Following is the executive summary of a recent MSPB report on federal supervisors.
Federal supervisors are the nexus between Government policy and action and the link between management and employees. They ensure that the decisions made by the President and Congress are implemented through the information and services provided by employees to the American public. Organizational research consistently demonstrates that supervisory proficiency is a major determinant of individual and organizational performance and employee motivation, engagement, and retention. However, numerous studies conducted over the past three decades by both Federal agencies and nonprofit organizations have concluded that there is a strong need to improve the effectiveness of Federal first-level supervisors. Although there has been some overall improvement in employees’ perceptions of their supervisors’ performance in recent years, our research shows that many supervisors continue to demonstrate levels of supervisory skill substantially lower than what is needed to effectively engage employees and manage their performance.
In this report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), we identify and discuss specific needs for improvement in the selection, development, guidance, and management of Federal first-level supervisors. Our analysis is based on the results of the 2007 Merit Principles Survey, past studies of first-level supervisors by MSPB and others, and additional research we have conducted. Following our findings, we offer our recommendations to address each area identified for improvement. Some of those recommendations are new; others have appeared in previous MSPB reports or been made previously by other organizations. Not all of our recommendations will work for all agencies. We call upon each agency to select those recommendations that can be aligned with their goals, business strategies, and organizational cultures and act to meet the challenge of equipping its supervisory workforce to engage employees and achieve high performance. Because first-level supervisors play a vital role in the success of every Federal agency, investments in the improvement of supervision could yield enormous positive returns through improved workforce productivity and performance.
Findings
Current selection of first-level supervisors is heavily based on technical expertise. The problems in supervisory selection reported over the past 30 years appear to persist. Supervisory selection is often based more heavily on technical expertise than on leadership competencies. Technical skills appear to be much more strongly emphasized than are supervisory skills in both job announcements and assessments.
Technical experts without an interest or aptitude in leadership are often selected for supervisory roles. Because most Federal career paths do not provide technical expert roles in which highly proficient and experienced employees are recognized with organizational status and increased compensation, technically proficient employees who have minimal interest or aptitude in managing people apply for supervisory positions. And, because the selection criteria are heavily weighted toward technical expertise, they often are selected for these positions.
The supervisory probationary period is not consistently being used as the final step in the selection process. Federal managers are not consistently using the probationary period as the final step in the selection process for first-level supervisors. In Fiscal Year 2009, just one half of one percent of new supervisors were reassigned or separated for failure to complete probation. In addition, in the 2007 Merit Principles Survey, only 64 percent of supervisors affirmed that they had been informed of the probationary period while fewer than half (47 percent) stated that their performance during their probationary period had been used to decide if they should retain a supervisory role.
Supervisors need substantially more training and development. Many new supervisors are not receiving the training and development opportunities they need both to understand the agency’s expectations for supervisors and to manage their employees effectively. Less than two-thirds of supervisors said that they received training prior to or during their first year as a supervisor. Of those who received training, almost half (48 percent) received one week or less. Overall, more than three-quarters of new supervisors did not receive training in each of the basic areas of performance management, including developing performance goals and standards; assigning, reviewing, and documenting employees’ work; providing feedback; developing employees; evaluating employee performance; and managing poor performers.
Many supervisors do not receive the information they need. Two-thirds of first-level supervisors believe they are receiving information about the goals and priorities of their organization, while half said they are satisfied with the information they receive from management about what is going on in their organization. Less than two-thirds of supervisors agree that their supervisor adequately explains the reasons for work changes before they take place. Less than two-thirds also said they were satisfied with their involvement in decisions that affect their work.
Supervisors receive assistance from their managers, but many need more information and specific guidance. Although three-quarters of supervisors reported that their supervisor talks with them or assists them when they need help, fewer supervisors (61 percent) stated that they receive the information and guidance they need to do a good job most or all of the time. One reason a substantial number of supervisors are saying their managers do not provide the specific information or guidance they need may be that the managers themselves are not receiving enough information about the organization to provide adequate guidance and information to supervisors. Less than two-thirds of managers said they were satisfied with the organizational information they receive from agency leadership.
Supervisors need more coaching and feedback. Receiving frequent feedback is a vital component of effective supervisory performance. Yet we found that just under half of supervisors (49 percent) are receiving feedback from their managers at least every two weeks. Another 13 percent receive feedback monthly. The remaining 38 percent receive feedback only quarterly or even less often, with 10 percent receiving feedback once a year or less. We also found wide gaps between supervisors’ perceptions of their behavior and performance and employees’ perceptions. For example, while 94 percent of supervisors said they explain work changes to employees before they take place, only 56 percent of employees agreed that their supervisors do so.
Only about half (54 percent) of the survey respondents reported that when they were new supervisors their manager provided them with coaching or feedback that helped them develop supervisory competencies. By not providing feedback and coaching, managers are sending a strong message to first-level supervisors that feedback and coaching are not important functions of supervision.
Supervisory and managerial accountability need to be strengthened. Stronger cultures of accountability need to be developed in many Federal agencies so that each supervisor and manager demonstrates a personal commitment to serving the public through effectively managing the performance of his or her employees. Several studies over the past 30 years have documented the need for improvement, especially in the area of managing poor performers.
Recommendations
For Consideration by Congress
Provide the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with the funding to offer predictive supervisory selection instruments to agencies without charge. OPM currently provides off-the-shelf and custom selection assessment tools, and accompanying services such as validation, to Federal agencies on a fee basis. With additional funding, OPM could develop a set of selection instruments with a high level of predictive power for supervisory success and offer them to all agencies with no charge. The development and validation of predictive selection tools typically require substantial expertise, time, and money. However, if the tools are available to all agencies, the cost per use is greatly reduced and they become an excellent investment.
For the U.S. Office of Personnel Management
1. Provide guidance to assist agencies in using competencies as a basis for supervisory selection and development. In its recently-issued Supervisory Qualification Guide, OPM has identified a set of competencies that could provide Federal agencies with a standard framework for talent management for first-level supervisors. We suggest that OPM provide additional guidance to help agencies make practical use of these competencies, such as (1) operational definitions—descriptions of how each competency is applied at the first level of supervision; (2) behavioral examples for different levels of proficiency; and (3) options for assessment and development. We note that OPM’s online Personnel Assessment and Selection Resource Center already includes relevant material, such as the Assessment Decision Guide and a description of proficiency levels for the leadership competencies. Guidance for selecting and managing first-level supervisors could build on, and ultimately be integrated with, this material as well as guidance related to Senior Executive Service (SES) selection and development.
2. Explore ways to provide alternative career opportunities for technical experts. It is essential that Federal agencies recognize the special skills and responsibilities required by a supervisory role, provide adequate incentives for employees to accept those responsibilities, and recognize and reward those employees who carry out those responsibilities with distinction. Yet it is also essential that the Federal Government does not drive high-performing technical experts who lack the desire or ability to supervise to apply for supervisory positions for want of any other opportunity for advancement, career development, or challenging work.
Accordingly, we recommend that OPM work with Federal agencies to explore and develop career opportunities for employees who have a high level of technical expertise but are not well-suited to a supervisory role. Those opportunities might include technical career paths for occupations in which employees can contribute to their organizations in a capacity beyond the top existing level. For other occupations, those opportunities could take other forms, such as recognition and rewards, serving as a mentor, representing the agency in interagency or external task forces, taking on special projects, and developing and delivering training to less experienced employees.
We acknowledge that alternative career opportunities may be difficult to implement. First, it may require far-reaching changes to classification principles and standards, or legislation if desired changes cannot be accomplished within the existing statutory framework for Federal employee classification and pay. Second, the establishment of alternative opportunities could have significant implications for career paths in Federal agencies and compensation costs. Finally, we recognize that this recommendation might be best evaluated and implemented as part of a broader reform of Federal employee pay, classification, and performance management. For these reasons, we do not specify when or how OPM should establish the “alternative opportunities” envisioned here.