Organizing As a Supervisor

[sparky220volt]

Why are wages so low in Florida? Around here in Oregon an (IEC) first year apprentice with no prior experience starts out at $11.42 per hour.

The most I've ever made in pensacola Florida is 17 an hour. Unless it was davis bacon scale. Same area 28.50. I don't know how they figure it. And since the economy went to crap I've went as low as 14. But the wage seems to be on the rise. Every body around here will work for 10 dollars an hour too. That doesn't help.

 

[K8MHZ]

Scientifically speaking the military and other groups have definded 'span of control' or immediate supervision ratio of 3 to 7:1. 5:1 being optimal. In construction up to 10:1 is good, if the subordiates are good at their job and motivated (I can hear some laughing over this)

Sounds like NIMS.

Which doesn't work. We tried it at an air fair where there were about 100 fire, police, security and EMT's. Simply put, NIMS caused us to have more chiefs than Indians.

I nixed it after the first day for my group. It was useless. I re-organized by task type and experience. When we were running smoothly, one super had 40 subs, and a couple only had one or two.

I have been on jobs where we had one foreman for 16 people and things ran great.

I have been on others where one foreman only had two people and it was a disaster.

I feel for the OP. It sounds like this is his first time as a foreman and they give him a crew of nubes. That's really not fair to the OP. IMHO, anyway.

 

[kwired]

Sounds like NIMS.

Which doesn't work. We tried it at an air fair where there were about 100 fire, police, security and EMT's. Simply put, NIMS caused us to have more chiefs than Indians.

I nixed it after the first day for my group. It was useless. I re-organized by task type and experience. When we were running smoothly, one super had 40 subs, and a couple only had one or two.

I have been on jobs where we had one foreman for 16 people and things ran great.

I have been on others where one foreman only had two people and it was a disaster.

I feel for the OP. It sounds like this is his first time as a foreman and they give him a crew of nubes. That's really not fair to the OP. IMHO, anyway.

The supervisor he replaced was probably paid too much and they didn't want him on that job, OP assumes the supervisor position but gets no pay increase.

If it gets to crunch time and things are still not done, they will bring in someone that has more managing experience, higher trained workers, or both to make faster progress and at same time unfairly lowering the credibility of the OP as a supervisor.

 

[nhfire77]

Sounds like NIMS.

Which doesn't work. We tried it at an air fair where there were about 100 fire, police, security and EMT's. Simply put, NIMS caused us to have more chiefs than Indians.

I nixed it after the first day for my group. It was useless. I re-organized by task type and experience. When we were running smoothly, one super had 40 subs, and a couple only had one or two.

I have been on jobs where we had one foreman for 16 people and things ran great.

I have been on others where one foreman only had two people and it was a disaster.

I feel for the OP. It sounds like this is his first time as a foreman and they give him a crew of nubes. That's really not fair to the OP. IMHO, anyway.

That is the problem with taking NIMS literally. Rigidly applying 5:1 invites too much management. As I mentioned, if your staff is mostly compentent, by all means expand the ratio as wide as possible. Put the decison making at the lowest level and empower good employees! This is one of the best things you can do.

It sounds like you adapted the structure to your needs, I applaud you for that. Too many people take their supervisory or management role waaaaay to seriously. Egos grow out of proportion, the only thing getting done is ego building.

There are also informal roles that people fill. I bet the 16:1 job you refer to had a mix of veterans and new guys. The veteran j-man may not be formally supervising the new guys, but if he's compentent, they are watching.

 

[K8MHZ]

That is the problem with taking NIMS literally. Rigidly applying 5:1 invites too much management. As I mentioned, if your staff is mostly compentent, by all means expand the ratio as wide as possible. Put the decison making at the lowest level and empower good employees! This is one of the best things you can do.

It sounds like you adapted the structure to your needs, I applaud you for that. Too many people take their supervisory or management role waaaaay to seriously. Egos grow out of proportion, the only thing getting done is ego building.

There are also informal roles that people fill. I bet the 16:1 job you refer to had a mix of veterans and new guys. The veteran j-man may not be formally supervising the new guys, but if he's compentent, they are watching.

Thanks for the compliment. What I did not mention is that we (my group at the air show) were working for free. We were volunteers consisting of off duty fire fighters, EMTs, radio operators and a couple private pilots. We had to work alongside and out of the same EOC as the paid fire fighters, cops and EMTs. I have other issues with NIMS besides span of control.

As for the construction jobs, you are correct. The job with 16:1 had a mix, and a good one. The job with 2:1 had two second year apprentii and one would be moron (he would have had to learn more to reach moron status) for a foreman.

 

[Blaer]

I once worked for a shop that went 18 months completely without 'management.' Payroll of around 50, 3 lead men, two secretaries, and a largely absentee owner. We were lacking the shop supervisor and plant manager- who had left under somewhat dramatic circumstances. Sort of made me question the need for most managers.

How long does it take to learn to be an electrician?

Why, then, do we expect a trained electrician to suddenly, magically, become a manager overnight? No coursework, no apprenticeship, no guidance.

Even worse is the trend to having some kid, fresh from school, who's never held a tool in his hand, be hired as 'manager.' These chairborne commandos come out of school, diploma ink still wet, filled with contempt towards the 'ignorant animals' in the field. They have no idea why things need to be done in a certain order, the impact of other trades, or the effort required to learn the skills needed. They don't yet know that you can't master a trade by reading a book about it. Yet, here they come- hired as managers, and they proceed to spend their lives bouncing from one management job to another.

Which brings us to my point: It's not the supervisors' job to "work." It's his job to make sure I can work. That means he doesn't send me to trim out a house before the walls are up; that when I go to that house I have all the parts, help, and tools I need; and that I'm not spending all my time moving stacks of drywall out of my way.

That's why the supervisor needs to know the trade. He has to know what I need in order to function. He need not be the 'best' electrician on the site- but he has to understand what the electrician is doing.

 

[kwired]

I once worked for a shop that went 18 months completely without 'management.' Payroll of around 50, 3 lead men, two secretaries, and a largely absentee owner. We were lacking the shop supervisor and plant manager- who had left under somewhat dramatic circumstances. Sort of made me question the need for most managers.

How long does it take to learn to be an electrician?

Why, then, do we expect a trained electrician to suddenly, magically, become a manager overnight? No coursework, no apprenticeship, no guidance.

Even worse is the trend to having some kid, fresh from school, who's never held a tool in his hand, be hired as 'manager.' These chairborne commandos come out of school, diploma ink still wet, filled with contempt towards the 'ignorant animals' in the field. They have no idea why things need to be done in a certain order, the impact of other trades, or the effort required to learn the skills needed. They don't yet know that you can't master a trade by reading a book about it. Yet, here they come- hired as managers, and they proceed to spend their lives bouncing from one management job to another.

Which brings us to my point: It's not the supervisors' job to "work." It's his job to make sure I can work. That means he doesn't send me to trim out a house before the walls are up; that when I go to that house I have all the parts, help, and tools I need; and that I'm not spending all my time moving stacks of drywall out of my way.

That's why the supervisor needs to know the trade. He has to know what I need in order to function. He need not be the 'best' electrician on the site- but he has to understand what the electrician is doing.

Good managers are usually ones who worked their way through the ranks. In military, I noticed the officers we respected the most were the ones that had spent some time in enlisted positions before becoming officers. They understood our jobs and problems much better than those guys that never been there and think they know it all. I also knew a general manager at a plant that never had any college education, started out in production right out of high school. One of the best plant managers I have ever known.

 

[jmellc]

I've had foremen who used tools and those who didn't. Some of both groups were great, some were not.

I think a foreman has to make up his own mind according to the job, how capable his people are, how much is to be done, how much he wants to be hands on, etc. If you have to constantly answer questions, look things over and keep fires lit under people, you do not have time to turn wrenches yourself. You are busy enough and have nothing to feel guilty about.

I had a coworker who did nothing but whine about a particular foreman who "don't do nothing but lean on the print table all day". I reminded him the guy had helped us figure out several issues, lent a hand when needed, answered a lot of code questions, kept supplies flowing in, etc. I said "we were hired to work the job & he was hired to run it. He can do it as he sees fit and I have no issue with it". BTW, the coworker was every bit as lazy as he accused the foreman of being.

 

[jmellc]

Thinking more on this issue, the main time I had complaints with such situations was when I was totally out of the construction business, working customer service in a corporate setting. Most foremen and managers running a construction job have done the jobs they supervise, at least to some degree. Not as true in many corporate offices. We often had people in charge who had never done the work we did, yet they were in charge of the team. Ask them about getting something through the computer system and get a blank stare. They were also bad for dreaming up new hoops for us to jump through before or after doing this or that procedure. It may be a Friday afternoon, end of month or quarter (madhouse in any office), several people absent and the phones ringing off the hook. Most of them would not come out & help cover the phones; would shout out "can't someone answer that phone?". One came by my desk with that. I replied that I had 1 customer live and another on hold, that maybe he could answer the other phone. I was reprimanded later for saying that. BTW most of them were big advocates of crosstraining but never wanted to do it themselves.

In this business, I have rarely seen a problem with a foreman not using tools. More than 1 foreman has helped me fix a problem or see an issue I had not anticipated, etc.

 

[KWH]

Your attitude is as important as your skills, if your having problems with the office dont vent to your guys, be the first on the job open things up be in the work area each morning and have some small talk with your crew. The ability to look a week or so in advance is important to resolve problems before it holds your crew up and they should never have to ask you more than once for info, if you dont have the answer get it figured out.