Would the Federal Supervisor Training Act Make a Difference?

View this article online at https://www.fedsmith.com/2017/05/19/federal-supervisor-training-act-make-difference/ and visit FedSmith.com to sign up for free news updates
By on May 19, 2017 in Human Resources with 0 Comments

Sign post with 3 separate arrows pointing in different directions labeled individually as 'schooling', 'training', 'learning'

Federal News Radio reported May 11 that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is “putting civil service reform in the front seat of its agenda this year, through a series of listening sessions and fact-finding hearings on federal personnel, hiring, performance management and other topics.”

Among the items on the agenda is Senator Heidi Heitkamp’s Federal Supervisor Training Act. Senator Heitkamp introduced the bill in 2016 and is likely to reintroduce it this year.

What is in the Bill?

The bill is intended to “provide for mandatory training for Federal Government supervisors and the assessment of management competencies.” It would mandate that new supervisors receive specific types of training in their first 12 months on the job. The requirements would include:

  • Individual development plans covering
    • developing and discussing relevant performance goals and objectives with the employee and ensuring the performance goals and objectives align to the mission and priority goals of the agency
    • communicating and discussing progress relative to performance goals and objectives, and conducting performance appraisals
    • mentoring and motivating employees and improving employee engagement, performance, and productivity
    • fostering a work environment characterized by fairness, respect, equal opportunity, and attention paid to the merit of the work of employees
    • effectively managing employees with unacceptable performance, including training to understand the disciplinary options and procedures available to the supervisor
    • effectively using the probationary period to examine whether an employee has demonstrated successful performance or conduct to continue past the probationary period
    • addressing reports of a hostile work environment, retaliation, or harassment of, or by, another supervisor or employee
    • meeting supervisor competencies established by the Office of Personnel Management or the employing agency of the supervisor
    • collaborating with human resources employees to recruit, select, appraise, and reward employees to build a workforce based on organizational goals, budget considerations, and staffing needs; and
    • otherwise carrying out the duties or responsibilities of a supervisor
  • Training supervisors on prohibited personnel practices, employee rights, and the procedures and processes used to enforce employee rights; and
  • Identifying experienced supervisor mentors to provide guidance and advice to new or underperforming supervisors to
    • transfer knowledge and advice in areas such as communication, critical thinking, responsibility, flexibility, motivating and engaging employees, teamwork, leadership, and professional development; and
    • identify strengths and areas for development

The bill aims high – seeking to address many of the problems that stem from supervisors not having the skills they need to do their jobs. Those problems are widespread, as evidenced by the results of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). Three quarters of the questions on the FEVS related directly or indirectly to the quality of leadership in agencies. As I have written before – leader development is not a luxury. It is a necessity if we want to see improvement in government. This bill attempts to drive leader development by setting statutory requirements for timing, content, and follow up on leader development.

What Would Make it Better?

So – would it make a difference? Maybe, but there are some improvements that could be made to the bill to increase the odds of success.

Here is what I recommend and why:

The bill should mandate that agencies set aside some percentage of supervisor/manager salaries for training.

Absent a clear statutory requirement, agencies are likely to take the cheap/easy way out. That means all of the objectives of the training will be lumped into a quickie class for a few days or a week. We have all seen agency reactions to budget problems. Training is among the first things to go, and supervisory training is high on the list of training to be cut.

It should set minimum numbers of hours for supervisory training, and the minimum should be much higher than most people would expect.

The common approach to supervisory training is to run supervisors through a 40-hour course that covers everything they need to know. Such programs jam in everything from how to get a job classified to dealing with problem employees. The problem is that these “shake and bake” approaches do not work. Without opportunities to practice the skills they are learning, and with so many subjects jammed into a few days, such programs have little lasting effect. A truly effective leader development program will include a variety of types of training and will last for several months or more. It will include opportunities for practicing skills, with evaluations of how the supervisor is doing.

The bill should prohibit reliance on the most common (and ineffective) means of evaluating training – course evaluations completed by students at the conclusion of training courses.

The bill tries to address some of the common problems with supervisor training by requiring follow-up training, evaluations of supervisory training programs, and requiring OPM to issue regulations that include “measures by which to assess the effectiveness of agency supervisor training programs.” That general requirement is likely to result in evaluations that are little more than window dressing and do not say anything about how effective the training is. Students might find a course fascinating and enjoyable, but go back to work with no new skills. To make evaluations effective, the bill should mandate specific measures that actually tell an agency if the training is working. Do FEVS numbers change? Does the agency conduct 360 degree feedback and get better results? Do agency performance metrics improve? Does the agency do a better job of dealing with problem employees? Do supervisors say they have the skills necessary to do the job?

I applaud the Senate for looking seriously at this issue. If they can get a bill passed that actually results in meaningful training for supervisors, it is likely we will see big improvements in many critical areas that affect employee morale and productivity. By making a few improvements to the bill before it is reintroduced, we could see even greater likelihood of success.

This column was originally published on Jeff Neal's blog, ChiefHRO.com, and has been reposted here with permission from the author. Visit ChiefHRO.com to read more of Jeff's articles regarding federal human resources and other current events along with his insights on reforming the HR system.

© 2017 Jeff Neal. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from Jeff Neal.

Tags:

About the Author

Jeff Neal is a senior vice president for ICF and founder of the blog, ChiefHRO.com. He has 33 years in federal service, including serving as Chief Human Capital Officer for the Department of Homeland Security and Chief Human Resources Officer for the Defense Logistics Agency. Jeff is also a Fellow and Director at the National Academy of Public Administration and a Partnership for Public Service SAGE.

Top