Overview
Title
Submission for Review 3206-0253: Leadership Assessment Surveys
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is planning to check how good leaders are at their jobs by asking them questions through surveys. But there are some concerns, like not knowing how much this will cost or if they are asking too many questions that might be confusing or take too long.
Summary AI
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) plans to submit a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of its Leadership Assessment Surveys. These surveys include the OPM Leadership 360™, Leadership Potential Assessment, OPM Personality Assessment for Leaders, Leadership for Engagement Survey, Leadership for Inclusion Survey, and the DEIA Pulse Survey. The purpose of these surveys is to gather information on leadership effectiveness and performance within federal agencies. The public can submit comments on this proposal until February 3, 2025.
Abstract
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a currently approved collection, Leadership Assessment Surveys. OPM is requesting approval of the OPM Leadership 360<SUP>TM</SUP>, Leadership Potential Assessment, the OPM Personality Assessment for Leaders, the Leadership for Engagement Survey, the Leadership for Inclusion Survey, and the DEIA Pulse Survey as a part of this collection. Approval of these surveys is necessary to collect information on Federal agency performance and leadership effectiveness.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Document
The document announces the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) plan to submit a request for review to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding its Leadership Assessment Surveys. These surveys include a range of tools aimed at gauging leadership effectiveness and performance within federal agencies. The collection encompasses the OPM Leadership 360™, Leadership Potential Assessment, OPM Personality Assessment for Leaders, Leadership for Engagement Survey, Leadership for Inclusion Survey, and the DEIA Pulse Survey. Public comments on this proposal are invited until February 3, 2025.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document raises several notable concerns. Firstly, it fails to specify the cost or the funding sources for the development and administration of these surveys. This lack of transparency may lead to difficulties in assessing whether there is any unnecessary spending involved.
Additionally, it lacks clarity on how the effectiveness of these surveys in measuring leadership characteristics will be evaluated. It is crucial for stakeholders to understand the methodologies that ensure these tools provide meaningful insights into leadership effectiveness.
The document does mention efforts to update language for gender neutrality; however, it does not clearly explain how these changes enhance the surveys' overall utility or clarity, which could lead to some misunderstanding about the purpose and impact of these updates.
There is also an issue regarding the necessity of multiple surveys. The document states that non-Federal respondents will almost never receive more than one survey but does not justify why multiple surveys are needed, which could appear redundant or excessive.
Finally, changes to the burden estimates are not thoroughly detailed, particularly concerning how new or updated survey content might affect the time or effort required from respondents. Furthermore, the document includes numerous regulatory references without providing the needed context, which could be confusing for readers unfamiliar with these regulations.
Impact on the Public
The potential impact on the public seems minimal primarily because these surveys are targeted at assessing leadership within federal agencies. However, the public may have concerns regarding transparency in government spending and the effectiveness of tools used to assess public sector leadership. The ability for public comment until February 2025 allows for community feedback which might address some of these concerns.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders within the federal government, these surveys could have significant positive implications by contributing to the development and evaluation of effective leadership. Enhanced leadership effectiveness can improve agency performance and employee satisfaction. However, the lack of clear evaluation methodology might hinder stakeholders' trust in the survey results, thus affecting their willingness to participate or alter existing leadership practices based on these assessments.
For researchers or consultants in the field of leadership and organizational development, these surveys could provide useful data. Yet, the insufficient detail about the methodology might limit their applicability in academic or professional settings.
Overall, while the initiative to review and potentially improve leadership assessments within the federal government is promising, it encompasses several areas that require additional clarity and transparency to ensure its full potential is realized.
Issues
• The document does not specify the cost or funding source for the development or administration of the Leadership Assessment Surveys, making it difficult to evaluate potential wasteful spending.
• The document lacks clarity in specifying how the effectiveness of these surveys in measuring leadership characteristics will be evaluated.
• While language has been updated for gender neutrality (e.g., 'he or she' to 'they'), it may still be unclear to some audiences how these updates enhance the surveys' utility or clarity.
• The document mentions that non-Federal respondents will almost never receive more than one survey, but it does not clearly justify the need for multiple surveys, which could be perceived as redundant or excessive.
• The burden estimate changes aren’t sufficiently detailed, especially regarding the impact of new or updated survey content on respondent time or effort.
• The document includes several regulatory references without providing context or explanations, which might be difficult for readers unfamiliar with these regulations to understand.