Federal Supervisors and Strategic Human Resources Management

U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board

PerspectivesOffice of Policy and Evaluation

Federal Supervisorsand Strategic Human Resources

Management

June 1998

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Ben L. Erdreich, Chairman

Beth S. Slavet, Vice Chairman

Susanne T. Marshall, Member

Office of Policy and EvaluationDirector

John M. Palguta

Project ManagerJamie J. Carlyle, Ph.D.

Project AnalystKaren K. Gard

1Federal Supervisors and Strategic Human Resources Management

Over the past twenty years, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) haspublished reports on Federal civil service issues that have addressed the critical role that Federalsupervisors play in ensuring that the Government maintains a competent workforce thateffectively and efficiently serves the American public. In fulfilling this role, supervisors areexpected to perform a delicate balancing act, juggling their short term human resource manage-ment needs with long term goals for the organization�s future workforce. Based on the studiesand surveys of the Federal workforce that we have conducted over the years, it is our belief thatsupervisors are not achieving the right balance between short term and long term humanresource management goals. That is, supervisors too frequently appear to be making personneldecisions that will quickly meet their immediate requirements, but often do not contribute to(and may even hinder) the future health of the organization�s workforce, its competence,stability, and motivation. And an approach to management that gives insufficient consider-ation to the future shape of work and the workforce does little to advance the organization�soverall strategic goals.

This paper looks at the work of Federal supervisors in light of what the Board has learned fromits studies of Federal workplace issues and activities. We examine the problems�and theircauses�that we believe supervisors have in performing their human resource managementresponsibilities, and we explore environmental factors that may worsen the situation in thefuture. Our findings suggest actions that might be taken by agency managers, the Office ofPersonnel Management, and the Congress to help Federal supervisors strike a better balancebetween short term goals and long term responsibilities as they perform their human resourcemanagement tasks. The paper concludes with a discussion of these actions.

What are Federal supervisors� human resourcemanagement responsibilities?A Federal supervisor has many responsibilities, butin today�s Federal Government, the primary focusfor most supervisors�both in terms of time andeffort spent�is ensuring that the technical, ormission-oriented, work of the organization getsdone. This is the work that defines the unit�forexample, accounting work in a finance and account-ing center, engineering in an aerospace lab, orhuman resources in a personnel office. Yet, thereare other responsibilities�those centering on the

management of the unit�s employees�that arecritical to the organization�s success in accomplish-ing the mission-oriented work. For example, inorder to get the work of the unit done, supervisorsmust motivate their employees to do the best jobthat they can do. Motivating employees involvesrewarding and encouraging good performance, aswell as handling performance and conduct prob-lems that inhibit productivity. And to ensure thatthe right people are available to get the work done,supervisors must be involved in recruiting andselecting employees, and seeing to it that those

Federal Supervisors� Performanceof Human Resource Management Responsibilities

Federal Supervisorsand Strategic Human Resources Management

2 Perspectives

selected are adequately trained to meet job de-mands, especially as those job demands change.

How well are supervisors doing this job?To answer this question, we relied on Board studyreports published over the last 17 years, as well asdata from numerous Board surveys of the Federalworkforce, including MSPB Merit PrinciplesSurveys, surveys of specific human resource man-agement issues (such as a 1994 survey on problemperformers), and surveys administered to ourstanding panels of supervisors and managers, andpersonnel specialists.1 Our research has led us toconclude that most Federal supervisors do a com-mendable job of performing the technical work oftheir units, but have a much harder time with thehuman resource management tasks that are neces-sary to the ongoing effectiveness of the organiza-tion. It is also our belief that this problem isstrongly tied to supervisors� tendency to approachhuman resource management tasks from a fairlyshort-term perspective on what needs to be accom-plished. Our research has noted at least threespecific areas of human resource management inwhich such problems exist for supervisors�staffing,training, and performance management.

Staffing. �Staffing� is a broad term covering tasksassociated with recruitment, assessment, selection,and promotion decisions. Board studies have foundthat supervisors too often succumb to the pressuresof filling a vacancy quickly by restricting therecruitment of applicants or by using assessment orselection processes that get fast results, but may notproduce the best candidates available. A 1995Board study that looked at a particular Federalhiring rule,2 found that when considering only afew candidates for a vacancy (in order to expeditethe hiring process), supervisors may be sacrificingquality. The report on this 1995 study notes that�managers hold a very short-sighted view of theirstaffing responsibilities, allowing immediate staffing

needs to drive their hiring decisions when theyshould be focusing on the long term***Such adecision-making process has potential long termnegative consequences for the future quality of theFederal workforce.� 3

Similarly, a 1992 Board study of the Federal pro-curement workforce4 and a 1993 study of Federalpersonnel offices5 found that supervisors oftenmake questionable selection decisions when theymake inservice placements (i.e., place someonefrom within the Federal Government into a va-cancy, frequently from a clerical or support posi-tion within the work group to a professional oradministrative position). As noted in the procure-ment study report, �...[to] the extent that poorselections have been made through the use ofinservice placements, supervisors must bear muchof the responsibility. In our view, when inserviceplacement procedures are used to select people forcontract specialist vacancies, managers need to lookbeyond the employees working for their immediateorganization. Consideration should be given toemployees with high potential regardless of wherethey work in the organization or even the agency.�6

Why do supervisors choose to fill administrativeand professional jobs through inservice placementwhen such selections often have poor results?There are a number of reasons why these actionsare an attractive alternative for supervisors. Some-times supervisors use inservice placements as areward for productive, motivated support employ-ees whose current jobs have no promotion poten-tial. Promoting someone within the organizationalso may be easier for the supervisor from a logisti-cal point of view�time and resources need not bespent breaking in an employee who�s alreadyworking in the immediate organization. In addi-tion, selecting an employee from within, ratherthan seeking outside candidates, lets supervisorsavoid dealing with the frustration, disappointment,

1 In 1996, to learn more about how human resource management changes were affecting Federal agencies, the Board established informalstanding panels of approximately 1800 Federal supervisors and managers, and over 2000 Federal human resource management professionals.These informal panels�which are not statistically representative of all Federal managers and human resource management professionals�areperiodically queried on specific human resource management issues, usually through short, mailed questionnaires.

2 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, �The Rule of Three in Federal Hiring: Boon or Bane?� December 1995.3 Ibid., p. 324 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, �Workforce Quality and Federal Procurement: An Assessment,� July 1992.5 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, �Federal Personnel Offices: Time For Change?� August 1993.6 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, �Workforce Quality...,� op. cit., p. 53.


or anger that can arise when an internal candidate isnot selected for the job. These are all understand-able reasons for making inservice placements, butsupervisors who choose this alternative for all oralmost all vacancies may be trading short term gainfor long term pain if the selectee�s performancedoesn�t live up to the supervisor�s expectations.

Of course, it�s perfectly appropriate for supervisorsto advance talented employees already in theorganization. However, our research over theyears has taught us that supervisors do their organi-zations a disservice when they select employeesfrom within the organization merely to expeditethe hiring process by avoiding a broader applicantsearch. To ensure all qualified applicants have hadan opportunity to compete for positions, it isusually the best practice for supervisors to cast aswide a net as possible when searching for potentialjob applicants, and carefully evaluate candidatesusing the best assessment techniques practical, evenif the process takes longer to complete. Theconsequences of a poor hiring decision can persistfor a long time, and ultimately affect the perfor-mance of the entire work unit.

Training and Development. A number of ourstudies have addressed issues related to training anddevelopment and here, too, we have found thatsupervisors too often neglect the long term view.The findings of a 1995 Board study on training inthe Federal Government7 noted a number ofproblems with the way supervisors handle trainingdecisions. According to that report, trainingdecisions are often a matter of employees nominat-ing themselves for training they would like toattend, and supervisors approving these requestswith little or no regard for what kind of develop-ment is actually needed for each employee, andhow it will ultimately affect the overall capabilityof the organization. Thus, the short term goal ofgetting employees into training courses (or some-times, of expending all the allotted training funds)takes precedence over the long term goal of assess-ing training needs and developing a training strat-

egy to integrate those training needs with theorganization�s long range goals and mission.

Anticipating the skills and knowledge that employ-ees will need in the future is another importantaspect of supervisors� training responsibilities. Tohandle changing job requirements, supervisors mustbe able to envision where the organization isheaded, and what training and development isneeded to ensure that the current workforce headsthat way, too. Through participation in developinga strategic plan for the agency and the work unit,supervisors should be able to delineate, to someextent, the specific types of skills and knowledgethat will be needed by their employees.

The Board�s research in this area suggests that thissort of activity really isn�t taking place very often.In our study of training and development programsthroughout the Federal Government,8 we foundthat supervisors currently do not focus on deter-mining training needs and avenues for training, asthey relate to the organization�s strategic plan. Thisneglect, however benign, has consequences. Whensupervisors do not tie training needs and develop-ment plans to long range organizational perfor-mance goals, the funds for those training needs anddevelopment plans become likely targets for elimi-nation when budgets become tight (and budgetshave become tight for most agencies in recentyears).

There is also evidence from employees themselvesthat supervisors are not ensuring their employeesreceive the training they need to stay current ontheir jobs. Some 32 percent of Federal employeesresponding to the Board�s 1992 Merit PrinciplesSurvey said that they needed more training toperform their jobs effectively. Perhaps even moreimportantly, 31 percent did not believe they hadreceived the training they needed to keep pace astheir job requirements have changed. And whenasked what types of training they needed to per-form their current jobs better, the two most com-mon responses were technology training such as

7 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, �Leadership for Change: Human Resource Development in the Federal Government,� July 1995, p.178 Ibid.

4 Perspectives

computer training, and job-related skills training.(Some 47 percent of employees identified technol-ogy training, and 39 percent cited job-related skills,as the areas where they needed training.) Thesechoices are related to the aspects of the jobs that aremost likely to continue to change in the future.Unfortunately, if employees don�t feel that they�rekeeping up with the pace of change now, theproblem may only intensify in the future, unlesssupervisors become better at learning what trainingtheir employees need and providing or obtaining itfor them.

Performance Management. The Board�s researchalso reveals considerable employee dissatisfactionwith the way supervisors manage performance andlends further support to the notion that in dealingwith personnel issues, Federal supervisors tend tochoose short term fixes over long term solutions.Respondents to the Board�s 1996 Merit Principles

Survey rated the extent to which they believe theirsupervisors would take adverse actions (such assuspensions and removals) against poor performersin a fair and effective manner. The most commonopinion (shared by 44 percent of respondents) wasthat supervisors would not exercise this authorityvery fairly.

We also know from Board studies and surveys that,in spite of system changes intended to make iteasier for supervisors to handle problem performers(e.g., the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act lessenedthe proof managers needed to justify firing a poorperformer), many supervisors still feel that theperformance management system frustrates theirattempts to handle poor performers. For example,our 1996 Merit Principles Survey data showed thatin the two years preceding the survey, 28 percent ofsupervisors avoided taking an adverse action thatthey thought might have been warranted. Theaccompanying figure shows a number of thereasons that these supervisors cited to explain whythey did not take action against employees whoseperformance was poor.

As these findings suggest, supervisors do notnecessarily believe it�s their own fault that they are

not taking appropriate actionsagainst poor performers. This hasbeen corroborated by other Boarddata. A 1995 MSPB issue paper onremoving poor performers in theFederal service listed numerousreasons supervisors cite for theirdifficulty dealing with performanceproblems: the employee�s negativeattitude (cited by 55 percent ofsupervisors queried); lack of confi-dence in the system for removingpoor performers (34 percent); toolittle time to devote to the problem(33 percent); insufficient supportfrom higher levels (26 percent);supervisor�s lack of training inhandling performance problems (21percent); belief that the removalaction would not be upheld (21

percent); and dislike of confrontation (20 percent).9

While supervisors attribute these problems to manycauses other than themselves (for which there isundoubtedly a basis), some problems with handlingpoor performers also stem from supervisors� owndifficulties in dealing with problem employees.

9 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, �Removing Poor Performers in the Federal Service,� Issue Paper, September 1995. These findings arebased on a 1994 survey of Federal supervisors concerning their handling of problem performers.

Supervisors’ Reasons for Not Taking an Adverse Action They Believe Was Warranted

67

18

25

62

48

40

Time required to take an actionincluding possible appeals

Upper level managementwould not support the action

Effect that the action wouldhave on the entire work group

Possibility that employeewould file an EEO complaint

Lack of familiarity withprocedures

Cost to the agency ifemployee appealed

Percentage of supervisors citing this as a reasonSource: 1996 MSPBMerit Principles Survey


Many supervisors are uncomfortable communicat-ing candidly with employees when the subject isthe employees themselves. This is especially truewhen there is negative information to convey, but

even sometimes when the news is neutral or posi-tive. And this�what essentially is a human rela-tions problem�may be a major contributor tosupervisors� difficulties, not only in handling poorperformers, but in the finding that many employees(including the ones who are performing well) feelthat they don�t receive frequent or constructivefeedback from their supervisors. For example, lessthan half (45 percent) of the nonsupervisoryemployees responding to a 1991 Board survey gavetheir supervisors good ratings on the task of usingperformance elements and standards to assessemployee performance and give feedback. Addi-tionally, when employees responding to a 1989MSPB Merit Principles Survey were asked howlikely it was that if they performed better, theywould receive informal recognition (e.g., told thatthey were doing a good job�presumably by theirsupervisors), 29 percent said that it was somewhator very unlikely that they would receive suchfeedback.10

In some respects the development of complexperformance management systems has added tothese problems. Elaborate tools designed to helpsupervisors manage their subordinates� performancemore effectively sometimes promise more thanthey can deliver, particularly when they fail toaddress comprehensively the human relations issuesthat are fundamental to the problem. The myriadperformance appraisal forms and systems that have

been implemented over the years can appear to be atechnically correct way-out for supervisors whoseinclination is to avoid uncomfortable conversationswith employees about how well�or poorly�they�re doing. Thus, procedures and paperwork,implemented to serve as tools to help managerscommunicate more productively and more fre-quently with subordinates seem to have become anend in themselves, and may have left some supervi-sors with the mistaken impression that this me-chanical process is a substitute for performancemanagement.

The performance management issue is furthercomplicated by the possibility that some supervi-sors may not fully appreciate the consequences ofnot handling performance problems. Many supervi-sors simply ignore problem performers, or assigntheir work to others in the unit. This alleviates oreliminates the problem for the supervisor, becausethe work is still getting done, and the supervisorcan avoid a possibly uncomfortable confrontationwith the problem performer. However, there arelong term costs associated with this approach,particularly with regard to the morale and produc-tivity of others on the staff who may resent pickingup the slack for the problem performer. Ignoringpoor performance in the interest of keeping peacewithin the work unit is not uncommon, but italmost never results in a resolution of the perfor-mance problem, and frequently creates a negativework environment for the whole unit. And in anera of severe budgetary constraints, more and moresupervisors may find that they no longer have theluxury of ignoring inadequate performers, even fora short time.

Factors Encouraging a Short Term Rather ThanLong Term FocusThe Board�s work on the subject of supervisors�performance of personnel management tasks revealsa pattern that exists across the various personnelfunctions. Whether filling a job, ensuring trainingand development of subordinates, or rewarding anddisciplining employees, supervisors seem to neglector have difficulty focusing on the long term conse-

10 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, �Working For America: A Federal Employee Survey,� June 1990, p. 18.

The process and support received indealing with poor performance and

discipline problems have not improvedand remain a major source of frustration.

Supervisor respondingto 1997 MSPB survey

6 Perspectives

quences of the human resource managementdecisions they are making (or not making). Whathas brought about this imbalance among thesupervisors� priorities with regard to human re-source management? There undoubtedly are manyfactors that contribute to supervisors� emphasis onshort term human resource management needs overstrategic human resource management decisionmaking. But our research over the years has led usto conclude that two factors in particular�organi-

zational culture and supervisory selection prac-tices�stimulate this imbalance. These are discussedbelow.

1. The organizational cultures within whichsupervisors make human resource managementdecisions emphasize short term results over longterm outcomes.Every organization�whether in the public orprivate sector�has its own unique culture. Thisculture, or environment, helps determine the wayin which work is carried out within the organiza-tion. An organization�s culture is defined by boththe written rules, policies, and operating procedureswhich govern how work is carried out, as well asmore subtle �unwritten� rules and policies thatshape how employees, supervisors, and managersdo their jobs. Organizational cultures foster certainbehaviors and discourage others through a host offormal and informal understandings about howindividuals should perform their jobs. Whilemanagers at the highest levels of the organizationare largely seen as responsible for establishing andmaintaining the culture of the organization (i.e.,setting the tone for how things will be done), someagencies� cultures have persisted through manychanges in leadership, and sometimes persist in spite

of attempts to change those cultures. Below wediscuss a few aspects of Federal agencies� culturesthat have contributed to the emphasis on shortterm results over long term outcomes in matters ofhuman resource management.

Rewards and Punishments. Even when Federalsupervisors are aware of the importance of takingpersonnel actions that are strategically sound, theiragencies may be supporting systems of formal andinformal rewards and punishments that reinforcethe satisfaction of short term requirements at theexpense of long term outcomes. For example, asupervisor who has a poor performer in his or herwork group has choices for dealing with that poorperformer. The supervisor could choose to focuson an immediate solution by assigning the problememployee�s work to other subordinates in the workunit. This way, the work gets done, and thesupervisor is �rewarded� by favorable reviews fromhigher level management for accomplishing thework of the unit without disruption. (The supervi-sor is also rewarded by avoiding a direct confronta-tion with the problem employee and by preventingthe negative reaction from higher level managementthat can result when its time is taken up by prob-lems with poor performers.)

On the other hand, the supervisor could choose amore strategic technique�and a fairer one�byconfronting the poor performer about the problem,and working with the employee to improve perfor-mance or taking action to remove the employeefrom the position. Prospects for ensuring the longterm productivity of the work unit are better withsuch an approach than with assigning theemployee�s work to other subordinates. Workerswho pick up the slack for a poorly performingemployee may not be able to devote the attentionneeded to their own assignments and are likely toresent such an imposition if it appears to becomepermanent. All of which can translate into poormorale and a loss of productivity for the employeesdirectly involved and for the entire work unit.

However, for many supervisors, taking strategicactions such as removing a poor performer fromthe agency can mean disincentives in the form ofthe time-consuming documentation that some

A poorly performing employee eats up your time, taking away

from important matters and otheremployees. We should have greaterreward/punishment abilities topromote stars and demote stiffs.



agencies require for taking action against an em-ployee, or a lack of support for those actions byhigher level management. Even supervisors whoare very sensitive to the long term effects of theirpersonnel actions learn quickly when their agencymanagement would rather bury performanceproblems than take adverse actions that the poorperformers might challenge. As we noted in a 1995MSPB issue paper,11 some supervisors report a belief(no doubt shared by higher level management intheir agencies) that the Board will overturn agencydecisions to take adverse actions against employees.While the Board, by statute, ensures the due processrights of employees who have had an adverse actiontaken against them (such as removal for poorperformance), the Board sustains removal ofinadequate performers who cannot or will notimprove their performance to meet requiredstandards. As the issue paper noted, agency officialsestimate that only about 20 percent of all removalsand demotions are appealed; of this small number,penalties are reduced or actions are reversed onlyabout 17 percent of the time.12 Nonetheless, manyupper level managers apparently do not encouragetheir agencies� supervisors and managers to takeadverse actions, even though many supervisorswould prefer management that is more supportiveof their decisions regarding poor performers.Agency cultures that foster systems of rewards andpunishments such as these encourage short termsolutions, rather than actions that contribute tolong term mission accomplishment.

Budget Cycle. Agency incentives and disincentivesare not the only aspects of agency culture that leadsupervisors to emphasize the short term. Thebudget cycle under which Federal agencies mustoperate also contributes to this situation. Becauseagency supervisors must make human resourcemanagement decisions within the confines of thecurrent fiscal year�s budget (which can produce anatmosphere of �spend it or lose it�), it is oftendifficult for these decisions to emphasize anythingbut immediate issues. For example, when facedwith a vacant job that�if not filled�might disap-

pear because of impending budget cuts or lack offunding in the next fiscal year, the supervisor mightbe tempted to cut corners in the recruitment andassessment phase of the selection process, in orderto get someone on board quickly. While satisfyingthe short term consideration, i.e., saving the posi-tion, the supervisor may end up with an employeeill-suited to handle future needs of the organization.The National Partnership for Reinventing Govern-

ment (NPR)�formerly known as the NationalPerformance Review�argues for establishment ofbiennial budgets to address some of the problemscreated by the current budget cycle. As the 1993NPR report noted, �Annual budgets take up anenormous amount of management time�time notspent serving customers.�13

Other Cultural Factors. Agencies also sometimesset conflicting priorities for their supervisors andmanagers. For example, upper level agency man-agement may tell supervisors and managers that it isimportant for them to fill jobs quickly because ofbudget considerations, but at the same time stressthe importance of casting a wide net when seekingjob applicants (which often adds significantly to thetime required to fill the job). Without consistentguidance, it is only natural that time pressuredemands capture supervisors� attention more easilythan selection procedures that strive for legal andsocial ideals but that may be difficult tooperationalize and hard to appreciate. Therefore, itis not surprising that supervisors typically choosethe quickest methods to fill vacancies, even if itmeans cutting corners in the selection process and

11 U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board, �Removing Poor Performers...,� op. cit.12 Ibid., p. 6.13 National Performance Review, �Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less,� September, 1993, p. 17.


Training provided to newsupervisors is virtually non-

existent. I don�t consider a corre-spondence course to be adequate.

8 Perspectives

making decisions that are not in the agency�s bestinterests in the long run.

It is also possible that the culture that emphasizesshort term accomplishments exists because there arenot enough real champions among the agency�supper level management for taking a long termview when making human resource managementdecisions. In the press of day-to-day business,supervisors can be driven to take the short termroute for a variety of reasons (such as budget

considerations) and frequently there aren�t enoughreminders of why taking a more strategic approachto those day to day decisions will help the agencyin the long run.

Additionally, with the tenure of political appoin-tees in Federal agencies averaging about 24 months,it stands to reason that the champions of a longerterm view of human resource management decisionmaking must come from the ranks of the agency�scareer managers. However, many of the upperlevel career managers in Federal agencies rosewithin the same organizational cultures as today�ssupervisors and lower level managers, and may nothave acquired a full appreciation for the relation-

ship between the human resource managementdecisions they make and what their agencies areable to accomplish in the long run. The systemunder which they progressed would have affectedthem in the same way it affects today�s line supervi-sors.

2. The way we select supervisors does not assurethat we are getting individuals who are sensitiveto human resource management issues andappreciate the importance of long range humanresource management decision making to organi-zational goal accomplishment. Further, onceemployees are assigned to supervisory positions,they are not always adequately trained in manag-ing people.

Another reason supervisors have a fairly short termperspective on human resource management tasks isthat many of them may not appreciate the fullrange of responsibility of their jobs. That is,supervisors may not understand that good supervi-sion involves more than just assigning and monitor-ing the technical work of subordinates. Humanresource management tasks, done well and withsensitivity to strategic issues, make possible thesuccessful accomplishment of the technical workand long term health of the unit. But not allsupervisors see this connection. As we have notedin previous Board reports, individuals often arechosen for Federal supervisory jobs primarily onthe basis of their technical expertise rather than ontheir supervisory or managerial potential.14 Also,agencies do not always encourage the individualswho are most qualified to fill supervisory positionsto seek those positions (i.e., most qualified in termsof possessing personnel management abilities orpeople skills that equal their technical excellence).The result of this situation is that some supervisorshave problems managing their employees even withrespect to the short term issues. Not surprisingly,then, tackling human resources issues strategically iseven more challenging for them.

Filling Supervisory Jobs. One reason individualsassigned to supervisory jobs may lack adequateknowledge, skills, and abilities is that, when man-


Supervisors should be givena standardized training curricu-

lum when they are promoted tothe supervisory level. There is toomuch that can be avoided ifsupervisory training is given at thebeginning as opposed to doingthe best you can and relyingsolely on instinct and talent.Many good professionals areturned off very early in theircareers because of adverse em-ployee situations they are forcedto deal with, without training.

14 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, �First-line Supervisory Selection in the Federal Government,� June 1989.


Environmental Factors That Heighten the ImbalanceBetween Short and Long Term Goals

agement fills a supervisory job, assessing the candi-dates� potential for managing people is usually moredifficult than assessing technical expertise. Also,many nonsupervisory employees�who are candi-dates for supervisory jobs�have few opportunitiesto display the knowledge, skills and abilities typi-cally associated with supervisory potential. Fur-ther, because of grade and salary structures in theFederal Government, sometimes the only waymanagement can provide higher compensation totop technical performers is to assign them tosupervisory positions. For all these reasons, indi-viduals sometimes find themselves in supervisoryjobs without a full understanding of what it reallytakes to do the job well.

Training Supervisors. Once assigned to supervi-sory jobs, these individuals are unlikely to betaught the fine points about the relationship oftheir human resource management tasks to theaccomplishment of the work that�s critical to theorganization. If supervisors receive formal trainingin their new jobs, the training often covers onlytheir responsibilities for various human resource

management tasks (e.g., the supervisor is respon-sible for completing a performance rating form oneach subordinate by a certain date, or the supervi-sor is responsible for approving training requests),without adequate attention to why such tasks needto be performed and how they directly affect thequality of the work unit�s performance.

Even if supervisors know what their human re-source management tasks are, they may not fullyappreciate the systems of which the tasks are a part,the rationale for the systems, and how the systemsaffect the overall efficiency of the work unit andthe long term health of the agency and its pro-grams. They need to understand public policygoals as those goals relate to their human resourcemanagement operational needs, and they need tounderstand the long term impact of the day-to-daydecisions that they make. An appreciation for theinterplay of issues would help provide them withthe impetus to adopt a long term perspective whenmaking personnel decisions, thus making thembetter supervisors.

The evidence we have discussed strongly suggeststhat Federal supervisors are not performing theirhuman resource management responsibilities inways that consistently contribute to their agencies�accomplishment of long term goals. Unfortu-nately, in today�s Federal environment, there arefactors (cited below) that will exacerbate thissituation because they place additional humanresource management responsibilities on supervi-sors who may not know how to strike the rightbalance between short term and long term goals.

Decentralization and delegation of humanresource management. The responsibility forhuman resource management activities is becomingmore decentralized. Instead of centrally conductingsome of these activities such as applicant examining,the Office of Personnel Management is delegating

many HRM responsibilities to the Federal depart-ments and independent agencies. Many depart-ments and agencies are further delegating theseresponsibilities from their agency heads and person-nel offices to individual supervisors. While supervi-sors have always had direct responsibility for somefunctions such as assigning work, appraising perfor-mance, and approving leave, they are now respon-sible for human resource management activitiespreviously conducted in most agencies only bypersonnel offices.

With these new authorities, it becomes even moreimportant for managers and supervisors to under-stand the importance of long range goals and whenthose goals should take precedence over short termneeds. For example, some managers have now beendelegated the authority to approve hiring bonuses.

10 Perspectives

15 Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1999, February 1998, pg. 33.16 Shoop, Tom, �Targeting Middle Managers,� Government Executive, January 1994, pp. 10-15.17 National Performance Review, �Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less,� September, 1993, pg. 66-67.18 It should be noted that the planned reduction in supervisory ranks has not yet materialized. According to data obtained from OPM�s

Central Personnel Data File, the ratio of employees to supervisors in the full-time permanent workforce changed only from 6.07 to 7.08 between1992 and 1997. However, this slow rate of change in the ratio may be largely due to the reductions in the nonsupervisory workforce that havetaken place concurrently with the supervisory reductions over the last five years.

Hiring bonuses take�from current budgets�fundsthat agencies may feel they need to achieve theirimmediate objectives. But if using those funds willsecure the services of an outstanding candidate,then the long term productivity gains associatedwith that hire could easily outweigh the short termuses for the money.

Increased delegation of personnel authorities alsomay mean that supervisors who assume theseauthorities have less time than ever to deal withindividual human resource management decisions.This could result in supervisors being more inclinedto quickly satisfy their organizations� immediateneeds rather than taking the time to weigh the costsand benefits of long term versus short term solu-tions. Thus, time and workload may adverselyinfluence how readily supervisors take a strategicapproach to human resources issues.

Downsizing and delayering. Another factor thatwill make it more difficult to achieve the appropri-ate balance between short and long term needsconcerns the downsizing of the Federal workforce.From 1992 to 1997, the size of the Federal work-force decreased by over 316,000 employees,15 withcertain job categories shrinking more than others.Primarily as a result of recommendations made bythe NPR, we are seeing a greater decrease in thenumber of administrative support positions (includ-ing personnel office staff). The downsizing ofpersonnel office staffs�with fewer staff available toassist supervisors�is intended to be offset by thedelegation of increased personnel authorities tosupervisors. However, our recent survey of Federalsupervisors found that they still feel they need helpfrom their personnel offices when taking certainpersonnel actions (most notably performance-basedactions). In situations in which supervisors areshouldering more personnel responsibility and areleft with less HR staff assistance, it would not be

surprising if short term solutions were favored overmore time-consuming long term goals.

Along with support staff reductions, there has alsobeen a decrease in the number of supervisorypositions. This downsizing of supervisory posi-tions, first recommended by the NPR, and laterreiterated by the President in a memoranduminstructing agency heads to halve the ratio ofsupervisors and managers to other personnel withinfive years,16 was intended to empower employees totake on more responsibility for managing their ownwork. According to the NPR, removing a layer ofoversight (i.e., reducing the number of supervisorsand supervisory levels) will enable employees tomake fuller use of their abilities and increaseproductivity.17 However, having more employeesto supervise is likely also to mean that the remain-ing supervisors will have many more personnelmanagement decisions to make. This, for manysupervisors, will translate into �more work in lesstime.� Thus, supervisors may have to fight evenharder to resist time pressures and the kinds ofdecisions that represent quick fixes but createproblems in the future.18

When there is no growth in the workforce, as is thecase when downsizing is occurring, supervisorsneed more than ever to ensure that each employeeis as productive as possible, and is prepared to adaptto changing job requirements. When agencies arein growth modes, and can afford to hire newemployees to meet new job demands, it may notseem quite as important to hire with long termexpectations in mind, and to develop currentemployees to meet long term needs. When anagency is getting smaller, however, supervisors needto be much more concerned about how they usethe talent that they have on their staffs, and it iscritical that any staffing, employee development,and performance management decisions be madewith a long term perspective in mind.


Recommendations for Addressing the Imbalance

19 The Government Performance and Results Act, passed in 1993, requires all Federal agencies to develop long-range, comprehensivestrategic plans stating their missions and major objectives. Currently, the strategic plans of the 23 largest department and agencies, submitted toCongress in September 1997, do include some mention of human resource management goals, but the plans vary greatly in their presentationof the goals and strategies delineated and in the connections made between those outcomes and other mission related outcomes.

To achieve an appropriate balance between today�shuman resource management requirements andtomorrow�s demands, supervisors must workwithin an organizational culture that supports sucha feat. A successful balance between short termhuman resource management needs and long termhuman resource management goals will requirechanges in organizational cultures and in theapproach to supervision. Such changes do nothappen overnight. However, by taking some of thepositive steps outlined below, Federal agencies, theOffice of Personnel Management (OPM), and theOffice of Management and Budget (OMB) can helpenable Federal supervisors to do their jobs moreeffectively. These actions can build on the founda-tion laid by Congress when it passed the Govern-ment Performance and Results Act (GPRA) toprovide Federal agencies with a results-basedmanagement system designed to help agenciesachieve their long range goals.

1. Corporate cultures within Federal depart-ments and agencies need to encourage andsupport supervisors in making human resourcemanagement decisions that give weight tostrategic goals for the organization (and theagency or department as a whole) as well as theshort term goals of the work unit. Agencymanagers, OPM, OMB, and Congress all have arole to play in bringing about this change:

♦ Agency managers need to gain a better under-standing of the rewards and punishments supervi-sors experience as a result of the decisions theymake. Agencies should apply this understanding tomodify those rewards and punishments to reinforcehuman resource management decision making thatemphasizes long term consequences of decisions inaddition to immediate results.

♦ Managers need to use their agencies� Govern-ment Performance and Results Act strategic plansas vehicles to help change the corporate culture.

The plans should align human resource goals withagency strategic goals, addressing, for example, howthe agency will manage the workforce to ensurethat employees have the qualities that will enablethem to achieve the agency�s strategic goals.19 Also,agency managers need to ensure that supervisors areinvolved in the strategic planning process, and fullyunderstand how the human resource managementactions they take ultimately affect the accomplish-ment of agency objectives.

♦ The Government needs champions for longrange human resource management planning anddecision making. Specifically:

♦ The Office of Personnel Management (OPM)and the Office of Management and Budget(OMB) should champion strategic humanresource management planning and decisionmaking. OPM and OMB need to specificallyassist departments and agencies in taking a longrange planning perspective when making humanresource management decisions and shouldencourage agencies to modify their internalsystems of rewards and punishments, as needed,to emphasize a strategic perspective with regardto human resource management decisions.OPM should take a more active role in ensuringthat personnel staffs within agencies have thetechnical expertise and the strategic perspectivethey need to help supervisors and managersmake sound personnel management decisions.And because agencies� political appointees are ofrelatively brief tenure (compared to careerappointees), it is critical that OPM and OMBgive special attention to providing them withpractical information about the advantages oftaking a long term view of human resourcemanagement. OPM and OMB should jointlyprovide training/orientation programs for newappointees that institutionalize the value ofstrategic HRM decision making. Such anorientation could serve as a useful counterbal-

12 Perspectives

ance in political appointees� decision makingprocess as they strive to produce results quickly,an approach that tends to emphasize the moreimmediate personnel management concerns.

♦ In order to ensure that HRM is dealt withstrategically by all levels of management, includ-ing political appointees, agency leaders shouldassign their organization�s chief human resourcemanagement officials the role of advocate for thelong range perspective on human resourcemanagement. These champions of strategicHRM would be responsible for assuring thatagency management, both political and career,understand the role of HRM plans, programs,and decisions in achieving the agency�s longterm goals.

♦ Because of its continued interest in theoversight of agencies� strategic plans (mandatedby GPRA), Congress is in a position to haveperhaps even greater impact on agencies� refine-ment of their corporate cultures than was seenwith the initial passage of GPRA. In connectionwith its review of agency strategic plans, Con-gress could call for human resource managementplans or initiatives that demonstrate howagencies will manage the workforce to achievethe long range goals they have set for them-selves. For example, does the strategic planmention how the agency plans to ensure that itsworkers have and maintain the qualities andcharacteristics that will enable them to achieveparticular mission-related goals?

2. Agency managers and the Office of PersonnelManagement need to refocus supervisory train-ing on the kinds of human resource managementactions supervisors can take (or decisions theycan make) that will help them shift their overallemphasis towards long range needs.When new supervisors are trained in their humanresource management responsibilities, there shouldbe a strong emphasis on the importance of a strate-

gic approach to human resource managementdecision making. For example, when instructingnew supervisors about procedures for developingtheir subordinates, supervisors should be exposed tomore than just the process for requesting trainingand the various sources of training delivery fortheir subordinates. Supervisors should be taughthow to determine training needs and plan the kindof training and development that will give theirwork units (and the entire agency�s workforce) theskills needed to adapt to changing job requirements.Such supervisory training might also emphasize tosupervisors the importance of incorporating train-ing needs and plans into their agencies� strategicplans, to ensure that all parties share the samevision for how the workforce is to be developed.While some agencies may provide such training fornew supervisors, this level of instruction clearly isnot given to most Federal supervisors.

3. Agency managers need to select supervisorswho have the ability and desire to managehuman resources and can see the connectionbetween that responsibility and the organi-zation�s ability to achieve its long range goals.Hiring the right people for supervisory jobs meansthat agencies must ensure that systems that exist forselecting supervisors focus on critical supervisoryskills and abilities to the same degree that theyfocus on technical expertise. Additionally, agencymanagers must recognize that not everyone who iscurrently a supervisor is really well-suited tosupervise, and some supervisors who may haveperformed adequately in the past may not be ableto adapt to the changes that are now beginning toaffect the supervisor�s job. Agencies should beplanning for how they will deal with these indi-viduals (e.g., develop new roles for them, such asnonsupervisory technical experts to advise thework group). Along the same line, agencies shouldbe seeking ways to reward their best technicalperformers by means other than promoting theminto supervisory or managerial positions, for whichthey may not be well-qualified.

Federal Supervisors and Strategic Human Resources Management

Documents

Transcript of Federal Supervisors and Strategic Human Resources Management