Assessment of a Weak Supervisor

A client requested an assessment of Ken, a supervisor in a manufacturing environment. The company was a 24/7 operation, meaning that several supervisors shared coverage of the same teams. Ken’s fellow supervisors came to the plant superintendent with complaints that Ken was not providing strong leadership. He usually sided with employees when there was a problem. In addition, when he was in charge, the team’s productivity was marginal.

Private interviews with the leads and foremen revealed findings that are highly consistent with what would be predicted from Ken’s EQ Profile. His Profile was more consistent with someone working on the line than in a leadership role.

His Work and Detail scores were quite good. He is a good worker and very careful and precise in tracking the details of the work being done on his shift. His paperwork was always complete and error free. His Change score indicated that he could be highly creative and that he preferred work in an environment that offered variety and change of pace. However, in conversation, he noted that the routine and repetitious nature of the work was not to his liking. Before joining the company, he had operated his own business doing mechanical repairs but found the uncertainty cash flow more than he could handle…not surprising given his low Courage score. He prefers security and is not at comfortable with risk.

The bottom half of the Profile indicates why he was failing as a manager. He has a very high Sociable score. Being liked by people is extremely important to him and he did not like making decisions that might make anyone unhappy with him. He agonized over simple managerial tasks like assigning people to the least preferred tasks or cutting hours when the company’s variable workflow required adjusting staffing. His need to be liked was exacerbated by his low Direction score. He was incapable making independent decisions. Faced with important decisions, he would seek out advice, often as not from the workers he was supposed to be managing. Given they would express varying opinions, he would equivocate and try to come up with solutions that would please everyone.

He was extremely lax in managing performance. His Assertive score should have been at least 6. At 4.3, he avoided conflict, even to the point of siding with employees whenever they disagreed with decisions made by other shift supervisors. Add to that a very high Tolerance score. He was too patient and understanding, even to the point of the denial of performance issues that were badly in need of attention.

I shared my assessment with him based on on-site interviews and the EQ Profile. I suggested that he was not by nature suited to be managing people. His immediate reaction was relief. He did not like managing people and knew he was in the wrong position. The company offered him as position in the mechanical repair unit. He stepped down without hesitation, saying he knew he “would be more comfortable with a wrench in his hand instead of a clipboard.” In addition, the job would offer more variety, given the wide range of machinery in need of maintenance and various kinds of repairs.

Could management training or personal coaching have made him a better supervisor? In my opinion, not likely.

Making the necessary personal changes required to manage successfully would have been time consuming project and had little chance of succeeding. Ken is an extremely nice man but, as a manager, he was nice to a fault. I haven’t had much luck with spinal transplants. If a person lacks the backbone to manage people, they are much better off in a role that doesn’t take them so far out of their comfort zone.

EQ Profile used with permission of Simmons Management Systems