Supervisory and managerial accountability need to be strengthened, the Merit Systems Protection Board has said in a report looking into how effective first-level supervisors are and examining how well agencies select, develop and manage them.
The report found that supervisors are often selected based on technical expertise and suddenly given responsibility for other employees. Often they don’t get the training they need and agencies are failing to use the probationary period to assess new supervisors.
It also called for a stronger culture of accountability to ensure each supervisor and manager demonstrates ability to effectively manage the performance of his or her employees.
Multiple studies over the past 30 years show a need to better deal with poor performers, and MSPB said some of the tools that promote accountability such as clear performance goals and consequences for performance are not being widely used in all organizations.
If supervisors aren’t held accountable for their work unit’s performance – via clear expectations, ongoing dialogue with managers, and support for good performance management practices – managers cannot realistically expect supervisors to hold their employees accountable for their work, concluded MSPB.
It further called on agencies to hold managers accountable for selecting, developing, and managing the performance of first-level supervisors.
A corollary to supervisory performance is training. As MSPB acknowledged supervisors don’t always get the preparation they need. Legislation, HR-5522, and companion bill S-674, has been advancing through Congress and would establish training requirements for supervisors agencies must meet. Areas covered would include basic supervisory skills, prohibited personnel practices, and mentoring.
Accountability for EEO Programs Assessed
Eighty percent of agencies say they hold managers and supervisors accountable for ensuring equal employment opportunity as part of their performance evaluations, a rate that is down by 3 percentage points from the prior year’s accounting, according to the most recent EEOC annual report on the federal workforce.
EEOC noted that its model guidance to agencies requires such evaluations, calling managers and supervisors crucial, along with the EEO and HR offices, to the success of EEO programs.
Nearly the same percentage has a written anti-harassment policy, also down by several percentage points.
The EEOC report also contains data on workforce demographics and the numbers, types and resolution of various forms of discrimination complaints. The report is at
Appeals Court Weighs in on Labor Relations Spat
A federal court has decided in favor of the federal agency with jurisdiction over private sector labor law – the National Labor Relations Board — in a dispute with the federal agency with jurisdiction over public sector labor law — the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
The appeals court for the District of Columbia Circuit has said the FLRA erred in deciding that the NLRB unlawfully refused to negotiate with the NLRB’s union.
According to the court, the NLRB had refused to bargain with its union because the bargaining unit contained general counsel employees.
It argued that the combination of employees conflicted with the separation of authority mandated in the National Labor Relations Act, by requiring the general counsel to bargain jointly with the NLRB over workplace issues.
However, the FLRA claimed the refusal was an unfair labor practice, and it filed a cross-petition for enforcement of its order, which the court denied in granting the NLRB’s petition for review.
As the court explained, the disagreement "arises from the interaction between the laws they respectively administer." But it said the key point is that federal agencies must bargain with the representative of their employees in an "appropriate unit" for that purpose and that inclusion of general counsel employees is not appropriate.
It added that the Act makes the general counsel independent of the NLRB.