While I agree that the below is a worthy objective and might even be
crucial to viability in the future, I could not agree that this attitude
would be found in a significant number of enterprises anywhere in the
United States today, and indeed, it would be rare almost anywhere else.
I happen to think that the word "supervisor" should be redefined to
embrace supportive behaviors and tasks, but in my consulting I find very
little support for the idea in the real world. Does this not go
hand-in-hand with participatory management models? Although I teach and
encourage them, they seem not to be doing very well either, much to my
chagrin!
On Tue, 27 Jun 1995, Michael McMaster wrote:
> Replying to LO1795 --
>
> David, "supervising supervisors" strikes me as a truly terrible
> phrase. Supervision itself is a rather old fashioned word.
> Leadership, coaching, managing processes, structuring
> accountabilities - OK. But please, not supervising supervisors.
>
> Supervision (from greater ability to see) has some sense - soon to be
> replaced by structures and development of people - when we are
> talking about physical work. Not because it's the thing that
> _should_ be done but because it _can_ be done. But why try to
> supervise what can't be seen?
>
> The development of the group who supervisors (or work teams directly)
> have accountabilities with should be competent at developing people,
> providing environments where teams flourish and understanding systems
> and processes - and developing their people into those areas
> individually and or in teams.
-- Dave Mann DAMANN@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu Voice: (703) 319-0895 Fax: (703) 319-0680