I don't think in all my years of working with organizations I have found any greater cause of frustration, waste and general disengagement and risk other than in the role of the Supervisor.
This role is often given many different names which is perhaps an indication of the start of the problem. There is often a lack of clarity about the purpose of the role, the authority it holds and the capability required to be in the role.
I am referring to those front-line leadership roles, the first level of leadership responsibility.
For the purposes of this discussion we'll just refer to them as Supervisors, but these are the ultimate “Manager in the Middle”.
They are often referred to as being the meat in the sandwich, stuck between management and the workforce.
Mostly this is an issue in large organizations but certainly can occur anywhere. I have worked extensively with people in these roles in large, multinational mining companies.
The people in these roles are often required to get others to work in very difficult circumstances, fighting against obstructions, poor systems, badly designed work, lack of the right equipment and poorly trained teams.
They are not called front-line leaders for nothing. These folks are literally standing in front of where the rubber hits the road, where the company makes its money. They have to juggle the tasks they've been assigned in the situation facing them, with very little support.
Many of the difficulties faced by Supervisors are avoidable, yet beyond the control of the Supervisor themselves.
Some of the examples I've come across in my work:
There is an absenteeism problem and the Supervisor often has to achieve the daily tasks with an incomplete crew. The pressure to perform is enormous and driven by bonuses for their bosses. Supervisors are urged to get more out of their teams and do their best to achieve the targets, despite the lack of a full crew, the lack of the right equipment and an increasing number of administrative procedures that take time.
Supervisors report- as they're required to- any problems with equipment and any areas where additional training and skills are needed. Their managers however are reluctant to release equipment for maintenance or the team members for additional training, as this will get in the way of daily performance.
Yet the Supervisors will be blamed for the poor performance and any safety problems or damage to equipment
Supervisors are often required to implement plans of action without having been properly informed of the context and purpose, let alone being part of giving input to the plan. They are often excluded from planning sessions and yet they have to face the music.
Supervisors are told to discipline their team members for safety infringements and absenteeism and they're also told to keep overtime to a minimum. Yet they are not provided with the authority to achieve any of these. In addition the systemic and corporate culture factors are not examined as drivers of employees behaviors.
The work to do such examining is not that of the Supervisor.
Often Supervisors are promoted from within the ranks of the team members and end up supervising their former workmates.
They are selected as technically the best operator in the team. So in a mining environment perhaps it's the best drill operator or the best haul truck driver that becomes the Supervisor.
In a banking environment it could be the best teller that becomes a branch Supervisor.
The skills for supervision have little or nothing to do with the technical skills of an operator and we end up losing a very good team performer and gain a poor leader, through no fault of their own
Supervisors quite often are positioned in the structure within a unionized relationship along with the team members who they supervise. Coupled with the fact that most Supervisors were once workmates of the people they now lead, this puts them in a very difficult position to behave as part of management and to help the team to perform accordingly.
Linked with the lack of authority and the poor work context within which they have to operate, along with the pressures of being stuck between the unions aims and management aims, the job is nigh impossible
Having leadership responsibility in any level of the organization is difficult enough if the work context is not thought out carefully. This includes the work culture, authority, clarity of expectations and having capable management.
A key job of management is to create the conditions where Supervisors and their teams can work together safely and productively, consistently overtime. Instead what we often see is that management does this very poorly and attempts to put this work on the shoulders of the Supervisor.
There is a lot of poo-pooing of organizational structure. (I was going to say “these days” but it is something that has been going on for some time and nothing new at all)
But ask any Supervisor if they would prefer to have a clear structure of accountability where the systemic, contextual and supportive work is well done so that the Supervisors and their team can get on with their work - they would say “Yes please!”
So. clearly outlining and designing the work so that managers remove obstacles instead of creating them, providing helpful systems and expert advice - would help Supervisors out of the confusing soup and into a clear and satisfying flow.
For most of the workforce Supervisors are the only direct exposure to the company leadership. Their influence on the culture, as a symbol of what the company really stands for, is enormous.
They also of course have a significant impact on safety and productivity.
If top management really understood this they would design, support and lead the role with more thought and expertise.
There are more true stories about Supervisors and the places they work. Watch this space and look out for the book....when it eventually gets completed.
Comments