[Senate Report 111-364]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 691
111th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 111-364
======================================================================
FEDERAL SUPERVISOR TRAINING ACT OF 2010
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 674
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
December 14, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON TESTER, Montana LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware MARK KIRK, Illinois
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Kevin J. Landy, Chief Counsel
Lawrence B. Novey, Senior Counsel
Brian G. Polisuk, Counsel, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Amanda Wood, Minority Director for Governmental Affairs
Sean M. Stiff, Minority Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................1
III. Legislative History..............................................8
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................9
V. Estimated Cost of Legislation...................................11
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact.................................12
VII. Changes in Existing Law.........................................12
Calendar No. 691
111th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 111-364
======================================================================
FEDERAL SUPERVISOR TRAINING ACT OF 2010
_______
December 14, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Lieberman, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 674]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 674) to amend
chapters 41 and 43 of title 5, United States Code, to provide
for the establishment and authorization of funding for certain
training and mentoring programs for supervisors of federal
employees, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
I. Purpose and Summary
S. 674, the Federal Supervisor Training Act of 2010,
requires federal agencies to increase the amount and improve
the quality of the training provided to their supervisory
employees. Under the bill, supervisors must receive training
within one year of their assuming that role, and once every
three years thereafter, on such essential supervisory skills as
mentoring and motivating employees, managing employees with
unacceptable performance, and protecting employee rights. The
bill also requires agencies to assess the performance and
overall capacity of supervisors. By thus improving the quality
of supervision, the bill aims to strengthen the overall
efficiency and effectiveness of the federal government.
II. Background and Need for Legislation
Properly trained supervisors are essential for an effective federal
workforce
Given the many challenges currently facing the country, the
need for an effective federal workforce has never been more
pressing. Properly trained supervisors are critical to the
ability of the federal government to provide essential services
to the American people. Because of their close contact and
frequent interaction with employees, first-level supervisors
can have a more significant impact on employee performance than
most high-level officials.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See John Crum, Director, Policy and Evaluation, U.S. Merit
System Protection Board, ``Improving the Performance of Federal
Supervisors,'' Issues of Merit Newsletter, April 2010, at p. 2
(``Because they have direct and regular contact with employees, first-
level supervisors can have a stronger impact on employee performance
and productivity than anyone else in the management chain.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supervisors must have and use a wide variety of skills to
motivate and lead effectively. A successful supervisor must
possess both the interpersonal and the technical skills
necessary to motivate employees, effectively communicate with
staff, articulate an agency's objectives and goals, and hold
employees accountable for their work product. The successful
supervisor must also be able to promote teamwork, serve as a
mentor to employees and more-recently appointed supervisors,
and solve work-related conflicts between employees that can
threaten an agency's ability to complete its mission.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Written statement of Marilee Fitzgerald, Director of Workforce
Issues and International Programs, U.S. Department of Defense,
submitted for the record of the hearing entitled ``Developing Federal
Employees and Supervisors: Mentoring, Internships, and Training in the
Federal Government'' before this Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight
of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of
Columbia, 111th Congress, 2nd Session, S. Hrg. 111-594, April 29, 2010
(hereinafter referred to as ``Developing Federal Employees and
Supervisors Hearing''), at pp. 47-50 of the printed hearing record
(discussing the need to develop supervisors who can address performance
issues, develop employees, manage conflicts, among other skills),
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg57331/pdf/CHRG-
111shrg57331.pdf. See also oral testimony of Colleen Kelley, National
President, National Treasury Employees Union, at the Developing Federal
Employees and Supervisors Hearing (explaining that effective leaders
must have the skills needed to properly manage and lead employees, in
addition to the necessary technical skills), at p. 27 of the printed
hearing record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research has shown that supervisory proficiency is one of
the most important predictors of an agency's performance and
that the most effective way to improve such performance is to
improve the quality of first-level supervision within the
agency.\3\ The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) recently
reported its findings that improving the skills of supervisors
would be the quickest way to strengthen the federal workforce
and improve agency performance:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Call to Action: Improving
First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees, May 2010, at p. 1 (citing
Gene Brewer, ``In the eye of the storm: Frontline supervisors and
federal agency performance,'' Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 2005, vol. 15, at pp. 505-527). See also National Academy
of Public Administration, First Line Supervisors in Federal Service:
Selection, Development, and Management, Management Concepts, Vienna,
VA, 2003; M. Buckingham and C. Coffman, First, Break All the Rules:
What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently, Simon and Schuster,
New York, 1999; James Fuller, Performance Management with Bottom-line
Results, presentation at the conference on ``Aligning Performance
Management with Business Strategy and Goals,'' sponsored by the
International Quality and Productivity Center, San Francisco, February
2003.
If the Federal Government is to provide its citizens
with the services and information they need, it is
essential to set a high priority on improving first
level supervision. The fastest and most direct way to
strengthen Federal workforce performance is to improve
the supervision employees receive . . . [S]low, steady,
carefully planned investments in first-level
supervision can accrete over time and yield enormous
positive returns in the workforce performance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Call to Action: Improving
First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees, note 3 above, at pp. 5-6.
Conversely, ineffective supervision can be costly and can
severely damage employee work performance and morale and agency
productivity and efficiency. As the National Academy of Public
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration (NAPA) explained,
It is difficult to quantify the precise cost of
supervisory deficiencies, but even a small deficiency
could result in the loss of billions of dollars. Data
indicates that this problem involves more than ``a
small percentage'' and real costs could be considerably
larger. Without solid programs for identifying,
developing and managing first-level supervisors,
agencies pay an enormous price.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\National Academy of Public Administration, First Line
Supervisors in Federal Service: Selection, Development, and Management,
note 3 above, at p. 4.
Specifically, NAPA reported that poor supervision harms
productivity by resulting in a decrease in employee job
performance, high employee turnover rates, and an increase in
costly workplace disputes, such as employee grievances and
complaints.
The need to cultivate effective federal supervisors is even
more pressing as a result of the retirement wave expected to
hit the government within the next five years. OPM estimated
that by 2014, approximately 53 percent of permanent full-time
federal employees will be eligible to retire, and approximately
57 percent of that group--or more than 30 percent of all
permanent full-time employees--will actually retire.\6\ Because
supervisors tend to be older and have more years of service
than non-supervisors, supervisors are likely to retire at
faster rates than non-supervisors. In light of these impending
retirements, and because it often takes years to develop the
specialized expertise and institutional knowledge required to
be fully effective as a supervisor, the Committee believes that
developing a new generation of federal supervisors is a
pressing need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\U.S. Office of Personnel Management, An Analysis of Federal
Employee Retirement Data: Predicting Future Retirements and Examining
Factors Relevant to Retiring from the Federal Service, March 2008, at
pp. 4, 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current supervisory training in the federal government is inadequate
Despite the vital importance of properly trained
supervisors and the connection between supervisory skills and
agency effectiveness, research has shown that the federal
government is failing to provide adequate training in how to
supervise effectively. Studies conducted since 1978 by OPM, the
MSPB, the Government Accountability Office, and NAPA all
conclude that most federal agencies do a poor job of developing
supervisors.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\For a list of studies, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board,
A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal
Employees, note 3 above, Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, OPM interviewed a large number of first-level
supervisors to assess how they were being selected, developed,
and evaluated, and OPM reported that agencies--
Overemphasized technical expertise and
failed to adequately assess leadership competencies\8\
when selecting supervisors;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\The term ``competencies'' means measurable or observable
knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to do a job.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gave low priority to supervisor development;
Did not sufficiently stress the ability to
achieve work goals in appraising the performance of
supervisors;
Ignored or provided little constructive
feedback to poor-performing supervisors, while failing
to provide adequate recognition or rewards to effective
supervisors;
Did not make full use of the supervisory
probationary period to identify those supervisors who
do not demonstrate the needed leadership competencies;
and
Needed to assist supervisors to develop
``people skills,'' such as communication, coaching,
dealing with poor performers, and resolving
conflicts.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Supervisors in the Federal
Government: A Wake-Up Call, January 2001, at pp. 6-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPM concluded that its findings ``should serve as a wake-up
call for agencies to take immediate action to address a serious
problem that has the potential to worsen'' and that ``agencies
must make the selection and development of first-level
supervisors a top human resource management priority.''\10\ It
offered this bleak assessment: ``if agencies do not pay more
attention to this important issue, their ability to carry out
their mission could be threatened.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Id. at p. 2.
\11\Id. at p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An organization representing federal supervisors recently
used similar terms in explaining the need for improved
supervisory training. In a letter to members of this
Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia (OGM
Subcommittee), the Government Managers Coalition stated:
A federal supervisor, whether in the General Schedule
or the Senior Executive Service, is tasked with a
multitude of responsibilities. Often supervisory
employees are promoted based on their technical skills
in a certain area, not their management capabilities.
However, upon reaching a supervisory position, these
employees must work within their issue area and take on
the added responsibility of managing complex personnel
systems, conducting performance reviews, and dealing
with personnel issues, such as adverse action claims.
Unfortunately, most employees do not receive initial or
ongoing training in the areas critical to effective
management.\12\ [Emphasis added.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Letter from the Government Managers Coalition to members of the
OGM Subcommittee, April 28, 2010.
Often, individuals selected to be first-level supervisors
have a great deal of expertise in the subject matter of the
work they will supervise, but little experience or training in
how to effectively serve as a supervisor. On this issue, OPM
concluded in its 2001 report that ``supervisors often bring
technical knowledge to the job, but not necessarily the broad
array of interpersonal and management skills that are needed to
lead people. Unprepared or untrained leaders can damage
employee morale and lower productivity.''\13\ The MSPB
concluded that supervisors who build on their technical
expertise with effective managing and communication skills are
more likely to earn employees' trust and respect.\14\ To
overcome this tendency to appoint and promote supervisors who
are technical experts but lack leadership and management
skills, agencies will need to establish better processes for
evaluating supervisory capacity based on the competencies that
effective supervisors actually need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Supervisors in the Federal
Government: A Wake-Up Call, note 8 above, at p. 1.
\14\U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Accomplishing Our Mission,
Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005, February 2007, at p. 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, federal supervisors may not receive training
on the legal requirements they must follow, including employee
collective bargaining rights and prohibited personnel
practices. It is important that supervisors understand their
rights and responsibilities with respect to the employees they
supervise. The Committee believes that training supervisors on
these topics will lead to improved communications between
management and labor and ultimately will reduce the high costs
associated with workplace disputes. This point was stressed by
Colleen Kelly, President of the National Treasury Employees
Union, who testified before the OGM Subcommittee that:
Labor relations training in the federal government is
critical to the operations of an agency. In order to
better achieve an agency's mission, it is necessary to
have management and labor talking to each other as
equal partners, and problem-solvers, with full
knowledge of collective bargaining and prohibited
practices. Unfortunately, that does not come naturally
to some managers. The provisions in the Supervisor
Training Act explicitly call for training on collective
bargaining and union participation rights, and the
procedures to enforce employee rights. . . . This could
lead to more communications, problem-solving and
workplace agreements during an early stage.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Response of Colleen Kelley, National President, National
Treasury Employees Union, to Post-Hearing Questions from Senator Akaka
for the Record of the Developing Federal Employees and Supervisors
Hearing, note 2 above, at pp. 125-26 of the printed hearing record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Supervisor Training Act will address supervisor training
shortfalls
On March 24, 2009, to address the weaknesses in supervisory
training in the federal government, Senator Akaka introduced S.
674, the Federal Supervisor Training Act. This legislation
builds on supervisor training requirements under the Federal
Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004, which this Committee
reported on January 27, 2004, and which was enacted on October
30, 2004.\16\ Codified at 5 U.S.C. 4121, these provisions
direct every agency, in consultation with OPM, to establish an
employee training program that develops supervisors for the
agency, and to establish a program to provide additional
training to supervisors in three key areas--dealing effectively
with poor performers, mentoring employees and improving their
performance, and conducting performance appraisals.\17\ The OPM
Director published regulations to implement these provisions on
December 10, 2009. The regulations require agencies to provide
supervisory training within one year of an employee's initial
appointment to a supervisory position and also to provide
follow-up training at least once every three years thereafter.
Nancy Kichak, the Associate Director for the Human Resources
Policy Division of OPM, testified before the OGM Subcommittee
that OPM is currently developing guidance to assist agencies to
implement this regulation and expects to publish the guidance
by the end of 2010.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\S. 129, 108th Congress, enacted as Public Law 108-411.
\17\P.L. 108-411, Sec. 201(b)(1), Oct. 30, 2004 (codified at 5
U.S.C. Sec. 4121). The Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2003 was
introduced by Senator Voinovich as S. 129 and reported favorably by
this Committee, S. Rep. No. 108-223 (Jan. 27, 2004). Title 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 4121, as enacted by P.L. 108-411, uses the term ``manager'' to
refer to individuals exercising either managerial or supervisory
functions; but S. 674 defines the term ``supervisor'' to have that same
meaning; and, to avoid confusion, the term ``supervisor'', rather than
the term ``manager,'' is used in this report when referring to the
requirements enacted by P.L. 108-411.
\18\Written Statement of Nancy Kichak, Associate Director for Human
Resources Policy Division, Office of Personnel Management, at the
Developing Federal Employees and Supervisors Hearing, note 2 above, at
p. 5 of the printed hearing record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee is encouraged by OPM's recent advances in
supervisory training. However, the Committee has concluded that
the type of comprehensive changes that observers agree are
needed cannot be fully implemented and permanently sustained
throughout the federal government without the type of statutory
changes required by S. 674. The Committee is confident that
enactment of this legislation would strengthen existing efforts
to increase the quality of supervisory training in the federal
government and make them lasting.
S. 674 would expand upon current statutory and regulatory
requirements by adding a number of important additional
provisions. To establish a framework for supervisor selection,
training, and evaluation, the bill would require the Director
of OPM to issue guidance to agencies on the competencies that
supervisors have to meet in order to effectively manage
employees' performance. Based on this OPM guidance and on any
additional competencies that an agency might see as necessary
for its own supervisors, each agency would be required to
assess the performance of each of its supervisors, and assess
the overall capacity of the supervisors at the agency.
With respect to supervisor training, the bill would revise
current statutory requirements by clarifying the subjects that
supervisory training must cover and by spelling out additional
topics related to the protection of employee rights. Agencies
would be required to provide training to supervisors on
techniques and strategies for--(i) developing and discussing
performance goals and objectives with employees, discussing
progress, and conducting performance appraisals; (ii) mentoring
and motivating employees and improving their performance; (iii)
fostering a fair and merit-based work environment; (iv)
effectively managing poor performers; (v) addressing reports of
a hostile work environment, reprisal, or harassment; (vi)
respecting employees' whistleblower, collective bargaining, and
other rights; (vii) meeting the supervisor competencies
developed by OPM and the employing agency; and (viii) otherwise
carrying out the duties of a supervisor. The legislation would
require agencies to establish mentoring programs under which
existing supervisors transfer knowledge and provide advice to
newly appointed supervisors.
The bill would require agencies to provide supervisor
training within one year after individuals become supervisors
and every three years thereafter. Under procedures established
and administered by OPM, agency heads would be able to extend
the one-year period, and OPM would be required to report
annually to this Committee and to the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform on the number of extensions
granted and the number of supervisors who completed initial
training within one year of appointment without extension.
The bill defines the term ``supervisor'' to include an
individual who hires, directs, assigns, promotes, or otherwise
exercises authority over employees, or who formulates,
determines, or influences the policies of an agency. Those team
leaders who work collaboratively with other team members to
facilitate the effective and efficient completion of their
tasks, and who coordinate with supervisors on behalf of the
team, but who do not exercise authority over other team
members, are not included as ``supervisors'' under the
legislation.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\See U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Performance
Management, Policy, ``Team Leader Guide Sees Performance Management
Role,'' originally published in August 1998, http://www.opm.gov/
perform/articles/202.asp; id., Archive, ``Team Leadership in the New
Workplace,'' originally published in April 1995, http://www.opm.gov/
perform/articles/081.asp#Definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the bill, agencies must establish supervisor training
programs that are interactive. Such programs should, to the
extent practicable, involve in-class training by a live
instructor, but may also include computer-based training. This
requirement reflects the Committee's recognition that live
instruction may not always be a sufficiently cost-effective
method of training supervisors, especially in the current
economic climate.
Indeed, many of the topics that S. 674 requires supervisors
to be trained in, including employee collective bargaining
rights and workplace discrimination law, can be appropriately
addressed through computer-based training. In light of the
benefits of in-person training, however, agencies are
encouraged to provide instructor-based training ``to the extent
practicable as determined by the head of the agency.''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010,
which was signed into law on October 29, 2009, as P.L. 111-84, required
DoD to establish a program under which DoD supervisors must be trained
at least once every three years on the same topics as those required
under S. 674. This enactment also requires DoD to establish a program
under which experienced supervisors serve as mentors to newly appointed
supervisors, similar to the program under S. 674. Marilee Fitzgerald,
the Director of Workforce Issues and International Programs at DoD,
testified before the OGM Subcommittee on April 29, 2010, that DoD was
in the process of designing the supervisor training program required by
the FY 2010 NDAA and planned a phased implementation of the program
beginning in the fall of 2010. Submitted statement of Marilee
Fitzgerald, Director of Workforce Issues and International Programs,
Department of Defense, at the Developing Federal Employees and
Supervisors Hearing, note 2 above at pp. 50-53 of the printed hearing
record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increased training under this bill will require some
additional spending on training.\21\ However, as NAPA observed,
``While there are costs involved in starting and maintaining
programs to strengthen the performance of supervisors, they
pale in comparison to the price paid for inaction.''\22\
Similarly, a recent Partnership for Public Service report
explained that the case for enhanced leadership development
training for supervisors can be made at several levels,
including ``the business level,'' and that the ``quantitative
and qualitative work that has been done and the opinions of
those most closely associated with these programs point to a
highly favorable return on investment.''\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that S. 674
would cost the agencies $70 million over the FY 2011-2015 period. CBO,
Cost Estimate, S. 674, Federal Supervisor Training Act of 2010 (July
21, 2010), reproduced in section V, below, of this report.
\22\See National Academy of Public Administration, First Line
Supervisors in Federal Service: Selection, Development, and Management,
note 3 above, at p. 4.
\23\James Thompson, Training Supervisors to be Leaders: A Missing
Element in Efforts to Improve Federal Performance, Partnership for
Public Service, Washington, DC, 2007, p. 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companies in the private sector have found that investing
in the growth of leaders can lead to a more productive
workforce. Dr. Laura K. Mattimore, the Director of Leadership
and Development at the Proctor & Gamble Company (P&G),
testified before the Subcommittee that:
We realized early on that our employees are our
strongest competitive advantage, and every day we work
to increase and develop that advantage. To tap the full
potential of our employees, we developed a rigorous and
disciplined approach to leadership development in every
business, in every region, and at every level of the
company. . . . The P&G leadership team in place today
is an ideal example of how P&G develops leaders. . . .
These men and women have been preparing for the
responsibilities they have today since they joined P&G
two or even three decades ago. . . . When it was time
for them to move into the company's most senior
management positions, they were ready.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Written Statement of Laura K. Mattimore, Ph.D., Director of
Leadership and Development, Proctor & Gamble, submitted for the record
of the Developing Federal Employees and Supervisors Hearing, note 2
above, at pp. 80-81 of the printed record.
Moreover, tangible savings may result from training that
equips supervisors with the skills to address workplace
conflicts before they escalate into legal complaints. In
particular, educating supervisors on employee collective
bargaining, whistleblower, non-discrimination and other
workplace rights should lead to fewer workplace disputes and,
consequently, a reduction in the high costs associated with the
filing of unfair labor practices, equal employment opportunity
complaints, and arbitrations.
Finally, as Bob McDonald, the Chief Executive Officer of
Proctor & Gamble has stated, there are ethical, as well as
practical, reasons why improved supervisory training is
warranted:
The most important way we improve the lives of
employees is to invest in their growth and success. We
hold ourselves accountable . . . not only for
attracting top talent but also for providing the
experiences, coaching, training and relationships that
ensure people grow to their full potential as leaders.
This pays enormous dividends because when people
develop the skills to lead, and are then inspired . . .
to do great things, P&G is able to be a force for good
in the world. It's a powerful, virtuous cycle.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Id. at p. 80 (quoting Bob McDonald, Chief Executive Officer of
Proctor & Gamble).
In summary, the Committee has determined that, to ensure
essential improvements in the training of federal supervisors
are sustained under any future administration, the necessary
management framework and requirements must be established in
statute, as S. 674 would do.
III. Legislative History
Senator Daniel K. Akaka introduced S. 674 on March 24,
2009. The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs and was further referred to
the OGM Subcommittee on April 29, 2009.
The bill is similar to S. 967, the Federal Supervisor
Training Act of 2007, introduced by Senator Akaka in the 110th
Congress, and to S. 3584, the Federal Supervisor Training Act
of 2006, introduced by Senator Akaka during the 109th Congress.
On April 29, 2010, the OGM Subcommittee held a hearing to
consider this bill and the need to improve the development of
federal supervisors and employees entitled, ``Developing
Federal Employees and Supervisors: Mentoring, Internships, and
Training in the Federal Government.'' Presenting testimony were
Ms. Nancy Kichak, Associate Director for the Human Resources
Policy Division, OPM; Ms. Marilee Fitzgerald, Director of
Workforce Issues and International Programs, DoD; Ms. Colleen
M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury Employees
Union; Mr. J. David Cox, National Secretary-Treasurer, American
Federation of Government Employees; Mr. John Palguta, Vice
President for Policy, Partnership for Public Service; and Laura
K. Mattimore, PhD, Director of Leadership Development, Proctor
and Gamble.
On June 23, 2010, the OGM Subcommittee polled the bill out
favorably, and on June 24, 2010, the Committee considered the
bill. Senator Akaka offered an amendment which removed the
requirement that initial training be ``interactive instructor-
based,'' allowed OPM to establish a procedure under which
agency heads may extend the time period under which new
supervisors must receive initial training, allowed agencies to
assess supervisors based on competencies established by OPM,
and made several technical changes to the bill. These changes
were made in accordance with recommendations from OPM and were
intended to reduce the cost of the bill. The Committee adopted
the amendment and ordered the bill reported favorably, as
amended, by a voice vote. Members present were Senators
Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Carper, Pryor, Kaufman, Collins,
Coburn, and McCain.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
This section provides that the legislation in S. 674 may be
cited as the ``Federal Supervisor Training Act of 2010.''
Section 2. Mandatory training programs for supervisors
5 U.S.C. Sec. 4121, entitled ``Specific training
programs,'' already requires agencies, in consultation with
OPM, to establish training programs for supervisors. Section 2
of the bill amends Sec. 4121 to make these required training
programs more robust.
Subsection (a)(1) defines the term ``supervisor'' for
purposes of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 4121(a) to include individuals who
are defined as supervisors and management officials under 5
U.S.C. Sec. 7103(a)(10) and (11), as well as any other federal
employees as specified by OPM.
Subsection (a)(2) amends 5 U.S.C. Sec. 4121(b) to require
agencies, in establishing training programs, to do so under
operating competencies prescribed by OPM.
Subsection (a)(3) amends 5 U.S.C. Sec. 4121(b) to replace
the current supervisory training requirements with new minimum
requirements under which agencies must establish--
Training for supervisors in--(i) developing and
discussing goals and objectives with employees, 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 employees'
work; (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; (vi) meeting supervisor competencies
established by OPM or by an employing agency; and (vii)
otherwise carrying out the duties or responsibilities of a
supervisor.
Training for supervisors on the rights and
protections afforded federal employees against prohibited
personnel practices under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 2302, and particularly
under the non-discrimination and whistleblower-protection
provisions in subsections (b)(1) and (8) of that section;
employee collective bargaining and union participation rights;
and the procedures and processes used to enforce employee
rights.
Agencies must establish such training programs that are
interactive. Agencies may include computer-based training, but
should, to the extent practicable as determined by the agency
head, make the training instructor-based.
This subsection also requires agencies to establish
mentoring programs under which experienced supervisors transfer
knowledge and advice to new supervisors and point out strengths
and areas for development.
Individuals must complete each program not later than one
year after they are appointed to be supervisors. OPM may
establish and administer procedures allowing agencies to extend
this period for individual supervisors. After their initial
training, supervisors must receive follow-up training at least
once every three years. Supervisors can receive credit toward
the training requirements for similar training previously
completed. Each agency shall measure the effectiveness of the
new training programs.
OPM must prescribe regulations to carry out this section,
including measures that agencies will use to assess
effectiveness of agency supervisory training.
Subsection (b) requires OPM to submit an annual report to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of
the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
of the House of Representatives on the number of extensions
granted to the requirement that individuals receive training
within one year after they become supervisors, and the number
of individuals who have completed training within one year of
becoming supervisors.
Subsection (c) requires OPM to prescribe the regulations
required under subsection (a), to carry out the new mandatory
supervisory training requirements, within one year after the
date of enactment.
Subsection (d) provides that the amendments made by the
bill will take effect one year after the date of enactment and
will apply to individuals appointed to the position of a
supervisor on or after that effective date, and to individuals
employed as supervisors on the effective date. Individuals
employed as supervisors on the effective date are required to
complete training within three years after the effective date,
and once every three years thereafter.
Section 3. Management competencies
Subsection (a) adds a new section 5 U.S.C. Sec. 4305,
entitled ``Management competencies,'' and redesignates the
current section 4305 as section 4306. Under the new section
4305:
The term ``supervisor'' is defined for purposes of
the section to include individuals defined as supervisors and
management officials under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7103(a)(10) and (11),
and any other federal employees as defined by OPM.
OPM is required to issue guidance to the agencies
on competencies supervisors are expected to meet to effectively
manage employee performance.
Agencies must assess the performance of
supervisors and the overall capacity of supervisors based on
the guidance issued by OPM, or on additional competencies
developed by the supervisors' employing agencies.
Agencies must submit a report to OPM on their
progress implementing this section, including measures used to
assess program effectiveness, annually or on any basis OPM
requests.
Subsection (b) makes technical and conforming amendments to
the table of sections for 5 U.S.C. chapter 43.
V. Estimated Cost of Legislation
July 21, 2010.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 674, the Federal
Supervisor Training Act of 2010.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
S. 674--Federal Supervisor Training Act of 2010
S. 674 would amend current law to require training for
federal employees who supervise other employees. The
legislation would direct the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) to issue guidelines to agencies on standards that
supervisors are expected to meet and would require agencies to
review their training programs and report on their
effectiveness to OPM.
Under the legislation, agencies would be required to set
new performance standards and train new supervisors within 12
months after such employees assume supervisory duties. In
addition, all current supervisors would need to receive
training within three years following enactment of the
legislation; supervisors would receive ``refresher'' training
every three years thereafter. The training would include
working with supervisors to develop employee goals and
objectives, mentoring programs, and informing managers about
prohibited personnel practices and employee rights. Most of the
provisions of S. 674 would codify and expand current practices
of the federal government. The National Defense Authorization
Act of 2010, the Federal Workforce Training Act of 2004, and
recent OPM regulations require some training for federal
supervisors either for specific agencies or all agencies
governmentwide. However CBO expects that some agencies would
likely have to undertake additional training and meet new
reporting requirements.
Based on information from OPM and selected agencies and
subject to the availability of appropriated funds, CBO
estimates that implementing S. 674 would cost agencies $70
million over the 2011-2015 period to meet those additional
training and reporting requirements. S. 674 also could affect
direct spending by agencies not funded through annual
appropriations, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the
Bonneville Power Administration; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures would apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net
increase in spending for training programs by those agencies
would not be significant. Enacting S. 674 would not affect
revenues.
S. 674 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined
that the bill will have no regulatory impact. The Congressional
Budget Office states that the bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets
of state, local, or tribal governments.
VII. Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic and existing law, in which no
change is proposed, is shown in roman):
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE: GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART III_EMPLOYEES
CHAPTER 41--TRAINING
SEC. 4121. SPECIFIC TRAINING PROGRAMS
(a) In this section, the term ``supervisor'' means--
(1) A supervisor as defined under section
7103(a)(10);
(2) A management official as defined under section
7103(a)(11); and
(3) Any other employee as the Director of the Office
of Personnel Management may by regulation prescribe.
(b) Under operating competencies prescribed by, and in
consultation with, [In consultation with] the Office of
Personnel Management, the head of each agency shall establish--
(1) a comprehensive management succession program to
provide training to employees to develop managers for
the agency; and
[(2) a program to provide training to managers on
actions, options, and strategies a manager may use in--
[(A) relating to employees with unacceptable
performance;
[(B) mentoring employees and improving
employee performance and productivity; and
[(C) conducting employee performance
appraisals.]
(2)(A) a program to provide training to supervisors
on actions, options, and strategies a supervisor may
use in--
(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;
(vi) meeting supervisor competencies
established by the Office of Personnel
Management or the employing agency of the
supervisor; and
(vii) 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 procedure 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.
(c) Training in programs established under subsection
(b)(2)(A) and (B) shall be--
(1) interactive training which may include computer-
based training; and
(2) to the extent practicable as determined by the
head of the agency, training that is instructor-based.
(d)(1)(A) Not later than 1 year after the date on which an
individual is appointed to the position of supervisor, that
individual shall be required to have completed each program
established under subsection (b)(2).
(B) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management may
establish and administer procedures under which the head of an
agency may extend the 1-year period described under
subparagraph (A) with respect to an individual.
(2) After completion of a program under subsection (b)(2)
(A) and (B), each supervisor shall be required to complete a
program under subsection (b)(2) (A) and (B) at least once every
3 years.
(3) Each program established under subsection (b)(2) shall
include provisions under which credit shall be given for
periods of similar training previously completed.
(4) Each agency shall measure the effectiveness of training
programs established under subsection (b)(2).
(e) Notwithstanding section 4118(c), the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe regulations to
carry out this section, including the monitoring of agency
compliance with this section. Regulations prescribed under this
subsection shall include measures by which to assess the
effectiveness of agency supervisor training programs.
CHAPTER 43--PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
SUBCHAPTER 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec.
4301. Definitions
* * * * * * *
4305. [Regulations.] Management Competencies.
4306. Regulations.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4304. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.
* * * * * * *
(b) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) if the Office determines that system does not meet the
requirements of this subchapter (including regulations
prescribed under section [4305] 4306, the Office shall direct
the agency to implement an appropriate system or to correct
operations under the system and any such agency shall take any
action so required.
SEC. 4305. MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES.
(a) In this section, the term ``supervisor'' means--
(1) A supervisor as defined under section
7103(a)(10);
(2) A management official as defined under section
7103(a)(11); and
(3) Any other employee as the Director of the Office
of Personnel Management may by regulation prescribe.
(b) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management
shall issue guidance to agencies on competencies supervisors
are expected to meet in order to effectively manage, and be
accountable for managing, the performance of employees.
(c) Based on guidance issued under subsection (b) and on
any additional competencies developed by an agency, each agency
shall assess the performance of the supervisors and the overall
capacity of the supervisors in that agency.
(d) Every year, or on any basis requested by the Director
of the Office of Personnel Management, each agency shall submit
a report to the Office of Personnel Management on the progress
of the agency in implementing this section, including measures
used to assess program effectiveness.