```

[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.

                                  

```