Tweet
If you have team shifts beginning at 8 am, 4 pm and midnight (for instance), consider offsetting supervisor/lead shifts by one hour either ahead or behind the team shift schedule. You might even consider a two-hour offset.
There are somewhat different advantages either way. The supervisor who reports for duty ahead of the team has ample time to get up to speed on site conditions, events during the previous shift, etc. The supervisor who goes off duty later than the team has ample opportunity to review their reports, activity logs, etc. turned in toward the end of the team's shift, as well as providing continuity for late-developing events that cross team shift boundaries.
In each case, if your supervisor or team lead is paid hourly, this can reduce their overtime burden (or their resentment if they're having to report early or hang over past the end of shift on their own time to fulfill their obligations...which is a violation of labor laws of course, but fairly common practice, sad to say). Of course, this assumes that when supervisors hand off the team they're currently responsible for, the new supervisor takes full responsibility and command over the current "state" of the site. Personally, I think that an offset of an hour later than the team schedule is at least slightly preferable to an earlier offset.
In either case, there's a hidden opportunity here (and it's HUGE), which is that each team will be seen on a regular basis by two supervisors. It doesn't take much imagination to think of several advantages this provides for management...or the incentive it provides for each supervisor to make sure his team is squared away (it's called "pride") and won't be observed by the second supervisor to be a bunch of screwups who don't know their jobs or perform them properly.
Teams are wonderful things, but they can fairly easily become isolated entities that drift off course under the guidance of lax or otherwise faulty supervision. When this happens, it can be quite awhile before the problem is noticed by management. Also, problems within the team tend to fester due to a particular supervisor's inattention or "blind spots". Here's a way to break open the isolation, establishing a second channel of communication and a second set of "eyes" on the team's performance.
Does this mean that the team becomes confused because of two different sets of expectations? Not if supervisors themselves are being properly supervised! As a manager, YOUR job is NOT to manage the line personnel. Your job is to manage your supervisors or team leads, seeing to it that each of them knows and executes according to a common set of expectations, policies and procedures. One supervisor really ought not to look very different from another as far as your teams go, or something is wrong at your level, either in selecting, training or managing your supervisors!
Does this mean that certain team members will try to "play" one supervisor against another? Yes, you can probably expect some of this - but the operative word here is TRY, as in TRY BUT FAIL, again because supervisors are being properly managed but also because supervisors are communicating with one another, they are alert to this sort of game, and making sure that the game is promptly terminated.
NOTE: Implementing a strategy such as this one involves organizational change - meaning that you don't just throw it at folks one sunny Monday morning. If you involve people in the process it will go much better. For instance, you can ask for input on whether teams feel that an hour earlier would be better (from their standpoint) than an hour later. You can explain the ways that the strategy will benefit team members. Supervisors, ditto. You make sure clients are aware of the reasons and why it should result in better service for them.
Observe that "getting input" is NOT the same thing as "getting permission" to do something. You are NOT asking for anyone's permission to do this. You are simply providing an opportunity for the different stakeholders to give you their perspectives. You will STILL DO THIS IN THE MANNER THAT, AFTER ALL THE INPUT IS RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED, YOU BELIEVE TO BE BEST FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION. Almost inevitably, there will be people who simply hate change of any kind but you can at least give everyone an opportunity to "buy in" because they were consulted and respected during the process.
Then, you implement the strategy on a very small scale...probably a single site, and you observe the outcomes - both pro and con. Or, you might try one site with the early offset and one site with the later offset and observe any advantages or disadvantages either way. Then, fine-tune the strategy before rolling it out on a company-wide basis.
There are somewhat different advantages either way. The supervisor who reports for duty ahead of the team has ample time to get up to speed on site conditions, events during the previous shift, etc. The supervisor who goes off duty later than the team has ample opportunity to review their reports, activity logs, etc. turned in toward the end of the team's shift, as well as providing continuity for late-developing events that cross team shift boundaries.
In each case, if your supervisor or team lead is paid hourly, this can reduce their overtime burden (or their resentment if they're having to report early or hang over past the end of shift on their own time to fulfill their obligations...which is a violation of labor laws of course, but fairly common practice, sad to say). Of course, this assumes that when supervisors hand off the team they're currently responsible for, the new supervisor takes full responsibility and command over the current "state" of the site. Personally, I think that an offset of an hour later than the team schedule is at least slightly preferable to an earlier offset.
In either case, there's a hidden opportunity here (and it's HUGE), which is that each team will be seen on a regular basis by two supervisors. It doesn't take much imagination to think of several advantages this provides for management...or the incentive it provides for each supervisor to make sure his team is squared away (it's called "pride") and won't be observed by the second supervisor to be a bunch of screwups who don't know their jobs or perform them properly.
Teams are wonderful things, but they can fairly easily become isolated entities that drift off course under the guidance of lax or otherwise faulty supervision. When this happens, it can be quite awhile before the problem is noticed by management. Also, problems within the team tend to fester due to a particular supervisor's inattention or "blind spots". Here's a way to break open the isolation, establishing a second channel of communication and a second set of "eyes" on the team's performance.
Does this mean that the team becomes confused because of two different sets of expectations? Not if supervisors themselves are being properly supervised! As a manager, YOUR job is NOT to manage the line personnel. Your job is to manage your supervisors or team leads, seeing to it that each of them knows and executes according to a common set of expectations, policies and procedures. One supervisor really ought not to look very different from another as far as your teams go, or something is wrong at your level, either in selecting, training or managing your supervisors!
Does this mean that certain team members will try to "play" one supervisor against another? Yes, you can probably expect some of this - but the operative word here is TRY, as in TRY BUT FAIL, again because supervisors are being properly managed but also because supervisors are communicating with one another, they are alert to this sort of game, and making sure that the game is promptly terminated.
NOTE: Implementing a strategy such as this one involves organizational change - meaning that you don't just throw it at folks one sunny Monday morning. If you involve people in the process it will go much better. For instance, you can ask for input on whether teams feel that an hour earlier would be better (from their standpoint) than an hour later. You can explain the ways that the strategy will benefit team members. Supervisors, ditto. You make sure clients are aware of the reasons and why it should result in better service for them.
Observe that "getting input" is NOT the same thing as "getting permission" to do something. You are NOT asking for anyone's permission to do this. You are simply providing an opportunity for the different stakeholders to give you their perspectives. You will STILL DO THIS IN THE MANNER THAT, AFTER ALL THE INPUT IS RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED, YOU BELIEVE TO BE BEST FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION. Almost inevitably, there will be people who simply hate change of any kind but you can at least give everyone an opportunity to "buy in" because they were consulted and respected during the process.
Then, you implement the strategy on a very small scale...probably a single site, and you observe the outcomes - both pro and con. Or, you might try one site with the early offset and one site with the later offset and observe any advantages or disadvantages either way. Then, fine-tune the strategy before rolling it out on a company-wide basis.
Comment