Is there a way to remove the supervisory component of a GS-15 in the government?

[Anonymous]

My husband is choosing a demotion to a 14 because he cannot stand the stress of supervising people. He asked for it; his boss thinks he’s nuts. I didn’t realize it was possible to be a non supervisory 15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband is choosing a demotion to a 14 because he cannot stand the stress of supervising people. He asked for it; his boss thinks he’s nuts. I didn’t realize it was possible to be a non supervisory 15.

I'm a guy and did the same as your husband for the same reason. My wife understood. The pay decrease was manageable. Yes, there are non-sup 15s but generally as attorneys or senior technical advisors/project managers. Otherwise, it's pretty rare. Non-sup 14s are pretty nice too and not super common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, yes and no.

There are non-supervisory 15 positions throughout the government.

However, removing supervisory duties from a supervisory position is a demotion. You can't do it without a proposal to demote based on performance or conduct. If this individual is truly unable to supervise, put him/her on a PIP, then propose demotion. But in my experience, this is a terrible course of action that never works out.

No it isn't. Reassignment to a new position without a change in grade or pay is not an adverse action and you can absolutely do it without a proposal of any kind. There is no such procedural requirement.


(It is a change in working conditions that could be one element of a EEO or PPP claim if there are other factors as well, but that is different.)

It still doesn't happen with just one EEO complaint. Has to be 10s of complaints for them to do anything. I know a guy who had 10+ EEOs against him and it was there till the end.

Not where I work. They just shove them in some random role. It is usually quickly done. Often to solve a problem. If there is no problem and they just want to keep the person who doesn’t like being a supervisor and will otherwise leave, they seem to open a spot through HR, but if someone is effectively demoted due to either a reorganization or a complaint, they just do it.

[Anonymous]

As a non-sup 15, I would mention that I have an HR target on my back - HR is constantly on my boss to prove that I (and the others at the level) are doing 15 work and explain why we aren’t supervisors. It’s stressful and I have that constantly in the background - they’ve done audits and generally are pushing my boss to make us supervisors they dont understand. I also think others in the org sometimes think I’m over graded bc of the non-sup. But I struggle with imposter syndrome generally. I think eventually I’ll have to accept the sup or drop to a 14 unless I really carve out a niche that the highest levels of the org see value in. If given the choice, I would drop to a 14 in a heart beat over becoming a sup, but that’s solely based on who I would be managing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband is choosing a demotion to a 14 because he cannot stand the stress of supervising people. He asked for it; his boss thinks he’s nuts. I didn’t realize it was possible to be a non supervisory 15.

A top 14 isn't that much different in salary than a 15.

We have plenty of non supervisory 15s. Also, if you're a senior manager, it's much, much, much easier to be a manager. Managing other first line managers is easy compared to managing non-managers. My senior manager has basically delegated all of his supervisory issues to his chief of staff or deputy, which is very common.

So basically your husband should demote himself to a 14 or promote himself to being a senior manager who has to do very little "managing".

[Anonymous]

Yes non sup 15s are available at some agencies. My office has a few non sup 15 engineer positions

[Anonymous]

We had something similar but with a GS-14. They moved the person to a non-supervisor lateral position that they created just for this. This person did more than just not fire someone and their actions really undermined the team to the point where they couldn't meet core functions.

[Anonymous]

Yes, this happened in my office. A terrible supervisor, but overall decent employee, was reassigned to an advisory role, non-supervisory. It can be done. Even at the GS-15 level. Poor supervisors, but maybe skilled in other areas, really should not be in a supervisory role. This change benefited everyone and the office as a whole for us.

[Anonymous]

This also happens when a manager wants to f*ck an employee but they know they can’t do it outright as they would be reversed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This also happens when a manager wants to f*ck an employee but they know they can’t do it outright as they would be reversed.

Like actually f*ck?

[Anonymous]

The only corect anwer is "it depends." Some agencies have lots of non-s 15s and even SLs. Others dont have this. If your agency has it, then its easy. But they wont create it for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This also happens when a manager wants to f*ck an employee but they know they can’t do it outright as they would be reversed.

Like actually f*ck?

Sorry, that was unclear. Screw them over, as in move them out of a position in a way that denies the affected employee a right of appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only corect anwer is "it depends." Some agencies have lots of non-s 15s and even SLs. Others dont have this. If your agency has it, then its easy. But they wont create it for you.

Some agencies will create non-supervisory positions as a way to deal with a problem employee that still has institutional value but would generate too many EEO claims if they managed staff. The Peter Principle is still very much alive in the Federal workforce.