Extent and impact of ‘new’ forms of managerial work among first-line managers:

Full report of research activities and results

Background

There is some debate about how far and in what ways the first-line manager (hereafter, FLM)

role - conventionally defined as those occupying the lowest level of the management hierarchy,

to whom non-managerial employees report - is changing, away from routine supervision and

towards broader, more strategic managerial responsibilities. This debate is most clearly

exemplified in the contrast between the findings of empirical studies of industrial supervisors

and recent claims in the popular management literature.

From ‘classic’ studies of the industrial supervisor1, a broadly consistent, detailed picture

emerged of a role that was primarily concerned with planning, scheduling, allocating and

monitoring work; checking equipment; overseeing the introduction of new work methods;

dealing with unforeseen problems; maintaining discipline; handling disputes; training;

counselling; record-keeping and assisting with operational work. These tasks were often

undertaken in circumstances of considerable ambiguity: disparity between accountability and

limited authority; a circumscribed role but open-ended demands made by the complexities of

work; nugatory involvement in organisational decision-making; and chronic role conflict

arising from divergent expectations of more senior managers and workers between whom the

hapless ‘man (sic) in the middle’ was caught.

Subsequent studies suggest that, despite claims or attempts to re-orient the role, it has proved

remarkably stable. Studies in the 1980s showed that it was still primarily concerned with

routine task allocation, instructing subordinates, monitoring work pace and intensity and

enjoyed little involvement in strategic decisions2. Even by the 1990s, there was little evidence

of significant change. Workplace surveys3 showed that direct supervision remained a pervasive

form of control that emphasised task allocation, effort and quality. A series of case-based

studies of manufacturing plants4 detected an ‘underlying thrust’ to change the FLM role to that

of ‘mini-manager’ of a work area, with more responsibility for general administration, quality

and people management, as well as greater authority to take decisions but cautioned that this

often constituted little more than re-titling, ‘aspiration’ or ‘rhetoric’, in that the core of the role

remained focused on labour control, day-to-day operations and disturbance handling.

These studies, therefore, tend to support the conclusion that ‘the death of the supervisor has

been greatly exaggerated’5 However, this conclusion may be an artefact of focusing on

industrial supervisors in large manufacturing plants and may not apply to FLMs of white collar,

technical or professional workers in service or public sector organisations or to FLMs in

smaller establishments.

In parts of the popular management literature, the ‘death of the supervisor’ is confidently

pronounced and not much mourned. From the 1980s onwards, there has been an insistence that

direct supervisory control is inappropriate for new forms of organisation, given that radical

changes in managerial work6 are predicated on an equally radical shift in organisational forms

from bureaucratic hierarchies to flatter post-bureaucratic forms, a shift necessitated by

increasingly ‘turbulent’ organisational environments7.

Where explicit claims are made about the impact of these changes on the FLM role, they range

from speculative deductions from trends through generalisations from individual cases to

unsubstantiated assertion and prescription. Changes to the FLM role are seen as stemming,

variously, from the spread of HRM and participative forms of management concerned to secure

‘high performance’ through commitment8; flattened hierarchies9; designation of ever-smaller

organisational units as cost- or profit-centres10 and the spread of team-working 11, with

implications for the ‘new’ competencies required by FLMs12. Other contributions either have an

uncertain empirical foundation or are unashamedly prescriptive13.

In these claims, two broad themes can be identified. The first is that, with the spread of self-

managing teams, 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 assistance and advice; train, develop and coach team members; brief teams and

communicate business objectives; inspire and motivate team members; co-ordinate people,

processes, materials and equipment and liaise with other teams14.

The second theme suggests that instead of, or as well as, losing their routine supervisory

functions downwards to work teams, FLMs are acquiring broader managerial functions from

above. As the result of a conscious decentralisation of managerial responsibility to smaller

business units, FLMs acquire erstwhile middle management functions and become ‘mini-

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

of the FLM consequently emphasise: meeting wider business objectives; setting and managing

budgets; controlling costs; recruiting, selecting, appraising and training staff; and monitoring

quality standards15

For all this implicit debate, what has happened to the FLM role in UK work organisations

generally, rather than what has happened in specific sectors or what is supposed, or ought, to

have happened, remains open to question. In general terms:

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

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

or business unit manager role? If so, how widespread is this and where, specifically, has it

occurred?

• What impact, if any, have changes in the nature of the role had on FLM perceptions of their

role and on FLM behaviour?

Objectives

The study reported here sought to answer these questions by investigating :

• The extent to which the FLM role is defined in traditional supervisory terms or in terms of

newer roles, such as the team-leader or business unit manager?

• How different types of FLM themselves define their role

• How different types of FLM carry out their role

More specifically, the study sought to show

• The extent to which traditional supervisory responsibilities, areas of authority, accountability

and involvement were still central to the FLM role and under what conditions they were

likely to be found

• The extent to which other responsibilities, authority and accountability form part of the FLM

role and, if so, where? Do these supplant or supplement the role of supervision?

• The extent to which FLMs perceptions of their role and FLM behaviour conform to, or

diverge from, these role definitions.

Methods

To answer these questions, a two-stage study was conducted: a survey designed to establish

how the FLM role was currently defined and perceived to have changed across a range of

organisations, followed by case studies designed to examine particular types of FLM role

identified in the survey stage in terms of how these roles were defined and how they were

carried out.

A questionnaire survey of key informants in 135 organisations in London and the South East

was conducted to provide a detailed contemporary snapshot of how the FLM role was defined

organisationally in terms of tasks/responsibilities, authority, accountability, involvement in

decision-making and contact patterns; the demographic characteristics, levels of training and

qualifications of FLMs; and perceptions of how and why the FLM role had changed, if at all.

A sample survey research design, with the questionnaire administered face-to-face by a

member of the research team, was adopted to reconcile considerations of both reliability and

validity. It was necessary to have a sufficiently large sample to generate reliable measures of

the prevalence, as well as the nature, of different FLM functions and to make meaningful

comparisons among sub-samples. However, a postal survey was ruled out because the detailed

data to be collected required a high level of explanation and routing and because postal

questionnaires have low response rates and offer few guarantees about how and by whom

responses are given. Face-to-face interviews by one of the research team ensured the identity of

the informant; guaranteed full coverage, completion and return and enabled open-ended

questions to be fully probed. In practice, because interviews were conducted face-to-face, most

became, in effect, semi-structured interviews in which informants offered considerable

unsolicited elaboration, explanation and discussion of responses. This richness of data meant

that the survey findings were given greater emphasis in the study than was originally intended.

Organisations were sampled randomly from employer databases in Westminster, Cambridge

and Guildford. These locations were chosen for practical reasons and because they have a

predominance of high-tech service organisations where new forms of organisation and new

forms of FLM role were likely to be found, permitting claims about ‘new’ FLM roles to be

tested on their strongest ground. Sampled organisations were converted into responses through

contact letters to senior managers followed by telephone calls to negotiate and arrange

interviews. 271 organisations were contacted, yielding 135 successfully completed interviews

with informants of organisations that varied widely by size, industrial sector and ownership

(See Annex 3: Table 1). Compared with postal surveys, the response rate of 50% was good,

although organisations that did not co-operate might have been different in significant ways

from those that did. Pressure of work, being over-burdened with requests for data from

elsewhere and suspicion of research were all given as reasons for non-co-operation with the

research - when informants could be contacted to give a reason.. Even organisations willing to

co-operate required an average of four telephone calls before an interview could be scheduled.

However, unsolicited observations about the fate of postal questionnaires (binned, completed

randomly, given to the temp to complete) confirmed the decision to administer the

questionnaire face-to-face.

Data were obtained from key informants - those in the organisation deemed sufficiently

knowledgeable about the FLM role - who, in practice, were a mixture of senior managers,

HR/personnel managers, or the FLM’s immediate line manager. The content of the

questionnaire, was developed out of the review of the extant literature and piloted among a

group of 10 HR/personnel managers in December 2001. The final, amended version was

designed for data entry and processing using Sphinx Survey software. Fieldwork took place

between January and June 2002.

From analysis of the survey findings, four types of FLM role were identified: ‘Supervisors’,

‘Performance Managers’, ‘Client Service Managers’ and ‘Budget Holders’. The intention was to

examine one example of each of these types through detailed case studies in which how the role

was defined by the expectations of members of the FLM’s role set and how FLMs themselves

defined their role would be investigated through focus interviews centred on the ‘managerial

wheel’ and how FLMs carried out their role would be investigated through structured

observation. Informants in the survey stage were asked whether they would be willing to

participate in the case-study stage and, as allowed for in the funding of the study, three

organisations where the FLM role corresponded to the Supervisor, Performance Manager and

Customer Service Manager were approached for access.

Problems with access restricted the case study data that could be collected. Only two case

studies could be conducted in the remaining period of the research grant. One organisation

gave a firm undertaking in June 2002 to allow access starting in September 2002. Two other

organisations were then scheduled for study in the spring of 2003 to avoid overlap. However,

re-organisation and retirements in the first organisation meant that, despite protracted

negotiations, access was eventually but belatedly denied. A replacement organisation was

identified but, by then, fieldwork on the other two case organisations had begun. (Fieldwork

with the replacement organisation began after the end of the grant period and is being

conducted without funding)

The two organisations that did grant access were generous with background material and with

interview access. Neither, however, would allow activity sampling of FLMs at work, as was

envisaged at the outset of the project, because of pressure of work. One organisation permitted

observation of the general operation of units, including the activities of the FLM, over the

course of eight interview days, whilst the other organisation allowed the researcher to shadow

the FLM on the day that they were being interviewed and to observe the work of the section on

other interview days.

The case-studies reported below are based on the following :

Case-study organisation 1 (‘Indorg’): 16 focus interviews (all senior managers, all FLMs and

50% of subordinates) of 1 hour, 7 days observation plus documentary evidence

Case-study organisation 2 (‘CHIC’): 15 focus interviews (both senior managers, all FLMs and

50% of subordinates) of 1 hour, 8 days observation plus documentary evidence

Results

A. SURVEY FINDINGS

FLMs, Responsibilities, Authority and Accountability

FLMs in most organisations in the sample were designated managers - of a department,

function or unit - whilst others were either ‘team-leaders’ or senior professionals. Nominally,

therefore, they occupied a managerial rather than a supervisory role. They were diverse in terms

of age, gender and the subordinate characteristics: most were aged 26-45; in a third of

organisations all or most FLMs were female; and FLMs managed groups of mixed gender and

skill in 28% and 40% of organisations respectively.

Diversity in the title and occupants of the FLM role contrasted with uniformity in the substance

of the role itself. The FLM role was still part of a chain of command, with narrow spans of

control (less than ten in 70% of organisations) and predominantly vertical contacts, with senior

line managers or the immediate work group, rather than lateral or external contacts.

At the core of the FLM role was responsibility for ‘performance-oriented supervision’, around

which was a penumbra of tasks/responsibilities relating to stewardship of a work area,

translating strategy into operations, operational management and business management of a

unit of diminishing degrees of prevalence and importance (see Annex 3: Table 2)

Part of the FLM role in virtually all organisations and an important part in at least three-

quarters was routine supervision: 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 which were added team leader responsibilities of:

coaching and co-ordinating the team. In most organisations, responsibility for ‘overseeing’

work was framed by responsibility for managing performance: monitoring quality; planning,

reviewing and reporting performance; dealing with work and customer problems; and

implementing improvements. Only in a few organisations was responsibility for performance

devolved to, or even shared with, work teams. Most FLMs were also expected to exercise

stewardship of equipment, premises and people.

FLM roles were more clearly differentiated by other responsibilities. Translating strategy into

operations - communicating organisational objectives, substituting for staff, allocating

equipment, dealing with supplier problems and controlling costs - formed part of the FLM role

in about three-quarters of organisations but an important part in about half. It was more

prevalent in organisations where the divide between strategy and operations was greater, there

were strong cost pressures or where there were unforeseen operating contingencies.

In six organisations out of ten, FLMs had some operational management responsibility for a

unit in terms of financial responsibility - managing budgets and stock levels - and responsibility

for people management - conducting appraisals and training, giving verbal warnings and

allocating staff to shifts - but this was only important in one third to one half. In a minority of

organisations, business management responsibilities - co-ordinating two or more teams, setting

as well as managing a budget, keeping personnel records and disciplining staff - were added to

the FLM role. Usually, these responsibilities lay with middle managers or with HR/personnel

specialists. There were, however, two very different kinds of operational or business unit

manager FLM. Some were FLMs in larger organisations who had acquired broader managerial

responsibilities but others were owner-managers of small businesses who, in addition to

running the business were also, in effect, the FLM.

In 90% of organisations in the sample, FLMs occupied the first rung on a discontinuous system

of authority in which managers, not workers, took decisions about the conduct of work.

Commonly, FLM jurisdiction was over routine matters that ensured operational continuity and

many FLMs could take these decisions alone. Although FLMs in about two-thirds of

organisations could also take decisions over resources these were constrained by having to be

made within strict limits and in consultation with more senior managers. Otherwise, senior

managers or specialist departments took these decisions, as was the case in the majority of

organisations with respect to wider HR decisions. (see Annex 3: Table 3)

In 90% of organisations, FLMs were the first level in a vertical system of individual

accountability where managers, not workers, were responsible for performance. The core area

of accountability, attaching to the FLM role in most organisations, was for operational

performance outcomes, such as quality and efficiency. FLMs in the majority of organisations

were also held accountable for broader performance metrics relating to heath and safety,

expenditure, training needs and absences. Where FLMs were jointly accountable for such

outcomes it was always with a more senior manager or specialist department not the work

group.

Thus, a disparity between FLM accountability and authority was evident, with FLMs not given

the authority to determine the outcomes for which they were held to account. In half of the

organisations, FLMs were accountable for efficiency but had no authority over staffing levels;

in a fifth, FLMs were accountable for efficiency, output and quality but had no authority over

work methods. Further, although in over 80% of organisations FLMs were frequently consulted

over routine operational matters, they were consulted less frequently over strategic product,

staffing and budget issues (see Annex: Table 3)

Perceived Changes in the FLM Role

In most organisations, FLMs role had recently acquired additional responsibilities. In nearly

half, however, this involved strengthening the supervisory core in that these new

responsibilities related to planning and monitoring work and in one organisation in ten, FLMs

had acquired more direct operational work. However, in the quarter of organisations where

FLMs were ‘unit managers’, the FLM role had been extended into business responsibilities such

as sales/marketing or financial management. In a fifth of organisations, the FLM role involved

greater use of I.T. In 43% of organisations, the FLM role had also been re-focused by the loss

of some supervisory responsibilities, such as working alongside staff, paperwork and day-to-

day staff administration, or, in a few exceptional cases, the loss of more managerial tasks, such

as managing a budget. Taken together, these findings indicate substantive changes in the

specifics of the FLM role. However, in 15% of organisations, the role had not changed at all

and even where change had occurred, it was not in a consistent direction. The net effect,

however, was that in about 40% of organisations, FLMs had more responsibilities - usually in

terms of day-to-day people management - than before.

Internal and external factors were cited as driving these changes. The most often cited internal

factors were greater pre-occupation with performance, customer service or controls and

procedures. The triggers for such changes were usually a change of ownership/management (in

larger organisations) or growth in the organisation’s activities (in the case of smaller

organisations) and, to a lesser extent, adoption of performance standards, such as ISO 9000 or

Investors in People. But a quarter of organisations had undergone no recent internal changes

that had impacted on FLMs. The perceived external causes of change were changing

customer/client demands, increased regulation of various kinds and, most commonly, increased

competition. However, the situation was not one of endemic turbulence: 40% of informants

could not identify any external pressure that had impacted on the FLM role (see Annex 3: Table

4)

FLM Training, Qualifications and Attributes

In most organisations (87%), FLMs’ levels of technical training were as high, or higher, than

those whom they were managing. In 49% of the organisations, at least some FLMs were

graduates, but only in a third (33%) were most graduates. The FLM job was not a graduate-

entry position: rather graduates drifted into FLM positions by virtue of seniority in work team.

Attributes considered to be the most important for FLMs reflected the tasks and responsibilities

attaching to the FLM role discussed above: ‘a good motivator’ (74%), ‘good organisational

skills’ (62%) and, to a lesser extent, ‘highly skilled in the work being done’ (40%), ‘sympathetic

with the aims of the organisation’ (39%), ‘well respected by subordinates’ (37%) and ‘a strategic

orientation/business-mindedness’ (30%).

61% of organisations provided management/supervisory training to FLMs, and a further 9%

appointed FLMs who had already received management training. but in 29% of organisations,

FLMs had no management/supervisory training of any kind and training was rarely directed

directed at any named awards.

One FLM Role or Many?

More detailed analysis of the data, using principal components, cluster analysis and qualitative

identification of sub-samples was carried out to see whether there was a pattern to the variations

that had been identified. The analysis revealed four variations on the core FLM function of

supervision:

1. ‘Supervisors’ (32% of sample). The defining characteristic of this type was the exclusive

emphasis given to the traditional ‘supervisory’ function. Supervisors had some involvement in

operational decisions but were less likely to be involved in budget decisions and had relatively

little authority over financial or HR matters. They were jointly accountable, with a more senior

manager, for quality, efficiency and pace of work. Their responsibilities focused primarily on

directing and co-ordinating the work of a single team or work-group and dealing with

operational or customer/client-related problems. This meant that their main contacts were

internal and vertical, with superiors and subordinates.

2. ‘Performance managers’ (37% of sample). In addition to supervision, the distinctive

characteristic of this type was sole accountability for work performance, together with a work

pattern that emphasised setting, monitoring, reporting and taking action to meet efficiency and

quality performance targets. They had to solve a wide range of immediate problems relating to

customers/clients, work operations and premises/equipment and this required predominantly

internal, vertical contacts, with superiors and subordinates. Some had moderate levels of

authority over HR matters but a third had no HR authority and limited involvement in

organisational decisions.

3. ‘Budget holders’ (23% of sample). In addition to supervision, their key responsibility was

controlling costs and managing a budget that they had some involvement in setting, over which

they had spending authority and for which they were accountable. They were involved in

organisational decisions and had authority, often sole authority, over budgets and staffing.

Their responsibilities emphasised managing a budget, controlling costs, managing two or more

teams of workers, focusing on business objectives and liaising both inside and outside the

organisation. They had to deal with a comparatively wide range of problems relating to

premises, operations and clients, which meant less direct involvement in operational work.

4. ‘Client service managers’ (17% of sample). As well as supervision, the defining

characteristic of this type was the emphasis on customer/client liaison and troubleshooting and

carrying out technical work. As ‘experts’ in the work, they were consulted about work methods,

had authority to deal with technical problems and were accountable for service quality. There

were two distinct sub-types: managers responsible for customer service and solving operational

and customer-related problems who had no spending authority but had some HR authority and

were consulted on strategic decisions as well as operational matters; and senior professionals,

responsible for client service and client problems, who had relatively little authority over either

expenditure or HR matters and were not consulted over strategic issues. As well as working

alongside staff, both types were expected to deal with client/customer problems and this

required more external contacts.

B. CASE STUDY FINDINGS

Case Study 1: ‘Customer Service Managers’: FLMs of Retail Operations in the Private

Sector

CHIC is a British-owned business concerned with design, production, wholesale and retail, of

up-market women’s fashions. The retail branch of the business comprised one store and four

‘concessions’ in department stores and employed approximately 100 people, 20 in design and

administration, 80 in distribution and sales. The CHIC brand is targeted at affluent women in

their 30s and 40s with ‘money to invest’ in their appearance but a need for guidance on how to

achieve this and emphasises classic design, contemporary style and ‘fabric interest’ coupled

with ‘bespoke’ service. 70% of sales come through a ‘VIP list’ of loyal customers for whom

special previews, collection launches and personal shopping evenings are staged.

FLMs in CHIC are the retail outlet managers, reporting to two senior managers at Head Office,

responsible, respectively, for HR/Personnel and Merchandising. With one exception, all are

women graduates in their late 20s/early 30s, with previous retail experience. Each outlet has a

staff of five, all women – four ‘Sales Consultants’, full and part-time, and one senior Sales

Consultant/Assistant Manager who deputises for the FLM. A key element of the work of retail

staff is to promote the brand by wearing items from the collection, for which they obtain a

clothing allowance.

The company is centralised, with decisions relating to product design, production, pricing,

marketing and merchandising taken at head office. Uniform standards relating to

presentation/display of merchandise, customer service and staff conduct are imposed top-down

and embodied in operating procedures, including those built into point-of-sale technology.

Retail outlets have fixed budgets, imposed by head office, for all running costs, of which

staffing costs are the key element.

The role of the FLM is to run a retail unit and, in doing so, promote sales by managing

customer service, whilst keeping costs, particularly staffing costs, to a minimum. They have

sole formal authority over and are consulted on changes to operational routines, have joint

authority (with HR) over staffing, but no authority over, and no involvement in decisions about,

budgets or store infrastructure. Thus, they can influence how resources, particularly human

resources, in the unit are deployed on a day-to-day basis by influencing staff recruitment,

appraisal and reward, but have no say over the level of resources with which they operate.

Accountability for store operations and performance is shared with head office managers.

There is general agreement among head office managers, unit sales staff and the FLMs

themselves about the broad parameters of the FLM role: managing staff, performance,

customers, stock, money and premises. However, a gulf between strategy and operations and a

high level of centralisation creates structural constraints and contradictions that are reflected in

divergent expectations about what these responsibilities entail and how they might best be

carried out

The major contradiction is that FLMs are obliged to project and sell a brand over which they

themselves have very little influence. With all design, fabric, production, marketing,

merchandising, equipment and budgeting decisions taken centrally, with no input from store

level staff, the only influence that FLMs have over revenues are sales that can be generated

through interaction with customers who choose to enter the store, whilst the only influence they

can have over costs is through manipulating the deployment of staff to ensure that staffing

levels are sufficient to meet necessary service levels but not excessive.

FLMs are subject to the conflicting strategic expectations of head office managers and

operational expectations of sales staff, with the former expecting the FLM to manage the store

as a business and the latter expecting them to manage the store as a workplace. Thus, for head

office managers, ‘managing staff’ at store level means direct supervision: planning, directing

and monitoring work, and maintaining ‘momentum’ by keeping staff busy. Sales staff,

however, expect the FLM to facilitate, rather than oversee, their work by balancing work-load,

organising rotas fairly and appropriately, solving problems, especially over customer service or

sales, keeping them informed of new fashion collections and recognising their efforts. Head

office managers expect discipline, in the sense of ensuring that sales staff dress and conduct

themselves in ways that align with the CHIC brand. Sales staff, many of whom are part-time or

temporary, do not identify strongly with the CHIC brand and resist attempts to mould their

appearance and identity.

A similar divergence occurs over staff training. Senior managers emphasise correctional

coaching directed at interaction with customers, expecting the FLM to monitor sales

interactions and to intervene and correct behaviour that does not match the style of customer

service consistent with the CHIC brand. In contrast, sales staff look to the FLM for guidance

on and assistance with customer service and for providing them with a level of product

knowledge and understanding of sales techniques to enable them to deal effectively with

customers.

Head office managers expect FLMs actively to manage store. They expect the FLM to meet

sales targets, monitor store performance relative to targets and take steps to influence sales

performance. Sales staff, however, focus primarily on the day-to-day mechanics of store

operation without reference to broader business objectives: CHIC is where they work, not a

business that they can influence. Similarly, head office managers emphasise the importance of

budgets and minimising costs at store level, which, in practice means minimising staff costs by

keeping staffing levels to the necessary minimum. This contrasts with sales staff expectations

that managing staff hours should meet their need for predictable work and fair pay.

There are divergent expectations about how far the FLM should be directly involved in sales

and merchandising. Head office managers expect the FLM is to ‘sell the clothes’ and this means

direct involvement with customers. Sales staff, however, perceive this as their job and expect

the FLM instead to assist them in making a sale, by giving additional advice or dealing with

difficult customers. When it comes to managing stock and premises, however, head office

managers, because of their emphasis on performance, expect FLMs to deal with stock

replenishment and supply problems but do not expect FLMs be involved in the quotidian

activities of handling deliveries, stock counts and keeping the store clean and tidy. Sales staff,

however, expect the FLM to ‘get their hands dirty’ in this way.

FLMs in CHIC, therefore, confront tensions in their role: supervise intrusively or facilitate;

focus staff management on productivity and cost control or maintaining a stable work

environment; shape the appearance and conduct of staff through interventionist coaching and

training or give staff the product knowledge and sales skills to do the job themselves; engage

directly in store activities such as customer service, stock control and deliveries or manage and

assist staff who are doing these; passively monitor or actively manage store performance

through sales and cost controls.

FLMs negotiate these tensions by defining their role in particular ways. Central to this is the

perception that whilst CHIC may be their employer, it is not ‘their’ business in the sense that

they can influence what it does, how it operates or how it performs as a business. They see

sales as primarily determined by the number of customers enticed into the store and cost levels

as something which they can only influence by juggling staff levels. This perception of being

in the company but not of it colours other perceptions. They define ‘performance management’

mainly in terms of reporting performance and see meeting performance targets as more a

matter of luck – the happy consequence of store location and attractive products – than their

intervention. They emphasise managing stores in the way that head office dictates, rather than

in whatever way is necessary to meet targets; they emphasise process over outcomes. Thus, in

managing staff, they emphasise the need to keep staff busy and use corrective coaching to

ensure that sales staff serve customers in the ‘proper’ way. ‘Discipline’ is ensuring that sales

staff adhere to procedures and standards of behaviour, rather than expressing the brand in their

appearance and behaviour.

However, application of company procedures and standards is tempered by pressure from sales

staff to do their job without interference. Consequently, FLMs eschew interventionist

supervision and see their role as managing by exception rather than constantly monitoring what

staff are doing. It also means that they do not see their job as getting directly involved in the

more mundane tasks of counting stock, taking deliveries and cleaning the store. They see staff

costs as the only performance variable they can manipulate and emphasise the importance of

juggling short-term staffing levels. They see the role that they play in customer service as

discontinuous and by exception – not to be salespeople but to step in to correct service

encounters that are problematic, deal with complaints and be involved in the more exceptional

selling events. Overall, they negotiate a modus operandi of the store that subtly blends formal

compliance with procedures, selective informal attention to staff needs and their own

aspirations.

What these perceptions mean for how FLMs go about their job is that they choose to

concentrate on certain aspects, whilst delegating others. They reserve the tasks of reporting

performance and managing takings to themselves as ‘their’ job. They engage in exceptional

selling events such as VIP evenings. They intervene in or assist with aspects of customer

service defensively - to prevent or correct deviation from service ‘standards’ - and they monitor

work to ensure compliance with procedures. They negotiate rotas to reconcile the need to

minimise staff costs with staff needs for predictable work. And they oversee, rather than

directly engage in, the routines of store operation.

In short, whilst the formal role of FLM in CHIC is selling and managing business performance

through customer service, in practice, they oversee a process-driven operation, intervening only

where they can and where they choose.

Case Study 2: ‘Performance Managers’: FLMs of Professional Knowledge Workers in the

Public Sector

Indorg is an independent public body, with a budget of £4.5m and employing 90 people

concerned with supervision and review of involving members of the public and other

government departments and is under pressure to deliver satisfactory resolution of cases within

specific time targets. The organisation comprises a Chair, a senior management team of three

(one line and two staff), five FLMs and 40 caseworkers, together with a 20 independent

‘Associates’ who liaise with external stakeholders.

Caseworkers, who are graduates with professional qualifications and mainly women, are

organised into teams of eight, each responsible for particular types of casework and headed by a

FLM, designated as ‘team-leader’. FLMs are mainly graduates, aged between 36 and 45, and are

broadly responsible for supervising and managing the performance of caseworkers, as well as

being responsible for an aspect of the whole casework operation, such as equipment or

specialist training. Associates are the public face of Indorg, who sign-off and take public

responsibility for casework outcomes.

The FLM role displays many of the classic conflicts and contradictions of the supervisor role,

but sharpened by the way in which supervision is framed by performance management and

given a particular character by application to professional knowledge work.

As the first link in the (albeit short) hierarchical chain between senior managers and

caseworkers, FLMs are prone to the classic problem of being the ‘man/woman in the middle’

and the role conflict that flows from this. From above, they are expected to support, transmit

and meet organisational policy and objectives, particularly performance targets, set by senior

managers, whilst from below, they are expected to represent caseworker concerns about the

practicalities of policy implementation and problems with achieving targets. This translates into

two substantive conflicts of expectation and tensions in the role. Firstly, there is conflict

between senior managers’ expectations that they not merely monitor and report performance

but pro-actively diagnose and remedy under-performance and caseworker expectations that

they will understand their problems in meeting difficult targets, appreciate the need to balance

quantity and quality of work and, hence, defend them against senior managers. Secondly, there

are divergent expectations over the FLM as ‘people manager’. Senior managers see the purpose

of routine ‘people management’ and specific HR activities as enhancing caseworker

productivity and performance: leadership, team-building and human relations are ways of

tapping into caseworker motivations and improving morale; consultation, appraisal and

identifying training needs are ways of addressing problems with productivity; counselling,

training, coaching and development are ways of remedying under-performance; and

‘involvement’ is a way of exposing caseworkers to a management perspective. Caseworkers,

however, see people management and HR as mechanisms for resisting onerous performance

demands or of realising their own needs at work. For them, team building is to equalise work-

loads; counselling, consultation, involvement and appraisal are to make line managers aware of

the pressures and problems of case-; and training and development are vehicles for personal

development.

Tensions over quality and quantity are exacerbated by the fact that caseworkers have, in effect,

another manager - the Associate as ‘internal customer’. Whilst the FLMs’ concern is primarily

with meeting performance targets set by senior management and hence with quantity of

casework output, the Associates’ priority is with resolution of cases in ways that satisfy external

parties and, hence, with the quality of casework output, reflected in thorough treatment and

robust conclusions. The FLM has to manage the tension between the internal efficiency of case-

work processes and the external effectiveness of case-work outcomes as well as conflicting

expectations about how far, and in what way, to intercede in the caseworker-Associate

relationship. This is particularly difficult to resolve because there is no level in the organisation

where the interests and views of Associates and caseworkers can be formally arbitrated.

FLMs are managing highly educated, professional caseworkers employed at a ‘management’

job grade who a degree of professional autonomy and expect to carry out work to high

professional standards, rather than churn out cases to meet targets. This is exacerbated by low

levels of caseworker morale, brought about by dissatisfaction with job content - increasingly

repetitive but pressurised work - and dissatisfaction with job context, through the uncertainty

about future job security if Indorg is re-organised. This amplifies divergent expectations, not

only about casework quality or quantity and whether the FLM should manage the caseworker-

Associate relationship but also whether FLMs should manage in an interventionist, directive

way or a hands-off, facilitative way and whether they should be directly involved in casework.

Experience in casework gives the FLM enhanced credibility and enables them to manage more

effectively by giving help and advice, discriminate between different performance problems

and to represent the views of caseworkers to senior managers. On the other hand, it makes

senior managers suspicious of FLM loyalties and their commitment to driving through senior

management priorities over targets.

The nature of casework and the system of performance creates divergent expectation about

whether the FLM should manage caseworkers as individuals or teams. Senior managers,

focused on performance accountability and the importance of identifying and dealing with

under-performers, emphasise the former; caseworkers, however, emphasise teamwork as a

source of intrinsic reward and as a way of managing workflow more effectively by sharing out

the casework load within and across teams and by covering for absent colleagues.

The FLM role in Indorg is also beset by accountability without authority. FLMs are

accountable for the performance of their casework team but have limited control over what

determines that. They have no formal authority over budgets or staffing numbers, have no

involvement in non-casework related strategic decisions and have no over the exigencies of

casework, such as team composition, staff availability, irregularities in work-flow, the

proportion of complex cases and complications in progressing cases. This, coupled with the

pressure of meeting targets, creates conflicting expectations about the extent to which FLMs

should micro-manage casework and the time FLMs should spend on reactive problem-solving,

as opposed to longer-term innovation. Senior manager expectations that FLMs will be ‘pro-

active’ in implementing work improvements conflict both with caseworkers’ views about how

work should be done and FLMs’ lack of time for strategic thinking.

Central to the FLM response to these conflicting expectations and tensions in their role is the

tactic of diluting and negotiating policy implementation. They define their role in terms of

‘paper compliance’ or ‘short-term compliance’ with targets: concentrating on monitoring and

reporting performance by collating statistics and completing performance returns or juggling,

meeting targets by completing straightforward cases at the expense of larger, more complex

ones or focusing on covering for staff absences. Both tactics avoid attempting to influence

performance by identifying and confronting caseworker under-performance.

FLMs also define their role in such a way as to downplay any role as ‘mouthpiece’ for senior

managers or caseworkers and, instead, emphasise lateral links with other FLMs/casework

teams - links which carry fewer conflicts of interest and expectation. This is reflected in a

relatively high proportion of time spent on inter-team meetings. The ‘quiet life’ that this buys,

however, comes at the price of satisfying neither senior managers who feel that their objectives

could be more effectively prosecuted nor caseworkers who feel that FLMs do not ‘bat for them’.

FLMs also exploit ambiguities in the way that their role is defined by making choices about

both the style and substance of their job, through which they can negotiate the conflicts and

contradictions. One choice is to give greater emphasis to lateral links, rather than vertical links.

Another is to intervene in the caseworker-Associate relationship in order to prevent them from

colluding in emphasising quality considerations. Finally, they choose a wide range of

management styles, from the directive to the laissez-faire, a choice that is driven by an attempt

to reconcile management control over casework performance with the need to allow

caseworker autonomy over work processes.

Discussion of Findings

The survey findings show that performance-oriented supervision remains at the core of

virtually all FLM role but that a penumbra of additional responsibilities has been added to

some, but not all, FLM roles. The reason for this seems to lie in the way in which the FLM role

has been at the confluence of two distinct forces within UK work organisations: on the one

hand, a reluctance to abandon hierarchical, external forms of supervision and, on the other,

attachment of additional responsibilities to the seemingly indispensable FLM role as a result of

a combination of external pressures and a re-division of managerial labour.

Supervision continues to be external, hierarchical and vested in first-line managers rather than

‘empowered’ teams: in only a few organisations were supervisory tasks and accountability

devolved to, or even shared with, empowered workers or self-managing teams. Thus, although

elements of the ‘team-leader’ role have been incorporated into the core of the FLM role, the role

has not become that of detached team leader, facilitating the work of self-managing teams.

Reluctance to devolve supervisory responsibility to work teams appears, from qualitative

evidence from the survey, to stem from a continuing lack of trust, on the part of senior

managers, in the ability or inclination of work teams to act ‘managerially’. There appears to be a

lingering assumption that the proper discharge of ‘management’ responsibilities and a capacity

and inclination to ‘think like a manager’ can only ensue from being part of ‘management’.

Reluctance to engage work teams in the process of management, therefore, flows from the

conviction that members of the team do not identify with ‘management’ objectives and hence

will not, as a matter of course, adopt a ‘managerial’ perspective.

The FLM’s supervisory function has, indeed, been strengthened by internal and external

developments. Firstly, small organisations that have expanded in size and experienced a ‘crisis

of growth’ have responded by instigating additional supervisory controls, with the FLM role,

sometimes newly created, as the focal point for this. Secondly, organisations have been obliged

to comply with an increasing number or intensity of external regulations and the response has

been to create a shadow system of internal regulation to ensure a necessary level of

compliance. Since most regulations apply to operating practices, the focal point for this

regulatory control has been the FLM.

Additional FLM responsibilities seem to flow from the way in which the FLM in larger

organisations has become the fulcrum around which formerly middle management

responsibilities have coalesced as a result of a external pressures and a re-division of

managerial labour. A sharper focus on business performance in the face of increased

competition and changing customer/client expectations has come against the problem that

levels of management above the FLM have been removed. Thus, there has been a delegation of

tasks and responsibilities from middle to first-line managers, with the FLM role expanded to

include responsibility for stewardship, operational management and, exceptionally, business

management of a unit. However, this does not appear to have been a deliberate re-

configuration of the FLM role to that of ‘business manager’ as a result of planned

decentralisation but piecemeal additions to the role as a result of delegation by default.

Thus, the core of the FLM is very similar to what it always was - routine supervision of work

framed by a focus on performance. What the two case studies demonstrate, in different ways, is

the way in which the continuing structural contradictions of the supervisory role, the tensions

between supervision and performance and the conflicting expectations to which these give rise

compel FLMs to construct a way of perceiving and carrying out their role that enables them to

steer a middle course between these conflicting expectations and between these expectations

and their own interests. Although in the two case organisations, FLM roles were formally

constituted as ‘Performance Manager’ and ‘Customer Service Manager’, FLMs themselves

negotiated and constructed a more nuanced perceptual and behavioural version of the role.

Activities

Both the principal investigator and researcher attended and gave papers based on the findings

of the study at the following conferences:

British Academy of Management Conference, Cardiff, September 2001 (one paper)

ESRC Workshop on Managerial Work, Judge Institute of Management, Cambridge, June 2002

(one paper)

Employment Research Unit Annual Conference, Cardiff, September 2003 (two papers)

British Academy of Management Conference, Harrogate, September 2003 (two papers)

In addition, the principal investigator gave a seminar paper at the Centre for Advanced Studies

in Leadership, University of Stockholm (November 2002)

A descriptive report of the survey findings (see below) was sent to all 135 organisations

participating in the survey stage.

A case study report was sent to both organisations participating in the case study stage and

discussions are currently under way with both to see how the implications of the findings can

be taken forward.

Copies of the survey report were also sent to eight organisations that expressed an interest in

the findings, including the Institute of Leadership and Management. Discussions continue with

the latter as to how training and development implications of the findings can be taken forward.

Summary articles based on the survey findings have or will appear in two professional journals,

Edge and Professional Manager.

Outputs

Report

Hales, C. and Knowles, D. (2002) The Role of the First-Line Manager: Survey Report, Centrefor Research on Managerial Behaviour Research Report, Westminster Business School,November

Papers in refereed journals

Hales, C. (2003) ‘Washed Away by a Tide of Empowerment or Anchored in Supervision? TheFate of the Group Leader’, Ledmotiv, (forthcoming, December)

Hales, C. and Knowles, D. (in review) ‘Rooted in Supervision, Branching into Management:Continuity and Change in the Role of First-Line Manager’, Journal of Management Studies

Conference papers

Hales, C. and Knowles, D. (2001) ‘From Supervisors to Team Co-ordinators and BusinessUnit Managers: A Reconfiguration or Re-conceptualisation of the Role of First-line Manager?’,Proceedings of the British Academy of Management Conference, Cardiff Business School,September

Hales, C. and Knowles, D. (2002) ‘Changes in the Role of First-line Managers: FromSupervisors to Team Leaders and Business Unit Managers?’, Proceedings, ESRC Workshop onManagerial Work, Judge Institute of Management, Cambridge, June

Hales, C. and Knowles, D. (2003) ‘What Are First-Line Managers For?’, Proceedings ofRefereed Paper Track, British Academy of Management Conference, ‘Knowledge intoPractice’, Harrogate, 2003 and for future inclusion in British Journal of Management

Knowles, D and Hales, C. (2003)‘Segregated Authority: First-Line Manager Roles in SingleGender Reporting Lines’, Proceedings of British Academy of Management Conference,‘Knowledge into Practice’, Harrogate, September

Hales, C. and Knowles, D. (2003) ‘Anchored in Supervision but Drifting into Management:Continuity and Change in the Role of First-Line Manager’, Proceedings of the EmploymentResearch Unit Annual Conference, ‘The End of Management? Managerial Pasts, Presents andFutures, Cardiff, September. Abstract reprinted in Management Research News, Vol. 26, No.9, pp. 23-24

Knowles, D and Hales, C. (2003 ‘Gendering First-Line Manager Roles’, Proceedings of theEmployment Research Unit Annual Conference, ‘The End of Management? Managerial Pasts,Presents and Futures, Cardiff, September. Abstract reprinted in Management Research News,Vol. 26, No. 9, pp. 31-32

Articles in professional journalsHales, C. and Knowles, D. (2003) ‘Supervisors and ‘SupervisorsPlus’: Continuity and Changein the Role of the First-Line Manager’, Edge, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 12-15

Hales, C. (2003) ‘Continuity and Change in the Role of the First-Line Manager’, Professional

Manager. (forthcoming, December)

Datasets

Data from the survey of FLM role in 135 organisations, in SphinxSurvey format

Transcripts of focus interviews from the two case studies

Impacts

Discussions are currently under way with the two organisations that participated in the case

study stage to see how the implications of the findings can be taken forward.

Discussions also continue with ILM on how training and development implications of the

findings can be taken forward.

Future research priorities

There are two:

a) In the immediate term, it is necessary to conduct two further case studies to examine, in

detail, the two types of FLM role identified in the survey stage that have not yet been

investigated .

b) In the longer term, one clear line of further enquiry would be to examine how far the

common characteristics of the FLM role and the different types of FLM role apply

elsewhere. Some published evidence and discussion with colleagues overseas (for

example, in Sweden) suggests that changes to the FLM role may have been more radical

and widespread than in the UK. A comparative, cross-national survey, using the

instrument developed for the study reported here would be the first step. Funding is

being sought from the EC for this.

ANNEXE 1

Notes

1. Beynon, 1973; Bowey, 1973; Carter, 1986; Child and Partridge, 1982; Dunkerley, 1975;

Fletcher, 1969; Gardner and Whyte, 1945; Guest, 1956; Kerr et al, 1986, Nichols and

Armstrong, 1976; Nichols and Beynon, 1977; Reeves, 1970; Wray, 1949

2. Allan, 1981; Kraut et al, 1989; Pavett and Lau, 1983; Partridge, 1989; Rose et al.,1987

3. Cully et al., 1999; Gallie et. al, 1998, IRRR, 1990

4. Delbridge and Lowe, 1997; Lowe, 1992, 1993; Lowe et. al., 2000; Storey 1992

5. Delbridge and Lowe 1997: 423

6. Drucker 1988; Handy, 1995; Hecksher and Donnellon, 1994; Kanter, 1989; Mintzberg,

1998; Morgan, 1993; Peters, 1989; White, 1994; Zuboff, 1988

7. 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

8. Kerr et.al, 1986; Walton, 1985

9. Drucker, 1988

10. Bowman, 1999; Schlesinger and Klein, 1987

11. Atkinson, 1997; Fitz Simons, 1999; Katzenbach and Smith, 1993

12. Humphrey and Stokes, 2000; IRRR, 1993; McManus, 1995

13. Dixon, 1993; Peters, 1989; Weiss, 1998

14. Atkinson, 1997; Ballin, 1993; Dixon, 1993; Dunaine, 1993; Fitz Simons, 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

15. 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

ANNEXE 2

References

Allan, P. (1981) Managers at Work: A Large Scale Study of the Managerial Job in New YorkCity Government. Academy of Management Journal 24(3) pp.613-619.

Armstrong, P. (1986) Class and Control at the Point of Production - Foremen 1. In Armstrong,P., Carter, B., Smith, C. and Nichols, T. (eds) White Collar Workers, Trade Unions andClass, Croom Helm, London, 19-42

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T. and Kerr, S. (1995) The Boundaryless Organization:Breaking the Chains of Organizational Structure. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Atkinson, C. (1997) ‘The Total Teamwork Way’, Team Performance Management, 3, 2, 116-120

Ballin, M. (1993) ‘Forging a New Breed of Supervisor’, Personnel Management, 25, 4, 34-37

Beynon, H. (1973) Working for Ford, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Bowey, A.M. (1973) The Changing Status of the Supervisor. British Journal of IndustrialRelations, 11, 3, 393-414

Bowman, C. (1999) ‘The Role of the FLM in Competitive Strategy’. In Proceedings of theNEBS Conference on Improving Business Performance: The Added Value of First-LineManagement, NEBS Management, London, 9-15

Carter, B. (1986) Class and Control at the Point of Production - Foremen 2. In Armstrong, P.,Carter, B., Smith, C. and Nichols, T. (eds) White Collar Workers, Trade Unions andClass, Croom Helm, London, 43-75

Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, Vol. 1, The In formation Age: Economy,Society and Culture, Blackwell, Oxford.

Charan, R. (1991) How Networks Reshape Organizations – for Results, Harvard BusinessReview, Sept/Oct, 104 -115

Child, J. and Partridge, B. (1982) The Lost Managers: Supervisors in Industry and Society,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Cully, M., Woodland, S., O’Reilly, A. and Dix, G. (1999) Britain at Work: As Depicted by the1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, Routledge, London.

Delbridge, R. and Lowe, J. (1997) Manufacturing Control: Supervisory Systems on the ‘New’Shopfloor. Sociology, 31, 3, 409-426.

Dixon, B. (1993) ‘Unleash the Power of Your Team Leader’, Works Management, 46, 8, 27-28

Drucker, P. (1988) The Coming of the New Organization. Harvard Business Review, Jan/Feb,45-53.

Duffield, C. (1992) ‘Role Competences of First-Line Managers’, Nursing Management, 23, 6,49-52

Dunaine, B. (1993) ‘The ‘Non-Managers’, Fortune, 127, 4, 38-42.

Dunkerley, D. (1975) The Foreman: Aspects of Task and Structure, Routledge and KeganPaul, London

FitzSimons, T. (1999) ‘The Leadership of the FLM in the High Performance Organisation ofthe 21st Century’. In Proceedings of the NEBS Conference on Improving BusinessPerformance: The Added Value of First-Line Management, NEBS Management,London, 5-8

Fletcher, C. (1969) Men in the Middle: A Reformulation of the Thesis. The SociologicalReview, 17, 3, 341-354

Galbraith, J.R. (1993) Organizing for the Future, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Gardner, B and Whyte, W.F. (1945) ‘The Man in the Middle: Position and Problems of theForeman’, Applied Anthropology, 4, 2

Guest, R.H. (1956) Of Time and the Manager. Personnel, May, 478-486Handy, C. (1995) Beyond Certainty, Random House, London

Hankins, C. and Kleiner, B.H. (1995) ‘New Developments in Supervisory Training’, Industrialand Commercial Training, 27, 1, 26-32.

Hastings, C. (1993) The New Organization, McGraw-Hill, London

Hecksher, C. and Donnellon, A. (eds) (1994) The Post-Bureaucratic Organization: NewPerspectives on Organizational Change, Sage, London

Humphrey, B. and Stokes, J. (2000) ‘The 21st Century Supervisor’, HR, 45, 5, 185-192.

IRRR (1990) ‘From Overseer to First-Line Manager: The Changing Role of the Supervisor’,Industrial Relations Review and Report, 476, 7-12

IRRR (1993) ‘The Changing Role of the Supervisor: Using NVQ-Based Training Programmes,Industrial Relations Review and Report, 544, 9-14.

Kanter, R. M. (1989) The New Managerial Work. Harvard Business Review, November/December, 85-92

Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993) The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the HighPerformance Organization, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.

Kerr, S., Hill, K.D. and Broedling, L. (1986) ‘The First-Line Supervisor: Phasing Out or Here toStay?’, Academy of Management Review, 11, 1, 103-117

Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R. (1997) Managing in the Knowledge Economy, HarvardBusiness Review, 75, 4, 65-75.

Kraut, L.B., Pedigo, P.R., McKenna, D.D. and Dunette, M.D.(1989) The Role of the Manager:What’s Really Important in Different Management Jobs. Academy of ManagementExecutive. 3,4, 286-293

Lebediker, J. (1995) ‘The Supervisor as a Coach’, Supervision, 56, 12, 14 -16.Lowe, J. (1992) ‘Locating the Line: The Front-Line Supervisor and Human Resource

Management’. In Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (Eds) Reassessing Human ResourceManagement, Sage, London, 148-169.

Lowe, J. (1993) ‘Manufacturing Reform and the Changing Role of the Supervisor: The Case ofthe Automobile Industry’, Journal of Management Studies, 30, 5, 739-758.

Lowe, J., Morris, J. and Wilkinson, B. (2000) ‘British Factory, Japanese Factory, MexicanFactory’, Journal of Management Studies, 37, 4, 541-562

McManus, K. (1995) ‘Acquiring Knowledge and Skills for 21st Century Supervision’,Management Development Review, 8, 5, 18-24

Mintzberg, H. (1998) Covert Leadership: Notes on Managing Professionals, Harvard BusinessReview, 76, 5, 140-147

Morgan, G. (1997) Images of Organization (revised edition), Sage, LondonNichols, T. and Armstrong, P. (1976) Workers Divided: A Study in Shopfloor Politics,

Fontana/Collins, London.Nichols, T. and Beynon, H. (1977) Living With Capitalism, Routledge and Kegan Paul,

London.Palmer I. and Dunford, R. (1997) ‘Organising for Hyper-Competition: New Organisational

Forms for a New Age?’ New Zealand Strategic Management, 2, 4, 38-45.Partridge, B. (1989) ‘The Problem of Supervision’. In Sisson, K. (Ed) Personnel Management

in Britain, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 203-221.Pavett, C. M. and Lau, A.W. (1983) Managerial Work: The Influence of Hierarchical Level and

Functional Specialty. Academy of Management Journal. 26, 1, 170-177. Pearce, I. (1992) ‘The Development of First-Line Management at ICI’, Target Management

Development Review, 5, 2, 8-12Peters, T. (1989) Thriving on Chaos, Pan, LondonPowell, R.W. (1990) Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization. In Staw,

B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol.12, JAIPress, Greenwich, CONN, 295-336

Quinn, J.B., Anderson, S. and Finkelstein , S. (1996) New Forms of Organizing. In Mintzberg,H. and Quinn, J. B. (Eds) The Strategy Process, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ,350-362.

Reeves, T. K. (1970) The Control of Manufacture in a Garment Factory. In Woodward, J. (Ed) Industrial Organization: Behaviour and Control, Oxford University Press, London,108-129

Rose, D., Newby, H. and Vogler, C. (1987) Goodbye to Supervisors?. Work, Employment andSociety, 1, 1, 7-24

Savage, C. (1996) 5th Generation Management (Revised edition), Butterworth-Heinemann,London

Smiley, L.M. and Westbrook, P.R. (1975) ‘The First-Line Supervisory Problem Redefined’,Personnel Journal, 54, 620-623, 628

Snow, C., Miles, R. and Coleman, H. (1992) Managing 21st Century Network Organizations,Organizational Dynamics, Winter, 5-19

Storey, J. (1992) An Introduction to Managing Human Resources, Sage, LondonVan Auken, P.M. (1992) ‘Control vs. Development: Up-to-Date or Out-of-Date as a

Supervisor?’, Supervision, 53, 12, 17-19Volberda, H. (1998) Building the Flexible Firm: How to Remain Competitive. Oxford

University Press, Oxford.Walton, R.E. (1985) ‘From Control to Commitment in the Workplace’, Harvard Business

Review, March-April, 76-84.Waterman, R.H. (1988) The Renewal Factor, Bantam, London Watson, T.J. (2002) Organising and Managing Work, Pearson, HarlowWeiss, W-H. (1998) ‘Improving Employee Performance: Major Supervisory Responsibility’,

Supervision, 59, 10, 6-8.Wellins, R.S., Byham, W.C. and Wilson, J. M. (1991) Empowered Teams, Jossey-Bass, New

YorkWhite, B.J. (1994) ‘ Developing Leaders for the High-Performance Workplace’ Human

Resource Management, 33, 1, 161-168Whittington, R. and Mayer, M. (2000) The European Corporation: Strategy, Structure and

Social Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Wickens, P. (1987) The Road to Nissan, Macmillan, London.

Wray, D. (1949) ‘Marginal Men of Industry: The Foremen’, American Journal of Sociology, 55,298-301

Zuboff, S. (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine, Basic Books, New York.

ANNEXE 3

TABLES

Table 1 The Sample

Ownership % Nationality % Economic Sector % Size (No. Employees )

%

PrivateBusiness Public Not-for-Profit Private Not-for-Profit

83

13

4

BritishUSEuropeanJapaneseMixed

799327

Retail/wholesaleHotel/cateringResearch/consultancy EducationLeisure/entertainment Banking/financeCreative servicesProperty servicesRecruitment/personnelservicesConstructionHealth/medical PrintingManufacturingPublishingCommunications/postalservicesLegal servicesInformation/adviceOther services

131311877544442222224

OrganisationSmall (10-99)Medium (100-499)Large (500+)

Establishment10-2930-99100-499500+

462034

3938195

Table 2 First-Line Manager Tasks and Responsibilities

Task/Responsibility % Orgns wherepart of

FLM role

% Orgnswhere

extremelyimp/importa

nt

Where responsibilityparticularly

prevalent/important part ofrole

Where responsibility notrelevant/important

Who responsible if not FLM

Giving praise for good work 99 95Checking quality of ‘output’ 99 95 AExplaining production/work priorities 99 87

Carrying out operational work tasks 99 59 L Where FLM a manageronly

Monitoring work processes againstprocedures

98 84 Small service orgns

Giving staff technical advice 98 82 L Small orgnsPlanning/scheduling work 98 82Acting as communication channel up/down 98 80 Small orgnsAllocating staff to tasks 96 75 SGiving ad hoc technical coaching 96 69 Emphasis on adviceAssisting staff with work 96 68 E Where FLM a manager

onlyCo-ordinating work of a team 95 79 Work teamReporting performance upwards 94 77 C Small sites More senior managerHelping to implement changes in workpractice

93 79

Dealing with immediate customer/clientproblems

92 83 T No customer contact More senior manager

Implementing efficiency improvements 92 68 More senior managerDealing with immediate work processproblems

90 81 O More senior manager

Dealing with immediate staffing problems 87 68Attending action planning meetings 87 62 R Small sitesChecking quantity of ‘output’ 87 59

S‘Output’ difficult tomeasure

Attending review meetings 86 67 Some service orgnsAuthorising non-routine actions by staff 85 36 M’facturing, financial services,

education, leisure and retailHolding briefing meetings for staff 84 66 Semi-/unskilled work FLM’s immediate boss

Dealing with immediate equipment problems 84 44 Manufacturing, publishing,construction, hotels/catering

Small sites More senior manager or specialistdepartment

Checking cleanliness of work environment 83 49 Hotels/catering, construction More senior manager or specialistdepartment

Counselling staff 81 45 Health/medical services,construction

More senior manager or HR dept.

Handling computer data 79 54 Research/consultancy,financial, recruitment, creativeservices

No use of computers More senior manager or specialistdepartment

Recommending staff for promotion 77 50 Larger m’facturing,recruitment construction,health/medical

Small orgns More senior manager

Substituting for staff during breaks 76 44 Semi-skilled work inhotel/catering, retail, printing,health

No formal break periodsMore

Informing staff about targets/ businessobjectives

75 54 Larger m’facturing, publishing,construction, education, banks

More senior manager

Allocating equipment to jobs 74 30 Unskilled manual work No equipment usedDealing with immediate materials problems 73 47 M’facturing, construction,

printing., publishingMore senior manager or specialistdepartment

Controlling operating costs 73 48 M’facturing, construction,hotel/catering, propertyservices

More senior manager

Conducting staff appraisals

Meetings with other FLMs

71

70

59

56

Large orgs; Creative, financialand property servicesMedium/large orgns

Small orgns where noformal appraisalSmall orgns

More senior manager

Managing a budget 65 48 Graduate FLMs in propertyand legal services, research/consultancy, education

No budget FLM’s immediate boss

Maintaining stock levels 64 35 Hotels/catering, retail,construction

Specialist dept.

Verbal warnings for breaches of discipline

Allocating staff to shifts/overtime

63

63

44

39

Unskilled work; m’facturing,hotels/catering,communicationsHotel/catering, retail, health

No shift work/overtime

FLM’s immediate boss

FLM’s immediate boss

Dealing with immediate premises problems 63 37 Small orgns/sites More senior manager or specialistdepartment

Contributing to training programmes 61 31 Large orgns No training (11% orgns) Outsourced (12% orgns)

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

FLM’s immediate boss

Setting a budget 39 23 Construction, recruitment,property services

More senior manager

Holding staff records 38 26 Health/medical services More senior manager or HR

Written warnings for breaches of discipline 38 24 More senior manager or HR

Table 3 First-Line Manager Authority, Accountability and Consultation on Decisions

AUTHORITY to take decisionson:

% orgnswhere FLM

hasauthority

% orgnswhere FLM

has soleauthority

With whom FLM mustconsult

Who has authority if notFLM

Action where deviation fromprocedures

91 58 More senior managers

Work priorities 89 60 More senior managers,other FLMs

Work methods 78 41 More senior managers More senior manager,head office planners

Spending up to set limit 67 50 More senior managers More senior managerRecruiting staff 64 24 More senior managers More senior manager,

HR dept.Choosing equipment to be used 58 27 More senior managers More senior manager,

tech. Services dept.Suspending staff 47 17 More senior managers,

HR dept.More senior manager,HR dept.

Setting staffing level 45 16 More senior managers More senior manager,HR dept., externalregulations

Dismissing staff 43 16 More senior managers,HR dept.

More senior manager,HR dept.

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

More senior manager,HR dept.

Promoting staff 36 7 More senior managers,HR dept.

More senior manager,HR dept.

ACCOUNTABILITY for: % orgnswhere FLMaccountabl

e

% orgnswhere FLM

jointlyaccountabl

e

With whom accountable Who is accountable if notFLM

Pace/intensity of work 97 45 Immediate boss, workteam

Quality of output 96 48 Immediate boss, workteam

Efficiency 95 45 Immediate bossIdentifying training needs 93 54 Immediate boss, work

teamPaperwork 92 42 Immediate boss, work

teamMore senior manager

Work discipline 85 52 Immediate boss, HRdept

More senior manager

Quantity of output 81 35 Immediate boss, workteam

More senior manager

Meeting Health and SafetyRegs

75 52 Immediate boss, workteam

More senior manager,specialist dept.

Keeping within budget 73 40 Immediate boss, financedept

More senior manager

Levels of absence 61 21 Immediate boss, HRdept.

More senior manager

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

Maintenance dept.

Availability of materials 59 35 Immediate boss,materials dept.

CONSULTED on: % orgnswhere FLMconsulted

% orgnswhere FLMalways orfrequentlyconsulted

If FLM not consulted,how is decision taken

Work methods 93 70 By specialist methodsdept.

Pace of work 80 54 External pressureOverall staffing numbers 79 50 By more senior manager

Which products/services to offer 75 48 By more senior manageror marketing dept.

Budgets 67 39 By more senior manageror finance dept.

Table 4: Perceived Changes in the First-Line Manager Role

Tasks/responsibilities addedto FLM role

%orgns

Tasks/responsibilitiesremoved from FLM role

%orgns

Perceived internal drivers ofchanges to FLM role

%orgns

Perceived external driversof changes to FLM role

%orgns

Some task/responsibilityadded

Routine ‘peoplemanagement’Business managementWorking with ITCustomer/client contactWorking alongside staffManaging a budgetStaff developmentInternal communications

No change to FLM role

83

47262010101088

15

Some task/responsibility lost

Working alongside staffPaperworkRoutine ‘people management’Managing a budget

43

151075

Inc. focus on performanceChange ofownership/m’mentGrowth of businessNew organisationalstructureIncreased customer focusIncreased controlsAdoption of ISO 900/ ‘IiP’

None

252019121086

23

Inc. customer/clientdemandsInc. legislation/regulationInc. competition

None

272419

40