GovernmentExecutive.com

A government reform proposal unveiled by Democratic presidential and vice presidential nominees John Kerry and John Edwards on campaign stops Tuesday rekindled debate over the wisdom of thinning supervisors at federal agencies.

Federal employee union representatives said they generally support the Democratic ticket's call for a return to a controversial Clinton-era goal of holding the government to a ratio of no more than one supervisor per 15 subordinates. The campaign proposed the target as part of a plan to "thin out the top ranks of government."

By mandating an expansion of supervisors' span of control, a Kerry administration could reallocate resources and influence back to front-line federal workers, said Colleen Kelley, president of the 150,000-member National Treasury Employees Union. There are also too many layers of management "between front-line employees and the policymakers at the top," she said. "NTEU has raised this issue with most agencies."

Union members have alerted Kelley to cases where there are three to four employees per supervisor. "I think that should be the exception," she said. That ratio should not occur "as frequently as we find it," she added.

With too many layers of management, and too many supervisors in each layer, front-line workers have difficulty voicing concerns or recommending policy changes to officials with decision-making authority, Kelley said, adding that she is "pleased that a presidential candidate is even looking at this."

The Kerry-Edwards proposal to reinstate the governmentwide ratio is "a noble undertaking and is well-intentioned," said Jacqueline Simon, public policy director at the 600,000-member American Federation of Government Employees. But a required across-the-board ratio could prove risky in some cases, she said.

For instance, AFGE would like agencies moving to pay-for-performance systems to retain enough supervisors to ensure that employees receive objective evaluations. "We're very concerned that management gets the proper training it needs and is permitted to spend the time necessary [learning the system] if there's going to be any fairness," Simon said.

Agencies also must be permitted to retain enough managers to oversee contractors, Simon said. Those exceptions aside, AFGE "generally supports thinning the ranks" of managers, she noted.

But the target ratio drew fire from Carol Bonosaro, president of the Senior Executives Association, a group representing career federal executives. "Clinton beat them to it," she said of the Kerry-Edwards proposal.

During the Clinton years, the ranks of the Senior Executive Service were cut by 20 percent, Bonosaro said. "That is a very substantial cut."

"My strong impression is that in a lot of agencies, there is no so-called bench strength," Bonosaro said. "Their executives are reluctant to go on vacation."

An across-the-board mandated ratio makes little sense, Bonosaro said, because ratios already vary so greatly among agencies. There are reasons for the differences, she said, pointing to the need for adequate oversight of contractors as one variable.

Federal Managers Association President Michael Styles also attacked the proposed ratio. "This one-size-fits-all approach does not take into account the uniqueness of each agency's mission and program needs," he said in a statement responding to the Kerry-Edwards plan.

But Paul Light, director of the Center for Public Service at the Brookings Institution and a professor at New York University, called the proposed governmentwide ratio a "reasonable goal." Administrations often need to set targets to motivate change, according to Light. "The burden of proof should be on the supervisor or the agency to show why the span of control should be narrower [than one supervisor to 15 subordinates]," he said.

Agencies should be required to demonstrate why "every layer matters," Light added. "We've got a lot of evidence now that the layers are causing great harm. The Sept. 11 Commission report is absolutely a story about bureaucratic duplication and overlap."

Kerry and Edwards should also look at thinning the ranks of political appointees, Light suggested. If future administrations want to thin the managerial ranks, they should review all government positions, including those filled by appointees, Bonosaro said.

COMMENTS

• No need to get all worked up over this because it is much ado about nothing; at least at SSA. Last time the 15-1 ratio was fast tracked, SSA got very creative. The agency took numerous operations supervisor jobs and converted them to management support specialist positions. Seems by the name change alone, the management support specialists were no longer supervisors. Thus the ratios got significantly better. The fact management support specialists did the same exact job as the operations supervisor (for all practical purposes) mattered to no one. SSA kept their management and got their ratios. GovExec.com reader Posted August 9, 2004 8:04 AM
• They are talking about "span of control". It is not a function simply of numbers as these guys state, but of the type of work performed. Also, does this number apply to military positions? We really need to reduce the number of officers - particularly at the levels above 0-4. There are Colonels working as secretaries! tax payer Posted August 6, 2004 9:14 AM
• In some cases a 15:1 ratio makes sense, especially in the case where all 15 of the subordinates are doing very similar and repetitive work. However, in many cases this ratio is almost unthinkable. Every one of the senior managers who work for my supervisor is solely responsible for a complex and important program unlike those of any of his/her peers. Although my supervisor is bright, there is no way he could be familiar enough with 15 of those programs to properly oversee the efforts of his subordinates and represent the programs at higher levels. A second concern is the way in which a ratio might be acheived. The weight of responsibility, the requirement for broad and detailed knowledge, and the importance of programs, demand that many in government be senior managers, although they supervise few or no subordinates. I fear an edict will be issued to trim the ranks of 13/14/15s with little regard for the substantial responsibilities they have, exacerbating the already onerous workload on those that remain. GovExec.com reader Posted August 6, 2004 8:21 AM