SUPERVISION OF GROUPS

This is relevant for industrial foremen, directors of research groups and leaders of other groups that have a task. The primary goal of the supervisor is to get the work done, but an important secondary goal is to keep the group satisfied — otherwise there will be absenteeism, labor turnover and a general lack of co-operation.

Supervisors may fail in a number of ways, of which the most common are:

- relying too much on formal power;

- being too authoritative;

- not giving enough direction, so that other members of the group assume leadership;

- producing high output but low job satisfaction;

- producing high job satisfaction but low output.

There is a lot of evidence that the relationship between supervisors and their subordinates is a difficult one. Subordinates often feel that it is a relationship that generates a lot of conflict but very little satisfaction, and that it is hostile rather than friendly. On the other hand the best supervisors can be a major source of job satisfaction and mental health. The way to achieve this is by using the optimum supervisory skills.

In studies of groups of manual workers it is found that groups certain supervisors may produce 50 per cent more work than under other supervisors; if the work is machine—paced or under wage-incentives these differences are smaller, though with very bad supervision the difference can be greater. The effects on rates of absenteeism and labor turnover are rather greater — ratios of 4:1 or even 8: i have been found; again the worst supervisors produce the most marked effects.

There has been a great deal of research into the social techniques that are most effective, mainly by comparing the behaviour of supervisors in charge of high-output and low-output teams. What supervisors actually do varies a lot between different settings, but two dimensions have consistently been found to be Important. Both can be measured by a series of ratings by subordinates.

Initiating structure It is essential that the supervisor should really supervise, and in the following ways:

1. planning and scheduling the work to be done, and making sure that supplies are available;

2 instructing and training subordinates in how to do their work;

3 checking arid correcting the work that has been done;

4 giving subordinates feedback on how well they are doing;

5 motivating subordinates to work effectively.

If the supervisor fails to do these things it is likely that the group or some of its members will take over these functions. On the other hand supervisors should do all this with a light hand, since men and women do not like him/her breathing down their necks and constantly interfering. S/he should see them frequently, showing interest, giving help where needed, but giving as little direction and criticism as possible. In job enrichment’ schemes some of the supervisor’s jobs, such as checking, are delegated to members of the group.

Supervisors are more effective when they look after the needs, interests and welfare of their subordinates. This is particularly true when they are powerful enough really to be able to do something for them. In matters of discipline they should be persuasive rather than punitive, and try to find out the causes of the offending behaviour.

Leaders (such as foremen) who are more concerned with the welfare of the workers than with production usually succeed in getting higher rates of output. On the other hand a number of studies show that supervisors should be somewhat detached and independent: they should do their own jobs rather than their staff’s, and not be afraid of exerting influence over them.

Initiating structure on the whole leads to more productivity, but it needs consideration as well. Consideration leads to greater job satisfaction, and lower absenteeism and labor turnover. While the combination of these two dimensions is found to be important, this is difficult to attain; informal groups often have two leaders, one for each of these jobs. Part of the difficulty is that directing the task tends to put a leader at a distance from the group, while getting on well with members means s/he may lose her/his authority as a task leader. The solution may lie in a further aspect of supervisory skill.

Democratic-persuasive style is usually more effective than an autocratic one. A democratic leader does not just rely on formal powers, but on:

1 motivating people, by explanation and persuasion, rather than just giving orders;

2 allowing subordinates to participate in decisions that affect them;

3 using techniques of group discussion and group decision.

By means of these skills the supervisor succeeds in getting the group to set high targets and to internalize the motivation to reach them, without exerting pressure him/herself. There are of course limits to what the group can decide. It can usually decide about details of administration — who shall work where, how training or holiday schemes shall be implemented. The group can also make suggestions on more far-reaching matters that the manager can relay to any superiors. The supervisor exerts direction and influence but in a way that does not arouse resentment and antagonism.