First Line Managers

8/16/2019 First Line Managers

1/36

Rooted in Supervision, Branching intoManagement: Continuity and Change in the Roleof First-Line Manager

Colin HalesUniversity of Surrey

It is frequently argued that, as a consequence of radical organizational

change, the role of first-line manager (FLM) has shifted from supervision to team

leadership/co-ordination or business unit management. After reviewing the nature of

these claims and the debate about the relationship between first-line management

and supervision, evidence is presented from a survey of 135 organizations in London

and the South East on how the role of FLM is presently defined and how it has

changed. The findings paint a picture of a stable, consistent FLM role where a

common performance-oriented supervisory core is surrounded by a penumbra of additional managerial responsibilities relating to stewardship, translating strategy into

operations, unit management and, exceptionally, business management. The FLM

role remains part of a hierarchical system of individual managerial responsibility and

vertical accountability, with narrow spans of control, vertical and internal contacts

and authority, participation in decisions and accountability confined largely to

operating routines. Changes to the FLM role have been as much towards a

strengthening of the supervisory core as a broadening into business management

responsibilities. It is argued that the persistence and prevalence of the supervisory

core stems from the continued location of FLMs within systems of external,

hierarchical supervision. Far from being weakened, the supervisory core of the FLMrole has often been strengthened by the adoption of more stringent controls over

work practice in order to cope with a growth in business activity or comply with a

greater range of external regulations. In some cases, however, a re-division of

managerial labour has led to formerly middle management responsibilities and

accountability being added to the supervisory core to produce an extended FLM

role.

Journal of Management Studies 42:3 May 20050022-2380

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Address for reprints : Colin Hales, School of Management, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU27XH, UK ([email protected]).


2/36

INTRODUCTION

For some time, and as part of the pervasive and recurrent discourse of ‘change’,

the popular management literature has carried confident and far from mournful

reports of the demise of the traditional supervisor. Linked to the general assertion

that increasingly turbulent, competitive organizational environments have neces-

sitated radical organizational change which has, in turn, brought decisive shifts in

the configuration of managerial roles and nature of managerial work, it is claimed

that the role of first-line manager (hereafter, FLM) has shifted from operational

supervision to more detached team leadership or more strategic business man-

agement. Specifically, according to this account, FLMs have become ‘team-

leaders/co-ordinators’, as day-to-day supervisory responsibilities are increasingly

devolved to ‘empowered’ work teams, and/or ‘business unit managers’, as broader

business responsibilities, particularly budgetary responsibilities, are deliberatelydevolved from middle managers to front-line managers of ever-smaller cost/profit

centre units.

There are, however, a number of reasons for questioning this account. Firstly,

even where it is not unashamedly prescriptive – asserting what role FLMs should

play, rather than what their role is – the account comprises a series of claims that

are made more on the basis of unsubstantiated assertion, extrapolation from par-

ticular, and possibly exceptional, cases or inference from ‘trends’ that are treated

as self evident. Secondly, the specific claims abut the role of FLM that can be dis-cerned in this account are at odds with the evidence from a succession of empiri-

cal studies of industrial supervisors that paint a picture of broad continuity and

attenuated change. Whether, therefore, the role of FLM has changed and, if so,

how and to what extent remains a matter of contention.

The aim of this paper is to shed further light on this issue by presenting and

discussing evidence from a survey of 135 organizations in the UK that examined

how the FLM role is presently constituted and how far and in what ways it has

changed. The paper examines the background to and point of departure for this

research by reviewing earlier debates in the literature about the relationship

between the roles of ‘first-line manager’ and ‘supervisor’ and the more recent

implicit debate about the extent to which and way in which organizational change

has impacted on these roles. Specific empirical questions are then identified that

formed the starting point for the reported research.

Following a discussion of the research design and methods used in the survey,

findings on the tasks, responsibilities, authority, accountability and involvement

in decisions that attach to the FLM role are then presented and discussed.

What this evidence shows is that, rather than having shifted radically from

supervision to team co-ordination or business management, the FLM role retains

a central core of ‘performance-oriented supervision’, surrounded by additional

responsibilities and accountabilities of variable extent and importance that repre-

472 C. Hales

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005


3/36

sent a limited incorporation of elements of alternative roles, rather than their whole-

sale adoption.

An explanatory account of this evidence is then offered which sees continuity

and change in the role of FLM as the product of two counter-posing developments

within organizations in the UK: on the one hand, the retention of external hier-archical supervision and its strengthening as a result of organizational growth or

increasing external regulation and, on the other hand, a re-division of manager-

ial labour as part of an attempt to sharpen organizational performance in the face

of perceived competitive pressures. The paper concludes that continuities at the

core of the FLM role attest to an enduring reluctance to replace external super-

vision of work teams by self-supervision by work teams, whilst changes at the

margins of the FLM role attests to a piecemeal, opportunistic redistribution, rather

than deliberate decentralization, of managerial responsibilities.

WHO ARE ‘FIRST-LINE MANAGERS’?

The term ‘first-line manager’ is conventionally taken to denote those positions rep-

resenting the first level of management to whom non-managerial employees report.

Within this broad definition, however, there is controversy about whether ‘first-line

managers’ and ‘supervisors’ are co-extensive or distinct. Often the terms are used

interchangeably, as in empirical studies that compare the roles of ‘senior’, ‘middle’

and ‘junior/first-line managers/supervisors’ (Allan, 1981; Kraut et al., 1989;

Pavett and Lau, 1983; Stewart, 1989, 1991) and, by implication, in studies that

define middle managers as occupying all those positions between ‘top strategic man-

agers’ and ‘first-level supervisors’ (Dopson et al., 1992; Livian, 1997). Some jour-

nalistic accounts ( The Economist , 1992) or textbook discussions (e.g. Bedward et al.,

1997) treat ‘first-line manager’, ‘shop floor manager’, ‘team leader’ and ‘supervi-

sor’ as alternative job titles and some recent analyses have argued that ‘modern’

supervisors should now be considered first-line managers (Betts, 1993; IRRR,

1990).Researchers who focus on the supervisor, however, tend to point to a clearer

distinction between supervisors and FLMs. This distinction rests on a number of

criteria. Firstly, a distinction is made between ‘management’ as remote, indirect,

strategic direction and control and ‘supervision’ as the proximal, direct, opera-

tional direction and control of work and, crucially, workers (Betts, 1993; Lowe,

1992, 1993). Therefore, ‘supervisors’ engage with workers directly, immediately

and face-to-face, whereas FLMs only do so indirectly, through the supervisor. A

related assertion is that FLMs possess delegated authority to take decisions, whereassupervisors merely give advice on, contribute to or implement these decisions at the

operational level (IRRR, 1993). Consequently, FLMs possess some formal author-

ity qua managers, whilst supervisors have responsibility but no authority. Lowe

(1992) elaborates by suggesting that ‘responsibility’ subsumes both ‘accountability’

Role of First-Line Manager 473



4/36

(being answerable) and ‘control’ (being able to decide) and arguing that the defin-

ing characteristic of a supervisor is accountability without control. However, he con-

cedes that this conceptual distinction does not always apply in practice: functional

differences between FLMs and supervisors may simply be those of degree , with

supervisors having less involvement in decisions and more limited authority overroutine, rather than strategic, matters.

It is also argued that status distinctions, at least in the UK, overlay these rather

indistinct functional differences and that the supervisor occupies an intermediate

position as a ‘non-commissioned officer’ between an ‘officer class’ of managers

proper and the ‘ranks’ of the workforce. In short, the de jure French distinction

between ‘cadre’ and ‘non-cadre’ employees holds de facto. FLMs are considered

more likely to have had higher education, undergone management training, been

recruited directly into management and have opportunities for advancement intomiddle management, whereas supervisors are less qualified, not given manage-

ment training, are recruited from the ranks of the workforce and face an insu-

perable barrier to progression into ‘management’ proper (Child and Partridge,

1982). FLMs, therefore, have unambiguous ‘management’ status, perceive ‘man-

agement’ as their reference group and have attitudes and orientations more closely

aligned with those of other managers, whereas supervisors are beset by status

ambiguities and role conflict.

The focus here, however, is not with job titles, which are often highly variable

and misleading, but the role of first-line management , whoever carries it out, and

to examine what this role entails – and how, if at all, it might be changing.

One way forward is to regard the FLM as part of a wider ‘supervisory control

system’ (Delbridge and Lowe, 1997) in which various functions of ‘manage-

ment’ and ‘supervision’ are distributed in different ways among different positions

and, therefore, as one of a number of roles in which supervision – the proximal

and immediate direction, monitoring and control of operational work – forms

a part. This shifts the issue away from whether FLMs are ‘supervisors’ to the

question of how far the role of FLM includes the work of supervision andwhich additional or alternative elements are part of that role. This issue is a

pertinent one because it directly engages with an implicit debate in the literature

about whether there has been radical transformation or piecemeal evolution in the

FLM role.

THE END OF SUPERVISION? ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND

‘NEW’ FIRST-LINE MANAGER ROLES

The industrial foreman or supervisor was a recurring subject of investigation and

analysis between the 1940s and 1970s (Armstrong, 1986; Beynon, 1973; Bowey,

1973; Carter, 1986; Child and Partridge, 1982; Fletcher, 1969; Gardner and

Whyte, 1945; Guest, 1956; Nichols and Armstrong, 1976; Nichols and Beynon,

474 C. Hales



5/36

1977; Reeves, 1970; Wray, 1949). From these studies, a broadly consistent picture

of the characteristics of the role emerged. These were summarized by Dunkerley

(1975) and Kerr et al. (1986) as: planning, scheduling and allocating work; moni-

toring output and conduct of work; checking equipment, safety and cleanliness;

overseeing the introduction of new equipment; dealing with unforeseen staffing,equipment and production problems; maintaining discipline; handling disputes;

training; counselling; record-keeping and assisting with operational work. These

tasks flowed from the key supervisory functions of ‘keeping production going’

(Thurley and Wirdenius, 1973) and ‘translating paper plans into operational

reality’ (Child and Partridge, 1982), functions that were often undertaken in cir-

cumstances of considerable ambiguity. The supervisory role was beset by: dispar-

ity between accountability for performance and authority restricted to routine

technical decisions, rather than broader ‘systems’ decisions; dissonance between acircumscribed role and the open-ended demands made by the technical com-

plexities of work; nugatory involvement in wider organizational decision-making;

and chronic role conflict arising from the divergent expectations of more senior

managers and workers between whom the hapless ‘man (sic) in the middle’ was

caught.

This traditional role proved resilient and even by the 1980s had not changed

substantially. Rose et al. (1987) found that the supervisor role was still primarily

concerned with day-to-day allocation of tasks and monitoring the pace and inten-

sity of work and, despite having some involvement in operational decisions about

staffing levels, work methods and work pace, still carried little involvement in strate-

gic decisions about products or budgets. Consequently, they concluded that: ‘direct

and authoritarian supervision is still a significant element in the apparatus of social

control at the point of production’ (1987, p. 20). Other studies confirmed that tasks

associated with ‘managing individual performance’ and ‘instructing subordinates’

– motivation, communication and monitoring – remained at the heart of how ‘first

level manager’ roles were defined (Allan, 1981; Kraut et al., 1989; Pavett and Lau,

1983). A picture of broad continuity, piecemeal evolution and limited attempts at

change continued into the 1990s. A survey of 40 manufacturing organizations

showed that, despite claims that the role was becoming more ‘managerial’, tradi-

tional supervisory responsibilities for scheduling, work allocation and discipline

remained the norm and broader human resource management responsibilities

were the exception (IRRR, 1990). Gallie et al.’s (1998) larger survey confirmed

that not only did direct supervision remain a central and pervasive form of control

but that the supervisory role continued to emphasize task allocation, effort andquality.

A similar picture emerged from detailed case studies. Storey’s (1992) study of

15 manufacturing organizations detected an ‘underlying thrust’ to change the

FLM role to that of ‘mini-manager’, with responsibility for the general adminis-




6/36

tration, quality monitoring and people management of a unit, as well as greater

authority to take decisions, and documented examples of firms where FLMs were

managing the performance of shift teams or the financial and human resources

of cost centres. However, Storey cautioned that this often constituted little more

than ‘re-titling’, ‘aspiration’ or ‘mere rhetoric’ and concluded that ‘the degree towhich the role really does depart significantly from that of the previously-existing

supervisory position remains doubtful’ (1992, p. 229). Detailed case studies of

FLMs in manufacturing plants by Lowe and his colleagues (Delbridge and Lowe,

1997; Lowe, 1992, 1993; Lowe et al., 2000) likewise pointed up the disparity

between attempts to develop a ‘new’ role and the resilience, in practice, of the tra-

ditional tasks and tensions of supervision. Even in ‘new’, lean-production systems,

where, ostensibly, supervisors had become ‘mini-managers’ of a work area, their

role had not incorporated broader HR responsibilities or greater decision-making authority but remained focused on labour control, day-to-day operations and dis-

turbance handling and they continued to be beset by ambiguous status and prob-

lematic accountability. Similarly, from a number of case studies, Owen concluded

that, except for acquisition of responsibility for quality and customers, much of

the ‘redefinition’ of the FLM role was a change in nomenclature and the impact

of change was unclear (Owen, 2001).

Thus, studies which focus explicitly on the FLM role tend to support Delbridge

and Lowe’s conclusion that ‘the death of the supervisor has been greatly exag-

gerated’ (1997, p. 423). However, this conclusion may be an artefact of the kind

of studies from which it is drawn, most of which, like the ‘classic’ supervisor

studies, focus on industrial supervisors in large manufacturing plants. This raises

questions about the generalizability of the findings and whether the modestly-

evolved supervisory role also applies to FLMs of white collar, technical or profes-

sional workers in service or public sector organizations or to FLMs in smaller

establishments.

By contrast, in the popular management literature, the ‘death of the supervi-

sor’ is confidently pronounced and not much mourned. From the 1980s onwards,there has been an insistence that traditional forms of direct supervisory control

are inappropriate for new forms of management and organization. This assertion

takes its cue from the more general management discourse of ‘turbulence’, ‘flex-

ibility’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ (duGay et al., 1996) in which radical changes in

managerial work (Drucker, 1988; Handy, 1995; Hecksher and Donnellon, 1994;

Kanter, 1989; Mintzberg, 1998; Morgan, 1988; Peters, 1989; White, 1994; Zuboff,

1988) are predicated on an equally radical shift in organizational forms from

bureaucratic hierarchies to post-bureaucratic networks, a shift that, in turn, isnecessitated by increasingly unstable organizational environments (see, for

example, Ashkenas et al., 1995; Castells, 1996; Charan, 1991; Drucker, 1988;

Galbraith, 1993; Hastings, 1993; Palmer and Dunford, 1997; Powell, 1990; Quinn

et al., 1996; Savage, 1996; Snow et al., 1992; Volberda, 1998).

476 C. Hales



7/36

Thus, it is argued, the traditional ‘manager’, individually responsible and

accountable for planning, co-ordinating and controlling a clearly defined area

of work within constraints set by procedure and regulation, is being superseded

by the performance-driven leader, ‘conductor’ or ‘coach’ charged with the fuzzy,

unregulated task of facilitating and co-ordinating the performance of a variegatednetwork of actors both inside and outside the organization (Drucker, 1988; Kim

and Mauborgne, 1997; Mintzberg, 1998; Van Auken, 1992; Walton, 1985; White,

1994). The implication is that managerial work shifts from narrowly-defined

routine administration to more wide-ranging, non-routine ‘leadership’, whilst the

managerial gaze switches from the vertical to the lateral.

The implications for the FLM of these claimed developments are not always

explicitly articulated but, instead, are treated as part of the transformation of

‘management’ tout court in which middle and junior managers are similarly andequally embroiled. Where explicit claims about the impact on FLMs are made,

their status ranges from speculative inferences from trends through generalizations

from individual cases to unsubstantiated assertion and prescription. Broad infer-

ences from wider trends see changes to the FLM role as stemming, inter alia , from

the spread of HRM and adoption of more participative forms of management

concerned to secure ‘high performance’ through commitment rather than control

(e.g. Kerr et al., 1986; Walton, 1985); flattened hierarchies and truncated vertical

reporting lines (e.g. Drucker, 1988); designation of ever-smaller organizational

units as cost- or profit-centres (Bowman, 1999; Schlesinger and Klein, 1987) and

the spread of team-working (e.g. Atkinson, 1997; FitzSimons, 1999; Katzenbach

and Smith, 1993). Similar acceptance of these trends and their implications are

also implicit in discussions of the ‘new’ competencies required by FLMs (e.g.

Humphrey and Stokes, 2000; IRRR, 1993; McManus, 1995). Other claims are

extrapolations from developments in single organizations (e.g. Ballin, 1993; Pearce,

1992), specific occupations (such as nursing: e.g. Duffield, 1992) or specific sectors

(such as the public sector: e.g. Byrne and McHardy, 1999; Perlmutter et al., 2001),

whilst some contributions either have an uncertain empirical foundation or areunashamedly prescriptive (Dixon, 1993; Peters, 1989; Weiss, 1998).

Because these claims constitute not so much a body of knowledge as a varie-

gated ‘discourse’ heavy on generalization, rhetoric and prescription, tightly defined

propositions are difficult to discern. However, two broad themes can be identified.

The first is that, with the spread of self-managing teams, through which there has

been a transfer of responsibility for day-to-day planning and monitoring of work

operations from managers to team members, FLMs have either disappeared or

lost their supervisory function and acquired the residual function of facilitating,co-ordinating, mentoring, coaching and leading teams that otherwise supervise

themselves. The FLM’s tasks are, therefore, to build the team; give technical assis-

tance and advice; train, develop and coach team members; brief teams and com-

municate business objectives; inspire and motivate team members; co-ordinate




8/36

people, processes, materials and equipment and liaise with other teams (see, for

example, Anon, 1994; Atkinson, 1997; Ballin, 1993; Dixon, 1993; Dunaine, 1993;

FitzSimons, 1999; Hankins and Kleiner, 1995; Katzenbach and Smith, 1993;

Lebediker, 1995; Pearce, 1992; Peters, 1989; Van Auken, 1992; Walton, 1985;

Waterman, 1988; Wellins et al., 1991; Weiss, 1998; Wickens, 1987).The second theme suggests that instead of, or as well as, losing their routine

supervisory functions downwards to work teams, FLMs are acquiring broader man-

agerial functions from above . As the result of a conscious devolution of managerial

responsibility as part of market-driven decentralization to smaller business units,

FLMs have acquired erstwhile middle management functions and become ‘mini-

general managers’ of an area of work designated as a cost- or profit-centre. The

role of the FLM becomes one of detached administration of a unit, focused on

deploying resources prospectively to facilitate, and paper controls retrospectivelyto monitor, performance. Commensurate with this, the FLM has authority over

budgeting and staffing decisions and accountability for business performance. The

responsibilities of the FLM consequently emphasize: aligning operations with

wider business objectives; setting and managing budgets; controlling staffing, mate-

rials and equipment costs; recruiting, selecting, appraising, training and develop-

ing staff; motivating staff to focus on business objectives and monitoring quality

standards (Bowman, 1999; Duffield, 1992; Humphrey and Stokes, 2000; Kim and

Mauborgne, 1997; McManus, 1995; Schlesinger and Klein, 1987; Smiley and

Westbrook, 1975; Storey, 1992; Van Auken, 1992).

There is, clearly, overlap between these two putative FLM roles. Acquiring

devolved middle management functions is compatible with losing supervisory func-

tions to work teams if organizations have indeed become flatter and more decen-

tralized. Moreover, both roles suggest a wider span of control and detached

concern with work performance and quality rather than detailed micro-manage-

ment of processes. Consequently, some discussions fuse elements of the two models

together into a composite ‘new’ FLM role. The differences are those of empha-

sis: the team-leader/co-ordinator role implies a greater pre-occupation with ‘softer’people-management issues, whereas the business unit manager role implies a

greater pre-occupation with ‘harder’ resource (including human resource) man-

agement issues.

Certainly, there are a priori grounds on which to question these claims. Because

they echo more general assertions about new forms of management, they are vul-

nerable to similar kinds of criticism: their acceptance of the self-evident ‘fact’ of

‘environmental turbulence’ and the imperative towards ‘flexibility’; their reliance

on a few recurring, atypical and transient cases; and their failure to recognize thatorganizational change has often entailed an extension or intensification of, not a depar-

ture from, bureaucratic control (Alvesson, 1995; Berg, 1989; Ezzamel et al., 1994;

Hilmer and Donaldson, 1996; Parker, 1993; Thompson, 1993; Watson, 2002) or

has been piecemeal and modest, with hierarchical, control-oriented bureaucracies

478 C. Hales



9/36

remaining the norm, albeit in a modified form (Cully et al., 1999; Hales, 2002;

Leavitt, 2003; Pettigrew and Fenton, 2000; Thompson and O’Connell Davidson,

1995; Warhurst and Thompson, 1998; Whittington and Mayer, 2000). Assertions

of a transition from an ‘old’ to a ‘new’ FLM role also oversimplify the point of

departure and under-specify the destination. The traditional supervisory model isoften presented in stereotypical terms that elide the contradictions and changes

that were always integral to it (Guest, 1956, Lowe, 1993), whilst descriptions of

the team leader/co-ordinator and business unit manager roles not only lack speci-

ficity but also rarely make clear whether these roles replace or supplement the

supervisory role. In short, something more akin to a rumour of change has arisen

and repeated sufficiently frequently that it is treated as self-evident.

Thus, contributions to the literature resolve, in effect, into two competing claims.

From studies of industrial supervisors comes the proposition that, whilst there maybe aspirations or limited attempts to shift the FLM role into something more dis-

cernibly ‘managerial’, such attempts have been so piecemeal and compromised

that, in practice, the role retains the responsibilities, limited authority and low

involvement in decision-making usually associated with the supervisor. On the

other hand, from the popular management literature comes the proposition that

there has been a decisive shift in the FLM role away from supervision towards

either a facilitating and developing ‘team leader/co-ordinator’ role or a resource-

deploying ‘unit manager’ role.

Two broad questions, therefore, remain unresolved:

• How is the FLM role in UK work organizations presently constituted?

• Is there evidence of a shift away from the supervisory role and towards either

a team-leader/co-ordinator role or a business unit manager role? If so, how

widespread is this and where, specifically, has it occurred?

More specifically, to pick up the particular claims in the literature reviewed above:

• To what extent are the tasks, responsibilities and associated areas of author-ity and accountability that are traditionally associated with supervision still

central to the role of FLM and under what conditions are they more/less

likely to be found? Is there evidence that they have been devolved to work

teams?

• To what extent are team-leader/co-ordinator responsibilities, authority and

accountability – such as co-ordinating the work activities of a number of

teams, monitoring quality, training/coaching and giving advice/support –

now part of the FLM role and, if so, where? Have these supplanted or sup-plemented the role of supervision?

• To what extent are business unit management responsibilities, authority and

accountability – such as focusing on business objectives, setting/managing

budgets, controlling costs, monitoring quality and broader human resource




10/36

management – now part of the FLM role and, if so, where? Have these sup-

planted or supplemented the role of supervision?

THE STUDY

These questions were addressed in the first, survey stage of a two-stage research

project[1] undertaken to examine, successively, how the role of FLM is defined and

how FLMs themselves interpret and undertake the role. It is the initial survey stage

that is reported here. As has been argued above, the literature poses broad ques-

tions of fact that require further investigation, rather than refined causal hypothe-

ses that can be tested. Given the nature of the questions, therefore, the aim of the

survey was primarily descriptive – seeking to provide a detailed snapshot of how

the FLM role is defined organizationally in terms of tasks/responsibilities, author-ity, accountability, involvement in decision-making and whether, how and why any

of these have changed. The purpose, however, was to provide more than simply

a descriptive back-drop to the detailed investigation of the work of FLMs in the

second, case-study stage of the research. Data on how the FLM role is defined are

intrinsically informative, not only because they engage with claims about changes

to the role but also because they show how senior managers frame the FLM role

structurally in terms of their expectations of its incumbents. Other evidence sug-

gests that this role definition crucially shapes how FLMs themselves interpret and

enact the role (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1975).

A sample survey was carried out to document how the FLM role was defined.

Since claims about changes to the FLM role are not only about how the role has

changed, but also about the extent of these changes, a sufficiently large sample was

necessary to generate reliable measures of the prevalence, as well as the nature,

of aspects of the FLM role and to make meaningful sub-sample comparisons.

However, a large national sample would have necessitated forms of data collec-

tion that were either impractical or of doubtful validity. A random sample of orga-

nizations with data collected through face-to-face interviews would have provedprohibitively costly and time-consuming, whilst a postal survey was ruled out

because the data to be collected required a level of explanation and routing that

was not possible on a self-completion questionnaire; response rates on postal

surveys are very low (Frazer and Lawley, 2000; Newell, 1993); and postal surveys

offer few guarantees about how and by whom responses are given.[2] Having the

questionnaire administered face-to-face by one of the research team ensured the

identity (and, hence, credibility) of the informant; guaranteed full coverage, com-

pletion and return; permitted explanation of key terms and focus of the questions,ensured accurate routing, enabled open-ended questions to be fully probed and

gave the research team a first-hand ‘feel’ for the data.

On practical grounds, face-to-face interviewing necessitated drawing the sample

from a limited number of defined and accessible locations. A sample of organi-

480 C. Hales



11/36

zations with ten employees or more was drawn at random from publicly available

databases of employers at three locations – the City of Westminster, Guildford

and Cambridge – with the total target sample of 200 divided among each loca-

tion in proportion to the size of the respective databases. Thus, whilst the sample

of organizations within each location was randomly selected, the choice of loca-tions themselves was non-random and deliberately so. The choice of Westminster,

Guildford and Cambridge as sampling points was driven by important practical

and methodological considerations. On the practical level, these locations were

easily accessible to the research team and therefore kept the cost of fieldwork to

acceptable levels. However, these locations could also be justified methodologically

on the grounds that, since they contained a relatively high proportion of service

and knowledge-based industries and public sector organizations characteristic of

the ‘new economy’, they were particularly apposite for examining the differentclaims in the literature about organizational change and the FLM role. The logic

of this was as follows. On the one hand, as has been shown, the picture of conti-

nuity and attenuated change in the FLM role derives primarily from studies of

industrial supervisors in manufacturing organizations: the sampling locations,

therefore, made it possible to examine how far the unreconstructed ‘supervisor’

role extended beyond these into non-manufacturing. On the other hand, claims

about radical change in the FLM role stem principally from inferences about the

character of managerial roles generally in decentralized, ‘network’ knowledge-

based organizations or extrapolations from particular cases of this kind: the sam-

pling locations, therefore, permitted an examination of how generally true of such

organizations these claims were. In other words, the locations were thought to yield

a sample of organizations that was in a sense ‘critical’ for investigating both claims

– the first claim through investigation of alternative settings as potential counter-

factuals, the second claim through examination on its potentially strongest ground

as a form of ‘critical sample’, akin to Yin’s concept of the ‘critical case’ (Yin,

1994).[3]

The target sample of 200 was intended to ensure that any resulting data wouldbe, on the basis of assumptions about likely sample means for particular variables

and allowing for the non-probability sample, within acceptable confidence inter-

vals and that all sub-samples (e.g. size of organization, industry sector, gender/age

of FLM) would be in excess of 30 and therefore of sufficient size to conduct mean-

ingful comparative statistical analysis. Organizations were contacted in batches of

20, firstly, by letter and accompanying FAQ sheet and, secondly, by follow-up tele-

phone call. Converting initial contacts into interviews proved somewhat problem-

atic[4]

and it was necessary to replace organizations that declined to participate withothers drawn, also randomly,[5] from the database. In all, 271 organizations were

contacted, yielding 135 successfully completed interviews. Although the sample of

135 somewhat increases confidence intervals, it still yields sub-samples of sufficient

size for meaningful analysis. Moreover, the organizations in the final, achieved




12/36

sample exhibited a good spread by size, industry, private/public sector and nation-

ality of ownership (see Table I). The achieved sample was checked both directly

and indirectly for any possible response bias. Firstly, some key characteristics of

non-co-operating organizations, such as location, number of employees,

public/private sector and industry sector were known from the sampling frames

and were confirmed in the initial telephone contacts. On these criteria at least,

non-co-operating organizations were shown to be similar to those that did co-

operate in the study, except for having a slightly higher proportion of organiza-

tions in the private sector. Secondly, the structure of the sample was compared toother recent workplace surveys (e.g. Cully et al., 1999) and found to be broadly

similar, except for a slight under-representation of manufacturing.

Data were obtained from informants , access to whom was obtained through initial

contact with senior managers. In practice, informants were a mixture of senior

line managers, HR/Personnel managers, function heads or the FLM’s immediate

line manager. Leveraging the authority structure of the organization to gain access

always carries the danger that the research is perceived as emanating from and,

hence, serving the purposes of senior management. In this case, however, this wasless problematic given that the explicit intention was to focus on the ‘organiza-

tional’ view of the FLM role, as articulated by senior managers, and it also had

the advantage of dramatically improving the response rate.[6] Further, there is also

the issue of whether individual senior management informants can speak for the

482 C. Hales


Table I. The sample

Ownership % Nationality % Economic sector % Size (No. employees) %

Private business 83 British 79 Retail/wholesale 13 Organization

Public not-for- US 9 Hotel/catering 13 Small (10–99) 46profit 13 European 3 Research/consultancy 11 Medium (100–499) 20

Private not-for- Japanese 2 Education 8 Large (500+ ) 34

profit 4 Mixed 7 Leisure/entertainment 7

Banking/finance 7 Establishment

Creative services 5 10–29 39

Property services 4 30–99 38

Recruitment/personnel 4 100–499 19

services 500+ 5

Construction 4

Health/medical 4Printing 2

Manufacturing 2

Publishing 2

Communications/postal 2

services

Legal services 2

Information/advice 2

Other services 4


13/36

‘organization’. However, the use of informants is common practice in workplace

surveys (Cully et al., 1999) and problems can be ameliorated by careful selection

of knowledgeable informants, by adopting a consistent focus and by attempting

some form of triangulation. In this case, all informants were selected on their

capacity to speak knowledgeably about the FLM role and were asked to focus onthe role of FLM as ‘the first level of management in the organization to whom

non-managerial employees report’. Further, where possible, data collected from

informants were triangulated with documentary evidence in the form of FLM job

descriptions and organization charts – a form of ‘between methods triangulation’

(Denzin, 1970).

Data were collected using a structured questionnaire comprising closed and

open ended items, administered by one of the research team. In practice, most

interviews became, in effect, semi-structured interviews with specific questionsprompting considerable qualitative elaboration, explanation and discussion by

informants. Recording these qualitative elaborations as well as responses to the

closed questionnaire items represented a form of ‘within method’ triangulation

(Denzin, 1970).[7] The content of the questionnaire was developed from a review

of the extant literature and was piloted among a group of 10 HR/personnel man-

agers in December 2001 and the final, amended version was designed for data

entry and processing using Sphinx Survey software. Fieldwork took place between

January and June 2002.

Although the survey provided a comprehensive cross-sectional picture of the

FLM role at one point in time, the extent to which it measured change was, admit-

tedly, limited. Time and resource constraints ruled out a longitudinal study. Evi-

dence on change, therefore, came from two data collection and analysis strategies:

first, recording informants’ perceptions of change in the FLM role in their organi-

zation and, second, comparing the data with earlier studies. These strategies

impose limitations on data interpretation that are noted in the following

discussion.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

FLM Jobs and their Occupants

Superficially, FLMs appeared highly diverse. Job titles varied considerably,

although in most organizations (58 per cent) FLMs were ‘managers’ – of a depart-

ment/function (41 per cent), operational unit (10 per cent), project (4 per cent) or

business unit (3 per cent). Elsewhere they were ‘assistant managers’ (5 per cent),‘supervisors/foremen’ (7 per cent), ‘team leaders’ (8 per cent), senior professionals

(15 per cent) or, in some small organizations, a director or partner (8 per cent).

FLMs also varied by age, gender and the gender and skill mix of those reporting

to them. However most were aged 26–45, with younger FLMs (under 35) more




14/36

numerous in retail, hospitality and professional services and more likely to be

female. FLMs in half of the organizations were all or predominantly male; in a

third, they were all or predominantly female. Male FLMs predominated in con-

struction, property services and printing, female FLMs in health and education.

Although FLMs usually managed workers of the same gender or a similar level of skill, in 28 and 40 per cent of organizations FLMs managed workers of mixed

gender and skill level respectively.

Diversity among the occupants of the FLM role contrasted with consistency in

the role itself. Most FLMs had spans of control that were either narrow (one to

five) or moderate (six to ten). In only 30 per cent of organizations was span of

control greater than ten. Their contact patterns showed that they were primarily

the vertical, internal link between senior managers and the work-group, although

in some organizations, it also included external relations with customers andclients. This pattern of consistency at the core and variation at the margins was

repeated in the tasks/responsibilities attaching to the role.

FLM Tasks and Responsibilities

Informants were asked to indicate whether various tasks/responsibilities formed

part of the FLM role in their organization and, if so, to rate how important a part

of the role they were. Where a responsibility was not part of the FLM role, a sup-

plementary question asked who in the organization was responsible. The findings

are summarized in Table II.

The responsibilities that FLMs were expected to undertake divide into six over-

lapping groups of diminishing degrees of prevalence and importance. At the core

was responsibility for ‘performance-oriented supervision’, around which was a

penumbra of additional and more variable tasks/responsibilities relating to stew-

ardship of a work area, translating strategy into operations, operational manage-

ment of a unit and business management of a unit.

The central cluster of tasks and responsibilities relating to ‘performance-oriented supervision’ concerned the day-to-day direction and control of a work-

group or process framed by the requirement to monitor, report and improve work

performance. Part of the FLM role in virtually all organizations and an important

part in at least three-quarters were the responsibilities that, in combination, are

conventionally associated with the supervisor role: planning/scheduling work,

setting priorities, checking work against procedures, giving advice, allocating work,

acting as a communication channel up and down and assisting with operational

work. To these were added responsibilities that are associated with the moredetached team leader/co-ordinator role: giving praise, coaching and co-

ordinating the team.

FLMs were not simply responsible for passively ‘overseeing’ work: they were also

responsible for actively managing performance. An additional part of the FLM

484 C. Hales



15/36

©B l a

ck w el l P

u

b l i s h i n

gL

t d 2 0 0 5

Table II. First-line manager tasks and responsibilities

Task/responsibility % orgns % orgns Where responsibility Whe

where where particularly prevalent/ relev

part of extremely important part of role

FLM role imp/important

Giving praise for good work 99 95

Checking quality of ‘output’ 99 95 A

Explaining production/work priorities 99 87

Carrying out operational work tasks 99 59 L Whe

m

Monitoring work processes against procedures 98 84 Sma

Giving staff technical advice 98 82 L Sma

Planning/scheduling work 98 82

Acting as communication channel up/down 98 80 Sma

Allocating staff to tasks 96 75 S

Giving ad hoc technical coaching 96 69 Emp Assisting staff with work 96 68 E Whe

m

Co-ordinating work of a team 95 79

Reporting performance upwards 94 77 C Sma

Helping to implement changes in work practice 93 79

Dealing with immediate customer/client problems 92 83 T No

Implementing efficiency improvements 92 68

Dealing with immediate work process problems 90 81 O

Dealing with immediate staffing problems 87 68

Attending action planning meetings 87 62 R Sma

Checking quantity of ‘output’ 87 59 S ‘Oum

Attending review meetings 86 67 Som

Authorizing non-routine actions by staff 85 36 Manufacturing, financial

services, education,

leisure and retail


16/36

©B l a

ck w el l

P u b l i s h i n

gL

t d 2 0 0 5

Table II. Continued

Task/responsibility % orgns % orgns Where responsibility Where resp

where where particularly prevalent/ relevant/im

part of extremely important part of role FLM role imp/important

Holding briefing meetings for staff 84 66 Semi-/unskilled work

Dealing with immediate equipment problems 84 44 Manufacturing, Small site

publishing, construction,

hotels/catering

Checking cleanliness of work environment 83 49 Hotels/catering,

construction

Counselling staff 81 45 Health/medical services,

construction

Handling computer data 79 54 Research/consultancy, No use o

financial, recruitment, compu

creative services

Recommending staff for promotion 77 50 Larger manufacturing, Small org

recruitment

construction, health/

medical

Substituting for staff during breaks 76 44 Semi-skilled work in No forma

hotel/catering, retail, period

printing, health

Informing staff about targets/business objectives 75 54 Larger manufacturing,

publishing, construction,

education, banks

Allocating equipment to jobs 74 30 Unskilled manual work No equip

Dealing with immediate materials problems 73 47 Manufacturing,

construction, printing,

publishing


17/36

©B l a

ck w el l P

u

b l i s h i n

gL

t d 2 0 0 5

Controlling operating costs 73 48 Manufacturing,

construction, hotel/

catering, property

services

Conducting staff appraisals 71 59 Large orgs; creative, Sma

financial and property no

services apMeetings with other FLMs 70 56 Medium/large orgns Sma

Managing a budget 65 48 Graduate FLMs in No b

property and legal

services, research/

consultancy, education

Maintaining stock levels 64 35 Hotels/catering, retail,

construction

Verbal warnings for breaches of discipline 63 44 Unskilled work;

manufacturing, hotels/

catering,

communications Allocating staff to shifts/overtime 63 39 Hotel/catering, retail, No s

health ov

Dealing with immediate premises problems 63 37 Small orgns/sites

Contributing to training programmes 61 31 Large orgns No t

or

Co-ordinating two or more teams 50 25 Semi-/unskilled work;

construction

Setting a budget 39 23 Construction, recruitment,

property servicesHolding staff records 38 26 Health/medical services

Written warnings for breaches of discipline 38 24


18/36

role in 80–90 per cent of organizations, and an important part in the majority,

was responsibility for: monitoring quality; planning, reviewing and reporting per-

formance through meetings or IT; dealing with problems relating to customers,

the work process, equipment and staffing; and implementing changes and improve-

ments. The exceptions were two-fold. Firstly, in about a third of organizations,primary responsibility for performance lay with middle managers and the FLM

was purely an ‘overseer’ supervisor. Only in a few organizations, however, was

responsibility for performance devolved to, or even shared with, the work-group.

Secondly, in some organizations (e.g. services where output was not measurable or

small organizations where formal performance review was rare), aspects of ‘per-

formance’ did not apply.

In a similar proportion of organizations, but of less importance in many, FLMs

were also expected to ‘look after’ a work area by maintaining equipment, tidinessand cleanliness, and people, through counselling and making recommendations

for promotion. More distinct variations could be discerned here, with these respon-

sibilities more evident where the FLM was in charge of premises or plant, as in

hotels/restaurants or construction. Where this ‘stewardship’ was undertaken but

not by the FLM, responsibility lay with middle managers or specialists (e.g. main-

tenance or HR/personnel).

FLM roles were even more clearly differentiated by the remaining clusters of

responsibilities. Translating strategy into operations – communicating organiza-

tional objectives, substituting for staff, allocating equipment to jobs, dealing with

materials and supplier problems and, crucially, controlling costs – formed part of

the FLM role in about three-quarters of organizations but was important in half

or fewer. It was particularly prevalent in larger organizations, where the organi-

zational distance between strategy and operations was greater, and in sectors such

as printing, publishing, hotels/restaurants and education that were vulnerable to

unforeseen operating contingencies or in construction and manufacturing where

there were strong cost pressures.

In six organizations out of ten, FLMs had some operational managementresponsibility for a unit but this was only considered important in one third to one

half. This subsumed financial responsibility – managing budgets and stock levels

– and responsibility for people management – conducting appraisals and training,

giving verbal warnings and allocating staff to shifts. There were, however, two very

different kinds of ‘unit manager’ FLM. The first were owner-managers of small

businesses who, in addition to running the business were also, in effect, the FLM.

A second group of FLMs had acquired broader managerial responsibilities. These

were project or unit managers in professional organizations in research/consul-tancy, legal and property services or project/site managers in construction who

had budgets to manage, or department/function managers in hotels/restaurants,

retailing, finance/banking and health who had some responsibility for appraising,

training and disciplining staff.

488 C. Hales



19/36

For a minority of FLMs, business management responsibilities were added to

operational management. In about a quarter of organizations, part of the FLM

role was co-ordinating two or more teams, setting as well as managing a budget,

keeping personnel records and disciplining staff. In some cases, such as project or

unit managers with wide spans of control in construction, recruitment services,leisure and health, this represented a clear extension of the role into more strategic

management responsibilities. Elsewhere it merely reflected the fact that

owners/managers of small businesses were also FLMs. In the great majority of

organizations, however, these responsibilities lay with middle managers or with

HR/personnel specialists.

FLM Authority, Accountability and Consultation

Informants were asked whether FLMs had the authority to take various decisions,

whether they could take these decisions alone or were required to consult, with

whom they were to consult, and who was authorized to take the decision if it was

not the FLM. The findings are summarized in Table III.

In all but a minority of organizations, FLMs were the first rung on a discon-

tinuous system of authority in which managers , not workers, had authority to

decide the conduct of work. Again, the pattern was one of a cluster of core deci-

sions for which FLMs in almost all organizations had authority, often without

having to consult, surrounded by common decisions that FLMs in most organi-

zations could take, but often only in consultation; and, finally, restricted decisions

that FLMs in fewer than half of organizations could take, even in consultation

with others.

FLMs’ core jurisdiction was over routine matters ensuring operational continu-

ity – deciding work priorities, work methods and when to resolve operational prob-

lems. In just over half of the organizations, FLMs had to consult with a more

senior manager but in the remainder they could, at least formally, take these deci-

sions alone. In most organizations FLMs could also take decisions over expendi-ture, recruitment and supplies/equipment but these were doubly constrained by

having to be made within limits, such as fixed budgets, and in consultation with

more senior managers. In a significant minority of organizations, only more senior

managers or specialist departments, such as HR/Personnel or Finance, could take

these decisions. This was also the case in most organizations with respect to wider

HR decisions on staffing levels, pay, promotion, suspension or dismissal: the minor-

ity of FLMs who could take these decisions had to do so in consultation with more

senior managers or the HR department.The FLMs who had wide authority were of two types: first, the owners/man-

agers of small businesses who were also de facto the FLM and second, managers of

units in large multi-site service organizations who had discretion to ‘hire and fire’.

FLMs with the narrowest authority were those in manufacturing, printing and




20/36

©B l a

ck w el l

P u b l i s h i n

gL

t d 2 0 0 5

Table III. First-line manager authority, accountability and consultation on decisions

AUTHORITY to take decisions on: % orgns where % orgns where With whom FLM must consult Who

FLM has FLM has sole

authority authority

Action where deviation from 91 58 More senior managers

procedures

Work priorities 89 60 More senior managers, other FLMsWork methods 78 41 More senior managers More

Spending up to set limit 67 50 More senior managers More

Recruiting staff 64 24 More senior managers More

Choosing equipment to be used 58 27 More senior managers More

Suspending staff 47 17 More senior managers, HR dept More

Setting staffing level 45 16 More senior managers More

reg

Dismissing staff 43 16 More senior managers, HR dept More

Adjusting pay of staff 36 9 More senior managers, HR dept More

Promoting staff 36 7 More senior managers, HR dept More


21/36

©B l a

ck w el l P

u

b l i s h i n

gL

t d 2 0 0 5

ACCOUNTABILITY for: % orgns where % orgns where With whom accountable W

FLM accountable FLM jointly

accountable

Pace/intensity of work 97 45 Immediate boss, work team

Quality of output 96 48 Immediate boss, work team

Efficiency 95 45 Immediate boss

Identifying training needs 93 54 Immediate boss, work team

Paperwork 92 42 Immediate boss, work team M

Work discipline 85 52 Immediate boss, HR dept M

Quantity of output 81 35 Immediate boss, work team M

Meeting Health and Safety Regs 75 52 Immediate boss, work team M

Keeping within budget 73 40 Immediate boss, finance dept M

Levels of absence 61 21 Immediate boss, HR dept M

Serviceability of equipment 61 40 More senior manager, maintenance dept M

Availability of materials 59 35 Immediate boss, materials dept

CONSULTED on: % orgns where % orgns where If

FLM consulted FLM always or

frequently consulted

Work methods 93 70 B

Pace of work 80 54 E

Overall staffing numbers 79 50 B

Which products/services to offer 75 48 BBudgets 67 39 B


22/36

retail whose role was exclusively supervision and senior professionals in

research/consultancy and education.

Informants were also asked whether FLMs were accountable for certain out-

comes; whether they were solely accountable or jointly (and if jointly, with whom);

and who was accountable if not the FLM. In all but a minority of organizations,FLMs were the first level in a vertical system of individual accountability in which

managers , not workers, were accountable for work outcomes. In only one organi-

zation in ten did work groups have accountability for operational performance

and, even there, they were almost always jointly accountable with the FLM.

The core areas of accountability, attaching to the FLM role in over four-fifths

of organizations, were quality, efficiency, output, discipline and paperwork.

Responsibility for monitoring and reporting performance therefore reflected

accountability for performance outcomes. FLMs in most organizations were alsoaccountable for other performance metrics relating to heath and safety, expendi-

ture, training needs, absences, equipment and materials, although this was usually

jointly with a more senior manager or specialist department.

There was evident disparity between FLM accountability and authority, with

FLMs in many organizations not given the authority to determine the things for

which they were accountable. In half of the organizations, FLMs were account-

able for efficiency but had no authority to determine staffing levels and in a fifth,

FLMs were accountable for efficiency, pace of work, output and quality but had

no authority to decide work methods. This ‘authority gap’ was particularly acute

among FLMs in manufacturing and retail whose roles were restricted largely to

performance-oriented supervision and senior professionals in service organizations

who were accountable for managing colleagues and clients alike without author-

ity over either.

Additional evidence of FLMs’ inability to influence outcomes for which they

were accountable emerged from responses to questions about whether and how

frequently FLMs were consulted on organizational decisions. FLMs were com-

monly consulted, and consulted frequently, over routine operational matters suchas work methods and pace but were less likely to be consulted, and consulted less

frequently, over strategic issues relating to products, staffing levels and budgets. In

most organizations, these latter were taken unilaterally by more senior managers

or specialist departments. Again, FLMs whose responsibilities were confined to

supervision were least likely to be consulted on strategic issues, whilst those whose

responsibilities extended into unit management were more likely to be consulted.

Perceived Changes in the Role of FLM

A series of open-ended questions asked how, if at all, the role of FLM had changed

over the past five years and to what internal developments and external causes

such changes were attributed (the findings are summarized in Table IV).

492 C. Hales



23/36

©B l a

ck w el l P

u

b l i s h i n

gL

t d 2 0 0 5

Table IV. Perceived changes in the first-line manager role

Tasks/responsibilities added to % Tasks/responsibilities % Perceived internal drivers of %

FLM role orgns removed from FLM role orgns changes to FLM role orgn

Some task/responsibility 83 Some task/responsibility 43 Inc. focus on performance 25

added lost

Routine ‘people 47 Working alongside staff 15 Change of 20

management’ ownership/management

Business management 26 Paperwork 10 Growth of business 19

Working with IT 20 Routine ‘people 7 New organizational 12management’ structure

Customer/client contact 10 Managing a budget 5 Increased customer focus 10

Working alongside staff 10 Increased controls 8

Managing a budget 10 Adoption of ISO 900/ 6

‘IiP’

Staff development 8

Internal communications 8 None 23

No change to FLM role 15


24/36

In most organizations, the FLM role had been enlarged. In nearly half, however,

this represented a strengthening of the supervisory core in that additional respon-

sibilities related to planning and monitoring work. In one organization in ten,

FLMs had become even more entrenched in the supervisor role by acquiring more

operational work. However, in organizations where the FLM was more of a unitmanager, the FLM role had also been extended into business responsibilities such

as sales/marketing or financial management. The only other change of any mag-

nitude was in how the FLM role was to be undertaken, with FLMs in a fifth of

organizations expected to work increasingly with IT.

In 43 per cent of organizations, the FLM role had been re-focused by the loss

of some supervisory responsibilities, such as working alongside staff, paper work and

day-to-day staff administration, or, in a few exceptional cases, the loss of more

managerial tasks, such as managing a budget. This re-focusing was particularly thecase in professional service organizations where senior professionals had relin-

quished some professional work in order to concentrate on management.

Taken together, these findings indicate fairly widespread changes in the specifics

of the FLM role. However, in 15 per cent of organizations, particularly small ones,

the role had not changed at all. Even where change had occurred, it was not in a

consistent direction. The net effect was that in about two-fifths of organizations,

FLMs had more responsibilities than before – usually more day-to-day people

management but, more exceptionally, increased financial responsibilities and cus-

tomer/client contact.

Both internal and external factors were cited as driving these changes. Among

the internal factors, the most often cited was greater pre-occupation with perfor-

mance and, to a lesser extent, greater focus either on customer service or on con-

trols and procedures. The triggers for such changes were usually a change of

ownership/management or growth in the organization’s activities and, to a lesser

extent, the adoption of particular performance standards, such as ISO 9000 or

Investors in People. FLMs in larger organizations were more likely to have seen a

change to their role as a consequence of ownership/management or structuralchange coupled with a greater focus on performance; those in small organizations

were more likely to have had responsibilities delegated from over-loaded senior

managers as a result of growth. But the picture was not one of endemic change:

a quarter of organizations had undergone no recent internal changes that had

impacted on FLMs. The perceived external causes of change were, primarily,

changing customer/client demands, increased regulation of various kinds and

increased competition. Heightened competition seemed to be prompting change

in the FLM role across all sectors but FLMs in the health, banking/finance, edu-cation and leisure/entertainment were additionally affected by growing customer

expectations and increased regulation. But the situation was not one of endemic

turbulence: 40 per cent of informants could not identify any external pressure that

had impacted on the FLM role.

494 C. Hales



25/36

DISCUSSION

The findings paint a picture of continuity and change, homogeneity and diversity.

On the one hand, the well-documented task and authority characteristics of the

traditional supervisory role appear to have changed very little. For FLMs in the

great majority of organizations, the core responsibility remains the immediate

direction and control of an area of work and day-to-day supervision of those who

carry it out, rather than management ‘at a distance’. Their span of control is rel-

atively narrow, their contacts are primarily internal and vertical and their author-

ity, involvement in decision-making and accountability are mainly confined to

operational routines.

However, FLMs are not merely supervisors: in most organizations routine super-

vision is framed by responsibility for actively monitoring and improving perfor-

mance. Apart from a few exceptions, ‘performance-oriented supervision’ is at theheart of the FLM role.

They [FLMs] work much more with IT because the level of reporting has

increased, more efficiency reports and business reports. (Principal, Language

Training Centre)

We are now run much more as a business and the Exhibition Organizers

[FLMs] are more target oriented in what they do. (Exhibition Secretary, ArtsOrganization)

Although this incorporates elements of the ‘team leader/co-ordinator’ role, such

as responsibility for quality, coaching, team briefing and co-ordinating the team,

these elements have been assimilated into, not supplanted, the supervisory role.

Moreover, if FLMs are in some sense ‘team co-ordinators’, it is not because work

teams are supervising themselves: in only one organization in ten were supervi-

sory responsibilities devolved to, or even shared with, empowered workers or self-

managing teams. Contrary to the claims of some of the HRM literature (Walton,

1985), a sharper focus on performance has not brought a shift from control to

commitment and the FLM has not become a quasi-middle manager exercising

detached co-ordination of self-managing teams but remains ‘the’ supervisor, in

effect if not always in name.

The Team Leaders [FLMs] are responsible for keeping things moving. They

have responsibility within the team for delivery, getting the work done . . .

they’re a sort of Works Manager on shift. (Works Manager, Cement Works)

Moreover, the extension of the FLM role into stewardship of a work area is simply

a contemporary echo of the traditional ‘shop-minding’ and pastoral role of the

supervisor, whilst the requirement to translate strategy into operations, by trans-




26/36

mitting targets and then handling disturbances and finessing human and physical

resources to meet them is a crystallization of a traditional supervisory problem

(Lowe, 1993; Partridge, 1989) into a formal responsibility.

As also noted elsewhere (Cully et al., 1999; Lowe et al., 2000), any widening of

the FLM span of control and extension of FLM responsibility into operational or,more exceptionally, business, performance of a unit is limited in extent and depth.

It is confined to department managers in large distributed service organizations,

such as hotels/restaurants, health and education, site managers in construction,

or project managers in professional organizations (representing in all about 15 per

cent of organizations in the sample), who have acquired responsibility for budgets

and/or staff training and appraisal.

We got Investors in People in 1997 and that meant that our Divisional Man-

agers [FLMs] had to focus on training needs and employee development as

well . . . they have more input in that now and more input in the budget process.

(Managing Director, Recruitment Consultants)

But, in acquiring these, they have not lost their supervisory responsibilities – they

are managers who are still obliged to supervise – and, in that they have not

acquired authority over pay or dismissal, they are managers with limited leverage.

The Supervisors [FLMs] here don’t have a great deal of delegated author-ity . . . it’s the directors who authorize spending and review manpower because

staff are the most expensive commodity in any business nowadays. (Managing

Director, Printers)

Supervisors [FLMs] don’t have much input there [on decisions about output

levels] but they are always held accountable for how much work gets done . . .

we now have weekly recruitment, which is cost related, so Supervisors have

fewer decisions there. (HR Director, Information Services Company)

Other ‘FLMs’ with these managerial responsibilities are owner/managers of small

businesses who are obliged to supervise their staff because the business is too small

to support an additional layer of management. Therefore, they are not supervi-

sors who have become business managers but business managers who are obliged

to supervise. In most organizations, business management and broader HR

responsibility continue to rest with middle managers and/or HR specialists.

Therefore, at a purely empirical level, the findings do not support claims that

the FLM role has shifted decisively and extensively from supervision to team lead-ership/co-ordination or business management. Rather, aspects of the team leader

role have been incorporated into routine supervision as part of a sharper focus

on performance, whilst in a limited number of instances, aspects of business

management have been grafted on to supervision. In general terms, the findings

496 C. Hales



27/36

support the more cautious accounts of limited developments in the FLM role rather

than claims about its radical transformation. The findings also confirm and elabo-

rate particular continuities and developments identified elsewhere, viz: direct

supervision as still the most common form of control (Cully et al., 1999; Gallie

et al.,1998); the persistence of many elements of the traditional supervisor role(Delbridge and Lowe, 1997; Lowe, 1993; Storey, 1992); the incorporation into

supervision of some ‘team-leader’ elements, such as responsibility for performance,

quality and coaching (Gallie et al., 1998; Lowe, 1993; Lowe et al., 2000; Storey,

1992); disparity between accountability for performance and limited authority and

involvement in decision-making (Child and Partridge, 1982; Cully et al., 1999;

Delbridge and Lowe, 1997); and the piecemeal extension of the FLM role into

either financial responsibility for controlling costs or HR responsibility for recruit-

ment, appraisal, training and discipline (Cully et al., 1999; Delbridge and Lowe,1997; Lowe, 1993; Lowe et al., 2000; Storey, 1992).

Any explanatory account must address this nuanced picture of continuity at the

core and change at the margins and must, therefore, attend to the way in which

the FLM role has been at the confluence of different, even counteracting, forces.

On the one hand, reluctance to abandon hierarchical, external forms of supervi-

sion means that employees continue to be supervised, by a FLM, rather than

‘empowered’ to supervise themselves. On the other hand, the apparently indis-

pensable FLM role has become the attractor around which additional responsi-

bilities arising from a re-division of managerial labour have coalesced.

Retention of the function of supervision per se – the proximal immediate direc-

tion, monitoring and control of work processes – is hardly surprising given its con-

sistency with a diversity of theoretical perspectives. Whether organizations are

viewed as complex machines in which co-ordination is a technical necessity, as

instruments of exploitation in which control is a political necessity (Morgan, 1997),

or as bundles of factors of production in which superintendence is an economic

necessity to ensure ‘X-efficiency’ (Leibenstein, 1966), ‘supervision’ is treated

axiomatically as the necessary means of overcoming active or passive, intended orremissive deviations from managerially-defined forms of labour. Even those con-

templating the ‘end of management’ (Handy, 1995; Koch and Godden, 1996)

envisage the demise of an organizational stratum, not the abandonment of man-

agement as a function: a world without managers is not a world that is not managed .

The key question is where , or with whom, the functions of management and super-

vision reside.

Our data suggests that UK organizations, even those in high-tech service sectors,

continue to rely on control through external supervision, rather than commitmentthrough self-supervision, as the means for aligning employee behaviour with orga-

nizational goals (Osterman, 1994) and continue to vest the function of supervision

in first-line managers . Where supervisory responsibility does not rest with the FLM,

it is much more likely to rest with a more senior manager than with self-managing




28/36

work teams. Further, this monopolization of supervision by managers does not

appear to arise from a fear that an organized workforce would adopt a counter-

managerial stance, since only a quarter of organizations in the sample were union-

ized. Other UK research evidence paints a similar picture. For all categories

of employee, direct supervision has, if anything, tightened rather than loosened(Gallie et al., 1998), whilst fully autonomous ‘self-managing teams’ remain a rarity

(Cully et al., 1999; Wilkinson, 1998). Indeed, ‘team-working’ may often be more

nominal than substantive, with existing hierarchical groups re-labelled as ‘teams’

(Mueller, 1994) and even where team-working has been adopted, FLMs continue

to exercise supervisory functions (Buchanan and Preston, 1992; Delbridge and

Lowe, 1997; Geary and Dobbins, 2001; McCabe and Knights, 2000; Storey, 1992).

The persistence of external supervision appears to stem, at least in part, from

managers’ lack of trust in the inclination or capacity of work teams to supervisethemselves in ways that are consistent with managerial objectives. This, in turn,

may reflect the fact that ostensibly ‘self-managing’ teams can be reluctant to adopt

managerial perspectives or align with managerial values (Ezzamel and Willmott,

1998; McKinlay and Taylor, 1996; Pollert, 1996). It may also reflect, if not the

metaphysical pathos of a belief in the inevitability of hierarchy, then an enduring

‘faith in supervision’ as a guarantor of levels of effort and standards of work

(Pfeffer et al., 1998).

Qualitative evidence, in the form of unprompted elaborations by survey infor-

mants, hinted at just such managerial perceptions. Interspersed with lip-service to

the popular rhetoric of ‘empowering our staff ’ and managing ‘with a light touch’,

were recurring references to a need to ‘maintain discipline’, ‘make sure that staff

do not act negligently’, ‘ensure that people are working efficiently’ and for ‘some-

body [having] to be chief ’, and staff who ‘don’t need managing but [they] need

organizing’.

These remarks suggest a deep-seated assumption on the part of senior man-

agers that teams have neither the ability nor inclination to think or act ‘like man-

agers’ or to adopt managerial priorities because such a disposition is thought toderive more from being part of ‘management’ as an organizational stratum than

from being part of ‘management’ as a process. Where a discontinuous authority

system is overlain by status divisions, this conviction takes on an air of self-fulfill-

ing prophecy. It is compounded by the tenacity with which, despite claims to have

‘flattened’ and ‘loosened’ their organizations, senior managers cling to hierarchies

as guarantors of order and security (Leavitt, 2003) and to the bureaucratic prin-

ciples of individual responsibility and accountability as ways of identifying failure,

apportioning blame and, hence, exercising control. In such discursive milieux, therole of managers, including FLMs, is seen as primarily preventive and, hence,

supervisory.

The result is that the FLM role retains a supervisory core, one that not only

endures but has, in some cases, been strengthened by developments inside and

498 C. Hales



29/36

outside organizations. One instance of this are small organizations where day-to-

day supervision has been delegated from senior to first-line managers or supervi-

sory controls have been instigated with a FLM as focal point, in response to a ‘crisis

of growth’ (Greiner, 1972) – senior management overload, unfocused or inappro-

priate activities, loss of co-ordination and a weakening of controls over expendi-ture of effort and resources – that has arisen from a greater volume and complexity

of activity, coupled with a greater number and diversity of employees. In some

organizations, this means the creation of a FLM position where none has previously

existed.

The role [Logistics Manager: FLM] is new in the last two years. The business

has grown and we had to have someone to look after installations and ordering

because tasks were being left undone. (Director, Commercial Equipment Instal-lation Company)

The job of Office Manager [FLM] didn’t exist before April 2001. The Partners

were overburdened by management and didn’t have enough time for legal work

and we had able people who could take some of this responsibility. (Senior

Partner, Solicitors)

Another scenario for an intensification, rather than dilution or replacement, of the

supervisory core of the FLM role is where organizations are obliged to comply

with an increasing intensity of external regulations. These are either voluntarily-

adopted procedures linked to the award of some form of external certification,

such as ISO 9000, or externally-imposed regulations, relating to workplaces in

general or the operating practices of specific sectors (e.g. education/child-care,

health, financial services). In order to ensure compliance with these regulations, a

shadow system of internal regulation is instituted and the focal point for monitor-

ing this is the FLM.

It’s all more legal now with Health and Safety . . . the Sales Office Managers

[FLMs] have to be much more aware of best practice. (General Manager, Estate

Agents)

This is now a highly regulated industry . . . We had to create the job of Com-

pliance Manager [FLM] because of pressure to make sure we comply with all

the regulations . . . they [FLMs] have responsibility for making sure everyone

does it right by checking and monitoring. It’s all very formal. (Director, Inde-pendent Financial Advisors)

With more compensation claims and government policy, the Patient’s Charter,

wanting more openness and transparency, there is much more risk management,




30/36

more emphasis in the job [Ward Sister: FLM] on being risk averse . . . (Direc-

tor of Corporate Development, Cardiothoracic Centre, NHS Trust Hospital)

There are two rather different circumstances where FLMs’ responsibilities, author-

ity and accountability extend beyond performance-oriented supervision into man-agement – one indicative of continuity, the other of change, but neither indicative

of deliberate, planned decentralization of business management responsibilities.

As has always been the case, some de facto ‘FLMs’ in small organizations are owner-

managers who are unable to delegate routine supervision because the organiza-

tion is too small to support an additional layer of management; business

management is their primary role.

Elsewhere, however, some FLMs – particularly section, site or project managers

of white-collar/professional employees in larger service organizations – haveacquired business management and HR responsibilities. They have done so by being

the point around which former middle management responsibilities have coalesced

as a result of a de facto re-division of managerial labour. This, in turn, has been a

crisis response to the contradiction between, on the one hand, perceived external

pressures to reduce costs whilst satisfying more demanding customers/clients, and,

on the other hand, a reduced number of middle managers to handle these

pressures.

After merging with [Other Bank] we had to cut costs and be more profit driven

and the level above Team Leader [FLM], which was more a department

manager, was stripped out. We now expect the Team Leaders to do a lot more.

(HR Manager, Retail Bank)

It has all become much more competitive in the last couple of years: our store

would be ‘named and shamed’ if we were bottom of our cluster of 13 stores.

Store Managers [FLMs] have always had responsibility for budgets but now that

the Area Manager job has gone, there is actual accountability – they get thesack if they don’t achieve. But there’s actually not a lot they can do to affect the

business. (Satellite Manager, Toy Retailer)

A number of other pieces of evidence from the survey point to this. In 55 per cent

of medium and large organizations, the main cause of change in the FLM role

was cited as being a sharper focus on business performance in the face of increased

competition and on meeting customer needs at a time of changing expectations.

In 12 per cent of these organizations, the level of management immediately abovethat of FLM had been removed in the previous five years and although there are

no data from the survey on this, it might be assumed, on the basis of other evi-

dence (Capelli et al., 1997) that, over a longer period, this had been more wide-

spread. In 33 per cent of medium and larger organizations there had been a

500 C. Hales



31/36

transfer of tasks and responsibilities from middle to first-line managers, with the

FLM role expanded as a consequence. Put simply, in some organizations, there

was more ‘middle management’ work to be done than there were surviving middle

managers to do it. This confirms the findings of other studies that have docu-

mented a reduction in the number, and an intensification of the work of, middlemanagers (Scarbrough and Burrell, 1996; Thomas and Dunkerley, 1999; Vouzas

et al., 1997).

However, for FLMs to have acquired, largely by default, responsibility for the

administration of a unit or for m

First Line Managers

Documents

Transcript of First Line Managers