GovLoop - Knowledge Network for Government



Management Concepts, one of GovLoop’s premiere partners in 2010, is sponsoring a poll on the training needs of Federal supervisors.

OPM and the 2010 Federal Supervisor Training Act (H.R. 5522) are mandating that Federal supervisors have supervisory training within one year of their appointment, and at least every 3 years after that. So if you have to have supervisory training:

 What do you want to learn most about how to be a more effective supervisor?
• How do you want to learn?
• How urgent is the need for training within your agency?

Cast your vote below, and if you have other feedback on the need for supervisory training or the kind of training you’d like to receive, join the discussion at the bottom of the page.



Tags: Management Concepts, government performance, supervisory training

Views: 101

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Interesting. Is that law 100% passed? That's a good requirement
My understanding is this bill has gone before committee several times for the past several years but has not gotten the support to go before the House or Senate. There is the "Supervisor's Training Act" for 2006, 2008 etc. Even then it would need to be funded.

Leader Development Institute has surveyed local, state and federal employees twice in the past 5 years. Here is some of the information. Of the 1283 polled 106 participated. Of those, 59 were non supervisory employees, 33 were in a supervisor/manager role and 19 considered themselves as senior leaders. The majority of them associated themselves with operations or maintenance versus (any role in direct support of mission that was NOT technical or administrative) the other categories were admin as in receptionist, admin assistant, secretary, and technical, IT, Scientist, engineer. When asked if they would like to see available leadership training where a select group starts and finishes together in an established "program", or simply regularly scheduled and ongoing training opportunities, 73 would like to see them both made available. Twenty six topics or categories were presented with the highest number, 54 indicating leadership training being the most desired. The high scores went to dealing with difficult employees, team building and project management. Surprisingly the category "Aural Communication Skills had the lowest return. However, it may have been poorly worded in that it could have been interpreted as briefing or presentation skills.

Most (50) are looking at one day of training to be preferred followed by 2 days and then half days. Forty eight indicated they would participate on a quarterly basis, followed by every other month, monthly and twice a year being pretty much evenly split.

Hope this was of interest.
Not yet. Although, some version of this proposed law, or a similar one with similar requirements, will likely move forward in the near future. Momentum has been gaining, and many agencies are beginning to align with the compliance requirements ahead of time.

Supervisors have a challenge as they are often tasked to work in their respective technical areas while also maintaining supervisory responsibilities and accountabilities. Training to support supervisors should enable them to more effectively manage these accountabilities, creating less stress for supervisors, more engaged employees, and organizations whose collective energy is spent achieving its mission rather than expending energy on challenges created by poor supervision.
That's great. Definitely needed - makes it "good to have" to mandated is huge and good
HR 5522 IH
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5522
To amend chapter 41 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for the
establishment and authorization of funding for certain training programs for
supervisors of Federal employees.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 14, 2010
Mr. MORAN of Virginia (for himself, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, and Mr. WOLF)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform

Here is the core set of suggestions in the bill, this seems like a good starting point whether or not it passes:

(i) developing and discussing relevant goals and objectives together with
the employee, communicating and discussing progress relative to
performance goals and objectives and conducting performance appraisals;
`(ii) mentoring and motivating employees and improving employee
performance and productivity;
`(iii) fostering a work environment characterized by fairness, respect,
equal opportunity, and attention paid to the merit of the work of
employees;
`(iv) effectively managing employees with unacceptable performance;
`(v) addressing reports of a hostile work environment, reprisal, or
harassment of, or by, another supervisor or employee; and
`(vi) otherwise carrying out the duties or responsibilities of a
supervisor;
`(B) a program to provide training to supervisors on the prohibited
personnel practices under section 2302 (particularly with respect to such
practices described under subsection (b) (1) and (8) of that section),
employee collective bargaining and union participation rights, and the
procedures and processes used to enforce employee rights; and
`(C) a program under which experienced supervisors mentor new supervisors
by--
`(i) transferring knowledge and advice in areas such as communication,
critical thinking, responsibility, flexibility, motivating employees,
teamwork, leadership, and professional development; and
`(ii) pointing out strengths and areas for development.
I wouldn't say I'm a boss but for me I definitely need help in the realm of performance talks and setting expectations. That whole area makes me feel awkward and would have no idea how to approach it if I ever had to.
Stephen, I would turn to the organizational core values, vision and mission statements as the framework for these conversations. Let them be your guide in guiding your conversations refremce performance and expectations. I would also establish your own, "Set the stage policy". Often what makes it awkward is because these things weren't addressed in the begining, the longer you wait, the more awkward it becomes. You think it's awkward now, wait 5 years and see how awkward it is. I submit, a "Set the Stage" meeting can be done any time.
My hunch is that supervisors are super busy people...curious to see how they prefer to learn and if it's more self-paced, on their own time or spending a couple days in a formal classroom setting...or if even a couple days is too long and they'd like it to be shorter (i.e. a day or a few hours).
I admit the survey fell short in identifing differnt training approaches and focused on the platform/instructor led approach. However, one day in that environment was prevelant. However, an anecdotal comment I often observe (beside "my supervisor should be here") after a one day event is, "this should have been two days"
The CFR already requires us to train supervisors, managers and exectuives to the mastery level. I find the performance of some of them shocking, considering the requirement.

Supervisors should be trained using action learning projects where they get to apply what they rae learning because it has the greatest retention rates.

I don't understand the value of asking them how they want to be trained. We don't do so in other areas.
Although I agree Carol (I refer to it as experiential training), I believe the biggest shortfall is lack of follow through on both the students part (practice and commitment) and the leadership (support and reinforcement), ecspecially if leadership brings training "in house".

As to the value in asking "how" they want to be trained, I believe as adult learners we all learn differntly and as such it is helpful to appeal to their learning modality. Even in a platform insructional environment the effective trainer/facilitator will exercise several approaches in order to reach all the participants.
Working with federal supervisors at all levels, the biggest need that I see is effective communications.

RSS

© 2014   Created by GovLoop.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service