 |
 |
 |
|
| July 27 - August 3, 2010 |
font size: T T T |
You are viewing the full, printable version of This Week's Issue 
New MSPB Report Finds First-Level Supervisors' Performance Subpar
A new report from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) states that while there has been some overall improvement in employees' perceptions of their supervisors' performance in recent years, many supervisors continue to demonstrate levels of supervisory skill that is "substantially lower than what is needed to effectively engage employees and manage their performance." The report, "A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees," examines the how the federal government selects, develops, and manages its first-level supervisors. The report is based on survey data from federal supervisors and employees, a review of supervisory job announcements, and an analysis of statistical data. The need for effective first-level supervisors has long been recognized. However, MSPB found that federal agency practices in four critical areas - selection, training and development, guidance and support, and accountability - may be contributing to less-than-optimal supervision. For example, when filling supervisory positions, federal agencies often provide minimal or no information about supervisory responsibilities in job advertisements; give insufficient weight to "people management" skills; or use ineffective assessment methods to gauge those skills and refer candidates. In addition, many federal supervisors reported that their training and development has been inadequate, and that they do not receive the information, support, or feedback they need to discharge their day-to-day responsibilities effectively. As MSPB Chairman Susan Tsui Grundmann stated, "First-level supervisors, as the link between leadership and front-line employees, are the nexus between Government policy and agency action. First-level supervisors are also indispensable to employee engagement and workplace fairness. Therefore, Federal agencies cannot afford to leave the success of their first-level supervisors to chance. Fortunately, there are specific measures that every agency can take to improve the effectiveness of first-level supervisors. But the first and most important step is for agency leaders to recognize that first-level supervisors are, first and foremost, supervisors - and that they should pay special attention to how they select and develop employees for this role." The report outlines measures to strengthen the management of federal supervisors, from initial hiring to accountability. Recommendations are directed to the full range of organizations and individuals who play a role in first-level supervision, including federal agencies, federal supervisors, and applicants and employees considering supervision in the federal government as a career option. To download the report, click here. |
Percentage of Feds with Targeted Disabilities Holds Steady, but Agencies' Efficiency in the Complaint Process Slips, EEOC Reveals
Yesterday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) revealed that while the percentage of federal workers with targeted disabilities is holding steady after 13 years of decline, agencies' efficiency in the complaint process has slipped. The findings are reported in the EEOC's Annual Report on the Federal Work Force for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, which assesses the state of equal employment opportunity throughout the federal work force - including trends in the composition of the workforce, and data concerning complaints of employment discrimination in the federal sector - and includes practical tips for agencies to improve their performance. Over the last ten years, the EEOC has found that there have been subtle changes in the composition of the federal work force. Overall, the participation rates of women, Hispanic or Latinos, and Asians have increased slightly. The number of women in the federal work force rose from 42.3 percent to 44.06 percent; the rate for Hispanics/Latinos increased from 6.81 percent to 7.90 percent; and for Asian-Americans, there was a slight uptick from 5.22 percent to 5.84 percent. The total work force increased by 15.09 percent. Additionally, EEOC reported, in FY 2009, for the first time since FY 1995, the percentage of people with targeted disabilities in federal jobs held steady, halting a 13-year decline. However, despite a modest net gain of 236 employees in FY 2009 over FY 2008, people with targeted disabilities still remain below one percent (0.88 percent) of the total work force. Targeted disabilities include deafness, blindness, missing extremities, partial or complete paralysis, convulsive disorders, mental retardation, mental illness, and distortion of the limb and/or spine. As for the complaint process, in FY 2009, federal employees and applicants filed 16,947 complaints alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability and reprisal. The average processing time for conducting investigations rose from 180 days in FY 2008 to 186 days in FY 2009. In addition, the average processing time for closing complaints was 344 days, an increase from the 336 days in FY 2008. Of the 6,905 cases closed on the merits, 2.98 percent resulted in findings of unlawful discrimination. The parties entered into settlements in 3,394 complaints, or 21 percent of the total complaint closures. "As the largest employer in the nation, the federal government should lead the way in creating a diverse and just workplace," said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. "Government employers need to continue to recruit and promote employees who represent the tapestry of America. They must also improve the efficiency of the complaint process so that justice delayed is not justice denied. We look forward to assisting the federal government to become an exemplary employer." To read the EEOC's report, click here. |
Agencies Wasting Billions in IT Projects, GAO Concludes
Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Tom Carper (D-Delaware), members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, recently released a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which they requested, highlighting government agencies' continued mismanagement of billions of dollars on information technology (IT) investments because of poor management oversight. The Committee, which oversees the $80 billion agencies spend annually on IT products and services, has held several hearings examining why agencies continue to waste billions of dollars on investments that are delivered late, over budget and not performing as planned. In 2008, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), after multiple requests from Congress, released a report detailing the reasons nearly one-third of every investment was poorly planned or over budget. In a move to make government information more accessible and transparent, the Administration established a website that provided an "IT Dashboard" which could quickly and easily illustrate investments that were on-track, having trouble, or needing to be canceled. However, Senators Collins and Carper say, the new GAO report highlights the fact that agencies have failed to upload accurate information about the current status of projects, leaving OMB and the American people in the dark. Some of the investments listed on the IT Dashboard are already hundreds of millions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule. For example, the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) investment, Automated Commercial Environment, is expected to allow Border Patrol agents to more efficiently scan cargo entering the country and flag cargo that may be hazardous. The project's current status on the IT Dashboard shows that the project is on track and under budget. However, a previous examination by the GAO reveals the very same project is expected to cost approximately $740 million more than originally planned. Senators Collins and Carper have written to the agencies urging them to provide more timely and accurate data. "This GAO report notes that accountability and public transparency hinge upon accurate, up-to-date data being entered into that oversight system," said Sen. Collins, Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee. "The accuracy and timeliness of that data are key to the success of the ‘IT Dashboard.' Much is at stake here. Aggressive oversight of the nearly $80 billion in taxpayer money that the federal government spends on IT investments annually is critical to helping ensure the prevention of waste, fraud and abuse. We have already seen hundreds of millions of dollars wasted by the federal government due to poorly planned and poorly managed IT projects. "But the key to the oversight tool's success is to make certain that agencies provide accurate and updated information," added Sen. Collins. "That is why I, along with Senator Carper, have written to agencies urging them to provide correct, complete, and timely data on their IT investments. I expect GAO's recommendations to be implemented and agencies to be more proactive in providing factual and timely information about the performance of IT investments." Said Sen. Carper, "No one would feel comfortable jumping into a car and driving off with their family for a road trip without a working dashboard to tell them how the car is handling. Information on how fast the car is going, how much fuel is left, and whether the car is running hot are three simple ways to tell whether your trip will be success or whether you will end up stuck on the side of the road. In fact, a car that doesn't provide this information should never be sold in the first place. Yet it seems to be common practice for agencies to provide OMB and Congress with inaccurate and out of date information on whether their investments are on budget, on schedule, and performing as expected. This is simply unacceptable and needs to change." In response to these IT problems, Senators Carper and Collins introduced the "Information Technology Investment Oversight Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act of 2009" (S. 920), which would require agencies to rigorously plan investments and report on cost overruns and schedule delays. The legislation was passed by the Senate in May and is awaiting a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. To read GAO's report, titled "Information Technology: OMB's Dashboard Has Increased Transparency and Oversight, but Improvements Needed," GAO-10-701, July 2010, click here. |
Bill Designed to Curb Wasteful Spending By Agencies, Require Recovery of Overpayments, Signed into Law
Last Thursday, President Barack Obama signed into law The Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (S.1508). Sponsored by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Delaware) and Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pennsylvania), the law provides new tools designed to address government waste, including: (1) requiring agencies to produce audited, corrective action plans with targets to reduce overpayment errors; (2) mandating all agencies that spend more than $1 million to perform recovery audits on all their programs to actually recoup the overpayments; and (3) penalizing agencies that fail to comply with current accounting and recovery laws. The law incorporates recommendations based on recent investigations by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General, which found that recovery audits were useful in identifying and recovering improper payments, and in identifying important changes that agencies should make to prevent similar overpayments in the future.
Sen. Carper stated, "After a six year journey, I couldn't be happier that my bill, The Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act, is now law. It's a perfect example of common-sense bipartisan, bicameral legislation. This law provides the federal government with new tools to identify, recover, and hopefully prevent improper payments. The expanded use of these new tools to protect taxpayer money couldn't come at a better time as we work to reduce our national debt of over $13 trillion. I applaud the administration's concrete steps to improve transparency and make agencies and agency leadership more accountable. As I like to say, if it is not perfect, make it better. There is a lot more we can do, which is why this new law is so important, especially when it comes to actually going out and recovering the money we lose every year to avoidable errors and preventable fraud."
"The best way to prevent wasteful spending is to stop it from happening in the first place," Rep. Murphy stated. "This bipartisan law holds the federal government to the same standard of fiscal responsibility as Pennsylvania families hold themselves." |
Sign-up today for OmniGov's Most Popular Classroom Seminar: How to Rehabilitate or Remove the Problem Employee
Sign-up today for OmniGov's most popular classroom seminar:
How to Rehabilitate or Remove the Problem Employee
featuring William L. Bransford, Managing Partner- Shaw, Bransford & Roth, P.C.
Whether you are a new first line manager or a seasoned supervisor, this course is for you!
Learn to manage a problem employee, while fulfilling your obligations to your agency and the employee.
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Time: 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Location: National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC
Fee: $395.00
Click here to learn more and REGISTER.
|
Postal Employee Not Entitled to Back Pay Because He Was Not "Ready, Willing, or Able to Work" Due to an Incapacitating Illness or Injury, Federal Circuit Rules
A mail processing clerk was not entitled to back pay because he was not "ready, willing, or able to work" due to an incapacitating illness or injury, the Federal Circuit ruled last week. The case began in April 2008, when the U.S. Postal Service placed the clerk on administrative leave pending a fitness for duty examination. The clerk was examined by two physicians and a psychologist, all of whom expressed concerns about his mental condition. In May 2008, the Postal Service informed the clerk that he was not fit to return to work and gave him three options: resign, apply for disability retirement, or retire if eligible. The following month, the Postal Service informed the clerk that if he did not select one of the three options, then his administrative leave status would be terminated and the Postal Service would propose his removal. The clerk subsequently was placed on leave without pay on June 14, 2008. The clerk appealed to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging that he had been constructively removed. The Board determined that the Postal Service did not provide the clerk with the procedural protections required by statute and the U.S. Constitution prior to suspending him. The Board reversed the suspension and ordered the Postal Service to retroactively restore the clerk's pay and benefits effective June 14, 2008. While the clerk's case was pending before the Board, the Postal Service took steps to correct any due process violation. On November 7, 2008, the Postal Service proposed that the clerk be placed on enforced leave based on a medical condition rendering him unfit for duty. The clerk responded on November 24, 2008. After this period for notice and response, the Postal Service placed the clerk on enforced leave effective December 14, 2008. The Postal Service did not pay the clerk any back pay for the period after June 14, 2008. On January 21, 2009, the Postal Service sent the clerk a letter informing him that he was not entitled to back pay because he was not ready, willing, and able to work during the period in question. The Postal Service asserted that it was in full compliance with the Board's order. The clerk subsequently filed a petition for enforcement seeking back pay. The Board, however, determined that "the undisputed evidence here, bolstered by [the clerk's] own admissions in worker's compensation claim forms and a disability insurance form, shows that he was not ready, willing and able to work from June 14, 2008, to present." Thus, the Board denied the clerk's petition for enforcement, prompting him to appeal to the Federal Circuit. In its decision, the Federal Circuit stated that an employee affected by an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action that resulted in the withdrawal or reduction in pay is entitled to back pay that "the employee normally would have earned or received during the period if the personnel action had not occurred, less any amounts earned by the employee through other employment during that period." The basic principle of back pay, the appeals court explained, is that the employee should be "made whole." Accordingly, OPM issued a regulation instructing that when computing the amount of back pay, an agency may not include pay for "any period during which an employee was not ready, willing, and able to perform his or her duties because of an incapacitating illness or injury." The Federal Circuit explained that OPM's regulation reflects the desire to make the employee whole while avoiding overcompensating the employee when it is clear that the employee would not have been able to work even in the absence of the wrongful personnel action. In this case, the Federal Circuit stated, substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the clerk was not ready, willing, or able to work due to an incapacitating illness or injury. Two doctors determined that the clerk was not fit to return to work because of his mental condition, while another found that he was unable to work because of his physical ailments. The clerk himself admitted on an insurance claim that he was "continuously and totally disabled and unable to perform substantially all of his occupational duties from April 17, 2008, to the present," the Federal Circuit noted. Thus, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Board properly declined to grant the clerk's petition for enforcement because he was not ready, willing, and able to work during the relevant time frame. Lastly, the appeals court noted that while the administrative judge (AJ) in her prior opinion ordered the Postal Service to give the clerk back pay, in her second decision (the one currently under review), the AJ determined that the amount of back pay actually owed to the clerk was zero. Thus, effectively, the AJ determined that the clerk was not entitled to back pay, the Federal Circuit stated. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of the Postal Service, concluding that the clerk was not entitled to back pay. The case is Eisele v. United States Postal Service, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2010-3002, July 22, 2010. |
Get Ahead of the Curve
Our top news story this week is on a recently issued report of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) based on a survey of employees' perceptions of the management skills of their first level supervisors. According to the MSPB survey results, there has been some overall improvement in employee perception of their supervisors' job performance, but not enough. Many employees still perceive their first level supervisors as demonstrating levels of supervisory skills that are below par. Fact or fiction? Are the supervisory skills of the majority of first level federal supervisors really below par? Are these reported perceptions worth crediting? Or have only the disgruntled been heard? The MSPB report went on to find that federal agency practices in four critical areas- 1) selection, 2) training and development, 3) guidance and support, and 4) accountability-may be contributing to the perception or reality of less than optimal supervisory job performance. Whether you can accept the legitimacy of the perceptions reported by MSPB, it's been a widely held view that many agencies do not have a well-established training and development program for new supervisors that timely and effectively offer the necessary managerial training. So without the proper training, maybe there is some accuracy to the perception of these employees. It's difficult to pick-up -just through on-the-job experience-- the people management and other supervisory skills required to ensure employee engagement and workplace fairness so essential to a successful federal office. While the MSPB report outlines measures for federal agencies to take to strengthen the management skills of supervisors from initial hiring, through training and development and accountability, you really don't need to wait for your agency to adopt better training and development programs in order to work on your own supervisory skills. If your agency's budget won't allow for immediate training, be proactive about improving and building on your management skills. Consider finding a mentor or career coach in your agency, someone whose judgment and style your admire and ask him or her to mentor or coach you in the areas of management skills you believe are worth improving or building on. Consider developing a mentoring plan with a mentor where you identify your own goals and timelines. Establish regular mentoring meetings. You can augment the interactive benefits of a mentor or coach by reading management and leadership advice books. Be open to the idea of improving and developing your supervisory and management skills without formalized training. In the federal workplace, perception often becomes your reality. So try to stay ahead of this perception curve -that first line supervisors are below par performers in the area of management and supervision-and cultivate some of the important skills through non-traditional means. |
|
Smile of the Week
"What's the matter, doctor?" the patient asked. "You look perplexed." "I can't figure out exactly what's wrong with you," the doctor replied. "It may be the result of heavy drinking." "Oh, well in that case, I'll just come back when you're sober," the patient said. |
Weekly Leadership Reflection
"I start with the premise that the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers." - Ralph Nader
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
