Overview
Title
To require annual surveys of Federal employee managers, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to ask bosses at government jobs what they think about their work and how they feel about their teams each year. It also plans to change some rules to make sure these questions are asked and answered properly.
Summary AI
The H.R. 9593 bill, also known as the "Manager Attitudes and Notions According to Government Employee Responses Act" or the "MANAGER Act," seeks to implement annual surveys for managers who work for federal agencies. These surveys will ask questions about their confidence in employee discipline systems, support from leadership, training adequacy, and the impact of problematic employees on morale. The surveys will also give managers the option to provide narrative responses. Additionally, the bill requires the Office of Personnel Management to update regulations to ensure this survey system is properly implemented.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The bill titled “Manager Attitudes and Notions According to Government Employee Responses Act” or the “MANAGER Act” was introduced in the House of Representatives. This proposed legislation aims to require annual surveys of federal employee managers to collect feedback on various aspects of federal management, including their confidence in leadership, disciplinary systems, and the support they receive within their agencies. It also aims to amend existing legislation, specifically the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, to incorporate this new survey requirement. The bill defines who qualifies as a "Federal manager" and mandates the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to update its regulations within 180 days to reflect these amendments.
Significant Issues
Several potential issues arise from the proposed legislation:
Administrative Costs and Resource Allocation: The requirement for annual surveys could result in increased administrative costs and require substantial resources without clearly demonstrating the necessity or expected benefits. This could have financial implications for government agencies and ultimately for taxpayers.
Exclusion of Junior Supervisors: By defining "Federal manager" as those occupying positions at the GS-13 grade level or above, the bill potentially excludes insights from junior supervisors, which could limit the comprehensiveness of the management feedback process.
Perceived Subjectivity of Survey Questions: The questions posed in the survey tend to focus on subjective perceptions of managerial confidence and support, which may not translate into actionable data. This approach could lead to biased results and impact the validity of survey findings.
Complexity of Data Collection: The inclusion of narrative response options for each question in the survey could lead to a complex, time-consuming data collection and analysis process, potentially increasing the burden on both respondents and analysts.
Regulatory Update Timeline: The 180-day deadline for the OPM to update its regulations may be insufficient for thorough policy implementation. Hastened adjustments could lead to incomplete or inadequate fulfillment of the Act’s objectives.
Potentially Misleading Title: The short title "MANAGER Act" may not clearly convey the bill’s content or purposes, causing possible confusion or misinterpretation among the public and interested parties.
Broad Impact on the Public
The public could be indirectly affected by this legislation through increased government spending resulting from the administrative overhead associated with conducting these annual surveys. Furthermore, if the intended outcome is an improvement in federal management efficiency, there could ultimately be downstream benefits in the effectiveness of public services. However, without clear evidence of the benefits measuring up against the incurred costs, the necessity and purposefulness of the act may be brought into question.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Federal Managers and Employees: Federal managers might appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback, assuming the data collected leads to meaningful changes that support them in their roles. Conversely, they could view the process as burdensome or unproductive if it turns out to be purely procedural without real follow-up actions.
Junior Supervisors: Those in supervisory positions below the GS-13 grade might feel excluded from having their voices heard, potentially leading to feelings of disenfranchisement.
Office of Personnel Management: The OPM may face challenges in updating its regulations within the stipulated timeline, requiring efficient use of resources to ensure adherence to the new requirements.
Overall, while the bill seeks to improve federal management through structured feedback, it raises questions about its potential effectiveness and the logistical challenges it presents. Whether the benefits will ultimately outweigh the costs remains a key consideration for legislators and stakeholders alike.
Issues
The requirement for annual surveys of Federal employee managers in Section 2 may lead to increased administrative costs and resource allocation without a clear demonstration of the need or benefit. This could have financial implications for government agencies and the taxpayers funding them.
The definition of 'Federal manager' in Section 2 excludes supervisory roles that do not meet the GS-13 grade requirement, potentially leaving out valuable insights from junior supervisors. This could affect the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the surveys intended to gather feedback on management experiences.
The survey questions in Section 2(b)(1)(A-J) might be perceived as subjective, focusing mainly on managers' perceptions of leadership support and disciplinary systems, which may not provide actionable feedback. This could lead to biased results and impact the validity of the survey data.
The inclusion of extensive narrative response options in Section 2(b)(2) may result in a complex and lengthy data collection process, increasing the burden on both the respondents and those analyzing the results, possibly leading to inefficiencies in gathering and processing information.
The timeline for the Office of Personnel Management to update regulations as specified in Section 2(b), only 180 days, may not be sufficient for implementing the new requirements effectively. This could lead to rushed or incomplete policy adjustments, affecting the intended outcomes of the Act.
The short title 'MANAGER Act' in Section 1 is potentially misleading as it does not directly convey the content or purpose of the act, potentially causing confusion or misinterpretation among the public and stakeholders.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section states the short title of the Act, which is officially called the “Manager Attitudes and Notions According to Government Employee Responses Act,” abbreviated as the “MANAGER Act.”
2. Federal employee manager surveys Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act requiring each federal agency to conduct annual surveys of their managers, which include specific questions about confidence in leadership, the effectiveness of disciplinary systems, and manager support. It also redefines the term "Federal manager" and mandates the Office of Personnel Management to update regulations in line with these amendments within 180 days.