Would the Federal Supervisor Training Act Make a Difference?

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

5 thoughts on “Would the Federal Supervisor Training Act Make a Difference?

  1. Budget, budget budget. There needs to a definitive budget attached to the plan. Strong, comprehensive, standardized training plan that crosses all agencies, lengthen the probationary period to two years, with standardized performance metrics that are supported bu leadership and enforced.


  2. I think that all supervisors (not just the new ones) should be required to complete training on these and other important topics on a regular, recurring basis (e.g., every 2 years), so that they’re getting any updated information. This would (in theory) also keep them more focused on issues involving employee performance and make it easier to hold them accountable for knowing what steps to take to do the right thing.


  3. I agree supervisory training should be more than a 40 hour certificate course. Coming from active duty military service in to federal service the glaring discrepancy in leadership skills is obvious. Promotion to leadership required attending a leadership school to compliment your front line experience. Managers in the federal service don’t appear to know how or want to write performance or discipline counseling. Maybe a true leadership academy needs to be established (if there isn’t one already).


  4. When I went overnight from civilian Air Force worker bee to civilian Army boss of 40 people, I got exactly zero training. I worked through my learning curve over the next year, but my military counterparts with similar responsibility had gone through extensive leadership and management training. Being a leader, with responsibility for both the mission and the people, is too important to leave to chance and learning-by-doing.

    Why not look to the process the military uses to teach leadership? Not all the lessons would apply, but many would, and a formal leadership program that applied both before and during the first months of bosshood would make a world of difference to leaders and workers alike.


  5. All the tools to supervise and manage already exist. Here’s another law to direct actions that are already directed. My organization already provides supervisor training. We continue to have problems. Why? Why are people that require extensive supervisory training hired to be supervisors? I see leadership training offered year round, but where is the follwership training? Show me an organization of all “Leaders” and I’ll show you an organization that thinks supervision and management in their organization sucks. At the end of the day you can’t teach people to give a sh!t about other people. Some people have a genuine “love” for those working for them and around them and some people just care about themselves and their careers. If you keep promoting the most technically knowledgeable person to supervisory positions without taking into account their “soft skills” “people skills” you’ll continue to have an unhappy workforce. Employees want supervisors and managers that are compassionate, capable and concerned about their employees happiness and success. Succession planning is just a buzz word in the fed. Ask to see your organizations sussesion plan, I doubt they have anything concrete. You can train people all day but if you don’t teach/value followership and promote sincere caring personalities, you’ll continue to receive low satisfaction scores. Develop a real sussesion plan, find those smart compassionate and passionate people in your organization that have the “heart of a selfless servant” and put them in position to serve those that they supervise.


Comments are closed.