Search results

Large organizations typically mandate that managers attend budget meetings and exchange budget reports with their immediate supervisor and budget staff. We explored whether such organization-mandated budgetary involvement is related to managers’ budgetary communication with their supervisor in terms of budgetary participation, budgetary explanation, and budgetary feedback. Questionnaire data from 148 managers employed by 94 different companies were analyzed with regression. Mandatory budget meetings with supervisor had a positive relationship with all three forms of budgetary communication with supervisor, and mandatory budget reports from supervisor had a positive relationship with budgetary explanation from supervisor. Mandatory budget meetings with budget staff had a positive relationship with both budgetary participation with supervisor and budgetary feedback from supervisor. Mandatory budget reports from budget staff had a negative relationship with all three forms of budgetary communication with supervisor. The results failed to support proposed relationships between mandatory budget reports to supervisor and budgetary participation with supervisor, and between mandatory budget reports from supervisor and budgetary explanation from supervisor. Implications of the results for future research and budgetary system design are discussed.

There are numerous existing resources which claim to discuss the most important factors a potential PhD student should consider when looking for a possible supervisor. Commonly discussed topics include the supervisors’ record and approach, but there is much more to finding a reciprocal and beneficial relationship. This chapter will address some of these less discussed factors to look for when selecting a supervisor, including sense of humor. This chapter will help the hopeful PhD student maneuver the uncomfortable − and often overwhelming − waters of selecting a supervisor by pointing out the questions students forget to ask, the character traits they don’t think to consider, and examples of supervision selection gone wrong. It starts with the often-confusing process of knowing where to start looking, then highlights five frequently ignored factors that deserve more consideration, and finishes with warning signs to look for that mark supervisors to avoid.

Is co-supervision (i.e., two or more supervisors) a blessing or a torture? While co-supervision enables doctoral students to embrace a greater breadth of expertise, studying under the supervision of two or more supervisors can also be frustrating, especially when they have different requirements and expectations. Co-supervision is sometimes like living on the edge of two “systems” of theories and paradigms. It is important for doctoral students to be academically, emotionally, and interpersonally prepared to maximize the value of co-supervision, which often requires special management skills and techniques. Based on the experiences and stories of doctoral students from Hong Kong, this chapter will provide practical tips to navigate co-supervision.

“I just finished my meeting with one supervisor and need to prepare for the other now!”

“I just finished my meeting with one supervisor and need to prepare for the other now!”

“I can learn different things from each supervisor. It is very helpful.”

“I can learn different things from each supervisor. It is very helpful.”

“I am quite confused! My supervisors have totally different stands on this issue.”

“I am quite confused! My supervisors have totally different stands on this issue.”

Does any of the comments ring a bell with you? If you studied or are studying for a doctoral degree in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, or Hong Kong, you are likely to find yourself in similar situations. With the development of distributed supervisory practice in higher education and the growing number of doctoral candidates, more and more doctoral students are likely to be supervised by two or more academics, that is, co-supervision.

Studies highlight that poor labour supervision and inadequate labour training facilities are the primary factors that result in labour skill shortages and productivity-related challenges among construction firms. This study aims to assess the construction supervisors’ abilities in providing work-based training elements and evaluating labour skills in construction.

A construction supervisory training programme was newly designed with a set of labour training exercises using comprehensive approaches. A total of 64 construction supervisors were trained to deliver the labour training components for more than 250 labourers working on 23 construction projects in Sri Lanka. The supervisors’ competencies were assessed using a detailed marking guide developed through expert discussions and literature reviews.

The results show the detailed cross-section of a wide range of competencies of the construction supervisors in providing labour training elements with the levels of standards/descriptions. The generalisability of the study applications and the reliability of the results were ensured using statistical tests and expert reviews. The findings further describe the impacts of the well-improved competencies of construction supervisors on labour working patterns and work outputs.

Though the study findings were limited to the Sri Lankan construction sector, the study applications can have a considerable impact on the current/future practices of the construction sector in developing countries as well as other developing industries.

The study outcomes may contribute to a rapid increase in the number of construction supervisors becoming certified assessors of National Vocational Qualifications up to certain levels. This paper describes the further extensive implications and future scopes of the study elaborately.

The study adds new characteristics and values to construction supervision practices that can be remarkable in achieving higher levels of performance and productivity in labour operations. Importantly, the study contributes to adorning the job role of construction supervisors with the title of “labour training expert”.

The study's goal was to identify the factors contributing to the practical completion of Kaizen events (KEs). The effect of the work-study man's characteristics, the supervisor's conduct and the autonomy of the Kaizen team are analysed in this study.

Data were collected from 249 respondents working in the manufacturing sector in India, mainly those who had been involved in Kaizen projects. Three-step procedures, namely, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and partial least squares, have been applied to test the research hypotheses through structural equational modelling.

The exploratory factor analysis extracted in-role performance, creative performance and human aspect as latent variables explaining work-study man's performance (eigenvalue = 1). The study's findings indicate that the performance of work-study man (in-role, creative and human) and supervisors' conduct is directly related to the success of KEs. It was shown that supervisors might influence the outcomes of KEs only by moderating the human aspects. Additionally, the degree of autonomy of the Kaizen team was found having a significant positive relationship with the success of KEs.

The current study suggests that in-role and creative performance are prime assets of a work-study man. At the same time, the human aspect is a delicate issue that can affect the supervisor's behaviour. Therefore, the study implies that work-study men have the tactics and abilities to work with other co-workers to make a Kaizen project successful.

Although the significance of Kaizen projects has been widely emphasised, past research has failed to establish what factors contribute to the success of Kaizen efforts. Similarly, the supervisor's critical role has been highlighted several times. However, it is unclear how their conduct influences the relationship between work-study man's performance and the effectiveness of Kaizen projects. This study contributes significantly to organisational culture and human resource management by answering these questions.

Little consideration has been given to the role supervisors play in managing the introduction of new technology. Ignoring their role is shortsighted since supervisors can have a significant effect on the success of new systems. Drawing on research conducted in nine engineering companies, little awareness of forward planning in relation to the human dimensions of technical change is found. There is a crucial need for proper training of supervisors, although the exact approach will depend on the position occupied by them.

Examines the relationships between subordinates′ ratings of boss‐subordinate relationships and supervisors′ overall performance ratings. Data were collected from 3,232 managers (499 work groups) in a large North American information systems firm. Shows that supervisor and subordinate performance ratings were significantly, but not highly‐related. Moderators of this relationship included agreement among subordinates, organizational level, and function. The results have implications for the likely value of upward feedback to managers in different units and the need to educate supervisors in broader aspects of subordinate performance.

This article reports the results of a field study that aims to investigate the differences, if any, that exist between Saudi Arabian and U.S. supervisors, as perceived by their subordinates. It is assumed that any differences that exist are culturally bound and have a positive or negative effect on subordinates by making the work environment pleasant or unpleasant. The findings point to the existence of differences between Saudi Arabian and U.S. supervisors with regard to the subordinates' welfare, claiming subordinates' original ideas, performance evaluation, control, knowledge of the job, willingness to explain job duties to subordinates and motivation. Suggestions have been provided to reduce these differences in the work climate.

Despite all the changes over the past decade in how organizations are designed and managed, the role of the first‐line manager or supervisor remains crucial. Surveys have shown that today, just as 20 years ago, supervisors are regarded as more central to effective organizational performance than anybody else, with the possible exception of the general manager. Especially in manufacturing companies, supervisors are typically felt to have more influence, for both good and bad, than other groups of employees on such outcomes as absenteeism, product quality, cost reduction and labour relations. Despite this, the role of the supervisor has suffered a marked decline over this period. In this article, the reasons for this decline are analysed, and a series of recommendations developed for reversing the trend. What these suggestions for improving the situation have in common is that they involve supervisors being given more chance to employ the “levers of influence” inherent in their position than is typically the case at present.

Findings of studies on self‐appraisals conducted mainly in non‐educational settings indicate that self‐ratings are generously inflated, do not correlate with other sources, and show less reliability than ratings from counter‐positions. Reports on self‐appraisals in an educational setting using perceptions of teacher interns and their supervisors. Self – and supervisor appraisals were found to be significantly correlated, with self‐appraisals showing less leniency than corresponding supervisor appraisals. In addition, self‐appraisals were a better predictor of job satisfaction than supervisor appraisals.