Good Management Is All About the Immediate Superivisor

I just returned from visiting my father who is in Assisted Living.

He got his wish: a bigger room.

He wants to go back to his smaller room.

Why?

"The nurses here aren't nice like the ones in the other wing."

"How so, Dad?"

"When I buzz for help, they don't come for nearly an hour. When they do come, they act as if I'm imposing on them and get huffy. The other nurses were all prompt and friendly."

"What else is different, Dad?"

"The supervisor here is as bad as the nurses who work for her."

Here's the deal: We know the executive administrator of the Assisted Living center. He is positive, upbeat, caring, and dedicated to doing the right thing.

It doesn't make any difference.

The workers work for their supervisor.

That's who makes the difference.

Click on your preferred subscription area at the top of the sidebar on the left. You'll always get the newest post!

Comments

[Wally Bock]

There are mountains of research to support the impact of the immediate supervisor. It affects productivity. It affects morale. It affects customer service. It affects profit. But STILL most companies don't pay attention.

Consider this. Jeff Immelt's dad worked for GE on the shop floor for decades. Immelt says that he may not have known who the CEO of GE was, but he always knew who his dad's boss was. And he always knew by his dad's mood and stories whether the boss was any good.

Years ago I did some research in police departments about the impact of supervisors. We looked at agencies with what is called "Seniority Shift Draw," meaning that senior officers get first choice about who to work for within their division.

We found that top supervisors drew the best people consistently, even when they were in less than desirable assignments. One of the supervisors who was part of my great supervisor's study was working graveyard shift because of family needs during the day. Senior officers lined up to work for him, even though they could have worked straight days with weekends off.

Companies need to do a better job of selecting people who are likely to do a good job as supervisors. They need to give them training in supervisory skills. They need to support them in their work. And they need to help them develop.

Unabashed plug coming. I just released my Working Supervisor's Support Kit to help supervisors whose companies don't train them. Check it out at
http://www.threestarleadership.com/supervisorsupportkit/

[Jim Stroup]

Steve, another great post, and one indicator of that is that it draws such well-considered commentary. Here's my vote for the most important line from Wally's note:

"Companies need to do a better job of selecting people who are likely to do a good job as supervisors."

We still promote people for showing skill in their current job - not potential in their next. It is vital that we get better at this.

[Wally Bock]

I thank Jim for the kind words. I think he's only partly correct about what we do wrong in our promotional practices. The other part is that we don't recognize that being a boss is a specific job. It requires specific knowledge, skills and abilities. Three questions to ask about anyone you're thinking of promoting.

Does he or she enjoy helping others succeed?

Is he or she willing to talk to other people about their behavior or performance?

Is he or she willing to make a decision and be accountable for results?

If you show up with these things, you will probably enjoy the specific work of leading, and you are more likely to be good at it.

[Steve Roesler]

Jim and Wally,

This is the kind of pointed, serious discussion about immediate supervision that I wish would take place in organizations.

Wally, when I read Jim's line I actually thought he implied what you outlined specifically about supervision being a specific job. Maybe we're in violent agreement here. That is, in fact, the point.

Until we can get organizations to see the importance and specificity of the supervisor's role early on, all of the philosophical leadership principles won't make a difference in the absence of day-to-day execution.

Maybe it's time for yet another book: "Management According to Larry the Cable Guy: 'Git 'er done!'"