By Artur Victoria
While the basic human relations principles do not vary significantly from one organizational level to the next, the approach and application of these principles do vary considerably. For example, there is no such thing as an effective universal plan of job evaluation.
Often called the arms of management, the first-line supervisor finds that he is neither fish nor fowl. He is normally pulled from the ranks because of his superior productivity, and overnight he is expected to acquire the full range of skills and abilities of a supervisor. He must immediately plan, delegate, control, administer, measure, and follow-up.
He finds himself torn by divided loyalties-to his fellow workers on the line and to his new manager. Often he has all kinds of responsibility, but relatively little authority. New and important relationships are introduced. The industrial engineer tells him how many people he will use, what equipment he should have, how the work is to flow through his shop, and the physical layout. A production planner or controller tells him how much of what is to be produced and when, where it will come from, how much is to be stored and how much shipped.
The personnel man says he cannot fire a poor employee, orders that he promote a man other than the one he wants, and often tells him who to hire and how the new employee is to be inducted into the workforce. He is also told how much the new man is to be paid and when he is eligible for an increase, as well as the size of the increase. The accountant tells him he spends too much money on gloves and supplies and his costs are out of line. The maintenance superintendent schedules his machines out of production for repair or overhaul, and the quality control inspector rejects his production because it does not meet the standards set by the engineering department. And, should the foreman find that despite all these helpers he is able to run smoothly, the salesman calls in a special order for an important customer; this disrupts the entire schedule and runs up costs.
For all this, the foreman takes home just slightly more money than his better workers. No wonder we find discontent in this group. Foremen are management people and must be treated as such. The least it should be done is to prepare these men for what awaits them.
In a major appliance manufacturing firm, the need to carefully select and prepare candidates for first-line supervisory positions was recognized by the human resources executive, and something was done about it.
One manufacturer is acutely aware that well-trained candidates for foreman and other exempt manufacturing positions were not available from the open labor market. Priorities of needs had to be established; company policies of promotion from within needed further implementation.
An exhaustive study of the foreman job is made through a survey task force. Among the most significant findings from the survey, which is conducted to improve the effectiveness of the foreman from his point of view, were three expressed needs:
(1) Upgrade from within, but give people training before putting them on the floor as foremen;
(2) Teach all foremen, especially newly appointed ones, all aspects of the foreman’s job;
(3) narrow the foreman span of control to allow him more time with his people.
Faced with the need to add a second shift in at least two operating businesses, management recognized that informal training by means of the foreman-assistant approach is inadequate.
About the Author:
sites.google.com/site/cliptheschoolbeginning/sites.google.com/site/arturvictoriasite/
Source:
isnare.com
Permanent Link:
isnare.com/?aid=728318&ca=Business+Management