A Call to Action:

Improving First-Level Supervision

of Federal Employees

A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States 

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

May 2010

The President

President of the Senate

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Dear Sirs and Madam:

In accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C.§1204(a)(3), it is my honor to submit this Merit 

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) report, A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of 

Federal Employees. The purpose of this report is to examine the effectiveness of Federal first-level 

supervisors and how well agencies select, develop, and manage them.

First-line supervisors, as the nexus between Government policy and action, are critical to 

productivity, employee engagement, and workplace fairness. Because a supervisor’s primary 

responsibility is to accomplish work through others, supervisory positions—even at the first 

level—have distinctive responsibilities and skill requirements. Even when it is essential, technical 

competence alone does not enable supervisors to effectively perform critical functions such as 

planning work, communicating agency policies, rating employee performance, and setting pay.

Therefore, it is essential that agencies have valid selection criteria and processes, comprehensive 

training programs, good communication and support networks, and sound accountability 

mechanisms for their first-level supervisors. Unfortunately, we found continuing deficiencies in 

all of these areas. In particular, agencies often give too little weight to supervisory skill or 

potential when filling first-level supervisory positions, and too little attention to supervisory 

training, development and feedback afterward. The common consequence is suboptimal firstlevel supervision.

In addition to discussing how well Federal agencies are managing first-level supervisors, this 

report recommends specific measures to improve the management and performance of first-level 

supervisors. I believe that you will find this report useful as you consider these and other issues 

regarding the future of the Federal civil service.

Sincerely,

Susan Tsui Grundmann

Enclosure
A Call to Action:

Improving First-Level Supervision

of Federal Employees

A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States 

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mary M. Rose, Member

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Director

John Crum, Ph.D.

Deputy Director

Laura Shugrue

Project Manager 

Anne Marrelli, Ph.D.

Project Analyst

James Tsugawa
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 

Findings .

Recommendations . .

A Call to Action .

Why are first-level supervisors so important? .

How effective are Federal first-level supervisors? .

How well do Federal agencies manage first-level supervisors? .

Why has improvement in first-level supervision been elusive? .

Selection of Supervisors .

Review of Current Supervisory Selection Practices .

Steps to Improve the Cadre of First-Level Supervisors . 

Summary . 

Development of Supervisors . 

Training for New Supervisors Is Often Inadequate . 

Need for Continuous Learning for Supervisors . 

Supervisors’ Training “Wish List” . 

Need to Define the Supervisor’s Role . 

Best Training on Core Supervisor Competency Model . 

Involve Managers and Executives in Supervisory Training . 

Need for Informal Development . 

Provide a Comprehensive Training and Development Program

 for Supervisors . 

Recognition of the Need for Supervisor Training . 

Summary . 

Guidance and Support of Supervisors . 

Information . 

Guidance and Support . 

Feedback . 

Summary . 
A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Table of Contents

Accountability . 

The Impact of the Organization on Supervisory Accountability . 

Consequences for Performance . 

Summary . 

Conclusions and Recommendations . 

Conclusions . 

Recommendations . 

Appendix A: 

2007 Merit Principles Survey Questions Discussed . 

Appendix B: 

2007 Merit Principles Survey Methodology . 

Appendix C: 

Selected Reports on Federal 

First-Level Supervision, 1978–2008 . 

Appendix D: 

Process for Review of Supervisory Job Postings . 

Appendix E: 

Example of a Supervisory Competency . 

Appendix F: 

Possible Assessment Methods 

for Supervisory Positions . 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board i

Executive Summary

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Federal supervisors are the nexus between Government policy and action 

and the link between management and employees. They ensure that the 

decisions made by the President and Congress are implemented through 

the information and services provided by employees to the American public. 

Organizational research consistently demonstrates that supervisory proficiency is 

a major determinant of individual and organizational performance and employee 

motivation, engagement, and retention. However, numerous studies conducted 

over the past three decades by both Federal agencies and nonprofit organizations 

have concluded that there is a strong need to improve the effectiveness of Federal 

first-level supervisors. Although there has been some overall improvement in 

employees’ perceptions of their supervisors’ performance in recent years, our research 

shows that many supervisors continue to demonstrate levels of supervisory skill 

substantially lower than what is needed to effectively engage employees and manage 

their performance.

In this report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), we identify and 

discuss specific needs for improvement in the selection, development, guidance, and 

management of Federal first-level supervisors. Our analysis is based on the results of 

the 2007 Merit Principles Survey, past studies of first-level supervisors by MSPB and 

others, and additional research we have conducted. Following our findings, we offer 

our recommendations to address each area identified for improvement. Some of 

those recommendations are new; others have appeared in previous MSPB reports or 

been made previously by other organizations. Not all of our recommendations will 

work for all agencies. We call upon each agency to select those recommendations 

that can be aligned with their goals, business strategies, and organizational cultures 

and act to meet the challenge of equipping its supervisory workforce to engage 

employees and achieve high performance. Because first-level supervisors play a 

vital role in the success of every Federal agency, investments in the improvement 

of supervision could yield enormous positive returns through improved workforce 

productivity and performance.

Findings

Current selection of first-level supervisors is heavily based on technical 

expertise. The problems in supervisory selection reported over the past 30 years 

appear to persist. Supervisory selection is often based more heavily on technical 

expertise than on leadership competencies. Technical skills appear to be much more 

strongly emphasized than are supervisory skills in both job announcements and 

assessments.
ii

Executive Summary

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Technical experts without an interest or aptitude in leadership are often selected 

for supervisory roles. Because most Federal career paths do not provide technical 

expert roles in which highly proficient and experienced employees are recognized 

with organizational status and increased compensation, technically proficient 

employees who have minimal interest or aptitude in managing people apply for 

supervisory positions. And, because the selection criteria are heavily weighted toward 

technical expertise, they often are selected for these positions.

The supervisory probationary period is not consistently being used as the 

final step in the selection process. Federal managers are not consistently using 

the probationary period as the final step in the selection process for first-level 

supervisors. In Fiscal Year 2009, just one half of one percent of new supervisors were 

reassigned or separated for failure to complete probation. In addition, in the 2007 

Merit Principles Survey, only 64 percent of supervisors affirmed that they had been 

informed of the probationary period while fewer than half (47 percent) stated that 

their performance during their probationary period had been used to decide if they 

should retain a supervisory role. 

Supervisors need substantially more training and development. Many new 

supervisors are not receiving the training and development opportunities they need 

both to understand the agency’s expectations for supervisors and to manage their 

employees effectively. Less than two-thirds of supervisors said that they received 

training prior to or during their first year as a supervisor. Of those who received 

training, almost half (48 percent) received one week or less. Overall, more than 

three-quarters of new supervisors did not receive training in each of the basic areas 

of performance management, including developing performance goals and 

standards; assigning, reviewing, and documenting employees’ work; providing 

feedback; developing employees; evaluating employee performance; and managing 

poor performers.

Many supervisors do not receive the information they need. Two-thirds of firstlevel supervisors believe they are receiving information about the goals and priorities 

of their organization, while half said they are satisfied with the information they 

receive from management about what is going on in their organization. Less than 

two-thirds of supervisors agree that their supervisor adequately explains the reasons 

for work changes before they take place. Less than two-thirds also said they were 

satisfied with their involvement in decisions that affect their work. 

Supervisors receive assistance from their managers, but many need more 

information and specific guidance. Although three-quarters of supervisors reported 

that their supervisor talks with them or assists them when they need help, fewer 

supervisors (61 percent) stated that they receive the information and guidance they 

need to do a good job most or all of the time. One reason a substantial number of 

supervisors are saying their managers do not provide the specific information or 

guidance they need may be that the managers themselves are not receiving enough 

information about the organization to provide adequate guidance and information 

to supervisors. Less than two-thirds of managers said they were satisfied with the 

organizational information they receive from agency leadership.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board iii

Executive Summary

Supervisors need more coaching and feedback. Receiving frequent feedback is a 

vital component of effective supervisory performance. Yet we found that just under 

half of supervisors (49 percent) are receiving feedback from their managers at least 

every two weeks. Another 13 percent receive feedback monthly. The remaining 

38 percent receive feedback only quarterly or even less often, with 10 percent 

receiving feedback once a year or less. We also found wide gaps between supervisors’ 

perceptions of their behavior and performance and employees’ perceptions. 

For example, while 94 percent of supervisors said they explain work changes to 

employees before they take place, only 56 percent of employees agreed that their 

supervisors do so. 

Only about half (54 percent) of the survey respondents reported that when they 

were new supervisors their manager provided them with coaching or feedback 

that helped them develop supervisory competencies. By not providing feedback 

and coaching, managers are sending a strong message to first-level supervisors that 

feedback and coaching are not important functions of supervision.

Supervisory and managerial accountability need to be strengthened. Stronger 

cultures of accountability need to be developed in many Federal agencies so that 

each supervisor and manager demonstrates a personal commitment to serving 

the public through effectively managing the performance of his or her employees. 

Several studies over the past 30 years have documented the need for improvement, 

especially in the area of managing poor performers.

Recommendations

For Consideration by Congress

Provide the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with the funding to 

offer predictive supervisory selection instruments to agencies without charge. 

OPM currently provides off-the-shelf and custom selection assessment tools, and 

accompanying services such as validation, to Federal agencies on a fee basis. With 

additional funding, OPM could develop a set of selection instruments with a high 

level of predictive power for supervisory success and offer them to all agencies with 

no charge. The development and validation of predictive selection tools typically 

require substantial expertise, time, and money. However, if the tools are available 

to all agencies, the cost per use is greatly reduced and they become an excellent 

investment.

For the U.S. Office of Personnel Management

1. Provide guidance to assist agencies in using competencies as a basis for 

supervisory selection and development. In its recently-issued Supervisory 

Qualification Guide, OPM has identified a set of competencies that could 

provide Federal agencies with a standard framework for talent management for 

first-level supervisors. We suggest that OPM provide additional guidance to 

help agencies make practical use of these competencies, such as (1) operational 
iv

Executive Summary

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

definitions—descriptions of how each competency is applied at the first level of 

supervision; (2) behavioral examples for different levels of proficiency; and (3) 

options for assessment and development. We note that OPM’s online Personnel 

Assessment and Selection Resource Center already includes relevant material, 

such as the Assessment Decision Guide and a description of proficiency levels for 

the leadership competencies. Guidance for selecting and managing first-level 

supervisors could build on, and ultimately be integrated with, this material 

as well as guidance related to Senior Executive Service (SES) selection and 

development.

2. Explore ways to provide alternative career opportunities for technical 

experts. It is essential that Federal agencies recognize the special skills and 

responsibilities required by a supervisory role, provide adequate incentives 

for employees to accept those responsibilities, and recognize and reward 

those employees who carry out those responsibilities with distinction. Yet it 

is also essential that the Federal Government does not drive high-performing 

technical experts who lack the desire or ability to supervise to apply for 

supervisory positions for want of any other opportunity for advancement, career 

development, or challenging work.

Accordingly, we recommend that OPM work with Federal agencies to 

explore and develop career opportunities for employees who have a high level 

of technical expertise but are not well-suited to a supervisory role. Those 

opportunities might include technical career paths for occupations in which 

employees can contribute to their organizations in a capacity beyond the top 

existing level. For other occupations, those opportunities could take other forms, 

such as recognition and rewards, serving as a mentor, representing the agency 

in interagency or external task forces, taking on special projects, and developing 

and delivering training to less experienced employees.

We acknowledge that alternative career opportunities may be difficult to 

implement. First, it may require far-reaching changes to classification principles 

and standards, or legislation if desired changes cannot be accomplished within 

the existing statutory framework for Federal employee classification and pay. 

Second, the establishment of alternative opportunities could have significant 

implications for career paths in Federal agencies and compensation costs. 

Finally, we recognize that this recommendation might be best evaluated and 

implemented as part of a broader reform of Federal employee pay, classification, 

and performance management. For these reasons, we do not specify when or 

how OPM should establish the “alternative opportunities” envisioned here.

For Federal Agencies

1. Base the talent management cycle for first-level supervisors on the core 

supervisory competencies. Base all aspects of talent management for first-level 

supervisors (workforce planning, selection, development, management, and 

evaluation) on core supervisory competencies and any additional competencies 

that are essential to supervisory success in the agency.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board v

Executive Summary

2. Allow adequate time for supervisory duties. When designing supervisory jobs, 

carefully consider the time needed for the supervisor to effectively manage the 

performance of the work group. Supervisory responsibilities are time-consuming 

and supervisors should be allowed adequate time to discharge them well.

3. Emphasize supervisory competencies when advertising and filling 

supervisory positions. Even for first-level supervisory positions, core 

supervisory competencies should be a primary consideration. Use technical 

expertise as appropriate as an essential and important criterion for selection—

but also include the assessment of supervisory competencies or potential to 

identify and select the candidate most likely to succeed.

4. Provide realistic job previews for aspiring supervisors. Provide realistic 

job previews for first-level supervision jobs to inform employees who are 

interested in a supervisory position about both the rewards and challenges of 

supervision. Include an explanation of the supervisory competencies needed for 

the job with the behavioral examples that illustrate how these competencies are 

applied on the job. Emphasize the demanding interpersonal situations that a 

supervisor faces, such as providing corrective feedback to employees, supporting 

performance appraisal ratings, and dealing assertively with conduct and 

performance problems.

5. Provide clear information about the supervisory role in job announcements. 

Communicate through job announcements that supervision is an essential 

component of the job. List the specific supervisory duties (rather than simply 

saying the job includes supervision), provide the percentages of time that are to 

be spent on supervision and technical work, explain the approximate number 

of employees who will be supervised and their occupations, and list both the 

technical and supervisory competencies required for the job. 

6. Use strongly predictive selection tools for first-level supervisor positions.

Every dollar invested in the development and use of sound selection tools can 

be returned many fold in the performance of good supervisors. Base the choice 

of selection instruments on their power in predicting supervisory success, rather 

than simply on administrative convenience, familiarity, or low cost. Use multiple 

assessment instruments for better prediction and fuller understanding of each 

candidate’s strengths and weaknesses. Ensure that the instruments used after 

candidates are reviewed for minimum qualifications and technical competence 

are well-suited to assessing supervisory competencies.

7. Provide a comprehensive training and development program for 

supervisors. Create an integrated plan for how first-level supervisors will be 

prepared for their demanding roles through a combination of formal training, 

on the job learning, and other development opportunities such as job rotations, 

job shadowing, and mentoring. Begin with an onboarding program for new 

supervisors that will help them understand their new responsibilities and their 

role in the organization and continue with a training program that will enable 

them to build the core supervisory competencies. Ensure that the transfer of 

learning from the program to the supervisors’ daily work is the top priority. 
vi

Executive Summary

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Provide additional support for new supervisors for their first year or two 

with a mentoring program focused on the core competencies. Offer ongoing 

development opportunities for all supervisors to refresh and strengthen the 

core competencies.

8. Evaluate supervisors on both work group outcomes and supervisory 

competencies. Communicate to supervisors their accountability for effectively 

managing their employees’ performance in achieving work unit goals by 

evaluating the supervisors’ performance on both the outcomes achieved by 

the work unit and their individual demonstration of supervisory competencies. 

This dual focus offers several benefits: it makes it clear to supervisors that 

they are judged on the performance of their work group; it emphasizes the 

importance of the supervisory competencies; it deters those who may seek to 

achieve goals at the cost of ignoring good management practices or alienating 

employees through unfair or disrespectful treatment; and, it helps identify 

supervisors’ strengths and areas for development.

9. Ensure that human resource staff has expertise in talent management 

and organizational development. In order to implement the above 

recommendations, agency leaders at all levels will require the assistance of 

human resources staff with expertise in all components of talent management 

as well as competency in organizational development and change management. 

In most cases, individuals with these competencies will need to be hired rather 

than trained on the job because expertise in these areas takes a long time and 

substantial education to develop.

For Agency Executives

1. Share organizational information with supervisors and managers on a 

regular basis. Make a concerted effort to involve first-level supervisors and their 

managers in leading the organization by discussing with them organizational 

goals, priorities, and progress as well as emerging and continuing problems, and 

upcoming initiatives and changes. Ask for their ideas and input. Communicate 

your high expectations for them and their employees and explain how you will 

support them. When practical, use a variety of media to communicate such as 

monthly or quarterly leadership meetings, weekly e-mail bulletins, annual or 

semi-annual supervisor conferences, and simply walking around and talking to 

people or calling them on the telephone.

2. Hold managers accountable for selecting, developing, and managing the 

performance of first-level supervisors. Make it clear to the managers in 

your organization that they are personally responsible for effectively selecting, 

developing, and managing the performance of the supervisors who report to 

them. Ensure that the managers use the probationary period as the final step 

in the supervisory selection process. Emphasize that managers are accountable 

for the results achieved by all the work units in their domain and they will be 

evaluated and rewarded on the basis of this performance. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board vii

Executive Summary

3. Model good performance management practices and hold managers 

accountable for them. Model good performance management practices 

by working with each manager to define clear performance goals for their 

work units then meeting frequently with each to review their progress in 

achieving those goals, address any obstacles, discuss how they are managing 

the performance of their subordinate supervisors, and provide feedback and 

coaching. Ensure that each manager also implements these practices with their 

subordinate supervisors. 

4. Encourage managers to collect feedback about their supervisors and use it 

to guide their development. Supervisors typically interact with several different 

groups of people in the course of their daily work: their employees, other 

supervisors, internal and external customers, suppliers, and perhaps higher-level 

leaders. Encourage managers to collect feedback on each supervisor from these 

groups, then share it with the supervisor to identify strengths and weaknesses 

and plan the behavior changes that will lead to a higher level of performance.

For Current Supervisors

1. Build strong working relationships with your employees. Set the tone for 

the work relationship by meeting with each employee to become mutually 

acquainted with each other’s goals, concerns, interests, communication 

preferences, and working styles. Meet regularly with each employee to review 

progress on work assignments; provide direction, feedback, and information; 

address obstacles or concerns; and discuss the employee’s development. In 

addition, talk informally with each employee at least every few days to get to 

know them as people and to offer informal feedback and appreciation for their 

work. Schedule regular staff meetings to share information, build camaraderie, 

and encourage collaboration.

2. Develop your leadership skills. Strive to continuously enhance your leadership 

skills and enlist the help of both your manager and your employees. Take the 

initiative to talk with your manager about both your learning needs and your 

strengths using the core supervisory competencies as a guide. Ask for your 

manager’s feedback and development advice, create a development plan, and 

implement it. Once or twice each year, ask your employees how you can do 

a better job in managing the work unit. Always express appreciation for the 

feedback received and explain how you plan to use it.

3. Determine if supervision is the right career path for you. You may discover 

that you are not comfortable or happy in a supervisory role because you prefer 

to spend your time doing technical work, you don’t enjoy the high level of 

interaction with employees, you don’t like directing other people or providing 

them with feedback, or you are reluctant to take the difficult actions that 

supervisors sometimes must take to manage performance or conduct problems. 

If this is the case, then admit to yourself and your manager that supervising is 

not for you and request a return to a non-supervisory role. Openly admitting 

your career interests, abilities, and limitations is a sign of personal strength.
viii

Executive Summary

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

For Aspiring Supervisors

Before applying for a supervisory position, carefully consider if it is the right job 

for you. Being a first-level supervisor can be difficult and stressful—much more so 

than many people realize. Being successful in a role in which you are responsible for 

achieving work unit goals when you are not directly working on the tasks to achieve 

those goals is challenging. It requires strong organizational and communication skills 

as well as comfort in dealing with conflict and willingness to interact frequently 

with people you may find abrasive, puzzling, or difficult in other ways. Supervising 

requires putting the group’s needs ahead of your own and spending most of your 

time leading others rather than doing the technical work you enjoy.

If you have not yet had leadership experience, seek out opportunities to lead others 

such as managing a project or leading a task force at work or leading a community 

group or committee. Try to find a situation in which you will need to coordinate the 

work of several adults to accomplish a difficult goal. This type of experience will help 

you understand some of the challenges of supervision. Take advantage of realistic 

job preview programs or materials your organization may offer. You also may want 

to talk to current supervisors about their jobs; ask them what they like and do not 

like about supervising. Reading books about supervision is also a good way 

to understand the job duties and challenges involved.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1

A Call to Action

Why are first-level supervisors so important?

First-level supervisors have a clear and vital role: achieve the organizational goals 

assigned to their work unit through the unit’s employees. Simply put, their job is 

to do everything they can to help their employees succeed in their jobs and thereby 

achieve organizational goals. Federal supervisors are the nexus between Government 

policy and action and the link between management and employees. They ensure 

that the decisions made by the President and Congress are implemented through the 

information and services that employees provide to the American public. Because 

they have direct and frequent contact with employees, first-level supervisors can have 

a stronger, more immediate impact on employee performance and productivity than 

higher-level managers. Organizational research shows that supervisory proficiency is 

one of the most important predictors of an agency’s performance,1 and a review of 

1,500 journal articles on performance improvement indicated that the most effective 

way to improve organizational performance is to improve first-level supervisors.2

Conversely, deficient supervision can be extremely costly, in terms of both 

productivity and public confidence in the Government. As the National Academy 

of Public Administration stated in a 2003 report about Federal supervisors, “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 indicate that this 

problem involves more than ‘a small percentage’ and real costs could be considerably 

larger. Without solid programs for identifying, developing, and managing firstlevel supervisors, agencies pay an enormous price in several ways....”3 Those ways 

include low-quality work performance, low morale, low productivity, grievances and 

complaints from employees and clients, and high employee absenteeism or turnover. 

Thus, deficiencies in Federal agency performance that are frequently reported in the 

press—and that perpetuate negative public stereotypes of Federal employees—may 

reflect deficiencies in supervision, such as inadequate oversight and management, 

more than deficiencies in the conduct or performance of line employees. Moreover, 

1 Gene Brewer, “In the eye of the storm: Frontline supervisors and federal agency performance,”

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2005, 15, 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; and M. Buckingham and C. Coffman, 

First, Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently, Simon and Schuster, 

New York, 1999.

2 James Fuller, Performance Management with Bottom-line Results. Presentation at the Aligning 

Performance Management with Business Strategy and Goals conference sponsored by the International 

Quality and Productivity Center, San Francisco, February 2003.

3 National Academy of Public Administration, First Line Supervisors in Federal Service: Selection, 

Development, and Management, Management Concepts, Vienna, VA, 2003, p. 4.
2

A Call to Action

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

many studies have demonstrated that a poor supervisor or manager is the most 

common reason for employee attrition.4

Recent MSPB research reinforces the importance of first-level supervisors for 

employee engagement and organizational performance in the Federal workforce. 

In our 2008 study, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, we reported that 87 

percent of engaged employees stated that their supervisor had good management 

skills, compared to only 14 percent of unengaged employees.5 In our 2009 study 

based on data from the 2007 Merit Principles Survey (MPS 2007),6 Managing 

for Engagement—Communication, Connection, and Courage, we found that every 

performance management practice we reviewed that is the responsibility of firstlevel supervisors (e.g., providing frequent, helpful feedback) is practiced more 

widely in high-engagement agencies than in low-engagement agencies.7 Data from 

that survey also show that nonsupervisory employees who rated their supervisors’ 

performance as “good” or better were much more likely to recommend their agency 

as a good place to work and to believe their talents are used well in the workplace 

compared to employees who had less positive perceptions of their supervisors.8

The strong link between effective supervision and performance is further supported 

by the significant positive relationships between high employee engagement in 

Federal agencies and several key performance outcomes, including higher scores on 

the results portion of the Office of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment 

Rating Tool, reduced use of sick leave, fewer Equal Employment Opportunity 

complainants, fewer cases of lost time due to work-related illness or injury, and 

lower rates of employee intention to leave the agency.9

How effective are Federal first-level supervisors?

Clearly, effective first-level supervision is an essential component of high 

organizational performance. It also appears to be an area of relative weakness in the 

management of the Federal workforce. For example, a recent study reported that 

Federal employees rated the overall performance of their supervisors less positively 

than did private sector employees.10 Table 1 lists the percentages of non-supervisory 

Federal employees who expressed favorable views of their supervisors’ basic 

performance management skills in the Merit Principles Surveys over the last 

20 years.

4 Id.

5 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, Washington, DC, 

2008.

6 Appendix A lists the questions from the 2007 MPS that are discussed in this report. Appendix B 

describes the methodology for the survey.

7 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing for Engagement—Communication, Connection, and 

Courage, Washington, DC, 2009.

8 Significant positive relationships at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) as demonstrated by Pearson correlation 

coefficients of 0.415 and 0.429 respectively.

9 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, Washington, DC, 

2008.

10 J. Thompson, Training Supervisors To Be Leaders: A Missing Element In Efforts To Improve Federal 

Performance, Partnership for Public Service, Washington, DC, 2007, p. i; and Paul C. Light, “New 

survey shows a Federal workforce at risk,” The Washington Post, Jan. 13, 2009. Accessed Jan. 14, 2009, 

at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011302463_p.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3

A Call to Action

Table 1.

Positive Responses to Selected MPS Performance 

Management Items, 1986-2007

Question 

Merit Principles Survey Year

1986 1989 1992 1996 2000 2005 2007

My supervisor has good 

management skills. 48% 51% 51% 53% 47% 54%

Overall, I am satisfied 

with my supervisor.11 59% 60% 57% 63% 66%

My supervisor deals 

effectively with 

poor performers.12

20% 29% 26%

My supervisor keeps me 

informed about how well 

I am doing.13

47% 46% 57% 54%

Recognition and rewards 

are based on performance 

in my work unit.

31% 30% 42% 47%

Note: Gray shading indicates the question was not asked that year.

Overall, there has been some, though uneven, improvement in employees’ 

assessments of supervisory performance. Nevertheless, employees’ most recent 

assessments of supervisors continue to indicate that there is substantial room 

for further improvement. In our recent report, Managing for Engagement—

Communication, Connection, and Courage, we presented additional data from the 

2007 MPS that shows that the performance management practices of many firstlevel supervisors are not conducive to employee engagement or high performance. 

For example, among nonsupervisory respondents:

 • Only 39 percent receive feedback of any kind, formal or informal, from their 

supervisors every two weeks or more often (another 14 percent receive feedback 

monthly); 

 • Only 43 percent meet with their supervisors to discuss the progress of their work 

monthly or more often;

 • Only 61 percent are receiving the information and guidance they need; and

 • Fully 63 percent do more than their fair share of work due to the poor 

performance of co-workers.

Studies and surveys conducted over the past three decades by the U.S. Office 

of Personnel Management (OPM), the Merit Systems Protection Board, the 

Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Public Administration, 

the Partnership for Public Service, and others have consistently supported the need 

to improve the effectiveness of Federal first-level supervisors, especially in managing 

poorly performing employees. Appendix C lists twenty of these studies.

11 In the MPS 2007, this question was worded as “Overall, how would you rate your immediate 

supervisor’s performance as a supervisor?”

12 In the MPS 2007, this question was worded as “In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a 

poor performer who cannot or will not improve. 

13 In the MPS 2007, the favorable response represents the employees who reported they receive 

feedback monthly or more frequently.
4

A Call to Action

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

How well do Federal agencies manage first-level supervisors?

In these reports, there is consistent agreement that most Federal agencies do not do a 

good job of selecting, developing, and managing first-level supervisors. Commonlydescribed shortcomings include:

 • Selection processes that emphasize technical expertise over leadership abilities 

and aptitudes;

 • Failure to use the probationary period to identify new supervisors who are 

lacking in supervisory skills;

 • Insufficient training and development of supervisors;

 • Inadequate leadership support or guidance for supervisors; and

 • Failure to hold supervisors accountable for providing good supervision.

Supervisors themselves recognize these problems and desire change. For example, 

OPM conducted a study to assess efforts in Federal agencies to select, develop, and 

evaluate first-level supervisors. The supervisors and first-level managers that OPM 

interviewed for the study indicated that agencies:

 • Overemphasized technical expertise and failed to adequately assess leadership 

competencies when making supervisory selections;

 • Gave low priority to supervisory development;

 • Did not sufficiently stress the ability to achieve work goals through people in 

supervisory performance appraisals;

 • Ignored or provided little constructive feedback to poor-performing supervisors, 

while failing to provide adequate recognition or rewards to effective supervisors;

 • Needed to make fuller 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 skills such as communication, coaching, 

dealing with poor performers, and resolving conflicts.

In 2001, 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. Agencies must make the selection and development of first-level 

supervisors a top human resource management priority.”14 Yet, taking action to 

build the effectiveness of the Government’s supervisors in managing the performance 

of the workforce has apparently not been a high priority for most Federal agencies.

14 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Supervisors in the Federal Government: A Wake-Up Call, 

Washington, DC, 2001, p. 2.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5

A Call to Action

Why has improvement in first-level supervision been elusive?

The objective of this report is to explore key reasons for the continuing problem of 

less than optimal supervision and issue an urgent renewed call for action to remedy 

the problem. Given the myriad challenges our Nation faces, the need for an effective 

Federal workforce is even more pressing now than nine years ago when OPM issued 

its wake-up call for improved first-level supervision. 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.

Why does suboptimal first-level supervision continue despite the long-standing 

recognition that it is a major impediment to the performance of the Federal 

workforce? We believe the cause lies in four aspects of the management of 

supervisors: selection, development, guidance and support, and accountability. 

First, due to current selection processes, many of the employees selected for 

supervisory positions may lack the underlying abilities, interests, or values required 

for the job. Second, supervisors often do not receive the training and development 

opportunities they need to build good performance management skills. Third, 

many supervisors do not receive the guidance and support they need to drive results 

in their organization and improve their own performance as supervisors. Fourth, 

some supervisors are not held fully accountable for managing their employees and 

achieving work unit goals.

These four barriers to effective supervision in the Federal workforce are not new. 

Why haven’t they been overcome? Agencies seeking to improve first-level supervision 

face many challenges. These may include such uncontrollable factors as inadequate 

funding and staff, the change of administrations every four to eight years and the 

concomitant change in political leaders and priorities, large spans of control, the 

exploding pace of change in both technology and the workplace, and complex 

personnel systems. In addition, change may not have occurred because agency 

executives have not made improving supervision a priority. Perhaps some do not 

fully understand the impact of first-level supervisors on organizational performance, 

failing to make the connection between inadequate supervisory oversight and other 

organizational problems. Alternatively, executives may recognize supervision as a 

problem to be addressed, but be unsure of how to proceed, find that their human 

resources staff lacks the expertise to advise them, or underestimate the effort and 

resources required. Finally, traditional attitudes and approaches may have become 

entrenched in agency culture, making them highly resistant to change.
6

A Call to Action

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

To resolve these problems, agencies must recognize the need for widespread 

organizational change and summon the will needed to make that change. The 

transition to excellent first-level supervision across the Government may be slow. 

But slow, steady, carefully planned investments in first-level supervision can accrete 

over time and yield enormous positive returns in workforce performance. In this 

report, we discuss each of the four problematic factors of selection, development, 

guidance and support, and accountability and present corroborating data. Then, 

we offer recommendations to address these factors. Some recommendations are 

new while others have been suggested in our previous reports or in studies by other 

organizations. We recognize that not all of our recommendations will work for every 

agency or organization within an agency and that most agencies will not choose 

to make large changes quickly. Our goal is to encourage organizational leaders to 

(1) critically appraise first-level supervision; (2) identify areas for improvement; 

(3) develop plans for improvement; and (4) begin taking action. Even if the initial 

actions are small, the time to act is now.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 7

Selection of Supervisors

Competence in performance management is the hallmark of a good 

supervisor and should be a key criterion of selection. The implementation 

of this primary role of managing employees’ performance to achieve 

organizational goals typically requires supervisors to play additional, secondary roles 

such as technical expert, administrator, liaison with management, and ambassador 

to other work units in the agency and to the public. The importance of each of 

these additional roles will vary with the organization and the supervisor’s specific 

work unit. Their relative importance should be reflected in the supervisory selection 

process while keeping in mind that performance management is a critical role of the 

first-level supervisor. We define performance management as the process of planning 

and assigning work, setting performance expectations, developing employees’ 

capabilities, reviewing and assessing work, providing feedback, and holding 

employees accountable for their work. These responsibilities may be carried out in 

different ways to align with organizational mission, culture, and strategies as well as 

the occupation of the employees but the basic tasks remain the same for first-level 

supervisors in all agencies.

As discussed in Chapter 1, numerous reports by both Federal agencies and nonprofit organizations highlight the contribution of flawed selection processes to the 

suboptimal quality of first-level supervision in many agencies. Supervisor selection 

is often more heavily based on technical expertise than on leadership competencies. 

Although a high level of technical proficiency may be essential to success in a 

supervisory position—for example, to enable the supervisor to review work and 

establish credibility with employees—it is seldom sufficient by itself. In some cases, 

candidates’ supervisory skills or potential are not assessed at all. The unsurprising 

outcome of such selection processes is the frequent referral and selection of 

candidates with strong technical skills, although they may not have always been the 

best choices for the job. Although this misalignment of selection criteria and job 

requirements has been recognized for many years, agencies have made few changes.

For example, in MSPB’s 1992 study Federal First-Line Supervisors: How Good Are 

They?, we reported that very few agencies had created selection processes specifically 

for supervisors. Instead, many Federal organizations used the selection processes 

built on technical knowledge and skills for both supervisory and nonsupervisory 

positions and, consequently, often promoted their best technicians to supervisory 

positions without assessing supervisory skills. In 2003, the National Academy of 

Public Administration (NAPA) reported that only 29 percent of Federal supervisors 

agreed that their agency does a good job of selecting supervisors and managers 

and concluded that “...most supervisory jobs require technical competence, but 
8

Selection of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

technical abilities usually far outweigh leadership competencies as a selection factor. 

Too often, leadership potential is not even considered in the equation.”15 Finally, 

a 2007 report by the Partnership for Public Service confirmed the continuation of 

the problem, stating that “...within the federal sector, individuals are selected as 

supervisors largely on the basis of their technical qualifications. Unfortunately, those 

with the best ‘hard,’ technical skills do not always make the best leaders. Of equal, if 

not greater importance, are ‘soft’ skills such as communication, team-building and 

conflict resolution.”16

Review of Current Supervisory Selection Practices

In July 2009, as a quick check of current selection practices for first-level 

supervisory positions in Federal agencies, we reviewed a systematic sample of 

100 job announcements for first-level supervisory jobs posted on USAJOBS, the 

Government’s online job board. That sample included jobs advertised by all cabinetlevel departments and independent agencies with 1,000 or more employees. In 

our review, we excluded postings in which applications were restricted to current 

Federal employees or employees within a specific agency or agency subdivision. 

Thus, for the positions we reviewed, managers would not be familiar with many of 

the applicants. In each case, we reviewed the description of duties; the knowledge, 

skills, and abilities (KSAs) listed as required for the job; the number and occupations 

of employees to be supervised; and the assessment methods to be used to further 

evaluate candidates who pass a preliminary screening for minimum qualifications 

before they are referred to the hiring manager. Appendix D provides a full 

description of how we selected and reviewed these job announcements. 

Table 2 lists the percentage of job announcements we reviewed that included the 

specified types of information for descriptions of supervisory duties, the KSAs 

required for the job, and the number and types of employees to be supervised.

15 National Academy of Public Administration, First Line Supervisors in Federal Service: Selection, 

Development, and Management, Management Concepts, Vienna, VA, 2003, p. 3.

16 J. Thompson, Training supervisors to be leaders: A Missing Element in Efforts to Improve Federal 

Performance, Partnership for Public Service, Washington, DC, 2007, p. 1.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 9

Selection of Supervisors

Table 2.

Summary of July 2009 Job Announcement Information 

for First-Level Supervisors

Information: Description of Supervisory Duties

Detailed – lists specific supervisory duties 14%

Brief – summarizes supervisory duties 42%

Minimal – merely states “will supervise” 15%

None – no mention of supervisory duties 29%

Note: Only one job announcement (1% of the 100 reviewed) indicated percentages of time for 

technical and supervisory duties.

Information: Description of KSAs Required

Supervisory only 4%

Technical and supervisory 54%

Technical only 10%

None – no KSAs listed 32%

Information: Description of Employees Supervised

Number only 3%

Number and type 5%

Type only 20%

None – no information provided 72%

Description of Supervisory Duties. A clear and comprehensive description of 

job duties is an important feature of a job announcement. The duties description 

both informs applicants about the content and level of the job as well as 

communicates what is important in the job. In the description of job duties in the 

job announcements we reviewed, the technical responsibilities were usually much 

more heavily emphasized than the supervisory responsibilities. The majority of the 

announcements provided very brief descriptions of supervisory duties or simply 

stated that the job included supervision. Supervisory duties were not mentioned 

at all in 29 of the 100 announcements. For many jobs, it required close reading 

to determine that the job was indeed a supervisory position other than the fact 

that “supervisory” was included in the job title. Just 14 postings provided detailed 

descriptions of the supervisory responsibilities comparable to the level of detail in 

the explanations of technical duties. Only one of the announcements explained the 

relative importance of technical and supervisory responsibilities for the position by 

citing the percentage of time to be devoted to each.

Description of Required Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities. A listing of the KSAs 

important for success in a job helps potential applicants decide if they will be 

good candidates for the job and emphasizes the competencies valued by the hiring 

organization. Both technical and supervisory KSAs were described as important for 

job success in just over half (54) of the announcements, while 10 announcements 

provided only technical KSAs and four listed only supervisory KSAs. No KSAs at all 

were given for almost one-third (32) of the 100 announcements.
10

Selection of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Description of Employees Supervised. The number and type of employees to 

be supervised is important information for candidates for first-level supervision 

positions. For example, supervising two or three employees is much less demanding 

than supervising 10 or more. Also, the occupation of the subordinates makes a 

difference in the type and extent of supervision required. We found that only five 

of the 100 jobs indicated the number and type of subordinates the new supervisor 

would be supervising. Twenty postings described only the occupation of the 

potential subordinates and three provided only the number. Almost three-quarters 

of the job announcements provided neither the number nor type of supervisees. 

The description of duties, KSAs, and information about potential supervisees in 

the job announcements we reviewed indicates that agencies typically emphasize 

technical responsibilities over supervisory responsibilities. That emphasis may imply 

that supervision is only a small, and relatively unimportant, part of the first-level 

supervisor’s job. However, survey data from first-level supervisors indicate otherwise. 

In the MPS 2007, we asked first-level supervisors to identify the components of 

their job (job tasks) they considered most important and most satisfying, and to 

indicate what percentage of work time they devote to those job tasks. Supervisors’ 

responses are shown in Figure 1.

17 We also asked supervisors to indicate the 

percentage of their time they devote to those job tasks.

Figure 1.

Supervisors’ Most Satisfying and Most Important Tasks

Supervise my employees

Work unit development

Communicate with customers

Communicate with other leaders

Technical work

Administrative work

Other

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Most Important

Most Satisfying

37%

44%

28%

30%

14%

11%

4%

5%

8%

2%

1%

1%

8%

7%

As shown in Figure 1, only 2 percent of first-level supervisors reported that technical 

work was their most important task. Moreover, for most Federal supervisors, 

technical work occupies relatively little work time. On average, supervisors spend 

less than 15 percent of their work time doing their own technical work. More than 

two-thirds (68 percent) of first-level supervisors reported that they spend 15 percent 

or less of their work time doing their own technical work, and almost 90 percent 

17 The job task “Supervise my employees” was defined as reviewing work, providing feedback, 

and discussing assignments, development, or performance with employees. The job task “Work unit 

development” was defined as strategic hiring, development, management, and retention.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11

Selection of Supervisors

spend 25 percent or less of their time on technical work. As we discuss later in this 

report, technical competence is essential to supervisory credibility and effectiveness. 

Nevertheless, the primacy of technical duties and capabilities in supervisory job 

announcements does not appear to be warranted by “facts on the ground”—what 

supervisors actually do.

Assessment Methods. For any supervisory position,18 supervisory skills or potential 

is an essential qualification. Accordingly, only those candidates who demonstrate 

evidence of both the technical and the supervisory skills required for the job 

should be referred to the hiring manager. Therefore, it is important that secondary 

assessments assess supervisory skills rigorously and reliably.

Table 3 lists the assessment strategies and methods that agencies stated they would 

use to assess applicants who passed minimum qualifications screening. Typically, 

agencies use these secondary assessments to assign numerical scores to candidates or 

to place them in ranked categories (e.g., Qualified, Better Qualified, Best Qualified). 

Agencies then use those scores or categories to refer candidates to the hiring manager 

for consideration and selection.

Table 3.

Pre-Referral Assessment Methods for First-Level Supervisor Jobs

Assessment Method Strategy and Method(s) Used Percent

Self-rating questionnaire     59%

Review of narrative (KSAs)      45%

Review of resume 

or application

     34%

Structured interview  1%

Autobiography  1%

Writing sample  1%

Percent 32% 22% 16% 12% 10% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 100%

Note: An agency may use more than one pre-referral assessment method. A check mark in a row indicates use of the listed method; 

the check mark(s) in a column indicate the assessment “strategy”—the method or method(s) to be used for pre-referral assessment. 

For example, 59 percent of the announcements reviewed indicated that a self-rating questionnaire would be used, either alone or in 

conjunction with other assessments. Twenty-two percent of the announcements reviewed indicated that the pre-referral assessment 

would be based on a self-rating questionnaire and a review of narrative KSAs.

Unfortunately, the methods that agencies use to identify the candidates who are 

most qualified for further consideration are often not effective approaches to 

accurately identifying the candidates who are most likely to succeed in a supervisory 

role. As shown in the table, Federal agencies rely heavily on assessments of training 

and experience (T&E) such as self-rating questionnaires, review of narrative KSAs, 

and review of resumes to make these judgments. Even if those T&E assessments 

were appropriately focused on supervisory competence, which is not necessarily the 

case, that reliance is problematic.

18 In our view, “any” means “any.” Even if supervisory duties do not account for a majority of work 

time, we believe that those duties are too important—both to the organization and to the employees 

supervised—to be treated as incidental or secondary.
12

Selection of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

First, the T&E methods that are most convenient for the applicant and 

employer, such as review of a resume, are poor predictors of proficiency (i.e., job 

performance).19 The low validity of convenient, “low-end” T&E methods20 reflects 

both a fundamental problem and a practical problem. The fundamental problem 

is that “training and experience” cannot be equated with proficiency or potential. 

For example, participation in a leadership training program does not mean that an 

applicant can apply what was learned or even that the person learned anything at 

all. The practical problem is that low-end T&E assessments rely on self-reported—

which is to say, applicant-provided—descriptions of training, experience, and skills. 

Applicants are not disinterested providers of information. An applicant may hire 

a professional writer to prepare his or her resume or other application documents. 

(A quick search of the Internet or a commercial telephone directory will show 

that this service is readily available.) An unscrupulous applicant may provide false 

information or exaggerate his or her experience and achievements to make them 

appear more job-relevant or impressive than they actually are.21 Misreporting or 

misrating is also a risk for honest applicants: research has demonstrated that people 

tend to significantly and consistently overestimate the level of their performance.22

Consequently, the validity of “fast and cheap” T&E assessments cannot be assumed, 

and selection processes based on such assessments may refer dishonest or mediocre 

applicants, while eliminating top performers or promising applicants. Such an 

outcome is not merely inconvenient for the Federal agencies; it offends honest and 

talented applicants and employees, and is antithetical to a merit system that aspires 

to base selections “solely on the basis of relative ability.”

Second, although there are “high-end” T&E methods that are capable of making 

useful distinctions among applicants, those methods also have significant drawbacks. 

Those drawbacks include:

 • Vulnerability to misreporting. Although these methods are less vulnerable to 

misstatement or exaggeration than resumes or multiple-choice training and 

experience questionnaires, “less vulnerable” does not mean “immune”; 

19 The most commonly used training and experience ratings are estimated to account for only about 

1 percent of the variability in job performance for jobs of moderate complexity. See Frank L. Schmidt 

and John E. Hunter, “The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical 

and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings,” Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 1998, 

pp. 262-274.

20 Typical characteristics of a “low end” T&E method include: a low level of structure; a low level 

of detail; no or minimal verification of information; an implicit (rather than explicit) link between 

application format and the qualifications, skills, or competencies required by the position; and low 

effort (minimal time required to submit or evaluate an application). The characteristics that make an 

assessment convenient or “user-friendly” from the applicant or employer perspective also tend to make 

it “low end”—less able to predict job performance and to -provide a sound basis for applicant sorting 

and referral.

21 We are not implying that a significant percentage of applicants are dishonest. However, the 

consequences of exaggeration or dishonesty are serious, even if the occurrence is rare. Exaggeration 

or misstatement can create considerable difficulty for HR staff and hiring managers. Moreover, the 

selection of even one dishonest applicant can do serious damage to productivity, morale, and the 

credibility and integrity of the hiring process.

22 Top performers tend to accurately estimate the quality of their own performance, but 

underestimate how well they perform compared to others. See D. Dunning, C. Heath and J.M. Suls, 

“Flawed self-assessment: implications for health, education, and the workplace,” Psychological Science in 

the Public Interest, 2004, 5(3), pp. 69-106; and George C. Thornton, “Psychometric properties of selfappraisals of job performance,” Personnel Psychology, 1980, 33(2), pp. 363-271.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13

Selection of Supervisors

 • Demands on the employer. Behavior-based (“behavioral”) T&E assessments, 

such as ratings of narrative KSA descriptions and accomplishment records, in 

which applicants describe how they applied job-related competencies to actual 

tasks, situations, or assignments, can provide moderately good prediction of job 

performance.23 However, to attain that “moderately good prediction,” an agency 

must invest substantial time, cost, and expertise in both development and 

application;24 and

 • Applicant burden. KSA narratives and accomplishment records require thought 

and time to prepare and to evaluate. That makes them unattractive to employers 

(or applicants) who value “ease of application.” Thus, ongoing initiatives to 

simplify and speed Federal hiring may make such methods less common, rather 

than more common, in the initial stages of the hiring process. Indeed, these 

initiatives have been driven, at least in part, by widespread dissatisfaction with 

the common practice of requiring applicants to submit behavioral descriptions 

of training and experience (such as KSA narratives) as part of an initial 

application for employment.25

In summary, longstanding deficiencies in supervisory recruitment and assessment 

persist. Specifically:

1. Technical skills are much more heavily emphasized than supervisory 

competencies in the information provided about the jobs, implying that 

supervisory skill is much less valued than technical prowess.

2. Self-report assessment tools that are known to be problematic in terms of 

accuracy are heavily employed in identifying the most qualified candidates.

3. Assessment tools that are not capable of accurately evaluating supervisory 

competencies are being used to refer finalists for first-level supervisory positions 

to selecting officials.

Consequently, it is likely therefore that many candidates referred to hiring managers 

as “well qualified” or “best qualified” for supervisory positions applications may not 

actually be suited to a supervisory role.

23 Rigorously developed and scored KSA narrative tools are estimated to account for about 20 

percent of the variability in job performance for jobs of moderate complexity. Frank L. Schmidt and 

John E. Hunter, “The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and 

theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings,” Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 1998, pp. 262-

274.

24 We could not determine, from our review of job announcements, whether agencies that used 

review of a KSA narrative had made this investment. However, previous MSPB studies indicate that 

both investment and expertise are frequently lacking. Therefore, review of KSA narratives, although 

a “high end” method on paper, may become a “low end” method in practice. See U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board, Reforming Federal Hiring: Beyond Faster and Cheaper, Washington, DC, September 

2006, pp. 20-21, and U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Assessing Federal Job Seekers in a Delegated 

Examining Environment, Washington, DC, December 2001, pp. 27-30.

25 For example, proposed legislation (S. 736, the Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act of 2009) 

would require agencies to develop application processes that “allow applicants to submit a cover letter, 

resume, and answers to brief questions...to complete an application” and that “[do] not require lengthy 

writing requirements such as knowledge, skill, and ability essays as part of an initial application.”
14

Selection of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

There are several possible explanations for the continuing overemphasis on technical 

skills and the accompanying inadequacy in assessing supervsiory potential and 

skills. All seem to reflect a flawed understanding of the relationship between 

effective supervision and workforce performance or the proper role of assessment 

in hiring. For example, some agency leaders or human resources staff may believe 

that the technical components of the job are most critical and that supervision is 

a collateral responsibility. Others may believe that a first-level supervisory position 

is not very demanding, or that most people can adequately learn good supervision 

skills on the job, rendering it unnecessary to assess applicants for good supervisory 

potential. Finally, it may be that managers or HR staff choose the cheapest, fastest 

ways of assessing candidates, such as self-rating questionnaires, believing that those 

methods are as effective as alternatives or that considerations such as administrative 

convenience, past practice, or conserving resources should take precedence over 

rigorously identifying the best candidates.

Steps to Improve the Cadre of First-Level Supervisors

1. Define the Supervisory Role

The first step in any selection process is to clearly define the role the position will 

play in the organization and the specific responsibilities the incumbent will have. 

For supervisory roles, it is important to define both the performance management 

responsibilities and any additional technical, advisory, or administrative roles the 

individual may also be asked to play. It should be clear approximately how much 

of the supervisor’s time is to be devoted to each type of duty. For a position to be 

classified as supervisory, OPM guidelines require that at least 25% of the position’s 

work time must be devoted to directing other employees in the accomplishment 

of work; i.e., planning, assigning, directing, reviewing, and evaluating the work of 

employees.26

2. Identify the Competencies Required for Supervisory Success

When the supervisor’s responsibilities and the percentage of time to be devoted 

to each have been defined, the next step in the selection process is to identify the 

competencies required for each duty. For all first-level supervisor positions, it is 

essential to fully document the competencies that are needed to effectively manage 

the performance of employees.

26 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Evaluation Guide for First- and Second-Level Supervisory 

Positions. Draft issued in July 2009 and accessed on Oct 29, 2009 at http://www.opm.gov/fedclass/

drafts/DraftEGforFirst-andSecond-LevelSupervisoryPositions.pdf.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15

Selection of Supervisors

About Competencies and Competency Models

Competencies are measurable human capabilities that are required for 

effective performance. They are the building blocks of effective work 

performance. Competencies may consist of knowledge, skills, abilities, or 

other characteristics (KSAs or KSAOs) or a cluster of these. The successful 

completion of most work tasks requires the sequenced or simultaneous 

demonstration of multiple competencies.27 Appendix E provides an example of 

a supervisory competency, including an operational definition and behavioral 

examples of three levels of proficiency.

A set of competencies identified as important for successful performance in a 

particular job role is often labeled a “competency model.” A competency model 

can establish a common language for the organization, clarify expectations 

for the job, and provide a map for success in the organization. A competency 

model is most valuable when each competency is defined in action-oriented, 

operational terms to make its meaning and application clear. Behavioral 

examples of how each competency can be demonstrated on the job at different 

levels of proficiency also help clarify the competencies and increase their 

usefulness in selection, development, and management.

OPM has developed a Supervisory Qualification Guide that “prescribes general 

guidance when determining requirements for supervisory positions in the General 

Schedule (GS) or equivalent at grades 15 or below.”28 In that guide, OPM 

defines 10 foundational competencies that are “considered as most important for 

successful performance of Federal supervisory work” and 4 additional competencies. 

These competencies, listed in the table below, could serve as the basis for a core 

competency model for all first-level supervisors. 

Table 4.

Competencies in OPM’s Supervisory Qualification Guide

Foundational Competencies Additional Competencies

• Accountability

• Customer Service

• Decisiveness

• Flexibility

• Integrity/Honesty

• Interpersonal Skills

• Oral Communication

• Problem Solving

• Resilience

• Written Communication

• Human Capital Management

• Developing Others

• Conflict Management

• Teambuilding

27 Anne Marrelli, Janis Tondora, and Michael Hoge, “Strategies for developing competency models,” 

Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 32(5/6), 2005, pp. 533-561.

28 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Supervisory Qualification Guide. Accessed on June 2, 

2009 at http://www.opm.gov/Qualifications/standards/Specialty-stds/gs-supv.asp. 
16

Selection of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Use of such a competency model could serve to clearly identify requirements for 

first-level supervisors in all agencies and provide a strong foundation for their 

selection, development, management, and evaluation, as well as agency workforce 

planning. It would be most helpful if each core competency is clearly defined in 

terms of how it is applied at the first-level of supervision and includes behavioral 

examples for several levels of proficiency.

Agencies could add additional competencies to the model as needed to support 

organizational mission, strategies, and desired culture. For example, if an agency is 

seeking to encourage higher levels of creativity in the organization, it would be wise 

to include the assessment of Creativity and Innovation in the supervisory selection 

process. Agencies could also develop their own behavioral examples for each core 

competency to reflect how they wish the competencies to be demonstrated on 

the job.

For many first-level supervisory positions, the 10 foundational competencies will be 

particularly useful for selecting first-level supervisors because they are essential for 

effective performance as a supervisor, yet applicants without supervisory experience 

should have had the opportunity to develop and apply these competencies in 

previous positions or life experiences. When a first-level supervisory position requires 

supervisory experience, the additional core competencies may be used in selection.

Those competencies will, almost certainly, be technical as well as supervisory. 

However, as discussed below, technical skills should generally be a prerequisite for 

consideration and referral, and supervisory skills (or demonstrated potential to 

develop those skills) should generally be the deciding selection factor.

3. Focus on Supervisory Potential and Competencies

Technical competency and expertise also have a legitimate place in supervisory 

hiring, for several reasons. Most supervisory tasks—such as reviewing work, 

evaluating performance, and coaching—require the supervisor to understand, in 

some depth, the nature of the work that employees do and the challenges they 

encounter. Also, the credibility of a supervisor may depend on his or her technical 

accomplishments and background, not only his or her integrity or supervisory 

potential. Finally, hiring criteria and decisions do not only fill positions; they also 

send messages about an organization’s values. A hiring process that disregards 

or devalues employees’ technical contributions and competence would seriously 

undermine leadership claims that the organization values and rewards high 

performance. Nevertheless, there are several reasons why technical expertise should 

not be the sole or primary consideration when filling supervisory positions.

Technical Expertise Alone is Not Sufficient

The first reason is the job itself. A certain degree of technical expertise is often 

necessary to the effective exercise of supervisory skills and authority. Yet the roles of 

a line (nonsupervisory) employee and the supervisory employee are fundamentally 

different. A line employee’s success is defined in terms of his or her own 

performance; a supervisor’s success is defined in terms of the performance of 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17

Selection of Supervisors

other employees. Consequently, supervisory positions require competencies distinct 

from those required by nonsupervisory positions.

We acknowledge that supervisory and managerial positions in the career Federal 

service may, on average, have greater technical demands than typical supervisory 

positions in private industry. Much Federal work is nonroutine “knowledge work”; 

Federal programs are often staggeringly complex; and Federal agencies are often 

headed by executives who are new to the agency and rely heavily on senior-level 

executives to explain, operate, and manage those programs. Yet data from MSPB 

surveys strongly supports our view that the effectiveness of Federal supervisors 

depends primarily on their supervisory skills. As shown in Figure 2, although both 

types of skills are essential, a deficiency in management skills appears to be much 

more harmful to employee trust and satisfaction than is a lack of technical skills.29 

Figure 2.

Employee Perceptions of the Supervisor, by Perceived Skills 

of the Supervisor

0% 10% 20% 30% 50% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent Agreement

70% 90%

Good Management Skills Only

Good Management and Good Technical Skills

Neither Good Technical nor Good Management Skills

Good Technical Skills Only

98%

I trust my supervisor 

to act with integrity.

My supervisor rates 

my performance 

fairly and accurately.

My supervisor 

responds constructively 

to workplace conflicts.

Overall, I am satisfied 

with supervisor.

90%

38%

14%

77%

48%

17%

7%

88%

70%

42%

24%

96%

88%

59%

31%

The second reason is trainability. As we have discussed, agencies should not assume 

that outstanding technical skills can compensate for poor supervisory skills. Agencies 

should also not assume that it is possible, or practical, to create supervisory potential 

or confer good supervisory skills through training. Supervisors should indeed be 

trained: training can help supervisors understand their role, provide necessary 

29 Source: U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2005 Merit Principles Survey. In the chart, 

employees are grouped based on their responses (agreement or non-agreement) to two survey questions: 

“My supervisor has good technical skills” and “My supervisor has good management skills.” For 

example, the group “good technical skills only” includes employees who agreed that their supervisor 

had good technical skills, but did not agree that their supervisor had good management skills.
18

Selection of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

knowledge, and help supervisors learn and practice important skills (such as assessing 

employee performance and providing performance feedback). Unfortunately, many 

of the foundational competencies that are so critical for the success of first-level 

supervisors are not readily amenable to development through training or on-thejob learning. Therefore, it is essential to identify and select individuals who already 

possess these underlying abilities and personal characteristics.

For example, accountability is an essential characteristic that enables a supervisor 

to accomplish difficult tasks such as addressing poor performance.30 Research 

consistently demonstrates that accountability31 is a potent predictor of successful 

job performance and that people differ greatly in this characteristic due to innate 

tendencies, upbringing, and life experiences.32 Yet it is not easily developed through 

either formal or on the job training.

The third reason is succession management. First-line supervisors form the talent 

pool for managerial and higher-level positions. The importance of technical expertise 

tends to diminish at higher levels, because managers and executives must work 

across both occupational and organizational boundaries and can (and often should) 

delegate many technical tasks, such as close review of individual work products, to 

subordinate supervisors or staff. Also, it is simply not possible for an executive to 

maintain authoritative expertise in all the fields or issues under her or his direction.

The final reason is assessment. Obviously, assessments should focus on important 

competencies. Less obviously, assessments should also provide hiring managers 

with new insights, rather than duplicate prior assessments or confirm what is 

already known. It is comparatively easy to screen candidates for technical skills 

and—particularly when dealing with internal candidates—to assess their technical 

knowledge and technical contributions. But a hiring manager who is filling 

a supervisory position also needs insight into candidates’ supervisory skill or 

potential—and such insight will be lacking unless the hiring process is designed to 

provide it.

Using Competencies to Assess Supervisory Skill or Potential

As discussed above, it is essential to rigorously assess supervisory skill or potential 

when filling supervisory positions. Fortunately, it is quite possible—if challenging—

to do so. Foundational competencies can help. Table 5 provides examples of 

how foundational competencies relate to supervisory responsibilities. Those 

responsibilities can provide a starting point for evaluating the potential of candidates 

for first-level supervisory positions.

30 OPM defines accountability as: “Holds self and others accountable for measurable high-quality, 

timely, and cost-effective results. Determines objectives, sets priorities, and delegates work. Accepts 

responsibility for mistakes. Complies with established control systems and rules.”

31 Accountability, as defined by OPM, is commonly labeled “conscientiousness” in research and in 

other competency models. 

32 See, for example, D.S. Ones, S. Dilchert, C. Viswesvaran, and T.A. Judge, “In support of 

personality assessment in organizational settings,” Personnel Psychology, 60, 2007, pp. 995-1027; T.A. 

Judge and R. Ilies, “Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review,” 

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 2002, pp. 797-807; and G.M. Hurz and J.J. Donovan, “Personality 

and job performance: The Big Five revisited,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 2000, pp. 869-879.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19

Selection of Supervisors

Table 5.

Foundational Competencies and Supervisory Responsibilities

Foundational Competency Sample Related Supervisory Responsibilities

Accountability • Working with employees to define specific 

performance goals

• Meeting with employees to review their progress 

on assignments

• Working with employees to resolve obstacles 

• Promptly addressing low or poor performance

Customer Service • Establishing and communicating high performance 

expectations

• Ensuring the work group delivers high-quality products 

and services

• Planning and implementing continuous improvement 

processes 

• Seeking feedback from customers and acting on it

Conflict Management • Encouraging open discussion of ideas

• Actively listening to all parties involved in a conflict

• Resolving disagreements and conflicts within the 

work group 

• Helping employees learn how to resolve problems 

with others

Integrity • Meeting commitments

• Admitting mistakes

• Honestly sharing information with employees

• Assigning employees the performance ratings they 

have earned

Interpersonal Skills /

Oral Communication

• Providing feedback and coaching

• Leading staff meetings

• Sharing organizational information with employees

• Conducting performance discussions

For example, to assess the competency of customer service in a structured interview, 

candidates could be asked to give an example of how they ensured that a challenging 

work goal that involved several other employees was achieved on time and within 

budget. To assess the competency of conflict management, which is important 

for a supervisor in constructively resolving disagreements in the work group, the 

candidates could be asked to describe a situation in which they played a significant 

role in resolving a conflict at work. To evaluate candidates’ oral communication 

skills, a competency vital to providing useful feedback and coaching to employees, 

candidates could be asked to describe a situation in which they delivered unwelcome 

news to a co-worker or leader.

4. Provide Realistic Job Previews (RJPs)

Federal agencies need to clearly communicate the responsibilities of first-line 

supervisors as well as the interests, values, and competencies needed to effectively 

execute the role so that employees better understand what supervision entails 

before they apply for a supervisory position. It is especially important to emphasize 
20

Selection of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

the responsibilities that many supervisors find challenging, such as providing 

both positive and corrective feedback to all of their employees, managing poor 

performers, and managing conflict. A realistic job preview (RJP) of a supervisory 

position (a “supervisory RJP”) can help limit the candidate pool to individuals who 

are at least partly aware of the challenges of supervision and have considered their 

qualifications in relation to the requirements for success. The cost of developing and 

implementing a supervisory RJP program is a good investment. Preventing just one 

“hiring mistake” each year could pay for the cost of a program.33

Two good examples are programs offered by the Department of Transportation 

(DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to employees who consider 

applying for a supervisory position. DOT’s nine-week “So, You Want to Be a 

Leader” program offers employees the opportunity to participate in coursework 

and team projects that will help them understand the role of a leader. EPA offers a 

two-day workshop, “Stepping Up to Leadership,” in which employees participate in 

hands-on activities based on specific supervisory competencies. Less expensive forms 

of supervisory RJP can also be helpful. These include printed booklets, an online 

mini-course, and two or three-hour briefings or teleconferences that clearly define 

the job responsibilities of a first-level supervisor and the competencies required to 

succeeed, provide examples of the challenges they face first-level supervisors, and 

outline the advantages and disadvantages compared to non-supervisory positions. 

Agencies could make such guides and meetings available to external candidates.

In addition to developing a pool of candidates who have a basic understanding 

of the job, supervisory RJPs can serve several other purposes. They can reduce 

potential problems such as allegations of unfairness in selection. Employees are 

usually more willing to accept that they are not ready for a supervisory position 

if they make the decision themselves rather than finding they were not selected 

for a supervisory position for which they believed themselves to be well qualified. 

Supervisory RJPs can also provide a developmental experience for groups that are 

often underrepresented in management roles, such as minorities and women, by 

informing them of the competencies needed for a supervisory position and helping 

them plan how to develop those competencies. Also, many employees develop a 

better appreciation for their supervisors when they learn more about the challenges 

they face. They are more likely to understand some of the choices and decisions their 

supervisors make.

5. Employ More Predictive Assessment Tools

First-level supervisors (as well as higher-level managers and leaders) are too 

important to tolerate second-rate selection processes and assessment methods. 

Federal agencies that do not use highly predictive assessment tools are at increased 

risk of hiring the wrong people and overlooking excellent candidates. For that 

reason, the choice of selection tools needs to be driven by the objective of identifying 

the candidates most likely to succeed in a supervisory role, not by administrative 

convenience, comfort, or conformance to precedent.

33 Corporate Leadership Council, Selecting and Onboarding Frontline Supervisors, Washington, DC, 

1999.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 21

Selection of Supervisors

Fortunately, there are assessment methods for first-level supervisory jobs that can, 

if properly developed and implemented, differentiate among candidates and offer 

useful insight into which candidates are most likely to be effective supervisors. 

Table 6 lists several of these methods; Appendix F provides a fuller description of 

each method.

Table 6.

Sound Assessment Methods for First-Level Supervisors

Assessment Method Description

Situational Judgment 

Tests (SJTs)34

An SJT presents a series of work scenarios to the applicant. The applicant then chooses 

responses from several alternatives listed. The applicant may be asked to indicate which of 

several actions they would be most likely to take; which actions they would be most and least 

likely to take; what is the best option; what are the best and second-best options; or which is 

the most likely result of a specific action.

Simulations A simulation places the applicant in situations similar to those that he or she would face on the 

job. The applicant takes actions to respond to those situations. The applicant may also be asked 

to articulate the issues or problems involved in the situation before taking actions.

Structured Interviews35 In a structured interview, each applicant is asked the same set of prepared questions, with 

each question keyed to a specific competency. The question may be followed with probing 

questions to obtain complete information from the applicant. Generally, the number of 

questions related to a competency is based on the competency’s relative importance to job 

success. A predeveloped scoring key with behaviorally anchored sample responses for each point 

value is used to evaluate candidates’ responses. Interviewers must be trained in interviewing and 

scoring techniques.

Accomplishment Records 

– Behavioral Consistency 

Method 36

Candidates are presented with a series of questions, each focused on a key function of the job. 

The questions are based upon a rigorous job analysis and the collection of critical job incidents. 

In response to each question, candidates submit a narrative that describes past achievements 

that demonstrate their ability to successfully perform the job function. These achievements 

are not restricted to work experience; they may include unpaid activities such as as chairing 

a school committee. As in a structured interview, responses are rated against behaviorally 

anchored scales. Candidates are also asked to provide a reference (an individual familiar with 

the achievement) so that their achievements can be verified.

Measures of Personal 

Characteristics

A psychometrically sound assessment of one or more important characteristics, such as 

conscientiousness or integrity, is administered to applicants. Such assessments are typically 

developed by, or purchased from, an organization that specializes in psychometrics and 

employment testing.

Assessment Centers Assessment centers consist of several different types of assessment tools that are administered 

sequentially to candidates. The assessments are designed to yield complementary information 

about the candidates, to provide a broad perspective on their potential. Common components 

of an assessment center include a simulation, a structured interview, a cognitive ability test, a 

leadership or personality test (i.e., measure of personal characteristics), a written exercise, and 

a group interaction exercise.

34 See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Job Simulations: Trying Out for a Federal Job, 

Washington, DC, September 2009. The report also provides information on simulations and 

assessment centers.

35 See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential, 

Washington, DC, February 2003.

36 For further information on accomplishment records, from both an employer and applicant 

perspective, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Assessing the Assessments: An Overview of 

Accomplishment Records,” Issues of Merit, 13(3), Washington, DC, July 2008 and U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board, “Listen to the Exam Coach: How to Do Well on an Accomplishment Record 

Assessment,” Issues of Merit, 14(1), Washington, DC, February 2009.
22

Selection of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

These methods have two important advantages over methods based on candidates’ 

reports of their experience, training, and education. First, they can assess 

supervisory competencies more directly and reliably. Second, they can minimize or 

eliminate biases against underrepresented groups that can result from differences 

in socioeconomic background (including education and work opportunities) that 

are related only indirectly, if at all, to actual ability. Another potential benefit is 

that these methods can serve as developmental opportunities for all candidates, if 

the hiring agency provides candidates with post-assessment feedback. Accordingly, 

agencies should consider using one or more of these assessment methods in 

place of, or in addition to, the questionnaires and application or resume reviews 

currently used.37 These selection tools are well worth the cost for development 

and administration, especially because they can be used for almost all first-level 

supervisory jobs in an agency. The cost of bad supervision is much higher than the 

cost of sound selection methods.

As with any effective selection tool, these methods must be based on a thorough 

job analysis, developed by persons with expertise in selection in collaboration with 

management, and implemented with care. Also, novel approaches or assessments 

should be carefully examined and thought through before adoption. The 

accompanying discussion provides some cautions about two particular approaches 

to hiring: using the Internet to administer tests and using performance appraisals 

to select employees.

The Internet, Performance Appraisals, and Federal Hiring: 

Look Before You Leap

Much has been written about bringing the Federal Government into the 

Internet Age and about holding Federal agencies and Federal employees 

accountable for their performance. Those ideas have merit—but agencies 

should take care when applying them to hiring processes and decisions. Below, 

we offer some cautions for agencies that may be exploring “cutting edge” use of 

the Internet or performance appraisals in their hiring processes.

Testing and the Internet

It is one thing to use the Internet to advertise jobs and accept resumes. It 

is entirely another to use the Internet to deploy tests that were traditionally 

administered in paper-and-pencil format in a controlled environment. 

Agencies considering the latter use should proceed very carefully, if at all. 

There has been much discussion among psychologists who are experts in 

Internet testing about the validity of such tests. The majority agree that using 

unproctored Internet testing (UIT) alone is never acceptable for high-stakes 

situations such as making employment decisions. The primary concern with 

37 More information about assessment options is available through OPM’s online Personnel 

Assessment and Selection Resource Center. The center provides explanations of 13 different assessment 

tools and advice about their application, a decision tool for selecting assessment tools, professional and 

legal guidelines, and a variety of other useful resources. As of February 2010, the resource center was 

available at http://apps.opm.gov/ADT.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23

Selection of Supervisors

UIT is based on the many possible avenues for cheating.38 The International 

Test Commission Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet-Delivered 

Testing state that in moderate- and high-stakes assessment such as job 

recruitment and selection, applicants who earn qualifying scores should 

be required to complete a supervised test to confirm the accuracy of their 

scores.39

Performance Appraisals in the Hiring Process

It might seem logical for an organization to base selection and advancement, 

in addition to awards and pay increases, on performance. After all, research 

has indicated that past behavior (i.e., performance) can, indeed, be a good 

predictor of future performance. However, it does not follow that performance 

appraisals can be used mechanically to make hiring decisions. Simply stated, 

performance appraisals are not an acceptably reliable indicator of future 

performance. There are too many differences among jobs, performance 

standards, rating scales, and raters (both organizations and individuals)—

and too many non-performance factors influencing ratings—for performance 

appraisals or ratings to be considered valid for purposes of selection.40 For 

example, an applicant who was rated as “Fully Successful” by one organization 

may actually be a better performer, and a more promising candidate, than an 

employee who was rated “Outstanding” by another organization.

6. Use More than One Assessment (the Multiple Hurdle Approach)

In all selection processes, including those for first-level supervisors, hiring managers 

face the challenge of balancing cost and efficiency with thoroughness and accuracy. 

Although hiring managers want to identify the best candidates, staff time and 

resources—not to mention applicant patience—are limited. Especially when there 

is a large number of applicants, it may not be practical to initially employ the 

assessment methods that are most likely to accurately identify the candidate with 

the highest chance of success in the job, because these methods tend to be more 

costly as well as more time- and labor-intensive.

The multiple hurdle approach, in which a series of successively more predictive 

assessment methods is used with increasingly smaller number of candidates, can 

improve selection quality while using scarce resources wisely. If there is a large pool 

38 Nancy T. Tippins, “Internet alternatives to traditional proctored testing: Where are we now?,” 

Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2(1), March 2009, 

pp. 2-10. 

39 Dave Bartram, “The International Test Commission Guidelines on Computer-Based and InternetDelivered Testing,” Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2(1), 

March 2009, pp. 11-13. 

40 For example, factors unrelated to performance that can affect ratings are: supervisors’ inability 

to separate individual performance from the impact of organizational processes, systems, and events; 

whether the supervisor personally hired the employee; the similarity of the employee to the supervisor 

in personal characteristics; pressures to distort ratings; and the degree to which the supervisor and 

employee “connect.”
24

Selection of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

of applicants, it may be necessary to use an inexpensive method as a preliminary 

assessment to initially distinguish between candidates who appear to have a plausible 

chance of success and those who do not. More predictive, albeit costly, methods can 

then be used to identify successively smaller, better qualified groups of candidates.

For example, candidates for a first-level supervisory job who meet minimum 

qualifications could be asked to submit a resume and an accomplishment record 

in which they are asked to write a brief narrative (e.g., one page) explaining 

how they have demonstrated one or two core supervisory competencies such as 

Conflict Management and Accountability. The resume would be used to determine 

if the candidate has the technical expertise and experience needed while the 

accomplishment record would be used to determine if the candidate provides 

evidence of foundational competencies needed to be a good supervisor. Specific 

instructions would be given to candidates so that they supply the information 

needed. For the resume, for example, they could be instructed to briefly list their 

accomplishments and actual work performed for each job, instead of providing 

a general summary of their responsibilities (as in a position description). The 

candidates who provided evidence in their resume and accomplishment record of 

having the potential to be effective supervisors would then proceed to the second 

hurdle, a situational judgment test or a structured interview that assesses both 

technical and supervisory capability. The candidates who score highest on the 

second hurdle would then proceed to a panel structured interview and a work 

sample or role play exercise for a more in-depth, final assessment of supervisory 

capability. In this multiple hurdle approach, candidates who are not likely to 

succeed are screened out in the first hurdle based on assessment methods that do 

not require a large investment of resources by either the agency’s or the candidates. 

In successive hurdles, the costlier but more predictive methods provide a more indepth perspective of the candidates’ qualifications and potential.

7. Hold Managers Accountable for the Selection of Supervisors

Equally important to choosing selection tools with good predictive power in 

identifying supervisory candidates who are likely to succeed on the job, is ensuring 

that the managers who select supervisors are well trained in the selection process. 

Managers need to learn to identify the competencies needed for effective supervisors, 

to ensure that these are assessed, to conduct thorough interviews and rate candidates 

fairly, and to use the results of selection tools to identify the most competent of the 

final candidates. 

Human resources staff can assist and guide managers but managers should be 

heavily involved in and held accountable for each step of the supervisory selection 

process from identifying the competencies needed for the job, drafting the job 

announcement, and choosing predictive assessment tools to judiciously using 

candidate information collected to make the final selection. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25

Selection of Supervisors

8. Use the Probationary Period to Make the Final Selection

No matter how carefully the selection process is planned and implemented, it cannot 

perfectly predict success on the job. That is why the supervisory probationary period, 

which we describe in more detail in the accompanying discussion, is vital. 

Supervisory and Managerial Probation: An Overview

A current Federal employee who is appointed to a supervisory or managerial 

position for the first time in the competitive service is required to serve a 

probationary period. During that period, if the appointee (employee) does 

not perform satisfactorily, the agency should remove the employee from the 

supervisory or managerial position and return the employee to a position of 

no lower grade and pay than the previous position. That return is not generally 

appealable.

Important Facts 

• Agencies have delegated authority to determine the duration of the 

supervisory probationary period. The duration must be reasonable and 

fixed, appropriate to the position, and consistently applied. An agency may 

establish different probationary periods for different occupations or use a 

uniform period for all.

• Supervisory probation and managerial probation are distinct. An agency 

may require a managerial probationary period even for individuals who 

have successfully completed a supervisory probationary period.

• Similar to the probationary period that applies to most new appointments 

in the Federal service, prior service may be creditable toward the 

completion of supervisory or managerial probation.

Thus, the applicability and duration of a supervisory or managerial 

probationary period depends on both agency policy and the appointee’s 

employment history. Accordingly, supervisors should consult with HR staff 

to determine whether, and for how long, supervisory or managerial probation 

applies in any given situation.

References: 5 U.S.C. § 3321 and 5 CFR 315.901-905.

First, the probationary period gives the agency the opportunity to observe a new 

supervisor actually performing the job and to act on that observation. Second, it 

gives a new supervisor time to assess success and satisfaction with the supervisory 

role. A supervisor who concludes that he or she is not performing well—or 

simply finds the challenges of supervision more stressful or less rewarding than 

anticipated—may request a return to a position at their former grade level.41

We recognize that the request and return may be difficult and painful: the request 

41 An employee may not demand return. The decision rests with the agency, and an agency that 

considered an employee’s performance acceptable could deny the employee’s request.
26

Selection of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

requires an implicit admission of failure or error, and the return may entail demotion 

and a loss of status.42 Nevertheless, we encourage any supervisor in this situation to 

consider the long-term costs of remaining in a position that is a poor fit. Diminished 

performance and job satisfaction are an extremely high price to pay for whatever 

status and pay a supervisory position may afford. 

Data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File indicates that Federal managers 

are making little use of the probationary period. For example, in Fiscal Year 2009, 

Federal agencies hired approximately 31,000 new supervisors, but took fewer than 

200 actions due to new supervisors’ failure to successfully complete the probationary 

period. Because hiring occurs throughout the year, and the length of a probationary 

period can vary, we cannot directly compare the percentage of new supervisors 

who failed probation in any given year with the number hired. Some supervisors 

who were reassigned or separated may have begun their probationary period in the 

previous year or two. However, the number of actions taken each year can supply 

us with a rough estimate of the percentage of new supervisors who do not pass 

probation and it appears to be very low. For FY 2009, approximately one half of one 

percent of new supervisors were either reassigned to a non-supervisory position or 

were separated.

It is unlikely that so small a percentage of new supervisors would be unsuccessful in 

a leadership role. This role differs so greatly from a technical position that even most 

the highly skilled technicians may not perform well as supervisors. Several studies 

of the success of new leaders in a wide range of organizations have found that 20 

percent or more fail. For example, a recent survey found that more than one-third of 

new leaders are unsuccessful because of inadequate leadership skills.43 The extremely 

low probationary failure rate among Federal supervisors suggests that many agencies 

are allowing many novice supervisors to continue in a supervisory role despite 

observable evidence that they will not be successful in that role.

Failure to use the supervisory probationary period as intended is a continuing 

concern. Two decades ago, in our 1989 report First-Level Supervisory Selection 

in the Federal Government, based on data furnished by the Office of Personnel 

Management, we estimated that the probation failure rate for 1986-1987 was 

two-tenths of one percent. As shown in Table 7, which shows estimated rates of 

failure of new Federal supervisors to successfully complete probation 1999 through 

2009,44 little has changed. The probationary failure rates are steady, ranging from 

approximately three-tenths of a percent to five-tenths of a percent for all years except 

for 2003.45

42 We note that the agency may also find it difficult to place the employee making the request, 

especially if the agency has filled or eliminated the employee’s previous position. 

43 P. Ketter, “One size does not fit all,” Training and Development, March 2009, p. 50.

44 Estimates based on data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. The new supervisors include 

both individuals new to Federal service who were hired into a supervisory position and current Federal 

employees who appeared to be new to supervision. Probationary actions include both actions taken 

for failure to successfully complete a supervisory probationary period under 5 CFR 315, Subpart I 

and actions taken for failure to complete a competitive service probationary period under 5 CFR 315, 

Subpart H or a comparable excepted service probationary or trial period.

45 Two agencies that had high levels of hiring in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 accounted for the vast 

majority of fiscal year 2003 probationary actions.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27

Selection of Supervisors

Table 7.

Federal Agency Actions for Failure to Complete Supervisory Probation

Fiscal Year

Number of

New Supervisors

Probationary Actions

Number Percentage

1999 18,269 63 0.34%

2000 19,414 56 0.29%

2001 20,264 67 0.33%

2002 24,378 125 0.51%

2003 24,192 379 1.57%

2004 25,118 124 0.49%

2005 24,019 99 0.41%

2006 25,414 99 0.39%

2007 28,742 116 0.40%

2008 32,620 121 0.37%

2009 31,541 168 0.53%

Also, agency use of the probationary period to make decisions about the suitability 

of new supervisors remains lower than its use for the workforce overall. In our 2005 

study on the use of the probationary period for all new employees, we reported that 

somewhat less than 2 percent of competitive service employees are removed in their 

first year.46

Survey data provide additional evidence of failure to use the supervisory 

probationary period as a final, substantive step in the selection process for 

supervisors. All new supervisors should clearly understand that they must 

successfully complete a probationary period as part of the selection process. By law, 

their probationary performance must be used to make the final selection decision. 

In our 2007 Merit Principles Survey, we asked first-level supervisors if they had 

been informed when they first became a supervisor that they would be required 

to serve a probationary period. We also asked them if their performance during 

their probationary period as a supervisor was actually used to decide if they should 

continue in a supervisory role. Their responses are shown in Figure 3.

46 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity. 

Washington DC, 2005.
28

Selection of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Figure 3.

Supervisors’ Responses to Probationary Period Questions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

No

Yes

Don't Know

When you first became

a supervisor were you

informed you would be

on probation?

Was your probationary

performance used to decide

if you should continue

in a supervisory role?

47%

17%

36%

64%

21%

15%

Only 64 percent of supervisors affirmed that they were informed of the probation 

period, while fewer than half (47 percent) of supervisors stated that their 

performance during their probationary period was used to decide if they should 

retain a supervisory role. These results also provide further evidence of the broader 

difficulty that Federal leaders have in addressing and resolving poor performance, 

as discussed in our recent report Managing for Engagement—Communication, 

Connection, and Courage. In that report, we cited data from the 2007 MPS 

which showed that only 30 percent of employees at all levels and 26 percent of 

non-supervisory employees believe that their leaders take action to manage poor 

performers. 

Agencies need to hold managers accountable for using the probationary period 

wisely as the final step in the selection process. Performance appraisals for managers 

should include their use of the probationary period as the final step in selection. 

Managers must understand that they are responsible for the effectiveness of their 

supervisors. There is no point to having a probationary period if it is not used. 

There are several possible explanations for infrequent use of the probationary period 

to remove ineffective supervisors. The first possibility is the agency’s conception of 

the supervisory role. An agency may seek a technical expert and view supervision as 

secondary. If so, the agency may accept poor performance in the supervisory role. 

A second possibility is closely tied to the use of inappropriate selection criteria. 

Because the selection process is typically heavily weighted toward technical expertise, 

managers often select their best technical person for first-level supervisory jobs. 

When the technical expert does not demonstrate good supervisory capabilities 

during the probationary period, the manager may be understandably reluctant 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29

Selection of Supervisors

to hold the new supervisor accountable for failure to demonstrate skills that the 

agency failed to explicitly require or properly assess. Finally, a manager may be 

loath to return the new supervisor to a technical position, which would constitute 

an admission of error in selection and could humiliate an employee who had 

performed at a high level in a technical capacity for many years. These difficulties 

are compounded if the new supervisor’s previous technical role has been filled with 

another employee and the manager has no suitable position available for the new 

supervisor.47 

9. Evaluate the Supervisory Selection Strategy

Agencies should periodically evaluate the success of their selection strategy. In 

addition to identifying ineffective supervisors, the probationary period also offers 

an excellent way to evaluate the predictive power of the selection tools applied to 

select new supervisors before the probationary period begins. The probationary 

period can offer clues about the weaknesses and strengths of these tools. What are 

the areas of weakness new supervisors are demonstrating during the probationary 

period? For example, are they experiencing difficulty in planning and assigning 

work, communicating with employees, addressing poor performance, or evaluating 

performance? If there are consistent areas of weakness, the selection tools need to be 

revised so that they identify these weaknesses in candidates. Conversely, what are the 

areas of strengths new supervisors exhibit? The selection tools are probably working 

well for these areas. 

10. Prepare Human Resources Staff to Guide Managers

Most managers lack the time or resources to develop expertise in selection and 

must depend on their human resources staff for guidance. For example, although 

managers should be able to describe the capabilities and behaviors they want 

first-level supervisors to demonstrate, they may need assistance in labeling these 

competencies and identifying the best ways to assess them. Therefore, it is important 

for every Federal agency to ensure that expertise in selection is resident in their 

human resources staff. That expertise should consist of in-depth knowledge and skill 

in the development and implementation of job analysis, competency identification, 

and assessment methods; a basic “follow the manual” level of knowledge does not 

suffice.

47 Our analysis of probationary actions supports the idea that agencies find it particularly difficult 

to demote or otherwise reduce the status of a current employee with a history of good service. Action 

under a supervisory or managerial probationary period was much less common than action under a 

competitive service probationary period or excepted service trial period.
30

Selection of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

11. Explore Alternative Paths for Advancement and Recognition

Often a supervisory position is the only route to promotion and increased pay 

for experienced employees. Federal career paths rarely include technical expert 

roles in which highly proficient and experienced employees are recognized with 

organizational status and compensation comparable to that of a supervisory role.48

Thus, many technically proficient employees who have minimal interest or aptitude 

in managing people apply for supervisory positions because they see no other way 

to earn more money or be promoted to a position of greater prestige. And, because 

the selection criteria are heavily weighted toward technical expertise, they often are 

selected for these positions. In a survey conducted in 2002, the National Academy 

of Public Administration asked 1,500 supervisors, managers, and executives from 

23 Federal agencies if they would remain in a leadership role even if they could 

earn their current salaries in a non-managerial role. Fifty-six percent of the firstlevel supervisors said they would retain a managerial role while 44 percent said they 

would not.49 Those results suggest that many supervisors remain in a supervisory 

role for reasons of pay or prestige rather than an interest in supervising or leading 

employees.

Alternatives need to be developed for high performers who have little interest in 

or aptitude for supervision but see no other path to advancement. In occupations 

in which employees with a very high level of expertise can contribute to the 

organization beyond the top non-supervisory position, as in scientific or professional 

jobs, developing high-level technical career paths should be considered. For other 

types of positions, encouraging lateral movement within or outside the agency 

may give employees the satisfaction and excitement of new experiences and 

the opportunity to share their knowledge and skills with others while the new 

organizations benefit from these individuals’ expertise. Other possible opportunities 

for high performers are serving as a mentor, representing the agency in interagency 

or external task forces, taking on special projects, and developing and delivering 

training to less experienced employees. These alternatives to supervisory positions 

can perhaps be accompanied by monetary bonuses, salary increases, or other forms 

of recognition.

48 For example, under the General Schedule classification system, supervisory positions are typically 

classified at least one grade level higher than the highest-graded subordinate position. Although there 

are exceptions, the GS classification system, in its current form, does not encourage or facilitate the 

establishment of “dual career tracks” in which many, or most, nonsupervisory positions are classified to 

the same grade level as the supervisory position to which they report. We caution that this discussion is 

highly simplified, and that readers seeking a fuller discussion of General Schedule classification should 

refer to OPM guidance and standards.

49 National Academy of Public Administration, First Line Supervisors in Federal Service: Selection, 

Development, and Management, Management Concepts, Vienna, VA, 2003.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 31

Selection of Supervisors

Summary

Deficiencies in selection processes for first-level supervisors have long been 

recognized, yet little progress has been made in correcting or eliminating them. 

These selection processes are often flawed both in terms of the competencies assessed 

and the instruments used to assess applicants. Selections are typically more heavily 

based on technical expertise than on leadership competencies and often, candidates’ 

supervisory skills or potential are not assessed at all. Assessment instruments such 

as self-report questionnaires and ratings based on applications or resumes that are 

not reliable predictors of supervisory performance are prevalent. The outcome has 

been that people with the strongest technical skills are often selected for first-level 

supervisory roles, even if they lack the “people management” skills or potential 

needed to perform the job well. 

Agencies that seek to hire truly qualified supervisors must clearly define: (1) the 

role the position will play in the organization; (2) the position’s specific duties and 

responsibilities; and (3) the competencies needed to successfully perform those 

responsibilities. Many of the competencies that are critical for the success of firstlevel supervisors are not readily amenable to development through training or 

on-the-job learning. Therefore, it is essential to select individuals who already have 

the underlying abilities, values, and interests and can enhance or build the specific 

supervisory skills needed. We have suggested foundational competencies and 

assessment tools that can help agencies improve their selection processes.

The managers who select supervisors must be well trained in the selection process 

and assume personal responsibility for the selection of supervisors. Managers must 

learn to: (1) identify the competencies needed for effective supervisors; (2) ensure 

that those competencies are assessed; (3) conduct thorough interviews and rate 

candidates rigorously and fairly; and (4) use the results of selection tools to identify 

the most competent of the final candidates. Managers’ responsibility includes using 

the probationary period as the final step in the selection process. From the data we 

reviewed, it appears that few managers are taking advantage of the probationary 

period to expeditiously remove supervisors who are not performing as well as they 

should.

Managers cannot, and should not, do all this on their own. Agencies should ensure 

that their human resources staff have expertise in selection so that they can provide 

managers with guidance in developing and implementing sound selection processes 

for first-level supervisors.

Agencies also need to consider, and possibly reexamine, career paths and incentives 

for their most competent and valuable technical employees. Because most Federal 

career paths do not provide technical expert roles in which highly proficient and 

experienced employees are recognized with organizational status and compensation 

comparable to that of supervisors, many technically proficient employees who have 

minimal interest or aptitude in managing people apply to supervisory positions.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33

Development of Supervisors

Many Federal career paths are designed so that employees who begin at the 

entry level routinely participate in training and development activities 

that help them build the competencies they will need to successfully 

perform their jobs. Supervision is a career path and employees starting out on 

that path also need training and development to be effective. The complexity of 

supervisory responsibilities also requires that more experienced supervisors be given 

the opportunity to continually enhance their skills. 

Several of the previous reports on Federal first-line supervisors noted in Chapter 1 

discuss the inadequacy of preparation for this important role. For example, the 

National Academy of Public Administration strongly stated that agencies need to do 

a better job of developing and training supervisors.50 As in the selection of first-line 

supervisors, the concern is longstanding. In MSPB’s 1992 study Federal First-Line 

Supervisors: How Good Are They?, we noted that despite the criticality of training, 

especially for first-time supervisors, many supervisors are placed in situations 

without the skills they need to successfully perform their jobs. We also noted the 

problem that many Federal organizations use self-selection for first-level supervisor 

training so that supervisors are enrolled in courses upon their request. There are 

often large gaps between individuals’ views of their learning needs and what they 

really need to learn to be effective supervisors. 

Six years later, in 1998, we reported in our study, Federal Supervisors and Strategic 

Human Resources Management, that if supervisors do receive formal training 

(and many do not), it often consists of an overview of their responsibilities 

without explaining the importance of these responsibilities and how they affect 

the performance of the work unit. In addition, the emphasis on processes and 

procedures rather than hands-on management makes the training more useful for an 

administrative role than for managing employees. In 1999, the Office of Personnel 

Management reported that supervisors typically receive a general introduction 

to the regulations and procedures regarding handling poor performers during 

initial supervisory training but that supervisors are nearly unanimous in saying 

this approach is almost useless.51 In their 2001 report, Supervisors in the Federal 

Government: A Wake-up Call, OPM found that only four of 20 agencies surveyed 

had formal internal leadership development programs that prepare employees to 

become effective first-level supervisors. In a study released the following year, MSPB 

50 National Academy of Public Administration, First Line Supervisors in Federal Service: Selection, 

Development, and Management, Management Concepts, Vienna, VA, 2003.

51 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Poor Performers in Government: A Quest for the True Story, 

Washington, DC, January 1999. 
34

Development of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

stated that “The Government’s management capacity problems are compounded by 

the lack of comprehensive management development and succession plans in many 

agencies. A Board survey found that 2 of every 10 managers believe they haven’t 

received the training they need to perform their jobs. And, one of three managers 

said they needed more training to perform their job effectively. Far too many 

managers and supervisors have not been given the training or work opportunities 

that would help them develop their managerial abilities.”52 We recommended 

that agencies establish supervisory and managerial mentoring programs and that 

managers should make it their ongoing responsibility to continuously develop their 

subordinate supervisors.

Training for New Supervisors Is Often Inadequate

The results from the 2007 MPS confirm that the inadequacy of the training and 

development provided to new supervisors is a continuing issue. We asked first-level 

supervisors about the learning opportunities they had received as new supervisors, 

both through formal training and other modes of development. Fewer than twothirds of supervisors (64 percent) said that they had received supervisory training 

preceding or during their first year as a supervisor. Given the complexity and 

impact of supervisory jobs, all new supervisors need training both to learn how to 

manage their employees effectively and to understand the agency’s expectations for 

supervisors. Many Federal supervisors are apparently being expected to function 

effectively without preparation. Even among those who are receiving formal training, 

most are not receiving substantial amounts of training. As illustrated in Figure 4, 

of the 64 percent of supervisors who received training, almost half (48 percent) 

received one week or less of training.

Figure 4.

Amount of Training Received by the 64 Percent of New Supervisors 

Who Received Formal Training

Less than 1 day

1 to 2 days

3 to 4 days

1 week

2 weeks

More than 2 weeks

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

2%

8%

11%

27%

27%

25%

52 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Making the Public Service Work: Recommendations for 

Change, Washington, DC, 2002, p. 12. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35

Development of Supervisors

Although the amount of training says nothing about the quality of training or 

transfer of learning to the job, it is unrealistic to expect that anyone could learn 

even the fundamentals of the complex job of supervision in a week or two. In any 

discipline, would we expect a professional with no prior experience to learn what 

they need to learn to be proficient in a week or two? From this perspective, it seems 

highly unlikely that the majority of new supervisors have received adequate training.

A review of the areas in which new supervisors were formally trained provides 

further evidence of inadequacies in supervisory training and development. 

Figures 5, 6, and 7 depict the percentages of supervisors who reported in the 

2007 MPS that as new supervisors they received training in the three domains of 

Assigning and Reviewing Work, Managing Performance, and Work Unit Leadership.

Figure 5.

Training Received by New Supervisors—Assigning, 

Reviewing, and Evaluating Work

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

26%

17%

25%

28%

25%

17% Conducting

performance discussions

Preparing

performance appraisals

Documenting

employee performance

Reviewing employees’

work progress

Assigning work

Developing performance goals

and standards

Assigning and reviewing work, documenting performance, and conducting 

performance discussions are critical responsibilities of supervisors. They are essential 

for effective work group functioning. Yet, only small minorities of supervisors 

received training in how to effectively perform these functions.
36

Development of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Figure 6.

Training Received by New Supervisors—Managing Performance

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

24%

24%

17%

20%

21%

9% Using the probationary period

in selection

Managing poor performers

Helping all employees improve

their performance

Developing employees

Providing corrective feedback

and coaching

Providing positive feedback

and coaching

Providing feedback and coaching, developing employees and helping them 

improve their performance, and managing poor performers are also at the heart of 

supervision. They are essential for employee engagement and high performance. 

Yet, the survey results show that just a quarter or fewer of new supervisors received 

training in these areas. Unfortunately, the complex, sensitive tasks involved in 

managing performance often cannot be quickly learned on the job. For most new 

supervisors, good training is essential to competence.

As we noted earlier, the management of poor performers is a perceived problem 

in the Federal Government, with only 26 percent of non-supervisory employees 

believing that their supervisors manage poor performers effectively. Our survey 

results provide at least a partial explanation for this perception as just 21 percent 

of new supervisors received training in managing poor performers. Even worse, 

only nine percent received training in how to use the probationary period as the 

final step in the selection process, an important avenue for dealing efficiently with 

poor performers by separating new employees who have not demonstrated they 

can succeed. Although there are certainly non-training factors that result in some 

supervisors’ failure to manage poor performers, such as organizational culture and 

personal characteristics, lack of training can leave new supervisors without a basic 

grounding for dealing with difficult employees.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 37

Development of Supervisors

Figure 7.

Training Received by New Supervisors—Work Unit Leadership

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

19%

22%

12%

16%

9% Helping employees balance

work and personal lives

Improving work unit productivity

Workforce planning

Conflict management

Conducting team or

work unit meetings

Strong work unit leadership is also important for high performance and employee 

engagement. Again, the survey results show that only a minority of new supervisors 

(22 percent) are receiving training in conflict management, an important 

responsibility to ensure smooth work group functioning. Fewer than 20 percent 

received training in each of the other supervisory responsibilities that contribute to 

an engaged and productive work unit.

Based on the MPS results for all three topic domains of first-level supervisory 

training, many new supervisors are not receiving the training they need to 

successfully perform their responsibilities. In our recent report on performance 

management, Managing for Engagement—Communication, Connections, and 

Courage, we highlighted several areas in which data from the MPS 2007 indicate 

that many supervisors are not adequately executing their performance management 

responsibilities, including:

 • Working with their employees to develop accurate performance goals;

 • Providing frequent feedback to employees;

 • Holding employees accountable for results;

 • Managing poor performers;

 • Accurately assessing employee performance;

 • Recognizing employees for their contributions; and

 • Working with employees on their professional development.

These are all key areas of performance management. Federal agencies cannot expect 

their first-level supervisors to effectively manage the performance of their employees 

and foster employee engagement if they do not provide supervisors with essential 

training. 
38

Development of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Readers may be unfamiliar with the type of training we are discussing that is 

explicitly tied to each supervisory responsibility because many existing first-level 

supervision courses seem to provide only a broad overview of responsibilities 

and emphasize regulations and rules over day-to-day hands-on management and 

interaction with employees. One example of the focused supervisory training that 

we believe is needed is a program developed for a division within the Department of 

the Interior. This training program was originally intended for new supervisors but 

was also delivered to experienced supervisors and managers because they had never 

received adequate training in people management. The curriculum included classes 

in the following topics:

 • Preparing performance standards;

 • Assigning work and communicating performance expectations;

 • Individual development planning for employees;

 • Conducting individual update meetings with employees;

 • Reviewing employees’ work and promptly addressing inadequate performance;

 • Providing feedback and coaching;

 • Recognizing good performance;

 • Documenting employee performance;

 • Rating employee performance;

 • Writing narrative performance summaries; and

 • Conducting performance discussions.

The curriculum included pre-class, post-class, and follow-up exercises to increase 

the transfer of classroom learning to the job. In addition, parallel courses were 

provided for employees so that employees learned how to define performance 

standards, create an individual development plan, prepare for progress meetings 

with their supervisors, accept and apply feedback, and write summaries of their 

accomplishments.

Need for Continuous Learning for Supervisors

Supervision is a demanding job that requires continuous learning to develop and 

hone the complex, demanding competencies that are essential to engage employees 

and lead work groups to high performance. In the 2007 MPS, we asked first-level 

supervisors if their current training needs are assessed. About half (51 percent) 

agreed that they are. Universal assessment of development needs is important to 

ensure that all supervisors have the opportunity to build the skills they need. Among 

supervisors who reported that their training needs are assessed, the most common 

method of assessment was an informal discussion with their manager. Other 

frequent approaches were the creation of an individual development plan and a 

formal discussion with one’s manager. Figure 8 shows the needs assessment methods 

used. Note that a few supervisors selected more than one option so the total is more 

than 100 percent.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 39

Development of Supervisors

Figure 8.

Methods Used for Assessment of Supervisors’ Training Needs 

Informal discussion with manager

Individual Development Plan

Formal discussion with manager

Self-assessment questionnaire

Manager decides what I need

Multi-source feedback tool

Other

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

37%

27%

24%

7%

7%

5%

3%

The formal and informal discussions with one’s manager as well as the individual 

development plan, if reviewed by the manager, and the multi-source feedback 

tool can all be effective ways to assess training needs. However, the self-assessment 

questionnaire and the manager deciding what the supervisor needs can be 

problematic. If the self-assessment questionnaire is used as a tool for discussion 

between the supervisor and manager, it can be a valuable approach. If the 

questionnaire is used on its own, without input from the manager, the supervisor 

may inaccurately assess his or her own development needs because many people do 

not necessarily recognize all their development needs. A manager identifying the 

supervisor’s development needs without discussion with the supervisor can lead to 

the supervisor’s lack of commitment and interest in addressing the training need.

There are four key characteristics of sound assessment that can help ensure the 

accurate and comprehensive identification of training and development needs:

1. Job-relatedness. The assessment should be anchored in the responsibilities that 

the supervisor is asked to perform and the competencies identified as those 

required to execute these duties as noted in the job analysis;

2. Balance. Both the strengths and weaknesses of the supervisor are discussed and 

prioritized for development;

3. Joint development. Both the supervisor and the manager participate in the 

process and mutually agree on development needs and how they will be met; 

and

4. Periodic review and updating. The assessment is reviewed at least annually to 

gauge progress and identify new needs.
40

Development of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Supervisors’ Training “Wish List”

In the 2007 MPS, we asked supervisors to tell us what type of supervisory training 

they wished that they had received early in their career as a supervisor but did not. 

Apparently, many new supervisors are not receiving formal, foundational training 

in the basics of supervision and leadership, because this was the most commonly 

expressed omission. The five most frequently cited specific topics, ranked in order 

of frequency, were:

1. Managing people and their performance;

2. Managing marginal and poor performers;

3. Managing difficult or problem employees;

4. Providing coaching and feedback; and

5. Conflict management and resolution.

This list indicates the areas in which supervisors are often not trained early in their 

careers, but have discovered are important to effective functioning as a supervisor. 

The survey results clearly show that the most needed topics are the people 

management component of supervision, the most challenging area of working 

with employees to produce results. The supervisors’ indications of the learning 

opportunities they missed align closely to the areas of greatest weakness we identified 

in our former report on the performance management of the Federal workforce, 

including not effectively managing poor performers, providing insufficient feedback 

and coaching, not holding employees accountable for results, and not recognizing 

good performance.

It may be true that some supervisors can learn how to manage people on the job and 

structured training is not required for them to be an effective supervisor. However, 

because good supervision is so closely linked to high levels of employee engagement 

and performance, it is too important to leave to chance and time. A new supervisor 

may or may not have a manager who models effective supervisory behaviors and 

can coach the supervisor. New supervisors can and do learn from experience but at 

what cost if they do not happen to learn what they need to know before they need to 

manage a serious conflict or cope with a poor performer or conduct problem? 

Carefully planned training provided to all supervisors provides a base from which 

new supervisors can continue to learn. It is much more reliable and efficient than 

serendipitous learning. For example, good interpersonal communication is a critical 

competency for supervisors. It is a competency that new supervisors need before 

they are hired but it is also a competency that can be substantially enhanced through 

training when people possess the basic ability to interact well with others. A training 

course that helps supervisors understand the differences in communication styles 

among people that are influenced by such factors as their gender, ethnic background, 

and the part of the country in which they grew up and how these differences can be 

interpreted in the workplace can help supervisors better manage their employees, 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 41

Development of Supervisors

resolve conflicts among team members, and more fairly evaluate employees’ 

performance.53 It is possible that supervisors who are sensitive to individual 

differences may over time learn on their own how to understand and manage 

different communication patterns among their team members. However, some will 

learn these lessons very slowly or not at all and many supervisors will not have a 

manager who can coach them on this topic. Formal training can help all supervisors 

at least be aware of individual differences in communication and supply them with 

the basic knowledge and skills to successfully cope with difficulties that arise.

Need to Define the Supervisor’s Role

Not only is the inadequacy of training a major impediment to supervisory skill 

development but without training, many supervisors may not fully understand 

their roles. A major positive outcome of training for supervisors is the clarification 

of agency expectations for supervisors. When we asked supervisors to tell us what 

training they wished they had received as new supervisors, many replied that they 

would have liked to have known what they were supposed to be doing as supervisors. 

They made comments such as, “I would like to have been told what my job 

actually was.” Each organization needs to decide how they will define the first-level 

supervisor job and then communicate these expectations to all supervisors. Training 

is a great way to communicate this information because a consistent message can be 

sent to all supervisors in the organization. Individual managers can then work with 

their subordinate supervisors to discuss special requirements based on the particular 

work unit supervised. Continued coaching, feedback, and mentoring by managers 

and periodic meetings with executives will help supervisors further understand their 

roles and build their skills.

Base Training on the Core Supervisor Competency Model

Training and development efforts will be most effective when they are based on a 

core supervisory competency model, a consistent set of competencies established 

as critical for first-level supervisors. As we discussed in the preceding chapter on 

selection, we are advocating that each agency adopt a core competency model for 

all first-line supervisors and add additional competencies as needed to support the 

agency’s mission, strategies, and culture. Also as noted previously, foundational 

competencies that are difficult to develop such as Accountability, Integrity, and 

Flexibility should be used to select candidates for supervisory positions. Once 

supervisors are on the job, competencies that are more specific to the supervisory 

role, such as Human Capital Management or Developing Others can also be 

used for their development and management. The competency model will 

help supervisors understand the competencies they are expected to develop and 

demonstrate on the job as well as how they will be evaluated. The model also 

provides a framework for managers to provide feedback and coaching to augment 

training and development activities.

53 For more information on this topic, see: Deborah Tannen, Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at 

Work, Harper Collins, New York, 2001.
42

Development of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Involve Managers and Executives in Supervisory Training

Another critical success factor for effective supervisor training is involving 

organizational leadership both in its planning and delivery. Many organizations 

have found that training for leaders at all levels is most effective when higher level 

leaders participate in delivering the training. When they do so, they are both 

showing that they place a high value on good supervision and communicating 

what they expect from their supervisors. It is also effective to have managers and 

experienced supervisors share the challenges and rewards that they have experienced 

as supervisors. The benefits of having executives, managers, and other supervisors 

co-teach training classes can be well worth the investment of their time. A good 

approach is to have professional instructional designers work with managers and 

executives to develop supervision training courses and materials. The actual training 

delivery can be shared by a professional trainer and managers, executives, and 

current supervisors. The trainer oversees all the scheduling and logistics and works 

with the leaders to prepare for teaching the course. In class, the trainer presents key 

ideas and concepts then the leaders can participate for an hour or more to explain 

how the concepts are implemented in the agency, share stories of their experiences, 

and offer advice. Participation in person is ideal but videoconferencing or videotapes 

also work well if this is not feasible.

Need for Informal Development

Informal development complements the formal training that defines clear 

expectations for the supervisor’s role in supporting the agency’s mission and business 

strategies and that transmits practices proven to be effective. On-the-job learning 

helps supervisors apply, strengthen, and expand the competencies developed in 

these structured learning experiences. In the 2007 MPS, we asked supervisors to tell 

us about the informal development they participated in to build their supervisory 

knowledge, skills, and abilities during their first year as a supervisor. The results are 

shown in Figures 9 and 10. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 43

Development of Supervisors

Figure 9.

New Supervisors’ Participation in Informal Development Activities—

Coaching and Feedback

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Coaching and/or feedback

from my manager

Coaching or advice from other

supervisors or a mentor

Feedback from my employees

360-degree or other 

multi-source feedback

54%

62%

56%

17%

Most striking is that only about half (54 percent) of the survey respondents reported 

that their manager provided them with coaching or feedback that helped them 

develop supervisory competencies. This is a concern for two reasons. First, many 

supervisors may not be receiving the assistance they need to improve their skills. 

Day-to-day coaching has a strong positive impact on performance.54 Second, 

and perhaps even more importantly, many managers may not be modeling good 

supervisory behaviors. By not providing feedback and coaching, they are sending 

a strong message to first-level supervisors that these are not important functions of 

supervision. 

Sixty-two percent of supervisors received help from other supervisors or a mentor in 

developing their skills. Whether more supervisors could have benefitted from advice 

from other supervisors or a mentor is unknown but it is possible that an increased 

focus on mentoring programs for new supervisors could offer substantial benefits in 

preparing new supervisors for their challenging roles. Just as new classroom teachers 

in elementary and high schools are assigned master teachers to guide the novices 

in their first year or two, each new supervisor could be paired with a highly skilled, 

experienced supervisor or manager. The mentor could talk through problems with 

the new supervisor, share his or her experiences including what worked and did 

not work, provide development advice, and offer encouragement to supplement 

the coaching provided by the supervisor’s manager. For example, the Department 

of Education provides new supervisors with a year-long mentoring program that 

is integrated with training seminars. It includes the creation of an individual 

development plan, individual mentoring sessions, and shadowing the mentor. 

Similarly, the National Labor Relations Board requires the pairing of new supervisors 

with experienced supervisors for six to 12 months of mentoring and on the job 

training.

54 Ken Blanchard and Garry Ridge, Helping People Win at Work, FT Press, New York, 2009.
44

Development of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Mentoring programs offer much opportunity for development at a very low 

cost. They also offer the mentor the satisfaction of contributing both to the new 

supervisor’s success and the success of the organization. Mentorship facilitates the 

transfer of knowledge and could be an especially appealing role for those nearing 

retirement.

Fifty-six percent of supervisors also said they applied feedback received from their 

employees or other sources. This type of feedback can be especially valuable to 

new supervisors in providing them with new insights about their behaviors and 

identifying areas for improvement. 

Figure 10 shows that more than half of new supervisors took the initiative to learn 

on their own from books, journals, magazines, web sites, and other sources, an 

indication of their desire to build good supervisory skills. About a third also used 

networking and discussions with friends and family members to build their skills. 

Other non-training developmental activities included community, church, and other 

volunteer activities and participation in a professional association.

Figure 10.

New Supervisors’ Participation in Other Informal 

Development Activities 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

52%

30%

15%

35%

26% Community, church,

volunteer activities

Networking

Participation in a 

professional association

Discussion with friends and family

Self-study of books, magazines,

web sites, etc.

These results indicate that many supervisors are actively seeking ways to develop and 

improve their performance.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 45

Development of Supervisors

Provide a Comprehensive Training and Development Program 

for Supervisors

First-level supervisors can best be prepared for their demanding roles through an 

integrated program of formal training, on the job learning, and other development 

opportunities such as job rotations, job shadowing, and mentoring. Beginning 

with an onboarding program for new supervisors will help them understand their 

new responsibilities and their role in the organization. It is important to include 

an explicit definition of their responsibilities and the supervisory practices they 

are expected to follow, e.g., meeting bi-weekly with each employee, quarterly 

formal performance reviews, documenting employee performance at least monthly. 

Scheduling a series of meetings for the new supervisors with the people in the 

organization with whom their work intersects will help them build professional 

networks and learn how the organization operates. These meetings may include 

support staff, other supervisors, functional managers, executives, and key customers.

In conjunction with the onboarding program, providing a multi-faceted 

development program will enable all supervisors to build the core supervisory 

competencies through classroom instruction, small group exercises and projects, 

and on the job learning. The training should enable the supervisors to build skills in 

every aspect of performance management including selecting employees; assigning 

work; reviewing work; providing feedback and coaching; developing employees; 

evaluating performance; recognizing good performance; and managing low or 

marginal performance. As they learn how to execute each of these responsibilities, 

the supervisors should also be strengthening the foundational competencies, e.g., 

communication skills, required to successfully discharge these responsibilities. 

The transfer of learning from the program to the supervisors’ daily work should 

be a focus of the program. The supervisors’ managers should be involved in the 

development program by leading or participating in some of the training sessions 

and following up at least weekly with the supervisors to discuss how they have 

applied their learning. Executives should also participate by welcoming supervisors 

to the initial session, leading one or more of the training sessions or by providing 

examples at several sessions of how the competency appears in action in the 

organization.

After initial formal training, additional support can be provided to new supervisors 

for their first year or two through a mentoring program focused on the core 

competencies. In addition, ongoing support for all supervisors can be offered 

through communities of practice and agency supervisory conferences. Communities 

of practice are small groups of supervisors who meet regularly in person, online, or 

via telephone to share their experiences and solicit suggestions for challenges they are 

facing. The objective is to have the supervisors build confidence through solidarity 

with their peers and hone their skills by learning from each other. Annual or semiannual supervisory conferences communicate to supervisors that they are valued and 

play an important role in the success of the organization while providing excellent 

opportunities for defining agency expectations for supervisors and skill building 

through training sessions and networking with other supervisors. The conferences, 

which can be simple, low-cost events, also offer a venue for senior leaders to connect 

and communicate with supervisors by sharing organizational information and 

personal leadership experiences and learning. 
46

Development of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Recognition of the Need for Supervisor Training 

Recent events indicate that the vital importance of providing first-level supervisors 

with the development they need to manage employees well is being recognized and 

acted upon. For example, in December 2009 the Office of Personnel Management 

issued final regulations to implement the supervisory training and development 

requirements in the Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-411).53

The regulations require Federal agencies to: provide training within one year of an 

employee’s initial appointment to a supervisory position and follow up periodically, 

but at least every three years, by providing further training on actions, options, 

and strategies to (1) mentor employees; (2) improve employee performance and 

productivity; (3) conduct performance appraisals in accordance with agency 

appraisal systems; and (4) identify and assist employees with unacceptable 

performance and provide training when individuals make critical career transitions 

to supervisor, manager, or executive. In March 2009, Senator Daniel Akaka 

introduced Senate Bill 674, the Federal Supervisor Training Act of 2009, to require 

all Federal agencies to provide new supervisors, within their first year on the 

job, with training on developing performance expectations with employees and 

evaluating employees’ performance.56 

However, legislation and regulations will only make an impact if each Federal agency 

devotes the resources and energy needed to implement well-designed training for all 

supervisors and ensures that the training is transferred to the job. Federal agencies 

need not develop their own programs although for large agencies it may be most 

cost effective to do so. The Office of Personnel Management and the Department 

of Agriculture both offer training programs for supervisors in all agencies. In 

addition, some Federal agencies make their internal training programs available to 

employees in other agencies. OPM maintains an online catalog of Federal leadership 

development programs.57 Some programs are available to employees in all agencies; 

others are restricted to specific agencies. Numerous offerings are also available from 

non-profit organizations and commercial vendors.

If an agency chooses to send supervisors to a program developed by OPM, another 

Federal agency, or an external vendor, it is important for the agency to consider 

doing four things. First, carefully review the training to ensure that the content 

aligns with the agency’s best practice approach to supervision. Second, to the 

extent possible, customize the program so that agency guidelines for supervisors are 

clarified and integrated into the training. Third, invite agency leaders to participate 

in delivering the training. If leader participation is not practical within a program 

sponsored by another agency or provided by an external vendor, the agency can 

conduct supplemental sessions with their supervisors to reinforce the key concepts 

and explain their application in the agency. Fourth, ensure that the training is well 

designed and emphasizes the application of the information presented. Optimally, 

55 See Training; Supervisory, Management, and Executive Development, Final Rule, 74 FR 

65383-65390, December 10, 2009 (to be codified at 5 CFR Parts 410 and 412).

56 As of March 2010, S. 674 had been referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 

Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia for review.

57 As of April 2010, this database is located at www.opm.gov/fedldp.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 47

Development of Supervisors

the training should incorporate exercises with practice and feedback as well as onthe-job follow-up activities that will facilitate transfer of learning to the job.

There are several excellent leadership programs within the Federal Government 

but the agencies who have these programs are in the minority. Every agency should 

focus on leadership development to adequately prepare their people for supervisory 

and other leadership roles. Agencies that do not yet have established leadership 

development programs can profit from exploring the programs of other Federal 

agencies to identify valuable content, methods, and curriculums. Table 8 briefly 

summarizes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Leaders’ Academy as an excellent 

example of a comprehensive, competency-based leadership development system. 

It is designed to provide agency leaders and potential leaders with training and 

development opportunities for the full spectrum of leadership competencies. 

Table 8.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Leaders’ Academy

Component Description

Goal Provide contemporary management and leadership training and continued development to 

current, future, and potential NRC leaders so they have the tools necessary to lead the NRC in 

accomplishing its mission with excellence.

Foundation Based on NRC’s Leadership Philosophy, which reads in part: “Leadership at NRC is the 

process of people working together toward common goals that bring about positive change. 

The effectiveness of leadership is based on trusting relationships. Through this exchange, people 

influence one another’s thoughts and actions. By harnessing and incorporating the diverse skills 

and viewpoints of others, individuals are empowered and group energy is mobilized to pursue 

collective goals. Decisions are made and actions are taken.”

Structure The Academy is built upon seven leadership levels with a separate curriculum for each level that 

is designed to develop a specific set of target competencies.

Curriculum The programs for each level of leadership are:

• Situational Leaders, for employees who manage projects or programs

• Leadership Potential Program, a 12-month competitive program to prepare high-performing 

employees to be selected for team leader, supervisory, or other positions that require 

leadership skills

• Team Leader Development Program, a 12-month program to develop team leaders for 

supervisory or other leadership positions

• Supervisor Development Program, a 24-month program required for all supervisors 

within their first two years

• Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program, an 18 month competitive 

program to prepare employees at grade GS-14 or above for SES positions

• Executive Managers for managers who supervise supervisors

• Senior Leaders for employees in Deputy Office Director or higher level positions.

Learning Methods A wide variety of learning methods are employed including classroom and online courses, 

self-assessments, 360-degree feedback, learning development plans, rotational assignments, 

leadership briefings, mentoring, coaching, and teaching opportunities.

In addition to investigating leadership programs in other Federal agencies, it may 

be worthwhile to review supervisor training programs in state and local government 

and the nonprofit and private sectors for fresh ideas. Some of the material may need 

to be adapted to apply more specifically to Government supervisors, but with a little 

imagination the underlying ideas and training techniques can be easily applied to the 

Federal context. 
48

Development of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Summary

Many new supervisors are not receiving the training and development opportunities 

they need both to understand the agency’s expectations for supervisors and to 

manage their employees effectively. This problem has long been recognized and is 

confirmed by the results of the 2007 Merit Principles Survey. Of the 64 percent of 

supervisors who said that they had received training prior to or during their first 

year as a supervisor, almost half (48 percent) received one week or less. Overall, 

more than three-quarters of new supervisors did not receive training in each of 

the basic areas of performance management including defining performance goals 

and standards; assigning, reviewing, and documenting employees’ work; providing 

feedback; developing employees; evaluating employee performance; and managing 

poor performers. 

Federal agencies cannot expect their first-level supervisors to effectively manage the 

performance of their employees and foster employee engagement if they do not 

provide supervisors with essential training. Supervising people is a tough job and 

it does not come naturally. It requires consciously acquiring, through both formal 

and informal development, a set of complex skills. As we noted previously, these 

skills are much more easily developed if the new supervisor possesses prerequisite 

foundational competencies such as good interpersonal communication skills and 

the other competencies discussed in the preceding chapter on the selection process. 

Informal development complements structured training by giving supervisors 

multiple opportunities to apply, strengthen, and expand the competencies developed 

in structured learning experiences. The MPS 2007 results showed that many 

supervisors are participating in informal development activities. This is clearly 

a positive step. More managers need to provide helpful feedback and coaching 

to supervisors both to help them improve their effectiveness in managing their 

work groups and to communicate through their actions that feedback giving is 

an important function of supervision. The more widespread implementation of 

mentoring programs for new supervisors would also be an effective approach to 

preparing new supervisors for their demanding role.

New regulations from OPM and pending legislation indicate that the need for 

providing supervisors with training in managing employees’ performance is being 

recognized. Each agency needs to make a commitment to supervisor development. 

There are several excellent leadership programs within the Federal Government but 

survey results suggest that these programs are not reaching enough supervisors. Every 

agency should provide a development program to prepare employees for supervisory 

and other leadership roles. Agencies that do not yet have established leadership 

development programs can profit from exploring the programs of other Federal 

agencies as well as programs in state and local government and the private and 

nonprofit sectors.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 49

Guidance and Support 

of Supervisors

The effective management of supervisors’ performance is a key ingredient for 

their success. However, many managers and executives may not be providing 

the management support first-level supervisors need to effectively drive 

results and engage their employees. The National Academy of Public Administration 

concluded in their 2003 study of Federal supervisors that: “A poor selection process, 

coupled with insufficient performance management (particularly of newly-minted 

leaders), help to explain the genesis of many leadership cadre shortcomings. Even 

employees with good leadership potential can fail because they are not routinely 

provided expectations of performance, and feedback and consequences for success 

or failure.”58 

In the introduction to this report, we identified four areas as likely contributors 

to suboptimal first-level supervision in the Federal Government: selection, 

development, guidance and support, and accountability. The preceding two chapters 

discussed supervisors selection and development. This chapter discusses the guidance 

and support that first-level supervisors receive. The following chapter will focus on 

accountability.

Information

To effectively lead a work unit, supervisors need to thoroughly understand the 

organization’s mission, goals, and strategies. They need information about the 

organization’s progress and problems in implementing the strategies and achieving 

the goals. They also need to know about upcoming changes and how they may 

affect their work group. This information creates a big picture context within which 

the supervisor can make the best decisions for the work unit and guide employees. 

Whenever possible, supervisors need to be involved in decisions that affect their 

work unit to both promote their acceptance of the decisions and their effective 

implementation of them. 

In the MPS 2007, we asked supervisors four questions about the information they 

receive about their organizations. Figures 11 and 12 illustrate their responses.

58 National Academy of Public Administration, First Line Supervisors in Federal Service: Selection, 

Development, and Management, Management Concepts, Vienna, VA, 2003, p. 3.
50

Guidance and Support of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Figure 11.

Supervisors’ Perceptions of Organizational Information

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Managers communicate

organizational goals

and priorities.

My supervisor explains

the reasons for work changes

before they take place.

Percent Agreeing

66%

51%

Figure 12.

Supervisors’ Satisfaction with Organizational Information

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

your involvement in decisions

that affect your work?

the information you receive from

management about

your organization?

Percent Satisfied

61%

51%

How satisfied are you with – 

As shown, two-thirds of first-level supervisors agreed that their managers 

communicate organizational goals and priorities; fewer than two-thirds (62 percent) 

of supervisors agreed that their supervisor explains work changes before they take 

place; and only a bare majority of first-line supervisors—just 51 percent—indicated 

that they were satisfied with the organizational information that management 

provides. Thus, it appears that many Federal supervisors suffer from an “information 

deficit.” That deficit should concern agency leaders for two reasons. First, an illinformed supervisor will find it difficult, if not impossible, to plan for changes in 

goals, priorities, or work processes. Second, a supervisor who cannot keep employees 

informed or provide timely, credible explanations for workplace changes will be 

hard-pressed to create the “positive work environment” that is essential to employee 

engagement.59

59 See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, Washington, 

DC, September 2008. That study identified “a positive work environment with some focus on 

teamwork” as one of six factors in employee engagement. This factor was based on the level of 

agreement with three survey questions related to communication and cooperation: (1) “I am treated 

with respect at work;” (2) “My opinions count at work;” and (3) “A spirit of cooperation and teamwork 

exists in my work unit.”
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 51

Guidance and Support of Supervisors

Survey data also suggest that many higher-level managers may suffer from an “input 

deficit.” As illustrated in Figure 12, fewer than two-thirds (61 percent) of supervisors 

said they are satisfied with their involvement in decisions that affect their work. 

From their perspective, many supervisors do not receive adequate opportunity to 

provide input into agency decision-making. That can result in both suboptimal 

decisions and reduced supervisory understanding of (and commitment to) those 

decisions. Agency leaders who do not involve subordinate supervisors in decisions 

directly affecting their work units are losing an enormous amount of expertise 

and creativity. Because supervisors often understand their work better than do 

higher-level leaders, they can provide essential insight into the implementation and 

consequences of potential decisions.

Agencies that expect supervisors to act with authority and responsibility in leading 

their work units must treat their supervisors as leaders. That is, supervisors must 

be trusted to participate in decision making; must be given information about 

the organization’s progress and problems; and must have a strong voice in the 

organization. Supervisors must see themselves as part of the leadership team to 

garner the commitment of their employees to achieving organizational goals. 

Because of the political nature of top agency leadership and the sometimes differing 

goals and perspectives of political leadership and career employees, the inclusion 

of first-level supervisors in high-level discussions and decisions may not be deemed 

appropriate. However, supervisors can be productively involved in division or 

bureau-level decision making and information sharing. This level of involvement 

will give supervisors a voice and the understanding of organizational goals, strategies, 

and issues they need to lead their work units.

Guidance and Support

In the preceding chapter, we discussed the importance of providing learning and 

development opportunities for first-level supervisors. In addition to training, to 

function effectively supervisors need ongoing guidance and support. Simply sending 

new supervisors to training does not relieve managers of their responsibility to assist 

supervisors in developing their supervisory skills. To ensure a strong return on the 

investment made by enrolling supervisors in development programs, managers need 

to support supervisors in practicing the new behaviors they learn. They also need 

to provide coaching to help the new supervisors further develop their skills. And, 

perhaps most importantly, managers need to model good supervision skills. As 

Albert Schweitzer said, “Example is not the main thing in influencing others, it is 

the only thing.”60 What managers do is far more persuasive than what they say.

Many new supervisors may be unsure of what is expected of them day to day on the 

job. Some may be simply dropped into the supervisory role as if parachuted into a 

foreign land and left to chart a course without a map. As with all other employees, 

supervisors need specific performance expectations. Agency leaders cannot assume 

60 Accessed on August 21, 2009, from http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/34600.html. 

Dr. Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, was a French missionary, physician, 

philosopher, and musicologist.
52

Guidance and Support of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

supervisory duties are self-evident; they need to clearly outline for supervisors the 

performance management behaviors that will enable the organization to achieve its 

goals. Supervisors need to know, for example, that they are expected to frequently 

review employees’ work and provide feedback. They need to understand that they 

are expected to promptly address poor performance. And they need to know all the 

other supervisory behaviors expected of them. Supervisors play too important a role 

in the success of the organization to leave their performance to chance.

In addition to being given clear performance expectations for their supervisory role, 

supervisors need ongoing guidance and support from their managers. In the MPS 

2007, three-quarters of supervisors stated that their manager talks with them or 

assists them when they need help. So, it appears that most managers are investing 

significant effort in guiding their subordinate supervisors.

However, as illustrated in Figure 13, somewhat fewer supervisors (61 percent) 

reported that they routinely receive the information and guidance they need to do 

a good job. Perhaps most managers are taking the time to talk with supervisors and 

help them, yet are not providing supervisors with sufficient information or guidance. 

One possible explanation is that the managers themselves are not adequately 

informed. Fewer than two-thirds of managers (65 percent) said that they routinely 

received the organizational information they needed.

Figure 13.

Supervisors’ responses to: How often do you receive the information 

and guidance you need to do your work efficiently and effectively?

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Rarely

or never

Usually

not

Some

of the time

Most

of the time

Always or

almost always

49%

28%

8%

12%

3%

Organizations support supervisors not only by providing information and guidance, 

but also by providing adequate resources, time, and authority. Supervisors’ 

perceptions of the support they receive are illustrated in Figure 14.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 53

Guidance and Support of Supervisors

Figure 14.

Supervisors’ Perceptions of Support 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

My workload is reasonable.

I have the resources I need 

to do my job well.

I have the authority I need to fulfill

my supervisory responsibilities.

60%

65%

Percent Agreeing

66%

About 60 percent of supervisors told us that their workloads are reasonable. Slightly 

more (65 percent) reported that they usually have the resources they need to do their 

jobs well. Two-thirds believe they have all the authority they need to fulfill their 

supervisory responsibilities. Thus 60 to 66 percent of supervisors believe they receive 

the support essential to perform well in terms of time, resources, and authority. This 

is definitely a good start but what about the other third? How is their apparent lack 

of support affecting their performance and the performance of their employees? 

Feedback

Frequent feedback is vital to effective supervisory performance because it helps 

supervisors understand what they are doing well and what they can improve. 

Human beings routinely overestimate their personal performance61 and this is 

precisely why feedback is so important. In addition to helping supervisors improve 

their performance, feedback provides acknowledgement of accomplishments and 

thus fills the basic human need for recognition. 

Feedback from Managers. We asked supervisors how helpful they find their 

manager’s feedback. A large majority (79 percent) said their manager’s feedback is 

very or somewhat helpful. This is excellent news. When managers provide feedback, 

it does help supervisors strengthen their performance. As shown in Figure 15, the 

challenge may be to persuade some managers to provide more frequent feedback 

to their subordinate supervisors. This figure shows how often supervisors receive 

feedback from their managers and how often they meet individually with their 

managers to discuss the progress of their work units in achieving their goals. The 

61 D. Dunning, C. Heath, and J.M. Suls, “Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, 

and the workplace,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 2004, pp. 69-106.
54

Guidance and Support of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

closeness of the percentages for the two questions probably indicates that managers 

are providing feedback in individual progress meetings.

Figure 15.

Frequency of Performance Feedback and Progress Review Meetings

4% Less than once per year

Once per year

Twice per year

Quarterly

Monthly

Evvery 2 weeks

Weekly or more often

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

How often do you typically receive formal or informal feedback 

from your supervisor?

How often do you meet individually with your supervisor

to discuss your work?

5%

6%

6%

17%

19%

11%

12%

13%

11%

9%

8%

40%

39%

It is encouraging to see that 49 percent, almost half, of supervisors are receiving 

feedback from their managers at least every two weeks and that 47 percent are 

meeting with their managers for progress reviews with comparable frequency. 

These frequent interactions with their managers are providing supervisors with 

the opportunity to gauge the progress of their work unit and discuss it with their 

managers frequently enough to make mid-course corrections. Of special concern are 

the supervisors who receive feedback and meet with their supervisors only quarterly 

or even less often. The managers of these supervisors may be failing to provide the 

supervisors with the feedback they require to properly manage their employees 

and achieve a high level of performance. Because supervisors’ performance heavily 

impacts the performance of their employees and thus the organization, it is doubly 

important for managers to provide ample feedback to supervisors.

Managers should regularly meet with each supervisor to discuss the progress of the 

supervisor’s work unit in achieving its goals, to address any obstacles that might be 

blocking or delaying progress, to discuss how the supervisor is managing the work 

unit, and to provide both positive and corrective feedback to the supervisor. They 

should also discuss the supervisor’s development and any special concerns. This is 

also a good time to share information about the organization and any upcoming 

changes. Because supervisors have such a strong impact on the organization, we 

recommend that managers meet with supervisors at least monthly to keep abreast 

of progress and events in the unit and to provide support in preventing potential 

problems and facilitating high performance. In many cases, weekly or bi-weekly 

feedback and meetings will be advantageous.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 55

Guidance and Support of Supervisors

Feedback from Employees. Employees are also an important source of valuable 

feedback for supervisors. Employees usually work more closely with supervisors than 

their managers do and, of course, have a different relationship with supervisors. 

They are much more aware of the daily performance management actions of the 

supervisor. Employees therefore can provide a unique perspective when they offer 

feedback. Employees will be able to make suggestions to their supervisors about 

how they can make the work unit a better place to work and help the employees do 

their best. In the MPS 2007, we asked supervisors a series of questions about their 

own performance. We asked non-supervisory employees the same questions about 

their supervisors’ performance. The results are depicted in Figure 16.

62 There are 

large gaps between supervisors’ perceptions of their performance and employees’ 

perceptions of that performance. Supervisors have a much more favorable views, 

most notably in their belief that employees can express their point of view without 

fear and their belief that they proactively inform employees of work changes.

Figure 16.

Perceptions of Supervisors’ Behaviors

62 We did not match individual supervisors with their employees. These figures represent the 

responses of all first-level supervisors combined and all non-supervisory employees (individual 

workers and team leaders) combined.

There are also marked differences between supervisors’ views of their overall 

performance and employees’ views. We asked supervisors, “Overall, how would you 

rate your performance as a supervisor?” We asked employees, “Overall, how would 

you rate your immediate supervisor’s performance as a supervisor?” The results are 

shown in Figure 17.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 10% 30% 50%

Percent Agreeing

70% 90%

Employees’ Perspective

Supervisors’ Perspective

95%

Employees can express 

their point of view without 

fears of negative consequences

Explains work changes 

to employees before 

they take place

Talks with employees and assists

them when they need help

Communicates high performance

expectations to employees 65%

99%

73%

94%

56%

99%

41%
56

Guidance and Support of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Figure 17.

Ratings of Supervisors’ Overall Performance

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Very good Good Fair Poor Very poor

35%

31% 31%

60%

19%

9% 10%

0%

5%

0%

Employees

Supervisors

Clearly, Federal supervisors, as a group, view their performance as supervisors much 

more favorably than do the employees they supervise. This disparity cannot be 

fully explained by the fact that an effective supervisor has responsibilities—such 

as enforcing work rules, allocating undesirable or unrewarding assignments, and 

holding employees accountable for acceptable performance and conduct—that 

may conflict with subordinate employees’ desires or interests. It is not plausible, 

for example, that none of the supervisors who responded to our survey are 

performing poorly as supervisors. The disparities have at least one other source: the 

documented tendency of people—including Federal supervisors—to overrate their 

own performance.63 However, research also shows that people can estimate their 

own performance more accurately when they receive specific feedback. Thus, the 

disparity also suggests that Federal supervisors could benefit from receiving more 

feedback from their own employees, both to more accurately understand how well 

they are (or are not) doing and to help them become better supervisors.

One of the questions in the MPS 2007 asked managers from whom they collect 

feedback to help them determine how well their employees, i.e., first-level 

supervisors, are performing. Figure 18 shows the percentages of managers who 

indicated that they solicit feedback from each source listed.

63 See D. Dunning, C. Heath, and J.M. Suls, “Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, 

education, and the workplace,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 2004, pp. 69-106. 

Top performers are an exception to this general tendency; they usually rate their own performance 

accurately, but underestimate how well they are doing in comparison to others.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 57

Guidance and Support of Supervisors

Figure 18.

Managers’ Sources of Feedback about Supervisors

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

31%

40%

56%

54%

Vendors or Contractors

External Customers

Internal Customers

Supervisor’s Peers

Supervisor’s Employees

9%

The more than two-thirds of managers who are not collecting feedback from 

supervisors’ employees about their performance as a supervisor are not taking 

advantage of a valuable source of information. Helping supervisors strengthen 

their performance management skills is an important part of a manager’s job. The 

supervisor’s employees are in the best position to know exactly how the supervisor is 

managing. The input the employees provide will enable managers to identify areas of 

strengths and development needs for each supervisor that they can use in coaching. 

There are many ways that managers can collect feedback from the employees of their 

subordinate supervisors. Some approaches that can work well include:

• Upward feedback or 360-degree feedback tools;

• Asking the employees to write their answers to a set of prepared questions. 

Possible questions include (1) What should your supervisor stop doing? ...

continue doing? ...start doing?; (2) What does your supervisor do that helps 

you do your best work?; and (3) What does your supervisor do that makes it 

difficult for you to do your best work?;

• A live meeting or teleconference with the employees as a group;

• “Skip level” meetings in which the manager meets individually with each 

employee; 

• A focus group conducted by a facilitator; and

• Asking the employees to write a brief narrative about what they see as their 

supervisor’s strengths and weaknesses.

The written forms of feedback of course allow employees to submit their comments 

anonymously but they also allow employees not to take ownership of their 

comments and perhaps to make thoughtless or irresponsible comments. Also, 

because the manager does not know who provided each comment, he or she cannot 

ask for clarification. If there is a high level of trust in the organization and a strong 

culture of feedback giving is developed, managers can collect the information from 

employees in person or by name.
58

Guidance and Support of Supervisors

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Feedback from Peers and Others. Supervisor’s peers are another valuable and 

underused source of feedback. They can supply pertinent information about the 

supervisor’s interactions with them; 360-degree feedback tools or written narratives 

(not anonymous) are typically the most appropriate approaches for this group.

About half the managers are collecting feedback from internal and external 

customers. Whenever possible, this is a good way to get feedback about the 

supervisor’s behaviors outside the work unit. And, if the supervisor works with 

vendors or contractors, they too, can supply helpful information. The wider the 

scope of the feedback collected, the more information the manager will have to assist 

the supervisor in identifying strengths and working on challenges.

Feedback from Observations. Another way that managers can collect information 

about supervisors’ performance is to observe them and their employees in action. 

If subordinate supervisors’ employees provide direct services to clients, managers 

can occasionally sit unannounced among waiting clients. Managers can listen to 

what the clients are saying about the service and observe how they are treated by 

employees. This is a good way to evaluate the quality and extent of supervision 

the employees are receiving. It may also be possible to observe how the supervisors 

handle issues and problems that may arise between the employees and their clients. 

Using the Feedback Received. When managers collect feedback about supervisors 

from their employees, peers, customers, or suppliers, it is important to evaluate the 

quality and credibility of the information received and balance it with their own 

observations and additional information about the supervisor. This feedback should 

be used only for development, not evaluation. Employees, peers, customers, and 

suppliers do not have the qualifications, experience, broad perspective, or motivation 

required to evaluate the performance of supervisors.64 In addition, the source of the 

feedback should be shared with the supervisor only by naming broad groups; e.g., 

“This feedback came from your employees.”

Summary

Many supervisors believe that they are not receiving the guidance and support they 

need to execute a difficult role well. Only two-thirds of first-level supervisors believe 

they are receiving information about the goals and priorities of the organization 

while just half said they are satisfied with the information they receive from 

management about what’s going on in their organizations. Fewer than two-thirds 

of supervisors agree that their supervisor explains the reasons for work changes 

before they take place. Fewer than two-thirds also said they were satisfied with their 

involvement in decisions that affect their work. For supervisors to act with authority 

and responsibility in leading their work units, they need to be treated as leaders; i.e., 

they should be trusted to participate in decision making, they need to be supplied 

with information about the organization’s progress and problems, and they should 

have a voice in the organization. 

64 Elaine Pulakos, Performance Management: A New Approach for Driving Business Results, WileyBlackwell, West Sussex, UK, 2009.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 59

Guidance and Support of Supervisors

Receiving frequent feedback is a vital component of effective supervisory 

performance. We found that 49 percent of supervisors are receiving informal or 

formal feedback from their managers at least every two weeks and 13 percent receive 

feedback monthly. The remaining 38 percent receive feedback only quarterly or 

even less often with some receiving feedback less than once a year. It is important for 

managers to understand that supervisors cannot be expected to effectively execute 

their responsibilities if they do not receive the frequent feedback that will enable 

them to regulate their performance and the performance of their employees. 

Employees are also an important source of valuable feedback for supervisors. 

We found wide gaps between supervisors’ own ratings of their performance and 

employees’ ratings. For example, while 94 percent of supervisors said they explain 

work changes to employees before they take place, only 56 percent of employees 

agreed that their supervisors do so. While 91 percent of supervisors said their overall 

performance as a supervisor was good or very good, just 66 percent of employees 

agreed.

The input that employees can provide can assist supervisors’ managers in identifying 

areas of strengths and development needs for each supervisor. Yet, we found 

that only 31 percent of managers collect feedback from the employees of their 

subordinate supervisors. We encourage more managers to request feedback from 

employees, peers, and customers about their subordinate supervisors for use in 

developmental coaching for the supervisors.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 61

Accountability

For Federal employees, accountability is demonstrating a personal commitment 

to serving the public by diligently investing individual resources of 

competency, time, and energy to produce the outcomes valued by their 

organization. In supervisory and managerial roles, accountability is taking 

responsibility for both one’s own performance and the performance of one’s 

employees. It is taking the actions that will engage employees and build a strong 

connection between them and their work so that as many of them as possible choose 

to dedicate their best efforts to serving the public. It also means maintaining an 

ongoing dialogue with each employee so that their work progress is discussed and 

potential obstacles are identified early so they can be addressed and resolved before 

they become problems.

The role of the supervisor is to work with all employees at all levels of ability to 

maximize their contributions to the success of the organization. Supervisors need to 

understand that their job is to provide every employee—whether a star performer, 

a moderate achiever, or a straggler—with the guidance, feedback, encouragement, 

resources, and other support needed to perform his or her best. Several of the 

previous reports about first-level supervisors that we mentioned in Chapter 1 and 

our own research indicate that some agency cultures are not actively supporting this 

role for the supervisor. For example, in a 1999 study, we reported that some agency 

cultures “permit supervisors to view management of performance problems as timeconsuming detours from their regular work, rather than as an intrinsic and essential 

part of the job.” In these agencies, supervisors are not held responsible for dealing 

effectively with problem performers and senior leaders may give tacit approval to 

moving unacceptable workers from unit to unit, counting on the better performers 

to bring productivity up to necessary levels.65 Results from the MPS 2007 described 

in our previous report, Managing for Engagement—Communication, Connection, and 

Courage, provide examples of several areas in which some first-level supervisors do 

not seem to be helping employees achieve their best by working with them to define 

clear, written performance goals, providing guidance and feedback, and recognizing 

their achievements.66

65 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Supervisors and Poor Performers, Washington, DC, 

1999, p. 32.

66 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing for Engagement—Communication, Connection, 

and Courage, Washington, DC, 2009.
62

Accountability

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

The Impact of the Organization on Supervisory Accountability

How can Federal agencies strengthen accountability for first-level supervisors? 

That is, how can they foster the conscious decision by every supervisor each day to 

do the best possible job of helping employees perform successfully? Accountability 

is developed through a complex interaction of the supervisor and the organization. 

The behavior of each individual is a function of the interaction between the 

person and the work environment. Restated, organizations are systems, in which 

accountability and work performance are the result of the interaction of the 

individual performer and organizational factors such as policies, processes, practices, 

and culture (both explicit and tacit).67 This concept is illustrated in Figure 19.

Figure 19.

Supervisory Accountability Model 

Selection

Development

Culture 

and

Environment

Supervisor

Competencies

and 

Motivation

Accountability

and

Performance

(Valued Outcomes)

Consequences

Guidance

and

Feedback

To begin strengthening accountability, agencies need to consider the organizational 

system within which supervisors operate. The forces that support and encourage 

accountability should be strengthened while the forces that discourage it 

should be eliminated. Beginning with supervisor selection, it should be clear 

that accountability for the work of one’s team is the defining characteristic of a 

supervisor. Accountability should be a key competency that is thoroughly assessed 

in the selection process and reinforced in all training and development programs. 

These programs should both communicate to new supervisors that they are 

accountable for their work units and equip them with the knowledge and skills 

they need to effectively manage their work groups and hold employees accountable 

for their performance. 

The organizational culture should foster accountability through communication, 

modeling, and support by higher level leaders that reinforces the content of the 

supervisor training and development programs. For example, managers and higher 

level leaders should make it clear in communications to employees that personal 

accountability for timely, high-quality, and efficient work is both expected of all 

employees and highly valued in the organization. Managers then should follow their 

words with action by engaging in ongoing dialogues with supervisors about their 

roles and how they are managing their work units, providing guidance and feedback, 

67 See, for example, Brethower, D.M., “Specifying a human performance technology 

knowledgebase,” Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(2), 1995, 17-39; Langdon, D.G., Aligning 

performance: Improving people, systems, and organizations, Jossey-Bass-Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA, 2000; 

and Gilbert, T.F., Human competence: Engineering worthy performance (2nd ed.), International Society 

for Performance Improvement, Silver Spring, MD, 1996.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 63

 Accountability

and promptly addressing potential or existing obstacles. They should provide both 

the practical support and encouragement supervisors need to do a tough job well.

Thus, careful selection of supervisors, well-planned training and development, 

a supportive culture, and ongoing feedback and guidance result in supervisors 

who have both the capability and motivation to lead their work units to achieve 

the outcomes needed to meet organizational goals. As these valued outcomes are 

achieved, the organization needs to ensure there are positive consequences such as 

praise, formal recognition, increased opportunities, or rewards. In addition to the 

personal satisfaction felt by the supervisor, these organizational incentives reinforce 

good performance and further strengthen commitment to work. Conversely, if 

the supervisor’s management of the work unit does not result in valued outcomes, 

the manager and executives need to make it clear that this level of performance is 

not acceptable through clear discussions with the supervisor of the inadequacies 

demonstrated and the impact on the organization. The manager should work with 

the supervisor to develop a plan for improving the work unit’s performance that 

includes measurable goals and checkpoints. 

In previous chapters of this report, we discussed the current status of: (1) supervisory 

selection; (2) training and development for supervisors; and (3) guidance and 

support provided to supervisors. We concluded that people with the strongest 

technical skills are often selected for supervisory roles although they may lack the 

people management skills or potential needed to perform the job well. We found 

that many new supervisors are not receiving the training and development they need 

both to understand the agency’s expectations for supervisors and to manage their 

employees effectively. The 2007 MPS results also showed that many supervisors 

believe that they are not receiving the guidance and support they need and many are 

not receiving adequate feedback that they can apply to enhance their performance. 

It appears then that three of the factors that promote accountability and high 

performance are not fully operational in Federal agencies for first-level supervisors. 

Now, let’s look at the consequences factor and see how it is supporting accountability 

for first-level supervisors. 

Consequences for Performance

Performance Goals. Specific performance goals clearly state the accomplishments 

for which supervisors are accountable and provide supervisors with a road map 

to lead the efforts of their work units. In the 2007 MPS, 76 percent of first-level 

supervisors reported that they have written goals that define the results they are 

expected to achieve and, among these supervisors, 85 percent agreed that goals 

accurately defined performance expectations. That is a promising beginning. The 

remaining 24 percent of supervisors who did not say they have written goals may 

or may not have unwritten goals. However, committing goals to writing has several 

benefits. First, it reduces the risk of confusion, memory lapses, or disagreement 

about the content of the goals. Second, written goals can help focus attention on 

achieving outcomes rather than on activities and processes. Finally, written goals 

can be shared with employees and posted to serve as a reminder of the work group’s 

objectives. Written goals for supervisors can provide a solid foundation for the 
64

Accountability

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

development of individual employee goals. Finally, written performance goals can 

provide a more reliable basis for evaluating the supervisor’s performance than the 

manager’s memory of what the supervisor was orally asked to accomplish and, if a 

supervisor is not performing well, provide a firm basis for discussion, remediation, 

and if necessary, disciplinary actions.

Consequences for Achieving Work Results. In the 2007 MPS, we asked 

supervisors if they believed they are held accountable for achieving their goals in 

two ways: First, if they experience positive consequences for achieving expected 

work results, and second, if they experience negative consequences for not achieving 

expected work results. Positive consequences could include anything the supervisor 

perceives as desirable, such as praise from one’s manager, a monetary award, time off, 

or the respect of peers. Negative consequences could include anything the supervisor 

perceives as undesirable, such as receiving a low performance rating, no monetary 

award, a decrease in the manager’s trust, or a loss of reputation. The survey results 

are shown in Table 9.

Table 9.

Supervisors’ Perceptions of Consequences

MPS 2007 Question Agree Neutral Disagree

I am held accountable for achieving results in the sense 

that if I achieve the expected work results, I experience 

positive consequences.

70% 19% 11%

I am held accountable for achieving results in the sense 

that if I do not achieve the expected work results, 

I experience negative consequences.

65% 24% 11%

Seventy percent of supervisors agreed that they experience positive consequences 

for achieving expected outcomes while 11 percent disagreed. A somewhat smaller 

proportion, 65 percent, agreed that they experience negative consequences for not 

achieving expected results while 11 percent disagreed. It is difficult to definitively 

interpret the remaining neutral responses. One possibility is that the respondent 

believed that they were held accountable only some of the time. Another possibility 

is that the consequences were minor or ambiguous. Alternatively, the supervisors 

may have disagreed with their supervisor about the extent to which they achieved 

expected work results and therefore dismissed any consequences that ensued as 

not warranted. In any case, because consequences are important in reinforcing 

accountability, higher levels of agreement that the quality of one’s work results in 

clear positive or negative outcomes are desirable.

Recognition. We also asked supervisors about recognition for their work. Their 

responses are summarized in Figures 20 and 21.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 65

 Accountability

Figure 20.

Supervisors’ Perceptions About Recognition

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

57%

I am rewarded for providing

high quality products and

services to my customers

Recognition and rewards are

based on performance 

in my work unit

23%

20%

59%

22%

19%

Figure 20 shows that 57 percent of supervisors believe they are rewarded for 

providing high quality products and services to their internal or external customers. 

The remainder either take no position or disagree that rewards are linked to good 

customer service. Supervisors’ perceptions of the link between personal recognition 

and performance in their work units are very similar. Figure 21 shows that the 

majority of supervisors believe they have been treated fairly in the past two years 

in awards, yet a substantial minority (28 percent) believe otherwise.

Figure 21.

Have you been treated fairly in the past 2 years in awards?

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Yes No Don’t know or

not applicable

9%

28%

63%
66

Accountability

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

It is possible that greater accountability among first-level supervisors could be 

promoted by strengthening the connection between performance and rewards. This 

could be done by developing and heavily communicating to employees at all levels 

a program that tightly links recognition to good work through both formal and 

informal acknowledgement of employees’ contributions. Recognition can take many 

forms and need not be constrained by available funds. It is essential that monetary 

rewards be given only to those who have truly earned them rather than spreading 

limited award money among a large number of employees.

Performance Appraisals. Performance appraisals can also be a useful tool to 

facilitate accountability if they are well designed and implemented. Figure 22

shows that a small majority, 58 percent, of supervisors agreed that appropriate, 

objective measurements are used to evaluate their performance—but 25 percent 

were neutral and the remaining 17 percent disagreed.

Figure 22.

Supervisors’ Perceptions of Performance Appraisals

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

58%

25%

17%

My performance appraisal

is a fair reflection

of my performance

My supervisor has

 a good understanding

of my job performance

and accomplishments

Appropriate,

objective measures

are used to evaluate

my performance

68%

17%

15%

63%

21%

16%
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 67

 Accountability

The value of performance measurements in promoting accountability can be 

increased if managers work with supervisors to select and define mutually acceptable 

measurements for each performance goal at the beginning of the performance 

period. For many supervisory jobs, it will be difficult or impossible to define purely 

objective measures. However, carefully planned goals and measures can increase the 

level of objectivity by providing managers with more accurate information on which 

to base an evaluation. Numerical values are not necessary. If the factors used to 

assess goal achievement are stated clearly enough to facilitate reliable discriminations 

among meeting, not meeting, or exceeding the goals, they are measurable goals 

because different values can be meaningfully assigned to different levels of 

performance.68 Defined measurements can also increase supervisors’ perceptions of 

the fairness of performance evaluations.

While over two-thirds (68 percent) of supervisors agreed their managers have a good 

understanding of their job performance, the remaining 32 percent disagreed or chose 

a neutral response. The manager’s understanding of a supervisor’s job performance 

is essential for fostering accountability. If a manager is not closely familiar with 

the work supervisors are accomplishing, the manager will not be able to provide 

coaching and feedback to help the supervisors succeed. It will also not be possible 

to fairly evaluate the supervisors’ work and recognize their accomplishments.

While close to two-thirds of Federal supervisors (63 percent) agreed their 

performance appraisal is a fair reflection of their performance, approximately 

one-sixth (16 percent) disagreed. These results are consistent with supervisors’ 

perceptions of the objectivity of performance measurements and their managers’ 

understanding of their accomplishments. If the way performance is measured is 

seen as fair and if managers are viewed as being knowledgeable of their subordinates’ 

performance, performance appraisal is more likely to be seen as reflective of actual 

performance. Doubts about managers’ ability to objectively assess performance lead 

to distrust of performance appraisals which in turn decreases their usefulness in 

supporting accountability. As noted earlier, the accuracy and fairness of performance 

appraisals is a complex issue because there are multiple factors unrelated to 

performance that may affect performance ratings. However, the fairness and 

objectivity of performance appraisals, and hence their usefulness as a consequence 

in fostering accountability, can be improved to the extent that managers are able to 

work with supervisors to define clear, measurable goals and engage in continuing 

dialogues with supervisors about their progress to assure that they are fully aware 

of the supervisors’ accomplishments.

68 William J. Liccione, “Goal commitment,” Performance Improvement, 48(7), 2009, pp. 26-30.
68

Accountability

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Summary

Supervisors are too important for agencies to leave their success to chance. More 

Federal agencies need to operate in terms of personal accountability for employees 

at all levels, and especially for those in supervisory and managerial positions. 

Accountability for first-level supervisors needs to be embedded in the organizational 

culture through selection, development, guidance and feedback, and consequences 

for work unit performance. Supervisors need to be engaged in the missions of their 

agencies so that commitment to excellent supervision is built into the everyday 

fabric of work as a normal expectation. 

Continual open dialogue and demonstrated support and appreciation from the 

manager and executives are essential for developing and maintaining supervisor 

accountability. Even people with high levels of conscientiousness and internal 

motivation can eventually become disengaged if they believe that their efforts are 

not supported or recognized by the organization.69 Supervisors who invest thought 

and effort in managing their work units should be rewarded for their efforts. 

Their performance management capabilities should be recognized and applauded 

because they result in enormous benefits to the organization in increased employee 

engagement and performance. These committed supervisors need to be encouraged 

and supported by their managers and higher level leaders.

69 William H. Macey, Benjamin Schneider, Karen M. Barbera, and Scott A. Young, Employee 

Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA, 

2009. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 69

Conclusions and 

Recommendations

First-level supervisors are vital to the success of every Federal agency. Numerous 

studies conducted over the past three decades by both Federal agencies and 

nonprofit organizations have provided strong support for the need to improve 

the effectiveness of Federal first-level supervisors. Although there has been some 

overall improvement in employees’ perceptions of their supervisors’ performance 

in recent years, there is still much work that can be done to improve first-level 

supervision. Key areas for improvement are selection, development, guidance and 

support, and accountability. Each of these are essential elements of a successful 

talent management strategy and each needs to be integrated with and support the 

other three. 

We present here our conclusions about the specific needs for improvement in these 

areas based on the results of the 2007 Merit Principles Survey, past studies of Federal 

first-level supervisors, and other research we have conducted. Then we offer our 

recommendations to address each of the four areas identified for improvement. 

Some recommendations are new and others have been suggested in our previous 

reports or elsewhere. Not all of our recommendations will work for all agencies. 

Each agency needs to select those recommendations that can be aligned with their 

goals, business strategies, and organizational cultures and take positive actions to 

meet the challenge of equipping its supervisory workforce to engage employees 

and achieve high performance. Although it may be difficult for many agencies to 

make large changes in their talent management strategies for first-level supervisors, 

every agency can make at least a few small, well-planned changes. Investments in 

the improvement of first-level supervision can, over time, yield substantial positive 

returns in improved workforce performance.

Conclusions

Current selection of first-level supervisors is heavily based on technical 

expertise. The problems in supervisory selection reported over the past 30 years 

appear to persist. Supervisory selection is often based more heavily on technical 

expertise than on leadership competencies. Technical skills appear to be much more 

strongly emphasized in job announcements and assessments than are supervisory 

skills.

Technical experts without an interest or aptitude in leadership are often selected 

for supervisory roles. Because most Federal career paths do not provide technical 

expert roles in which highly proficient and experienced employees are recognized 
70

Conclusions and Recommendations

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

with organizational status and increased compensation, technically proficient 

employees who have minimal interest or aptitude in managing people apply for 

supervisory positions. And, because the selection criteria are heavily weighted toward 

technical expertise, they often are selected for these positions.

The supervisory probation period is not consistently being used as the final step 

in the selection process. Data from the Central Personnel Data File and the 2007 

MPS indicate that Federal managers are not consistently using the probationary 

period as the final step in the selection process, as required by law and regulation. 

In Fiscal Year 2009, just one half of one percent of new supervisors were either 

reassigned or separated for failure to complete probation. It is unlikely that so 

few new supervisors would be unsuccessful during the probationary period. This 

extremely low probationary failure rate among Federal supervisors indicates that 

many new supervisors are probably being allowed to continue in a supervisory role 

despite marginal or unsatisfactory performance during the probationary period. In 

addition, in the 2007 MPS, only 64 percent of supervisors affirmed that they had 

been informed of the probationany period while less than half (47 percent) stated 

that their performance during their probationary period had been used to decide if 

they should retain a supervisory role.

Supervisors need substantially more training and development. Many new 

supervisors are not receiving the training and development they need both to 

understand the agency’s expectations for supervisors and to manage their employees 

effectively. The continuation of this longstanding problem is confirmed by the 

results of the 2007 MPS. Fewer than two-thirds of supervisors said that they 

received training prior to or during their first year as a supervisor and of those 

who received training, almost half (48 percent) received one week or less. Overall, 

more than three-quarters of new supervisors did not receive training in each of the 

basic areas of performance management, including developing performance goals 

and standards; assigning, reviewing, and documenting employees’ work; providing 

feedback; developing employees; evaluating employee performance; and managing 

poor performers. These are all areas which the survey results indicated are targets of 

opportunity to improve supervisory performance.

Many supervisors do not receive the information they need. Two-thirds of firstlevel supervisors believe they are receiving information about the goals and priorities 

of their organization, while half said they are satisfied with the information they 

receive from management about what’s going on in their organization. Fewer than 

two-thirds of supervisors agreed that their supervisor adequately explains the reasons 

for work changes before they take place. Fewer than two-thirds also said they were 

satisfied with their involvement in decisions that affect their work. For supervisors 

to act with authority and responsibility in leading their work units, they need to be 

treated as leaders; i.e., they should be trusted to participate in decision making, they 

need more information about the organization’s progress and problems, and they 

should have a voice in the organization. 

Supervisors are receiving assistance from their managers but many need more 

information and specific guidance. Although three-quarters of supervisors reported 

that their supervisor talks with them or assists them when they need help, fewer 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 71

Conclusions and Recommendations

supervisors (61 percent) believed that they routinely receive the information and 

guidance they need to function effectively. One reason that a substantial number of 

supervisors reported that their managers do not provide the specific information or 

guidance they need may be that the managers themselves are not receiving adequate 

information or guidance. Fewer than two-thirds of managers said that they were 

satisfied with the organizational information they receive from agency leadership.

Supervisors need more coaching and feedback. Receiving frequent feedback is a 

vital component of effective supervisory performance. Yet we found that just under 

half of supervisors (49 percent) are receiving feedback from their managers at least 

every two weeks. Another 13 percent receive feedback only monthly. The remaining 

38 percent receive feedback only quarterly or even less often, with 10 percent 

receiving feedback once a year or less. Supervisors cannot be expected to effectively 

execute their responsibilities if they do not receive the frequent feedback from their 

managers that will enable them to regulate their performance and the performance 

of their employees. 

Employees are also an important source of valuable feedback for supervisors. 

We found wide gaps between supervisors’ own ratings of their performance and 

employees’ ratings. For example, while 94 percent of supervisors said they explain 

work changes to employees before they take place, only 56 percent of employees 

agreed that their supervisors do so. And, while 91 percent of supervisors said their 

overall performance as a supervisor was good, just 66 percent of employees rated 

their supervisor’s performance as good. The input the employees provide can enable 

managers to identify areas of strengths and development needs for each supervisor. 

Yet, we found that less than one-third of managers collect feedback from the 

employees of their subordinate supervisors. 

Only about half (54 percent) of the survey respondents reported that as new 

supervisors their manager provided them with coaching or feedback that helped 

them develop supervisory competencies. This is a concern in two respects. First, 

the supervisors may not be receiving the feedback they need to improve their skills. 

Second, and perhaps even more importantly, managers are not modeling good 

supervisory behaviors. By not providing feedback and coaching, they are sending a 

strong message to first-level supervisors that feedback giving and coaching are not 

important functions of supervision.

Supervisory and managerial accountability need to be strengthened. Stronger 

cultures of accountability need to be developed in many Federal agencies so that 

each supervisor and manager demonstrates a personal commitment to serving 

the public through effectively managing the performance of his or her employees. 

Several studies over the past 30 years have documented the need for improvement, 

especially in the area of managing poor performers. We found that some of the 

tools that promote accountability such as clear performance goals and consequences 

for performance are not being widely used in all organizations. When supervisors 

themselves are not held accountable for their work unit’s performance through 

clear expectations, ongoing dialogue with their managers, and support for good 

performance management practices, it is unrealistic for their managers to expect 

supervisors to hold their employees accountable for their work.
72

Conclusions and Recommendations

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Recommendations

For Consideration by Congress—

Provide OPM with the funding to offer predictive supervisory selection 

instruments to agencies without charge.

OPM currently provides off-the-shelf and custom selection assessment tools, and 

accompanying services such as validation, to Federal agencies on a fee basis. With 

additional funding, OPM could develop a set of selection instruments with a high 

level of predictive power for supervisory success and offer them to all agencies with 

no charge. The development and validation of predictive selection tools typically 

require substantial expertise, time, and money. However, if the tools are available 

to all agencies, the cost per use is greatly reduced and they become an excellent 

investment. Examples of these tools include:

• Structured interviews that include questions for important supervisory 

competencies;

• Job simulations, such as role-playing exercises, in-basket exercises, situational 

judgment tests, work samples, and video or online simulations;

• Assessments of conscientiousness and integrity; and

• Assessment centers.

Several equivalent forms of each tool should be developed to maintain security and 

allow for re-testing when needed. The tools should be developed so that they can be 

customized for specific agency needs. Guidance in appropriate use of the tools and 

instructions for implementation should accompany the instruments.

For the U.S. Office of Personnel Management—

1. Provide guidance to assist agencies in using competencies as a basis for 

supervisory selection and development. In its recently-issued Supervisory 

Qualification Guide, OPM has identified a set of competencies that could 

provide Federal agencies with a standard framework for talent management for 

first-level supervisors. We suggest that OPM provide additional guidance to 

help agencies make practical use of these competencies, such as (1) operational 

definitions—descriptions of how each competency is applied at the first level 

of supervision; (2) behavioral examples for different levels of proficiency; and 

(3) options for assessment and development. We note that OPM’s online 

Personnel Assessment and Selection Resource Center already includes relevant 

material, such as the Assessment Decision Guide and a description of proficiency 

levels for the leadership competencies. Guidance for selecting and managing 

first-level supervisors could build on, and ultimately be integrated with, this 

material as well as guidance related to Senior Executive Service (SES) selection 

and development.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 73

Conclusions and Recommendations

2. Explore ways to provide alternative career opportunities for technical 

experts. It is essential that Federal agencies recognize the special skills and 

responsibilities required by a supervisory role, provide adequate incentives 

for employees to accept those responsibilities, and recognize and reward those 

employees who carry out those responsibilities with distinction. Yet it is also 

essential that the Federal Government does not drive high-performing 

technical experts who lack the desire or ability to supervise to apply for 

supervisory positions for want of any other opportunity for advancement, 

career development, or challenging work.

Accordingly, we recommend that OPM work with Federal agencies to 

explore and develop career opportunities for employees who have a high level 

of technical expertise but are not well-suited to a supervisory role. Those 

opportunities might include technical career paths for occupations in which 

employees can contribute to their organizations in a capacity beyond the top 

existing level. For other occupations, those opportunities could take other forms, 

such as recognition and rewards, serving as a mentor, representing the agency 

in interagency or external task forces, taking on special projects, and developing 

and delivering training to less experienced employees.

We acknowledge that alternative career opportunities may be difficult to 

implement. First, it may require far-reaching changes to classification principles 

and standards, or legislation if desired changes cannot be accomplished within 

the existing statutory framework for Federal employee classification and pay. 

Second, the establishment of alternative opportunities could have significant 

implications for career paths in Federal agencies and compensation costs. 

Finally, we recognize that this recommendation might be best evaluated and 

implemented as part of a broader reform of Federal employee pay, classification, 

and performance management. For these reasons, we do not specify when or 

how OPM should establish the “alternative opportunities” envisioned here.

For Federal Agencies—

In selecting, developing, and managing their supervisory workforce, agencies should 

consider the following recommendations.

1. Base the talent management cycle for first-level supervisors on the core 

supervisory competencies. Base all aspects of talent management for first-level 

supervisors (workforce planning, selection, development, management, and 

evaluation) on core supervisory competencies and any additional competencies 

that are essential to supervisory success in the agency. Train managers in how 

to apply these competencies in the selection, development, management, and 

evaluation of first-level supervisors.

2. Allow adequate time for supervisory duties. When designing supervisory 

jobs, carefully consider the time needed for the supervisor to effectively 

manage the performance of the work group. If well implemented, supervisory 

responsibilities are time consuming and supervisors need to be allowed adequate 

time to discharge them. 
74

Conclusions and Recommendations

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

3. Emphasize supervisory competencies when advertising and filling 

supervisory positions. Even for first-level supervisory positions, core 

supervisory competencies should be a primary consideration. Use technical 

expertise as appropriate as an essential and important criterion for selection—

but also include the assessment of supervisory competencies or potential to 

identify and select the candidate most likely to succeed.

4. Provide realistic job previews for aspiring supervisors. Provide realistic job 

previews for first-level supervision jobs to help employees who are interested 

in a supervisory position better understand both the rewards and challenges of 

supervision. Include an explanation of the supervisory competencies needed 

for the job with the behavioral examples that illustrate how these competencies 

are applied on the job. Emphasize the demanding interpersonal situations a 

supervisor faces, such as providing corrective feedback to employees, supporting 

performance appraisal ratings, and dealing assertively with conduct and 

performance problems. Also, explain the supervisory administrative duties and 

paperwork required in your agency.

5. Provide clear information about the supervisory role in job announcements.

Communicate through job announcements that supervision is an essential 

component of the job. List the specific supervisory duties (rather than simply 

saying the job includes supervision), provide the percentages of time that are to 

be spent on supervision and technical work, explain the approximate number 

of employees who will be supervised and their occupations, and list both the 

technical and supervisory competencies required for the job. 

6. Use strongly predictive selection tools for first-level supervisory positions. 

Every dollar invested in the development and use of sound selection tools can 

be paid back many fold in the performance of good supervisors. Base the choice 

of selection instruments on their power in predicting supervisory success rather 

than simply on administrative convenience, familiarity, or low cost. Use multiple 

assessment instruments for better prediction and fuller understanding of each 

candidate’s strengths and weaknesses. Ensure that the instruments used after 

candidates are reviewed for minimum qualifications and technical competence 

are well suited to assessing supervisory competencies. Instruments to consider 

include structured interviews; situational judgment tests; accomplishment 

records; and simulations, such as work samples, role-playing exercises, and inbasket exercises.

7. Provide a comprehensive training and development program for supervisors. 

Create an integrated plan for how first-level supervisors will be prepared for their 

demanding roles through a combination of formal training, on the job learning, 

and other development opportunities such as job rotations, job shadowing, 

and mentoring. Involve experienced supervisors, managers, and executives 

in designing the training and development program. Their involvement will 

both ensure the content is useful and stimulate their enthusiasm. Begin with 

an onboarding program for new supervisors that will help them understand 

their new responsibilities and their role in the organization and continue 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 75

Conclusions and Recommendations

with a multi-faceted training program that will enable them to build the core 

supervisory competencies through classroom instruction, small group exercises 

and projects, and on-the-job learning. Ensure that the transfer of learning from 

the program to the supervisors’ daily work is the top priority. Provide additional 

support for new supervisors for their first year or two with a mentoring program 

focused on the core competencies. Offer ongoing development opportunities for 

all supervisors to refresh and strengthen the core competencies. 

8. Evaluate supervisors on both work group outcomes and supervisory 

competencies. Communicate to supervisors their accountability for both 

results and effective management of employees. That communication should be 

reinforced by the formal performance appraisal system. Accordingly, agencies 

should design supervisory performance appraisals to include sections focused on 

(1) work group goal achievement and (2) demonstration of the core supervisory 

competencies needed to manage the work group and achieve goals. This dual 

focus offers several benefits: it makes it clear to supervisors that they are judged 

on the performance of their work group; it emphasizes the importance of the 

supervisory competencies; it deters those who may seek to achieve goals at the 

cost of ignoring good management practices or alienating employees through 

disrespect or unfair treatment; and it helps agencies and supervisors identify 

supervisory strengths and areas for development.

9. Ensure that human resources staff has expertise in talent management 

and organizational development. In order to implement the above 

recommendations, agency leaders at all levels will require the assistance of 

human resources staff with expertise in all components of talent management 

as well as competency in organizational development and change management. 

Often, agencies may find it necessary to hire individuals with these 

competencies, rather than train current employees, because expertise in 

these areas takes a long time and substantial education 

to develop.

For Agency Executives—

1. Share organizational information with supervisors and managers 

on a regular basis. Make a concerted effort to involve first-level supervisors 

and their managers in leading the organization by discussing with them 

organizational goals, priorities, and progress as well as emerging and continuing 

problems, and upcoming initiatives and changes. Ask for their ideas and input. 

Communicate your high expectations for them and their employees and 

explain how you will support them. When practical, use a variety of media to 

communicate such as monthly or quarterly leadership meetings, weekly e-mail 

bulletins, annual or semi-annual supervisor conferences, and simply walking 

around and talking to people or calling them on the telephone. The key 

objective here is to establish and nurture personal connections and involve your 

supervisors and managers in the operation of the organization so that they think 

and behave like a proactive leadership team.
76

Conclusions and Recommendations

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

2. Hold managers accountable for selecting, developing, and managing 

the performance of first-level supervisors. Make it clear to the managers in 

your organization that they are personally responsible for effectively selecting, 

developing, and managing the performance of the supervisors who report to 

them. Ensure that managers use the probationary period as the final step in 

the supervisory selection process. Emphasize that managers are accountable 

for the results achieved by all the work units in their domain and they will be 

evaluated and rewarded on the basis of this performance. Follow through by 

providing frequent feedback and coaching and accurately evaluating managers’ 

performance.

3. Model good performance management practices and also hold managers 

accountable for them. Model good performance management practices by 

working with each manager to define clear performance goals for their work 

units then meeting frequently with each to review their progress in achieving 

those goals and addressing any obstacles, discuss how they are managing 

the performance of their subordinate supervisors, and provide feedback and 

coaching. Ensure that each manager also implements these practices with their 

subordinate supervisors. 

4. Encourage managers to collect feedback about their supervisors and 

use it to guide their development. Supervisors typically interact with several 

different groups of people in the course of their daily work: their employees, 

other supervisors, internal and external customers, suppliers, and higher-level 

leaders. Encourage managers to collect feedback on each supervisor from these 

groups, then share it with the supervisor to identify strengths and weaknesses 

and plan the behavior changes that will lead to a higher level of performance. 

For Current Supervisors—

1. Invest in building strong working relationships with your employees. There 

are many ways you can build strong, effective working relationships with your 

employees. For example, you can set the tone for relationship building by 

meeting individually with each employee to become mutually acquainted with 

each others’ goals, concerns, interests, communication preferences, and working 

styles. You can ask employees to answer a set of questions in writing before the 

meeting or simply discuss the questions during the meeting. These questions 

may include topics such as: What are your interests? How would you describe 

your working style? How do you like to receive information? How do you prefer 

to share information? How would you like me to work with you? What are some 

concerns you have? In what direction would you like to see our team go? Are 

there any changes you would like to recommend? In addition, you would share 

information about yourself, such as your career so far, your leadership style, 

goals for the work unit and any challenges you see, and your preferred modes of 

communication. If some of your expectations and preferences do not align with 

the employee’s, you can discuss how to approach these differences. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 77

Conclusions and Recommendations

Meet individually with each of your employees at least monthly to review their 

progress on work assignments; provide direction, feedback, and information; 

address obstacles or concerns; and discuss the employee’s development. 

In addition, talk informally with each employee at least every few days to get 

to know them as people and to offer informal feedback and appreciation for 

their work.

Schedule regular staff meetings to build camaraderie and facilitate collaboration 

among employees in the work unit as well as to share organizational 

information. The frequency of the meetings will vary with the type of work 

your group does and their schedules but a good rule of thumb is to hold these 

meetings at least monthly. Plan and distribute an agenda before the meeting to 

facilitate efficiency but allow time for employees to bring up additional topics 

of concern or interest.

2. Develop your leadership skills. Strive to continuously enhance your leadership 

skills and enlist the help of both your manager and your employees. Take the 

initiative to talk with your manager about both your learning needs and your 

strengths using the core supervisory competencies as a guide. Ask for your 

manager’s feedback and development advice, create a development plan, and 

implement it. When people formulate specific goals and put them in writing, 

they are much more likely to work toward achieving those goals than if they are 

not documented. If you are finding managing your employees’ performance to 

be difficult or frustrating, ask for your manager’s or mentor’s help. You can also 

seek advice from your human resources staff. It is a mistake to flounder on your 

own because difficulties will multiply if they are not addressed.

Once or twice each year, ask your employees how you can do a better job in 

managing the work unit. You can collect their feedback simply by asking them 

individually or in a group meeting, or if you have not yet developed the level of 

trust at which employees are comfortable sharing their feedback directly with 

you, ask them to submit it through an upward feedback tool or anonymously 

in writing. For example, you can ask employees to write their answers to a set of 

prepared questions. Two options are: (1) What should I stop doing? ...continue 

doing? ...start doing?; (2) What do I do that helps you do your best work? 

What do I do that makes it difficult for you to do your best work? Always 

express appreciation for the feedback received and explain how you plan to use 

it. Then, follow through and apply the information to change your behaviors, 

and report back to your employees about the changes you have made. If it is 

not feasible to use the feedback, explain why.

You will benefit not only from the feedback itself but your employees will 

see you that you are serious about becoming an excellent leader and they are 

more likely to rally around you. In addition, you are modeling the behavior of 

seeking and using feedback that is essential for everyone who wants to perform 

at their best.
78

Conclusions and Recommendations

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

3. Determine if supervision is the right career path for you. You may discover 

that you are not comfortable or happy in a supervisory role because you prefer 

to spend your time doing technical work, you don’t enjoy the high level of 

interaction with employees, you don’t like directing other people or providing 

them with feedback, or you are reluctant to take the difficult actions that 

supervisors sometimes must take to manage performance or conduct problems. 

If this is the case, then admit to yourself and your manager that supervising is 

not for you and request a return to a non-supervisory role. There is no shame 

in deciding that supervision is not for you. In fact, supervision is not for the 

majority of people. If you are not content in a position, it is difficult for you 

to do an excellent job. So, you are doing your employees, your manager, your 

organization, and the public a great service by moving to a role in which you 

can be optimally productive. Openly admitting your preferences is a sign of 

personal strength.

For Aspiring Supervisors—

Before applying for a supervisory position, carefully consider if it is the right job 

for you. Being a first-level supervisor is much harder and more stressful than many 

people realize. Being successful in a role in which you are responsible for achieving 

work unit goals when you are not directly working on the tasks to achieve those 

goals is challenging. It requires strong organizational and communication skills 

as well as comfort in dealing with conflict and willingness to interact frequently 

with people you may find abrasive, puzzling, or difficult in other ways. Supervising 

requires putting the group’s needs ahead of your own and spending much of your 

time leading others rather than doing the technical work you enjoy.

As you consider if a supervisory position would be a good fit for you, ask yourself 

questions such as the following:

• Are you willing to spend much of your work time interacting with other 

people and doing administrative work rather than accomplishing your own 

technical work?

• Are you interested in helping other people develop?

• Are you conscientious? For example, do you promptly complete onerous or 

unrewarding tasks, or do you procrastinate? Will you do what needs to be done 

even if it is difficult or you don’t want to do it?

• Do you strive for excellence in your work? Are you willing to influence other 

people to do so?

• Can you take a stand and support people or programs you believe in even if 

there is personal risk to you?

• Are you willing to be accountable for the work of others?

• Can you give candid feedback to people even if it is not positive?

• Can you objectively evaluate someone else’s performance and support your 

evaluation if they disagreed?
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 79

Conclusions and Recommendations

• Are you comfortable dealing with conflict?

• Could you suspend or terminate a long-time acquaintance or friend if it was 

necessary for the good of the organization?

Mostly “yes” answers indicate you may be suitable for a supervisory role; mostly “no” 

answers indicate that a supervision role is probably not for you. 

If you have not yet had leadership experience, seek out opportunities to lead others 

such as managing a project or leading a task force at work or leading a community 

group or committee. Try to find a situation in which you will need to coordinate the 

work of several adults to accomplish a difficult goal. This type of experience will help 

you understand some of the challenges of supervision. Take advantage of realistic 

job preview programs or materials your organization may offer. You also may want 

to talk to supervisors; ask them what they like and dislike about their jobs. Reading 

books about supervision is also a good way to understand the job duties. 

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Appendix A:

2007 Merit Principles Survey

Questions Discussed

81

The data presented in this report are based on the responses of first-level 

supervisors to the following questions, except where noted in italics 

following the question. In questions that refer to the respondent’s 

supervisor (e.g., “My supervisor has a good understanding of my job performance 

and accomplishments.”), the supervisors reported on the behaviors of their 

supervisor of record, i.e., their manager.

Supervisory Selection

• When you first became a supervisor, were you informed that you would be on 

probation for a year?

• Was your performance during your probationary period as a supervisor actually 

used to decide if you should continue in a supervisory role?

Training and Development

• My training needs are assessed.

• How are your training needs assessed?

• Did you receive formal supervisory training prior to or during your first year as 

a supervisor?

• What were the topics of the formal supervisory training you received prior to or 

during your first year as a supervisor?

• How many total hours of supervisory training did you participate in prior to 

and during your first year as a supervisor?

• What types of informal development did you participate in to help you build 

your supervisory knowledge, skills, and abilities during your first year as a 

supervisor?

• What type of supervisory training do you wish you had received early in your 

career as a supervisor but did not?

Information and Guidance

• How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect your work?

• My supervisor explains the reasons for work changes before they take place.

• How satisfied are you with the information you receive from management about 

what’s going on in your organization?

• Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization.

• How often do you receive the information and guidance you need to do a good job?

• My supervisor talks with me or assists me when I need help.

• About how often do you meet individually with your supervisor to discuss the 

progress of your work?
82 A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Appendix A: 2007 Merit Principles Survey Questions Discussed

Feedback

• How often do you typically receive formal or informal feedback from your 

supervisor?

• How helpful is your supervisor’s feedback in helping you to enhance or improve 

your performance?

• My supervisor has a good understanding of my job performance and 

accomplishments.

• From whom do you collect feedback to help you determine how well your 

employees are performing? (Asked of the managers of first-level supervisors)

Supervisor’s Performance

• I communicate high performance expectations to my employees.

• I talk with my employees or assist them when they need help.

• I explain the reasons for work changes to my employees before they take place.

• How would you rate your overall performance as a supervisor?

• My supervisor communicates high performance expectations to employees. 

(Asked of the employees of first-level supervisors)

• My supervisor talks with me or assists me when I need help. (Asked of the 

employees of first-level supervisors)

• My supervisor explains the reasons for work changes before they take place. 

(Asked of the employees of first-level supervisors)

• How would you rate your immediate supervisor’s overall performance as a 

supervisor? (Asked of the employees of first-level supervisors)

Resources and Authority

• Do you have all the authority you need to fulfill your supervisory 

responsibilities?

• How often do you have the resources you need to do your job well?

• My workload is reasonable.

Accountability

• Do you have written individual performance goals that clearly define the results 

you are expected to achieve during the performance period?

• Have your individual performance goals been updated or reviewed for the 

current performance period?

• Are your individual performance goals clearly linked to organizational or work 

unit goals?

• Do your individual performance goals accurately define what is expected of you?

• I am held accountable for achieving results in the sense that if I achieve the 

expected results, I experience positive consequences.

• I am held accountable for achieving results in the sense that if I do NOT achieve 

the expected results, I experience negative consequences.

• I am rewarded for providing high-quality products and services to my customers 

(internal and external). 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Appendix B:

2007 Merit Principles Survey

Methodology

83

The Merit Systems Protection Board conducts studies of the Federal civilian 

workforce to determine if the workforce is being managed effectively, 

efficiently, and in accordance with the Federal merit system principles. One 

way we fulfill this responsibility is by periodically conducting the Governmentwide 

Merit Principles Survey (MPS) and reporting the results. The 2007 Merit Principles 

Survey (MPS) methodology is described below. The MPS questions discussed in this 

report are listed in Appendix B.

Interpreting Survey Results: Perceptions vs. Facts

It is important for readers to remember that survey data are based on the 

perceptions and beliefs of participants rather than on verified facts. However, 

people’s perceptions shape their behavior. For example, if employees say they cannot 

freely express their views to management without fear of negative consequences, 

this perception affects the choices they make in the workplace. Employees will be 

hesitant to speak out if they believe there will be negative consequences, regardless 

of how management may actually respond upon hearing their views.

Survey Administration

The MPS 2007 was administered in the fall of 2007 to 68,789 Federal employees in 

the 30 departments and agencies listed below. It was distributed via the Internet to 

most employees; 500 employees who did not have access to the Internet received a 

paper copy of the survey.

Participating Departments and Agencies

• Department of Agriculture

• Department of Commerce

• Department of Defense

• Air Force

• Army 

• Navy

• Other Defense

• Department of Education

• Department of Energy

• Environmental Protection Agency

• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
84

Appendix B: 2007 Merit Principles Survey Methodology

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

• Department of Health and Human Services

• Department of Homeland Security

• Department of Housing and Urban Development

• Department of the Interior 

• Department of Justice

• Department of Labor

• Merit Systems Protection Board

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration

• National Archives and Records Administration

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

• Office of Personnel Management

• Smithsonian Institution

• Department of State

• Securities and Exchange Commission

• Social Security Administration

• Department of the Treasury

• Department of Transportation

• Department of Veterans Affairs

Survey Sample

A representative, random sample of employees from each participating agency was 

selected from the population of 1.6 million full-time, permanent, nonseasonal 

Federal employees who were working in executive branch agencies as of December 

2006. For most agencies, a sample of 2,000 employees was selected including 1,000 

nonsupervisory employees (individual workers and team leaders) and 1,000 leaders 

(supervisors, managers, and executives). Nonsupervisors and leaders were separately 

sampled to allow analyses of differences between these two groups.

Participation and Response Rate

Participation was voluntary. There was a 60 percent response rate (41,577 employees 

completed the survey).
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 85

Appendix B: 2007 Merit Principles Survey Methodology

Survey Versions

Two versions of the 2007 MPS were administered: (1) an annual survey version 

that included all questions required by the Office of Personnel Management for the 

mandated annual agency employee surveys in addition to the MPS questions; and 

(2) a standard version that included only the MPS questions. The annual survey 

version was administered to the employees in the 15 agencies that had contracted 

with MSPB to administer their annual surveys embedded in the Merit Principles 

Survey. The annual survey questions were included to allow the employees in these 

agencies to complete both their agency’s annual survey and the Merit Principles 

Survey in one administration. Both versions included all the questions discussed 

in this report.

Survey Question Response Categories

Five response choices were provided for most of the survey questions; e.g., Strongly 

Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. When 

five choices were offered, in most cases we report the results by combining the two 

favorable choices as if they were a single positive response and combining the two 

unfavorable choices as if they were a single negative response. For example, for the 

question, “Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization,” 

participants who selected either “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” are reported as agreeing 

while participants who chose “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree” are reported as 

disagreeing. This practice helps us more easily analyze and report the data.

Weighting

Weighting eliminates over or under representation of a group in the survey 

results. When combined results are reported for all employees in all agencies, the 

results are weighted for both agency size and supervisory status. When results 

are reported separately for nonsupervisors and leaders, the results are weighted 

for agency size. The responses for questions are weighted by agency according to 

the number of survey respondents from each agency compared with the actual 

population proportions of employees who work in each agency. The responses to 

the questions are weighted for supervisory status according to the number of survey 

respondents compared with the actual population proportions for supervisory and 

nonsupervisory employees as provided in the Office of Personnel Management’s 

Central Personnel Data File.
86

Appendix B: 2007 Merit Principles Survey Methodology

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Margin of Error

A confidence level and confidence interval, or margin of error, provide an indication 

of the reliability of survey responses. These are based on the number of randomly 

selected employees who responded to the survey questions compared with the 

population of Federal employees. For the MPS 2007, we have an overall 99 percent 

level of confidence that the responses given by the employees who answered the 

survey questions can be generalized to all Federal employees in our population with 

a margin of error of less than 1 percent. For example, if 83 percent of the responding 

employees agreed that their workload is reasonable, we can be confident that 82 

to 84 percent of all Federal employees, if given the opportunity to answer this 

question, would also say that their workload was reasonable. The 1-percent margin 

of error is a good indicator for the Federal workforce overall. However, the margin 

of error for each individual agency will vary with the survey sample size for that 

agency compared with the agency’s population. Because the confidence level and 

margin of error are dependent on sample size, the confidence level decreases and the 

corresponding margin of error increases as the sample size decreases relative to the 

population of employees.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 87

Appendix C:

Selected Reports on Federal 

First-Level Supervision, 1978–2008

Year Title Organization

1978 A Management Concern: How to Deal with 

the Nonproductive Federal Employee Government Accountability Office

1982 The Other Side of the Merit Coin: Removals 

for Incompetence in the Federal Service Merit Systems Protection Board

1989 First-level Supervisory Selection in the 

Federal Government Merit Systems Protection Board

1990 Performance Management: How Well Is the 

Government Dealing with Poor Performers Government Accountability Office

1992 Federal First-level Supervisors: How Good 

Are They? Merit Systems Protection Board

1995 Removing Poor Performers in the Federal Service Merit Systems Protection Board

1998 Federal Supervisors and Strategic Human 

Resources Management Merit Systems Protection Board

1998 The Changing Federal Workplace: 

Employee Perspectives Merit Systems Protection Board

1999 Poor Performers in Government: A Quest for 

the True Story Office of Personnel Management

1999 Federal Supervisors and Poor Performers Merit Systems Protection Board

2001 Supervisors in the Federal Government: 

A Wake-up Call Office of Personnel Management

2001 Organizations Growing Leaders: Best Practices 

and Principles in the Public Service

The PriceWaterhouseCoopers Endowment 

for The Business of Government

2002 Making the Public Service Work: 

Recommendations for Change Merit Systems Protection Board

2003 First Line Supervisors in Public Service: 

Selection, Development, and Management National Academy of Public Administration

2005 Issues Related to Poor Performers in the 

Federal Workplace Government Accountability Office

2005 The Probationary Period: A Critical 

Assessment Opportunity Merit Systems Protection Board

2007

Training Supervisors to be Leaders: 

A Missing Element in Efforts to Improve 

Federal Performance

The Partnership for Public Service

2007 Federal Human Capital: The Perfect Storm The Partnership for Public Service

2008 Elevating our Federal Workforce The Partnership for Public Service

2008 The Federal Government: A Model Employer 

or a Work in Progress? Merit Systems Protection Board

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Appendix D:

Process for Review of

Supervisory Job Postings

89

We reviewed a systematic sample of 100 first-level supervisory job 

announcements posted in USAJOBS in July 2009 and open to the 

public. The key word “supervisory” in the job title was used as a search 

term to request current job announcements. (In a pilot study, we had also used 

“supervisor” as a search term but it elicited very few postings.) We searched for job 

announcements by agency, including all cabinet-level agencies and all independent 

agencies with 1,000 or more employees. For each agency, we reviewed the first five 

job announcements listed in order of closing date. If fewer than five were posted, 

we reviewed all the announcements for that agency. After we had searched for jobs 

in all the agencies and reviewed 90 job announcements, we returned to the agencies 

in alphabetical order and reviewed one additional posting for each agency. If no 

additional posting existed, we proceeded to the next agency until we had reviewed 

100 job announcements. Supervisory positions from GS-7 through GS-15 levels or 

the equivalent were included in the sample of jobs we reviewed.

The following categories of jobs were excluded from review:

• Jobs that did not mention supervisory responsibilities in any way, even though 

they were labeled as supervisory positions;

• Jobs that appeared, on review, to be team leader or project manager positions 

without true supervisory responsibilities;

• Second-level supervisory (managerial) positions;

• Temporary, part-time, and seasonal positions;

• Jobs for which multiple appointment types in terms of permanent, seasonal, 

or temporary work were possible;

• Jobs that were not open to both the public and to Federal employees;

• Jobs that were open for less than than two weeks;

• Duplicate jobs at different locations or shifts in the same agency; and

• Positions that required applicants to join the National Guard or the Army, 

Navy, or Air Force Reserve.
A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Appendix D: Process for Review of Supervisory Job Postings

90

For each job, we reviewed the entire announcement and documented the following 

information:

• Agency;

• Job title;

• General Schedule (GS) grade level or equivalent

• KSAs;

• Number and type of employees to be supervised;

• Description of supervisory duties; and

• The method(s) used to evaluate candidates who passed the screening for 

minimum qualifications to assign them a numerical rating or place them in 

ranking categories (e.g., Qualified, Better Qualified, Best Qualified) for referral 

to the hiring manager.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 91

Appendix E:

Example of a 

Supervisory Competency

I

n this report, we recommend the development and use of competency models 

for supervisory selection, development, and management. This appendix 

provides a sample supervisory competency, with an operational definition and 

behavioral examples at three levels of performance.

Competency: Developing Employees

Definition: • Works with employees to identify their strengths and development needs. 

• Ensures that each staff member creates and implements a professional development plan.

• Identifies development opportunities for employees.

• Continuously encourages employees to learn and grow.

Behavioral Examples

Excellent Performance Satisfactory Performance Unsatisfactory Performance

• Works with each employee to 

identify their unique strengths and 

development needs. 

• Provides to employees specific 

examples of their performance in 

areas that need improvement and 

areas of strength.

• Discusses with employees their long 

and short term career goals and 

suggests possible options. 

• Works with each employee to 

identify their unique strengths and 

development needs.

• Discusses with employees their longand short-term career goals.

• Occasionally meets with the team 

as a group to identify common 

development needs. 

• Works with each team member 

to create or update an Individual 

Development Plan (IDP) by the 

close of the first month of the 

performance year. 

• Reviews the IDP implementation on 

a monthly basis with the employee.

• Provides customized coaching to 

help team members overcome 

obstacles in achieving development 

goals and increase success.

• Works with each team member 

to create or update an IDP by the 

close of the third month of the 

performance year. 

• Reviews the plan implementation 

on at least a quarterly basis with the 

employee.

• Provides general advice on how to 

overcome obstacles and increase 

success.

• Requires team members to prepare 

their own development plans with 

no assistance. Does not review the 

plans. 

• Development plans are not 

completed by all employees. 

• Does not follow up on plan 

implementation.
92 A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Appendix E: Example of a Supervisory Competency

Behavioral Examples

Excellent Performance Satisfactory Performance Unsatisfactory Performance

• Actively seeks development 

opportunities for each employee.

• Develops new opportunities for 

employees to learn on the job by 

making assignments that specifically 

address their developmental needs. 

• Creates and shares with all 

employees lists of resources and 

learning opportunities internal and 

external to the agency.

• Incorporates a learning activity into 

each weekly staff meeting.

• As comes across development 

opportunities, informs employees

• Identifies opportunities for team 

members to learn on the job as 

they arise. 

• Informs employees of learning

opportunities within the agency.

• Does not help team members 

identify new opportunities to learn 

on the job. 

• Strongly encourages employees to 

take on new challenges and provides 

support. 

• When providing constructive 

feedback, focuses on behavior, not 

personal characteristics. 

• Helps team members view mistakes 

or setbacks as opportunities to learn. 

• Rewards development efforts as well 

as accomplishments. 

• Models continuous learning. 

• Encourages employees to take on 

new challenges.

• When providing constructive 

feedback, focuses on behavior, not 

personal characteristics. 

• Praises development efforts as well 

as accomplishments. 

• Discourages employees from 

deviating from the tried and true on 

the job.

• Criticizes and reprimands team 

members for mistakes and setbacks. 

• Does not acknowledge development 

efforts. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 93

Appendix F:

Possible Assessment Methods

for Supervisory Positions

This appendix describes assessment methods that may be particularly good 

alternatives or supplements to traditional training and experience-based 

assessment methods. The table provides a brief description of each method, 

with illustrations, information on validity, and practical considerations.

Assessment Method Description Comments

Situational Judgment 

Tests (SJTs)

Applicants are presented with a series of work 

scenarios. They choose responses from several 

alternatives listed. They may be asked to indicate 

which of several actions they would be most likely 

to take; which actions they would be most and least 

likely to take; what is the best option; what are the 

best and second-best options; or which is the most 

likely result of a specific action.

For example, a scenario may be based on managing a 

poor performer. Candidates may be asked to indicate 

which of five different actions they would take to 

help the employee improve his performance.

Economical for administration to 

large groups of applicants. May be 

administered in print, via video or 

DVD, or online.

SJT questions and alternatives are 

usually based on actual job critical 

incidents and the scoring key is 

developed by job experts. 

The average predictive validity of 

SJTs is estimated to be 0.34, i.e., they 

predict 12 percent of the variability in 

performance.70

Simulations Candidates are placed in situations similar to 

those they will face on the job and are asked to 

demonstrate their response. Candidates may also be 

asked to articulate the issues or problems involved in 

the situation before they take appropriate actions.

Types of job simulations, in addition to SJTs, include:

Work Samples – Candidates are asked to complete 

one or more tasks that are part of the job. For 

example, candidates are given background material 

on a new organizational program. They then orally 

explain the new program as they would to employees.

In-basket Exercises – Candidates are given memos, 

complaints, employee requests, work schedule 

plans, and other documents typically processed by 

supervisors. Candidates then prioritize the issues and 

respond in writing.

May be administered live, via video or 

DVD, or online.

The average predictive validity of work 

sample tests is estimated to be 0.33, i.e., 

they predict 10 percent of the variability 

in performance. 71

For further information about 

situational judgment tests and 

simulations, please see our recent 

report, Job Simulations: Trying Out for a 

Federal Job, available at www.mspb.gov.

70 Michael A. McDaniel, Frederick P. Morgeson, Elizabeth Bruhn Finnegan, Michael A. Campion, 

and Eric P. Braverman, “Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of 

the literature,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 2001, pp. 730-740. 

71 Philip L. Roth, Philip Bobko, and Lynn A. McFarland, “A meta-analysis of work sample test validity: 

Updating and integrating some classic literature,” Personnel Psychology, 58 (4), 2005, pp. 1009-1037.
94

Appendix F: Possible Assessment Methods for Supervisory Positions

A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees

Assessment Method Description Comments

Simulations 

(continued)

Role-playing Exercises – An actor plays the part 

of an employee in a typical workplace situation and 

candidates take the role of a supervisor and act out 

an appropriate response in an interactive dialogue. 

Candidates may be given background material to 

prepare them for the role play. For example, an 

actor may pose as an employee who has been having 

difficulty meeting deadlines. Candidates coach the 

“employee.”

Structured Interviews All candidates are asked the same set of carefully 

prepared questions based on specific competencies. 

Additional probing questions are asked as needed 

to encourage the candidate to provide complete 

information. The number of questions related 

to each competency is usually based on the 

competency’s relative importance to job success. 

A scoring key with behaviorally anchored sample 

responses for each point value is used to evaluate 

candidates’ responses. Interviewers must be carefully 

trained in interviewing and scoring techniques.

Types of structured interview questions include:

Situational-Behavioral − Candidates are asked to 

describe what they did and said in specific situations 

in the past. Based on the theory that past behavior 

predicts future behavior. Question example: Describe 

a time when you provided guidance to a less 

experienced co-worker.

Situational-Hypothetical − A typical work situation 

is briefly described to candidates. Candidates explain 

how they would react in the situation. Question 

example: You overhear one of your employees 

making a disparaging remark about a certain ethnic 

group. What would you do?

The average predictive validity of 

structured interviews is estimated to 

be about 0.51; i.e., they account for 

about 26 percent of the variability 

in performance for jobs of moderate 

complexity.72

Situational interviews typically have 

higher predictive validity than job 

knowledge interviews.73 However, job 

knowledge interviews are useful for 

assessing technical knowledge.

Behavioral situational interviews 

generally have higher mean predictive 

validity than hypothetical situational 

interviews. The average predictive 

validity of behavioral interviews is 0.63, 

compared to 0.47 for hypothetical 

interviews.74

Best when conducted by a panel of 

three or more interviewers so that 

several perceptions are obtained. 

Increase predictive power by having 

candidates interview independently 

with multiple interviewers.75

72 Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter, “The validity and utility of selection methods in 

personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings,” 

Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 1998, pp. 262-274.

73 Michael A. McDaniel, Deborah L. Whetzel, Frank L. Schmidt, and Steven D. Maurer, 

“The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis,” Journal of 

Applied Psychology, 79(4), 1994, pp. 599-616.

74 P. Taylor and B. Small, “Asking applicants what they would do versus what they did do: 

A meta-analytic comparison of situational and past behavior employment interview questions,”

Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 2002, pp. 277-294.

75 Frank L. Schmidt and Ryan D. Zimmerman, “A counterintuitive hypothesis about employment 

interview validity and some supporting evidence,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 2004, 

pp. 553-561.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 95

Appendix F: Possible Assessment Methods for Supervisory Positions

Assessment Method Description Comments

Structured Interviews 

(continued)

Job Knowledge − Questions that assess candidates’ 

technical knowledge are asked. For a supervisory 

position, these are phrased in terms of how 

candidates apply their knowledge in supervising. 

Questions can be behavioral or situational. Question 

example: What guidance would you provide to 

new employees who will be conducting their first 

program audit?

An interview may include all three types of 

questions. For more information about structured 

interviews, please see our 2003 report The Federal 

Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential, available 

from our web site: www.mspb.gov.

In addition to interviews conducted 

by the hiring manager and higher level 

leaders, interviews may be conducted by 

a panel of supervisors or employees the 

new supervisor will supervise. A panel 

can produce a more well-rounded view 

of candidates and promote acceptance 

and integration of new supervisors.

Accomplishment Records 

– Behavioral Consistency 

Method

Candidates are presented with a series of questions, 

each focused on a key function of the job. The 

questions are based upon a rigorous job analysis and 

the collection of critical job incidents. In response to 

each question, candidates write a narrative describing 

their past achievements that demonstrate their ability 

to successfully perform the job function. These 

achievements are not restricted to job experience; 

for example, they may include community activities, 

such as chairing a school committee. Candidates 

are also asked to provide contact information for an 

individual familiar with each achievement so that 

their accomplishments can be verified.

The responses are rated against behaviorally anchored 

scales developed and validated by job experts using 

actual examples of job behaviors for each item. 

Question example: Describe the most difficult 

interpersonal situation you have faced at work. 

Summarize the situation and then explain what you 

did and said.

May be administered in print or online.

The predictive validity of 

accomplishment records is estimated 

to be 0.45 for jobs of moderate 

complexity, i.e., performance on an 

accomplishment record accounts 

for about 20% of the variability in 

performance.76

Measures of 

Personal Characteristics

A psychometrically sound assessment of 

conscientiousness or integrity is administered 

to candidates in print or online. Typically, the 

assessment is purchased rather than developed inhouse.

The personal characteristics of integrity 

and conscientiousness have been found 

to be good predictors of successful job 

performance. 

The predictive validities of integrity and 

conscientiousness tests are estimated to 

be 0.41and 0.31 respectively.77

Assessment Centers Assessment centers consist of several different 

types of assessment tools that are administered 

sequentially to candidates. They often include 

one or more simulations, a structured interview, a 

leadership or personality test, and a group interaction 

exercise. They may also include a written narrative 

exercise related to the job’s content and a cognitive 

ability test. The tools are intended to provide 

complementary information about the candidates so 

that a broad perspective of their potential is obtained.

The predictive validity of assessment 

centers varies with the specific types and 

combinations of assessment tools used.

76 Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter, “The validity and utility of selection methods in 

personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings,” 

Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 1998, pp. 262-274. 

77 Id.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

PRST STD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

WASHINGTON DC

PERMIT NO. G-113

A Call to Action:

Improving First-Level Supervision

of Federal Employees