maxed out their incompetency levels.
Year in and Year out these people continue to be rewarded for their failure. Its as though no one at the helm knows what is going on either! It is extremely frustrating for those of us who are competent and are trying to meet the goals of the office. How can one change this? I don't even know who rates my supervisors. That's a better kept secret than those affect national security!
Military Supervisors
Air Traffic Manager DAF Mon May 18, 2009 10:57 AM
In 8 years of Federal Service with 9 supervisors (all military O-5s) who are not graded on their performance report by how well they execute the civilian supervision program...try getting an appraisal that actually means something. Most years it revolves around expediancy.
Articles regarding the NSPS program in the DoD tend to focus on civilian supervision of civilians. I submit to all that most of us work for active duty personnel.
Training for military members regarding the GS world has always been poor, and NSPS is no different, probably worse. The appraisal process for GS workers can be done with 1 document per year. NSPS demands performance plans with coordinated job objectives and clearly measurable objectives...many positions are very subjective in their nature.
My current boss finds the whole NSPS process painful and useless, but he leaves in a month. I wonder how much interest/training in civilian programs the next O-5 will have? Probably none as well.
Productivity
H. Sprague County Clerk Mon May 18, 2009 12:18 PM
That is a word you don't see much in the Federal sector. I know that the BLS publishes a productivity measure frequently for the private sector. Why can't supervisors be measured and evaluated on the productivity of their spheres of influence? I think because it is a word foreign to government accountants and manpower folks. With th explosion of technology I would have hoped that productivity numbers would have also exploded. But it seems we can't determine that because it is not measured as far as I know. I hope my mother doesn't find out I'm on this site. She frowns on my partaking in controversial matters.
Supervisory Incompetence
Human Resources Assistant Forest Service Mon May 18, 2009 1:18 PM
First and foremost, supervisors need to be trained to BE supervisors. Unlike the military where supervisory training is required, in the agency I now work, there's little or no training to be had for first-time supervisors. As a result, we have some decidedly poor supervisors, which leads to poor working conditions, therefore poor morale. If there's no training for supervisors, how can you come up with a comprehensive plan for rating them?
It Needs to Start from the Top
Personnel Officer DOD Mon May 18, 2009 3:19 PM
My sense is that our supervisors give as they, themselves, are receiving. If I receive no meaningful objectives, requirements, or performance standards from my own supervisor, how can I cascade them to my own employees? If I receive no performance feedback from my own supervisor, what does that tell me I should do with my own employees? If my own supervisor requires me to write my own performance rating and tells me to make it whatever results in a Highly Successful, what does that tell me about the importance or level of effort I should put into my own employee's ratings? If my own supervisor isn't being held accountable for fulfilling basic performance management requirements with me, what can I conclude about my having to fulfill these same basic performance requirements with my employees?
Management vs supervision
Engineer -AF Air Force Mon May 18, 2009 10:01 PM
First we need to define these terms. Management and supervision are not the same jobs. And I don't mean that in some philosophical way. For example, I am an engineering manager. I assign work, track results, coordinate among my staff, etc. But I don't supervise anyone -- not one member of my staff. I can't hire, fire, evaluate, or otherwise do any of the supervisory tasks. Their official supervisor is someone else who does not have any of the management responsibilities for the tasks being done. So right there is one major problem to be solved -- authority vs responsibility.
To make matters worse, supervision isn't treated as a job by itself. Rather it's an additional duty added to another full time job. Having been a supervisor in the past, it's frustrating not to have the time to do the job right, especially when you get assigned the job to supervise the problem employee who got transferred over from someone else. That's another full time job in itself.
SUPERVISORS
STAFF DOD Tue May 19, 2009 9:24 AM
The article did address ways to better your work habits but what needs to be discussed is how supervisors need improvement on the way that they treat their employees. They can be rated #1 in their work assignments but the most important thing is how they treat their own employees. This is an area that "their" supervisor does not know anything about. Supervision by ignoring their employees, not saying good morning to their employees, not wanting any relationship on a personal level at all, is unsatisfactory. Maybe a supervisor should pass a psychological test before being promoted to this level.
Managing People
worker Fed Tue May 19, 2009 11:04 AM
I have read the article and the 18 comments. I will add my 2c
Foremost, a supervisor of people must have good people skills. This means working with people to do a better job and to get ahead if wanted. It does not mean documenting negative items although that is needed on certain occasions. positive motivation is much better than negative motivation. It also works in most instances. It is also much harder to do well.
Contrary to what some say, good technical skill is absolutely necessary. This means that a good worker cannot be a good manager after 5 years because that worker does not have the technical skill to review my cases, which are not difficult, much less a higher graded worker. That manager cannot resolve disputes between taxpayer and worker properly. Most important, that manager cannot help the worker because that manager does not have the skill to do so.
I worked for a bad manager, with lots of time in, and a good manager. Morale increased with the good man.
Re: Managing People
Rafe Hollister Singer and Distiller Wed May 20, 2009 6:27 AM
I believe it's simple why the bad things need to be documented as well as the good. Even if an employee is performing at an acceptable level, when that employee gets the annual rating and files a grievance or eeo complaint only a foolish or inexperienced supervisor will be unable to justify the rating given as opposed to the one expected.
It is a painful truth that if any employee files a complaint or grievance that employee is going to be told what was done wrong during the rating period. Otherwise, all grievances and appeals would be won by the employee.
Performance Appraisals
Human Capital Management Specialist Army Wed May 20, 2009 2:49 PM
This article is informative and provides readers with clear options and ideas for improving performance management. Thank you Mr. Kunreuther.
When improvement is not possible
Manager NOT DOT Thu May 21, 2009 8:30 AM
The key to competent management is selecting qualified candidates. To select a supervisor or manager based on the fact that they couldn't do the job as Air Traffic Controller therefore we need a place for them is a recipe for failure. In my experience many Air Traffic supervisors are not held accountable for their actions. FAA management likes to say " we do the right thing even when no one is watching." To that I say you (the FAA) haven't been paying attention.
What about subordinate employees?
Operations Analyst DCMA Thu May 21, 2009 9:48 AM
I've never been a supervisor & don't want to be one, so in a sense I have no dog in this fight. But wouldn't we have better supervisors if they had better employees to supervise? Seriously - it's recognized in other endeavors that the "head" is, most of the time, only as good as the people who report to him or her. Everyone has their own horror story about the bad supervisor they once had; for those of us worker bees, don't you think every supervisor can tell you a story about the bad subordinate they were once stuck with? Bottom line: most of us try to do the best we can with the resources & circumstances we are given; that applies to supervisors as well as non-supervisors. Show some respect for the efforts our fellow feds put forth, even if the results are sometimes disappointing.
On target!
Lead Firefighter NAVSTA Great Lakes Thu May 21, 2009 8:10 PM
There are many supervisors within the government system who embrace their abilities to engage employees, but lack the support of human resources to “do the right thing”. Too much weight is placed on superficial nonsense, rather than ensuring the employees are invested in a process. Let’s ensure the workforce has the tackle to fish rather than focusing on the plate presentation.
Org. Mgmt. Restructuring One Cause
Non-Supervisor with an MPA NAVFAC 2 USACE Fri May 29, 2009 12:51 PM
Robby K,
Glad to see you read/post on these comments! I wonder how many authors do this? One thing I have learned is that many unintended consequences occur when a organizational change occurs. Take for example the overwhelming trent to trim the size of management and its effect on the skill sets needed for success. Many supervisors are now "working supervisors" - so a focus on technical competence results. Becoming "Flatter" - cutting middle level managers = less time to "train" supervisors on non-technical skill sets, mentoring dissapeared, and a lot less time spent is on tactical implementation of strategic issues (eg. training). Higher Managers - having to pick up the slack for disappearing middle managers to resolve supervisory level issues - means little time to plan and act strategically (such as instituting good appraisal and training programs for supervisors & managers). This is just one factor of many in supervisory system failure. [BTW - Liked your thoughts.]
supervisory catch-22
scientist noaa Sun May 31, 2009 4:44 PM
i have encountered many "supervisor profiles" regrettably some (including my current supervisor) base their decisions primarily on the concept of CYA or risk aversion what makes them look best. this is especially so for those close to retirement. hence, their actions too often reflect not what is professionally, morally or even legally correct, rather; they focus on 1) insuring that anything that may adversely impact their credibility (job) as a manager be buried under the carpet hoping it will burn itself out, 2) doing whatever possible to insure it doesnt reach the ears/eyes of second line boss and (thus an absence of accountability) 3) shooting the messenger (discredit the whistleblower) in case the problem is not extinguished or does reach ears of second or third line boss. the result in my office is that problems will slow burn until they ignite and/or "explode upon impact " this has seriously eroded morale and worker efficiency...and
could ultimately result in loss of life
Improving Federal Supervision
Realty Specialist COE Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:13 PM
With NSPS that some managers/supervisors are in, there is no level of objectivity to do a performance appraisal on a supervisor. What I would love to see is the employees that that person supervises get to perform the appraisal. A supervisor is only as good as his her employees make him her
We're living it....
Supply Tech DLA Wed Oct 7, 2009 11:19 AM
I am right where your articles talks about. With a new boss who micro-manages, my performance and incentive have plummeted and so has several of my co workers. It's like this article was written for us.
you made some excellent comments.
Supervision
Treetops
Mon May 18, 2009 6:58 AM
Lots to say. Not enough characters to do so.
1. There should be a formalized training program for supervisors to be. Not after they become supervisors.
2. If top management expects 1st liners to be good performance mangers they need to set the example. Far too often top managers asks subordinates to write their reviews for them.
3. It's far easier for a good leader to be recognized on the field of battle where innovation opportunities frequently exist. The Fed system stifles leadership, even at times discourages it.
4. Supervisors need to be paid more and be made to earn that pay. They should be 24/7 employees in return for that higher pay, not 80 hours per pay period with earned comp time when they exceed 80 hours.
5. Far too often I have seen employees who do not really want to supervise jump into supervision to get a higher pay grade and then look for a reassignment out of supervison at the same pay grade. This happens all the ........ran out of of charcters.....drat.
Re: Supervision
Federal
Mon May 18, 2009 10:06 AM
Incompetent leadership
Dept. of Labor
Mon May 18, 2009 8:24 AM
After working at OFCCP, Midwest Region, it became clear that incompetent and arrogant leadership was not just ignored, but rewarded. If the leadership there was ever evaluated on criteria such as ability to develop and train employees, retain and promote competent staff, make timely and consistent policy directions, then they would be fired ia long time ago. But instead, supervision by intimidation, harassment, and unethical treatment of employees, making arbitary and capricious decisions, inability to provide sound policy and decision making, appear to be what is acceptable and rewarded. Hopefully, Hilda Solis will not find this style of management acceptable and clean house. Hold managers accountable.
Re: Incompetent leadership
VA
Mon May 18, 2009 4:15 PM
What a concept that would be, huh????
Improving Supervision
FAA
Mon May 18, 2009 8:27 AM
1. A paradigm shift is required away from the traditional hierachical mind set to one of servant leadership.
2. Top management cannot and therefore should not evaluate a middle manager's performance as a supervisor without soliciting feedback from the employees they are supervising.
3. Top management should do everything they can do to remove fear as the middle manager's basis for decision making. Decisions, or lack thereof, based on fear must be recognized as self interest job preservers and not what's best for the staff employee or organization.
4. Include staff level employees in meetings where project decisions are made.
5. Supervisors should put instructions and explanations in writing so they can be held accountable and not so easily cover up their failings and/or pass off blame.
6. And most important of all, management should be forced to read these type communication features!
Above article
OPM
Mon May 18, 2009 8:31 AM
The points in the article are cogent and persuasive, but, unfortunately, they represent an unrealsitic assessment of supervisory skills of most incumbents, based on research as well as personal, empirical observation, i.e., that most current first line supervisors in particular are capable of carrying through on the recommendations it contains. It goes back, inevitbly, to the long standing problem of supervisory selection, an issue which many researchers, including MSPB in studies going back at leat to 1989, have decried as jejune and simplistic. Despite all the caveats to the contrary, most agencies still use as their primary criterion for selections to first line supervisory jobs the technical competence factor, on the erroneous supposition that a good widget maker will no doubt be an even better supervisory widget maker. NOT. However, our hierarchical classification structure incentivizes the Peter Principle as an operative reality, as the ill-equipped move into management.
Re: Above article
Author
Mon May 18, 2009 9:43 AM
Supervisors all over America and beyond are selected more for their technical abilities than their supervisory talents -- public and private sector alike. Given that, why is it "...an unrealsitic assessment of supervisory skills of most incumbents..." to require quarterly reviews and a diary in exchange for higher performance ratings?
These appraisal criteria don't ask for inspirational skills. Just better work habits. They are habits you and I can acquire over time.
Please don't indict and give up on supervision at OPM!! If we are ever going to improve management, rather than despair, it will require folks in OPM to lead us. Raising the white flag isn't an option.
Director Berry -- take note! Carpe Diem
Re: Above article
Nervous Hospital
Mon May 18, 2009 12:38 PM
That poster may not really be from OPM. After all many people here make comments but aren't really who they say they are. I need to stay away from the coffee. Coffee makes me nervous when I drink it.
Re: Above article
Fed
Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 AM
You ask why it is not reasonable to ask for quarterly reviews and a diary for higher pay. You comment that
supervisors are selected more for their technical ability.
I agree that supervisors should keep their job for more than technical ability. They need people skills which is the ability to work with their subordinates and others in a positive way rather than in a negative way. In order to do this they need technical skills as well as people skills.
Writing evaluations every quarter as opposed to every half year will not accomplish these goals. They will instead provide the supervisors with more unnecessary work.
Great Article
Bureau of Reclamation
Mon May 18, 2009 8:34 AM
Thanks for the great article! I too have seen people go for managment just to get the grade increase. We lose some excellent technical folks because they are maxed out in their grade levels, and want more money. Too often, a problem or poor employee is promoted into supervision just to get rid of him/her. Yet the question persists - why is moral bad in the agency? This article points to a lot of it.
A great start
USDA
Mon May 18, 2009 9:06 AM
This article is a great start to something better. I hope it doesn't turn into a manager-bashing article, based on the comments that are left.
I agree with Mr. McFeebee on his 5 points and wish he had more characters to write more.
I was hired from the private sector and had management experience - proven. My superiors loved that however the way I do business with my staff is stiffled. Why did the Gov't want me in a management position again?
Supervisory improvement
USACE
Mon May 18, 2009 9:19 AM
Notes and reviews will not provide a stick to keep employees in line; let's not put the horse in front of the carriage. To supervise one must have authority; our supervisors have none! These things must come first:
1. Direct hire of qualified people, not shuffle off rejects from other departments.
2. Updated job requirements customized for that job.
3. Clear instructions to new hires re: requirements of
job, probationary period, etc. along with a solid
knowledge that unsatisfactory performance will
lead to dismissal at any time.
4. Drop allowing the propagation of appeals for
persons fired for good solid reason and don't
let unions dictate treatment of employees they
don't cover the payroll for.
4.
In over their heads
Federal
Mon May 18, 2009 9:59 AM
Since I've been with this particular agency (9 years) I've never had a supervisor that wasn't in over their heads and they have definitely maxed out their incompetency levels.
Year in and Year out these people continue to be rewarded for their failure. Its as though no one at the helm knows what is going on either! It is extremely frustrating for those of us who are competent and are trying to meet the goals of the office. How can one change this? I don't even know who rates my supervisors. That's a better kept secret than those affect national security!
Military Supervisors
DAF
Mon May 18, 2009 10:57 AM
In 8 years of Federal Service with 9 supervisors (all military O-5s) who are not graded on their performance report by how well they execute the civilian supervision program...try getting an appraisal that actually means something. Most years it revolves around expediancy.
Articles regarding the NSPS program in the DoD tend to focus on civilian supervision of civilians. I submit to all that most of us work for active duty personnel.
Training for military members regarding the GS world has always been poor, and NSPS is no different, probably worse. The appraisal process for GS workers can be done with 1 document per year. NSPS demands performance plans with coordinated job objectives and clearly measurable objectives...many positions are very subjective in their nature.
My current boss finds the whole NSPS process painful and useless, but he leaves in a month. I wonder how much interest/training in civilian programs the next O-5 will have? Probably none as well.
Productivity
County Clerk
Mon May 18, 2009 12:18 PM
That is a word you don't see much in the Federal sector. I know that the BLS publishes a productivity measure frequently for the private sector. Why can't supervisors be measured and evaluated on the productivity of their spheres of influence? I think because it is a word foreign to government accountants and manpower folks. With th explosion of technology I would have hoped that productivity numbers would have also exploded. But it seems we can't determine that because it is not measured as far as I know. I hope my mother doesn't find out I'm on this site. She frowns on my partaking in controversial matters.
Supervisory Incompetence
Forest Service
Mon May 18, 2009 1:18 PM
First and foremost, supervisors need to be trained to BE supervisors. Unlike the military where supervisory training is required, in the agency I now work, there's little or no training to be had for first-time supervisors. As a result, we have some decidedly poor supervisors, which leads to poor working conditions, therefore poor morale. If there's no training for supervisors, how can you come up with a comprehensive plan for rating them?
It Needs to Start from the Top
DOD
Mon May 18, 2009 3:19 PM
My sense is that our supervisors give as they, themselves, are receiving. If I receive no meaningful objectives, requirements, or performance standards from my own supervisor, how can I cascade them to my own employees? If I receive no performance feedback from my own supervisor, what does that tell me I should do with my own employees? If my own supervisor requires me to write my own performance rating and tells me to make it whatever results in a Highly Successful, what does that tell me about the importance or level of effort I should put into my own employee's ratings? If my own supervisor isn't being held accountable for fulfilling basic performance management requirements with me, what can I conclude about my having to fulfill these same basic performance requirements with my employees?
Management vs supervision
Air Force
Mon May 18, 2009 10:01 PM
First we need to define these terms. Management and supervision are not the same jobs. And I don't mean that in some philosophical way. For example, I am an engineering manager. I assign work, track results, coordinate among my staff, etc. But I don't supervise anyone -- not one member of my staff. I can't hire, fire, evaluate, or otherwise do any of the supervisory tasks. Their official supervisor is someone else who does not have any of the management responsibilities for the tasks being done. So right there is one major problem to be solved -- authority vs responsibility.
To make matters worse, supervision isn't treated as a job by itself. Rather it's an additional duty added to another full time job. Having been a supervisor in the past, it's frustrating not to have the time to do the job right, especially when you get assigned the job to supervise the problem employee who got transferred over from someone else. That's another full time job in itself.
SUPERVISORS
DOD
Tue May 19, 2009 9:24 AM
The article did address ways to better your work habits but what needs to be discussed is how supervisors need improvement on the way that they treat their employees. They can be rated #1 in their work assignments but the most important thing is how they treat their own employees. This is an area that "their" supervisor does not know anything about. Supervision by ignoring their employees, not saying good morning to their employees, not wanting any relationship on a personal level at all, is unsatisfactory. Maybe a supervisor should pass a psychological test before being promoted to this level.
Managing People
Fed
Tue May 19, 2009 11:04 AM
I have read the article and the 18 comments. I will add my 2c
Foremost, a supervisor of people must have good people skills. This means working with people to do a better job and to get ahead if wanted. It does not mean documenting negative items although that is needed on certain occasions. positive motivation is much better than negative motivation. It also works in most instances. It is also much harder to do well.
Contrary to what some say, good technical skill is absolutely necessary. This means that a good worker cannot be a good manager after 5 years because that worker does not have the technical skill to review my cases, which are not difficult, much less a higher graded worker. That manager cannot resolve disputes between taxpayer and worker properly. Most important, that manager cannot help the worker because that manager does not have the skill to do so.
I worked for a bad manager, with lots of time in, and a good manager. Morale increased with the good man.
Re: Managing People
Singer and Distiller
Wed May 20, 2009 6:27 AM
It is a painful truth that if any employee files a complaint or grievance that employee is going to be told what was done wrong during the rating period. Otherwise, all grievances and appeals would be won by the employee.
Performance Appraisals
Army
Wed May 20, 2009 2:49 PM
This article is informative and provides readers with clear options and ideas for improving performance management. Thank you Mr. Kunreuther.
When improvement is not possible
DOT
Thu May 21, 2009 8:30 AM
The key to competent management is selecting qualified candidates. To select a supervisor or manager based on the fact that they couldn't do the job as Air Traffic Controller therefore we need a place for them is a recipe for failure. In my experience many Air Traffic supervisors are not held accountable for their actions. FAA management likes to say " we do the right thing even when no one is watching." To that I say you (the FAA) haven't been paying attention.
What about subordinate employees?
DCMA
Thu May 21, 2009 9:48 AM
I've never been a supervisor & don't want to be one, so in a sense I have no dog in this fight. But wouldn't we have better supervisors if they had better employees to supervise? Seriously - it's recognized in other endeavors that the "head" is, most of the time, only as good as the people who report to him or her. Everyone has their own horror story about the bad supervisor they once had; for those of us worker bees, don't you think every supervisor can tell you a story about the bad subordinate they were once stuck with? Bottom line: most of us try to do the best we can with the resources & circumstances we are given; that applies to supervisors as well as non-supervisors. Show some respect for the efforts our fellow feds put forth, even if the results are sometimes disappointing.
On target!
NAVSTA Great Lakes
Thu May 21, 2009 8:10 PM
There are many supervisors within the government system who embrace their abilities to engage employees, but lack the support of human resources to “do the right thing”. Too much weight is placed on superficial nonsense, rather than ensuring the employees are invested in a process. Let’s ensure the workforce has the tackle to fish rather than focusing on the plate presentation.
Org. Mgmt. Restructuring One Cause
NAVFAC 2 USACE
Fri May 29, 2009 12:51 PM
Robby K,
Glad to see you read/post on these comments! I wonder how many authors do this? One thing I have learned is that many unintended consequences occur when a organizational change occurs. Take for example the overwhelming trent to trim the size of management and its effect on the skill sets needed for success. Many supervisors are now "working supervisors" - so a focus on technical competence results. Becoming "Flatter" - cutting middle level managers = less time to "train" supervisors on non-technical skill sets, mentoring dissapeared, and a lot less time spent is on tactical implementation of strategic issues (eg. training). Higher Managers - having to pick up the slack for disappearing middle managers to resolve supervisory level issues - means little time to plan and act strategically (such as instituting good appraisal and training programs for supervisors & managers). This is just one factor of many in supervisory system failure. [BTW - Liked your thoughts.]
supervisory catch-22
noaa
Sun May 31, 2009 4:44 PM
i have encountered many "supervisor profiles" regrettably some (including my current supervisor) base their decisions primarily on the concept of CYA or risk aversion what makes them look best. this is especially so for those close to retirement. hence, their actions too often reflect not what is professionally, morally or even legally correct, rather; they focus on 1) insuring that anything that may adversely impact their credibility (job) as a manager be buried under the carpet hoping it will burn itself out, 2) doing whatever possible to insure it doesnt reach the ears/eyes of second line boss and (thus an absence of accountability) 3) shooting the messenger (discredit the whistleblower) in case the problem is not extinguished or does reach ears of second or third line boss. the result in my office is that problems will slow burn until they ignite and/or "explode upon impact " this has seriously eroded morale and worker efficiency...and
could ultimately result in loss of life
Improving Federal Supervision
COE
Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:13 PM
With NSPS that some managers/supervisors are in, there is no level of objectivity to do a performance appraisal on a supervisor. What I would love to see is the employees that that person supervises get to perform the appraisal. A supervisor is only as good as his her employees make him her
We're living it....
DLA
Wed Oct 7, 2009 11:19 AM
I am right where your articles talks about. With a new boss who micro-manages, my performance and incentive have plummeted and so has several of my co workers. It's like this article was written for us.
you made some excellent comments.