OpenAIR@RGU

The Open Access Institutional Repository

at Robert Gordon University

http://openair.rgu.ac.uk

Citation Details

Citation for the version of the work held in ‘OpenAIR@RGU’:

CARNEGIE, D., 1998. First line supervisors in the offshore oil and
gas industry. Available from OpenAIR@RGU. [online]. Available
from: http://openair.rgu.ac.uk

Copyright

Items in ‘OpenAIR@RGU’, Robert Gordon University Open Access Institutional Repository,

are protected by copyright and intellectual property law. If you believe that any material
held in ‘OpenAIR@RGU’ infringes copyright, please contact openair-help@rgu.ac.uk with
details. The item will be removed from the repository while the claim is investigated.
 FIRST LINE SUPERVISORS
IN THE OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRY

David Carnegie

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of

The Robert Gordon University

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

July 1998

THE OBERT GORDONUNIVERSITY

111111,111
111111111111,11111111111111111111111111

0004470463 ABERDEEN
 CONTENTS

Abstract viii
Acknowledgements x

Chapter One

The North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 The Offshore Work Environment 2

1.3 Management Research in the Offshore Industry 5

1.3.1. Supervisoryinfluence on social support and stress 6

1.3.2. Supervisorinfluence on job satisfaction 7
1.3.3. Supervisoryimpact on risk perception 7
1.3.4. Rotation of the offshore workforce and its effect on supervision. 8

1.4 The Offshore Supervisor 9

Chapter Two

The Changing Role of the Supervisor

2.1 Introduction 13

2.2 The Role of the Supervisor in Modem Day 14

2.3 The Need For More Effective Supervision 18

2.4 The Future for the Supervisor 20

2.5 Measuring the Contribution of Supervision 25

2.5.1 Methods of supervisory research 25

2.5.2 The Management Charter Initiative (MCI) 28

Chapter Three

The Supervisor as Leader: A Theoretical Review

3.1 Introduction 35

3.2 Definitions of Leadership 36

3.3 The Major LeadershipTheories 37

3.3.1 Trait theories 37

3.3.2 Leadershipstyle theories 39

3.3.3 Situational and Contingency theories of leadership effectiveness 45
3.3.4 Transactional and Transformational Leadership 51

3.3.5 A UK Model Of LeadershipEffectiveness 54

3.4 MeasuringLeadershipEffectiveness 55

3.5 Summary 56

Chapter Four

Method & Survey of Offshore Supervisors - Phase II

4.1 Introducton 58

4.2 ResearchDesign 59

4.3 Methodology 62

4.3.1 Sample 62

4.3.2 Questionnaire Design 62

4.4 Results 65

4.4.1 Place and way of living 65

4.4.2 People 68

4.4.3 Accountability and Handovers 68

4.4.4 Motivation 69

4.4.5 Supervisionand Worksite Discipline 71

4.4.6 Leadership 71

4.4.7 Work performance measurement 74

4.4.8 Commercial Awareness 74

4.4.9 Training 74

4.4.10 Communication 75

4.5 Conclusion 75

111
Chapter Seven

Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire - Platform UK2 Results

7.1 Introduction 122

7.2 General Background Information 122

7.2.1 Demographicdata 122

7.2.2 SUPERVISORY Job PerformanceMeasure 124

7.2.3 IMAGES OccupationalPersonalityQuestionnaire 125,

7.3 Offshore Elements and Supervision 126

7.4 Motivation 129

7.4.1 Job Satisfaction 129
7.4.2 System Motivators 131

7.5 The Offshore Environment 132

7.5.1 The work environment scale 132

7.5.2 Stressof the job 135

7.6 Leadership 136

7.7 ComparisonBetween Operatorand Contractor Supervisors 139

7.8 Multi-Variate Analysis 142

7.8.1 RegressionAnalysis 142

7.8.2 Intercorrelations among independent variables 143

7.9 Conclusion 143

Chapter Eight

Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire - Platform N' Results

8.1 Introduction 145

8.2 General Background Information 145

8.2.1 Demographicdata 145

8.2.2 Supervisoryjob performancemeasure 147

8.2.3 IMAGES OccupationalPersonalityQuestionnaire 148

8.3 Offshore Elements and Supervision 149

8.4 Motivation 152

8.4.1 Job satisfaction 152

8.4.2 System Motivators 154

V
 8.5 The Offshore Environment 156

8.5.1 The work environment scale 156

8.5.2 Stress of the job 158

8.6 Leadership 160

8.7 Multi-Variate Analysis 163

8.8 Conclusion 163

Chapter Nine
Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire
-
Integrated Results from UKI, UK2 & N1

9.1 Introduction 164

9.2 Biodata And Supervisory Job Performance Measure 165

9.3 Open QuestionsOn Supervision 166

9.4 Platform Comparison 169

9.5 Multivariate Analysis 175

9.5.1 Discriminant analysis of supervisory performance 175

9.5.2 Predicting Platform Membership using Discriminant Analysis 177

9.6 Decision Making Vignettes UK1. UK2 & NI 180

9.6.1 Background 180

9.6.2 DMV Analysis 181

9.6.3 DMV Results 185

9.6.4 Comparison between the Boyatzis Cluster and the Offshore Supervisory Effectiveness

Cluster 187

9.7 The Offshore Supervisory CompetenceModel 195

9.8 Conclusion 198

Chapter Ten

Conclusions and Recommendations

10.1 Introduction 201

10.2 Platform Findings 204

10.2.1 Overall Findings 204

10.2.2 The Supervisory Style of Effective Offshore Supervisors 209

10.2.3 The Offshore Supervisor i 'situ 212

10.2.4 The Platform Effect 213

vi
 10.3 The Future of the Offshore Supervisor 215

10.3.1 Changes within the offshore industry 215

10.3.2 Measuring supervisory performance 216

10.4 Recommendationsand Future Research 220

10.4.1 Concluding comments 220

10.4.2 Oil industry feedback 220
10.4.3 Supervisorremainspivotal but needshelp 221
10.4.4 Supervisorcorrectly selectedcould exceedperformanceexpectations 222.
10.4.5 Supervisor will probably be developed from within 223

10.4.6 The way forward 223

References 225

Appendices
Appendix l Pilot study of Offshore Supervisors on a Production Platform in the North Sea 240

Appendix la Interviews with Offshore Supervisors on a semi-submersible drilling rig in the

North Sea 245

Appendix II The offshore supervisors' questionnaire 111993 250

Appendix Ha Decision Making Scenarios 260

Appendix Ilb Job performance indicators 262

Appendix IIc Peer Nominations 263

vii
 ABSTRACT

First line supervisors in the offshore oil and gas industry

The offshore oil and gas industry has created significant wealth for the UK economy; approximately 250

billion Great British Pounds (GBP) since oil was discovered under the United Kingdom Continental Shelf

(UKCS) of which approximately 70 billion GBP was paid in tax and royalties to the UK government. The

industry currently employs about 35,000 individuals directly and supports many more jobs indirectly. In

short, it is a very critical industry to the UK economy. But for all its contribution, there is a dearth of social

science and management research into the how the offshore industry is managed. This thesis reports the
background and findings of an investigation into the first level of the platform production management

team and examines this role in terms of the personal characteristics and man-management skills required

within this working environment.

This thesis was the first study that attempted to investigate the non-technical characteristics of high

performing supervisors. It examined the question of what makes an effective supervisor in terms of

biodata, personality, job satisfaction and perceptions of the work environment. The transformational

model of Bass and Avolio (1990) was also adapted to assess leadership style. A specially designed semi-

structured questionnaire was developed. The research sample comprised of one hundred first line

supervisors (operators and contractors), their subordinates and their superiors on three North Sea platforms.

It was hypothesisedthat effective offshore first line supervisorswould have a distinct supervisory style

compared to less effective ones. Other aims included assessingthe differences between supervisors
working on the UKCS and those on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS); and between supervisors

working for contracting companies as opposed to operating companies.

The key contributions of the thesis were in the following four areas; (i) the summary data that described the

offshore first line supervisors, (ii) the findings from standard instruments, particularly the Bass leadership

instrument, identified that supervisory effectiveness was dependent on the platform membership of the

supervisor, (iii) the qualitative findings from the supervisory decision making vignettes and finally (iv) the

platform differences that were elicited from both within the UK sector and between the North Sea sectors.
For example, on one UK platform, UKI, the more effective supervisor displayed a more transactional
leadership style, namely taking an active role in enforcing workplace standards. There was some evidence

to suggest that dimensions of a transformational leadership style such as motivating subordinates through

pep talks and depicting visions of a better workplace were positively correlated with performance. These

viii
findings were broadly consistent with the results of previous research. In contrast, the second UK

platform, UK2, produced a different finding. This was surprising given the numerous physical and

organisational characteristics that these two platforms had in common. The Norwegian platform sample

was small (n= 19) and therefore correlational results were largely exploratory.

Further differences were revealed through multi-variate analyses between all three platforms based on
leadership, job satisfaction and biodata variables. This implies that `effectiveness' may be dependent on

the platform membership of the supervisor. As an alternative explanation, these findings may suggest that

the standard instruments and appraisal measures were not sensitive enough to differentiate performance

within this work environment. The Bass and Avolio (1990) leadership model, in particular, produced

contradictory findings and its usefulness in this context remains questionable. Qualitative evidence from

the total sample of effective supervisory behaviours, using a behavioural event interview method,

supported the quantitative findings from UK1 but broadly disagreed with the findings from UK2.

Measuring supervisors performance without reference to objective indices remains a weakness for this

style of research.

The impact of these findings is discussed in the context of both practical recommendations for recruitment,

selection and development for the supervisory population and future research into management research in

the offshore oil and gas industry.

ix
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research project and thesis has only been possible because of the significant support of many
individuals. I met many people throughout this project and their support for the work has been inspiring.

In particular, I must sincerely thank the following :-

Professor Rhona Flin, who as my supervisor, was instrumental in the thesis getting this far. Her guidance,

intellect, encouragement, and ideas for improvement exceeded measurably the job description of a

supervisor. Professor Flin's secretary, Evelyn McLennan was also an enormous source of support and

friendship.

The employees of all the companies that took part in the research. Their patience throughout the
interviews and their general co-operation and support to me while I was offshore. The management of all

the companies that provided access to their offshore installations. I was extremely fortunate for their

commitment, their ideas and in many instances their `political' favours that were traded, especially Dave

Bayliss, Alan Murray, Alison Bower, Frank Crombie, John Collins, Hamish Taylor, Stewart Officer, Tony

Ward, Lawrie Bain, Bob Drummond, Campbell Austin, Svein Giskimo and finally Reidar Mykletun of the

Rogaland Research Institute.

Ian Lamb and Colin Dean of ICL who provided encouragement,occasional study leave, and significant
humanresourcemanagementchallengesthat, while delaying the thesis completion, significantly enhanced

my professionalcareer.

Finally, I must thank my Mum and Dad who have selflessly supported me throughout many years of

education. This thesis is dedicated to them.

X
 CHAPTER ONE

THE NORTH SEA OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

"What the astronauts have done is great, ' he said to the rig's geologist, 'but how about this? ' He held up the oil; it

had a golden sheen, almost transparent, but definitely almost like gold. " (Yergin, 1993, p. 668).

The above quotation described the first moments after striking oil in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea by

Phillips Petroleum in November 1969. A breakthrough that was frequently referred to as'luck', paved the way

for one of the most ambitious capital investment projects in the world. Although drilling for oil onshore, began

in the USA as early as the 1850s and offshore production had-started with the first platform in the Gulf of
Mexico in 1947, the scale of interest in finding oil in the North Sea surpassed all expectations and no oil

company dared to be left out (Yergin, 1993).

In a commentary on the economic impact of North Sea oil on the UK political scene, Harvie (1994) described it

as the greatest civilian project in Britain since 5,000 miles of railway were built in the 1850s. In the UK sector,

within twenty years since North Sea oil was first. discovered, there were 46 fields in production, 25 under
development, 93 platforms, 42 mobile rigs and about 28,000 offshore employees, and the industry was

generating total revenues of c220 billion GBP. Although, revenues were high, the cost base was equally large,

and the industry focus particularly since 1986, has aimed to reduce costs.

Following the oil price collapse of 1986, the North Sea offshore oil and gas industry faced an uncertain future.

Since then the price has remained fairly stable fluctuating between $12 and $18 per barrel and there has been

little change anticipated in the price per barrel. Many previously planned offshore projects had to be shelved.

The exploration arm of the upstream industry stopped drilling wells almost overnight and the existing platforms

laced the need for cost reduction in order for the fields to remain viable. The North Sea is now firmly

established as a mature petroleum province where rising operating costs restrict profit levels, reduce field life

and risk future offshore developments. The industry needs to address these challenges by developing solutions
that combine the twin imperatives of cost efficiency and improved performance whilst giving due regard to

safety and the environment.

These changes have triggered a range of significant innovations within the offshore oil and gas industry such as

new technologies in subsea satellite developments, information technology applications in reservoir modelling

and the design of simpler platforms with low manning (and unmanned) and floating production vessels.

1
 The North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

However, the dual needs of the offshore industry, with diminishing hydrocarbon resources from existing finds

and future developments remaining in smaller marginal fields or inhospitable deep waters, are only part

answered by technical solutions. The hunt for scarce resources exists not only in geological formations but also

in the search for expertise. The skills demanded to manage offshore developments in this mature phase of the

industry require different people of the highest calibre (Fay, 1993). Highly trained competent supervisors are a

necessity to lead teams from a multiskilled offshore workforce that can operate in this cost conscious era where

new opportunities and demands will challenge the "best" man-management skills.

The purpose of this thesis is to identify the skills required by an offshore first-line supervisor who can

successfully lead a team in this unique working environment. The technical skills of the first-line supervisor are

not in question, instead it is the non-technical aspects of the role that differentiate the effective from the less

effective supervisors. These include the "soft" skills, such as the leadership/man-management/behavioural

competencies. Not only is it the investigation of these skills in isolation, but also how they interact with other

attributes comprising personality, job satisfaction and perceptions of the work environment. The identification

of these skills and the determination of how they differentiate between effective and less effective performance

among offshore supervisors will form the main thrust of this thesis. To appreciate why it is critical to diagnose

these skills, it is essential to convey the background to the development of the offshore oil and gas industry.

Given the dearth of research within an offshore supervisory context, it is also necessary to examine, for

comparative purposes, the supervisory and leadership research conducted with onshore first-line supervisors.
This approach should underpin the strategy of data collection described in Chapters Four and Five which will

ultimately identify findings that address the main questions raised by the thesis.

The specific aim of this chapter is two fold: firstly to review previous research into working life on North Sea

oil and gas installations, and secondly to examine in more detail those findings that relate to the role of the first
line supervisor on offshore installations. One of the most interesting aspects of this investigation is the North

Sea's incomparability with other working environments. "Outer spacewith bad weather" were the words used
by one commentator to describe it, and research that examines the social impact of the offshore work

environment will introduce the next section. These introductory sections will set the scene for the latter part of
this chapter which will describe the specific challenges faced by offshore supervisors.

1.2 THE OFFSHORE WORK ENVIRONMENT

Several research projects have been undertaken to describe the social and environmental consequences of the

offshore industry. The results of these studies will form the central part to the description of the offshore work

environment. While the projects outlined do not analyse the offshore industry within a UK context, because

they focus on the Norwegian and Canadian oil industries, similarities can be identified between all three
upstream provinces.

2
 Chapter One

In 1979, Mobil Exploration Norway initiated a comprehensiveresearchproject aimed at examining the impact

of the offshore work environment on working relationships on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS). The

primary use of the information gathered from the research was to monitor and hopefully improve the interplay
between people and the environment (Hellesoy, 1985). The impetus for the project was driven by several

factors. It was suggested that the knowledge gained from previous studies into onshore work environments

might not be directly applicable to large, technologically complex offshore oil production platforms. Platforms
in the North Sea could be a challenging work place for the workforce and there might be problems in the

successful adaptation to the physical work, the way in which the work was organised, and differences in work

cultures between Norwegians and foreigners (Hellesoy, 1985). The researchers thought that risks to health and' ;

safety, such as those found in onshore process industries, might be increased by factors associated with the
North Sea environment. These included; rough weather conditions, helicopter transportation to and from the

worksite, physical and chemical exposures, a 24 hour society, a mixture of cultural backgrounds, living

conditions, leisure opportunities, long workdays during shifts and a unique work cycle that creates long periods

away from home and even longer periods away from the workplace. It should be noted that the offshore

environment, might conversely improve life for the offshore employee by allowing opportunities for new and

challenging tasks, improve finances and raise living standards, create secure employment and provide more

uninterrupted time for participation in family and local community life.

The Statfjord A platform, with a workforce of about 500 people, had been systematically investigated by Mobil

(Norway) researchers in an effort to find out how the employees thought about and reacted to their new

environment. The researchers interviewed 698 people offshore during a seven month period in 1980 and

complemented this by sending questionnaires to the employees' home addresses. The sample comprised of

operator personnel, catering personnel, drilling personnel and flotel crews.

The ultimate aim was to predict possible consequencesfor health and safety in order to prevent or

constructively meet possible difficulties as early as possible. As operator, Mobil wanted to improve the social
climate on the platform in order to develop the best possible work environment. Hellesoy states categorically in

the preface to his book that Mobil demonstrated foresight and an uncommon willingness to use research to

strengthen the health and safety of Statfjord employees by initiating and financing this comprehensive project,

and also allowed the researchers complete freedom to define problem areas, choose methods, formulate

conclusions and publish results. The relevant details of this Norwegian study are discussed in the sections

below.

A similar investigation was undertaken to examine the social impact of the exploration phase of the Canadian

offshore oil industry (Fuchs, Cake & Wright, 1983). The research, which was sponsored by the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador, sought to "establish the baseline social and economic characteristics of early

interaction with the oil industry and to identify the way in which rural residents employed on the offshore were

adapting to their work" (p. 1). The results from the research showed that the majority of the oil workers

interviewed were satisfied with their offshore employment. Offshore work was described as one of the more

3
 The North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

exotic and elite occupations available to the working man in Newfoundland, an area which has very high

unemployment (Fuchs et al, 1983). They perceived that offshore work provided them with income security and

an assured future within rural Newfoundland. These perceived benefits outweighed the adjustments to other

factorssuch as changedmarital roles, social and recreationallife.

In 1985, a paper by House entitled "Working Offshore: The Other Price of Newfoundland's Oil" described the

Canadian oil industry as "Nineteenth Century Capitalism in the Twentieth Century". The purpose of the paper

was to examine both the working and the safety conditions in Newfoundland and compare them internationally.
The paper argued that the Ocean Ranger disaster, the capsize of a semi-submersible drilling rig on February 15, j

1982 killing 84 men, need not have happened. House claimed that reports outlining the lessons to be gained

from the Alexander Kielland disaster, a flotel that capsized in the Norwegian sector in 1980 and resulting in 123

deaths, were ignored. The oil industry, the labour movement and the Canadian Government all failed to

recognise the dangers associated with the offshore oil industry (House, 1985).

"While both industry and government have recently devoted much effort to safety issues,they continue to view

them as a technical problem. But thosefew social scientists who have managed to gain accessto the offshore
workplacesuggestotherwise. Theproblem is as much one of thepolitical economyand social organisation of the
offshore workplaceas it is of technological deficiencies." (p. 3).

The Institute of Social and Economic Research at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, which published

House's paper undertook a further research project describing the reactions of Newfoundland workers and their

to
spouses work on exploration rigs and supply boats. The research conducted by Shrimpton and Storey (1991)

used questionnaires that were directed at both the workers and their spouses. The questionnaires addressed their

opinions about employment experience, reactions to offshore work, and its family life impacts. Their findings

suggest that improving health and safety in the offshore oil industry requires a greater emphasis on social,

psychologicaland cultural, as againsttechnological factors.

The importance of comparison between the Norwegian Sector, Offshore Canada and the United Kingdom

Continental Shelf (UKCS) cannot be underestimated. In spite of cultural differences, there is considerable

similarity between the three sectors in terms of the formation of the petroleum reserves and the types of drilling

rigs and production platforms used. Although, unlike offshore Canada, the North Sea, does not have to contend

with floating icebergs as a potential hazard. Comparisons between the three sectors in the production stage of

the upstream industry are only applicable between the NCS and the UKCS as the Canadian Hibernia project will

not produce oil and gas until 1998.

Given the commonality between the NCS and the UKCS it has been argued that each country can learn from

research undertaken in the other. Both operating companies and service companies are involved in upstream

activities in the two territories, specialist personnel such as directional downhole drillers and reservoir engineers
frequently interchange across the two provinces and research examining the environmental impact of the

4
 Chapter One

offshore industry in the North Sea has implications for both sides. House (1985) stated that the Canadianoil
industry was in an enviable position of potentially learning lessons from the North Sea experience. However,

he further emphasised the cross cultural nature of the research within the North Sea by describing the

Norwegian government as more insistent than theNBritish that oil companies cooperate in social science research

by assisting in gaining access to installations and providing research funding. The reasons behind the

differences in attitude to social science research by the two governments prior to 1985 is not of direct relevance

to this chapter but the transfer of research in safety methods since then has contributed significantly to the
developmentof a saferNorth Seaoil and gas industry (seeCullen, 1990,Chapter 16).
Y

This social and environmental research into the oil industry, while important, highlights the lack of investigation

into other aspects of the industry. The section above describes the key social science research projects that

examined the impact of the offshore oil and gas industry at a macro level, but have largely ignored the
individual; the most essential offshore asset of all. The next section aims to describe the impact of the offshore

industry on the human factor and the difficulties that this posed in terms of both organisation and management.

1.3 MANAGEMENT RESEARCH IN THE OFFSHORE INDUSTRY

Perhaps surprisingly, given the importance of the industry to the host economy, there has been a dearth of

management research in the offshore oil and gas industry (Flin, Slaven, & Carnegie, 1996). The importance of

management and supervision was highlighted by the Cullen Inquiry (1990) and previous research into the North
Sea offshore oil and gas industry primarily examined wider issues such as work environment, accident rates and

occupationalstress. In the early eighties, researchexaminedthe social impact of the offshore work environment
(Fuchs,Cake & Wright, 1981; Hellesoy, 1985). The secondhalf of the decadesaw a changeof emphasisas UK
research began reporting the effects of stress on the offshore workforce (Gann, Corpe & Wilson, 1990; Parkes,
1993; Sutherland, V, & Cooper, 1986 & 1991; Sutherland, K, & Flin 1991). More recent managerial research

has been undertaken in the industry, by examining the demands of specific roles such as the role of the Offshore

Installation Manager (OIM) (Flin & Slaven, 1993; Mykletun, 1993). The quantity of research into the offshore

industry has been increasing and while there are many contributory factors to this attitude change, the culture is

very different from 1985 when House stated : "Worldwide, there have been few systematic investigations of the

offshore oil industry and its impact upon oil workers and their families" (p. 7)

The rest of the chapter will focus directly on research that centres on management roles offshore and in

particular the first line supervisor. Previous research, the concomitant effects of the new cost conscious climate

and changes in the safety culture have placed an increased significance on both the management and human

factor issues in the offshore oil and gas industry (Flin & Slaven, 1996). One of the key management positions

on a platform is the first line offshore supervisor. This individual` holds what is arguably one of the most

important management positions in any industry. The supervisor is the key link between upper management

5
 The North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

decisions and the implementation of these tasks, while simultaneously satisfying the potentially conflicting

demands of both his or her superiors and subordinates.

The supervisors' superiors are looking for performance without problems and the subordinates are looking to

their supervisor for leadership, direction and rewards (Phillips, 1985). The position is not only critical from an

organisational perspective but is crucial at the cutting edge of the oil business where the supervisor has been
described as the person responsible for the reliability of the interaction between hardware and a skilled and

motivated workforce (Bird & Germain, 1985). The influence and significance of this role will be described in

more detail in subsequent sections of this chapter.

1.3.1. Supervisory influence on social support and stress

High inventory dangers, safety critical procedures and confinement i. e., living and working in the same

location, are significant stressors in this 24 hour work environment. The close proximity of the living and
working life on an offshore installation, in particular, is of considerable importance and may accentuate or

attenuate poor relationships at work. This may be observed through low trust, low support and poor

communication and can result in low levels of job satisfaction and reduced well being. Social support makes

employees feel more positive about themselves and their work, and an empathetic supervisor is a valuable prop
both to self-esteem and a buffer against stress in any workplace (Cox, 1993). Previous research has identified

the supervisor as a having a key role in moderating the effect of stress on his team (Hellesoy, 1985; Sutherland

& Cooper, 1986). The supervisor's role in interpersonal relationships while critical in any organisational

setting, appears to be more significant in the upstream oil industry. Although the proximity factor in the

offshore industry may force some individuals to strive harder at their social and working relationships because
they also live together (Hellesoy, 1985; Sutherland & Cooper, 1986). Hellesoy found that supervisors are

themselves not immune to stress and that responsibility for the work performance of others, was itself a stressor.
The supervisors indicated that support and back-up from their superiors modified the stress effect of

responsibility but where support and back-up was less than they expected the supervisors rated their position as

stressful.

One argument established to explain the presence of poor interpersonal relationships is that offshore supervisors

and their predominantly technical backgrounds may regard relationships at work as low priority. Sutherland

and Cooper (1986) state that the technical supervisor's orientation is towards "things" not "people" and that
"consideration of working relationships is viewed as mollycoddling, trivial, petty, time consuming and an
impediment to doing the job well. " (p. 57) One could argue that this view was prevalent during the pioneering

days of the North Sea oil industry with the 'American hire-and-fire mentality' but that recent culture changes as

a result of the Piper Alpha disaster and Ocean Odyssey blow-out, and the subsequent changes to safety
regulations have had a significant impact to the attitudes and beliefs within the oil industry.

6
 Chapter One

1.3.2. Supervisor influence on job satisfaction

One of the main indicators of poor social support from offshore supervisors was a low level of job satisfaction

(Sutherland & Cooper, 1986) although, it could be argued that the supervisor's subordinates experience this

because their supervisor is also experiencing low levels of job satisfaction. In the Norwegian study by

Hellesoy, the supervisors reported more dissatisfaction with the time available to do the job properly and more

dissatisfaction with pressure and stress within their jobs, than did the other offshore groups within the sample.

These two variables indicated that the supervisor was subjected to heavy work pressure. Hellesoy (1985) found

that supervisors differed from the other offshore workers in findings such as a greater dissatisfaction with tim

pressure and stress in their jobs, problems with health, well-being and life style just prior to the work period,

and a tendency toward health problems and toward work being influenced by accidentlillness during the work
Hellesoy suggested that these findings of occupational strain in supervisors required further
period.

examination. He argued that further research requires not only measures of the conventional aspects of the

work environment such as safety, health and job satisfaction, but should incorporate a more holistic approach
that examines the degree to which work stress adversely affects onshore life. However, certain functions of the

role of supervisor did create feelings of job satisfaction such as pay and communication of authority.
Satisfaction with the rewards of the job were known to modify the stress impact of offshore work pressure

(Hellesoy, 1985).

Job satisfaction was also measured in the UKCS by Sutherland and Cooper (1986) using the Warr, Cook and

Wall (1979) Job Satisfaction Scale. Job satisfaction was an interesting variable in their study as it was rated

differently between the groups in the sample i. e., operator personnel were more satisfied than contractor

personnel. They also found that the offshore sample rated job satisfaction significantly lower than an onshore

comparison "blue collar" group. Their study also concluded that the job dissatisfied worker was more likely to

have reduced mental well being, physiological ill health and possible increased vulnerability to accidents. In

organisational terms it probably results in poor performance and reduced productivity. This has significant

implications for the supervisor as a substantial part of his or her role is to motivate and lead their teams (Evans,

1992). While the findings may show that offshore employees were more dissatisfied than an onshore group,

direct comparisons may be inappropriate because of the composition of the onshore "blue collar" norm group

which covers only manufacturing industries and excludes service construction, agriculture and mining industries

(Warr, Cook & Wall, 1979).

1.3.3. Supervisory impact on risk perception

One of the key factors that influence the work environment and safety culture of an offshore platform is risk

perception. The Norwegian Statfjord project examined the relationship between position in the management

hierarchy of the platform and risk perception. The respondents were asked to indicate how safe they felt

regarding 20 aspects of the Statfjord environment e.g., fire, blow-out and evacuation facilities. The results

showed that there was an extremely strong tendency for supervisors to perceive low "risks of explosions"; and

7
 The North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

to experience the least risk for other "dangerous conditions" The supervisor's subordinates surveyed reported

the highest perceived risk on all risk factors. (See Chapter 10, Hellesoy, 1985; & Sunde, 1983.) In a

subsequent UKCS study on risk perception, a similar finding was reported describing a slight difference
between supervisors and non-supervisors perception of risk (Mearns, Flin, Rundmo, Fleming, & Gordon, 1996).

Their results indicated that supervisors felt safer with regard to carrying out their work task than did non-

supervisors due to the additional information that supervisors possess relating to the task. These findings
indicate the critical impact that a supervisor can have on both the management and communication of risk to

their teams.
_t

1.3.4. Rotation of the offshore workforce and its effect on supervision.

One of the obvious differences between an onshore and offshore environment is work rotation. The employees

of an onshore factory would typically expect to work continually throughout the year and apart from weekends

and holidays would retain a physical connection with their working environment. However, the offshore

workforce typically work two or three week shifts (with no rest days) and then spendthe sametime onshoreon
leave. Therefore,they sharetheir work place with another shift and do not retain the samecontinuousphysical

connectionwith their working environmentas their onshorecounterparts.

Researchers at the Rogaland Research Institute in Norway have undertaken research into the effects of rotating

several individual leaders-into the same position as platform manager. (Platform Manager in the Norwegian
Sector is the equivalent of the Offshore Installation Manager, (OIM), in the UKCS). The research examined the

effect of repeated management changes due to the work pattern and their potential consequences for

effectiveness and safety hazards. One of the main problems identified by Mykletun (1993) was the effect of the

rotation of not only the platform managers but also of the other leadership positions (such as the supervisors),

and the crew. This created a situation where each offshore trip became a more demanding social process "a
kind of unintended 'team building"' (p. 5). He also argued that the offshore work environment was peculiar in

other ways, for example, the leadership position remained constant while the leaders changed and this meant
that in effect they were working together without really knowing the personal background of their opposite

partner.

More effective team building was advocated as a solution to the problems described above. The teambuilding

exercise should take place during onshore periods and also on the platform, and should highlight the need to get

as close to the team as possible so that one will know how their fellow worker or supervisor will react in
different situations. One other solution put forward was to reduce the room for decision making by the platform

manager and subordinate leaders which allows senior management onshore to exercise control over offshore

management. Although Mykletun himself claims that this may be impossible from an ideological point of view.

In another Norwegian study by Rundmo (1993) which examined risk perception in offshore workers, team

working and supervisory support were identified as critical factors in supporting safety initiatives. Social

8
 Chapter One

support by managementand supervisors was also found as important in forming attitudes towards safety
measuresfor all personnel. Vant and Livy (1979; 1980) in their UK study of the selection and recruitment of
roughnecksand roustabouts,identified good team working as one of the most important factors that assistedthe
individual in coping with life offshore, and is linked to the benefits of social support (Hellesoy, 1985).
Improving man managementis an important part of team building and Sutherlandand Cooper (1986) emphasise
that this may have a substantial impact on the cooperation between operator and contract personnel. This
relationship has had an ever increasing importance in the nineties as operating companies have outsourced
several parts of their previously held core offshore business to services companies. Ibis- shift has had
significant impact on the role of the supervisor as their responsibilities have expanded to include cultural-
facilitator betweenoperatorand contractorpersonnel.

1.4 THE OFFSHORE SUPERVISOR

This sectiondescribesthe only specific previous researchundertakeninto the role of the offshore supervisorand

secondlythe major impact that the Piper Alpha disasterhad on the role of the offshore supervisor.

The only specific researchinto the role of the offshore supervisor was a Norwegian report by Rowell (1981)
(cited in Hellesoy p.365-366) who identified several factors that may contribute to the work pressure as

expressedby thosesupervisorsworking on the Statjford A. The report focused on the problems of supervisors
regarding the responsibility and tommunication in their work relationships both with their superiorsand their
subordinates.The factorsare listed below :

"1. The supervisor organises and monitors the performance of the work of others.
2. The supervisor is the last chain of management policy, with a certain - though limited -

responsibility for making decisions.

3. Since the supervisor performs his work through others he may be viewed as a facilitator and an

on-the-job instructor.
4. All supervisor-jobs contain an element of personnel administration and care for the welfare of

subordinates (i.e., their pay, provision of the necessary material and equipment for acceptable
physical work environment decisions).
5. The supervisor must live with the fact that almost all his decisions may be overruled and, more

often than others, he must see his own authority questioned or overruled by others (often as a
result of agreements between union and management).
6. The supervisor is the main link in the two-way communication process of the company -a

source of information for management, and a "sorting level" for complaints and suggestions from
subordinates.
7. The supervisor has a clear responsibility to motivate those whom he manages. " (p.365)

9
 The North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Rowell feels that the characteristicsof the role of the supervisordescribedabove are challengedfurther by four

other factors. Theseinclude:-

a There may be little education, training or preparation for the role before filling the job position.
b It does appear to be generally accepted that promotion to supervisor provides a change of

status which others respect.

c Supervisors must demonstrate greater patience, fairness and understanding than previously.
Younger employees more readily question decisions and demand reasons. They are not

satisfied with just being "told" to do something.

d Organised dialogue between management and employee representatives creates an
increasing gulf in the centre of the organisational structure and the supervisor inevitably falls
into it.

Hellesoy (1985) concludesthat the results from the Statfjord findings support the need to action an indepth

evaluationof the problems that surround the supervisory role and Rowell, in his report, emphasisesthis further
by asserting that a complete survey of the supervisors' role and an identification of qualities and qualifications is

necessary for first line supervisors.

Given the importance of the role in terms of communication among the groups offshore, it was hardly surprising

that the role of the supervisor was again identified as a key one as a result of the Cullen Inquiry into the Piper

Alpha disaster. The Piper Alpha disaster occurred on July 6,1988 and was the world's worst offshore disaster.

Following two initial explosions, a massive fire swept through Occidental's Piper Alpha production platform

120 miles north-east of Aberdeen. The disaster destroyed the installation and resulted in the deaths of 167 men.

It led to a change of emphasis, attitude and culture by all involved in the North Sea oil and gas industry. In fact,

it had a profound effect on the oil industry throughout the world. The subsequent Public Inquiry chaired by

Lord Cullen had two main objectives:

(1) to establish the circumstances of the accident and its cause;

and
(2) together with any observationsand recommendationswhich he (Lord Cullen) thinksfit to make

with a view to thepreservation of life and the avoidance of similar accidentsin thefuture. " (p.7)

Lord Cullen's report was published on 12th of November 1990. It recommendedsweeping changesto the UK

offshore oil regulatory regime and listed 106 specific recommendations for government and industry. One of

the main changes sanctioned by the Cullen Inquiry was the introduction of the safety case. The safety case is a
demonstration by the Operator that the hazards of the installation have been identified and assessed, and are

under control and that the general exposure of personnel to these hazards have been minimised (see Cullen
1990, Chapter 17). Within the safety case the installations have to operate a Safety Management System (SMS)

which sets out the safety objectives, the system by which these objectives are to be achieved, the performance

standards which are to be met and the means by which adherence to these standards is to be monitored. Cullen

also endorsed the involvement of personnel at all levels in the safety management system.

10
 Chapter One

"Thefirst-line supervisorsarea key link in achieving that as each is personally responsiblefor ensuring that all

employees,whether the company's own or contractors are trained to and do work safely and that they not only
know how to perform their jobs safely but are convincedthat they have a responsibility to do so." (p.300-301)

These recommendations only further confirm the significance of this role in terms of its influence in the

workplace. The offshore supervisor is literally the only person that can react instantly to changes and can

thereforebe instrumentalin reducing potential loss and directly influencing profit and overall performance. The
failure of the supervisory process was the catalyst that created the first explosion on the Piper Alpha (Cullen,

1990, chapter 6). A breakdown in communication that solely in financial terms amounts to millions of pounds

(GBP) costs to the then platform operator, Occidental, and millions more to the offshore oil and gas industry in

safety related improvements. These costs were arguably avoidable had the weaknesses of the management

practices of the platforms been properly identified by all oil industry senior management and they had

subsequently introduced a management philosophy that was congruent with the unique demands of the

upstream oil industry. It could be argued, however, that for the offshore supervisor, the resulting changes have

gone too far. In practice, the offshore supervisor was a significant part of a communication system (permit-to-

work) breakdown that failed to prevent the first gas leak on the platform. However, the first line supervisory

level could not be blamed for failing to order shutdowns on the two other platforms that pumped oil and gas to

the Piper Alpha which resulted in a second and more devastating explosion or failing to implement appropriate

evacuation procedures. The safety culture promoted by the Cullen Inquiry predictably pushed responsibility for

safety up the management hierarchy to the highest level. In organisational terms, this has ironically resulted in

more responsibility being driven back down to the first line supervisor as he or she has to implement the new

safety policies of senior management. In essence, the first line supervisor has now even more responsibility for

safety and yet the errors that lead to the Piper Alpha Disaster were a combination of the harsh environment,

offshore platform design weaknesses and a production at all costs culture promoted from senior management

onshore rather than first line supervisors portraying a disregard for safety. Harvie (1994) reiterates the point

made by Hellesoy (1985) that even amongst roughnecks safety is an important part of their role

"Despite their bravado and ostensible disregard for personal safety, the drillers' basic attitude is in fact quite

sober and oriented toward accident prevention and safety instruction... " (Itarvie, 1994, p. 234)

It is, however, the lack of management research into the performance of the role given its criticality that is most

surprising. The tasks and responsibilities of being a first line supervisor are significant. They include; day-to-

day workplace leadership and responsibility for vital tasks with varying levels of upper management support.

These particular issues will be further explored in the next chapter. The offshore industry because of its unique

working environment, thrusts even more weight on the role. For example, the impact of the environment and
the burden that this may have on the supervisor in terms of providing social support and a buffer for stress have
been identified as key supervisory responsibilities. The offshore supervisor is also increasingly acting as coach

and facilitator to improve the cultural chinges demanded by the new business strategies being implemented

offshore. For example, outsourcing non-core activities to service companies is increasing and operating and

contracting companies now employs the population of offshore supervisors more equally. Supervisory

11
 The North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

differences dictated by company background are also an area of particular interest in the thesis. And, as if that

was not enough, the Cullen Report has pinpointed the role as crucial to the development of a new offshore

safety culture. With the plethora of sub-sea wells, the development of high pressure high temperature fields and
the compulsion to increase profitability by reducing costs and minimising platform shutdowns, the safety of the

offshore industry is even more reliant than ever on competent offshore supervision. The competent first line

supervisor may be the major safeguard against `an accident waiting to happen', a major environmental spill or

another Piper Alpha disaster. The oil industry should not forget the prophetic words of Red Adair who said in
April 1977 "Whatever precautions are taken, there'll be a disaster in the North Sea, sooner or later (Alvarez,

1986, p. 163) and avoid the return of the "production at all costs culture" to the industry.
.,

Supervisory and leadership literature from an onshore perspective will be discussed in Chapters Two and Three

in order to fully understand the role in isolation and separate from the extra variables that the offshore

environment creates. Chapter Four, describes the data collected during a pilot study of offshore supervisors.
These results, together with the three literature chapters will provide a theoretical foundation that will support

the methodological framework outlined in Chapter Five. This method will integrate the lessons learned from
both the pilot survey of supervisors and onshore supervisory studies and be able to test the questions examined

in the thesis. The main aims of this study are: -

(i) To record the experiencesand perceptionsof a sampleof offshore supervisorsin relation to the
working environment,training, job satisfaction,personality and leadershipskills.

(ii) To discover which of these factors differentiate a more effective from a less effective offshore
supervisor in terms of job performance.

(iii) To investigate the preferred leadership styles of the supervisors and to test where these
differentiate the effective from the lesseffective offshore supervisorby incorporating the views
of the supervisors,the supervisors'superiorsand the supervisors' subordinates.

(iv) To examine two alternative techniques for measuring supervisory performance.

(v) To assesswhether there are any differences between supervisors working on platforms on the
United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS) and those on the Norwegian Continental Shelf
(NCS); and between supervisors working for contracting companies as opposed to operating
companies.

The results of the main study are presented and discussed in Chapters Six, Seven and Eight. A comparison of

the findings from the combined group of all three platforms and the results from the decision making vignettes

are presented and discussed in Chapter Nine. Chapter Ten presents a final discussion and concludes with

recommendations for both management action and future research.

12
 CHAPTER TWO

THE CHANGING ROLE OF THE SUPERVISOR

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the changes in the role of the first line supervisor in onshore jobs across the UK since the

beginning of the North Sea Oil and Gas Industry in 1969. Previous research investigating the changing role of

the supervisor has focused exclusively on the managerial and performance characteristics of jobs within an

onshore work environment. The supervisory literature has to be understood with this frame of reference so that

the thesis findings are discussed in context. Given the dearth of research into the effects of the offshore work

environment on the role of the first-line supervisor (see Chapter One) there is a need to (i) look at onshore

research and (ii) assume that there is not a significant difference between onshore and offshore work, although
this theme will be addressed later in the thesis. However, it does raise the question of whether the

organisational change that has affected the onshore supervisor, (such as the erosion of influence, the growth of

participative management and changes in technology), also had an impact on supervisors based on a production

platform hundreds of miles offshore? And given the current resurgence in the literature that supervision is

critical for successful industry (Kerr, Hill & Broedling, 1986), one might ask to what extent these views are also

applicable offshore?

Few jobs in today's workforce are as important as those of supervisors. The role is arguably one of the most

important management positions in industry (Drucker, 1983). The supervisor is the key link between upper

management decisions and the implementation of these tasks, while the job involves simultaneously satisfying
the potentially conflicting demands of both superiors and subordinates. The supervisors' superiors are looking
for performance without problems and the subordinates are looking to their supervisor for leadership, direction

and rewards (Phillips, 1985). He refers to this ambivalent position of the supervisor as Janus, presenting two
different faces, not unlike that of the depiction of the Roman God of bridges and walkways. Sasser and

Leonard (1980) describe further the supervisor's situation:

"Being a first-level supervisor is one of the most difficult demanding and challenging jobs in any organisation.
Buried in an organisational web, this person must be adroit at administering a unit and at perceiving which,
among all the daily tasks delegated downward, are the most important to accomplish. Through such

administrative competence, he or she must be able to link the unit's accomplishments to the functioning of other
organisational subunits. " (p. 12)

13
 The Changing Role of the Supervisor

The position is critical from an organisational perspective because situated at the cutting edge of the business,

the supervisor is responsible for the reliability of the interaction between the hardware and a skilled and

motivated workforce (Bird & Germain, 1985). For example, the commercial impact of improving supervision

at a food processing plant in the USA was the single most important factor in better operational performance
(increased productivity, and reduced turnover, absenteeism and accident rates, Doud & Miller, 1980).

Furthermore, an organisation must look at the cost of not having effective supervisors. The poorly supervised

organisation may suffer from inefficiency, low output and poor quality products and coupled with human

resource management problems such as increased absenteeism and higher employee turnover (Imberman,
~Y
1981).

The supervisor'srole was previously a relatively straightforward one. The supervisorgave orders to employees

who were performing simple tasks and they carried out those orders. The supervisor was selected because he

was tough, loud and big, and physical strength, in particular, was a useful asset when influencing the workforce
to get the job done. During the middle of the twentieth century, technological and social changes within the

workplace such as production lines, trade unions, personnel departments, government regulation, employment
legislation and changes in workers' attitudes dramatically re-fashioned the role of the supervisor. These new

challenges for the supervisor were combined with a gradual erosion of authority and a deterioration of their

status within the organisation. However, management had come to expect more and more from supervisors,

adding further duties and responsibilities to be accomplished within increasing commercial constraints.

Automation and technological innovation such as computer software developments have brought extra
dimensions to the supervisor's *role that now requires skills and aptitudes radically different from the early

industry foreman. The supervisor has evolved from the brash and brutish workplace overseer to a manager,

counsellor, accountant, social worker, coordinator, human resources specialist, lawyer, production scheduler,

public relations specialist, and sometimes engineer (Phillips, 1985). It is this development, in particularly, that
is addressed in the next section because the evolution has been mostly unplanned and in many cases has left the

supervisors unsure of their new roles.

2.2 THE ROLE OF THE SUPERVISOR IN MODERN DAY

The role of the supervisor across UK industry continues both to change and to provoke fierce debate (IDS

Study, 1988). One of the main problems is that supervisors are not a homogeneous group and defining

accurately a supervisor in the context of his or her working environment is difficult. The traditional view of a

supervisor as that of an "overseer" still exists in many organisations in the UK today. The supervisor will

oversee work in the workplace, inspect it and maintain discipline in order that the company objectives are being

preserved. As the first person in an organisation responsible for the work performance of non-management

employees, the supervisor will allocate tasks and in turn will be held accountable for work done. The first-line
is
supervisor also the only layer of management that operates with 'real time' pressures,as the rest of

14
 Chapter Two

managementteam focus on other horizons such as the day, the week or the month. The supervisor is literally
the only personthat can react instantly to changesand can therefore be instrumental in reducing potential loss

and directly influencing profit and overall performance(Wentworth, 1993). This is perhapsthe key criterion
for the supervisor for the 1990s and beyond. Increasing industrial competition is demanding that new

sustainable competitive advantages are required and every role is having to justify its contribution to the

organisation. However, the supervisor's performance is particularly difficult to measure and this is also an area

that the thesis will examine.

From an organisationalperspective,the role of supervisionhas now becomesubmergedwithin the bureaucratic--,,,

structuresof f inns (Sasser& Leonard, 1980). This has createda lack of clarity about the functions pertaining to
the supervisor and ambivalence about their status (Bowey, 1973; Drucker, 1954; Evans, 1992; Mann & Dent,

1954; Wray, 1949.) The role varies from situation to situation and person to person and is in itself a major

reason for the ambiguity. Among any group of workers there is still a need for a co-ordinator or facilitator, yet
traditional managerial tasks such as budgets, training and planning may now fall within the remit of the

supervisor. The term "managerial supervisor" has been used to describe this newer role, and companies such as
Blue Circle and the Rover Group are adopting this approach (IDS Study, 1991).

In some organisationsthe responsibilities of the supervisor are being pushed further as the complexity of the

workplace make it impractical for one person,traditionally the supervisor,to be the most technically competent
on all processes. Complicated interdependentprocessesin industry demand a supervisor capable of making
decisions, organising limited resources and motivating a group to increased performance, or what Ohmae
(I 982) hassimply describedas "doing more, better". Kanter (1989), updatedthis phraseusing the words "doing

more, with less" which in the 1990s might be changedto "doing more, with less, but better". Supervisors,
regardless of the words, now have to accept that they are responsible for multi-disciplined teams within which

technical knowledge will be greater than theirs and consequently their position has to move more to a leadership

role (CBI 1992, p83).

These perspectives described above could be appropriately placed on different yet specific parts of the

"supervisory continuum", where many definitions of a supervisor in industry could rest; one end being the

chargehandand the other, the first line manager. (SeeFigure 2.1)

15
 The Changing Role of the Supervisor

Figure 2.1
The variety of supervisory types

Supervisors

Operative Charge Team Specialist Traditional First Line Middle

Hand Leader Supervisor Supervisor Manager Manager

(Adapted from CBI, 1992, p. 25)

Merely defining a supervisor with a stereotypical label does not by itself provide any organisational clarity or

increase the understanding of the position. Supervision, has to be organisationally defined: it should vary

according to the circumstances of each organisation and therefore may no longer constitute an occupational role

maintaining its own consistent features across different organisations. As described above, the supervisor may

exercise a more managerial role in some situations while at others the emphasis may return to a more limited

one (Child & Partridge, 1982). Thus, a supervisor may operate statically within one role at one point on the

continuum and then move to others when it is deemed appropriate by the situation or by senior management.
Therefore, the role of the supervisor should not be defined in isolation but within a dynamic organisational

context.

This definition is crucial to the understanding of the role of the supervisor. For example, the traditional

supervisor who has just been trained to encourage more employee involvement in workplace decisions may find

that a new management directive to focus more closely on the work done at the "coal face" necessitates a

change in status, responsibility and influence. From moving towards a "first line manager" role, the traditional

supervisor has to undertake a more directed role such as seen typically by a chargehand. This creates confusion

not only for the newly trained supervisor, 4but also for the workforce whom the supervisor leads. The team may

resist this shift of status and change of role for the supervisor as it is a powerful message to them about potential

career opportunities. In an organisational context, however, such a directive may be redundant if the workforce

16
 Chapter Two

are highly trained and self motivated thus allowing the supervisor to drift back towards the "first-line

management" role. The above example may explain why there is much confusion about the definition of a

supervisor in the literature. Bowey (1973), in her paper 'The Changing Status of the Supervisor', circumvents

the need to define the role distinctly by using the terms "supervisor" and "foreman" to be synonymous with the

term 'first-line manager'. Evans (1992) uses a similar method and argues that for convenience sake "supervisor"

will include everyone in a supervisory type position. A different approach was used by Child and Partridge

(1982) who defined the different supervisory roles in terms of their responsibilities at various times during the

production process.(SeeTable 2.1)

ýi,

Table 2.1
Dimensions of production systems and likely characteristics of supervisory
roles (from Child & Partridge, 1982, p204-205)
Dimension of production system Characteristics of supervisory roles likely
to be present when work situation is high
on the dimension
(1) Variation in operations 1.1 Dealing with problemsof re-schedulingwork
and re-allocating manpower at the point of
production.
1.2 Dealing with labour problems which re-
allocatingand stoppagesgenerate.
1.3 Progresschasing, dealing with materials
shortages.
(2) Complexity of work-flow system: differentiation Unless the process is automatically controlled,
of component units emphasis on managing balance and reciprocity
between sections (coordinationwith supervisorsin
linked sections, exchange of resources, especially
manpower,and intense exchangeof information
on workflows).
(3) Technical complexity of problems and difficulty Stress on inspection and technically biased
of their solution supervisory system and/or use technical
specialists to deal with problems such as quality
control, monitoring of plant functioning.
(4) Level of mechanization 4.1 Concentration on inspecting machinery, and
dealing with machine faults and breakdowns.
4.2 Dealing with problems caused by poor morale
- e.g. absenteeism and consequent manpower
adjustments: attempting to match employee effort
to plant capability.
(5) Level of automation 5.1 If combined with low variation in operations:
bulk of role is monitoringand carrying out routine
procedures combined with technological
understandingto handle crisis if these arise.
5.2 If combined with development work:
supervisory role may be to link new system
designs with practical applications in the plant.
5.3 If applied to large projects: monitoring
combinedwith interpretationof data for resolving
problems.

(a) Where incentive payments linked to output levels are not used.

17
 The Changing Role of the Supervisor

One thing that is clear is that the literature fails to provide a universal definition of a supervisor. However, the

work of Child and Partridge(1982) does at least begin to define the role in terms of the question;what does the
supervisoractually do? By attempting to define what the job purposeof a supervisor is, they beganto provide a
method both for understandingdifferent supervisory labelsand for cross industry comparisons.

2.3 THE NEED FOR MORE EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION

While there may be differencesof definition and debateabout the role of the supervisor,one view does remain t.

consistent and that is the potential significance of the position in performance terms (National Economic
DevelopmentOffice, 1991). As Peter Wickens, Director of Personneland Information Systemsfor Nissan said
in 1987:
"It is critical that we in manufacturing industry realise that the first-line supervisor, if carefully selected well
trained, highly motivated and given the status and pay appropriate to being what I call 'the professional at

managing the production process' can make more difference to the long term success of the company than any

other group other than top management. And even here it is the supervisor who delivers top management

policies. " (p. 8)

What is particularly significant about the above quotation is that the supervisor is defined as critical, not for

creatingstrategy,but for the implementationof the strategy. Given that premise,it follows that any commercial
strategywill have little chanceof successunlessan organisationallayer is driving it. From the evidenceabove,
it appears that at Nissan the first-line supervisor is a critical part of the management process. What impact does

the same job have in the offshore industry? Several issues were discussed in Chapter One that indicate the

difficulty of providing a precise answer to this question, for example, the supervisor's decision making process

could be strictly limited by the values and rules which surround the offshore way of life. This offshore

"culture", with its unique properties and the lack of a precise onshore equivalent, may store many of the

required answers. Solutions that if neatly extracted would enhance our understanding of how the culture

modifies the social environment and management style.

Coonen (1994) examinedthe impact of managementsystemson the offshore culture briefly. In a study of a

group of supervisors from an offshore services company, he sought to explain the offshore culture by use of the

model advanced by Burns (1958) who developed a theory which states that firms follow one of two different

organisational models. They are defined as mechanistic or organic systems. "Mechanistic" systems are

characterised by rigid breakdown into functional specialisms, precise definition of duties, responsibilities and

power, and a well developed command hierarchy through which information filters up and decisions and
instructions flow down (Burns, 1958). "Organic" systems are more adaptable. Job roles lose their formal
definition, and communication throughout the organisation is more of a consultative process than of giving and

receiving orders.

18
 Chapter Two

Coonen (1994) found that the "mechanistic" system fitted the offshore working environment better than the

organic model and that given the safety featuresrequired offshore this was unlikely to change. After the impact
of The Cullen Inquiry (1990) and the resulting new safety regime, Coonen's finding is hardly surprising.
However, merely defining the offshore work environmentas mechadisticdoesnot fully explain how this system
impacts on the supervisor'srole. This problem' is not new from an onshore industrial perspective. Seminal

work in this area was carried out by Woodward (1965) and while direct comparisonsbetween onshore and
offshore may haveto be drawn with caution, her work doesraise some interestingissues.

Woodward (1965) carried out a study of 203 manufacturing firms in south Essex examining the relationship

between technology and organisational structure. The research compiled a typology of technologies according

to types of production. Each firm was placed on Woodward's eleven point scale of production systems (p. 39).

This was a extension to a scale normally used by production engineers, which reflected the complexity of the

technology in terms of the degree to which the production process was inherently controllable and predictable

(Woodward, 1980). The scale ranged from the production of unit articles to customers' individual requirements

through an intermediate stage of the mass production of standardised goods, to the most technically complex

stage such as the continuous flow production of dimensional products.

When all the plants were grouped together Woodward was unable to find a clear structural pattern emerging.

However, when she sorted them into the technological groups, she discovered that each type had its

characteristic ratio of workers to first line supervisors. In unit or small batch production plants, the first line

supervisor had an average of 23 persons working for him, whereas the average rose to 50 in large batch or mass

production plants and dropped to thirteen for the first line supervisor in continuous-process plants. The ratios of

those reporting to chief executives ranged from a median of four in unit production to ten in continuous process,

with large-batch and mass production falling in between with seven. The research gathered evidence that

evaluated these ratios against the efficiency of the plants. On the basis of ratings of outside observers regarding
the efficiency of the units Woodward found that those rated "above average" tended to have ratios of workers to
first line supervisors and of executives to chief executives that were close to the average for their category. The

firms that were judged as "less successful" tended to be above or below the average ratio figures. This finding

suggests that each type of technology has its own optimum ratios of subordinates to supervisors at the various
levels.

Woodward found that the search for a universal principle for the span of control of a supervisor, a conclusion

argued by scientific management theorists such as Taylor (1911) were unproductive. Her conclusions were that

there could only be an optimum ratio under certain specified technological conditions and under a different set

of conditions a different ratio would apply. This finding has significant implications for the supervisor-

subordinate relationship. The behavioural requirements for the supervisor directing the work of 13 men and the

supervisor directing the work of 50, ratios in part determined by technology, are considerably different. This

raises the question of whether the previous universal generalisations of the supervisor-subordinate relationships

were superficial or at best misguided. While Woodward's work could be criticised for arguing that ratios alone

19
 The Changing Role of the Supervisor

determined supervisory performance, it is possible that "span of control" relates to the ability of the supervisor

rather than the number of people working in the team. For example, a supervisor with excellent leadership

skills and a respected technical background will probably be more effective in terms of job performance than a

supervisor with both inadequate people and technical skills regardless of the number in the workgroup.
Woodward herself considered a similar proposition. She felt that differences between the firms in both

organisationand achievementcould be attributed to differences in the senior managementbut this theory was
rejectedas it appearedthat the senior managershad characteristicsin common (Woodward, 1980).

Despite specific conclusions about first-line supervisory impact on performance in the workplace remaining-',

unsolved, there are indications that management systems, culture and span of control have an effect in both

onshore and offshore industries. The need for more effective supervision remains a critical success factor

onshore and given the economic climate described in Chapter One, will probably remain in the offshore
industry too.

The next section outlines UK researchthat attempts to identify some options for the future of supervision.
These possible options have to be grasped quickly becauseunless industry begins to understand the full

potential of this role specifically in terms of improved organisationalproductivity, then the opportunity could be
lost.

2.4 THE FUTURE FOR THE SUPERVISOR

Child and Partridge (1982) argued from their research findings and other studies (e.g. Bowey, 1973) that there

were several choices for the future of supervision. They identified four alternatives: (i) abolish the role of the
first line supervisor, (ii) leave the role as it is but make improvements, (iii) develop into a first-line managerial

role and (iv) technical supervision. These appear to be particularly relevant to current changes in the offshore

industry and will therefore be considered in turn below. Other research, mainly from the USA, has also

considered the future of the supervisor. The American research concentrates on investigating the supervisor as

a leader and an individual whereas the UK research has substantially focused on the role of the supervisor from

a broader perspective of organisational theory (Child & Partridge 1982; Woodward, 1965). Research carried

out by Komaki (1986), undertook descriptive studies in an effort to see what supervisors actually did in an

effort to understand what was effective supervisory behaviour. This work and other similar American studies

will also be considered below.

20
 Chapter Two

UK Research

(i) Abolish the role of first-line supervisor.

This approach reassigns the delegation of traditional supervisory tasks to workgroup leaders. The workgroups

are given freedom to appoint their own leaders, who carry responsibility in liaison with management for

arranging the group's internal organisation, allocation of work, the availability of materials, completion of

routine paperwork, inspection and routine maintenance. The group leader is expected to work as an arbitrator

when human problems arise, and he or she should be trained to undertake personnel responsibilities such as the

allocation of training for the members of the workgroup. By abolishing the traditional role of supervision, the

untapped potential from the shopfloor is released more effectively to management, and the promotion to this

new first-line role may be perceived as more attractive as it is substantially more managerial. This new model

of supervision is also allied with the social goal of workforce empowerment, however attempts at introducing

this model have had mixed results (Child & Partridge, 1982). In Norway, for example, the participation of the

existing workplace supervisors was not gained and the success of the introduction of the scheme was
determined solely by the abolishment of the supervisor position rather than by organisational performance. This

suggests that abolishing the role could be a means to an end but not an end in itself and that organisational

performance should remain the main indicator of success. In another example, the introduction of the model

within a Swedish biscuit manufacturer occurred with the participation of existing supervisors. The supervisors

as a result have become increasingly involved with senior management in the resolution of complex technical

problems. This experience has made it possible for the supervisors to contribute significantly to organisational

success (Swedish Employers' Confederation, 1975). Child and Partridge (1982) argue that even where the

existing workplace supervisors have moved to a team adviser role, there are still potential problems, the

autonomous workplace team still needs someone to intervene when significant problems arise but frequent
interventions threaten the ability of the team to correct less vital mistakes by itself.

(ii) Leavethe role as it is but make improvements.

This model recognises the unsatisfactory situation that many supervisors find themselves in. Part of the

problem arises from the double standards between management ideology and management practice (Child &
Partridge, 1982). The solution is not to dress supervisors as managers, if it is really supervision that is wanted,

but to clarify the distinction between managerial and supervisory roles so that supervisors are encouraged to

have a set of expectations which is concomitant both with the reality of their level of responsibility and their

capabilities.

The implication of the model is that if a management thinks it appropriate to employ people strictly as

supervisors then it should be clear about the nature of their role. If it is less than managerial then it should stop

confusing the issue by calling supervisors front-line or first-line managers, and as stressed by Child and
Partridge (1982) if this is being done +p an attempt to retain their loyalty, management should find less

confusing and more convincing ways of doing it.

21
 The Changing Role of the Supervisor

This approach relies upon the clear definition of the supervisory role. This would be achieved through formal

organisational rules such as scope for decision making and defining the supervisor as a specialised labour role

rather than a management one. However, if unexpected and significant contingencies arise, denying the first
line supervisor the right to make a decision, (particularly if he or she is the most competent at handling the

contingency), then it could lead to a decrease in motivation of the supervisor and have an immediate effect in

organisational performance. But the model also has significant advantages because it brings clarity to the

previous ambiguous role of the supervisor. In theory, this model of supervision displays a definite message to

the workforce about the illusion of supervisory promotion as automatic career progression into management.
Therefore opaque definitions and frustration are removed bringing a strictness and clarity to the role.

(iii) Develop into a first-line managerialrole

This third model envisages the transformation from first-line supervision to first-line management. Rather than

focusing on what the roles and responsibilities of the first-line supervisor are, one concentrates on the needs of

the first-line manager and how to upgrade the existing employee with the supervisory title to the new role. The
first line manager would have responsibility to schedule work, agree manpower requirements, and also to
determine new working methods. This is similar to the German or Meister model of first-line management

because of the need to have a thorough technical training to combine with the benefits of experience. This

provides important backing to the supervisor's expertise and authority. The German foreman is a first-line

manager who can, and is, expected to make decisions which in Britain may be the prerogative of staff

specialists (Partridge, 1989). This approach is more economical of staff roles and is reflected in the lower

proportions of staff personnel that have been found in German compared to British companies (Child &
Partridge, 1982). A move towards this model requires the delegation of the progress chasing and minor

disturbance handling to what has been termed as the "progress chaser". This role would pick up the routine

problems of the supervisor's job such as provision of materials and equipment, liaison with other links in the

production chain, requesting services, and record keeping. The supervisor with the appropriate skills could then

give more attention to management tasks and apply his or her skills over a wider sphere of influence. In the

creation of the assistant-type role one may create the problems that the model of first-line manager was intended
to resolve, i. e., the progress chaser would, like the supervisor in the previous model, depend for his authority on

the first-line manager and possibly suffer the same ambiguities as the traditional first-line supervisor.

A further problem was identified by Child and Partridge (1982) as a possible limitation upon developing the

supervisory role into a full first-line managementrole. There is an absenceof a skill base from which to fill
these roles. In Germany, the foreman will usually have served a skilled apprenticeship, followed by several

years' experience as a skilled worker, and will then have obtained a formal qualification in foremanship by

examination. Therefore, unlike British companies, German companies have a supply of competent manpower
to fill a first-line managerial role.

22
 Chapter Two

(iv) Technical Supervision

In this final model, the supervisor is primarily concerned with technical problems. Routine matters, such as

requisitioning normal stock items, can be delegated to employees. The next level of management would

possibly handle the overall organisation of the section and the supervisor would be closely involved with

assessing the technical competence of new recruits. The supervisor in this model can be expected to have a

long technical experience and specialised skills not necessarily available to higher levels of management. His

or her technically skilled workforce would not require or welcome close supervision, but would consult with the

supervisor prior to an especially complex task or at the completion of one. The technical supervisor may

require the particular skill of coordinating his department as a team because according to Child and Partridge- :,.
(1982) this leadership role of integrating and motivating this type of group is distinctly difficult. One of the

main strengths of this model is that as the roles are occupationally or professionally defined they remain

relatively independent of "bureaucratic" organisational rules.

In essence, there are many strengths in each of the supervisory models described above. The challenge is
identifying which model enhances the contribution of the supervisor to the organisation. To implement either

model three or four within UK industry would require substantial training, investment and time to develop with

no definite guarantee of the culture change needed to create success. "Workforce empowerment" is still a

current aim of many organisations in the UK, but "supervision" even under a new title of team leader, for

example, is still the role of the workplace leader i. e., the supervisor. Bringing clarity to the role (model two) has
been an option throughout UK industry for twenty years and has proved problematic. As stated earlier,

management researchers remain confused over what a supervisor does. Within the offshore oil industry, the

cultural/environment elements will likely influence the model of supervision adopted. In fact a combination of

these models could be effective offshore. Firstly, there is a strong technical component to an offshore

supervisor's job and improving this expertise is essential. Secondly the drive for efficiencies offshore (Chapter
One) may simultaneously raise the skill needs of a supervisor to that of a first-line manager. Finally,

introducing "workforce empowerment" (model one) but retaining a distinct role for the supervisor for both

organisational and safety reasons could be appropriate in developing improvements offshore. The method of

the thesis will therefore examine the role of the offshore supervisor in broad terms and not be limited to testing

pre-set models of supervision.

US Research

US research into the role of the first line supervisor has largely concentrated on attempts to identify the leader

behaviours of the role (Dowell & Wexley, 1978; Fleishman, 1953; Prien, 1963). The popularity of studying the

supervisor as an individual has led to the development of several supervisory behaviour taxonomies (Campbell,
Dunnetter, Lawler & Weick, 1970 & Komaki, 1986). The driver for this style of research activity was led by

the lack of definition of what constitutes supervision. For example, Bass (1991) argued that the definition of

effective supervision is an enigma. Taxonomic research sought to provide a clearer understanding of the work

activity of a supervisor (Dowell & Wexley, 1978). They generated a Supervisory Task Description

23
 The Changing Role of the Supervisor

Questionnaire (STDQ) to obtain systematic description of the task behaviours of a supervisor which was

independent of the individual's characteristics or technical job knowledge. The STDQ included 100 work

activities such as observing subordinates, completing production reports and inspecting the work area. Two
hundred and fifty-one supervisors with varying,, supervisory job titles from different industries were asked to

rate these activities in two ways. Firstly, they were asked to rate how important they felt each task was on a five

point scale and secondly to rate how much time they spent on each task on a six point scale. The responses

were factor analysed using the principal components method. Seven factors accounted for 48% of the total

variance for the frequency scores and similar results were found with the factor structure for importance ratings.
These factors or job dimensions were `working with subordinates', `organising work of subordinates', `work.
;
planning and scheduling', `maintaining efficient/quality production', `maintaining safe/clean work areas',
`maintaining equipment and machinery', and `compiling records and reports'. The study also concluded that

the results indicated that there were few differences in the jobs of first line supervisors regardless of technology

or function.

In later work, by Komaki (1986), in an effort to study differences between effective supervisors and marginal

supervisors, mixed results were also found but for different reasons. She studied what supervisors ought to do

when motivating subordinates to accomplish work-related goals. Her thesis was that the effective supervisor

would make appropriate task requirements clear, accurately and fairly appraise performance, and regularly

provide consequences contingent on performance. Whereas an ineffective supervisor would probably leave

tasks ambiguously defined, appraise performance sporadically, if at all, and provide infrequent or noncontingent

consequences for performance (Komaki, Zlotnick & Jensen, 1986). Her work was also driven by the theory of

operant conditioning which states that two temporally different events have a crucial impact on our voluntary
behaviour: Antecedents that occur before behaviour and consequences that occur after behaviour have a

significant impact on the style of the supervisor (Komaki, 1986). She believed that by using a theory of

behaviour (operant conditioning) her taxonomy (Operant Supervisory Taxonomy and Index, OSTI) would

provide a firm basis for identifying effective supervisory behaviours. The OSTI classifies supervisory

behaviour into seven mutually exclusive categories: `solitary', `non-work related', 'work related', `own

performance', `consequences', 'monitors' and `antecedents'. This is a distinctly different approach from the

other supervisory taxonomies which gathered statements about what supervisors did and then using a post hoc
technique such as factor analysis classified supervisory behaviour. Her study of two groups of supervisors

found that more effective supervisors spent significantly more time understanding the tasks of their subordinates

than supervisors from the marginal group. But in real terms the differences were small (2.9% of time spent

'performance monitoring' by effective supervisors and 2.0% by marginal supervisors). The effective group also

sampled the work done by subordinates more than the marginal group by watching employees and checking

reports etc. Overall, however, the effective supervisors essentially undertook the same actions as marginal

supervisors. But as Komaki (1986) argues even the small differences in behaviour are important because of the

similarities of the two groups in other ways e.g., age, education, span of control and supervisory experience.
Although her claim that any differences confirm the validity of the OSTI as a model for describing effective

supervisory behaviour are slightly premature without further research. The strengths of her approach, though,

24
 Chapter Two

are in the method of data collection. The primary approach was observation and thus a qualitative approach to

understanding effective supervisory behaviour. This differs from the approach by Dowell and Wexley (1978)

which was questionnaire based but given both studies undertook a taxonomic approach it is of interest that

neither produced convincing results. These leader behaviour studids have, however, significantly added to the

supervisory literature and combining this work with research by Child and Partridge, for example, should

provide a broad foundation on which to develop the method of investigation which is described in Chapters
Four and Five. The models of supervision discussed above identify alternative ways of both understanding the

problems of supervision and what is effective supervisory behaviour and this will be re-examined in Chapter 10
in the context of the offshore workplace. _ -2

2.5 MEASURINGTHE CONTRIBUTIONOF SUPERVISION

One of the difficulties of researching supervision is attempting to find an outcome measure that is both accurate

and reflects the contribution of the supervisor. Child and Partridge (1982) argue that supervisors do not
normally produceany tangible output which can be measuredin isolation. As the supervisory role is ill-defined
and variable, it doesnot lend itself to a standardperformancemeasure. The problem of assessingeffectiveness
is made more difficult by attempting to identify a unique supervisory contribution within the overall

performanceof the group. Thurley and Wirdenius (1973) advocatethat there is grave doubt as to whether there
is any real purpose in designing studies which purport to measure supervisory effectivenessas a single and
discreteproblem. However, differentiating what the supervisor does as a variable which contributes to overall

performance of the group may not be necessary. From other studies of effective work groups (McIntyre &
Salas, 1995) it remains intuitively appealing that while there are potentially many factors which can influence a

group's overall performance, good and effective supervision remains a significant element. Reviewing the

methodological difficulties of identifying this element is worthy of study on its own. Some of these challenges

are discussed in the next section.

2.5.1 Methods of supervisory research

Given that several years of managementresearchhave failed to find the answersto what "management" is
(Stewart, 1984), it is unlikely that easy answers will be found for the closely related concept of "supervision".

Although work by Komaki (1986) argued that while the supervisor's job was `woven with intricacies' it was not

'hopelessly complex', and `it should be possible to reliably describe supervisory behaviour' (p. 271). The next

part of this section reviews the specific methods of data collection used by the studies described earlier in the

chapter. This review was utilised in the development of the method used in the thesis that is outlined in Chapter
Five.

..

25
 The Changing Role of the Supervisor

Woodward (1965) surveyed over one hundred companiesin South East Essex. Information that was collected
included:

" 1. History, background, and objectives.

2. Description of the manufacturing processesand methods.

3. Forms and routinesthrough which the firm was organisedand operated.
4. Factsand figures that could be usedto make an assessmentof the
firms commercial success. " (p. ' 1)

The types of firms that took part in the study included batch manufacturing companies, unit production

companies and process production companies such as oil refineries. Case study analysis was the primary

method of investigation used by Woodward and her research team. The researchers looked to create an

organisational picture of each industry type. Visits to each "factory" lasted from half a day to up to a week.

Information that was gathered included objective indices such as turnover rates, salaries and other costs. They

also collected data about the management style of each organisation which included the training and
development policy, and the qualifications of their supervisory staff. They finally gathered information about

the commercial success of the organisations from annual reports and stock market data, where appropriate. The

researchers also interviewed managers and supervisors with no set questions, although each interview followed

a similar pattern (Woodward, 1980). The interviewers also had informal meetings with managers over lunch,

attended management meetings, and took part in social activities to supplement the questionnaire data.

Woodward commented that data collected in this way helped to confirm the information from the interviews

and that there were few contradictions. More detailed research was undertaken in organisations where

technology was either changing or fixed to investigate more thoroughly the hypothesis outlined above i. e.,

companies that fit their organisational style to their production technology are more likely to be successful than

those that do not. This more detailed method included the use of a semi-structured questionnaire and some
kept diaries describing incidents that they had been involved in. The
managers and supervisors also work

questionnaire allowed a more detailed investigation of the roles of the managers and supervisors but as the

questionnaires were open-ended, duplicating the questions across each organisation for comparative purposes

was impossible. While Woodward's method assisted in understanding organisational structure her approach

demonstrated that research methods may have to be modified to some extent to fit the circumstances of each

situation studied (Woodward, 1980).

Interviewing was also the primary method for data collection by Child and Partridge (1982). This technique

was justified on several grounds; the sample size which was relatively small, the need to attempt to investigate a

range of supervisory decisions that would be limited if observation alone were used, and management of the

supervisors' expectations and perceptions which the researchers felt was most appropriate through an interview.

The supervisors were each interviewed Mice. The first set of interviews concentrated in the more traditional

areas of supervision such as questions about their job roles, influence and authority. After a period of three

months, the supervisors were interviewed again but this time the questions focused on how the supervisors

26
 Chapter Two

viewed their role in respect of ambiguity, conflicts and stress. The supervisor's manager was also asked similar

questions relating to the jobs of the supervisors and they were also asked to rate the supervisor's performance.
They further added that the problem of capturing insights of how supervisors carried out their roles within their

complex jobs may require the interviewing to be complemented by some direct observation. The researchers

carried out direct observation as part of a familiarisation process prior to conducting the interviews. After the
interviews 16 supervisors were selected to take part in a series of half-day observations by one of the

researchers. The objectives of the observations were:

"(1) to check the validity of information collected through the interviews on supervisors' priorities, authority

and influence style and problems; (2) to extend our appreciationof how supervisorsactually go about their job;
and (3) to clarify the ways in which supervisory behaviour may be a function of the work situation." (p.31)

One of the problems of research on supervisory styles concerns the reliance on the ubiquitous questionnaire

survey (Dowell & Wexley, 1978; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1971). Although this is one of the most popular data

collection methods in business research, it is limited in that it does not easily capture the dynamics of social
behaviour, i. e., what is actually "going on" and describing the differences between the formal and the informal

organisation. Questionnaires frequently provide conclusions not only about worker attitudes but also about the

supervisory behaviour that the workers thought they were experiencing. For example, a supervisor who tells his

subordinates that he is task oriented and yet continually misses deadlines may still be perceived as task oriented.
Therefore, the categorisation of supervisor behaviours tends not to be based upon direct observation of

supervisors but upon the inferences of subordinates (Prien, 1963). By using a questionnaire for data collection,
the results could imply that the supervisor and the workers were living exclusively in a world of `cause and

effect'. Previous research (Likert, 1965) using a questionnaire found that, in production departments, foremen

who were rated by workers as high in "initiating structure" (such as telling workers what to do and checking up

on performance) were judged by their superiors to be more effective foremen than those who were lower on
"initiating structure" and higher on "consideration". But in maintenance departments, those foremen higher on

"consideration" and lower on "initiating" were more highly rated by their superiors. Likert's fording suggests
that the relationship between leadership style and productivity may be a function of working conditions and this
is not easily gathered by a questionnaire.

The use of the questionnaire, although popular, can produce information of questionable reliability (Mintzberg,

1973). It is of interest that the studies undertaken by Child and Partridge (1982), Woodward (1965) and

Komaki (1986) all sought to collect data from a variety of different sources which sometimes included using the

questionnaire. In particular, the method of supplementing quantitative data with qualitative approaches by

Woodward appeals as a more holistic and complete method of collecting data. This multi-method approach,

arguably one of the first examples of triangulation aims to help validation by not relying on one single method
(Campbell & Fiske, 1959). This approach to data collection will be discussed in more detail in the method

chapter; Chapter Five.

2.5.2

27
 The Changing Role of the Supervisor

The Management Charter Initiative (MCI)

One mechanism recently devised for measuring supervisory performance is the Management Charter Initiative

(MCI) standards of competence approach, which is described in more detail in this section. This method splits

up the role of the manager/supervisor into outcomes and self standing units. Each unit is then split into

elements and is measured against predetermined performance criteria. These performance criteria create

nationally recognised benchmarks against which managers can measure their performance at work. Those in

favour of this type of approach for management and supervisory development such as Day (1988) argue that

while it is a significant move away from traditional academic models of studying a body of knowledge and therf ",
being tested primarily on memory retention, the standards of competence process measures the ability to use

skills and knowledge in practice.

Background

The effects of the 1980 and 1982 recession may well prove to have been the significant turning point in

management development in the UK. Corporate sector profitability suffered at a time when the UK's

competitors were strengthening their economic and export positions. It was recognised that UK industry was

significantly underperforming against our German competitors and some studies estimate this difference to be

up to 50% per employee (Hitchens, Wagner & Birnie, 1990). As UK companies reduced their staffing levels

and management structures became leaner, those managers left within these new decentralised structures faced
increasing demands and challenges. Attention was drawn to their weaknesses and deficiencies in management.

As a result, UK management development and education was put. under the spotlight by both industry and

academics. The resultant debate within UK management education was fuelled by four key reports. Institute of
Manpower Studies (1984), Coopers and Lybrand Associates (1984), Handy (1987) and Constable and

McCormick (1987) all contributed to a change in emphasis in management training within the UK. The

Institute of Manpower Studies report highlighted major differences in the British approach to vocational

training and education compared to three of the UK's competitors: the USA, West Germany and Japan. (All

three were competing in World Markets more effectively than the UK; OECD, 1985). Two significant factors

that differentiated the UK from these countries: their attitude to investment in training, and the type of training

provided. The UK's competitors all perceived a link between investment in education and training and

competitive success -a perception absent in the UK; and their primary concern was on developing effective

work performance rather than concentrating on narrow skills development. Handy (1987), argued that

management training education and development in France, West Germany, USA and Japan was more

systematic than in the UK and that management groups from the UK's competitors were more likely to have
been educated to a higher level. This finding was corroborated by Constable and McCormick (1987) as they

described British managers as lacking in educational development and training. Training in the UK was not

seen as an important contributor to competitiveness and profitability, but rather as an overhead to be cut when

margins were under pressure (Coopers & Lybrand Associates, 1984). The weaknesses and deficiencies within
the UK system and the need to improve in order to compete in world markets lead to a major initiative by the
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) in October 1987. The CBI, the British Institute of Management (BIM)

28
 Chapter Two

and the Foundation for Management Education were supporting a new body, the Council for Management
Education and Development (CMED) headed by Bob Reid, the then Chairman of Shell UK. This organisation

launched the Management Charter Initiative (MCI) in July 1988, which outlined proposals for "good practice"

in order to address the shortfalls of management education within the UK.

The Role of The MCI

In 1990,the MCI was nominated by the government as the lead body responsiblefor developing management

standards. By 1992,the MCI had published standardsfor the three levels of operationalmanagement- middle
management,first line managementand supervisorymanagement.Theseare outlined in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2
The Three Roles within the Management Standards
Middle managers First line management Supervisory management
f Middle managers are f First line managers are f The role of a supervisory
responsible for interpreting and responsible for a particular manager includes a significant
implementingpolicy. Their area of activity within an amount of managerialactivity.
role includes converting policy organisation. This involves However, the supervisory
into operational objectives, being proactive within the manager contributes to the
perhaps to be handled down to narrow focus of that function, management process, rather
first line managers. Middle but reactive in relation to the than taking full control or
managers do not, generally, general direction of the responsibility for activities.
have the direct responsibility organisation. First line
for strategicmanagementof managersare responsiblefor
their operations the direction and control of the
activities of other people, the
achievement of results and the
efficient and effective use of
resources.
f Management of and through f As well as dividing up and f The supervisory manager will
other managers is an important managing the flow of work, function within limited
aspect of the role. Middle setting performance targets, boundaries and make
managersmanagethe work developingtheir staff, significantcontributionsto the
process and lead people so providing instructions, management activities for
that work is carried out and monitoring and controlling which a first line manager
desired objectives achieved. progress against the objectives would have a full responsibility.
This will involve initiating set for them, there is likely to
change and developmentin be a good deal of negotiating
systems, practices and with colleagues responsible for
procedures. other functions within the
organisation.
f The span of control is usually f The role of the first line f The role is less extensive than
considerable for middle manager is narrower than that that of the first line manager.
managers allowing for of the middle manager.
significant freedom of decision
making.
(Introducing managementstandards,1992,p. 11-12)

29
 The Changing Role of the Supervisor

The aim of the standardswas to set the boundariesof managementdecision making for the managementroles

within an organisation. The middle managersare describedas having a responsibility for implementing the
strategy of their senior managers,the first line managersas having managementresponsibility for their own
function and the supervisors undertaking responsibility for the day-to-day process. The strength of these

standardsis beginning the debateabout what managersin an organisation do and not creating a definitive and
limiting framework. The management standards were developed by in-depth research, consultation and
interviews with more than 6,000 managers about what they did during every day jobs (MCI, 1996) and as a

result the standardsdescribeskills required by managersfor good managementperformance. Another approach

was describedby the Confederationof British Industry (CBI, 1992) who provided a link betweenthe first line' "'"-
managerand the supervisorin terms of vocational qualifications. The is shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2
Supervisors' Competence Levels

NVQIII NVQIV

Charge Hand Team Leader Traditional Supervisor Managerial Supervisor Middle Line Manager

(From CBI, 1992, p. 101)

As outlined above, the management standards create a broad framework and as shown in Figure 2.2 the CBI use

the term managerial supervisor to facilitate the gap between the supervisor and the first line manager. However,
it is the demonstrable behaviours or competence which is key to the management standards.

Aw.

30
 Chapter Two

The concept of competence is central to management standards, defined as the ability of a manager to perform

to the standards required in employment (MCI, 1992, pI3). The detailed competencies are grouped under four

broad areas that are the key roles of management. They are:

f manageoperations
f managefinance
f managepeople
f manage information

Managers also have to develop personal transferable competencies required in the managerial role and to "_.

understand the management context. The Personal Competence Model indicates the key personal competencies

which are required in order to achieve results within the four key management roles. The managers need to
develop competenciesin the following areas:

f Planning

- Showing concern for excellence

- Setting and prioritising objectives

- Monitoring and responding to situations

f Managing Others

- Showing sensitivity to the needsof others

- Relating to others

- Obtaining the commitment of others

- Presentingoneself positively to others

f Managing oneself

Showing self-confidence and personal drive

-

- Managing personal emotions and stress

Managing personallearning and development
-

f Using intellect

Collecting and analysing information

-

- identifying and applying concepts

- Taking decisions

For endorsement purposes the managers have to demonstrate their competencies in these areas by keeping a

record of personal examples.

31
 The Changing Role of the Supervisor

By 1993 the Management Charter Initiative (MCI) had a membership of almost 1000 employers representing

about 25% of the UK workforce. (Personal Communication with the MCI, 1993). In 1995, a market research

study commissioned by the MCI found that the recorded awareness of the management standards was 33% of

respondents and by 1996 this figure had risen to 44% (MCI, 1996). This clearly indicates a growing awareness

among companies within the UK about management development. One of the key areas of management

development is the supervisory management standards since there are many more supervisors than managers

within UK industry, and more importantly it is the main learning area for future middle and senior managers.

4
.`

The Supervisory Standards of Competence

The key purpose of a supervisor is "to achieve the organisation's objectives and continuously improve its

performance" (MCI, 1992). This key purpose is driven by seven units of competence. They are:

I Maintain services and operations to meet quality standards

2 Contribute to planning, monitoring and control of resources

3 Contribute to the provision of personnel

4 Contribute to the training and development of teams, individuals and self to enhance

performance
5 Contribute to the planning, organisationand evaluationof work

6 Create,maintain and enhanceproductive working relationships

7 Provide information and advice for action towards meeting organisationalobjectives

Eachunit of competenceis further broken down into "elements of competence". These are available from the
MCI, but for example the elements for Unit 4 are as follows:

4.1 Contribute to planning the training and developmentof teamsand individuals

4.2 Contribute to training and developmentactivities for teamsand individuals
4.3 Contribute to the assessmentof teams and individuals against training and development

objectives
4.4 Develop oneselfwithin the job

Performancecriteria measurehow well a supervisor is performing in each element. As these standardsare

generic and are designed to be used by supervisors in all sectors of industry, the range of instances and
situationsin which competentperformanceshould be demonstratedis also indicated. However, this approachto
understandingboth supervisoryand managementperformancehas its critics.
OF

32
 Chapter Two

Wills (1993) arguesthat there are six main weaknesseswith the competency-basedschemes.They are:
The holistic manager. Advocates of the competency approach suggest that managers act as if they are using

tools (or chunks of competencies) one at a time, out of a tool-kit of managerial competencies. Some

management theorists such as Burgoyne (1988) argue that managerial performance is a complex whole which

cannot be split up and represented in separate parts.

The moral/ethical aspects of management. All professions have a duty to concern themselves with both the

technical efficiency/effectiveness of their craft and their moral and ethical responsibilities to. society. Lists of

managerial competencies focus on the technical and ignore the moral/ethical dimensions.

The changing nature of managing. Managing people and systems is not static activity as suggestedby lists of

competencies. It is dynamic in the sensethat it is always at the boundary betweenorder and chaos. Managing
is essentiallya creativeactivity with boundarieswhich are continually in flux.

Managing as a flexible craft. Competencyapproachesto managing imply that in specific situations there are

correct ways to manage. Researchand common-senseobservations refute this idea, preferring the notion
instead that managing is a flexible, adaptive craft.

Individual differences. Having a ready-madetool kit of competenciesgives no indication of how they are used,
how the personis using them and how this person develops. Advocates of the competencyapproachappearto

createtheir lists mechanicallyas if existing independentlyof the people who are using them.
Collaborative competence. The competency movement begins and ends its analysis with a focus on the

individual. Clearly, high levels of individual member competence does not automatically guarantee group or

organisational effectiveness (Wills, 1993).

Another difficulty of the competency based approach is trying to identify pieces of behaviour that are not

observable such as leadership, creativity, assertiveness and other personal qualities. As a result these attributes

are omitted from the competency-based systems. Moreover, these invisible competencies cannot be described

easily by senior management, and as shown in a survey of British managers conducted by Mangham and Silver
(1986) few respondents were able to articulate what they required of their managers other than with vague terms

such as 'good communicator' or 'effective leader'. It is, however, these qualities that are probably the most

critical to the future development of industry. Pye (1988) cites the analogy used by Polanyi (1967) in his book
'The Tacit Dimension', that may explain the reason why describing the complete set of managerial skills is

rarely achieved by those asked. This analogy is the police identikit compilation of a face. From a choice of

many pieces of physiognomy, the line drawn picture may not mirror exactly what is required, yet one would

recognise the correct one among a thousand faces. Likewise the picture of the ideal high performing manager
could be recognised amongst a group of managers but describing him or her is reflected by the statement "I
know a good manager when I see one, but I can't tell you why in any specific way. " Pye (1988) further extends

this analogy. "In essence, the'face' is a composite still, as opposed to a moving picture which would be a closer

33
 The ChangingRole of the Supervisor

representation of the way you 'saw' the mugger or, indeed, the doing of management. " Therefore, by focusing

on just a snapshot of a manager's behaviour at one point in time, one ignores the dynamic process of leadership
that is inherent in the reality of management.

The next chapter outlines the literature that studied the supervisor as the workplace leader. As with the
investigationsinto the supervisoryskills of the supervisor,there are many challengesthat face the researcherin

attempting to understand and identify "leadership" at the workplace.

.j

34
 CHAPTER THREE

THE SUPERVISOR AS LEADER:

A THEORETICAL REVIEW

'1
.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The desire for effective leadership in the workplace is the result of increasing world-wide competition within

global markets, intense technological change and a rapidly evolving awareness that the survival of an

organisation rests with sustaining and improving the performance of all its employees. It has been argued that

an organisation's ability to cultivate leadership at all levels of management is not a short term solution but an
imperative for continued existence. While the most senior managers may be required to develop and articulate

visions for the organisation's future, the supervisor has to organise and direct a team towards accomplishing that

vision: both can be defined as key factors of effective leadership (Peters, 1987). As described in Chapter Two,

there is a growing realisation among business leaders that first-line supervisors are vital to sustain the

competitiveness of industry. For example, Ian Gibson, Managing Director of Nissan Manufacturing (UK) Ltd.,

said in 1991 (NEDO, 1991),

"The competitiveness of our industry suffers greatly from the lack of satisfactory arrangements for developing and

properly using supervisors... It is they who must translate management plans into action on the shopfloor and win

the positive commitment of the workforce. "

Effective leadership at any level is grounded in a knowledge of the business environment; an intimate

understanding of the industry, company, and work group; plus an awareness of the organisation's strategy,

culture and values. Workplace leaders who do not understand the organisational context and surrounding

commercial environment may lead the workforce in the wrong direction, prioritise resources incorrectly and

adopt an inappropriate leadership style. Stogdill (1974) asserts that the most effective leaders appear to exhibit

a degree of versatility and flexibility that enables them to adapt their behaviour to changing and contradictory

demands.

This chapter will review the most influential theories of leadership which relate to the training and development

of leaders in the workplace such as Fleishman (1953), Likert (1965; 1967), Fiedler (1967), Vroom and Yetton

(1973), Hersey and Blanchard (1988) and Bass and Avolio (1990). Given the volume of the leadership
literature, (Bass & Stogdill's, 1991, Handbook of Leadership includes over 7,500 references) this is a selective

examination and of particular interest are the main empirical studies of first-line supervisors. The review will

35
 The Supervisoras Leader:A TheoreticalReview

consider these studies within the broader leadership research framework such as leadership trait theory,
leadershipstyle theory, situational/contingency leadership and transformational leadership. The chapter will

conclude by examining the key to leadership research i.e., the definition and measurementof leadership
N
effectivenessin the workplace.

3.2 DEFINITIONS OF LEADERSHIP

The study of leadership and leaders dates back 5,000 years from early writings in Egyptian hieroglyphics

through to the modern biographies of "great man" leaders such as Napoleon, Churchill and Carnegie (e. g.,

Adair, 1991). This chapter will not focus on leadership from an historical nor "great man" perspective but will

describe leadership theories and their development in the occupational context under investigation i. e.,

leadership in the workplace or in other words supervisory leadership. As Bass (1990, p. 20) writes "The
definition of leadership should depend on the purposes to be served by the definition. " For the purposes of this

narrative, 'leadership' and 'leadership effectiveness' shall be described within the context of the work
environment.

Within the management literature there is a perennial debate about the difference between a leader and manager,

and even whether these labels can co-exist in the description of the same role. This can often cause confusion

when distinguishing between the two functions. Described below are some examples that illustrate this view.

Bennis and Nanus (1985, p.21) propose that "managers are people who do things right and leaders are people

who do the right thing". Zaleznik (1977) described managers as concerned with getting things done and leaders

as concerned with what things mean to people. Whereas, Guest (1987) argues that the essential distinction is
that leaders influence commitment, whereas managers merely carry out position responsibilities and exercise

authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines leadership as the ability to lead, with "lead" defined as going
in front. Adair (1973) suggests that the Anglo-Saxon root of the word leader i. e., "laed, " which means a path or

road, provides clues as to the function of a leader. The leader was someone who showed the way either on land

or at sea. French, Scot and Irish Celts use leader in terms of 'head' providing a different metaphor from "path"
i. e., one being horizontal and the other vertical. "Manage" comes from the latin "manus" i. e., hand, suggesting

control. It is not the intention of this project to add further to the debate but rather to highlight briefly the

difficulties of precise definition not only in leadership research in general but also in selecting an appropriate

leadership/management definition.

Given that leadership is complex, any definition of it would also have to be broad and multifaceted. This would

facilitate the opportunity for leadership and management to be defined as mutually exclusive processes while

also allowing for overlap if applicable. Kotter (1988) argues that it is possible to be a leader and a manager

simultaneously and that writers serve no useful function by defining them separately. Empirical research, not

arbitrary definition should determine whether management and leadership are mutually exclusive actions or are

36
 ChapterThree

performed better by different types of people (Yukl, 1994). If our knowledge of leadership is to be improved, it

adds little value to the debate to differentiate a person's tasks in terms of leadership and management especially

when in the social sciences one requires a wide enough definition to accommodate the phenomenon that is
leadership and yet make it specific enough to increase understanding of the problem. Perhaps the Bennis and

Nanus (1985) phrase should read "managers and leaders are people who both do things right and also do the

right thing. " This phrase does not imply that the labels are synonymous but that where leadership and

management skills are required simultaneously then there is little purpose in literary semantics. The problem is

probably best summed up by Bums (1978) who described leadership not as a set of discrete acts but as,
ý- 3

"a stream of evolving interrelationships in which leaders are continuously evoking motivational responses from
followers and modifying their behaviour as they meet responsiveness or resistance, in a ceaseless process offlow

and counterflow. " (p. 440)

The debateabout the terminology will probably continue but for the object of this researchthe initial definition

of leadershipwill not predeterminethe answerto the researchquestion of what makes a leader effective (Yukl,
1989). For the purposesof this chapter, leadershipis defined as the influencing of commitment towards a task

or goal by a supervisor or manager over the team in the workplace. Management,when it exists separately
from leadership,is the exercising of authority within organisationally defined legitimate boundaries. The terms

manager/supervisorand leader will be used interchangeably except when it is appropriate to discriminate

betweenthe two.

3.3 THE MAJOR LEADERSHIP THEORIES

The dominant theories of leadership revolve around research addressing three main themes: the characteristics

of the leader; the behaviour of the leader; and the relationship between the leader and the follower with regard
to different situations. Or in other words trait, behavioural or style and situational-contingency theories. From

the early 1980s trait theory has staged a comeback in leadership research and is finding prominence in the
literature with terms such as charisma (Bass & Avolio, 1990), and intelligence (Fiedler, 1986). This will be
discussed separately from the traditional view of trait theories. After these are considered, the question of
leadership effectiveness in the workplace is examined i. e., the extent to which the goal, or task with which the

group is concerned has been achieved - an effectiveness measure. In industry this is the most important aspect

of leadership in the workplace as it closes out the strengths and weaknesses of leadership success and is

ultimately the rationale behind leadership research at this level.

3.3.1 Trait theories

Trait theories focus on the personal characteristics of the leader such as intelligence,
personality, age or physical
strength. The trait theorists believed that if leaders had distinct qualities compared to non-leaders then they

37
 The Supervisor as Leader: A Theoretical Review

should be able to identify what these were and furthermore measure the extent of the differences. Personal

characteristics of leaders have been identified and correlated against measures of effective leadership, although

consistent results have not been found. A review of literature by Jennings (1961), concluded that fifty years of

study have failed to produce one personality trait or set of qualities that can be used to discriminate between
leaders and nonleaders. In a more recent review of the literature, Yukl (1989), qualifies this negative

conclusion by saying that while trait research has been unable to substantiate the premise that certain leader

qualities were necessary for effective leadership, it is now recognised that certain traits increase the likelihood
that a leader will be effective. However, as no distinct set of traits were identified that differentiated effective

leaders from less effective leaders, pure trait theory was discredited by many reviewers such as Stogdill (1948)---.

and Gibb (1954). Smith (1994) argues that the earlier studies of trait theories were discarded because of

inadequate research methods such as crude statistical analysis, artificial situations using students and ratings of

performance by only one person. Moreover, while the search for global trait solutions may have been fruitless,
domain specific studies have shown more promise. In earlier work, for example, Ghiselli (1971), demonstrated

that through careful analysis of a specific leadership position, such as a manager in a formal work organisation,

a set of traits relating to managerial effectiveness can be identified and measured. He examined 306 American

middle managers aged between 26 to 42 years who were all employed in business or industrial organisations.
Managers were rated as above average and below average from ratings of performance by their immediate

superiors. Thirteen traits were measured by Ghiselli's self description inventory and were grouped into three
distinct categories: 'Abilities' (which included supervisory ability, intelligence, and initiative); 'Personality

Traits' (which included self assurance, decisiveness, masculinity-femininity and working class affinity); and
'Motivations' (which included qualities all prefaced by the phrase "need for" such as occupational status, self-

actualisation, power over others, high financial reward and job security). The traits that were found to
differentiate above average managers from below average managers were supervisory ability, intelligence,

initiative, self assurance, decisiveness, occupational achievement, need for self actualisation and need for power

over others. It is of interest that the weak correlation between intelligence and leader effectiveness was re-

examined as part of Cognitive Resource Theory by Fiedler (1986) which will be discussed in section 3.3.3.4.

In a recent review of leadership theory by Fieldler and House (1988) they said,

"While there is no one ideal leader personality, effective leaders tend to have a high need to influence others, to

achieve, and they tend to be bright, competent and socially adept, rather than stupid, incompetentand social
disasters." (p.87).

With hindsight it was fortuitous that early trait theory produced unconvincing results because these results

stimulated research into other factors within the leadership process. It could be argued that the leadership
literature is returning to trait theory, but it does so with a much broader foundation. The current UK debate on

the performance of its managers (See Chapter Two) highlights the need to examine what it is they actually do

and subsequently to develop better models of practice (Handy, 1987). The Management Charter Initiative
(MCI) aims to identify knowledge, skills and qualities of effective managers (CMED, 1988) which appear

38
 Chapter Three

to the aims of the original trait theory studies. Should the MCI model successfully discriminate between
similar
less effective manager, it would help stimulate a renewed interest in the trait approach to
an effective and
leadership.

In the US, however, a different approach was undertaken to identify the knowledge, skills and qualities of

effective managers. This was described as a job competence assessment model and was developed by staff at

McBer and Company (Boyatsis, 1982) in order to identify the characteristics that distinguished superior from

average performers. In essence, they developed a critical incident interview technique (Flanagan, 1954) called

behavioural event interviewing. This technique when combined with job performance as a criterion measure

created competence tables that outlined the managerial characteristics of superior performance. These

characteristics described the person within the role and not solely in terms of outputs or objectives and as a

result could easily be grouped under a modem approach to trait leadership theory.

There has, also, been recent work on personality and its relationship to leader effectiveness (Hogan, Curphy &

Hogan, 1994). For instance, Hogan et at (1994) argue that "bright characteristics" of a potential leader's

personality such as intelligence, charisma and ambition can co-exist with dark-side characteristics such as
inability to form and work within a team. A candidate can be selected for a leader position based on positive

evidence gathered at interviews, assessment centres or through personality questionnaires and yet also possess
less visible characteristics that are detrimental to team performance. Luthans (1988) also makes this distinction,

although in a different way. He argues that there is a difference between what successful managers do and what

effective managers do. "Successful" managers i. e., managers who had many promotions in fewest years, spent

more time socialising and networking and less time on traditional management activities such as planning and

decision making than less "successful" managers. "Effective" managers i. e., managers whose work unit was

perceived as producing high quality products with satisfied and committed employees, spent more time

communicating with their employees and other general human resource activities. From their sample, there was

less than 10% belonging to both groups suggesting that there is a real difference in Luthan's definition between

success and effectiveness. Furthermore, the assumption that the number of promotions is based on performance
flawed and as Hogan's (1994) work suggests the future leaders of organisations have to be selected for
seems

promotion against more carefully selected criteria. Work by Bass (1985) on transformational leadership and the

dimension "idealised influence", arguably the positive side of charisma, will be described in section 3.4.

It should be noted that UK companies are making increased use of intelligence and personality questionnaires in

managerial selection (Smith, 1994), indicating their commitment to the view that traits can predict job

performance.

39
 The Supervisoras Leader:A TheoreticalReview

3.3.2 Leadership style theories

Limitations in the use of traits to predict effectivenessled researchersin the 1950sto switch their attention to
behaviour as a possiblepredictor of leader performance. They began to examine what leadersactually do and

whether better managers could be identified on the basis of their style of management. Early behavioural

models suggested that leader behaviour can be described in terms of two dimensions: autocratic or democratic.
They also examined two other behavioural elements; being "task centred" and focusing the group's attention on

the quantity and quality of work to be accomplished, and secondly by being "people centred" and supporting the

group in order to achieve the organisational goals. This section will describe the main style theories o&--

leadership from the seminal experiment by Lewin, Lippet and White (1939) to the Ohio State and Michigan

University studies in the 1950s. The description of style theories prefaces the change of research emphasis

towards situational theories which is described in section 3.3.4.

3.3.2.1 Authoritarian,Laissez-faireand Democraticstyles.

Lewin, Lippet and White (1939) conducted an experiment into the effects of different leadership styles at the

Child Welfare Research Station at the State University of Iowa. The study's main aim was to investigate

patterns of aggressive behaviour in artificially created social groupings as a result of a changing leadership

philosophy. Smith (1991) described it as "probably the classic experiment on leadership style" (p. 210). The

experiment involved the study of 20 ten year old boys organised in small groups engaged in hobbies over a

period of five months. The boys were led by an adult who adopted one of three leadership styles, i. e.,

autocratic, democratic or laissez-faire. The leaders took it in turns every sixth week to adopt a different style.

The authoritarian leaders made all the decisions and told the boys what to do, the laissez-faire leaders left

everything to the group and the democratic leaders encouraged and helped the group to make the decisions.
The groups were observed while they participated in their hobbies.

The results showed that the groups with the authoritarian leaders worked well enough when the leader was

present but slacked off noticeably when he was absent. The group atmosphere was characterised either by

tension and hostility toward one another. Their relationship to the leader was "... one of submission or of

persistent demands for attention. " (Lewin et al, 1939, p.277). The groups led by the laissez-faire leaders did
little work and achieved little. The group atmosphere displayed higher levels of aggression than in the

authoritarian group. Their relationship to the leader was psychologically non-existent. The groups led by the

democratic leader did as much and probably more than the authoritarian led group, and they continued to work

at the same rate even when the leader had left the room. Friendly, "cohesive and involved" described the group

atmosphere. Their relationship to the leader was categorised by feelings of mutual understanding and equality.

Each boy was interviewed individually one day before a change of leader and again at the end of the whole

experiment. All the boys had a relative dislike for the autocratic leader regardless of the leader's personality.

Nineteen of the 20 boys liked the leader more in a democratic style than in an autocratic one. it is of interest

that the twentieth boy was the son of an army officer and "consciously puts a high value on strict discipline"

(Lewin et al, 1939).

40
 Chapter Three

The study indicated that democratic leadershipappearsto be the most effective style particularly over a long

period. The satisfaction of the followers is also highest with the democratic style. Although conducted with ten

year old boys and in an experimental setting, th? work of Lewin et al (1939) was significant enough to prompt

more leadership research investigating the continuum of autocratic to democratic conceptions of leadership
(Fiedler, 1967; Fleishman, 1953; Likert, 1965).

3.3.2.2 The Michigan State Studies

Following the study by Lewin et al (1939), leadership researchers at the Institute for Social Research at the

University of Michigan began in 1947 investigating human problems of administration (Likert, 1965). The

research project was funded by the Office of Naval Research, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie

Corporation, the Schwartzhaupt Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. They examined a large

number of work groups in diverse organisations, ranging from railroad workers to insurance office workers.
Effectiveness criteria were determined by several factors: These included productivity per man hour (or some

similar measure of the organisation's success in achieving its productivity goals), job satisfaction, turnover,

scraploss and motivation.

The supervisory leader behaviours of these groups were identified by collecting information from interviews

and questionnaires. The objective measures described above were used to group supervisors into effective or
less effective categories and it was found that three types of leader behaviour differentiated between effective

and less effective supervisors. These were task-oriented behaviour, relationship-oriented behaviour and

participative leadership. The two primary behaviours were respectively labelled employee centred and

production centred supervision. Employee centred was used to describe behaviours which were predominantly

concerned with the social and emotional needs of the team. They would "inform the men on what is happening
in the company" and "keep them posted on how well they are doing" (Likert, 1965, p. 18) Production centred,

described behaviours which were directed towards task accomplishment such as planning and scheduling work.

Initially the researchers felt that the two primary behaviours were dependent, so that the strong employee

centred supervisor was weak on being production centred. However, as the research developed the two

dimensions of behaviour were recognised as independent and not opposite ends of the same continuum.

Participative leadership occurred when the supervisor facilitated discussion, cooperation and decision making

among his subordinates with the supervisor remaining responsible for the decision taken.

Likert (1965) found that for every criterion of productivity, supervision and the general style of leadership was

more significant in influencing organisational performance than general factors such as attitudes towards the

company and interest in the job itself. The more effective supervisors displayed a different style of leadership
from less effective supervisors. From the research at Michigan University, Likert described two main styles of

supervision in the workplace. The leadership style which broadly. made clear to the employees what the

objectives of the task were and then gave them the freedom to achieve it was entitled 'general supervision'.
Whereas the style of those supervisors who felt that taking an interest in employees was a luxury only

41
 The Supervisor as Leader: A Theoretical Review

achievable after production targetswere met, he named'close supervision.' General supervision did not always

result in higher production or close supervision in lower production but Likert (1965) arguedthat there was an
increasedprobability of higher productivity from generalsupervision.

In later work Likert (1967) found that the prevailing managementstyles of organisationscould be depicted on a

continuum which he called System I through System4. System 1 and System4 are describedbelow, for more
detail see Likert (1967).

System I- Managementis seenas having no confidenceor trust in employeessince they are seldom involved in'

any aspectof the decision making process. The bulk of the decisionsand the goal setting of the organisation are
made at the top and issued down the chain of command. Employeesare forced to work with fear, threats,
punishment, and occasional rewards. Need satisfaction is at the physiological and safety levels. The limited
management-employee interaction that does take place is usually with fear and mistrust. Although the control

process is highly concentrated in top management,

an informal organisation generally developsin opposition to
the goals of the formal organisation.

System 4- Management is seen as having complete trust and confidence in employees. Decision making is widely

dispersed throughout the organization, although well integrated. Communication flows not only up and down the

hierarchy, but among peers. Workers are motivated by participation and involvement in developing economic

rewards, setting goals, improving methods, and appraising progress toward goals. There is extensive friendly

management-employee interaction, with a high degree of confidence and trust. There is a wide spread

responsibility for the control process, with the lower units fully involved. The informal and formal organizations

are often one and the same. Thus, all social forces support efforts to achieve stated organizational goals. "

In testing his systems of management theory, Likert (1967) asked hundreds of managers from many

organizations to indicate where the most, and least, productive departments, divisions, or organizations they

have known would fall between the continuum of System 1 to System 4. The ratings of the most and least

productive departments varied among managers but almost without exception the managers rated the high-

producing unit closer to System 4 than the low-producing department.

The findings from this research indicate that the closer the management style of the organisation is to System 4

the more likely it will be to have a record as a high producing unit and conversely the closer the organisation is

to a System I style of management the more likely it is to have a sustained record of low productivity.
Therefore, from Likert's findings it would appear likely that organisations should attempt to move towards a

System 4 style of management. Coch and French (1948) reported a change of management style similar to that

described in Likert's management style continuum i. e., from I to 4 that produced improved results by a leading

US pyjama company. After an initial drop in productivity the change program initiated by the organization

created a productivity increase by almost%30 percent within two years, manufacturing costs decreased by 20

percent, employee turnover was reduced and the company began to shöw a profit.

42
 Chapter Three

From this example, work by Bose (1957) and the results of Likert's researchit would suggestthat the ideal
leadership style and most productive for industry is employee centred and democratic. However, even Likert

(1961), himself argued that the research indicated only a general pattern and,

"technically competent,job-centred, insensitive,and tough managementcan achieve relatively high productivity.

Membersof units whosesupervisorsuse thesehigh-pressuremethods,however,are more likely to be among those

which have the least favorable attitudes toward their work and their supervisors and are likely to display
waste,scrap loss, and turnover. In general, theseare the work groups which show the greatest hostility
"excessive
and resentmenttowards management,the least confidence and trust in their supervisors, the largest number of---
grievances that go to arbitration, and the greatest frequency of slowdowns and work stoppages, and similar
difficulties. " (p. 59).

In fact, Likert (1975) cites the example of General Motors who reported a labour efficiency increasebetween
1969and 1970as a result of moving from System4 to System 1.

While this work is more than 30 years old many British organisations in the nineties are attempting to move to a

style of management similar to that of Likert's System 4 by adopting new democratic initiatives such as

empowerment, "Investors in People" and other quality management initiatives.

3.3.2.3 The Ohio State University Leadership Studies

The most extensive leader behaviour study began in 1945 at The Ohio State University with the research aim of

identifying the behaviour of organisational group leaders (e.g. Hemphill et al, 1957; Katz & Kahn, 1952). The

groups studied included bomber crew members from the US Airforce, foremen in a manufacturing plant and

college administrators (Stogdill & Coons, 1957). The work was sponsored by many different organisations -

among these were Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center, The Office of Naval Research, The
Rockefeller Foundation and the Kellogg Foundation.

The research had two underlying assumptions: "leadership" should not be regarded as synonymous with "good

leadership" because the experimental variable and the criterion are then attenuated (Shartle, 1957), so they

studied leadership whether it was effective or ineffective. The second assumption was that certain leader

behaviours are more effective than others although measuring effectiveness was a separate issue. The priority

for the Ohio State Leadership Studies was to investigate leadership behaviours first and then determine which

behaviours were more effective, for example, in terms of productivity.

Shartle and his colleagues developed a list of 1,790 statements that described different aspects of leadership

behaviour by using the following method. The members of the multi-disciplinary research team differed in

opinion and orientation in how to classify specific leader behaviour. Therefore their views were grouped into

nine dimensions: 'integration', 'communication', 'production emphasis', 'representation', 'fraternization',

'organisation', 'evaluation', 'initiation' and 'domination' (see Stogdill 1957, p. 8 &9 for a detailed description of

43
 The Supervisoras Leader:A TheoreticalReview

each dimension). Each member of the research team wrote items of behaviour which seemed to apply to the

above areas such as "speak in a manner not to be questioned" and "wait for people in the work group to push

new ideas". They could draw their ideas for items from personal experiences and the leadership literature. To
increase the range of leader behaviour described, two advanced university classes also wrote 12 items in each of

4 different categories. Many of the 1,790 items were found to overlap and overlapping items were grouped

together, leaving 200 distinct leader behaviour statements for the preliminary questionnaire. This was further

reduced to 150 by redefining the statements back into the nine original categories described above. This

subscale was used to form the Leadership Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) by Hemphill (1950)

containing descriptions of how leaders behaved. Halpin and Winer (1957) intercorrelated and factor analysed

the subscale and identified "consideration" and "initiating structure" as primary factors, accounting for 83% of

the total factor variance. Fleishman (1957) found a similar result with industrial supervisors in studies

conducted in 1951,1953 and 1957. The Supervisory Behaviour Description Questionnaire (SBDQ), was

developed as a specific industrial version of the LBDQ, although this scale included some autocratic items such

as "he rules with an iron hand". Versions of the SBDQ (Fleishman, 1953) and the Leadership Opinion

Questionnaire (Fleishman, 1957) were used in the pilot study with offshore supervisors (See Chapter Four).

Consideration describes the extent to which a leader exhibits concern for the welfare of the group. The

considerate leader expresses appreciation for good work, stresses the importance of job satisfaction, makes

special efforts to help subordinates feel at ease, puts subordinates' suggestions into practice and obtains their

approval on important matters before going ahead. The inconsiderate leader criticises subordinates in public,

treats them without considering their feelings, threatens their security and refuses to accept their suggestions or

explain his or her actions.

Initiating structure shows the extent to which a leader initiates activity in the group, organises, and defines the

way in which the work is to be done. This factor includes such leadership behaviours as insisting on

maintaining standards, meeting deadlines and deciding in detail what will be done and how it will be done. The
leader acts in a directed way towards the task and does not consult the group.

In studying leader behaviour, the researchers at Ohio found that initiating structure and consideration were

separate and distinct dimensions i. e., a high score on one dimension does not necessarily mean a low score on

another. Therefore, the leader behaviours could be plotted on two separate axes rather than on one single

continuum. Despite initial evidence that the two dimensions of the LBDQ had an orthogonal factor structure,

later uses of the scale indicated that there was a correlation between the two scales (Schrieshman, House &

Kerr, 1976). However, a review by Fleishman (1973) of 32 studies showed that the SBDQ had a median

correlation of -. 02 between the consideration and initiating structure scores.

Industrial studies investigating the effects of consideration and initiating structure on productivity and

satisfaction have found mixed results. Fleishman, Harris and Burt (1955) found that foreman
production

received higher performance ratings by their superiors when they were higher in initiating structure and lower in

44
 Chapter Three

consideration. However, absenteeism and turnover were higher in the work groups when the foreman had this

pattern. Several additional validation studies have confirmed a similar pattern (Bass, 1990), although other

studies, such as Evans (1970), found the opposite situation. It may, however, be the choice of the effectiveness

criteria that is producing these differing results. For example, if the satisfaction of subordinates is the criterion

of effectiveness it is likely that supervisors that are high on consideration will also have higher ratings of

subordinate satisfaction. There is a problem of determining causality in concurrent analyses, for example in the

case of subordinate satisfaction, the supervisor's behaviour (high consideration) contributes towards high

subordinate satisfaction, alternatively high subordinate satisfaction allows the supervisor to be.more considerate.
The Ohio Leadership Studies found, as with the other leadership studies, that measures of effectiveness such as

subordinate's productivity and satisfaction can be seen to be as a result of the supervisor's behaviour; yet, they

may also be influencing the supervisor's behaviour.

By investigating leadershipin terms of leader behaviours, The Ohio Leadership Studieshave provided an easy
to administer instrument (e.g LOQ & SBDQ) that measuresthe extent of consideration or initiating structure

exhibited by a leader. An understandingof leadership effectiveness is dependenton the performance criteria

selected. Furthermore,the environment may have an effect on the leader'sbehaviour, and leader effectiveness
may better be explainedwhen there is an appropriatefit of leaderbehaviour and the leadershipsituation.

3.3.3 Situational and Contingency theories of leadership effectiveness

The situational approach to leadership is built on the concept that effectiveness results from a leader using a

behavioural style that is appropriate to the demands of the environment (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). The focus

of the situational approach is on observed behaviour and not hypothetical characteristics such as an inborn

ability or potential for leadership. This situational approach to leadership was raised as early as 1948 by

Stogdill, who concluded that the effectiveness of leader traits is dependent on the situation and that both the

person and the situation had to be considered for the emergence of leadership. The situation is defined as a

combination of the characteristics of the leader, the group, the task and the organisational structure.

3.3.3.1 Tannenbaumand Schmidt Continuumof leader behaviour.

The work by Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) directly reflects the thinking concerning leadership research

during the 1950s. This began examining wider issues relating to the leadership process and, due to the failure

of trait research, attempted to identify a common set of leader traits that predicted performance. The research

method moved away from focusing solely on the leader toward recognising the influence of the followers in the

leadership situation. Theories relating to motivation and human relations (Likert, 1965) generated a departure

from a directive leadership style toward a more democratic one. This new style would in theory create

employee involvement in decision making, increase motivation and ultimately improve organisational

performance.

45
 The Supervisor as Leader: A Theoretical Review

"Training laboratories" (Tannenbaum, 1958, p.96) assisted in the practice of allowing the "designated" leaders

the opportunity to reduce their power and allow the followers the opportunity to make their own decisions.
However, leaders in the "real" leadership situations felt as supervisors that democratic leadership was not

always effective. Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1957) describe the supervisor's dilemma:

"...there are times when he is torn betweenexerting 'strong' leadership and 'permissive'leadership. Sometimes

new knowledgepushes him in one direction (I should really get the group to help make this decision), but at the
sametime his experiencepushes him in another direction (I really understandthe problem better than the group

and therefore I should make the decision).

" (p.96) --
";t

The leader also has the dilemma of not knowing whether his or her choice of, leadership style is the most

appropriate one. Tannenbaum et al developed a continuum to facilitate the possible ranges of leadership
behaviour that are available to the manager. This ranged from (i) the manager making a decision and

announcing it to the team to (ii) permitting the team to function with limits defined by the superior. Once the
leader is aware of the various styles of leadership,he or she must then decide which is the most appropriate.
The authors felt that the leader should considerthe following three forces prior to the adoption of a leadership

style: forces in the leader; forces in the subordinates;and forces in the situation. The most successfultype of
leader,arguedTannenbaumet at (1957), was one who was not only able to identify the significant forces within

the leadershipinteraction but also able to act accordingly within thoseperceptions.

3.3.3.2 Herseyand Blanchard'ssituationalmodel

Hersey and Blanchard's (1969) Situational Leadership Model, which is currently used in training seminars by

the UK by the Industrial Society, focuses on the leader's relationship and task behaviours in relation to the

maturity of the follower. Task behaviour is the extent to which a leader tells followers what to do and how to

do it. Leaders who use task behaviour closely supervise their subordinates and use structure and control over

the workplace. Relationship behaviour is defined as the extent to which a leader listens, provides support and

encouragement and shares the decision making process with the team.

The situational leadership model describes four distinct styles which link the task with both the leader's

behaviours and the readiness (in terms of competence and commitment) of the followers. The four styles are:

(i) directing, (the leader provides clear and specific instructions to his subordinates as they are either unable or

unwilling to perform the task); (ii) coaching, (the leader is aware that the subordinates are willing but have low

task competence, so he or she uses leader behaviours which are a mixture of both task and relationship oriented

and should build confidence in the subordinates' ability to do the task); (iii) supporting, (the subordinates are

able but are not fully confident in their ability to perform the task, so the leader encourages and supports the

skills of the subordinates); and (iv) delegating, (the leader exhibits neither task nor relationship behaviour

because the subordinates are able, willing and confident, so they are allowed to decide what to do and when to

do it. )

46
 ChapterThree

While the situational theories have been useful by providing alternative explanations to the trait and style

theories for leader behaviour, most of these theories have not explained why these situational characteristics

affect leader behaviours. In addition these theories assume that leaders are equally affected by and do not differ
in their perceptions of these situational characteristics. More research is needed to determine if and how

individual variables moderate the relationships specified in these situational theories of leadership. Contingency

theories, although similar to situational theories, differ in one key aspect in that they assert that effectiveness of

the leaders' behaviour depends on specific characteristicsof the situation. What these key characteristics

actually are is describedas part of the next section.

3.3.3.3 Fiedler'sContingencyApproach
Fiedler's (1967) approach to leadership effectiveness argues that leadership effectiveness depends upon the

relationship between leadership style and the degree to which the group situation enables the leader to exert
influence. His Contingency Model concentrated on (i) the relationship between the leader and his group, and

(ii) the structure of the task, and (iii) the power base between the leader and the group, as determinants in the

choice of the most effective style of leadership. He argued that a structuring style was most effective when the

situation was either very favourable to the leader or very unfavourable. When the situation was only

moderately favourable then a supportive style worked best.

Fiedler defined "favourableness of the situation" as the degree to which the situation enables the leader to exert

influence over the group. Leadership style was measured through an instrument developed by Fiedler which

asked leaders to describe their most and least preferred co-workers. The scale had 18 bipolar adjective scales

such as pleasant and friendly to unpleasant and unfriendly, respectively. Each item was rated with an eight

point scale and each score was added together to form the subject's least preferred co-worker (LPC) score. (The
LPC score formed a measure of leadership style in a UK study of supervisor-manager relationships in

manufacturing industry by Watson, 1989). The relationships identified in the model have been endorsed by

over 50 studies (Fiedler, 1976). One experiment by Fiedler and Chemers (1974) at the US Military Academy,
West Point, assigned 128 cadets to 32 separate 3-man teams. The researchers assembled the groups into one of

the eight situations in Fielder's Contingency model based on scores reflecting leader-member relations obtained

three weeks prior to the study. In half of the groups, the leaders and members had expressed liking for working

with each other; in the other half, leader and members had previously expressed their dislike for working with

each other. In half the teams, the team leaders were given strong position power by being told that they would
have the final say on all group decisions and that their ratings would influence members' military grades. In the

low position power groups, leaders were told to act as chairmen. Half the groups began with an unstructured

task requiring them to design a program increasing interest in world politics among enlisted men who are

assigned overseas. The other, more structured task required the group to draw a plan for a barracks building to

scale from a set of specifications. After completing the first task the groups would then swap over and attempt
the other. Correlations were made between the LPC scores for the. leader's style and an objective measure

concerningthe task performanceof the whole team.

47
 The Supervisor as Leader: A Theoretical Review

Fiedler argued that in order to improve the group performance one can change the leader's motivational

structure such as his basic goals or modify his leadership situation. While it is possible to change personality

and the motivational structure within personality it is clearly a difficult and complex process. Fiedler, himself

arguesthat since motivational structure is so central to our personality "it would be naive to expect a cold and
businesslike person to become a warm, cuddly leader within a few hours or days" (Fiedler, 1976, p. 14).
Although Bass(1990) has arguedthat the leadercan changehis or her style relatively quickly.

However, Fiedler contends that it is comparatively easy to change the leadership situation. This can be done by

selecting a different type of person for leadership depending on the task by giving him or her more or less

responsibility, or giving him or her leadership training in order to increase or decrease their power and

influence. Most leadership training seeks to increase the favourableness of the situation by increasing the

leader's control and influence (Fielder, 1976). Therefore, those leaders who, for example, start off in an

unfavourable situation will gradually move into a zone of moderate situational favourableness. Such a change
in control and influence would also change leadership performance. For example, the task motivated leader

who performs well in the unfavourable zone will perform less well with training, whereas the relationship

motivated leader should improve with training as he moves from the unfavourable to the moderately favourable

zone. This can be broadly summarised by stating that in theory, training will decrease performance of some
leaders but increase it for others (Fielder & Chemers, 1976).

Although Fielder's model is useful, he implies that there is only a single continuum of leader behaviour, with

only two basic leadership styles, task oriented and relationship-oriented. By examining leadership in this way it

excludes the leadership style that may exist which is both high on task orientation and high on relationship

orientation such as the 9,9 - Team Management style (Blake & Mouton, 1964). Also the weakness of LPC as a

measurement device has been widely discussed. Peters, Hartke and Pohlmann (1985) found during a meta-

analysis of Fielder's laboratory results that while there was general support for the Contingency Theory, the

result for Octant 11was contrary to theoretical expectations, i. e., instead of observing a negative leader style-

performance relationship, a positive one (. 2 1) was observed.

Handy (1985) directs two criticisms at Fiedler's approach: firstly for researching unusual groups such as

focusing on basketball teams and bomber crews; and secondly for only examining the problem in terms of the

nature of the task and the relationship between the leader and his subordinates the results may not be strong
-
enough to support his conclusions and the method too narrow in its approach to understanding leadership.

3 3.3.4 Cognitive Resource Theory

The contingency model developed by Fiedler (1967) has been justly criticised because it predicts leadership

effectiveness but fails to explain the underlying processes that result in effective performance (Fiedler, 1989).
His more recent work, Cognitive Resource Theory (CRT) provides an integration of the roles played by

intellectual abilities, competence and experience, as well as leader behaviour and stress, in determining

leadership and group performance (Fiedler & House, 1988). The theory directly addresses the question of why

48
 Chapter Three

the leader's intellectual abilities and job experience, under conditions of stress, correlate so poorly with

performance (Bass, 1991). This theoretical problem has significant practical implications as job experience and

perceived intellectual abilities are two of the key traits that determine selection and promotion in industry. In
fact, it could be argued that such results are contrary to common sense and organisational practice. The CRT

theory states that the performance of a leader's group is determined by a complex interaction among two leader

traits (intelligence and experience), one type of leader behaviour (directive leadership), and two aspects of the
leadership situation i. e., interpersonal stress and the nature of the group's task (Yukl, 1994).

Fiedler and his associates examined the relationship between leaders' intelligence and stress from several groups'

from 1960s to the mid 1980s. He used the same data set that was used for researching the Contingency Model

and is therefore open to the same criticisms that were aimed at this model. The groups included Army Squad
Leaders, a group from the Belgian Navy, Coast Guard, Company Commanders and Batallion Staff Officers,

Cadet trainees, Dutch University Students, Fire Service Officers, Illinois Farmers, US Army Personnel (dyad

groups), US Army Mess Hall Personnel, US Army Infantry, High School Students in Public Health from
Honduras and Guatemala and ROTC Cadet teams. Factors such as intelligence (an aptitude test, for example

the "Wonderlic Personnel Test") experience (job tenure), stress (rated as stress with boss and stress with job)

and performance (objective output measure, if applicable, then superior ratings) were calibrated for each group.

The findings show that when stress with boss is high, experience correlated positively but intelligence correlated

negatively with performance evaluations. Intelligence was uncorrelated with performance when the individual

reported relatively low stress with his or her boss (Potter & Fiedler, 1981). These findings indicate that in a

stressful situation an individual selected for his or her intellectual abilities will perform less well than those who
lack these abilities. Some suggestions are raised by Fiedler & House (1988) as to why these results may occur.

Firstly, the more intelligent leaders may have higher expectations of themselves and as a result seek more risky

than less intelligent leaders. The more intelligent leaders may be more aware of potential failure and
solutions

as a result be more anxious about their decisions. Finally, the more intelligent leaders may have many new

ideas but are unable to provide an integrated solution.

While Fielder establishedsupport for CRT, recent work by Vecchio (1990) has found mixed results. In fact he
found that stress that originates from failing to meet personal professional standards may have a positive effect

on future performance, and that "intelligence" was measured too generally against task performance to provide

One suggestion made by Vecchio (1990) was to adopt Sternberg's (1985) view that intelligence
specific results.
be having three major facets: reasoning ability, social judgement
should viewed as and creativity, and that
intelligence this way would benefit the empirical research of CRT. Another criticism of Fielder's
measuring
is the theory examines only directive leader behaviour and there are already inconclusive results
approach that
in the literature relating this behaviour to performance. The idea, though, that intelligence (and tacit

knowledge) may have an important role to play in predicting managerial performance appears to be gaining

in North America (Sternberg, 1995) and is likely to be a focus for future research.
ground

49
 The Supervisor as Leader: A Theoretical Review

3.3.3.5 Vroom and Yetton Contingency Model

The contingency approach developed by Vroom and Yetton (1973) is based on a model commonly used by

those who endorse the situational approach to leadership this is based on the assumption that situational
-

variables interacting with personal attributes of the leader result in leader behaviour that can affect

effectiveness. Therefore change in the organisation, as it is part of the situation, affects the next
organisational
leadership intervention. The researchers assume that the leader can choose a leadership style along a continuum

ranging from highly autocratic to highly democratic. The range of styles are dependent on the situation are

describedbelow :
.f

AI Leadermakesdecisionsalone, using information available at the time.

All The employeesprovide specific information to the leaderand then the leaderdecideson the

solution himself.
CI The leader shares the problem with team members individually and gets their feedback

without bringing them together as a group. The leader then makes the decision which may

or may not reflect the suggestions of the group.

CII The leadersharesthe problem with the employeesin a group meeting. After obtaining
feedbackthe leadermakesthe decision which may or may not reflect the suggestionsof the

group.
GII The leadersharesthe problem with the group. As a group they generateand evaluate
and attempt to reach a solution. The solution is generated by the group and is
solutions
implemented with the support of the entire group.

For situations that do not fall strictly into these categories, there are alternative options which can be followed.

These new choices can be based on criteria such as time, subordinate needs and the individual preferences of the

leader. The fundamental problem with the model is that yes/no responses over simplify the situation. These
by Vroom and Jago (1988) by providing 5 possible responses for each decision
weaknesses were updated
two extra outcomes to account for the quality of the decision creating a total of four i. e.,
making question, and
"decision acceptance", "decision quality", subordinate development" and "concern for decision time". The
has much support in the literature and even a computer software program has been developed to
updated model
in through the many potential answers to the model.
assist working

3.3.3.6 Path goal theory of leader effectiveness

The impact of the leader on the performance and satisfaction of group members was examined by another

the Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness (House, 1971). This model is derived directly
situational model,
from the "path goal" theory of motivation (Georgopolous, 1957). The main hypothesis is that the force on an

in
individual to engage a specific behaviour is a function of (i) the leader's expectations that the behaviour will

in and (ii) the value the leader places on the outcomes that are associated with his or
result a specific outcome,
her behaviour. This description clearly fits the transactional style described by Bums (1978).

50
 ChapterThree

Other studies, identified by House, have produced some conflicting findings which concern the relationship
between initiating structure, performance and organisational effectiveness. House (1971) replicated the earlier

work by Fleishman and Harris (1955) and investigated the leadership style of salaried engineers, scientists, and

technicians in three larger research, design and development organisations. He found that leader initiating

structure had a significant relationship to half the satisfaction measures in two of the three companies and

significant positive correlations with company management in all three companies studied. In a another study

with 192 non-technical corporate office employees from a chemical company, House (1971) measured positive

relationships between leader initiating structure and six measures of satisfaction. Several hypothesis were put

forward by House to account for these conflicting findings. For example, initiating structure was hypothesised

to clarify path-goal relationships for higher occupational level jobs which are frequently ambiguously defined.

High initiating structure from the supervisor reduces role ambiguity and as a result increases the employee's

that extra effort will result in goal attainment. This would explain why lower level occupations
perception
(which are more routine) receive lower ratings of satisfaction. If the job is itself not intrinsically satisfying then

the employee may perceive that high initiating structure is a strategy by the supervisor of keeping them working

at unsatisfying activities.

Housedevelopedthree separatestudies(seeHouse, 1971) to attempt to reconcile whether the path-goal theory,

describedabove, actually explains the confusing findings. The findings generally supported the theory that

among high occupational groups, leader initiating structure was generally positively related to subordinate

and performance. The findings for the relationships between consideration, satisfaction and job
satisfaction
satisfactionvaried significantly.

Yukl (1994) lists six fundamental criticisms of path-goal theory. They include: the conceptual problems that are

associated with expectancy theory and the assumption that role ambiguity is unpleasant to an employee, but
like supervisors (see Chapter Two), for example, may like a job in which duties are not
some employees,
there is freedom to define their own role. In general the criticisms for the situational approach
specified and
to the contingency models. (Fielder & Chemers, 1984) has argued that these theories are actually
also apply
than different, as they both assume that leaders can accurately diagnose situations and behave in a
more similar
flexible manner. Two further criticisms can be aimed at the situational/contingencymodels: there is a tendency

to over simplify the situation and it is that

assumed decision making takes place only once.

3.3.4 Transactional and Transformational Leadership

Research by Bums (1978) into how US political leaders motivated followers was one of the first attempts to

describe the differences between transactional and transformational leadership. He argued that political leaders

process i. e., jobs, subsidies and government contracts in return for campaign
who emphasised the exchange
were exhibiting transactional leadership. Whereas, those leaders that raised the
contributions and votes
of their followers in areas such as justice, peace and humanitarianism described
consciousness and values were

51
 The Supervisoras Leader:A Theoretical Review

as transformational. Burns' model placed transactional and transformational at opposite ends of the same

continuum which meant that in his opinion a leader was either one or the other. Bass (1985) using the

theoretical perspective of Burns extended the model in two ways. Firstly Bass's definition of transactional and

transformational leadership was extended to include supervisor-subordinate relationships in general and more
importantly, he developed a model that augmented the effect of transformational on transactional leadership,

thus allowing for a leader to be both transactional and transformational. In fact, it is argued by Bass (1985) that

this model is not only building on previous work but is also in itself a new leadership paradigm.

A more detailed description of these two styles is described below. The transformational leader can develop'

followers, raise their need levels and energise them, and promote quantum positive changes in individuals,

groups, teams - even entire organisations (Avolio, 1990). Transformational leadership is usually found at the

more senior ends of the organisation, especially when leaders are selected on their ability to change and
improve their work unit. However, Avolio (1990) claims that transformational leadership has been observed at

lower organisational levels, including the project leaders, who were not in management positions. This suggests

that transformational leaders either select transformational leaders, develop them, or do both (Bass, 1990).

Moreover, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) has been used successfully at many levels in

organisations including team leaders and supervisors ( Hater & Bass, 1988; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995).

Transactional leaders define and communicate the work that must be done by followers, how it will be done,

and the rewards followers will receive for successfully completing stated objectives. The followers or

employees understand their job roles and the expectations set out for them by the leader and the organisation.

The employees are motivated and directed to achieve these expectations because their transactional leaders

clarify what they will receive in return. These rewards, which are very dependent on the organisational context,

may include satisfactory performance ratings, pay increases, praise and recognition, and better work

assignments. The skills and behaviours that are apparent within transactional leadership include the leader's

the goals that are expected of him or her them by their superiors. The leader must then be able to
recognition of
the and goals that his followers have to achieve, while concomitantly
specify work activities gaining their
that the followers expectations are met. Thus, the effective transactional leader should be skilled
cooperation so
in identifying the individual follower needs and desires and communicating effectively the needs and desires of

the organisation to his followers.

In contrast, the key behaviours of the successful transformational leader include articulating goals, building an

image, demonstrating confidence and arousing motivation. These behaviours convince and motivate followers

bartering for goods and rights, which characterises transactional leadership (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987).
without
The augmentation model of transformational and transactional (Bass & Avolio, 1994) is shown below.

op

52
 Chapter Three

Figure 3.1
The Augmentation Model of Transactional and Transformational Leadership

Idealised Inspirational Intellectual Individualised

+L + +C
Influence ead ers hi p Sti mu l ati on ons id erati on

Heightened Motivation
Management
Exception
I Expected
Effort 10
to attain
designated Outcomes
(extra effort)

Contingent Expected
Reward Performance
Performance
beyond Expectations

(Bass& Avolio, 1994)

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP DIMENSIONS

Idealised influence is defined with respectto follower reactionsto the leader as well as to the leader'sbehaviour
(Bass& Avolio, 1991). Followers identify with and emulate theseleaders. The leadersare trusted and convey
a vision to their followers that the followers can identify with. The leadersalso have much referent power and
set challenging goals for themselvesand their subordinates.

Inspirational motivation can overlap with charisma depending on how much the subordinates want to identify
with the leader. This measures the extent to which the leader uses symbols and short emotional messages to
motivate the team towards mutually desired goal.

Intellectual stimulation assessesthe amount of encouragement a leader gives his followers to question their old
doing things. The followers are supported if they change their old ways of thinking and develops
way of
creative ways of approaching new problems.

Individualised consideration is a measure of how a leader treats his followers differently but fairly. The leader
the and needs of his followers through individual coaching.
raises expectations

TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP DIMENSIONS

Contingent reward describes the interaction between leader and follower that emphasises exchange especially in
terms of what a follower knows to expect from the leader in return for the follower's attainment of agreed
objectives.

Management-by-exception is a measure of what the leaders do when things go wrong. The leader usually
intervenes to make corrective action with criticism, discipline and negative feedback.

ýw

53
 The Supervisoras Leader: A Theoretical Review

Most of the research on Bass' theory has involved the use of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

and this was also used in the main study of offshore supervisors (See Chapter Five). Several studies have found

support for the theory that transformational behaviours correlate more strongly with leadership effectiveness

than transactional behaviours (Bass & Yammarino, 1991; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). The leadership effectiveness

measure was based on appraisal ratings by superiors and a similar pattern of positive correlations was repeated

with "hard measures" such as financial or productivity records (Bass & Avolio, 1991). The augmentation

model has also received empirical support (Waldman, Bass & Yammarino, 1989) where transactional leadership
is perceived as the basis for effective leadership, but greater effort and satisfaction is possible from employees

by augmenting transactional with transformational leadership (Bass, 1985). While another study of US military ":.
personnel by Curphy (1991) found little evidence for Bass' augmentation theory but did indicate that

transformational leadership positively affected organisational performance and climate.

There is considerable evidence to indicate that Bass's (1985) theory of transformational leadership and the

related MLQ can contribute to the identification of effective leadership behaviours. Bass and Avolio (1990)

argue that transformational leadership will be particularly effective in organisations undergoing change, and

given the current competitive global market place, change may become the norm. Given that transformational

theory builds on existing models of leadership and also attempts to train leaders to face the changing economic

environment, it appears well matched to fit the organisational requirements of the future.

3.3.5 A UK MODEL OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS

3.3.5.1 Adair's Model - Action Centred Leadership

All of the leadership theories and models reviewed above were developed in the US. However, given the

internationalisation of institutions and the general convergence of cultures, American developed leadership

theory has found significant transferability across nations (Murphy, 1991). While there are many UK

leadership researchers (e.g. Mant, 1979), one British model of leadership effectiveness is discussed because of

its popularity within UK based supervisory training schemes (e.g. The Industrial Society). Adair (1973)

developed his Action Centred leadership (ACL) model while he was an adviser on Leadership Training between

1963 and 1968 at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. The model which was created from established

military principles about leadership, reflects aspects of trait theory, situational theory and group dynamics.

Adair developed an integrated concept of the role of a leader which is referred to as the "Three Circles Model. "

This encompasses three essential themes described above within the leadership paradigm. He describes them as

the "qualities" of personality and character, which are appropriate to the general "situation", plus the ability of
leader to towards its purpose or task while simultaneously developing and building the
the guide a group
"team".

'rhe three areas of the circle all influence each other for better or worse. An example of the interaction is

described by Adair who says

54
 Chapter Three

"If a group fails in its task this will intensify the disintegrative tendencies present in the group and raise a

diminished satisfaction for individual members. If there is a lack of unity or harmonious relationships in the

group this will affect performance on the job and also individual needs. And obviously an individual who feels

frustrated and unhappy in a particular work environment will not make his maximum contribution to either the

task or to the life of the group. " (1973, p9)

common

Adair (1988) admits that the model doeshave the drawback of looking rather static when leadershipis in reality

a more dynamic process. However, as a model, it does help to focus the leader's attentions' towards three- -

overlapping and interconnecting areas and also provides a clear picture that the leader-follower (dyadic)

relationship is as important as the leader-team (group) relationship. Adair's model appears to be an accepted

for teaching leadership theory to supervisors and despite the lack of empirical analysis it is widely
model
in UK. Its is probably because it is attractive in its simplicity.
adopted the popularity

3.4 MEASURING LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS

Fiedler (1987) defines leadership effectiveness conceptually as the degree of successwith which a group

performs the primary assignedtask. He saysthat if an objective measureof group performance is not available,
then they will make do with the boss's rating of the leader's or the group's performance, and while job
indicators are useful they are not in themselves the primary goals of an organisation.
satisfactionor morale

The selection of appropriate criteria of leader effectiveness depends on the objectives and values of the person

the (Yukl, 1994). A leader's superiors are likely to prefer different criteria to a leader's
making evaluation
When there are many alternative measures of effectiveness, it is usually an arbitrary decision as
subordinates.
to which is (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). The different criteria are often uncorrelated and may
most relevant
be correlated (Yukl, 1994). For example, growth in sales or output is sometimes achieved at
even negatively

the cost of reduced efficiency and lower profits. Tradeoffs can occur even within the same criterion at different

time. For example, a reduction in certain activities such as maintenance of equipment, research and
points of
development, investment in new technology, and development of employee skills can have a direct positive

term However, in the long run the net effect of this strategy is likely to be lower profits.
effect on short profits.

Although there are limitations with using objective performance indices because they are likely to be multi-

dimensional and may be relatively insensitive to a leader's behaviour. So how does one measure how effective

is? Described below is Table 3.1 outlining the measures of effectiveness used by the studies that were
a leader

reviewed.

55
 The Supervisoras Leader: A Theoretical Review

Table 3.1
Measures of Leadership Effectiveness
Leadership Model Measures of Effectiveness

Ghiselli (1971) Appraisal Ratings

Luthans (1988) Ratio of the no. of promotions/length of service.

Lewin, Lippet & White (1939) Interviewswith the individuals within the groups.
Likert (1967) Criterion measures such as productivity per
man hour and soft measuressuch as job
satisfaction.
".a

Fleishman(1953;1957) Appraisal ratings and hard measuressuch as

absenteeism.

Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1958) Soft measures such as employee motivation,

teamwork and morale.

Hersey & Blanchard (1969) Both soft and hard measures.

Fiedler (1967; 1987) Both soft and hard measures depending on

which group under investigation.

Vroom & Yetton (1973) Interviewed managers to describe examples of

successful and unsuccessful decisions and then
analysed to determine what situation they
present.
House (1971) Soft measures such as employee satisfaction
measures.
Bass & Avolio (1990) Both soft and hard measures. e.g. appraisal and
financial measures.

Adair (1973) Not applicable

There is not one consistent method of measuring leadership effectiveness and as a result this becomes a
leadership research issue in itself. As can be seen from Table 3.1, the principal measures used can be

subdivided into "hard" measures e.g., productivity and financial ratios or "soft" measures such as employee

in a combination of the two is frequently employed.

satisfaction and practice

3.5 SUMMARY

These past conceptualisations have all helped to increase our understanding of leadership. The review is

illustrative than inclusive and explores many of the issues that surround leadership theory in the
rather

workplace. The trait research identified many potential predictors of leader effectiveness and provided

correlations between traits and leadership

suggestions on how the research examining various criteria could be
improved. The described the behaviours leaders use and the situational approach described
style approach
affect these behaviours with the contingency models hypothesing about
different variables that could potentially

a leader must attend to, to be effective.

which of these variables

56
 Chapter Three

In particular, trait theory outlines the need to select future leaders against a group of defined qualities such as

the need to influence others, need for achievement and strong interpersonal skills. Yukl (1994) takes the view

that trait theory has established the need for balance when selectin& traits and that this is more important than a

high amount of one particular trait. In addition; cognitive skills such as those investigated by Boyatsis (1982)

discussed in Chapter Two are also helping the renewed interest not only in traits but in "observable traits"
and
leader behaviours. The Boyatsis model of characteristics of effective managers is discussed in more detail in
or
Chapter Nine when these characteristics are compared with those measured in the Decision Making Vignettes

(DMVs).
'i

The leadership behaviour Fleishman scales (1953) measuring initiating structure and consideration still remain

factors in workplace leadership theory. These factors are present in some form in most leadership
significant
The dimensions are clearly developed in Vroom and Yetton's (1973) and Fiedler's Hi/Lo-LPC (1967)
models.

and contingency leadership,respectively. In fact, the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire

models of situational
(LOQ) manual refers to "consideration" and "initiating structure" as the significant traits measured by the

questionnaire. The transformational and transactional model (Bass, 1985) cuts across both dimensions of

"consideration" and "initiating structure" given that both can be either transactional or transformational. While

there are questions about the effect of consideration and initiation on subordinate performance, they are clearly

leader behaviours (Misumi, 1985).

critical

the presentvalue of key leadershiptheories that were and in many casesstill are
The literature above, assesses
influential in the workplace. Despite the quantity of published leadership, research questions such as:
very
What makes an effective leader? How does one become an effective leader? How is effective leadership

remain without definitive answers. Leadership researchers argue that while there are no solutions
measured?
there is definitely a movement in the right direction (Bass, 1990; Fielder & House, 1988). One of the main
the leadership literature that remains is by Yukl (1994) who discusses the lack of an integrated
criticisms of
framework. He says that leadershipresearch is characterisedby narrowly focused studies with little
conceptual
integration of findings from other approaches. It is with this last statement in mind, in particular, that the

for the thesis was developed. It is hoped that throughout the investigation of the offshore first line
method
there a clear intention to critically investigate to what extent traits, leader behaviour,
supervisor was
variables, cognitive competencies and transformational leadership might have on
situational/contingent
determining the effectivenessof this role.

The next chapter presents the results from the pilot study; phase two of the research. The chapter explores some

data options described above such as job satisfaction, perceptions of the work
of the potential collection
Fleishman's leadership scales. The chapter concludes with recommendations for phase three
environment and
is described in the method chapter; Chapter Five.
of the research which

57
 CHAPTER FOUR

METHOD & SURVEY OF OFFSHORE

SUPERVISORS
PHASE II

' -..

4.1 INTRODUCTON

As described in Chapters One and Two, there is a dearth of empirical research that examines the role of the

offshore first line supervisor. This project represents one of the first studies of offshore supervisors on

production platforms. While there are other types of installations in the North Sea such as drilling rigs and

floating production facilities, and both were visited as part of the research project, the main focus of the

those supervisors living and working on production platforms. This chapter describes the
research was on
the results of the Pilot Study (Phase II).
method and

Three UK based operating companies, two service companies and a drilling contractor were invited to

participate in the research. Researchers at The Rogaland Research Institute (Stavanger) working in the

Norwegian sector of the offshore oil and gas industry agreed to facilitate contact between the researcher and an

in the Norwegian sector in order to develop a cross cultural component to the research. A project
operator
to the senior management of the companies who were immediately responsible for
outline was submitted
Meetings were arranged with onshore managers to discuss the applicability of the research
offshore operations.
deliverables that they would receive in return for providing access to both their
and the potential project
installations and personnel. Confidentiality was a major concern for each company and it was agreed
offshore
be on an anonymous basis. For this reason individual companies will not be named but
that participation would
be to as Company A, B, C, etc.
will referred

details the five principal companies and how they were involved in the research are as follows :-
Summary of

Company A An American owned international operator with one platform on the UKCS that has its UK

headquarters in Aberdeen. Company A allowed access to its offshore platform and personnel to undertake

interviews. This was labelled Phase One of the project and is described in more detail in Appendix
preliminary

iw

58
 Chapter Four

CompanyBA large multinational international operator,it operatesseveralfacilities in the North Sea(basedin

both the UK and the Norwegian sector) and has British headquartersin Aberdeenand London. Company B was
involved in both the pilot study (PhaseII) and the main study (PhaseIII).

Company CA UK-owned, large international service company supplying engineering, maintenance and

manpower services to the operators of the North Sea oil and gas industry. Company C was involved with

Company B within the main study (Chapters Six & Seven).

Company DA large American owned, international drilling contractor operating six drilling units in the UKCS.

Company D allowed access to its offshore drilling rig and personnel to undertake preliminary interviews. For

Phase I of the project see Appendix Ia. Company D also supplied two "excellent" supervisors that comprised

the expert group of nine for the section on supervisory decision making.

Company EA medium sized, American owned, international operator with several facilities in both the UK

sector and the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. Company H was involved with Phase III of the project and
forms the Norwegian section of the results. (See Chapter Eight).

Five other companies(three operatorand two contractor) provided seven "excellent" supervisorsthat comprised

the expert group of nine for the section on supervisorydecision making.

4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

The study was conducted in three phases lasting a total of 24 months which are described in turn below (see

Table 4.1 for the project schedule). It was decided to collect the data offshore within the work environment of

the subjects rather than during their field break in the UK. While there is no published literature concerning the

differences between responses gathered offshore and onshore, it seems likely that as a result of the 12
potential
hour shifts, two week work rotation and the isolation and confinement that characterise offshore life, differences

in the responses depending on the site of data collection. An offshore postal questionnaire
may arise subjects'

not unlike the one used by Sutherland (1994). Although a higher number of subjects can
was also considered,
be targeted through a postal questionnaire and in a shorter time period, there are several additional benefits to be

derived by going offshore and conducting the survey on the production platforms. Firstly, the status of the

is because of the costs involved in securing offshore access (approximately £700 per night for
project enhanced
helicopter travel and accommodation) and the safety and fire-fighting qualifications that are required by long
Secondly, the researcher is able to clarify possible points of misunderstanding and
term offshore visitors. assess
that the subject may make inadvertently (Chisnall, 1994). Thirdly, by going offshore, the
any non-verbal clues
interviewer is able to gain a deeper insight into the offshore lifestyle which allows him or her to understand the

the and to generally humanise the cold statistics.

atmosphere within platform

59
 Method & Survey Of Offshore Supervisors- Phase II

Table 4.1
Method Timetable

PROJECTPHASE DATE COMPANY INSTALLATION SUPERVISORS

I: Interview Programme March - May A&D 1 Platform &1 14

1992 Drilling Rig

II : Pilot Study July - Aug 1992 B 4 Platforms 29

III: Main Study Dec 1993 - B. C&E UK1, UK2 & N1 100
April 1994 Platforms

PhaseI: Interview Programme

In PhaseI of the researcha seriesof preliminary interviews was conductedwith offshore supervisorsto identify
the supervisory and management issues that were common to the North Sea offshore oil and gas
and explore
industry in order to designan interview schedulefor a larger sample.

Company A provided the offshore personnel for Phase I of this study. Three days were spent on its offshore

semi-structured 60 minute interviews with a sample of seven first line supervisors. During
platform, conducting

the offshore visit there were opportunities to observe the environment in which the supervisors lived and

The interview covered such topics as previous employment and training, management skills, and key
worked.
Other specific themes were also examined such as the
roles and responsibilities of the offshore supervisor.
the potential differences between working offshore and an equivalent position
supervisors' perceptions of

onshore. Individuals were also encouraged to recount personal, experiences and opinions about previous

tasks living and working in the offshore environment.

supervisory and about

Company D to a semi-submersible drilling rig and its offshore supervisors for a small survey.
provided access

Two days were spent on the offshore installation, conducting structured 60 minute interviews with a sample of

four first line supervisors. The objective of the trip was to gather data which would contribute to a better

the skills required by offshore first line supervisors working in the exploration
understanding of managerial

industry, and to facilitate the comparison between supervisors on drilling rigs and those from production

platforms.

In both cases,all intervieweeswere guaranteed confidentiality and informed that the interviews were being used
instrument which would be used to conduct a larger survey. The findings were fed back to
to construct an
in a style that contained no identifiable characteristics of the supervisors. A
onshore senior management
of interviews are containedin Appendix 1.
summaryreport of thesetwo sets

60
 Chapter Four

PhaselI : Pilot Study

Phase 11constituted a pilot study to test the interview schedule and the standard questionnaires to be used in the

(Phase III). Company B was, at the time of the initial approach for collaborative help, beginning to
main study
investigate the role of the offshore first line supeivisor as part of a quality management initiative. Given the

similarity of the two projects and the possibility of project synergy, the researcher was invited to participate in a

group examining offshore supervision. This relationship, the method and the results of the study are described

below.

This survey was conductedoffshore in August 1992 the the first line .
44
and examined role of offshore supervisor
in terms of the managerialskills required and specifically how the supervisors and others viewed these skills.
The 29 supervisorsin the samplewere drawn from maintenance,production or electrical disciplines and will be

to
referred as simply "supervisor" throughout the chapter. Where this title overlaps with other roles in the North
Seaoil industry or it is relevant to describethe supervisor as discipline specific, full titles will be used. Access
to personnelwas granted by a large Operating Company (Company B) and in return summary results with no
identifying characteristicsof the personnel interviewed were sharedwith the company. A fuller description of
this relationship is describedlater in this chapter.

The aims of this study were:-

a. To investigate the specific managerial skills required by supervisors working in the North Sea
offshore oil industry.
b. To record the supervisors' perceptions of the social and environmental aspects of an offshore
and what differences there are between this environment and an onshoreequivalent.
platform,
c. To examine the levels of job satisfaction among the offshore supervisors in comparison to (i) an
(ii) previous studiesof offshore workers' job satisfaction.
onshoregroup and
d. To determine the supervisors' views of desirable leadership behaviours and to compare these
findings with their subordinates'opinions.
e. To gather the opinions of the supervisors' about their continually changing role in a work
environment demanding increasingcommercial awareness.

4.3 METHODOLOGY

4.3.1 Sample

Company B, oil company, provided access to their offshore staff for this study. Having initiated
a multinational
in January 1992 whose remit was to investigate the relationship between
a project team productivity offshore
the first line supervisor, the company was prepared to allow the researcher to join their
and the effectiveness of

61
 Method& Survey Of Offshore Supervisors- Phase II

project team due to the similarity of the respective project objectives. The project team utilised J.M. Juran's

Quality Improvement Process (1988), which is a systematic problem solving technique that examines potential

theories of reduced productivity and through data gathering, analysis and testing of these selected theories,

identifies root causes of reduced productivity.

In depth structured interviews were carried out with 29 supervisors (all male) using the "Offshore Supervisor's

Questionnaire 1" (described below). Four of these supervisors who were not due to be offshore during the

allotted interviewing time slot were interviewed onshore. The interviews were approximatejy, 180 minutes in

duration (ranging from 75 to 210 minutes). A subset of questions from the Offshore Supervisor's Questionnaire "ý.

1 were mirrored above the supervisor using individual interviews with four OIM's and five Operations

supervisors. These interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes. Selected questions were mirrored below the

supervisors' to 82 technicians who were issued with a questionnaire designed for self completion (see section
4.5). It included a standard scale which asked them to comment on their supervisor's leadership style. The

technicians completed their questionnaires after shift in a quiet room or during shift when it was operationally
The whole data collection exercise took place on four platforms in the North Sea during a two week
viable.

period in August 1992.

4.3.2 Questionnaire Design

The content of the "Offshore Supervisor's Questionnaire 1" was based on (i) background reading as described

above; (ii) information gathered during the pilot stage with Companies A and D (see Appendix I& II); and (iii)

the specific requirements of the Juran (1988) problem solving process used by Company B. The questionnaire
designed different questionnaire formats, (e. g., attitude scales, open questions, standard
was using several

scales) (Moser & Kalton, 1974) and was divided into the following themes; people, communication,

commercial awareness, the place, way of living, worksite discipline, handovers, training,
accountability,

performance measurement and supervision. Ten statements, covering aspects of formal and
motivation, work
informal discipline, were also included as a five point Likert scale. Verbal tags were used with modifying

in to increase the accuracy of the scale (Chisnall, 1986, p16l). The open questions,
adverbs an attempt

numerical scales and the standard scales totalled 296 items in all. However, those items that
statements with
specific were not included for analysis in this project and they have been deleted from the final
were company

version of the questionnaire. The selected questions that were mirrored to OIM's and Operations Supervisors

indicated in Appendix II by "OIM" and "OS" respectively. The questionnaire was developed in June 1992
are
to the company reviewing the style and format in early July. The Offshore Supervisor's
prior collaborating
Questionnaire 1 and revised on the basis of in-depth interviews conducted with three supervisors
was piloted
from Company B.

Three standard scales, were incorporated into the questionnaire thus providing the opportunity for statistical

data. The standard scales measured perceptions of the work environment (Moos &
comparisons with norm
Insell, 1974), job satisfaction (Warr, Cook & Wall, 1979) and leadership style (Fleishman, 1953).

62
 Chapter Four

The Work EnvironmentScale(Moos & Insell, 1974)

x
An American instrument, the Work Environment Scale (Moos & Insell, 1974) was used to measure employees'

perceptions of their offshore environment (i. e., the social-psychological characteristics of a work setting).
According to Moos and Billings (1991) each work setting develops a "style" or a work climate, which

influences the decision making process and defines typical patterns of interactions at work. Three sets of

dimensions are sub-divided into the ten subscales. The relationship dimension is measured by-involvement",
.
"peer cohesion" and "supervisory support" subscales. These subscales measure the extent to which employees

are concerned about and committed to their jobs; the extent to which employees are friendly to and supportive

of one another; and the extent to which management is supportive and encourages employees to be supportive

of one another. The personal growth, or goal orientation dimension is measured by autonomy, task

orientation and work pressure subscales. These subscales rate the level of empowerment among employees, the
degree of emphasis on good planning, efficiency and getting the job done on time, and to what extent time and

work pressure dominate the work environment. The system maintenance and system change dimensions are

measured by clarity, control, innovation and physical comfort subscales. These subscales assessthe degree to

which employees know what to expect in their daily routines and how clearly these rules are communicated; the

amount of management rules that are used to keep employees under control; the degree of emphasis on change,

and the extent to which the physical surroundings contribute to a pleasant work environment (Moos, 1981).
The WES was chosen to provide a standardised measure as well as comparative norm data. To complete the
.
WES scale the respondents were asked to answer 90 statements 'true' or 'false' which were intended to be

suitable for all work environments.

Job SatisfactionScale (Warr, Cook & Wall, 1979)

This section also measured job satisfaction. The 16 item scale by Warr, Cook & Wall (1979) was used to

both extrinsic and intrinsic factors associated with job satisfaction. Respondents were asked to rate
measure
how satisfied or dissatisfied they felt on a seven point Likert type scale, thus the minimum score was 16 and the

112. Item 15 "Your job security" was inadvertently changed to "Your job history".
maximum score

This scale was chosen because it is short, robust and was readily accepted by blue collar workers (Warr, Cook

& Wall, 1979). The scale has also been previously used in other studies in the offshore industry (Sutherland,

V., & Cooper, 1986; Sutherland, K., & Flin, 1991; Flin, Meares, Fleming & Gordon, 1996).

The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (Fleishman, 1953)

The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (LOQ) is a measure of leaders' opinions about desirable leadership

behaviour, developed at the Ohio State University, USA, over a ten year period in the 1950's and 1960's. The

to define leadership behaviours that are important for attaining team and organisational
research attempted

63
 Method & Survey Of Offshore Supervisors- Phase II

it identified two dimensions on which the questionnaire was subsequently based: Consideration and
goals, and
Initiating Structure. Further analysis shows that subordinates are more likely to prefer supervisors who are

want supervisors to be primarily concerned with achieving the goals of the

considerate, while superiors

organisation (Likert, 1965). The combination of which makes the supervisor the buffer between both the

conflicting aims of management and the workforce, and within the conflicting demands of his own team. (See

Chapters Two and Three for a more detailed discussion. ) This scale was chosen because it was short, easy to

administer and matched the initial perceptions of the project group that "people" versus "task" dimensions were
dominant offshore. There are 40 statements in total (20 statements relating to Consideration and-20 addressing

Initiating structure). The respondents were asked to rate each statement on a five point scale from always to

never indicating the extent to which the leader's behaviour was considerate of his workers' feelings on one

dimension and on the other to what extent the leader defined or facilitated group involvement towards goals.

The items under Consideration included statements such as "I refuse to give in when people disagree with me"

"I for change" and for Initiating Structure "I talk about how much work should be done"
and reject suggestions

and "I assign people to particular tasks".

Supervisory Behaviour Description Questionnaire SBDQ (Fleishman, 1957)

This scale, also developed at the Ohio State University, was designed to measure individuals' leadership
behaviour from the opinions of those whom they supervise. The questionnaire,like the LOQ, measuredonly

the dimensions of leaders' Consideration and Initiating Structure. There were 48 statements in total (28
to Consideration and 20 addressed Initiating structure) and the respondentswere askedto rate
statementsrelated
on a five point scale. Almost identical items were used for the SBDQ as for the LOQ except the
eachstatement
altered to reflect a rater scalefor subordinatesrather than a self completion one for leaders.
statementswere

Supervisors' Performance Measure

Appraisal data supplied by Company B were used as the criterion measure. The supervisors were placed into

of performance: high, medium or low by the Human Resource Manager from Company
one of three categories
B responsible for the platforms. Eight supervisors were classed as high performers, fourteen as medium

performers and seven as low performers.

4w

64
 Chapter Four

4.4 RESULTS

This sectionwill briefly describethe main results from the 29 supervisorsresponsesto the Offshore Supervisor's
Questionnaire 1. The responsesare described here only include the most relevant ones that assisted the
development of the final survey; Phase Ill. The sections are described in the following order; (1) the place and

way of living, (2) people, (3) accountability and handovers, (4) motivation and job satisfaction, (5) supervision

and worksite discipline, (6) leadership, (7) work performance measurement, (8) commercial awareness, (9)

training and (10) communication. Data analyses were carried out using SPSS for Windows (Norusis, 1993).

Differences between the data collected and the norm data were investigated using t-tests, and correlational K

analyses between the standard scales scores and the performance measure were computed. There are obvious

statistical weaknesses when running large numbers of correlations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989), but all

significant results are reported here as this is an exploratory pilot study. Responsesfrom superiors and

subordinatesare also discussed.

4.4.1 Place and way of living

This section of the offshore Supervisors' Questionnaire 1 was designed to examine the supervisors' perceptions

of their existing role within the offshore environment and to canvass their views on possible differences

between supervisory styles offshore and onshore. Also explored were the general themes of the environment

and social impact on supervision and finally to what extent stress, and specific stressors such as helicopter

travel, affect the role of the offshore supervisor. The results from the Work Environment Scale (Moos & Insell,

1974) are also presented in this section.

The results from the "Place and way of living" section suggest that about half of the Offshore Supervisors

that there are different styles of supervision required for the role compared to an equivalent position in
perceive
Anecdotal evidence suggests that most supervisors have had some work
an onshore petrochemical plant.
however, no information was collected about previous work experience and as a
experience onshore,
this limits the interpretation of these results. The environment was frequently described as a key
consequence
difference between onshore and offshore work. Many respondents felt that the offshore environment changed

discipline, and some said that the general work regime was affected. More than half
supervisory style and work
felt that the combination of working, socialising and living with your shift could compromise
of the respondents

supervisory decisions. Staff reports, discipline and selection of future supervisors were cited as potential

that could be affected. The sample also perceived that their involvement in company policy
problem areas
decisions was low felt that their onshore counterparts had a greater input. Despite the fact that there are
and

working onshore and subsequently more company policy decisions likely to be

more senior managers
formulated there, the responses from the sample raise some interesting issues such as the extent to which their

their supervisory behaviour. For example, in reality they may be very involved in corporate
perceptions affect
decision making but factors such as the remoteness of their work environment make them perceive the contrary.

65
 Method& Survey Of Offshore Supervisors- Phase II

The Work Environment Scale

The Work Environment Scale (Moos & Insell, 1974) is an instrument for measuring the social-psychological

of
characteristics a work setting. Each work setting developsa "style.
" or a work climate, which influences how
decisions are made and defines typical patterns%f interactions at work. The scale produces scores on ten

elementswhich form three major dimensions,Relationships,PersonalGrowth, and SystemMaintenance. These

dimensionsare describedin table 4.2.

4_
t

66
 Chapter Four

Table 4.2
The Moos et al (1974) Work environment scale
Offshore Supervisors (N=29) Norm
Dimension Description Mean St. Mean St. Dev. t r
Dev.
Relationship
Involvement The extent to which employees are 4.9 2.1 5.9 1.4 16
-2.6 .
concernedabout and committedto "
their jobs
Peer Cohesion The extent to which employees are 6 2.1 5.7 1.2 0.8 05
.
friendly and supportive of one .ý
another
Supervisor Support The extent to which management is 5.8 2.1 5.7 1.4 0.3 03
.
supportive of employees and
encourages employees to be

supportiveof one another

Personal Growth
Autonomy The extent to which employees are 4.7 2.2 5.5 1.2 08
-1.9 .
encouragedto be self sufficientand
to make their own decisions

Task Orientation The degreeof emphasison good 5 1.5 5.9 1.3 06

-3.2 -.
planning,efficiency,and gettingthe ".
job done
Work Pressure The degreeto which the pressureof 5.2 2.2 4.4 1.4 1.9 08
.
work and time urgency dominate the
job milieu
System Maintenance

and System Change

Clarity The extent to which employees 4.6 2 5.6 1.3 36
-2.7 .
know what to expect in their daily

routineand how explicitlyrules and

policies are communicated
Control The extent to which management 6.7 1.6 4.9 1.3 6.1 16
.
uses rules and pressures to keep "*
employees under control
Innovation The degree of emphasis on variety, 3.2 2.0 4.4 1.5 09
-3.2 .
change, and new approaches ..
Physical Comfort The extent to which the physical 3.7 2.2 4.9 1.4 27
-2.9 .
surroundings contribute to a
pleasant work environment

("p<. 01, - P<.05)

A list of the means and standard deviations on each dimension for 29 supervisors is provided in Table 4.2. The

raw scores range is from I to 9. The table also shows norm data and t-values which were calculated to test
differences between the offshore sample ane.the onshore norm data means. The r values indicate the degree of

between the work environment dimensions and the performance measure.

correlation

67
 Method & Survey Of Offshore Supervisors- Phase II

As a group, the supervisors feel that management use rules and pressure to keep employees under control

(Control). This dimension was the only dimension rated significantly higher than the norm group.

Involvement, Task Orientation, Clarity, Innovation and Physical Comfort were all rated significantly lower than

the norm group. While the two groups are from very different occupational backgrounds and environments,

these differences logically reflect life on an offshore platform except the score for Task Orientation
most of

which appears to be in opposition to this view.

The influence of the supervisory perceptions of the work environment on the performance- measure was
dimensions the }
examined. None of the correlated significantly with performance measure.

Although direct comparisonswith published norm data may have certain weaknessesbecauseof the completely
different cultures, work environments,and the obvious difference betweenworking onshore in the West Coast

the USA and offshore in the North Sea,most of the qualitative data from the survey support the results from
of
the WES (Moos & Insell, 1974). For example, supervisors mentioned that during a shutdown there was

of work to get the plant operational again. Furthermore, it is not that surprising that in an
significant pressure
industry where the workforce live and work beside hydrocarbon inventory dangers, management use rules and

to keep employees under control and with many employees working in hazardous areas, variety and
pressures
incompatible with the need to follow strict safety procedures. The results from the work
change are
indicate that attitudes towards the work environment do not differentiate between higher and
environment scale
lower job performance.

Stress

A previous investigation of stress levels in the offshore oil industry by Gann, Corpe and Wilson (1990), with

from an Operating company argued that there was no evidence to support any appreciable difference
personnel
in stress levels between offshore employees and their onshore counterparts. Although the Offshore Supervisors

Questionnaire I did not attempt to measure stress levels directly, the responses to the coded question concerning

illustrate that 52% of the supervisors rate the position as considerably to extremely stressful. This
stress
finding is compatible with research conducted by Flin and Slaven (1993) who posed an identical question in a

134 OIMs working in the North Sea and found that 47% of these managers rated their job to be
survey of
Most of the supervisors attributed being away from home as the main
considerably or extremely stressful.
However, these findings are unclear as to whether they are responding specifically as supervisors, or
stressor.
or as a mixture of both. The majority of supervisors felt that helicopter travel did
simply as offshore employees
impact their to supervise but many expressed the view that in the event of a "bad" flight, the result
not on ability

on the platform equally. Finally, it is debatable whether legal aspects of the job and staff
would affect everyone
as stressors by the supervisors would have. been mentioned prior to the Piper Alpha
competencies, quoted
in July 1988. See Flin and Slaven (1996) for an extended discussion of occupational stress on offshore
disaster

oil installations.

68
 Chapter Four

4.4.2 People

This sectionwas designedto canvassthe supervisors'opinions about the effects of personnelchangeswithin the
key managementpositions on the platform and senior managementchangesonshore.

The management of a platform can be described as an interconnected dynamic organisational unit. Each layer

of management responded that changes in the sphere of management above can significantly affect their jobs.

The majority of supervisors rate management style and personality as significant attributes of their supervisor,

it be inaccurate to assume that each respondent defined these managerial phrases in a consistent-` i+.
although may

way (Hirsh, 1988). There is arguably less confusion with the term "occupational background" which is also

rated as a significant factor by the supervisors. This finding suggests that the production, electrical or

maintenance supervisors are very aware of their supervisors' previous supervisory discipline although there no

questions attempting to gauge whether this had a negative or positive impact on the working relationship. The

supervisors may have to report to more than one Operations supervisor within one offshore trip and about half

feel that continually satisfying different priorities has an effect on their job. This issue has been currently

examined in a Norwegian study of offshore platform managers (Mykletun, 1993, see also Flin, Slaven &

Carnegie, 1996). The responses indicate that the closer the supervisory position is in the organisational

hierarchy to onshore senior management, the greater the perceived impact of change on the supervisory position

when the senior management position is altered.

4.4.3 Accountability and Handovers

This section was designed to investigate the opinions of supervisors about the complex issue of workplace
both informal and formalised responsibility within the workplace. As a team leader
accountability, addressing
in a potentially hazardousenvironment,the supervisorhas to delegatetasks to his or her team and then manage

the consequencesshould the job be completed in an unsatisfactory manner. The managementskills of a

be further tested where a task overlaps across different shifts, across many days perhapseven
supervisormay
importantly supervisedby severaldifferent supervisors.
weeks,and more

The findings from this section confirm the onerous challenge that surrounds supervisor accountability for work

done offshore. The majority of the supervisors feel responsible when they have control over their team or
but do not bear responsibility about the tasks completed by those outside their control
through a shift member

to handovers. Although the question about the ownership of tasks completed by the opposite shift
with regard
indicate the reverse with the majority of supervisors saying that they will contact their "back-to-back"
seems to
about their reliefs work. Formalised workplace responsibility offshore occurs through
onshore with concerns
(PTW) system and although PTW was severely criticised across the North Sea by Cullen
the permit to work
(1990), Company B's describe few problems with their system.
supervisors

69
 Method & Survey Of Offshore Supervisors Phase II
-

4.4.4 Motivation

This section investigatedthe opinions of the supervisors,Operations supervisorsand OIM's about how effective

the "motivators" within the company system were at motivating their shifts at work, and what problems there
were for a shift supervisorin motivating his shift. Also examined were the supervisors'views on how effective
thesesamesystemmotivators were at motivating themselvesand an open question asking the supervisorsabout

what motivatesthem for better performance was used. The results from the Job Satisfaction Scale (Warr et al,
1979)are reported in this section. Thesefindings are partially supportedby the literature (Robertson& Smith,
1985)which suggestthat any attempt to motivate a "dissatisfied" employee will not result directly in improved= ,%
job performanceuntil the employeefirst becomesa satisfied one.

Praise was the only system motivator that was perceived as effective for motivating the shift and for motivating

the supervisors. Not one clear reason was given as to why there are problems in motivating the shift although

of describing what motivation is. It was perhaps significant that a fifth of

this could be related to the difficulty

the supervisors did say that everyone was motivated differently. These variables are described in table 4.3.

Table 4.3
Job Satisfaction (Warr, Cook & Wall. 1979)

Job Satisfaction Items Mean Mean

The physical working conditions 4.38 Industrial Relations 3.46

The freedom to choose own working 4.42 Your chance of promotion 3.89
Your fellow workers 4.81 Way your firm is managed 2.92
Recognitionfor good work 3.88 Attention paid to suggestions 4.23
Your immediateboss 4.39 Your hours of work 4.61
The amount of responsibility 4.46 Amount of variety in your job 4.81
Your rate of pay 4.31 Your job history 5.00

Opportunity to use abilities 4.23

Polarity: Higher scores = higher job satisfaction.

70
 Chapter Four

Initial examination of the breakdown of items within the job satisfaction scale indicate that the supervisors rate

low scores for job satisfaction with respect to the way the company is managed and the industrial relations

within the organisation but rate high scores of job satisfaction against items which include job history, fellow

workers and the amount of variety within the jol?. The comparison with the onshore comparison groups is
describedin table 4.4.

Table 4.4
Job Satisfaction: Onshore comparison
.. ;ý
Job Satisfaction Mean t
Groups
Offshore supervisors 63.7
(St.dev=9.4)
UK Engineering 71.9 -4.7 ""
group
Supervisory 77.6 -7.9
subgroup
White Collar 74 -5.9
subgroup
Managerial 79.1 -8.8
Subgroup
Blue Collar 69.4 -3.2 `"
Subgroup

("p<. 01, ' p<.05)

Each of the onshore comparison subgroups (Warr et al, 1979) were found to be significantly more satisfied with

their jobs than the offshore supervisors group.

The results from the Job Satisfaction scale show that the supervisors surveyed through the Offshore Supervisors'

Questionnaire are more dissatisfied with their jobs than their onshore counterparts. The literature on

supervision (See Chapter Two) describes many instances where due to the unique position of the first line

supervisor such as role ambiguity and lack of management support within the structure of the organisation, the

frequently perceives that there are inadequate policies developed above him in the management
supervisor
The high score for "your fellow workers" is indicative of the anecdotal evidence found offshore such as
chain.
"team working" and the relentless banter among the offshore employees. The majority of the other itemised

the intrinsic factors that contribute to job satisfaction more highly than the extrinsic ones,
mean scores rate
indicating higher feelings of satisfaction with one's job, but less satisfaction reference the impact of organisation

on thejob.

Previous research into the job satisfaction of offshore employees provides very similar results (Sutherland &

Flin, 1991; Sutherland, V, & Cooper, 1986) to those obtained by Offshore Supervisor's Questionnaire in 1992.

The offshore workers are less satisfied with their jobs than the onshore comparison group and further research is

71
 Method& Survey Of Offshore Supervisors- Phase II

requiredto investigatewhether the offshore supervisorswere rating their internal feelings about job satisfaction

asa supervisorworking offshore or simply rating working offshore.

There was also a positive correlation (r-. 39, p<.05) between the total score for job satisfaction and the
dimension Clarity of the WES. This suggestssupervisors who perceive that the rules and routines of the

platform are clearly communicatedare more highly job satisfied. The associationof the job satisfaction items

and the performancemeasurewas examined. None of the items correlated significantly with the performance

measure. _
'ý.
4.4.5 Supervision and Worksite Discipline

This section of the questionnaire examined the significant theme of worksite discipline and supervision. Bird

Germain (1985) describe "housekeeping" i. e. worksite discipline, as a critical part of the promotion of
and
in the and they also stress the importance of the role of the supervisor in supporting worksite
safety workplace
discipline. This section also examined more general aspects of "discipline" through the use of a Likert type

scale.

There was a mixed response about the overall quality of supervision that the supervisors received, although the

Operations supervisors all rated the quality of the OIMs' supervision of themselves highly. The majority of the

supervisors felt that their supervisor did not make clear to them the standards that he or she expected for the

preparation of the worksite. This result is consistent with the findings concerning the communication gap

between superiors and subordinates which formed part of a study undertaken by Likert (1965). However, the

found at the next level down in the management hierarchy. The supervisors rated themselves
reverse was
highly when they were askedabout how awaretheir technicianswere concerning worksite preparationand this
by the mirrored from
responses the technicians. There was not one dominant method used by the
was reflected
supervisorsfor outlining worksite preparation.

Many of the respondents felt that discipline problems were best resolved within the shift and that carrying out

formal discipline in the workplace was seen as an integral part of their job. Both the OlMs and Operations

disagreed that carrying out formal discipline was "an integral part of their job. "
supervisors

72
 Chapter Four

4.4.6 Leadership

This section investigated the leadership behaviours of the supervisors, or in other words what the supervisors do

and how they do it, in terms of how they achieve organisational goals. The leadership scales measured two
dimensions; to what extent are the leaders' job relationships characterised by trust and two-way communication

(Consideration) and how likely the leaders' define and structure their roles and those of their subordinates

toward accomplishing the goals of the organisation (Initiating Structure). These dimensions were measured

from the supervisor's perception of himself with the LOQ and from the perspective of his subordinates using the

SBDQ. -".

The results from the LeadershipOpinion Questionnaireare described in table 4.5. This table also shows norm
data and t-values which were calculatedto test differences between the offshore sample and the onshorenorm
datameans.

Table 4.5
The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (Fleishman, 1953)
Offshore Supervisors (n=29) USA Comparison (n=122) t
Consideration 51.7 53.9 -2.4
(mean scores)
Initiating Structure (mean 49.2 53.3 -3.4
scores)
("p<. 01, * p<.05)

The supervisors' scores are significantly lower than the onshore norm group for both consideration and
initiating structure. This result may indicate that there is some other variable having an effect on the leader
behaviourof the offshore supervisors,such as the offshore environment, the demandsof the role or the types of

subordinates. There are, however, clear cultural differences between the two data setsand any findings have to
be understood in this context. The supervisors' scores for Consideration and Initiating Structure did not

correlatewith the performancemeasure:Consideration (r=-. 06) and Initiating Structure (r-. 05).

The results from the Supervisory Behaviour Description Questionnaire (Fleishman, 1957) are described in table

4.6 below. This table also shows norm data and t-values which were calculated to test differences between the

offshore sampleand the onshorenorm data means.

Table 4.6
Supervisory Behaviour Description Questionnaire (Fleishman, 1957)
Offshore Technicians(n=54) USA Comparison (n=122) t
Consideration 72.2 St. dev=11.9 82.3 -6.2
(mean scores)
Initiating Structure (mean 41.7 St. dev=8.1 51.5 -8.9
scores)
(""p<. 01, * p<. 05)

73
 Method& Survey Of Offshore Supervisors- Phase II

The technicians'scoresare significantly lower than the onshorenorm group for both considerationand initiating

structure. The technicians' scores for Consideration and Initiating Structure were correlated with the

supervisor'sperformance measure: Consideration (r=. 33) and Initiating Structure (r-. 23) and neither were

significant.

When the supervisors' scores on Consideration and Initiating Structure are compared with the technicians'

perceptions of Consideration and Initiation Structure of the supervisors as a group, the following results were

obtained. (The SBDQ contained extra items on the Consideration dimension compared to the LOQ. As a result

the comparison was undertaken with the mean score total divided by the number of items on each of the= "t
dimensions).

Table 4.7
Comparisons of Leadership Scores

Supervisors (n=29) Technicians (n=54) t

49
Consideration 2.58 2.46 .
3.6
Structure 2.54 2.16 .6
(--p<. U1, - p<. Uo)

The results in Table 4.7 show that there is no difference between the scores for Consideration, thus Supervisors'

perceptions of how effective they are at leading their teams in terms of human relations is very similar to their

Technicians' perceptions of this supervisory leadership function. When the Initiating scores are compared the

Technicians scores are significantly lower (p<. Ol) showing that the Supervisors' rate themselves higher on the

scale of initiating work for their subordinates than their subordinates give them credit for. This finding from the

LOQ compares favourably with the qualitative comments from the supervisors. Comments which reflect this

include; "because of the offshore environment it is difficult to push your team" and "your expectations of work

to be less than they would be onshore".

completed are

The examination of the mean scores for the SBDQ portray a similar result for consideration but a different

with reference to the initiating structure of their supervisor. The supervisor's ability to define the
perspective
team towards the goals of the organisation is rated lower by those whom they are supervising. The
tasks of the

at the Ohio State University (Fleishman, 1953; 1957) describes that under certain
research carried out
if high degree of pressure for output is imposed by someone other that the leader or that
conditions, such as a
predisposed toward being told what to do and how to do it, then a leader's
the subordinates are psychologically
initiating structure has effects on productivity and job satisfaction. Given that these conditions prevail
positive
in the offshore oil and gas industry, it is of considerable interest that both questionnaires reveal slightly low

for initiating from the supervisors. It is envisaged that further investigation in this
scores structure area may
working environment does permit a positive correlation between initiating
reveal to what extent the offshore
leadership behaviour and productivity, and should this correlation not exist, examine possible alternative

i.
leadership approaches, e. it could be that some other leadership style is more effective.

74
 Chapter Four

There was also a negative correlation (r--. 48, p<. Ol) between the score for Consideration (LOQ) and the

dimension Autonomy of the WES. This suggests supervisors who perceive that they are not encouraged to make

their own decisions also rate themselves as low in terms of trusting their own subordinates to make decisions.

4.4.7 Work performance measurement

This section was used to canvass the supervisor's view about the function of work performance measures and

their applicability offshore. The vast majority of supervisors felt that the role of supervisöt, could not be,.

measured by hard facts and pointed to the reason that there were too many unidentifiables in the job that

contribute to the complexity of measuring it. Only a fifth of the supervisors felt that the role could be measured.

A larger number, but still a minority, said that there was a need to measure the whole teams' performance but

most of the suggestions concentrated on measuring solely the quantifiables. Perhaps the key to formulating an

acceptable work performance measure is to identify the relationship between the inputs such as manpower and

materials, and outputs like job cards completed and barrels per day. The need to create a measure cannot be

overstated as Bird and Germain (1985) describe measuring performance in quantifiable, objective terms as the

heart of management control.

4.4.8 Commercial Awareness

In a mature industry such as in the UKCS petroleum business(Wood Mackenzie, 1992) one of the key factors

that will contribute to long term survival will be the ability of all its employeesto becomemore cost conscious.
Financial information plays an increasingpart in all decisionsundertakenoffshore and this section was designed
the to
to evaluate extent which this information is being used, how aware the supervisorsare of its existenceand
how commercially awarethe supervisorsperceivethemselvesto be.

Commercial awareness among the supervisors is increasing but it is debatable whether this is helping in cost

reduction. The financial tools are available and the majority of the supervisors perceive that more budgetary

information will help them, however their responses indicate that they do not use them. This apparent

contradiction may result from the previous offshore culture prior to the 1985 oil shock which was dominated by

"keep the oil flowing going at any financial cost". This was supported by anecdotal evidence such
an attitude of
delivering from London to Aberdeen in a hackney cab if there was no other transport available.
as spare parts
The answer is supported by the fact that no financial training had been provided at any levels, although as

discussed in Chapter Three this may change with the introduction of the MCI management standards where one

key is the management of finance.

of the roles

4.4.9 Training

A report in 1986 by MSC/NEDO said that Britain's future international competitiveness and economic
be influenced by the speed with which improvements
performance will significantly substantial can be made in

75
 Method & Survey Of Offshore Supervisors- Phase II

the scale and effectiveness of training by British companies. Due to the commercial significance of training and

the increasing view of its importance in the oil industry - recently underlined by the United Kingdom Offshore
Operators Association's (UKOOA) first report on training (1992) - this section examined the views of the

supervisors in this crucial area and canvassed their opinions on what training they feel that they need to become

more effective.
The supervisorsand the Operations supervisor perceived job responsibilities as approximately a 50:50 split
between technical and managementwith the Operations supervisor seeing themselves more as managers

compared to the supervisors. The majority of supervisorsfelt that they required more behavioural training, a

view that was endorsedby their supervisors. However, just over half of the supervisors felt that their training'

profiles reflected their needs as supervisors. Notably their advice given to new supervisors relates more to
managerialskills than technical aspectsof the work.

4.4.10 Communication

This section covered the important issue of supervisory communication. It focused on the communication

between supervisor and shift, and supervisor and his supervisor. A large majority of supervisors choose
process
to communicate orally when passing on a formal message to their shift. However, when communicating to the
Operations supervisor again oral was the preferred method but it was backed up by a written message as it was

perceived as important to keep a record. One of the problems cited as important when passing on information

to the shift was the composition of the shift. The supervisor now has the added responsibility of screening out

information which may be unsuitable or irrelevant to non-company B employees but still keeping
corporate

company B shift members informed. The current change in culture towards an increase in the outsourcing of

by Operating company's in the offshore oil and gas industry may further add to this
non-core activities

communicationdifficulty.

4.5 CONCLUSION

This survey was designed to collect data that would contribute to a better understanding of the role of

supervisorsin the offshore oil industry. Also explored were the attitudes and perceptions of the supervisors'
his superiors about the supervisors' role. The survey results, the researchexperiencegained
subordinatesand
there offshore platforms and the identified weaknesses in method used all helped to formulate the
collecting on
final method for the full study which is describedin Chapter Five.

To facilitate the understanding of the role of the supervisor, five aims were set out in section 4.1, and these will

eachbe discussedseparatelybelow.

76
 Chapter Four

(i) To investigatethe specific managerial skills required by supervisors working in the North Sea

offshore oil industry.

One of the key aims of this thesis is to understand what are the specific managerial skills of an offshore
This produced inconclusive findings as to the identification of the specific managerial
supervisor. pilot survey
For example, the standard instruments did not correlate significantly with the
skills that are required offshore.
Although, there were several anecdotal themes raised such as appreciating,'the impact of
performancemeasure.
the environmenton their i.
role e., living and working together, the differences and difficulties between offshore

and professionalperformanceappraisals,but articulating the managerial skills required'

and onshoresupervision
proveddifficult.

However, this pilot survey has captured some of the difficulties of investigation and has generated several
in this role. For example, many of the supervisors commented that the offshore
challenges researching
had an impact on their decision making. Therefore, the offshore environment will be examined as
environment
both an independent variable and a mediating factor in the full study. The use of the LOQ and SBDQ will also
be re-examinedas there were weak correlations with the performance measuresuggestingthat there are other
issues affecting supervisory leadership that require examination. However, there were certain themes

that may have an impact on the managerial skills of an offshore supervisor. They include
consistentlyraised
from senior management onshore and the difficulties of motivating staff on an offshore
communication
platform.

(ii) To record the supervisors' perceptions of the social and environmental aspectsof an offshore
what differences there are betweenthis environment and an onshore equivalent.
platform, and

the work climate was described as the most significant difference between being a
Not surprisingly, offshore
The respondents described the perceived differences such as the difficulties in
supervisor onshore and offshore.
visible in staff reports, discipline and the selection of future supervisors.
being task focused as particularly
with the shift were also cited as significant factors which could compromise
Living, working and socialising
decisions half the subjects responding that different styles of supervision are required for
supervisory with about
than an onshore equivalent. The work environment was directly measured
the role of an offshore supervisor
scale questionnaire (the WES). Many of the dimensions showed significant
through the use of a standard
between the scores and the norm data. For example, control was significantly higher
differences supervisors'
involvement, task orientation, clarity, innovation and physical comfort were all
than the norm group, whereas,
lower. This suggests that the offshore environment was effective at keeping employees under
significantly
procedures and processes. They also felt not involved in the decision making that
control, but without adequate
working in an unpleasant environment. There are caveats about using the norm data
affected their roles while
differences in the two populations but the WES proved useful for identifying key offshore
due to the extreme
Finally, it should be noted that while work environment differences between offshore and
characteristics.

77
 Method & Survey Of Offshore Supervisors- Phase II

onshoreappearinterestingthis view was not sharedby the oil companies. It is likely that first line supervisory
comparisonbetweenonshoreand offshore will not be included in the main study.

(iii) To examinethe levels of job satisfactionamong the offshore supervisorsin comparison to (i) an

onshoregroup and (ii) previous studiesof offshore workers' job satisfaction.

The supervisors' feelings about their job were directly measured with a job satisfaction questionnaire. This

showed that the supervisors rate the way the company is managed and the industrial relations within the

organisation as low in terms of job satisfaction but rate high scores of job satisfaction against items which' '.
include their fellow workers and the amount of variety within the job. The results also describe a significant

difference between onshore and offshore attitudes with onshore studies reporting significantly higher levels of

job satisfaction, however, it is not clear whether the supervisors rated their role specifically or their overall

feelings about offshore work. But the scale by Warr et al is still a useful instrument because there are previous

offshore studies that have used it and it could provide comparisons across several platforms in a larger study.

Motivation was a controversial theme in so far as it provided no specific reasons why there are problems in

motivating the shift. Since "praise" was the only system motivator that was perceived as effective it does raise

the issuethat while the other "motivators" were not recognisedas having a positive affect, they may in fact be
de-motivating the supervisor and their teams. Given that getting the work done through others is such an
integral part of the supervisionprocess,thesefindings under "motivation" generateother possible directions for
future investigationsuch as incorporating a qualitative approachto examinethis further.

(iv) To determine the supervisors'views of desirable leadership behaviours and to compare these
findings with their subordinates'opinions.

Effective leadership is unquestionably a factor that can directly affect productivity. The findings from the

leadership scales were inconclusive as they did not differentiate between effective and less effective leadership.

Previous research (Fleishman, 1953; 1957) has indicated that a hierarchical structure of decision making, not
in the offshore industry, creates a work environment that associates a task
unlike the one that exists
and productivity positively, and therefore it is of interest that both the supervisors' scores
accomplishment style
their technicians' perceptions for `task accomplishment' are rated lower than the onshore comparison data.
and
It is envisaged that further investigation will examine to what extent other external factors affect the supervisors

leadership style for task accomplishment or perhaps will show that lower supervisor ratings for task

in reality have a positive affect on productivity. Initially, it was hoped that the Fleishman
accomplishment may
be directly applicable in the task oriented environment offshore. The data gathered confirm that the
scale would
leadership dynamic offshore is more complex than the two-dindensions of Consideration and Initiating

Structure, and given their weak link with the performance measure, the Fleishman scale was not used in the

main study.

78
 Chapter Four

(v) To gather the opinions of the supervisors' about their continually changing role in a work

environment demanding increasing commercial awareness.

The overwhelming finding concerning the commercial awarenessof the supervisorsis that it is very weak. The
financial information is available and yet is generally not used. If used, it is not properly understood. Although
it should be noted that financial training provided by the company has been very limited. The future

requirementfor the offshore supervisor will be to appreciatethe financial impact of their supervisory decisions.
As mentioned earlier, the new managementstandardsmay have a role to play in improving the financial skills' ~;

of supervisors,but devolving real budget responsibility down to the first line supervisor should also help to
improve commercial awareness.

Despite the supervision process being intricate, complex and dynamic, this pilot study has shown that there are

probably some unique features that surround this role in the offshore oil and gas industry. This study has

produced a strong basis on which to refine this questionnaire as a measuring instrument for a larger study. It is

envisaged that further investigation will permit a greater understanding of this role and provide evidence that

will enable the offshore supervisor to supervise more effectively.

On analysis of the findings from Phase II, a further revision of the questionnaire was constructed. This
instrumentand the method for the main study (PhaseIII) are describedin the next chapter.

79
 PAGE

NUMBERING

AS ORIGINAL
 CHAPTER FIVE

METHOD FOR SURVEY OF OFFSHORE

SUPERVISORS
PHASE III

5.1 OBJECTIVES

The main aims of this study were to :-

(i) To record the experiences and perceptions of a sample of offshore supervisors in relation to the
working environment, training, job satisfaction, personality and leadership skills.

(ii) To discover which of thesefactors differentiate a more effective from a less effective offshore
supervisorin terms of job performance.

(iii) To investigate the preferred leadership styles of the supervisors and to test where these
differentiate the effective from the lesseffective offshore supervisor by incorporating the views
of the supervisors,the supervisors'superiorsand the supervisors' subordinates.

(iv) To examine two alternative techniques for measuring supervisory performance.

(v) To assess whether there are any differences between supervisors working on platforms on the
United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS) and those on the Norwegian Continental Shelf
(NCS); and between supervisors working for contracting companies as opposed to operating
companies.

Phase III : Offshore Supervisors' Questionnaire

Phase III was the main survey. After Phase II, the questionnaire was remodelled and this new draft

questionnaire was then given a further pilot test with the assistance of the following groups of people: a sample

of three from Company C who were on secondment to their onshore company headquarters; two
supervisors

supervisors from offshore companies not connected with the project, and a Research Fellow within the Offshore

Management Centre who had previous oil industry experience. After this review, the final version of the

entitled the "Offshore Supervisors' Questionnaire". Company B and C granted

questionnaire was produced

to their personnel for this survey.

access offshore

The Norwegian subsidiary of the US parent, Company E also granted access to its offshore personnel for this

with two onshore management representatives in Aberdeen. The offshore platform was
survey after a meeting
in the Norwegian sector and the sample of first line supervisors were Norwegian nationals. Most
operating

79
 Method For Survey Of Offshore Supervisors- Phase III

Norwegian offshore personnel speak English but to facilitate understandingof the questionnaire, three of the

standardscaleswere translatedby Company E into Norwegian. The fourth standardscalequestionnairewas not

translated because it was a proprietary questionnaire. After the survey, the standard questionnaires were back-

translated into English by a Research Fellow from the Offshore Management Centre fluent in Norwegian. The

other sections of the questionnaire were in English and the interviews were conducted in English. Differences

in method between data collection in the UK and the Norwegian sectors are described in Chapter Eight.

Detailsof the researchdesign for PhaseIII are describedin the following section.

'a

5.2 PHASE III RESEARCH DESIGN

5.2.1 First Line Supervisors

"Supervisors"were defined as those at the first level within the organisational hierarchy (bottom-up) who are

responsiblefor the work performance of their team. Supervision was defined in this manner to circumvent the
to
need navigate through the many job titles that exist currently within the offshore industry, and whilst the

operationalrole was not defined, the position was clearly established. The collaborating companiesfound this
definition easyto use in order to identify subjectsfor interview.

In-depth structured interviews were carried out with 100 supervisors using the "Offshore Supervisors'

Questionnaire" (described below). Structured rather than unstructured interviewing was chosen as the data

technique so that any differences between answers are then assumed to be real ones and are less likely
collection

to be due to the interview technique (May, 1993). Interviewing, as discussed earlier, is more time consuming

than a postal questionnaire, yet it allows the researcher to clarify points and explore any non-verbal cues that the
Although one drawback is that the researcher may induce a certain response
subject may make inadvertently.
by a subconscious inflection in the voice or facial expression and care must be taken to maintain a standard

(Watson, 1991). All of the supervisors were sent a letter from the researcher one week in advance
approach
the purpose of the interview and guaranteed confidentiality (see Appendix III). This strategy is
which explained
"pre-framing" discussed by Ries and Trout (1986) which is designed to place a "product" in
similar to a positive
in the buyer before the buyer forms an opinion about the "product". Additionally, the
position the mind of
Norwegian platform NI produced a fortnightly newsletter in English and Norwegian and the project, its purpose

and the confidentiality issue were all described in advance of the research visit.

For each of the three platforms, all supervisors who were offshore during the allocated time of the survey were
Eighty one supervisors were from the UK (51 from
scheduled to be interviewed. platform UKI and 30 from
from one platform in the Norwegian Sector
platform UK2), and nineteen were - platform Nl. The interviews

80
 Chapter Five

were approximately 90 minutes in duration (ranging from 70 minutes to 120 minutes). All the interviews were
conductedin English in the researcher'scabin.

5.2.2 Supervisors' offshore superiors

In order to survey the opinions about effective supervisorybehaviours from a managementperspective,a series

of short structuredinterviews was carried out with eachmember of each platform managementteam. They are
representedby the Offshore Installation Manager (OIM) and senior supervisors from the operating and service

company. Ten senior managementpersonnelwere interviewed from Company B, four from Company C and---
1
two from Company F. A structured interview techniquewas selectedbecauseit would allow the researcherto

probe new dimensions in a systematic way. Each was asked four open questions about what type of

style/behaviour/performancethey perceivedas "best" for an offshore first line supervisor. They were also asked
to complete an appraisal form to rate supervisory performance developed specifically for supervisors within the

Offshore Management Centre (see Appendix III) and peer nominations (Kane & Lawler, 1978) which are

described below in section 5.3.2.

5.2.3 Supervisors' subordinates

In order to measure the degree of correlation between the supervisors' responses and those of their subordinates,

groups of technicians were nominated by their respective supervisors to complete a questionnaire designed for

self completion. This method reduces the amount of direct contact between the researcher and the respondents

which hopefully decreases possible bias. Furthermore, this technique was also chosen so that many raters'

scores could be gathered quickly and cost effectively. A total of 131 technicians, 70 UK1,41 from UK2 and 20

from NI completed the questionnaire. It included the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x) that allowed

the technicians to rate their supervisor's leadership style (Bass & Avolio, 1993), a measure of job satisfaction

(Warr, Cook & Wall, 1979) and a form to complete peer nominations (Kane & Lawler, 1978) see section 5.3.2.

In the end, only the job satisfaction data from the subordinates was analysed. The subordinates ratings from the

MLQ resulted in only a small number of ratings per supervisor and as a result was withdrawn from the final

analysis.

5.2.4 "Offshore Supervisors' Questionnaire"

The developmentof the "Offshore Supervisors'Questionnaire"was described above. The questionnaire,which

an interview schedule, shown in Appendix III, was divided into six main sections:
was partly used as

Section One : Biodata and personality

Section Two : Offshore supervision

Section Three : Motivation and job satisfaction

SectionFour : Offshore environment

81
 Method For Survey Of Offshore Supervisors- Phase III

SectionFive : Leadership
SectionSix : Supervisorydecision making vignettes

Four standardscales,describedbelow, were alsdjincluded in the questionnairethus providing the opportunity

for statisticalcomparisonswith norm data. The standardscalesmeasuredperceptionsabout the social impact of
the work environment, perceptions of leadership style, personality and job satisfaction. The development of

eachof the themesof the questionnairewill be described in turn.

(i) Section One: Biodata and personality

These biographical data was placed first to allow the interviewee to become comfortable and to relax within the

interview. It consisted of eight questions relating to age, current job title, length of time in current post, length

of time as a supervisor, length of time worked offshore and entry discipline when the subject began working

offshore. Educational and technical qualifications of supervisors were also asked as a closed question with a

numberof options provided.

A standard British personality questionnaire was also administered here. As a result of the current revival of

trait theory (Fiedler, 1987) and the increasing use of personality questionnaires for selection purposes at
level (Furnham & Stringfield, 1994) it was felt necessary to examine differences in
management personality as

a potential predictor of job performance. IMAGES is an Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ)

developed by Saville & Holdsworth Ltd (SHL, 1993) that reduces personality to six broad, general factors

to the `Big Five' (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The IMAGES factors are `imaginative',
which are similar
`methodical', `achieving', 'gregarious', `emotional' and `sympathetic'. The questionnaire consists of 56 items

that describe the six aspects of personality outlined above. The respondents rate how they typically feel about

the in terms of how they behave at work. The scoring is completed by filling in a response
each of statements
Likert type scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". This questionnaire was used
on a5 point
in order to investigate whether any of the 6 personality dimensions accessed by IMAGES has utility in

as measured by the performance ratings. Other personality questionnaires were

predicting effective supervision,
the OPQ Concept Model (SHL, 1984) and 16-PF (Cattell, 1977) but as they take 30-40
considered such as

to were viewed as too time consuming given the length of the interview schedule. Therefore,
minutes complete,
IMAGES was selected because it was easy to use, took ten minutes to complete and its counterpart the OPQ

Concept 5.2 (SHL, 1990) which measures 30 dimensions of personality had been used previously in a study of

installation managers (Flin & Slaven, 1994).

offshore

The IMAGES questionnaire was administered within the first period. of the interview for two reasons. Firstly,

incorporate it immediately after the general information section seemed appropriate

to and secondly the
for helped to set the format and tone for the standard questionnaires that followed. The
protocol completion
feedback, principally because of the logistics involved in locating
respondents received no respondents when
on the platform. The researcher carried out IMAGES administration and analysis under
they were not working

82
 Chapter Five

from a chartered psychologist qualified in psychometric testing and registered to use The
supervision
OccupationalPersonalityQuestionnaires. Each of the dimensions is describedbelow.

The dimension of imaginative rates respondentsin terms of how abstractthey are, to what extent they like to
ideas and how theoretical they are. Low scorersin this dimension are more pragmatic
producenew and creative
and prefer to work with well establishedmethods.

High scorers on methodical describe a respondent who enjoys the fine detail of work and ensures that deadlines
These be criticised for not seeing the 'big picture' as they are too busy focusing on the
are met. people may
Low however, leave checking to others and become easily bored. Their, strengths lie in
problem. scorers,
initiating projects and then leaving the detail and checking to others.

Ambition and enjoying challenges are measuredby the achieving scale. Work and career dominate at the
aspects of their lives such as family and social life. The low scorerstend not to rise to career
expenseof other
challengesand the main interest in their lives is usually outside work.

The dimension gregarious measures the extent to which people are outgoing and enjoy attention. High scorers
be loud. They are not usually described as shy. Low scorers are normally the antithesis of
will extrovert and
the extrovert. They are reserved, shy and do not especially enjoy meeting new people. Their quietness can
cause them to be overlooked for promotion.

High scorerson the dimension emotional may find it difficult to relax. They worry about important eventsand
Easy to motivate but are likely to panic in a crisis. Low scorers are relaxed and can
can get quite nervous.
easily 'switch off from problems of work. They accept mistakes without worrying about them and are not
from others about their mistakes. They tend not to worry about things, and it can be
sensitive to criticism
difficult to motivate them.

Warm, supportive and caring describe high scorers on the sympathetic scale. They form close relationships at
like to involve others in making decisions. They are popular, tolerant and benevolent. Their desire to
work and
help others can sometimes mean that they can take on too many of other people's problems. Single-minded and
determined with less time for the problems and concerns for others describe low scorers. They believe that
the workplace should be kept separate (SHL, 1993)
personal problems and

IMAGES also contained a "social desirability" rating. This scale is used to discourage respondents from

'because it the right thing to say, or it is how you might like to be. ' High scorers are responding
replying seems
in a socially desirable way and could be described as over selling themselves. Conversely low scorers are

Given that the objective of the questionnaire was to gather additional information
underselling themselves.
platform and not for recruitment or selection purposes, the social desirability
about supervision on an offshore

scale was disregarded in the analysis.

(ii) SectionTwo: Offshore Supervision

in this section were open questions. The respondents were asked to describe strengths
The first eight questions
also to specify aspects of their job that required further training. "Have you had
that they had as supervisors and
financial training as a s4pervisor? " was used in direct response to the findings from the pilot
any commercial or
that cost consciousness and financial training in general were weak at the first
study (Phase 11) which showed
line supervisor level.

83
 Method For Survey Of Offshore Supervisors Phase III
-

Twenty statements, covering aspects of supervision and safety were also included as a five point Likert scale.

Verbal tags were used with modifying adverbs in an attempt to increase the accuracy of the scale (Chisnall,

1994, p. 171). The scale was developed from two main sources. Some of the statements were compiled from

comments made by the supervisors during the pilot study such as "The offshore supervisor's main role is that of
'Ire-fighter' e.g. making many rapid decisions" and "On this platform, the best supervisory style is authoritarian

with autocratic overtones". The second main source was a report by Lee, Macdonald and Coote (1993) who

useda5 point Likert scaleto identify employeeattitudestowards safety at a British nuclear plant-suchas "Most
supervisors sometimesturn a blind eye to the strict safety rules to get the job done on time". Others were
slightly altered to fit with the offshore oil industry such as "The existenceof the Offshore Safety Division of the
HSE does not make mefeel safe" with Offshore Safety Division replacing Nuclear Industry Inspectoratefrom

the original statement.

(iii) Section Three: Motivation and job satisfaction

Six "motivators" were identified from the pilot study as existing within the offshore industry. These were

'promotion', 'disciplinary action', 'praise', 'pay', 'job pride' and'time off. The supervisors were asked to rate each

them a seven point scale from not effective (1) to highly effective (7) in terms of how they felt these
of on
"motivators" influenced their personal ambition at work. They were also asked to respond as to how they felt

that their team were motivated by the "motivators". Two open questions were also included in this section

which addressed the difficulties for a supervisor in terms of getting his or her shift inspired and also what they
felt increasedtheir own personalmotivation. This section also measuredjob satisfaction. The 16 item scale by
Warr, Cook & Wall (1979) was repeatedin the main study becauseof the beneficial results found in the pilot

study (See Chapter Four).

(iv) Offshore environment

This section contained five questions that measured the supervisors' attitudes towards the offshore work

environment. One question concerning occupational stress was presented in an identical format to that used by

Flin and Slaven (1992) in a study that examined the role of the Offshore Installation- Manager. This question

to compare how OlMs and supervisors rated the stress associated with their positions. Projective
was used
(Gordon & Langmaid, 1988) was also used in this section. Using "most" within the question "What
questioning
it offshore supervisors? " allowed the supervisors to respond overtly without causing
is that worries most
discomfort or embarrassment at having to express their own feelings.

An American instrument, the Work Environment Scale (Moos & Billings, 1974) was used to measure

their offshore environment (i. e., the social-psychological

employees' perceptions of characteristics of a work

The WES was chosen to provide a standardised measure as well as comparative norm data. It also
sating).
for comparison between the cross cultural part of the i.
provides the opportunity project e., to measure the

84
 Chapter Five

differences between work environment attitudes in British and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea. The WES

in the pilot study and as a result, it was felt a few of the items were not directly applicable to the
was used

respondents view of the offshore oil industry. In consultation with Professor Moos (personal communication,

November, 24th, 1993) four items were slightly altered. The changes are described below.

32. "Employeesrarely do things after work" -'work' was changedto'shift'.

60. "The colours and decorations make the place warm and cheerful to work in" was extended to

'and live in'. --

85. "There's a tendency for people to come to work late" was changed to 'There's a tendency for

people to start their shift late'.

88. "If an employee comes in late, he can make it up by staying late." was changed to 'If an

employeestarts late, he can make it up by working late.

'

The following statement was also added to the instructions at the beginning of the questionnaire; "Where some

to describing the living accommodation area than the worksite, please respond in terms
statements apply more

of theplatform in general."

(v) SectionFive: Leadership

This section measured the supervisor's leadership style. Five open questions were used to record the

what leadership style is effective offshore. The "funnelling" technique was also
supervisor's perceptions about
for this of questions (Chisnall, 1994). In order to direct the respondent away from the issues of
used sequence

the previous section, a projective technique was also used. Projective techniques are a useful strategy for

diverting the attention of the respondent with a humorous and unusual question that appears not to call for a

(Walker, 1985, p101). For example, in the "Offshore Supervisors' Questionnaire" the
considered response
"If the supervisors in the offshore industry decided to go to a pub in Aberdeen, what type
question all effective
it be? " introduced the leadership section to the subject.
of pub would

The leadership style of the supervisor was measured in this section using a standard scale. The Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1993) is an American instrument developed to measure
-
dimensions of leadership behaviour (Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership and
three main
Non Leadership). (For more information on the design and use of this instrument, please contact the `Center for

Leadership Studies', Binghampton University, State University of New York). The questionnaire also

outcomes, (i) Unit, (ii) Job, (iii) Organisational Effectiveness, and (iv)
measured four organisational
Effort Relation to Higher-ups. This questionnaire also compares the supervisor's ratings
Satisfaction, Extra and

with feedback from his or her subordinates.

85
 Method For Survey Of Offshore Supervisors- Phase III

Four factors load onto the dimension of transformational leadership. They are "idealised influence",

"inspirational motivation", "intellectual. stimulation" and "individualised consideration". Idealised influence is

defined with respect to follower reactions to the leader as well as to the leader's behaviour (Bass & Avolio,

1991). Followers identify with and emulate these leaders. The leaders are trusted and convey a vision to their

followers that the followers can identify with. The leaders also have much referent power and set challenging

goals for themselves and their subordinates. Inspirational motivation can overlap with charisma depending on

how much the subordinates want to identify with the leader. This measures the extent to which, the leader uses

symbols and short emotional messages to motivate the team towards mutually desired goal Intellectual

the amount of encouragement a leader gives his or her followers to question their old way' '.
stimulation assesses
doing things. The followers are supported if they change their old ways of thinking and develops creative
of
problems. Individualised consideration is a measure of how a leader treats his or her
ways of approaching new
followers differently but fairly. The leader raises the expectations and needs of their followers through

individual coaching.

Two factors load onto the dimension of transactional leadership. They are "contingent reward" and
"management-by-exception". Contingent reward describesthe interaction between leader and follower that

emphasisesexchange especially in terms of what a follower knows to expect from the leader in return for the

follower's attainmentof agreedobjectives. Management-by-exceptionis a measureof what the leadersdo when

things go wrong. The leaderusually intervenesto make corrective action with criticism, discipline and negative
feedback.

The nonleadership factor indicates an absence of leadership, the avoidance of intervention, or both (Bass &

Avolio, 1991). This is demonstrated where there are neither transactions nor agreements with followers. The

leader delays decisions, and feedback and involvement are absent. The leader also makes no attempt to

motivate his or her followers.

Thereare three organisational outcomes rated within the MLQ:

Extra effort reflects the extent to which the team exert effort beyond the ordinary as a consequenceof the

leadership,

Effectiveness reflects a leader's effectiveness in four areas: meeting the job related needs of followers;

followers' needs to higher management; contributing organisational effectiveness; and performance

representing
by the leader's work group.
how both leader and followers are with the leader's style and methods, and how
Satisfaction reflects content
in with the leader.
satisfied the followers are general

to
The MLQ was chosen measure leadership because of several considerations. Data collected about leadership

from the pilot study using the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (Fleishman, 1953) did not differentiate

less effective supervisors (see Chapter Four). Seltzer and Bass (1990)
between more effective and argue that
by the scales of initiation and consideration largely examine the accomplishment
leadership behaviour measured

86
 Chapter Five

of tasks and the maintenanceof good relationships between the work group and the leader. This leadership is

not reliant on the group's performance as the leader will become more satisfactory to the group if they attempt
to display actions that contribute to good relations with the group.. While there is evidence that initiation and
considerationcorrespondwith performance (Bass; 1991; Misumi, 1985) the transformational leader achieves
higher levels of subordinate performance and satisfaction.

There are other situational considerations for choosing this scale. The transformational leader is more likely to

emerge in times of growth, change, and crisis (Bass, 1985), (Bass, personal communication, July 27th, 1994)

has used it in a range of international work settings both within the oil industry (e. g. Exxon) and in 6

manufacturing (e. g. Kellogg; Fiat). As described in Chapter One, the offshore oil and gas industry is

undergoing significant change. The need to reduce costs against falling production levels, ageing platforms and

a low oil price has also been described as a crisis. However, the industry life cycle is not generic. Jennings
(1994) has described parts of the offshore industry with large potential for growth and therefore it could be

argued that in any sector of the industry the transformational leader is likely to exist. Furthermore, the current

competitive challenge from the Pacific rim countries dictates that organisations can no longer remain static and
that constant change will become the norm. Finally, the MLQ had been endorsed as a useful instrument by

other researchers (see Shackleton, 1995).

To complete the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) the respondents were asked to rate themselves

against 90 statements of leadership behaviour in terms of how frequently they displayed that behaviour. The

five point scale (`A' (high) = most frequent display of behaviour scores 4, to `E' (low) least frequent display of

behaviour scores 0) consisted of the following verbal tags: "frequently if not always", "fairly often",
"sometimes", "once in a while" and "not at all". Questions 88 and 89, 'My position is (first-level of

third-level, fourth-level, fifth-level or higher), and 'Of the alternatives

supervision or equivalent, second-level,
below, which is the highest level existing in your organisation? (first-level, second-level, etc) respectively were

deleted because the terms used did not fit with the offshore industry organisational structure. Question 90,

the educational background of the respondent, was asked earlier within the 'Offshore
which examined
SupervisorsQuestionnaire'under section (i) and thereforewas also deletedto avoid duplication.

87
 Method For Survey Of Offshore Supervisors- Phase III

(vi) Section Six: Supervisorydecision making vignettes.

Five supervisory situations were presented to the supervisors and they were asked to comment on what they

do. This of question was intended to supplement the data gathered from the other
would qualitative style
as the MLQ which asks how often each behaviour is used rather than when it
sections of the questionnaire such
is used in a skilful manner and at an appropriate time (Yukl, 1994). The vignettes were also used to facilitate a

the role of the supervisor by introducing triangulation. This approach can prove to be
greater understanding of
if it provides different results from a purely quantitative method as it can lead to a better
very useful even
that can be answered by later research (Miles & Huberman, 1984).
understanding or to new questions

This section was based on information collected during the pilot study (see Chapter Four) and a brainstorming

three first line supervisors, from an operating company, not directly involved in the survey. Four
session with
were developed from this exercise. These were then faxed offshore to a group
supervisory situational scenarios

of supervisors working with another company with no prior awareness of the project, who were asked to

the applicability of the wording and the relevance of the situations. They returned all four with
comment on
two new situations. All six scenarios were sent to a human resource manager
some minor changes and provided
connected with this project, and a former offshore supervisor now working
working within an oil company not
Company B. All their comments were collated and five scenarios were chosen. These were
onshore with
intended to cover as many issues as possible that may confront an offshore supervisor. The scenarios included

such as 'compassionate leave', 'threatening behaviour', 'skill deficiency', 'safety versus

supervisory problems

production' and 'standards of competence'.

These decision vignettes were designed to satisfy several criteria. Firstly, it was assumed that
making
be to describe what they would do even if they had never personally encountered such a
respondents would able
before. Secondly, the scenarios were written deliberately to obscure a clear cut solution. By creating
situation
hypothetical incidents, the respondents were able to suggest effective responses. Flanagan's (1954) critical

incident technique has been criticised by Yukl (1994) because the method makes the assumption that the

differentiate between effective and less effective situations and behaviours. By providing a
respondents can
hypothetical yet plausible incident for the respondent, it is irrelevant whether the subject believes that he/she is

in or less effective manner. The assumption is that the more effective supervisor will
responding an effective
in a different way than a less effective supervisor. The supervisors' answers were scored
approach the problems
to test this hypothesis. These "best practice" responses were obtained from an
against "best practice" responses
former offshore supervisors who were all identified as "outstanding" offshore supervisors
'expert' group of nine

by their respective company personnel departments. To complete this section each respondent and the group of

to describe what they would do in each of the situations. Their responses were recorded in
experts were asked
by the of an audio cassette recorder to provide an accurate record of the subjects' responses.
writing and use
IMP Boyatsis (1981)
is in the competency literature e.g., for recording critical behaviours). For
(This method used
"expert responses were scored for critical behaviours by three research psychologists
each scenario, the group"
Management Centre who all had offshore research experience, using a grounded theory
from the Offshore

88
 Chapter Five

system and thematic analysis outlined by Spencer and Spencer (1993). The supervisors' responses were scored

on a five point scale indicating the degree to which they matched the experts. In Chapter Nine, section 9.6,

there are some examples of how the scenarios were scored and also how the supervisors' responses measure

against the Boyatsis Model for an effective manager (Boyatsis, 1981).

5.3 PERFORMANCE MEASURES

.. ý-

5.3.1 Performance Appraisal

The supervisor'seffectivenesswas rated using a specially designedappraisal form (see Table 5.1). It was felt

that the simple performancemeasureused in PhaseII did not effectively discriminate supervisory performance.
Therefore,a more precisescalewas used. Their performancewas appraisedby their immediate superior against
the following eight performanceindicators on a six-point format ranging from: "A poor performer" (1), to "An
outstandingperformer" (6). As Cooper and Robertson(1992) argue,this strategyof numerically labelling scale

points helps raters focus on each specific dimension when evaluatingjob performance. This performancerating

scalehad beenused with a number offshore supervisorsin a previous study (Sutherland, 1994).

Table 5.1
Offshore Supervisor's Rating Scale

TechnicallSpecialistability Knowledgeand skills demonstratedin the job

Communication Ability to put across ideas and information verbally or in
writing

Relationships Ability to superviseand to work with others as part of a team

Managingresources Demonstrationof ability to make appropriate use of assets

and understand the cost implications of their decisions

Influencingothers Skill shown by the employee in handling relationships with

superiors,subordinatesand peers
Initiative Effectiveness in making necessary decisions and taking
appropriateaction to achieve results
Change Oriented Attitude to flexibility both within the workplace and the
organisational environment in order to maintain local and
global performance objectives

Overalljob performance Taking everything into consideration

Scores were recorded on each of the eight dimensions and a composite score of the first seven items was used as

indicator ratings of supervisory performance. This score provided a final score out of 42. The
an of superior
item, `overall was not included in the composite score in order to prevent artificial
eighth performance',

inflation of the ratings and avoid creating multicollinearity problems. The eighth item is used as a separate
in the subsequent analyses. Unless otherwise stated, the composite score of
measure of overall performance
items will be described as the main performance measure.
seven

89
 Method For Survey Of Offshore Supervisors Phase III
-

The supervisors' superiors were also interviewed about what they thought made a good supervisor. The

interview was semi-structured with each "superior" being asked four open questions. These were; What makes

a good supervisor?, What makes a bad one?, What is the difference between an excellent supervisor and a very

good one? and What skills will the supervisor of the future have? The onshore experts who formulated the

model response for the DMVs (Section Six) were also asked these same questions. Their responses and the

offshore superiors responses are grouped together and presented and discussed in Section 6.8.

5.3.2 Job Performance: Peer nominations

Peer nominations is a method of obtaining a measure of supervisory performance by having each member of the

group designate a specified number of group members as being the highest in the group on a particular

characteristic or dimension (Kane & Lawler, 1978). The supervisors, superiors and technicians were asked to

nominate, in terms of job performance, the top three most effective and least effective supervisors on their shift,
in no particular order. The group members were also required to exclude themselves from the nominations.

Kane and Lawler (1978) in their study described the raters' feelings about the use of peer nominations as

"negative" because they are being asked to name work colleagues as poor as well as good performers.

As a method for discriminating performance, peer nominations have several advantages over other subjective

performance measures stich as appraisal. The research shows that it effectively discriminates those group

members who are extreme on a variable from those who are not with a high degree of validity and reliability

(Kane & Lawler, 1978). Given that the aim of the research project was to identify outstanding supervisors from

less effective ones, the function of peer nominations to create extreme scores was very suitable. The main

limitations with using peer nominations rather than peer ratings or peer rankings as a method of peer assessment
have been used mostly in military situations and that it is not easy to provide feedback
are that peer nominations
to the groups that participated. From the outset giving individual feedback to potential respondents was not

intended nor indeed practicable.

5.4 MODEL FOR EFFECTIVE OFFSHORE SUPERVISORY PERFORMANCE

The method outlined abovedescribesthe researchstrategythat was adoptedto collect data in the offshore work
This is summarised by the "Model for Effective Offshore Supervision" which is shown as
environment.
Figure 5.1.

90
 Chapter Five

Figure 5.1
Model for Effective Offshore Supervision

Biodata (i)
8
Work Experience
Job Performance
(H)
Superior Ratings
Personality
... -.
Peer Nominations ý
(A)
(iii)
Leadership

Job Performance
(iv)

Job Satisfaction Decision

Making
Vignettes
(B)
(V)
Work
Environment

The model tested the possible factors that would predict effective performance among offshore supervisors by

using a traditional social science "input/output" model. There are five main input (independent) variables that

were selected to potentially discriminate the performance of a supervisor and three output (dependent) variables

to test this performance. Of the three dependent variables two were quantitative measures (box A) and the other

was a qualitative measure (box B). Thus it expedites predictions of what makes an effective offshore

supervisor. These predictions are described in turn and are based upon a literature review, pilot study, and

knowledge of the offshore environment.

91
 Method For Survey Of Offshore Supervisors Phase III
-

5.4.1 Potential predictors

Independent Variables Performance Predictions

Y1

(i) Biodata & Work Experience

Previouswork experience Potential to discriminate performance.

Educationand Training It was hypothesisedthat educationand training would not

predict effective job performance.

(ii) Personality

OccupationalPersonalityQuestionnaire Literature suggeststhat personality may have an effect on

predicting performance. Seework by Hogan et at (1994).
Imaginative It was expected that high scores should predict effective
job performancescores.
Methodical It was expectedthat high scores should predict effective
job performance.

Achieving It was expected that high scores should predict effective

job performancescores.
Gregarious It was hypothesised that this personality dimension would
not predict effective job performance.
Emotional It was expected that low scores should predict
effective
job performance scores.

Sympathetic it was expected that high scores should predict

effective
job performance scores.

(iii) Leadership (Predictions based on Bass, 1990)

Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire

Transactional It was hypothesised that high scores should predict

effectivejob performance.
Transformational Neutral prediction, but would expect that effective
supervisorsof the future would require theseskills.
Laissez-faire It was hypothesisedthat high scores of laissez-faire type
leadership would result in lower scores
of job
performance.

92
 Chapter Five

Independent Variables Performance Predictions

(iv) Job Satisfaction

Job SatisfactionQuestionnaire
Overall job satisfaction Higher job satisfaction scoreswould result in effective
job performance

Recognitionfor doing good work High scoresshould predict effective job performance
Satisfaction with boss High scores should predict effective job performance

Responsibilityat work High scoresshould predict effective job performance

Suggestionsmade High scoresshould predict effective job performance

Promotion High scoresshould predict effective job performance

(v) Work Environment

Work Environment Scale

Task Oriented High scoresshould predict effective job performance

Involvement High scoresshould predict effective job performance

SupervisorSupport High scoresshould predict effective job performance

Work Pressure High scoresshould predict effective job performance

The next section of the thesis describes the results from the full study which are presented and discussed per

thus Chapter Six describes the results from UK1, Chapter Seven, UK2, and Chapter Eight, NI.
platform,
Chapters Six and Seven also describe the differences between being an operator supervisor and a contractor

in order to investigate whether this key variable i. e., company background of supervisor, has an
supervisor
impact on the effectiveness of the supervisor. A comparison of the findings from the combined group of all

three platforms and the results from the decision making vignettes are presented and discussed in Chapter Nine.
Chapter Ten presents a final discussion and concludes with recommendations for both management action and

future research.

A,ow

93
 CHAPTER SIX

OFFSHORE SUPERVISORS QUESTIONNAIRE

PLATFORM UK1 RESULTS

The results section will be divided into three areas: the results of Phase III which deals with the two platforms

on the UKCS, are presented and discussed in Chapters Six and Seven, respectively. The results which deal with
the Norwegian sector are presented and discussed in Chapter Eight. A comparison of the findings from the

combined group of all three platforms and the results from the decision making vignettes are presented and

discussed in Chapter Nine.

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The resultswill be divided into the following sections:

Section 6.2: Biodata and supervisory job performance measure

Section 6.3: Offshore elements and supervision

Section 6.4: Motivation

Section 6.5: The offshore environment

Section 6.6: Leadership

Section 6.7: Comparison between Operator and Contractor Supervisors

Section 6.8: Multivariate analysis

94
 Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire Platform UKI Results

6.2 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

6.2.1 Demographic data

Data were obtained from three groups of employees working on UK1. These were:
f senior supervisors on the platform such as OIM, Operations Supervisor and the Service Superintendent
(n=6)
f first line supervisorsthat worked for both Company B and Company C. The supervisors'job titles included-
shift supervisor,discipline engineer,foreman and senior charge hand (n=5 1)
f techniciansfrom eachof the disciplines on the platform that reported to the first line supervisorsdescribed
above(n=70)

This report deals mainly with the group of first line supervisors who will be referred to as "supervisors". One of

the supervisors was female.

The modal age of the sample is between36 and 47 years of age, with 67% of respondentsbeing aged between
36 and 47. (Table 6.1).

Table 6.1
Age of supervisor
Age (years) 24-29 30-35 36-41 42-47 48-53 53 and over
Sample n(51) 4 6 23 11 5 2

Respondentswere asked how long they had worked offshore, 37% had between 10 and 13 years of offshore

experience(m=12.18, s.d.= 4.59, Table 6.2).

Table 6.2
Length of time working offshore
Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >15
n 1 0 2 4 0 0 2 0 1 5 2 5 7 2 4 16

95
 Chapter Six

The supervisorswere asked how long they had been in their current post of supervisor, 53% had been in post
for 2 to 3 years(m=2.77, s.d.=2.54, Table.6.3).

Table 6.3
Time in current post as supervisor
Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 >12

n 11 16 11 1 51 2 141 2

Respondents were asked how long they had been in supervisory roles, 49% had between -3 -And 9 years of
" i'
(m=6.4, s.d. = 4.9, Table 6.4).
supervisory experience

Table 6.4
Overall tenure as supervisor
Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >13

n 7 4 8 5 3 4 1 1 3 2 1 5 2 5

Respondentswere asked What qualifications do you have? The pre-coded categories and the percentage

for as follows: School leaver (9.8%), Oilfield qualifications only (2%), School leaver and
responses each were
(13.7%), City and Guilds (33.3%), ONC, HNC or HND (31.3%), University Degree (4%) and Other eg
oilfield
MastersCertificate (5.9%).

Respondents were asked Who did they report to? The percentage responses for each category are listed in order

highest to lowest: Services Supervisor (31.4%), MechanicaVlnstrument/Electrical Engineer (27.5%), OIM

of
(13.7%), Operations Supervisor (11.7%), Services Coordinator (11.7%) and Maintenance Supervisor (4%).

The influence these demographic variables (age, offshore experience and specific supervisory experience) on
of
(see section 6.2.2) was examined. None of the demographic variables correlated
the performance measure
the performance measure. The analysis suggests that biodata such as age (r=-. 08) and
significantly with
07) of high job performance ratings. However, there are aspects of the data
experience (r=. are not predictors
interest. The sample have considerable offshore work (c600 years) and offshore supervisory
which are of
(c320 the majority of supervisors have some form of technical qualification such as City
experience years), and

and Guilds, ONC, HNC or HND.

PerformancePredictions
in section 5.4.1 for thesevariables were only partially accurate. "Previous
The performancepredictions made
identified as a possible discriminator of performance but it did not, and as predicted
work experience" was
did predict effective job performance.
"Education and Training" not

96
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnairePlatform UK1 Results

6.2.2 Supervisory Job Performance Measure

Job performance ratings were collected for only 45 of the 51 supervisors because six of the supervisors had

recently joined platform UK1 and it was felt by toeir respective immediate superiors that it would be unfair to

rate their performance without having a better understanding of their abilities as supervisors. Table 6.5

describes the frequency and range for each of the performance indicators.

Table 6.5
Supervisors' performance ratings ~ 5_
i
JOB PERFORMANCE 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean St.
INDICATORS Outsta
Dev
Poor

Technical/SpecialistAbility 0 0 8 17 17 3 4.3 0.8

Communication 0 4 9 17 15 0 3.9 0.9

Relationships 0 1 15 21 7 1 3.8 0.8

ManagingResources 0 2 20 16 7 6 3.6 0.8

InfluencingOthers 0 3 16 19 7 O l 3.7 0.8
Initiative 0 8 12 20 5 0 3.5 0.9

ChangeOriented 2 3 13 22 5 0 3.6 0.9

Overall Job Performance 0 2 8 28 7 0 3.9 0.7

Total 2 23 101 160 70 10

Cronbach'sco-efficient alpha was calculated to determine the internal reliability of the appraisal scale. The

closer the co-efficient is to 1, the greater the reliability. For the appraisal scale of the first seven items,
Cronbach's a =. 774. These first seven items were used as the main job performance score and is referred to in

the text as the "performance measure".

The job performance scale was used to discriminate different levels of performance among supervisors. Range

that the scales were not employed to full width as ratings of 'poor' or `outstanding' were rarely
scores showed

given. The ratings indicate that in the majority of cases, supervisors were given ratings around the mid-point of

the scale 3-4 i. e., 'Performance is entirely satisfactory' to 'A good performer'. Although the raters were asked to

the full length of the scale, there is a degree of central tendency within the ratings. As a group, the highest
use
for Technical/Specialist ability and the lowest ratings were for Initiative. These findings may
ratings were
strategies for offshore personnel (Tait & Hutton, 1994).
reflect previous selection

6.2.3 Peer Nomination Scores

The peer nomination scores were collected in an attempt to improve the accuracy of the dependent variable; job

However, as a collection instrument, it proved extremely contentious. The offshore population

performance.

were uncomfortable scoring one another's performance and gossip spread throughout the platform about this

97
 Chapter Six

technique. In an attempt to alleviate fears about confidentiality each respondentwas assuredthat their scores

were locked in a combination securebriefcase. By the time of the next offshore trip to Platform UK2 (three and

a half months later) news had spread between the platforms about the peer nomination instrument and after
discussionwith the OIM on UK2 it was withdrawn from the survey. Peernomination was also withdrawn from

useon the Norwegian Platform, NI after discussionswith the onshore platform manager. The results of using
this techniqueon UKI are shown in the frequencytable, Table 6.6.

Table 6.6
Peer Nomination Scores
Peer Supervisors No. of positive Frequency Percent
times rated
0 19 37.3
1 6 11.8
2 6 11.8
3 6 11.8
4 2 3.9
5 2 3.9
6 1 2
7 3 5.9
8 3 5.9
9 2 3.9
13 1 2
Peer Subordinates 0 20 39.2
1 9 17.6
2 4 7.8
3 3 5.9
4 4 7.8
5 1 2
7 1 2
8 1 2
10 2 3.9
12 2 3.9
13 1 2
14 1 2
20 1 2
25 1 2
Peer Superiors 0 39 76.5
1 8 15.7
2 4 7.8

The distribution of each group shows a positive skewing. This is to be expected when undertaking this type of

the respondents can receive no nomination at all. Jt is of interest that the group of `peers' is
analysis as many of
supervisors receiving seven or more nominations from their peers and nineteen receiving
spread out with nine
This have proved very useful in identifying the differences between effective and less
none. technique would
it clearly discriminates job performance amongst the groups of supervisors.
effective performance as

98
 Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire Platform UKI Results

Significant correlations betweenthe independentvariables such as job satisfaction and leadership and the peer

nominationjob performancemeasureare describedin this chapter.

6.2.4 IMAGES Occupational Personality Questionnaire

The IMAGES occupational personality questionnaire (SHL, 1993) produces scores on six personality

dimensions and a social desirability scale. The range of possible raw scores is from 8 to 40. A list of the means

and standard deviations on each dimension for the 51 supervisors is provided in Table 6.7. This table alsor, _

shows norm data and t-values which were calculated to test differences between the offshore sample and the

onshore norm data means. The p. values indicate levels of significance of the t-values. The r values indicate

the level of correlation between the personality dimensions and the performance measures. G, is the composite

performance measure correlation coefficient and , is the overall performance measure correlation coefficient).
Unless otherwise stated the correlation coefficient r7 is only discussed in the text. All variables throughout the

results chapters were checked for normality using lilliefors test (Norussis, 1993) and are distributed normally

unless otherwise stated.

Table 6.7
IMAGES Occupational Personality Questionnaire
Dimension Description Mean St. Dev. Norm Group St. Dev. t
0 A
Mean

Imaginative conceptual, innovative 27.1 5.0 25.1 4.6 03 1

-2.8 . -.
"r

Methodical detail conscious, 30.5 4.2 27.6 4.6 02 1

-5.0 -. -.
conscientious

Achieving ambitious, sets sights 25.2 3.8 22.4 4.6 09 06

-5.3 . .
high w.

Gregarious socially confident, 26.8 4.5 25.2 5.2 13 12

-2.5 -. -.
outgoing,aspects of w

affiliative
Emotional relaxed, worrying, 27.3 4.8 27.5 5.4 0.3 23 25
-. -.
tough minded

Sympathetic caring, warm, 28.9 3.6 28.4 4.1 03 01

-1.0 . .
supportive
(**p<. 01, * p<.05)
Comparisons were examined using the scale means and standard deviations for a general population sample

(n=2,951) provided by SHL (1993). There are no current norms for industrial
norm group supervisors.
Research from specific norm groups for the OPQ vary so slightly from general norms that there is little merit in

developing such specific norms (Sik, G., SHL, personal communication, August 19,1994). For this reason, the

norms have been used as the comparison group. Sample means for the dimensions
general population
Imaginative, Methodical and Achieving were all significantly higher than the norm population at the 01 level of
.

99
 Chapter Six

significance. Gregarious was significantly higher at the 05 level of significance. Emotional and Sympathetic
.
showed no significant differences with the norm data. As a group, the supervisors are more conceptually

oriented (Imaginative) than the comparison group. This suggests that they have a preference for intellectually
demanding tasks and perceive themselves as "ideas people". The supervisors score higher on the Methodical

dimension than the norm group. The supervisors are ideally suited to jobs that require fine checking and

attention to detail which are arguably necessary qualities in a safety conscious offshore work environment.

Perhaps,not surprisingly, the supervisorsscore more highly than the norm group on the Achieving dimension.
High scorers on this dimension have a tendency to be ambitious, better leadersand have more drive, and as

result are more likely to be promoted. The sample also scores more highly on the Gregarious dimensions "
Higher scorers on this dimension are usually found in jobs that require a significant amount of interpersonal

skills. There were no other significant differences betweenthe sampleand the norm group. Emotional (r--. 23)

was the highest correlation with the performancemeasure,suggestingthat supervisorswho may find it difficult
to switch off from the pressures of work were given lower job performance ratings, but it was not significant.

None of the other personality dimensions correlated significantly with the performance measure. Finally, there

were no significant correlations between the personality dimensions and the peer nomination scores.

Performance Predictions

The broad prediction was that personality styles would have an effect on job performance. Such a prediction

would be consistent with recent recruitment and selection literature e.g., Hogan, Curphy & Hogan (1994) but

regrettablythe correlationswere small and not significant.

6.3 OFFSHORE ELEMENTS AND SUPERVISION

This next section consisted of a series of open questions and a 20 item Likert style questionnaire. The open

questions concerned the supervisor's current skills and training, and the Likert scale addressed other factors that

affect the supervisor's role such as leadership style, offshore safety and commercial concerns. The percentage

from each of the items from the Likert scale are described in Table 6.8. Higher means represent more
responses
"agreement" with the statement indicated by `P' or more "disagreement" with the statement indicated by `N'

(the scores were reversed for negative statements).

100
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnairePlatform UK1 Results

Table 6.8
Offshore elements and supervision
Supervisionand safety variable % rating "/orating % rating % rating % rating M SD
Agree Agree Neitheragree Disagree Disagree
strongly slightly nor disagree slightly strongly
1 The offshoresupervisor'smain role is that of "fire 9.8 33.8 2 27.5 27.5 3.3 -1.4
fighter" e.g making many rapid decisions.(P)
2 The offshore supervisor is pushed from above and 42 42 0 13.7 3.9 4 1.2
below at the same time. (N)

3 On this platform, the best supervisory style is 3.9 9.8 7.8 23.5 54.9 4.2 1.2
authoritarian with autocratic overtones. (P)

4 The offshoresupervisoris not a key figure in 3.9 9.8 5.9 25.5 54.9 4.2 12T
reducingloss and increasingprofit (P)
5 The best supervisorystyle is to providefirm 76.5 17.6 0 9 0 4.6 0.8
leadership and direction to employees. (P)

6 The offshoresupervisorhas becomeanother 37.3 39.2 3.9 13.7 5.9 3.9 1.2
specialist whose main concern is organising and
looking after his/her workers. (N)

7 The offshore supervisor should not have the status 3.9 7.8 15.7 29.4 43.1 4 1.1
of first line management (P)
8 Staff reportsand appraisalsdo not invite honestand 25.5 39.2 5.9 15.7 13.7 3.5 1.4
open criticism within the offshore environment (N)
9 The offshore supervisor should be a team leader. 72.5 21.6 0 5.9 0 4.6 0.8
(N)

10 Man managementis less importantthan technical 2 17.6 5.9 25.5 49 4 1.2

ability for an effective offshore supervisor. (P)

11 Offshoresupervisorsplay a key role in the success 58.8 35.3 3.9 2 0 4.5 0.7
of "partnering". (N)
12 The future success of the offshore oil industry 72.5 19.6 5.9 2 0 4.6 0.7
depends heavily on the man management skills of
all offshore supervisory roles. (P)
13 Most supervisors sometimes turn a blind eye to the 3.9 43.1 5.9 17.6 29.4 3.3 1.4
strict safety rules to get the job done on time. (N)
14 The permit to work system ensures safe working. 54.9 25.5 0 15.7 3.9 4.1 1.2
(P)

15 The existenceof the OffshoreSafety Divisionof the 2 27.5 7.8 31.4 31.4 3.6 1.2
HSE does not make me feel safe. (P)

16 If supervisors did not take risks now and again the 2 29.4 0 23.5 45.1 3.8 1.3
job wouldn'tget done. (P)
17 Most accidents just happen - there's not much you 3.9 2 0 29.4 64.7 4.5 0.9
can do about it. (P)
18 The permit to work system is just a way of covering 2 11.8 2 13.7 70.6 4.4 1.1
people's backs. (N)
19 There are certainly risks working offshore. (N) 74.5 23.5 2 0 0 4.7 0.5
20 The role of the supervisor is not dominated by 5.9 17.6 3.9 39.2 33.3 3.8 1.3
L paperwork. (P)

Most of the supervisors agreed, either slightly or strongly, that the best supervisory style is to provide firm

leadership and direction to employees (item 5) and over 90% agreed, either slightly or strongly, that the

offshore supervisor should be a team leader (item 9). Over 70% disagreed, either slightly
or strongly, that the
not have the status of a first line manager (item 7),
offshore supervisor should and over 70% disagreed, slightly
was less important than technical ability for an
or strongly, that man-management effective offshore supervisor

101
 Chapter Six

(item 10). Over 90% agreed,either slightly or strongly, that offshore supervisorsplay a key role in the success

of "partnering" (item 11). 'Permit to Work', the 'Offshore Safety Division' and other offshore safety issueswere
ratedpositively by the sample.

Respondents were asked What do you consider to be your best asset in your supervisory capacity? The

percentage responses which are listed in order of highest to lowest.

Response % of total responses

job experience 21.5
Developingrelationshipswith team 19.7
16 ýý
planningand organisation
Achieving results 16
ability to listen 7.2
Delegation 5.4
firm but fair with team 5.4
Motivational skills 5.4
attitude to safety 1.7
personal initiative 1.7

Respondents were asked Have you had any non-technical training for your role as a supervisor? The

percentage responses are shown below.

Response % of total responses

No 33.9
man management training 18.7
basic supervisory skills 13.6
team leaders course 8.4
NVQ/ECITB 6.8
health & safety 6.8
internal company course 6.8
industrialrelationscourse 3.3
on the job 1.6

Respondents were asked What skills do you use currently that were taught at the training course (mentioned

above)? The percentage responses are shown below.

Response %aof total responses

not applicable 33.8
dealing with people 16.9
Communication skills 15.3
Safety 9.2
Nothing 9.2
planning skills 6.1
Disciplinary action 4.6
problem solving 3
time management 1.5

102
 Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire Platform UK1 Results

Respondentswere asked Whichaspectsof your job do you feel require more training and why? The percentage

responsesare shown below.

Response % of total responses
Technical skills 38
Supervisorytraining 20
General management 14
None 14
Managingmy supervisors 4
Commercial/budget training 4
Presentations 4
further academic qualifications 2 i"

The respondentswere askedHaveyou had any commercial or financial training as a supervisor? The majority

of respondents (81.6%) had received no training. The remaining responses included "previous work

experience"and "internal company seminars".

The respondents were asked Do you wish to be promoted and if yes into which position? The responses were

Yes,next one up (78.4%) and No (21.5%)

The results show that as a group, the supervisors have had little man-management training and the vast majority

have had no financial or commercial training. Although the majority of supervisors recognise the new role of

supervision through changes such as team leadership, "partnering" and supervisory style, technical skills are still

the most requested training need.

6.4 MOTIVATION

This next section examined motivation. It included a standard scale on job satisfaction (Warr et al, 1979), a

group of open questions concerning supervision and two closed questions that asked the respondent to rate six

"system motivators" on a six point scale.

6.4.1 Job satisfaction

The 16 item self report job satisfaction scale by Warr, Cook & Wall (1979) was used to measure both extrinsic

intrinsic factors associated with job satisfaction for both supervisors and technicians (n=70). A detailed
and
breakdown of the scores is shown in Table 6.9. Each respondent was asked to rate how satisfied or dissatisfied

felt of their job on a seven point Likert type scale. Total scores are obtained by
they with various aspects
the This scale had been previously used offshore (Flin, Mearns, Fleming & Gordon, 1996;
summing ratings.
Sutherland, K, 1994). Item 15 "your job history" was inadvertently used instead of the original item "your job

This table also shows norm data and t-values which were calculated to test differences between the
security".
the technicians. The p. values indicate levels of significance of the t-values. The r
offshore supervisors and

103
 Chapter Six

values indicate the level of correlation between the supervisor'sjob satisfaction items and the performance

measures.

Table 6.9
Job Satisfaction (Warr et al, 1979)
Job Satisfaction Supervisors Technicians
(n=51) (n=70)
ITEMS Mean St. Mean St. t
ý re
Dev. Dev.
The physical work conditions 4.7 1.1 4.1 1.4 0 09 05
-4.. . .

The freedom to choose your own 5.4 1.3 4.6 1.3 13 06 6

-4.4 . .
methodof working "«
Your fellow workers 5.5 0.7 5.6 1.1 1.0 17
. .1
The recognitionyou get for good work 4.7 1.4 4.5 1.5 1.1 45 49
. .. . K

Your immediate boss 5.4 1.2 5.4 1.1 0 23 13

. .
The amount of responsibility you are 5.4 1.4 4.8 1.4 08 12
-20 . .
given
Your rate of pay 4.8 1.4 3.8 1.5 16 22
-33 . .
Your opportunity to use your abilities 5.3 1.5 4.3 1.6 37
-5 . .4

Industrial Relations between 4.1 1.3 2.8 1.4 28

-7.1 .4 .
managementand workers in your firm .. ..
Your chance of promotion 4.7 1.1 3.4 1.5 16 05
-8.4 -. -.
..
The way your firm is managed 3.9 1.5 3.1 1.3 09 08
-4 . .
The attention paid to suggestionsthat 4.6 1.3 4.1 1.4 26 27
-2.7 . .
you make º«
Your hours of work 4.2 1.6 4.6 1.2 2 27 12
-. -.
The amount of variety in your job 5.2 1.4 4.4 1.5 17 23
-4.1 . .
«w

Your job history 5.3 0.9 4.4 1.3 13 16

-7.1 . .

Your job as a whole 5.1 1.2 4.5 1.2 18 17

-3.5 . .

Total score 78.3 20.3 68.4 21.7 -3.5

(**p<. 01, * p<.05)

The supervisors are more job satisfied than the technicians. There is a significant difference between the

supervisors' and the technicians' total mean scores at the 99% confidence interval. The supervisors rate their

all the items significantly higher than the technicians. As a group, the offshore
satisfaction with almost
highest on the item that concerns their satisfaction associated with their fellow workers and
supervisors score
lowest in terms of satisfaction in terms of the way their firm is managed. The mean score of the
score
(n=70) was 68.4 which %as significantly lower than the supervisors at 78.3 (p<. 01). As a
technicians' group

the technicians score, like the supervisors, highest on the item that concerns their satisfaction associated
group,
fellow and score lowest in terms of the industrial relations between
with their workers management and workers

104
 Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire Platform UK1 Results

in your firm. When job satisfactionand performancewere examined item 4 The recognition you get for good

work (r=.45, p<.01), item 8 Your opportunity to useyour abilities (r-. 38, p<.05) and item 9 Industrial relations
betweenmanagementand workers in your firm (r=.38, p<.O1) correlated with the performance measure. This

suggeststhat the higher performing supervisors are more satisfied with the flexibility they have to use their

skills in the workplace, praise and recognition from superiors increasestheir job satisfaction and also more
satisfiedwith the industrial relations in the workplace than less effective supervisors.

Job satisfaction and peer nominations scores were also examined only total job satisfaction significantly

correlatedwith the supervisor's peer nominations (r=.27, p<.05). This suggeststhat the supervisorswho rate
high levels of job satisfactionalso receive higher scoresfrom their peerswho perceive them as high performing

supervisors.

Performance Predictions

It was predicted that high scores for item 4, The recognition you get for good work would result in effective job

performance. This prediction was found to be accurate (r=. 45, p<. 01). The other performance predictions were

not substantiated and item 9 Industrial relations between management and workers in your firm (r=. 38, p<. O1)

was the only other item to correlate significantly with the performance measure. The alternative performance

measure for this platform (peer nominations) endorsed the prediction that high scores for job satisfaction would

result in effective job performance, although the correlation was small (r-. 27, p<. 05).

6.4.2 System Motivators

Each supervisor was asked to rate on a seven point scale from I (not effective) to 7 (highly effective) the

following items: promotion, disciplinary action, praise, pay, job pride and time off, in terms of how effective

each were as a motivating influence on them as supervisors. Their responses are described in table 6.10.

Table 6.10
System motivators for supervisors
System % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating M SD
motivator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Promotion 3.9 11.8 5.9 25.5 27.5 15.7 9.8 4.5 1.6

Disciplinary 15.7 35.3 7.8 19.6 5.9 13.7 2 3.1 1.7

action
Praise 2 5.9 5.9 9.8 23.5 25.5 27.5 5.3 1.6

Pay 2 2 3.9 7.8 27.5 23.5 33.3 5.6 1.4

Job Pride 0 0 3.9 0 17.6 35.3 43.1 6.1 1

Time off 9.8 5.9 2 3.9 17.6 37.3 23.5 5.2 1.9

105
 Chapter Six

The supervisorsperceivethat promotion, praise, pay, job pride and time off were effective as motivators in the

offshore environment for the role of a supervisor. Disciplinary action was not perceived as an effective

motivator.

The supervisorswere also askedto rate the same items in terms of how effective they were at motivating their
These are
responses describedin Table 6.11.
shift or team at work.

Table 6.11
System motivators for technicians
System % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating M SD
motivator 1 2 3 4 5 6.. 7

Promotion 0 19.6 13.7 25.5 23.5 13.7 3.9 4.1 1.4

Disciplinary 19.6 15.7 19.6 23.5 11.8 5.9 3.9 3.2 1.7
action
Praise 0 0 5.9 3.9 29.4 35.3 25.5 5.7 1.1

Pay 2 0 3.9 9.8 11.8 23.5 49 6 1.4

Job Pride 0 0 0 27.5 29.4 29.4 13.7 5.3 1

Time off L 3.9 3.9 3.9 7.8 17.6 37.3 25.5 5.4 1.6

The supervisorsrated the motivators in terms of how they motivated their technicians and the results were
broadly similar, Pay was seenas the most effective motivator and Disciplinary action was seenasthe least.
The respondentswere asked Whatare the main challengesfor an offshore supervisor in terms of motivating his
The table below outlines the percentage which
responses are listed in order of highest to lowest.
shift?

Response % of total responses

Keeping motivation going 32.1
Team building 19.6
Uncertainty of future/mistrust of management 12.5
Ability to get work done because of so much paperwork/bureaucracy 10.7
Getting team involved in jobs 8.9
the offshore environment 8.9
Putting across commercial and safety message simultaneously 7.1

What motivates You to perform better? (Give 3 examples) Feeling of achievement,

The respondents were asked
building a good team accounted for 63.6% of the total responses. The other 36.4%
job satisfaction and
as money, praise, personal development, leadership from above and more
included comments such

responsibility.

where motivation and team building are present was rated as the main challenge
Maintaining an environment
to motivate his shift. Uncertainty of the future and mistrust of management were also
for a supervisor in trying
factors that affect the ability of a supervisor to motivate. Intrinsic motivators such as
mentioned as contributory

106
 Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire Platform UKI Results

feeling of achievement,team building and job satisfaction were described by the majority of supervisors as
factorsthat would motivate them to perform better. Similar results have been found in a recent offshore study

on motivation by Burnett and Tait (1996).

6.5 THE OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT

6.5.1 The work environment scale

The Work Environment Scale (Moos & Insell, 1974) is an instrument for measuring the social-psychological
Each work setting develops a "style" or a work climate, which influences how
characteristics of a work setting.
decisions are made and defines typical patterns of interactions at work (Moos & Billings, 1991). The scale

on ten elements which form three major categories.

produces scores
1. Relationship dimensions - how employees relate to each other and how managers relate to

employees.
2. Personalgrowth dimensions- how the work environmentencouragesor stifles personal growth.
3. Systemmaintenanceand changedimensions- the amount of structure and opennessto changein the

workplace.

A list of the means and standard deviations on each dimension for 51 supervisors is provided in Table 6.12.

The range of possible raw scores is from I to 9. This table also shows norm data and t-values which were

to test differences between the offshore sample and the onshore norm data means. The p. values
calculated
indicate levels of significance of the t-values. The r values indicate the level of correlation between the work

environment dimensions and the performance measures.

107
 Chapter Six

Table 6.12
The Moos et al (1974) work environment scale
Offshore Supervisors (N=51) Norm Group
Dimension Description Mean St. Mean St. t
Dev. Dev. r7 ra
Relationship
Involvement the extent to which employees 4.9 2.5 5.9 1.4 2.8 38 39
. .
are concernedabout and "" ""
committed to their jobs
Peer Cohesion the extent to which employees 5.6 2.1 5.7 1.2 0.3 22 34
. .
are friendly and supportive of "
one another
Supervisor Support the extent to which 5.3 2.4 5.7 1.4 1,2 - 15
.1 .
managementis supportiveof
employees and encourages ý,
employeesto be supportiveof
one another
Personal Growth
Autonomy the extent to which employees 4.2 1.4 5.5 1.2 6.6
are encouraged to be self .1 .1
--
sufficient and to make their own
decisions
Task Orientation the degree of emphasis on good 5.4 1.7 5.9 1.3 2.1 25 31
planning, efficiency, and getting . .
the job done
Work Pressure the degree to which the 6.7 1.7 4.4 1.4 24
-10 -. -. 23
pressure of work and time -
u en dominate the job milieu
System Maintenance and
SystemChange
Clarity the extent to which employees 5.2 1.7 5.6 1.3 1.7 16 18
knowwhat to expect in their . .
daily routine and how explicitly
rules and policiesare
communicated
Control the extent to which 7.6 1.1 4.9 1.3 11 05
-17 -. .
managementuses rules and
pressures to keep employees
under control
Innovation the degree of emphasis on 3.7 2.4 4.4 1.5 2.1 38 46
. .
variety, change, and new "" ..
approaches
Physical Comfort the extent to which the physical 1.9 1.3 4.9 1.4 16.7 12 15
. .
surroundings contribute to a "*
pleasant work environment
(**p<. 01, * p<. 05)

As a group, the supervisors describe the offshore work environment as having a high degree of pressure and

time urgency to get jobs done, they feel that management use rules and pressure to keep employees under

control, there is little emphasis on variety and change, and the physical surroundings do not contribute to a

pleasant work environment.

The difference between the onshore norm group and the supervisors was also examined. Involvement,

Autonomy, Task Orientation, Innovation and Physical Comfort were all rated significantly lower by the

than the onshore norm group. Control and Work Pressure were both rated significantly higher by
supervisors
the supervisors than the norm group. These differences are not surprising given the strong safety orientation

need for strict rules and controls. These findings are also corroborated by the
offshore and the consequent
in section 4.4.1.
qualitative comments made

108
 OffshoreSupervisorsQuestionnairePlatform UKI Results

The influence of the supervisory perceptions of the work environment on the performance measure was

examined. Involvement (r-. 38, p<.Ol) and Innovation (r=. 38, p<.O1) showed significant correlations with the
performancemeasure. This may suggestthat the better performing supervisorsperceive they have subordinates
who are very committed to their jobs. Secondly,constantchangeas a result of commercial pressuresis evident
offshore and this finding may suggestthat the supervisorwho understandsthe changesin the work environment
is a higher performing supervisor.

The peer nomination scores and the supervisory perceptions of the work environment were also examined.
Innovation (r-. 32, p<.05) only significantly correlated with the supervisor's peer nominations. This fording-",,

suggests,as with the appraisalratings, that those supervisorswho perceive change positively are rated as high
performing supervisors.

Respondentswere asked What has been the single biggest change in the offshore oil industry in recentyears?
The percentageresponsesare shown below.

Response % of total responses

HSE/Cullen Inquiry 62.7
Outsourcing to Service Companies 18.6
Permitto Work (PTW) 6.7
cutbacks in manpower 5
Increasingfinancial constraints 1.7
new technology 1.7
more listening by management 1.7
Improved work conditions 1.7

Respondents were asked What two suggestions would you make to improve the life offshore? The percentage

responses are shown below.

Response % of total responses

better relaxation facilities 32
better cabin accommodation 28
worker involvement 8
work only 12 hours 6.7
increase leave cycle 6.7
more money 5.3
take TVs out of cabins 2.7
more phones to phone home 2.7

Quicker response from onshore, reduce paperwork, technical courses run onshore, improve safety
prgfile were other suggestions.

Performance Predictions

It was anticipated that high scores for Involvement would predict effective job performance and this was

(r-. 39, OI). The remaining effective job performance predictions; Task Oriented, Supervisor
ratified p<.
Support and Work Pressure did not discriminate supervisory performance.

109
 Chapter Six

6.5.1.1 Stress of the job

Stressassociatedwith the role of the supervisor was assessedusing a five point scale. The responsesare
describedin Table 6.13.

Table 6.13
Stress of the job as supervisor
Item labels % Rating each item
(m=3.5, s. d. =0.8)
Not at all stressful 2 'ýý.
Rarely stressful 3.9
Mildly stressful 45.1
Considerably stressful 41.2
Extremely stressful 7.8

The majority of the sample rate the role of the supervisor as fairly stressful, in fact 49% judged their job as

considerably or extremely stressful. This is similar to a finding by Flin & Slaven (1993) who surveyed 134

OIMs and found that 47% considered their job to be considerably or extremely stressful. In a earlier study of

stress levels of Shell Expro Staff by Gann, Corpe and Wilson (1990) they found that there was no difference at

JG5 (supervisors level) between onshore and offshore staff. Using a standard mental health questionnaire they

found that 15% of this offshore group were scoring at a level suggesting "clinically significant anxiety" and
22% at a level suggesting "clinically significant depression". The stress scores were correlated with the

and analysis suggests that there is not a strong association between the stress rating and
performance measure

performance (r=. -14, p=. 35).

The respondents were asked What is the biggest cause of stress for most offshore supervisors? The percentage

responses are shown below.

Response %of total responses

to progresswork 41
hours of work 19.7
Safety 12.1
the work environment 7.5
meetingbudgets 6
being away from home 4.5
man management 4.5
trying to find work when there is none 3
PTW 1.5

110
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnairePlatformUK1 Results

The respondentswere asked What is it that worries most offshore supervisors? The percentageresponsesare
describedbelow.

Response % of total responses

an accident 31.4
safety 22.2
failing to meet targets 16.6
too many changes 11.1
Unemployment 5.5
motivating workforce 5.5
loss of control as supervisor 3.7
getting a quick enough response from onshore 1.8 :.
the weather 1.8

nlcri m-unN

Given the inherent difficulties of the offshore work environment, it is not surprising that the physical

surroundings are rated by the supervisors as not contributing to a pleasant work environment. However, the

do describe some suggestions that they feel would improve the situation. Better relaxation facilities and
sample
better cabin accommodation are their two main solutions. The finding from the Work Environment Scale

the high degree of urgency to get jobs done is corroborated by the qualitative fording that "to
concerning

progress work" is the biggest source of stress for most offshore workers. Current management driven

initiatives, across the offshore industry, which are intended to increase the intrinsic value of
empowerment

offshore work may have little success changing the attitudes of the offshore employees who rate the

highly structured and having little variety. The supervisors judged that the Cullen Inquiry and
environment as
legislation as the single biggest change in the offshore environment.
resulting

6.6 LEADERSHIP

This section containeda seriesof open questionsand a standardleadershipquestionnaire. The open questions
designed to allow the supervisorto describe what he or she felt were effective supervisory behaviours, and
were
the structured questionnaire was used to provide a quantitative perspective of the leadership style of the

supervisor. In completing the leadership questionnaire the respondentwas asked to rate himself or herself on a
five point scale as to how frequently they displayed the type of behaviour described in each statement. The
higher the mean score, the more of the leadership behaviour is displayed. The leadership questionnaire
87 leadership behaviour statements. The results for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaireare
contained
describedin Table 6.14 followed by the supervisor'sresponsesfrom four open questions concerning effective
leadership styles.

111
 Chapter Six

Table 6.14
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1993)
MLQ Factors Descriptors No. of items Mean St.Dev
re

Attributed Charisma Extent of charismaassociatedto 8 2.6 0.5 28 16

leadershipbehaviour . .

Idealised Influence Builds confidenceand trust; 10 2.7 0.7 27 05

attracts a following; has much . .
referent power

Inspirational Raisesexpectationsand beliefs 10 2.4 0.5 22

Leadership concerningthe missionand vision .3 .

Intellectual Stimulation Challengesold assumptionsand 10 2.7 0.5 06

stimulates new ideas .2 .

Individual Determinesindividualneeds and 10 2.7 0.5 21 03

Consideration raises them to higher levels . .

Contingent Reward Clarifiesobjectivesand 9 2.1 0.7 13 03

exchangesrewardsfor . .
performance

Managementby Takes correctiveaction when 7 2.2 0.7 41 37

Exception mistakes occur, disciplines when . .
necessary. Active "* "

Management by Takes correctiveactionwhen 7 0.9 0.6 18

Exception mistakesoccur, disciplineswhen .3 .
necessary. Passive

Laissez-faire leadership Is not aroundwhen needed 7 0.5 0.4 15 19

. .
Extra effort Extraeffort generatedby leader 3 2.8 0.8 18 06
. .
Effectiveness Leader'sperceivedeffectiveness 4 2.7 0.5 05 11
. -.
Satisfaction Satisfactionwith one's leadership 2 3.2 0.5 -. 12 -. 31

(*"p<. U1, * p<.uD)

As a group, the supervisors scored highest on three transformational items: idealised influence, intellectual

stimulation and individual consideration, and lowest on the laissez-faire item. The scores obtained for each
dimension from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire were correlated with the job performance
measure.
Inspirational Leadership (r=. 3, p<. 05) and Management by Exception (Active) (r-. 42, p<. 01), both positively

correlated with job performance.

The leadership style that appears most effective is where the supervisor takes an active role in the reinforcement

of standards and uses discipline and negative criticism to encourage compliance (management by exception,
'active'). However, a transformational approach to leadership can co-exist with such attributes. High scores on

the Inspirational leadership dimension also reflect a higher perfgrming supervisor. This leadership factor

describes a supervisor who uses emotional appeals and visionary- language to encourage the team to work

towards mutually desirable goals. For example, a supervisor who-encourages each individual technician to

recognise the need for the bureaucracy of the offshore environment such as permit to work (PTW) and company

112
 Offshore Supervisors QuestionnairePlatform UKI Results

codesof practice, but aims to go beyond theserequirementsand makes it a goal of completing a task as safely
as possibleso that the whole platform is safeeven if it meansworking unpaid after shift.
The peer nomination scores and the leadership scores were also examined. Management by exception `active'

(r-. 28, p<. 05), idealised influence (r-. 35, p<. d1), individual consideration (r=. 31, p<. 05) and inspirational
leadership (r=. 37, p<. Ol) all significantly correlated with the supervisor's peer nominations. This indicates

more strongly than the appraisal scores that supervisors who are rated by their peers as high performing

supervisors are similarly exhibiting the key leadership behaviours from Bass' Transformational model i. e.,
transactional leadership augmented by three of the four `Is' of transformational leadership.
.-
- .ý.

The respondentswere asked What three characteristics would define a large group of effective supervisors?
The percentageresponsesare shown below.

Response % of total responses

Assertive 13.5
Talkative 12.1
good man management skills 12.1
Committedto job 9.4
self motivated 8.1
good debating skills 8.1
job experience 8.1
decision makers 6.7
similar personality 6.7
good listeners 5.4
Interested in material possessions 4
honest/reliable 2.7
ability to get work done 2.7

The respondentswere asked From your own experience what was it that an effective supervisor does which
do
others not? The percentageresponsesare shown below.

Response % of total
responses
Motivates his team 15.8
listening skills 14.5
gets to know team individually 13.1
plans and organises 11.9
Discusses job with team 10.5
accepts responsibility 9.2
mutual respect "no stripes in 7.8
swamp"
makes decisions 3.9
good coach 3.9
gets results 2.6
gets overall picture 2.6
gives his all 2.6
stays calm 1.3

113
 Chapter Six

The respondentswere askedIf you could do whatever you liked without penalty, what leadership style would

you chooseand how would you describe it? The percentageresponsesare shown below.
Response % of total responses
be more personal, create better 14
relationships
be firm but fair 14
create incentivesfor team 12.2
group leadershipstyle 10.5
Supervise by example 10.5
would not change 10.5
Democratic style 8.7
be more forceful, direct and 7
autocratic
create interest in job 5.2

Build long term goals, concentrate on results, openforum with team every 3 months, and haveflexitime
structure offshore were the other responses.

The respondents were asked What is it that is most critical to being an excellent first line supervisor? The

percentage responses are shown below.

Response % of total
responses
man management skills 20.7
know the capabilities of workforce 17.2
helps the workforce to alleviate 8.7
problems
Supervisors self motivation 8.7
broad technical knowledge 8.7
Responseunder pressure 6.9
Motivates team 6.9
Organisation 6.9
rapid decision and action 5.1
sense of humour 3.4
safety awareness 3.4
working across teams 1.7
attention to detail 1.7

The results of these four questions show that man-management was perceived as the most critical skill of an

excellent supervisor. Knowing the capabilities of the workforce, helping the workförce to alleviate problems,
broad technical knowledge were factors that the sample felt would be relevant to being an
self motivation and

excellent supervisor. 'Motivation', 'listening' and 'getting to know team' were the top three attributes that the

felt exhibited by effective supervisors when they themselves

sample of supervisors were were being supervised.

Performance Predictions

There were mixed results for these #eadership predictions. Inspirational leadership, a variable of
transformational leadership was not anticipated to be a predictor of effective leadership but it did discriminate.

The other transformational items did not discriminate supervisory performance with the appraisal measure, but

114
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnairePlatformUK1 Results

three out of four items were effective when measured against the peer nomination scores (intellectual

stimulation did not discriminate). Managementby Exception Active, a variable of transactionalleadershipwas

correctly predicted to be an effective discriminator of supervisory performance. It was predicted that high
scores of laissez-faire type leadership would result in lower scores of job performance, but none of the
correlationswas significant and thereforethe predictions were inconclusive.

6.7 COMPARISON BETWEEN OPERATOR AND CONTRACTOR

SUPERVISORS

The data set was also split betweenoperator and contractor supervisors and differences between these groups

are also examined. This is consistent with the approach adopted by Sutherland (1994) who studied the
differencesin occupationalstressbetweenthesetwo groups. Results for the platform UK1 split by operatorand

contractor are describedbelow. (The correlationswith the performance measureare calculated using a data set
of 14 for the operatorsand 37 for the contractors).

There were no differences between the operator and contractor groups on any of the biodata dimensions. This

indicates that any differences between the two groups are not simply due to differences in the groups' biodata.

There was, however, a significant correlation between the length of service of a contractor supervisor in their

current role and the performance measure (r=. 46, p<. 05). This may suggest, for example, that 'contractor

superiors are rating their longest serving supervisors as higher job performers and may reveal more about a long

serving offshore supervisor/subordinate relationship than actual job performance.

Table 6.15
Operator and Contractor differences for appraisal data
Group n mean sd t
Operator 14 29.45 5.3
Contractor 37 30.62 4.4 72
-.
k"V--u I, , p,-.u3)

The table indicates that there was no difference between superiors of the groups in using the appraisal
instrumentof their supervisors.

Table 6.16
Operator and Contractor differences for stress
Group n mean sd t
Operator 14 4.0 0.68 71
-, "
Contractor 37 3.3 0.74 3.09* 54*
-.
(--p--. UI, - p<.u)J

115
 Chapter Six

The results of this t-test indicate that there is a significant difference in stress between the two groups on

platform UKI. The contractor supervisors rate their role as less stressful than the operator supervisors. This

result is directly opposite to previous findings in the offshore industry using this short stress question

(Sutherland, 1994), and may indicate how the offshore working environment has changed in recent years. Both

groups correlate significantly with the performance measure. These results suggest that regardless of employer,
the higher performing supervisors rate their role as less stressful than poorer performing supervisors.

Comparisons of job satisfaction scores showed no significant differences between operator and contractors with'-"'-,,

the exception of physical work conditions. The contractor supervisors were more satisfied than the operator

supervisors with the physical work conditions. This finding, as with the stress score, may indicate the changing

offshore culture between operators and contractors. There was also a strong correlation between the operator

supervisors satisfaction with the industrial relations between management and workers and the performance

measure and this suggests that higher performing operator supervisors are more satisfied with the industrial

relations within their company than poorer performing supervisors. While this is a logical fording, the data set
for this analysis is small and this result should be treated with some caution.

The comparison of the WES scores between operator and contractor supervisors describe some interesting

differences. Work Pressure is significantly different with the operator supervisors perceiving that there is more

pressure on them from management to get work done (7.7 vs 6.3, t=3.1, p<. O1). Control and Physical Comfort
.
are both rated significantly higher by the contractor supervisors than the operator supervisors (7.8 vs 6.8, t=-3.1,

p<. 01, and 2.3 vs 1.1, t=-3.2, p<. 01, respectively). The finding for Physical Comfort is corroborated by the

similar finding obtained with the job satisfaction questionnaire. Not surprisingly, Control is rated more highly

by the contractor supervisors which validates the traditional perception of "partnership" that can be found

i. the operator may use the language of "partnering" but in reality aims to dictate to the contracting
offshore e.,
Only Work Pressure (contractor supervisors) correlated significantly with the performance measure
companies.
(r=-. 61, p<. 01) indicating that higher performing supervisors perceived the need to get work done was not

dominating their role as a supervisor.

Therewere no differencesbetweenthe groups or significant correlations betweenpersonality style or the system

motivators and the performancemeasure.

There were no differences between the groups for each of the leadership dimensions. However, there were

correlations with the performance measure. Contingent Reward correlated significantly with
some significant
job performance for the operator supervisors scores (r-. 73, p<. 05) indicating that high performing operator

have a transactional leadership style i. e., work objectives are reached by the follower because of
supervisors
from the leader. Management by Exception (Active) correlated significantly
mutually agreed rewards with the
(r=. 48, Ol) for the contractor supervisors and the performance
performance scores p<. measure. This finding

that high performing contractor supervisors take corrective action and intervene when there are issues
suggests

116
 OffshoreSupervisors QuestionnairePlatform UKI Results

the workplace. Management by Exception (Passive) also correlated significantly with the contractor
at
(r-. 39, p<.05) suggesting that high performing contractor supervisors do not take
performance measure
until problems become really critical. This finding is contrary to the previous one and as such
corrective action
further investigation to understandthese inconsistentresults.
may require

There were no significant correlations with the performance measure and each of the attitude scale dimensions.

Significant differences, however, were found on three of the items between the mean scores for, contractor and
Item 4 (The offshore supervisor is not a key figure in reducing loss and increasing profit)
operator supervisors.

was "disagreed more strongly" by the operator supervisors than the contractor supervisors suggesting that'

operator supervisors perceived themselves as more critical to business performance than the contractor

15 (The the Offshore Safety Division of the HSE does not make me feel safe) was
supervisors. Item existence of
"disagreed more strongly" by the contractor supervisors. This could indicate that the Offshore Safety Division

has made the contractor supervisors feel safer about their roles. Item 16 (If supervisors did not take risks now

job done) was "disagreed more strongly" by the contractor supervisors. This
and again the would not get
finding suggests that operator supervisors more than contractor supervisors believe that there is an element of

taking risks in order to progress work.

DISCUSSION

The differences between the operator supervisors and the contractor supervisors were examined above.

Although the sample sizes were small, there were some interesting findings between the groups. As there were

biodata differences between the groups, the differences are likely to be related to the influence of the
no
While further investigation is required, the small
employer. The leadership results are slightly contradictory.
be exaggerating this finding. The supervisors' ratings of stress highlighted one of the key
sample sizes may
differences between a contractor and an operator. As stated earlier, this finding is diametrically opposed to the

findings of Sutherland (1994) and may reveal the impact that `partnering' and outsourcing has had on the

supervisor. Both the job satisfaction questionnaire and the WES explained the
changing role of an operator
finding that the physical work environment was rated more positively by the contractor than the operator

This indicate that there has been an improvement in the working conditions of the contractor
supervisors. may

may be attributable to the changing work culture offshore. Furthermore, the attitudinal
supervisors and again
highlight more differences between the groups. These findings may have been influenced by
scales appear to
culture i. e., the impact of raising the status of the outsourcing companies.
the changing offshore

117
 Chapter Six

6.8 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS

6.8.1 Regression Analysis

A regressionanalysis is a statistical techniquethat allows an assessmentof the relationship betweena dependent

variable and severalindependentvariablesand allows a prediction of the dependentvariable to be calculated on

the knowledge of one or severalindependentvariables.

Using stepwisemultiple regression(Norussis, 1994),the appraisal score (as the dependentvariable) and several
job satisfactionitems (as the independentvariables)were classified in Table 6.17.

Table 6.17
Stepwise Multiple Regression of the Performance Measure on 4 Job
Satisfaction Items
Independent Variable B Beta t Significance
Your chance of -1.61 -.44 -3.4 .
001
promotion (item 10)
The recognition for 1.23 45 3.16 003
. .
good work (item 4)
Your opportunity to use 85 32 2.19 03
. . .
your abilities (item 8)
Your hours of work -. 63 25 03
-. -2.1 .
(item 13)

constant 26.44 10.6 000

.
R Square =. 46 1 Adj R square = 407 Overall F=8.56 p<. 000
.

The regression analysis presented in Table 6.17 indicates that the job satisfaction items 10,4,8, and 13 explain
46% of the variation in the dependent variable. Item 10, `Your chance of promotion' contributes most to this

model. The multiple regression equation of performance upon job satisfaction items 10,4,8, and 13 is
Performance =-1.61x (item 10) + 1.23 x (item 4) +. 85 x (item 8) -. 63 x (item 13) + 26.44.

Therefore, higher performing supervisors will rate their satisfaction with `the recognition of good work' and

the opportunity to use their abilities' high and rate their satisfaction with `chances of promotion' and `hours of

work' low. There is, however, some intercorrelation between these job satisfaction items (item 4 and item 10,

352 01; item 8 and item 10, r=. 478, p<. 01; item 4 and item 8, r=. 478, p<. 01) suggesting the items are
r . p<.

measuring similar constructs.

*P

118
 OffshoreSupervisorsQuestionnairePlatformUK1 Results

Adding the variable Managementby Exception `Active' (MBEA) to the stepwisemultiple regression analysis
hasthe following effect. This is shown in Table 6.18.

Table 6.18
Stepwise Multiple Regression of the Performance Measure on 4 Job
Satisfaction Items and MBEA.
Independent Variable B Beta t Significance

Your chance of -1.6 -. 45 -3.9 000 's,

.
promotion (item 10)
The recognition for 1.12 41 3.1 003
. .
good work (item 4)
MBEA 26 31 2.9 006
. . .
Your opportunityto use 77 29 2.1 038
. . .
your abilities (item 8)
Your hours of work -. 55 -. 22 046
-2.1 .
(item 13)

Constant 23.11 9.03 000

.
R Square =. 56 Adj R square = 50 Overall F=9.82 p<. 000
.

The regressionanalysis presentedin Table 6.18 indicates that the job satisfaction items 4,8,10 and 13 and
MBEA explain 56% of the variation in the dependentvariable. Item 10 `Your chanceof promotion' contributes

most to this model. The multiple regressionequationof performanceupon job satisfaction items 4,8,10 and 13
and MBEA is

Performance =. 26x (MBEA) + 1.12 x (item 4) +. 77x (item 8) 1.63x (item 10) -. 55x (item 13) + 23.11.
-

Basedupon this equation, higher performing supervisorswill rate their levels of job satisfaction in the same

manneras outlined above but additionally will scorehigh levels of ManagementBy Exception `active'.

6.8.2 Intercorrelations among independent variables

While the correlational results outlined throughout the chapter focus on the level of association between the
i. appraisal measures and to a lesser extent peer nominations (dependent variables),
performance measures e.,
there were some interesting intercorrelations among the independent variables. These correlations indicate the

degree of overlap between the variables suggesting that they were measuring similar constructs. Some

examples are described below.

Innovation correlated significantly with the transactional item management by exception `active' (r-. 29, p<. 05)

indicating that supervisors who perceived the workplace as one where there is an emphasis on change are also

are active at the workplace and make decisions. Innovation also correlated significantly with
supervisors who
leadership variables; idealised influence (r=. 4, p<. 01), inspirational leadership (r=. 6,
the transformational

119
 Chapter Six

(r-. 56, p<.01) and individual consideration (r=. 43, p<.01). These findings
p<.O1), intellectual stimulation
indicate that supervisorswho perceive themselves as transformational in their approach to supervision perceive

that the workplace is a changing environment. This is also consistent with the dimensions of the MLQ.

Autonomy correlated significantly with individual consideration (r=. 33, p<.05). This finding suggeststhat

those supervisorswho felt empowered to make their own decisions also perceived themselves as workplace
leaders that motivated their employees through focussing on individual needs. Work pressure and stress
(r=. 51, p<. O 1) demonstrating that those who felt that the pressureof work dominatesthe
correlatedsignificantly
workplace also perceived their role to be stressful. _

6.9 CONCLUSION

These results obtained from the Offshore Supervisor Survey confirmed many, although not all, of the
This sample had the benefit of two job performance variables and therefore certain
performance predictions.
findings were more robust. For example, the WES item, innovation, identified that supervisors who perceive

rated as high performing supervisors by both peers and superiors. Also the two
change positively were
leadership items, inspirational leadership and management by exception `active' were found to discriminate

high performing supervisors by both performances measures, thus consolidating these findings. However, most

findings for the other independent variables such as job satisfaction, biodata, work environment and
of the
leadership produced weak correlations and from correlational analysis only it was difficult to describe the

definitive qualities of an effective supervisor. When the regression equations were calculated for these variables

job items and management by exception `active' explained 56% of the variation in the
a selection of satisfaction
dependent variable. This equation, therefore, indicates more accurately the factors that may describe an
In general, the quantitative analysis produced results that by default
effective supervisor on this platform.
describe the difficulties of undertaking this type of investigation. In particular, collecting the outcome measure

using peer nominations was extremely contentious in this environment and weak
of supervisory performance
between the dependent and independent variables also demonstrate the problems with this type of
correlations
field research. However, the qualitative responses may reveal clearer insights into what makes an effective

For "getting to know team", "listening skills" and a general upgrading of man-
supervisor. example,
indicate the areas where supervisors feel would improve their effectiveness. Finally, the
management skills
between the operator and contractor supervisors divulged aspects about the changing offshore
comparison
The differences between the two groups such as the mean scores for work pressure
environment. significant
indicate a significant departure from previous findings offshore suggesting that there has
and physical comfort
been a deterioration in the working conditions of operator supervisors, and consequently an improvement in the
the environment. These issues, in particular, show that while there are many aspects
contractors perception of
that remain static, there has been an evolution in the offshore culture.
of the offshore environment

120
 Offshore Supervisors QuestionnairePlatform UK1 Results

The next chapterdescribesthe findings for the secondoffshore platform in the main survey; UK2. The layout is
in
similar order to allow easycomparisonsbetweenthe two UK platforms.

- -;ý

121
 CHAPTER SEVEN

OFFSHORE SUPER\(ISORS QUESTIONNAIRE

PLATFORM UK2 RESULTS

!.

7.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the results from Platform UK2 and follows the same structure as the previous chapter.

The sample is small with only 30 subjects and therefore some of the statistical results should be treated
with
caution.

The resultswill be divided into the following sections:

Section7.2: Biodata and supervisoryjob performancemeasure
Section7.3: Offshore elementsand supervision
Section 7.4: Motivation

Section7.5: The offshore environment

Section7.6: Leadership
Section 7.7: Comparison between Operator and Contractor Supervisors

Section7.8: Multi-variate analysis

7.2 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

7.2.1 Demographic data

Datawere obtainedfrom three groupsof employeesworking on UK2. Thesewere:

f supervisors on the platform such as OIM, Operations Supervisor and the Services Company
senior
Superintendent (n=6)

f first line supervisorsthat worked for the operating company (n=9) and the service company (n=21). The
job titles included shift supervisor,discipline engineer, foreman and
supervisors' senior chargehand (n=30)
f techniciansfrom eachof the disciplines on the platform that reportgd to the various first line supervisors
describedabove(n=41)

122
 OffshoreSupervisorsQuestionnairePlatform UK2 Results

For the purposesof this discussion the group of first line supervisors will normally be referred to as simply
"supervisors". None of the supervisorswas female.

The modal age of the sample is between 36 and',47 years of age, with 73% of respondents being aged between

36 and 47 years of age. (See Table 7.1)

Table 7.1
Age supervisor
Age (years) 24-29 30-35 36-41 42-47 48-53 53 and over
Sample n(30) 0 2 12 10 5 1 "
ýi

Respondentswere askedhow long they had worked offshore. Of the 30 responses,77% had over 10 years of

offshore experience(m=13.13, s.d.=4.8, seeTable 7.2).

Table 7.2
Length of time working offshore
Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >15
n 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 4 1 2 1 2 3 10

The supervisorswere asked how long they had been in their current post of supervisor. Of the 30 responses,
37% had beenin post for 2 to 4 years(m=2.78, s.d.= 2.88, seeTable 7.3).

Table 7.3
Time in current post as supervisor
Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 >7
N 12 5 4 4 1 1 3

Respondents were asked how long they had been in supervisory roles. Of the 30 responses, 40% had between 3

6
and years of supervisory experience (m=8.4, s.d. = 6.7, see Table 7.4).

Table 7.4
Overall tenure as supervisor
Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >13
n 3 1 3 4 4 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 8

Respondents were asked What qualifications do you have? The pre-coded categories and the
percentage
for follows: School leaver (6.7), Oilfield qualifications
responses each were as only (26.7), School leaver and
(10), City Guilds (40), ONC, MAC or HND (16.6), University Degree (0) and Other
oilfield and e.g., Masters
Certificate (0).

123
 Chapter Seven

Respondents were asked Who did they report to? The percentage responses are listed in order of highest to

lowest: Mechanical/Instrument/Electrical Engineer (33.3), Maintenance Supervisor (23.3), OIM (16.7), Senior

Contractor Supervisor (13.3) and Operations Supervisor (13.3).

The influence of various demographic variables (age, offshore experience and specific supervisory experience)
(see section 7.2.2) was examined. Only length of time within current post as a
on the performance measure

supervisor correlated significantly with the performance measure (r-. 56, p<. 01). None of the other

demographic variables correlated significantly with the performance measure. - ,.

The analysis suggests that the more experienced supervisor, in terms of years, the better the supervisor's

performance rating. Finally, there are other aspects of the data which are of interest. The sample have

work (c360 years) and offshore supervisory experience (c220 years), and the majority of
considerable offshore
have some form of technical qualification such as City and Guilds, ONC, HNC or HND.
supervisors

PerformancePredictions
The performance predictions made in section 5.4.1 for these variables were only partially accurate. "Length of

time within current post as a supervisor", as predicted, discriminates supervisory performance but the other

"education and training" were not found to be useful predictors of performance.

variables such as

7.2.2 SUPERVISORYJob Performance Measure

Job performance ratings were collected for only 27 of the 30 supervisors. Three of the supervisors had recently

joined Platform UK2 and it was felt by their respective immediate superiors that it would be unfair to rate their
having a better understanding of their abilities as supervisors. Table 7.5 describes the
performance without
frequency and range for each of the performance indicators.

Table 7.5
Supervisors performance ratings
JOB PERFORMANCE 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean St.
INDICATORS Dev
Poor Outstanding

Technical/Specialist ability 0 1 2 18 4 2 4.1 0.8

Communication 0 0 11 13 2 1 3.7 0.7

Relationships 0 0 9 13 4 1 3.9 0.8

Managing Resources 0 0 14 9 4 0 3.6 0.7

0 1 15 7 4 0 3.5 0.8
Influencing others
0 1 12 10 3 1 jlý 0.9
Initiative g 3.7

Change Oriented 0 1 13 6 6 1 3.7 0.9

0 0 7 15 4 1 I
I I'; 4.0 0.8
Overall job performance
0 4 83 91 31 7
Total

124
 Offshore Supervisors QuestionnairePlatform UK2 Results

Cronbach'sco-efficient alpha was calculated to determine the internal reliability of the appraisal scale. The

closer the co-efficient is to 1, the greaterthe reliability. For the appraisal scale,Cronbach'sa =.926.

The job performance scale was used to discriminate different levels of performance among supervisors. The

ratings indicate that in the majority of cases,supervisorswere given ratings around the mid-point of the scale 3-
4 i.e., 'Performanceis entirely satisfactory'to 'A good performer'. Although the raterswere askedto use the full
length of the scale,there is a degreeof central tendencywithin the ratings. As a group, the highest ratings were
for TechnicaUSpecialistability and the lowest ratings were for Influencing Others.

7.2.3 IMAGES Occupational Personality Questionnaire

The IMAGES occupational personality questionnaire (SHL, 1993) produces scores on six personality
dimensionsand a social desirability scale. The range of possible raw scoresis from 8 to 40. A list of the means

and standard deviations on each dimension for the 30 supervisors is provided in Table 7.6. This table also
shows norm data and t-values which were calculated to test differences between the offshore sample and the
norm data means. The p. valuesindicate levels of significance of the t-values. The r values indicate the level of
correlation betweenthe personality dimensionsand the performancemeasures.

Table 7.6
IMAGES Occupational Personality Questionnaire

Dimension Description Mean St. Norm

Dev. Group
St t r7 rg
Mean Dev.

Imaginative conceptual. 27.8 4.4 25.1 4.6 22 02

-3.4 -. -.
innovative M

Methodical detail conscious, 30.2 3.8 27.6 4.6 37* 47*

-3.8 -. -.
conscientious

Achieving ambitious,sets 25.9 4.3 22.4 4.6 06 04

-3.5 -. .
sights high

Gregarious socially confident, 25.2 5.1 25.2 5.2 0 05 01

-. .
outgoing,aspects
of affiliative
Emotional relaxed, worrying, 28.4 4.3 27.5 5.4 11 03
-1.1 -. -.
tough minded
Sympathetic caring, warm, 29.3 4.1 28.4 4.1 03 04
-1.2 . -.
supportive
(**p<. 01, * p<.05)

As a group, the offshore supervisors scored highest on Methodical and lowest on the Gregarious dimensions.

Comparisons were examined statistically using the scale means and standard deviations for a general population

125
 Chapter Seven

group (n=2,951) provided by SHL (1993). Sample means for the dimensions Imaginative,
sample norm
Methodical and Achieving were all significantly higher than the norm population at the .01 level of significance.

Gregarious, Emotional and Sympathetic showed no significant differences with the norm data.

The UK2 supervisor's can be broadly described in the same manner as the UK1 supervisors as their scores are

very similar. As a group the supervisors are more conceptually oriented (Imaginative) than the comparison

This suggests that they have a preference for intellectually demanding tasks and perceive themselves as
group.
"ideas people". The supervisors score higher on the Methodical dimension than the norni group. The

ideally suited to jobs that require fine checking and attention to detail which are arguably
supervisors are

necessary qualities in a safety conscious offshore work environment. Perhaps, not surprisingly, the supervisors

highly than the onshore norm group on the Achieving dimension. High scorers on this dimension
score more
have a tendency to be ambitious, better leaders and have more drive, and as result are more likely to be

The sample also score more highly on the Gregarious dimension. Higher scorers on this dimension
promoted.
found in jobs that require a significant amount of interpersonal skills.
are usually

Methodical (r=-. 37, p<. 0S) was the only one of the personality dimensions that correlated significantly with the

performance measure. This suggests supervisors on UK2 who are less detail conscious receive higher

While this may not seem an immediate strength such a pattern does have benefits. For
performance ratings.
it has been argued that low methodical scorers have a better sense of proportion, "helicopter vision" as
example,
to "not being able to see the wood for the trees" than high methodical scorers (SHL, 1993).
opposed

PerformancePredictions
It was anticipated that the supervisor's scores for the personality dimensions would predict effective job

In many of the predictions were inconclusive as the correlations were small and not
performance. reality,
However, the prediction for methodical (high scores should predict effective job performance) is of
significant.
interest because a low score on this dimension appears to result in effective job performance.

7.3 OFFSHORE ELEMENTS AND SUPERVISION

This next section comprised of a series of open questions and a 20 item Likert style questionnaire. The open

the supervisor's current skills and training, and the Likert scale addressed other factors that
questions concerned
role such as leadership style, offshore safety and commercial concerns. The percentage
affect the supervisor's
from of the items from the Likert scale are described in Table 7.7. Higher means represent more
responses each
the indicated by `P' or more "disagreement" with the statement indicated by `N'
"agreement" with statement

(the scores were reversed for negative statements).

126
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnairePlatform UK2 Results

Table 7.7
Offshore elements and supervision
Supervision %rating % rating % rating % rating % rating
and safety variable M S. D
Agree Agree Neither Disagree Disagree
strongly slightly agree nor slightly strongly
disagree
1 The offshoresupervisor'smain role is that of "fire 23.3 16.7 3.3 23.3 33.3 2.7 1.6
fighter" e. g.. making many rapid decisions. (P)

2 The offshore supervisor is pushed from above and 40 33.3 6.7 16.7 3.3 3.9 1.2
belowat the sametime. (N)
3 On this platform, the best supervisory style is 43.3 33.3 6.7 13.3
. 3.3 4 1.2
authoritarianwith autocraticovertones.(P)
4 The offshore supervisor is not a key figure in reducing 3.3 6.7 0 16.7 73.3 4.5 1
loss and increasing profit. (P)

5 The best supervisory style is to provide firm leadership 80 20 0 0 0 4.8 0.4

and direction to employees. (P)
6 The offshore supervisor has become another specialist 36.7 46.7 3.3 10 3.3 4 1.1
whose main concernis organisingand lookingafter
his/herworkers.(N)
7 The offshore supervisor should not have the status of 6.7 3.3 3.3 36.7 50 4.2 1.1
first line management (P)

8 Staff reports and appraisals do not invite honest and 6.7 20 0 50 23.3 3.6 1.2
open criticism within the offshore environment. (N)
9 The offshore supervisor should be a team leader. (N) 53.3 40 0 6.7 0 4.4 0.8
10 Man management is less important than technical ability 43.3 33.3 0 23.3 0 4 1.2
for an effectiveoffshoresupervisor. (P)
11 Offshore supervisors play a key role in the success of 56.7 36.7 6.7 0 0 4.5 0.6
"partnering".(N)
12 The future success of the offshore oil industry depends 50 33.3 6.7 3.3 6.7 4.2 1.1
heavily on the man management skills of all offshore
supervisory roles. (P)
13 Most supervisors sometimes turn a blind eye to the 0 23.3 6.7 33.3 36.7 3.8 1.2
strict safety rules to get the job done on time. (N)
14 The permitto work systemensuressafe working.(N) 23.3 40 3.3 33.3 0 3.5 1.2
15 The existence of the Offshore Safety Division of the 0 36.7 10 33.3 20 3.4 1.2
HSE does not make me feel safe. (P)
16 If supervisors did not take risks now and again the job 0 23.3 0 26.7 50 4 1.2
wouldn't get done. (P)
17 Most accidents just happen - there's not much you can 70 16.7 3.3 6.7 3.3 4.4 1.1
do about it. (P)

18 The permit to work system is just a way of covering 0 16.7 3.3 26.7 53.3 4.2 1.1
people'sbacks. (N)
19 There are certainlyrisks workingoffshore.(N) 66.7 23.3 3.3 6.7 0 4.5 0.9
20 The role of the supervisor is not dominated by 10 6.7 0 43.3 40 2 1.3
paperwork.(P)

All of the supervisors agreed, either slightly or strongly, that the best supervisory style is to provide firm

leadership and direction to employees (item 5) and over ninety percent agreed, either slightly or strongly, that

the offshore supervisor should be a team leader (item 9). Almost ninety percent disagreed, either slightly or
the supervisor should not have the status of a first line manager (item 7). Over
strongly, that offshore ninety
percent agreed, either slightly or strongly, that offshore supervisors play a key role in the success
of

127
 Chapter Seven

"partnering"

(item 11). 'Permit to Work', the 'Offshore Safety Division' and other offshore safety issues were rated positively

by the sample.

Respondentswere asked What do you consider to be your best asset in your supervisory capacity? The

percentageresponsesare describedbelow.

Response % of total responses

Developingrelationshipswith team 22.5

.t
k.
job experience 22.5

planningand organisation 19.4

Achieving results 9.6

Communication 6.5

Motivational skills 6.5

team leader 3.2

Delegation 3.2

attitude to safety 3.2

personal initiative 3.2

Respondentswere asked Have you had non-technical training for your role as a supervisor? The percentage

responsesare listed below.

Response % of total responses

No 30.5

basic supervisory skills 22.2

NVQ/ECITB 16.7

health & safety 11.1

team leaders course 8.3

internal company course 5.5

man management training 5.5

128
 Offshore Supervisors QuestionnairePlatform UK2 Results

Respondentswere asked What skills do you use currently that were taught at the training course (mentioned

above)? The percentageresponses

are describedbelow.

Response % of total responses

not applicable 42.5

dealing with people 22.5

Safety 10
Communicationskills 7.5

report writing 5
i"

try not to be emotional 5

problem solving 2.5

time management 2.5

legal courses 2.5
Respondents were asked Which aspects ofyour job do you feel require more training and why? The percentage

responses are described below.

Response % of total responses

Supervisorytraining 34.2
Technical skills 31.6
Commercial/budget training 10.5

Legislation 10.5

None 7.8

Planning 5.2

The respondents were asked Have you had any commercial or financial training as a supervisor? The majority

of supervisors had no previous training (82.9%) with the remainder responding that they had attended an

internal company course. The respondents were asked Do you wish to be promoted and if yes into which

position? The responses were Yes, next one up (77.8%) and No (22.2%)

Asa group, a large majority of UK2 supervisors have had no commercial or financial training. Over 60% of the

supervisors described "developing relationships with team", "job experience" and "planning and organisation"

as the three most important assets in their supervisory capacity, and yet only about a third of supervisors had

any training that reflected these needs. "Supervisory training" was the most requested training need with

"technical skills" the next highest response.

129
 Chapter Seven

7.4 MOTIVATION

This next section examined motivation. It included a standard scale on job satisfaction (Warr et al, 1979), a

group of open questionsconcerning supervision and two closed questionsthat asked the respondentto rate six
"systemmotivators" on a six point scale.

7.4.1 Job Satisfaction

The 16 item self report job satisfaction scale by Warr, Cook & Wall (1979) was used to measure both extrinsic'
.;
and intrinsic factors associated with job satisfaction for both supervisors and technicians (n=41). A detailed

breakdown is shown in Table 7.8. Each respondent was asked to rate how satisfied or dissatisfied they felt on a

seven point Likert type scale. Total scores are obtained by summing the ratings. This table also shows norm
data and t-values which were calculated to test differences between the offshore supervisors and the technicians.

4 jlw

130
 Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire Platform UK2 Results

Table 7.8
Job Satisfaction (Warr et al, 1979)

Job Satisfaction Supervisors Technicians

(n=30) (n=41)

ITEMS Mean St. Mean St. t r7 r8

Dev. Dev.
The physical work conditions 3.8 1.4 4.6 1.1 3.1 13 17
. .
w:
The freedom to choose your own 4.4 1.3 4.9 1.4 2.1 13
I
09
. .
method of working
w
Your fellow workers 5.1 1.1 5.9 0.8 4 22 14
-. -.
ww

The recognitionyou get for good work 4.4 1.6 4.4 1.4 0 19 14
-. -.
Your immediate boss 5.4 1.5 5.5 1.2 0.4 21 05
-. -.
The amount of responsibilityyou are 5.1 1.5 4.7 1.3 16 03
-1.5 -. -.
given
Your rate of pay 4.8 1.3 2.9 1.6 35 24
-8.1 -. -.
ww

Your opportunity to use your abilities 4.7 1.5 4.4 1.5 12 05

-1.1 -. -.
Industrial Relations between 3.2 1.7 2.5 1.4 01
-2.3 -. -. 07
management and workers in your firm wr

Your chance of promotion 4.0 1.7 3.4 1.3 24 12

-2 -. -.
The way your firm is managed 3.5 1.1 3.5 1.2 0 06 02
. -.
The attention paid to suggestions that 4.4 1.3 4.1 1.5 -1.3 -.06 .
02
you make
Your hours of work 4.4 1.4 4.6 1.2 0.3 18 09
. .
The amount of variety in your job 4.9 1.1 4.1 1.5 03 14
-0.8 . .
Your job history 4.8 1.3 4.4 1.2 22 21
-1.7 . .
Your job as a whole 4.8 1.2 4.7 1.2 06 05
-0.5 . -.
Total score 71.7 22 68.6 20.8 -0.3
(**p<. 01, * p<.05)

As a group, the offshore supervisors score highest on the item that concerns their satisfaction associated with

their immediate boss and score lowest on the item that concerns their satisfaction with the industrial relations

between management and workers in your firm. As a group, the technicians score highest on the item that

their associated with their fellow workers and score lowest in terms of satisfaction of the
concerns satisfaction
industrial relations between management and workers in your firm. There were some significant differences

between the supervisors and the technicians scores. Item I (physical work conditions), item 2 (freedom to

working) and item 3 (your fellow workers) were rated with higher levels of satisfaction
choose own method of
by the technicians than the supervisors. Item 7 (rate of pay) and item 9 (industrial relations) were both rated

131
 Chapter Seven

with lower levels of satisfaction by the technicians than the supervisors. None of the job satisfaction items

correlated significantly with the performance measure.

PerformancePredictions
It was predicted that high scores on certain job satisfaction items would predict effective job performance.
However, none of the correlationswas significant and therefore the predictions were inaccurate.

7.4.2 System Motivators

Each supervisor was asked to rate on a seven point scale from 1 (not effective) to 7 (highly effective) the
following items: promotion, disciplinary action, praise, pay, job pride and time off in terms of how effective

eachwere as a motivating influence on them as supervisors. Their responses are describedin Table 7.9

Table 7.9
System motivators
System % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating M SD
motivator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Promotion 10 10 10 10 23.3 23.3 13.3 4.5 1.9

Disciplinary 20 33.3 16.7 10 6.7 10 3.3 2.9 1.7
action
Praise 3.3 3.3 3.3 10 26.7 46.7 6.7 5.2 1.3

Pay 0 3.3 0 13.3 30 26.7 26.7 5.6 1.2

Job Pride 0 0 0 0 16.7 53.3 30 6.1 0.7

Time off 0 10 3.3 6.7 36.7 23.3 20 5.2 1.5

The supervisorsperceivethat promotion, praise, pay, job pride and time off were effective as motivators for in

the offshore environment for the role of a supervisor. Disciplinary action was not perceived as a an effective

motivator.

132
 Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire Platform UK2 Results

to
The supervisorswere also asked rate the same items in terms of how effective they were at motivating their

team at work. These are

responses describedin Table 7.10.
shift or

Table 7.10
System motivators
System % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating M SD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
motivator
Promotion 13.3 3.3 13.3 26.7 33.3 6.7 3.3 4.0 1.6

Disciplinary 13.3 30 13.3 10 16.7 16.7 0 3.4 1.7_

I.
action
Praise 0 3.3 10 13.3 20 40 13.3 5.2 1.3

Pay 0 3.3 3.3 10 20 30." 33.3 5.7 1.3

Job Pride 0 0 3.3 20 36.7 33.3 6.7 5.2 1

Time off 0 6.7 0 3.3 23.3 53.3 13.3 5.6 1.2

The supervisors rated the motivators in terms of how they motivated their technicians and the results were
broadly similar, Pay was seenas the most effective motivator and Disciplinary action was seenas the least.

The respondentswere asked What are the main challengesfor an offshore supervisor in terms of motivating his

The are describedbelow.

shift? percentageresponses

Response -- % of total responses

uncertaintyof future/mistrustof management 31.6

getting team involved in jobs 26.3

routine of the place 21

job security 13.1

team building 7.8

The respondents were asked What motivates you to perform better? (Give 3 examples) Job satisfaction, praise
for 57.9% of the total responses. The other 42.1% included comments such as money,
and promotion accounted
building a good team, time off and being self motivated. Intrinsic
meeting targets, more responsibility,
job praise and promotion were described by the majority of supervisors as
motivators such as satisfaction,

factors that would motivate them to perform better. These findings, like those of UK1, concur with another

by Burnett and Tait (1996).

recent offshore study on motivation

133
 Chapter Seven

7.5 THE OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT

7.5.1 The work environment scale

The Work Environment Scale is an instrument for measuring the social -psychological characteristics of a work

setting (Moos & Billings, 1991). A list of the means and standard deviations on each dimension for 30

supervisors is provided in Table 7.11. The range of possible raw scores is from 1 to 9. This table also shows

norm data and t-values which were calculated to test differences between the offshore sample and the norm data

means, and correlations between work environment and performance.

134
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnairePlatform UK2 Results

Table 7.11
The Moos et al (1974) work environment scale
Offshore Supervisors (N=30) Norm Group
Dimension Description Mean St. Mean St. t r7 rg
Dev. Dev.

Relationship

Involvement the extent to which 4.7 2.4 5.9 1.4 2.7 27

-. -. 28
employees are concerned
".
about and committedto their
jobs
Peer Cohesion the extent to which 6.1 1.6 5.7 1.2 37 31
-1.4 -. -.
employees are friendly and
supportive of one another
Supervisor Support the extent to which 5.9 1.9 5.7 1.4 09 13
-0.6 -. -.
managementis supportive
of employees and
encourages employees to
be supportive of one another

Personal Growth

Autonomy the extent to which 4.0 1.3 5.5 1.2 6.3 01 04

-. -.
employees are encouraged
to be self sufficientand to
make their own decisions
Task Orientation the degree of emphasison 5.1 2.0 5.9 1.3 2.2 14
. -.03
good planning,efficiency,
"
and getting the job done
Work Pressure the degree to which the 5.9 1.9 4.4 1.4 35 39"
-4.3 -. -.
pressure of work and time
urgencydominatethe job
milieu
SystemMaintenance
and System Change
Clarity the extent to which 5.0 1.7 5.6 1.3 2 04 03
employees know what to . .
expect in their daily routine
and how explicitly rules and
policies are communicated
Control the extent to which 7.6 1.2 4.9 1.3 04 06
-12 . -.
management uses rules and
pressures to keep
employees under control
Innovation the degree of emphasis on 4.1 2.0 4.4 1.5 0.8 57 46"
-. -.
variety, change, and new
approaches
Physical Comfort the extent to which the 2.6 1.3 4.9 1.4 9.7 15 29
physical surroundings . .
contribute to a pleasant
work environment_
I
(**p<. Ol, * p<. 05)

135
 Chapter Seven

As a group, control and peer cohesion are the highest scoring dimensions. The supervisors describe the

offshore work environment as having a high degree of pressure and time urgency to get jobs done, they feel that

managementuse rules and pressureto keep employees under control, there is little emphasison variety and

change,and the physical surroundings do not contribute to a pleasant work environment but there is a strong

cooperativeculture betweenthe employees.

The difference between the onshore norm group and the supervisors was also examined. - Involvement,

Autonomy, Task Orientation and Physical Comfort were all rated significantly lower by the supervisors than the ',

norm group. These particular items provide quantitative evidence to support many of the qualitative comments

about the offshore work environment such as "difficult to push staff offshore" and the need for "better cabin

accommodation". Control and Work Pressure were both rated significantly higher by the supervisors than the

norm group. These findings again re-iterate the differences between an onshore and an offshore work

environment particularly because of the work cycle and the safety demands required offshore.

The influence of the supervisory perceptions of the work environment on the performance measure was

examined. Only Innovation (r--. 56, p<.01) showed a significant correlation with the performance measure.
This may suggestthat the higher performing supervisor perceives that the work environment is not changing
is
and remaining stagnant. Alternatively, lower performers may be particularly sensitive to ongoing changes.

Respondentswere asked What has been the single biggest change in the offshore oil industry in recent years?
The percentageresponsesare reportedbelow.

Response Frequency

HSE/CullenInquiry 55.3
increasing financial constraints 21

Outsourcing 15.8

PTW 2.7

safety is getting worse 2.7

leave cycle has got worse 2.7

136
 Offshore Supervisors QuestionnairePlatform UK2 Results

Respondentswere asked What two suggestions would you make to improve the life offshore? The table

percentageresponsesare describedbelow.

Response % of total responses

better relaxationfacilities 25

work only 12 hours 20

better cabin accommodation 17.5

worker involvement 17.5

quicker responsefrom onshore 5

ýi
reduce paperwork 5

More money, take TVs out of cabins, too much change and more phones to phone home were other suggestions.

Performance Predictions

It was anticipated that high scores for Task Oriented, Involvement, Supervisor Support, and Work Pressure

would predict effective job performance, but due to small and non significant correlations these predictions

were not fulfilled.

7.5.2 Stress of the job

Stressassociatedwith the role of the supervisorwas askedusing a five point scale. The responsesare described
in Table 7.12.

Table 7.12
Stress of the job as supervisor
Item labels % Rating each item
(m=3.3, s. d. =0.7)

Not at all stressful 3.3

Rarely stressful 3.3
Mildly stressful 56.7

Considerably stressful 36.7

Extremely stressful 0

The majority of the sample rate the role of the supervisor as fairly stressful, in fact 36.7% judged their job as

considerably stressful. The stress scores were correlated with the performance measure and analysis shows that

there was not a significant association between the stress rating and performance.

137
 Chapter Seven

The respondents were asked What is the biggest cause of stress for most offshore supervisors? The percentage

responses are described below.

Response % of total responses

to progress work 28.6

the work environment 14.3

Changing priorities 14.3

amount of paperwork 14.3

hours of work 11.4

man management 8.6

nothing really 2.8

team not being competent 2.8

office accommodation 2.8

The respondentswere asked What is it that worries most offshore supervisors? The percentageresponsesare
describedbelow.

Response % of total responses

safety 60.7
Helicopter travel 9
Unemployment 9

Legislation and paperwork 9

being away from home 3

the unknown 3
failing to meet targets 3
the weather 3

The supervisors rated the Cullen Inquiry and resulting legislation as the single biggest change in the offshore

environment. Given the inherent difficulties of the offshore work environment, it is not surprising that the

physical surroundings are rated by the supervisors as not contributing to a pleasant work environment. The

suggestions for improving life offshore are to improve relaxation facilities, work only 12
supervisors main
hours at a time, have better cabin accommodation and increase worker involvement. As with UKI,

"progressing work" was mentioned as the biggest source of stress for most offshore workers.

138
 Offshore Supervisors QuestionnairePlatform UK2 Results

7.6 LEADERSHIP

This section containeda seriesof open questionsand a standardleadership questionnaire. The open questions
1
were designedto allow the supervisorto describewhat he or she felt were effective supervisory behaviours,and
the structured questionnaire was used to provide a quantitative perspective of the leadership style of the
supervisor. In completing the leadershipquestionnairethe respondentwas asked to rate himself or herself on a
five point scale as to how frequently they displayed the type of behaviour described in each statement. The
higher the mean score, the more of the leadership behaviour is displayed. The leadership questionnaire
..
contained 87 leadershipbehaviour statements. The results for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire are
describedin Table 7.13 followed by the supervisor'sresponsesfrom four open questions concerning effective
leadershipstyles.

Table 7.13
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1993)
MLQ Factors Descriptors No. of Mean St. Dev r7 r8
items

Attributed Charisma Extent of charismaassociatedto 8 2.7 0.5 08 07

-. -.
leadershipbehaviour
Idealised Influence Builds confidenceand trust; 10 2.8 0.5 18 22
-. -.
attracts a following;has much
referent power

Inspirational Leadership Raisesexpectationsand beliefs 10 3.0 0.5 21

-. -. 15
concerningthe missionand vision
Intellectual Stimulation Challengesold assumptionsand 10 2.8 0.4 27
-. -19
stimulatesnew ideas
Individual Consideration Determinesindividualneeds and 10 2.7 0.5 -.41 -.48'
raisesthem to higherlevels
Contingent Reward Clarifiesobjectivesand exchanges 9 2.4 0.6 07 24
rewards for performance
-. -.

Management by Takes correctiveactionwhen 7 2.3 0.6 54 52

-. -.
Exception mistakes occur; disciplines when
necessary. Active ** **

Management by Takes correctiveactionwhen 7 0.7 0.5 25 28

Exception mistakes occur disciplines when . .
necessary. Passive
Laissez-faire leadership Is not aroundwhen needed 7 0.5 0.5 06 06
-. -.
Extra effort Extra effort generatedby leader 3 2.8 0.7 16 15
. .
Effectiveness Leader'sperceivedeffectiveness 4 2.7 0.5 34 35
-. -.
Satisfaction Satisfactionwith one's leadership 2 3.1 0.9 11 06
. .
(**p<. Ol, * p<. 05)

As a group, the supervisors scored highest on the transformational item, inspirational leadership, and lowest on

the laissez-faire item. The scores obtained for each dimension from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

the job performance measure. Individual Consideration (r=-. 41, p<. 05) and Management
were correlated with

139
 Chapter Seven

by Exception 'Active' (r-. -54, pß. 01) both negatively correlated with performance. Supervisors that obtain

higher job performance ratings are scoring both lower on the transactional dimension, management by exception

'active' and the transformational dimension, individual consideration. The leadership style that appears most

effective on this platform is where the supervisor allows the status quo to exist and when mistakes occur takes

no action until the problem is really serious. This leadership style is combined with a leader who

simultaneously takes little interest in the individual needs of his team. In other words, this leader is so detached

from the workplace that it is arguable whether they have a leadership style that has any impact.

The respondentswere asked What three similar characteristics would define a large group of effective

supervisors? The percentage are

responses describedbelow.

Response % of total
responses

good communicators 23.5

technical knowledge 23.5

self assured 14.7

Extroverts 11.7
easy going 8.8

good company men 8.8

Ambitious 5.8
cynical about senior management 2.9

The respondents were asked From your own experience what was it that an effective supervisor does which

do The percentage responses are listed below.

others not?

Response % of total responses

discusses job with team 32.3

plans and organises 14.7

accepts responsibility 11.8

motivates his team 11.8

mutual respect "no stripes in swamp" 8.8

uses experience 5.9

makes decisions 5.9

gets results 2.9

good delegators 2.9

140
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnairePlatform UK2 Results

The respondents were asked If you could do whatever you liked without penalty, what leadership style would
how would you describe it? The percentage responses are listed below.
you choose and

Response % of total responses

be more personal,create better relationships 16.7

be firm but fair 16.7

open style no secrets 16.7

create incentivesfor team 11.1

_ -ý
group leadership style 8.3

superviseby example 8.3

create interest in job 8.3"

Paternalistic 8.3

be more forceful, direct and autocratic 5.6

The respondentswere asked What is it that is most critical to being an excellentfirst line supervisor? The

percentageresponsesare listed below.

Response % of total responses

know the capabilities of workforce 28.6

good leadership 14.3

response under pressure 10.7

broad technical knowledge 10.7

Organisation 10.7

rapid decision and action 7

safety awareness 3.6

helps the workforce to alleviate problems 3.6

Charisma 3.6

helicopter vision 3.6

attention to detail 3.6

The results of these four questions show that knowing the capabilities of the workforce is the most critical skill

'Good leadership', 'response under pressure', 'broad technical knowledge' and

of an excellent supervisor.
'organisation' were the other main factors that the sample felt would be relevant to being an excellent first line

'Discusses job with team', 'plans and organises', 'accepts responsibility' and 'motivates team' were
supervisor.
four that the sample of supervisors felt were exhibited by effective supervisors when they
the top attributes

themselves were being supervised.

141
 Chapter Seven

PerformancePredictions
As with Chapter Six, there were mixed results for these leadership predictions. Individual Consideration, a

variable of transformational leadership was not anticipated to be a predictor of effective leadership but low

scores for this variable did discriminate supervisory performance. The other transformational items did not

discriminate supervisory performance with the appraisal measure. Management by Exception 'Active, a

variable of transactional leadership, was incorrectly found to be a discriminator of effective supervisory

performance. In fact, low scores for this variable resulted in higher appraisal ratings on this platform. It was

predicted that high scores of laissez-faire type leadership would result in lower scores of joh performance, but

none of the correlations was significant and therefore the predictions were inconclusive.

7.7 COMPARISON BETWEEN OPERATOR AND CONTRACTOR

SUPERVISORS

The data set was also split betweenoperator (n=9) and contractor (n=21) supervisors and differences between
these groups are also examined. Results for the platform UK2 split by operator and contractor are described
below. (The correlationswith the performancemeasure are calculated using a data set of 7 for the operators

and 21 for the contractors).

Table 7.14
Operator and Contractor differences for appraisal data
Group n mean sd t

Operator 7 30.6 6.8

Contractor 21 30.2 5.2 0.15
(""p<. 01, " p<.05)

The table indicates that there was no difference between the superiors of the groups in using the appraisal

instrument of their supervisors.

There was not a significant difference between the groups in rating their roles as stressful. There was also no
between their scores for stress and the performance measure.
significant association

There are no differences between the groups on any of the biodata dimensions. There are, however, significant
between the length of service of a supervisor (Operator and Contractor) in their current role and the
correlations

measure. This suggests that their superiors associate length of service as a supervisor with higher
performance
job performance which may indicate a cultural preference about the offshore industry i. e., that it is comfortable

familiarity and length of service has no direct relationship to job performance.

with

142
 Offshore Supervisors QuestionnairePlatform UK2 Results

The operatorsupervisorswere found to be more satisfied with the amount of variety in their jobs than contractor

supervisors(5.8 vs 4.6, t=2.9, p<.01). This finding reflects the levels of job responsibility between the two

groups as some of the operator supervisors will be in charge of the work undertaken by the contractor

supervisors. There was also a significant negative.correlation between the operator supervisor's satisfaction
scoresfor Your fellow workers and the performance measure (r=-. 78, p<.05). This suggeststhat the higher
performing operator supervisorsare less satisfied with their fellow workers, and while motivated, ambitious
high performing supervisorsmay rate their fellow workers in this way. The data set is small and this result

should be treatedtentatively. .E

The comparison of the WES scores between operator and contractor supervisors describe some interesting

differences. Control is significantly different (6.7 vs 7.9, t=-3.2, p<. 01) with the contractor supervisors

perceiving that upper management use more rules to keep employees under control than do operator

supervisors. This finding is similar to the one described earlier with regard to the differences in job satisfaction.
Involvement (contractor supervisors) positively correlated significantly with the performance measure (r-. 59,

p<. 05) indicating that higher performing supervisors are more committed to their roles than poorer performing

supervisors. Innovation ratings correlated significantly with both operator and contractor scores for

performance. Higher performing operator supervisors perceived the working environment to be static and
displayed little change (r=-. 77, p<. 05). On the contrary, higher performing contractor supervisors perceived

that there was an emphasis on change and new approaches were encouraged (r=. 59, p<. 05). This finding may

suggest distinct differences in management style between the two companies, although the data set is small and

this finding should be regarded as illustrative rather than conclusive.

There were no significant differences between the groups for personality style. The operator supervisors scores

for Methodical correlated negatively with the performance measure (r=-. 75, p<. 05) indicating that the less

detailed conscious supervisor is a higher performing one. While addressing the small data set caveat, this

finding is indicative of the culture on this platform where the operator supervisor is tasked more with "big

picture" work issues than the contractor supervisors.

The contractor supervisorsrated Time Off significantly higher (5.6 vs 4.2, t= -2.6, p<.05) as a motivator than the

operator supervisors. Given that the offshore work cycles of operator personnel are generally more favourable

than contractor personnel this is hardly a surprising finding. There were no significant correlations between
thesedimensionsand the performancemeasure.

The contractor supervisors rated Disciplinary Action (3.8 vs 2.2, t=-2.5, p<. 05) as a significantly more effective

motivating their teams than the operator supervisors. This finding again highlights aspects of the
way of
as well as differences between the two groups. The contractor supervisors also rated Time
offshore work culture
Off (5.8 vs 4.9, t=-2.2, p<. 05) as an effective motivator when motivating their teams. The reasons for this are

probably similar to the one outlined above.

143
 Chapter Seven

There were no differences between the groups for each of the leadership dimensions. However, there were
between the operator supervisors and the performance measure. (None of the
some significant correlations
correlated with the performance measure). As mentioned earlier these
contractor supervisor scores significantly
findings have to be treated with some caution becluse of the small numbers involved in the analysis. Idealised

Influence (r=-. 75, p<. 05), Inspirational Leadership (r=-. 83, p<. 05), Individual Consideration (r=-. 81, p<. 05)

(Transformational) and Management by Exception `Active' (r=-. 93, p<. 01) (Transactional) all correlated

negatively with the performance measure. This suggests that this most effective leadership, style on this

for is contrary to the current trends in the leadership literature i. e., that a
platform operator supervisors
dictatorial, non-listening, aggressive task oriented leadership style receives higher performance ratings. These

findings may illustrate more about the current work culture on this platform or even the management style of

the superiors than the actual leadership style of the operator supervisors.

There was only one significant difference between the mean scores for the contractor and operator supervisors

for the attitudinal scale. This was for item 6 (The offshore supervisor has become another specialist whose

is and looking after his/her workers) (4.3 vs 3.4, t=-2.1, p<. 05) and indicates that the
main concern organising
that the role of supervisor is becoming more and more man-management
contractor supervisors perceive

oriented. There were also some significant correlations between three of the item scores for the contractor
There were no significant correlations between the operator
supervisors and the performance measure.
Item 6 (The offshore supervisor has become another specialist
supervisors and the performance measure.

whose main concern is organising and looking after his/her workers) negatively correlated with the

performance measure (r-. 48, p<. 05) suggesting that supervisors who perceived their role as retaining a hands-

were rated as higher performers. Item 7 (The offshore supervisor should not have the
on technical component

status of first-line management) negatively correlated with the performance measure (r=-. 51, p<. 05) signifying

that higher performing supervisors feel that the supervisor should remain supervising and not move up
as above

the management chain. Item 14 (The permit to work system ensures safe working) negatively correlated with

the performance measure (r=-. 57, p<. 05) suggesting that those supervisors who disagreed with the statement

higher ratings. Perhaps their responses are implying that it is the application of the
received performance
is important and not the system itself or even that high performing supervisors were not happy with
system that

the system.

7.8 MULTI-VARIATE ANALYSIS

7.8.1 Regression Analysis

(Norussis, 1993), the appraisal score as the dependent variable and two
Using stepwise multiple regression
MBEA and WES "Innovation" were classified in Table 7.15.
independent variables,

144
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnairePlatform UK2 Results

Table 7.15
Stepwise Multiple Regression of the Performance Measure on MBEA and WES
"Innovation"
Independent Variable B Beta t Significance
Innovation -1.03 -. 44 -2.6 013
.
Management by -. 41 -. 38 029
-2.3 .
Exception 'Active'

constant 37.18 13.16 000

.
R Square = 46 Adj R square = 413 Overall F=9.8 p<. 000*
. . ,.. "
ýiý

The regression analysis presented in Table 7.15 indicates that the independent variables 'MBEA' and
'Innovation' explain 46% of the variation in the dependent variable. `Innovation' contributes most to this

model. The multiple regressionequation of performanceupon 'MBEA' and 'Innovation' is

Performance = -1.03 x (Innovation) -. 41 x (MBEA) + 37.18.

Therefore,higher performing supervisorson UK2 will scoreboth low for `MBEA' and for `Innovation'.

7.8.2 Intercorrelations among independent variables

As discussedin section 6.8.2, there were some interesting intercorrelations among the independentvariables.
These correlations indicate the degree of overlap between the variables suggesting that they were measuring

similar constructs. Someexamplesfound on UK2 are describedbelow.

Work pressure correlated significantly with intellectual stimulation (r-. 37, p<. 05) indicating that supervisors

who perceived the workplace as dominated by pressure to get things done were also supervisors who liked to

suggest new ones. Task orientation correlated significantly

challenge old methods and with idealised influence
(r=. 33, p<. 05) suggesting that supervisors who perceived themselves as building trust among their employees

with their `charisma' also liked to emphasise good planning and getting the job done.

7.9 CONCLUSION

This results obtained from the Offshore Supervisor Survey were similar to the previous chapter, but there were

distinct differences. The findings for this sample were calculated using the traditional measure of
some

performance i. e., superior appraisal ratings, and also given the small sample size, the findings should be treated
The predictions also had mixed results, and-in particular, the leadership findings
with care. performance were

contrary to the predictions.

145
 Chapter Seven

On UK2, the results show that the effective supervisors display leadership behaviours that are counter intuitive.

The workplace leaders are remote from the workplace and surprisingly for this environment show minor

concern for the individuals in their teams. Furthermore, the finding for the WES item, Innovation, indicated

that the higher performing supervisor perceives a work environment that is 'standing still' and combined with

the leadership behaviours may indicate a more old fashioned style of supervision than exists on UKI. However,

the qualitative responses from the supervisors reveal insights that are at odds with these quantitative findings.
For example, "discussing job with team" and "accepts responsibility" describe behaviours more in tune with the

leadership literature than with the findings from this platform. -

"Length of time within current post as a supervisor", as predicted, discriminates supervisory performance but

the other biodata variables were not found to be useful predictors of performance. It was anticipated that the

supervisor's scores for the personality dimensions would predict effective job performance, but only the

prediction for methodical (high scores should predict effective job performance) is of interest because a low

score on this dimension appears to result in effective job performance. The predictions for the other key

independent variables; job satisfaction, and the other WES items were not significant and therefore the

predictions were inaccurate. When the regression equations were calculated for these variables `MBEA' and
`Innovation' explained 46% of the variation in the dependent variable. This equation, therefore, indicates more

accurately the factors that may describe an effective supervisor on this platform, and in this example, the higher

performing supervisors on UK2 will score both low for `MBEA' and for `Innovation'. Finally, the comparison

between the operator and contractor supervisors divulged aspects about the changing offshore environment.

One finding in particular outlines potential differences in the management style of the two companies. The

WES item, Innovation, significantly correlated with the performance measure for both groups but in opposite

directions suggesting distinct differences in the management style of the two companies.

The next chapter describes the findings for the third offshore platform in the main survey; NI. The layout is

in to allow easy comparisons between the three platforms.

similar order

4.

146
 CHAPTER EIGHT

OFFSHORE SUPERVISORS QUESTIONNAIRE

PLATFORM Ni RESULTS

8.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the results from the Norwegian Platform, Ni, and follows a similar structure as the

previous two chapters. A comparison between the UK sample and the Norwegian sample will be discussed in
Chapter Nine. The sample is small with 19 subjects and therefore some of the statistical results should be

treated with caution. All of the standard scales were translated into Norwegian, including the appraisal scale,

exceptfor the personalityquestionnaire.

8.2 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

8.2.1 Demographic data

Data were obtained from the groups of employees working on platform NI operated by Company E. Three

separate groups made up the data set. These were:

f the offshore installation manageron the platform (n=1)

f first line supervisors that worked for the operating company (n=19)

f techniciansfrom each of the disciplines on the platform that reported to the first line supervisorsdescribed

above(n=20)

For the purposesof this discussionthe group of first line supervisors will normally be referred to as simply
"supervisors". All the supervisorswere employedby the operator, Company E.

All the supervisors interviewed were male. The majority were aged between 42-53 years. (See Table 8.1)

145
 Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire Platform N1 Results

Table 8.1
Age of supervisor
Age (years) 30-35 36-41 42-47 48-53 53 and over
Sample n(19) 2 6 3 7 1

Respondentswere asked how long they had worked offshore, 53% had between 10 and 13 years of offshore

experience(m=12.12, s.d.= 4.01, seeTable 8.2).

Table 8.2
Length of time working offshore
Years 5 6 7 8 9 101 11 121 13 14 15 >15

n 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 3

The supervisorswere asked how long they had been in their current post of supervisor. Of the 19 responses,
42% had beenin post for five to more than eight years (m=7.66, s.d=5.1, seeTable 8.3).

Table 8.3
Time in current post as supervisor
Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1>811

N 1 3 0 1 2 1 3 8

Respondentswere asked how long they had been in supervisory roles, 42% had between 9 and 14 years of
(m=11.3, s.d =7.04, seeTable 8.4).
supervisoryexperience

Table 8.4
Overall tenure as supervisor
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 191 101 11
Years 1 11 12 >13
n 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 2 2 0 7

Respondents were asked What qualifications do you have? The pre-coded categories and the percentage

for as follows: School leaver (15.8), Oilfield qualifications only (21.1), School leaver and
responses each were
(26.3), ONC, HNC or HND, (Norwegian equivalent) (15.8), University Degree (10.5) and Other eg
oilfield
Masters Certificate (10.5). Respondents were asked Who did they report to? The percentage responses for

listed in order of highest to lowest: OIM (90), Operations Supervisor (5) and Electrical
each category are
Supervisor (5).

146
 Chapter Eight

The influence of various demographics variables (age, offshore experience and specific supervisory experience)

on the performance measure (see section 8.2.2) was examined. None of the demographic variables correlated

significantly with the performance measure. The analysis suggests that biodata such as age (r-. 02)
and
N
experience(r=.-13) are not predictors of high job performanceratings.

Performance Predictions

As stated above, the findings showed that "Previous work experience" and "Education and training" were not

predictors of effective job performance.

8.2.2 Supervisory job performance measure

Job performanceratings were collected for all 19 supervisors. Table 8.5 describesthe frequency and range for

eachof the performanceindicators.

Table 8.5
Supervisors' performance ratings
JOB PERFORMANCE 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean St.
INDICATORS Dev
Poor Outstanding
Technical/Specialist ability 0 0 1 2 10 6 5.1 0.8
Communication 1 4 5 6 3 0 3.3 1.2
Relationships 0 5 2 5 5 2 3.8 1.4
Managing Resources 0 0 3 11 4 1 4.2 0.8
Influencingothers 1 3 9 2 4 0 3.3 1.1
Initiative 0 3 4 8 4 0 3.7 1.0
Change Oriented 2 6 5 4 2 0 2,9 1.2
Overall job performance 0 3 4 4 8 0 3.9 1.1

Total 4 24 33 42 40 9

Cronbach's co-efficient alpha was calculated to determine the internal reliability of the appraisal scale. The
is to 1, the greater the reliability.For the appraisal scale, Cronbach's a
closer the co-efficient =. 847. The job
to discriminate different levels of performance among supervisors. The spread of
performance scale was used
data appears to indicate the scale served its purpose. As a group, the highest ratings
were for
Technical/Specialist ability and the lowest ratings were for Change Oriented. Both UKI and UK2 scored
for highest ratings but each platform recorded different indicators for low
similarly the ratings; UKI - Initiative,
11K2 - Influencing Others.

147
 Offshore Supervisors QuestionnairePlatform N1 Results

8.2.3 IMAGES Occupational Personality Questionnaire

The IMAGES occupational personality questionnaire (SHL, 1993) produces scores on six personality

dimensions and a social desirability scale. The rapge of possible raw scores is from 8 to 40. A list of the means

and standard deviations on each dimension for the 19 supervisors is provided in Table 8.6. This table also

shows norm data and t-values which were calculated to test differences between the offshore sample and the

norm data means. The p. values indicate levels of significance of the t-values. The r values indicate the level of

correlation between the personality dimensions and the performance measures. (r7 is the composite

performance measure and rg is the overall performance measure.) Unless otherwise stated the composite-

performance measure (r7) is only discussed in the text.

Table 8.6
IMAGES Occupational Personality Questionnaire
Dimension Description Mean St Dev. Norm Group
Mean St Dev. t r7 r8

Imaginative conceptual, innovative 25.5 3.9 25.1 4.6 -0.4 03 -. 07

.
Methodical detail conscious, 29.4 3.5 27.6 4.6 08 01
-2.2 . .
conscientious

Achieving ambitious,sets sights 23.8 3.8 22.4 4.6 06 18

-1.6 . .
high
Gregarious socially confident, 24.9 3.9 25.2 5.2 0.3 01 14
. -.
outgoing, aspects of
affiliative
Emotional relaxed, worrying, 24.9 3.8 27.5 5.4 2.9 14 25
. .
tough minded **
Sympathetic caring, warm, 29.3 4.1 28.4 4.1 27 15
-0.9 . .
supportive
(**p<. Ol, * p<.05)

As a group, the offshore supervisors scored highest on Methodical and lowest on the Achieving dimensions. As

with the UK sample, comparisons were examined statistically using the scale means and standard deviations for
UK sample norm group (n=2,951) provided by SHL (1993). Methodical
a general population was significantly
higher than the norm population at the .05 level of significance. This finding suggests that they are ideally

jobs fine checking and attention to detail, which are arguably

suited to that require necessary qualities in a
Emotional was significantly lower than the norm population at
safety conscious offshore work environment.
the 01 level of significance. The supervisors scored lower on the Emotional dimension than the norm group.
.
"Low scorers" are relaxed and untroubled. It is argued that they are difficult to motivate because they do not

about things, but simultaneously they are unlikely to 'crack' under tense conditions. Imaginative,
worry
Gregarious and Sympathetic showed no differences with the UK norm data. It be
11chieving, should noted that
data and not Norwegian.
these are British norm

148
 Chapter Eight

None of the personality ratings correlated significantly with the performance measure. The analysis suggests

that personality as measuredby IMAGES is not predicting high job performanceratings. Sympathetic(r-. 27)

was the highest correlation with the performancemeasurebut it was not significant.

PerformancePredictions
As stated above, the findings showed that the personality dimensions of IMAGES were not predictors of

effectivejob performance.

8.3 OFFSHORE ELEMENTS AND SUPERVISION

This next section comprisedof a series of open questions and a 20 item Likert style questionnaire. The open

questionsconcernedthe supervisor'scurrent skills and training, and the Likert scale addressedother factors that
affect the supervisor'srole such as leadership style, offshore safety and commercial concerns. The percentage

responses from each of the items from the Likert scale are described in Table 8.7. Higher meansrepresentmore
"agreement" with the statementindicated by `P' or more "disagreement" with the statement indicated by `N'
(the scores were reversed for negative statements).

ýw

149
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnairePlatform N1 Results

Table 8.7
Offshore elements and supervision
Supervision and safety variable % rating % % rating % rating % rating M SD
Agree rating Neither Disagree Disagree
strongly Agree agree slightly strongly
slightly nor
disagree
I The offshore supervisors main role is that of "fire 15.8 21.1 0 42.1 21.1 2.7 1.5
fighter" e. g making many rapid decisions. (P)

2 The offshoresupervisoris pushedfrom above and 42.1 31.6 0 26.3 0 3.9 1.2
below at the same time. (N)

3 On this platform, the best supervisory style is 57.9 26.3 5.3 10.5 . 0.4
4.3 1.0
authoritarian with autocratic overtones. (P) i'

4 The offshoresupervisoris not a key figure in 0 21.1 0 31.6 47.4 4.1 1.2
reducingloss and increasingprofit. (P)
5 The best supervisory style is to provide firm 31.6 47.4 5.3 " 15.8 0 3.9 1.0
leadership and direction to employees. (P)

6 The offshoresupervisorhas become another 21.1 42.1 15.8 15.8 5.3 3.6 1.2
specialist whose main concern is organising and
looking after his/her workers. (N)

7 The offshoresupervisorshould not have the status 10.5 15.8 10.5 31.6 31.6 3.6 1.4
of first line management.(P)
8 Staff reportsand appraisalsdo not invite honest 10.5 31.6 5.3 52.6 0 3 1.2
and open criticism within the offshore environment.
(N)

9 The offshore supervisor should be a team leader. 73.7 26.3 0 0 0 4.7 0.5
(N)
10 Man management is less-important than technical 0 15.8 31.6 36.8 15.8 3.5 1.0
ability for an effectiveoffshoresupervisor.(P)
11 Offshoresupervisorsplay a key role in the success 42.1 42.1 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.1 1.1
of "partnering". (N)

12 The future successof the offshoreoil industry 26.3 52.6 5.3 15.8 0 3.9 1.0
depends heavily on the man management skills of
all offshore supervisory roles. (P)

13 Most supervisorssometimesturn a blind eye to the 0 5.3 0 36.8 57.9 4.5 0.8
strict safety rules to get the job done on time. (N)
14 The permit to work system ensures safe working. 47.4 47.4 0 5.3 0 4.4 0.8
(P)

15 The existence of the Offshore Safety Division of the 5.3 10.5 5.3 57.9 21.1 3.8 1.1
HSE does not make me feel safe. (Norwegian
equivalent) (P)
16 If supervisors did not take risks now and again the 15.8 31.6 15.8 31.6 5.3 2.8 1.2
job wouldn't get done. (P)

17 Most accidents just happen - there's not much you 73.7 21.1 0 5.3 0 4.7 0.8
can do about it. (P)
18 The permit to work system is just a way of covering 0 0 0 10.5 89.5 4.9 0.3
people's backs. (N)
19 There are certainly risks working offshore. (N) 15.8 5.3 5.3 68.4 5.3 3.4 1.2
20 The role of the supervisor is not dominated by 5.3 15.8 10.5 47.4 21.1 2.4 1.2
paperwork. (P)

Most of the supervisors felt that the best supervisory style is to provide firm leadership
and direction to
employees (item 5) and all of the supervisors agreed, either slightly or strongly that the
offshore supervisor
be team leader (item 9). A significant majority (84.2%) agreed, either slightly or strongly that on their
should a

150
 Chapter Eight

platform (item 3) the best supervisory style is authoritarian with autocratic overtones. 'Permit to work', the
'Offshore Safety Division' and other safety issueswere rated positively by the sample.
Respondents were asked What do you consider to be your best asset in your supervisory capacity? The

percentage responses are listed below.

Response % of total responses

Job experience 55

Honesty 15

Planningand organisation 10
Listening 10
loyalty to team & company 5
safety practices 5

Respondentswere asked Have you had any non-technical training for your role as a supervisor? The
percentageresponsesare describedbelow.

Response % of total responses

Consultants supervisor course 50

Supervisorycourses 22.2
None 22.2

Leadershiptraining from airforce 5.6

Respondentswere asked What skills do you use currently that were taught at the training course (mentioned

above)? The percentageresponsesare listed below.

Response % of total
responses
None 26

Negotiation& discussion 17
Employee involvement 16
Motivation 10.5
being open and honest 10.5

decision making 5
time management 5
Confidence 5
Planning 5

151
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnairePlatform N1 Results

Respondentswere asked Whichaspectsof your job do you feel require more training and why? The percentage

are
responses describedbelow.

Response % of total
responses
Nothing 43

new equipment 19
Coachingskills 19
Leadership 10

computer training 4

industrialrelations 4
The respondentswere asked Have you had any commercial or financial training as a supervisor? The

responseswere yes (53%) and no (47%).

The respondents were asked Do you wish to be promoted and if yes into which position? The responses were

No (50%), Depends on location (28%) and No, if it meant moving to Stavanger (22%).

As a group, the supervisorshave had some sort of man-managementtraining and the majority have had some

commercial training. Almost half of the supervisorswere satisfied with their current skill profile and although
the majority did not want promotion as it may mean relocation to Stavanger.
somewere ambitious,

8.4 MOTIVATION

This next section examined motivation. It included a standard scale on job satisfaction (Warr et al, 1979), a

questions concerning supervision and two closed questions that asked the respondent to rate six
group of open
"system motivators" on a six point scale.

8.4.1 Job satisfaction

The 16 item self report job satisfaction scale by Warr, Cook & Wall (1979) was used to measure both extrinsic

factors with job satisfaction for both supervisors and technicians (n=20). A detailed
and intrinsic associated

breakdown of the scores for both is shown in Table 8.8. Each respondent was asked to rate how satisfied or

dissatisfied they felt with various aspects of their job on a seven point Likert type scale. Total scores are

by the ratings. This table also shows norm data and t-values which were calculated to test
obtained summing
differences between the offshore supervisors and the technicians. The p. values indicate levels of significance

The values indicate the level of correlation between the supervisor's job satisfaction items and
of the i-values. r

the performance measures.

152
 Chapter Eight

Table 8.8
Job Satisfaction (Warr et al, 1979)
Job Satisfaction Supervisors Technicians
(n=19 (n=20)

ITEMS Mean St. Mean St. t r7 r8

Dev. Dev.

The physical work conditions 5.4 0.9 4.6 1.1 09 09

-3.9 . .

The freedom to choose your own method 5.7 0.4 4.9 1.4 -8.7 -. 13 .
05
of working N .. '1

Your fellow workers 5.8 1.0 5.9 0.8 0.4 38 22

. .
The recognition you get for good work 4.8 1.2 4.4 1.4 06 06
-1.4 . .
Your immediate boss 5.3 0.8 5.5 1.2 1.1 07 27
. .
The amount of responsibility you are given 5.8 0.5 4.7 1.3 -9.6 -. 34 -. 22

Your rate of pay 5.6 1.0 2.9 1.6 -11.8 -. 11 .

01

Your opportunity to use your abilities 5.3 1.2 4.4 1.5 11

-3.3 -. -. 22
N

Industrial Relations between 4.5 1.3 2.5 1.4 21

-6.7 22
. .
management and workers in your firm

Your chance of promotion 4.8 1.3 3.4 1.3 -4.7 -. 11 -. 09

The way your firm is managed 4.4 1.2 3.5 1.2 14 15

-0.9 . .
The attention paid to suggestions that you 5.3 0.8 4.1 1.5 01 11
-6.5 -. .
make
.s

Your hours of work 5.6 1.2 4.6 1.2 -3.6 -. 25 -. 25

The amount of variety in your job 5.1 0.9 4.1 1.5 16 02

-4.8 . .

Your job history 5.5 0.8 4.4 1.2 07

-6 . -. 06

Your job as a whole 5.5 0.5 4.7 1.2 -6.9 -. 07 .

01

""

Total score 84.4 15 68.6 20.8 -4.6

(**p<. Ol, * p<.05)

"

153
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnairePlatform N1 Results

The supervisors are more job satisfied than the technicians. There is a significant difference between the

supervisors' and the technicians' total mean scores at the 99% confidence interval. The supervisors rate their

satisfaction with almost all the items significantly higher than the technicians. As a group, the offshore

supervisors score highest on the items that concern the satisfaction associated with their fellow workers and the

amount of responsibility they are given. They score lowest in terms of satisfaction in terms of the way that their
f irm is managed. The mean score of the technicians' group (n=20) was 68.6 which was signif icantly lower than

the supervisors at 84.4 (p<. 01). As a group, the technicians score, like the supervisors, highest on the item that

concerns their satisfaction associated with their fellow workers and score lowest in terms of the industrial

relations between management and workers in your firm. When job satisfaction and performance were

correlatednone of the items were significant.

Performance Predictions

As stated above, the findings showed that none of the job satisfaction items was a predictor of effective job

performance.

8.4.2 System Motivators

Each supervisor was asked to rate on a seven point scale from I (not effective) to 7 (highly effective) the
following items: promotion, disciplinary action, praise, pay, job pride and time off in terms of how effective

eachwere as a motivating influence on them as supervisors. Their responsesare describedin Table 8.9

Table 8.9
System motivators for supervisors
System % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating M SD
motivator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Promotion 5.3 10.5 5.3 26.3 31.6 15.8 5.3 4.4 1.5
Disciplinary 0 15.8 31.6 21.1 15.8 15.8 0 3.8 1.3
action
Praise 0 5.3 0 26.3 47.4 15.8 5.3 4.8 1.1

Pay 0 0 26.3 5.3 42.1 26.3 0 4.7 1.1

Job Pride 0 0 0 5.3 21.1 68.4 5.3 5.7 0.7

Time off 0 0 5.3 15.8 31.6 47.4 0 5.2 0.9

'Ehe supervisors perceive that promotion, praise, pay, job pride and time off were effective as motivators in the

offshore environment for the role of a supervisor. Disciplinary action was not perceived as an effective

motivator
,.

The supervisors were also asked to rate the same items in terms of how effective they were at motivating their
These responses are described in Table 8.10.
shift or team at work.

154
 Chapter Eight

Table 8.10
System motivators for technicians
System % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating % rating M SD
motivator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Promotion 0 5.3 10.5 36.8 36.8 5.3 5.3 4.4 1.1

Disciplinary 0 26.3 21.1 36.8 5.3 10.5 0 3.5 1.3

action
Praise 0 5.3 0 21.1 42.1 31.6 0 4.9 1.0

Pay 0 0 5.3 5.3 52.6 36.8 5.2 0.8

Job Pride 0 0 0 5.3 36.8 42.1 15.8 5.7 0.8~

Time off 0 0 10.5 15.8 10.5 52.6 10.5 5.4 1.2

The supervisors rated the motivators in terms of how they motivated their technicians and the results were
broadly similar, Job Pride was seen as the most effective motivator and Disciplinary action was seen as the
least.

The respondents were asked What are the main challenges for an offshore supervisor in terms of motivating his

The table below outlines the percentage responses which are listed in order of highest to lowest.
shift?

Response % of total responses

well motivated as it is 27

inconsistent higher management 16

time from idea to action is too long 11

no feedback 11

Making the team understand company philosophy, external environment, planning and organisation, bypass

to overtime, everything, paperwork and budgets were the other responses.

rigid system give

The respondents were asked What motivates you to perform better? (Give 3 examples) Feedback, job pride,

feelings of success and pay accounted for 61% of the total responses. The other 39% included comments such

results, teamwork, improving safety, trust, taking your own decisions and praise.
as spare time, showing

While many of the supervisors are well motivated, higher management were criticised for being a factor that

from motivating his shift. The time it takes to implement ideas takes too long and no
prevents a supervisor
feedback were other challenges that prevented the supervisor from motivating his shift. Intrinsic motivators

feedback, job pride and feelings of success were described by the majority of supervisors as factors that
such as
them to perform better.
would motivate

155
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnairePlatform N1 Results

8.5 THE OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT

8.5.1 The work environment scale

The Work Environment Scale is an instrument for measuringthe social-psychological characteristicsof a work

setting(Moos & Billings, 1991). 1

.L

A list of the meansand standarddeviations on eachdimension for the 19 supervisorsis provided in Table 8.11
The range of possible raw scores is from I to 9. This table also shows norm data and t-values which were

calculatedto test differences between the offshore sample and the norm data means. The p. values indicate
levels of significance of the t-values. The r values indicate the level of correlation between the work

environmentdimensionsand the performancemeasures.

156
 Chapter Eight

Table 8.11
The Moos et al (1974) work environment scale
Offshore Supervisors (N=19) Norm Group

Dimension Description Mean St. Mean St. t r7 r8

Dev. Dev.

Relationship

Involvement the extent to which employees 7.9 0.7 5.9 1.4 -12.4 -.38 -.35
are concerned about and
committedto their jobs
Peer Cohesion the extent to which employees 7.7 1.2 5.7 1.2 38 31
-7.3 . .
I.

are friendly and supportiveof

one another

SupervisorSupport the extent to which 7.5 0.9 5.7 1.4 09 01

- -8.7 . -.
management is supportive of
employeesand encourages
employees to be supportive of
one another

Personal Growth

Autonomy the extent to which employees 5.6 1.1 5.5 1.2 -0.4 -. 05 -. 12
are encouragedto be self
sufficient and to make their own
decisions
Task Orientation the degree of emphasis on good 7.3 0.9 5.9 1.3 -6.8 -. 19 -. 07
planning,efficiency,and getting
the job done

Work Pressure the degree to which the 5.5 2.5 4.4 1.4 -1.9 -. 01 -. 26
pressure of work and time
urgencydominatethe job milieu
SystemMaintenanceand
System Change

Clarity the extent to which employees 5.2 1.5 5.6 1.3 1.2
know what to expect in their -.03 .
01
daily routine and how explicitly
rules and policiesare
communicated

Control the extent to which 6.3 0.9 4.9 1.3 28 31

-6.8 -. -.
management uses rules and
pressures to keep employees
under control

Innovation the degree of emphasis on 7.0 1.4 4.4 1.5 -8.1 -. 05 .

17
variety, change, and new
approaches

Physical Comfort the extent to which the physical 5.1 2.1 4.9 1.4 -. 41 -. 04 .
12
surroundings contribute to a
pleasant work environment

(**p<. Ol, * p<. 05)

As a group, the supervisors describe the offshore work environment as employing staff who are committed to

their roles, there are generally strong feelings of friendship and support among these staff, and while there is a

strong emphasis on tasks, management control and getting work done there is also a high degree of innovation

in the workplace. All these variables were significantly different from the norm
group. The influence of the

supervisory perceptions of the work environment on the performance measure was also examined. None of the
dimensions correlated significantly with the performance measure. This suggests that supervisory perceptions
do not discriminate between higher and lower job performance.
of the work environment

157
 Offshore Supervisors QuestionnairePlatform N1 Results

Respondents were asked What has been the single biggest change in the offshore oil industry in recent years?

The percentage responses are listed below.

Response Frequency

budgets/commercialinput 61
technical innovation 11.1

pollution 11.1

safety rules 5.6 r"

'i"

companybecoming more Norwegianand less American 5.6

more planning needed 5.6

Respondentswere asked What two suggestionswould you make to improve the life offshore? The percentage

responsesare listed below.

Response % of total
responses
Improve platform maintenance 16.5

stable work cycle 16.5

more recognition 11.1

transfer some tasks onshore 11.1

Move supervisors to Stavanger, I'm satisfied, better leadership training for everyone, improve planning, rotate

onshore and offshore people, produce oil not paper, lower retirement age and single cabins were other

suggestions.

PerformancePredictions
As stated above, the findings showed that none of the Work Environment Scale dimensions was a predictor of

effective job performance.

8.5.2 Stress of the job

Stressassociatedwith the role of the supervisorwas asked with a short closed question. The respondentrated
how stressfulthe role of the supervisorwas on a five point scale. The responsesare describedin Table 8.12.

158
 Chapter Eight

Table 8.12
Stress of the job as supervisor
Item labels % Rating each item
(m=3.6, s.d.=0.7)
Not at all stressful 0

Rarely stressful 5.3

Mildly stressful 36.8

Considerablystressful 52.6
Extremely stressful 5.3

The majority of the sample rate the role of the supervisor as fairly stressful, in fact almost 58% judged their job

as considerably or extremely stressful. The stress scores did not correlate significantly with the performance

measure.
The respondents were asked What is the biggest cause of stress for most offshore supervisors? The percentage

responses are described below.

Response % of total responses

commercialpressure 38.8

onshore giving offshore work 22.2

short term nature of work 16.7

lack of planning 11.1

making big mistake 5.6

quantity of work 5.6

The respondentswere asked What is it that worries most offshore supervisors? The percentageresponsesare
listed below.

Response % of total responses

accidentsfor anyone (safety) 52.3

changes in current situation 33.3

polluting the environment 4.8

goals of management being unrealistic 4.8

nothing,this is a good place to work 4.8

The supervisors judged that budgets/commercial considerations was the biggest single change in the offshore
Improve maintenance and having a stable work cycle were the two main suggestions that the
environment.
to improve life offshore.
supervisors' made

ýr

159
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnairePlatformNi Results

DISCUSSION

The biggest cause of stress for supervisors on NI was the need to meet the commercial demands on the platform

both UK rated the need to "progress work" as the most important. However, all three groups
whereas platforms
that and preventing accidents worried them most. Of particular interest though was
of supervisors agreed safety
distinct difference between the UK and Norway for the response about the biggest recent change within the
the
industry. In the UK, it was the impact of the Cullen Inquiry and in Norway it was the increasing influence of

their roles such as working with budgets. This may reflect a maturity difference between
commercialism within
the two sectors in that a new safety regime developed in the Norwegian sector after the Ale, iinder Kielland

did happen in the UK Piper Alpha in 1988. `

disaster (1982) and the same change not until after

8.6 LEADERSHIP

This section contained a series of open questions and a standard leadership questionnaire. The open questions

designed to the supervisor to describe what he or she felt were effective supervisory behaviours, and
were allow

the structured questionnaire was used to provide a quantitative perspective of the leadership style of the

In completing the leadership questionnaire the respondent was asked to rate himself or herself on a
supervisor.
five point scale as to how frequently they displayed the type of behaviour described in each statement. The

higher the mean score, the more of the leadership behaviour is displayed. The leadership questionnaire

87 leadership behaviour statements. The results for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire are
contained
described in Table 8.13 followed by the supervisor's responses from four open questions concerning effective

leadershipstyles.

160
 Chapter Eight

Table 8.13
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1993)
MLQ Factors Descriptors No. of Items Mean St. Dev r7 r8

Attributed Charisma Extent of charismaassociatedto 8 2.4 0.4 -. 16 -. 17

leadership behaviour

Idealised Influence Buildsconfidenceand trust; attracts 10 2.9 0.4 01 03

. .
a following; has much referent
power
Inspirational Leadership Raisesexpectationsand beliefs 10 2.6 0.5- -. 13 -. 02
concerning the mission and vision

Intellectual Stimulation Challengesold assumptionsand 10 2.8 0.5 12 22

. .
stimulates new ideas

Individual Consideration Determinesindividualneedsand 10 2:4 0.5 05 07

. .
raises them to higher levels

Contingent Reward Clarifiesobjectivesand exchanges 9 2.2 0.6 -. 17 -. 13

rewardsfor performance
Management by Takes correctiveactionwhen 7 1.7 0.5 -. 17 -. 29
Exception mistakes occur, disciplines when
necessary. Active

Management by Takes correctiveactionwhen 7 1.1 0.4 -. 17 -. 13

Exception mistakesoccur, disciplineswhen
necessary. Passive
Laissez-faire leadership Is not aroundwhen needed 7 0.7 0.4 26 27
. .
Extra effort Extra effort generatedby leader 3 2.2 0.4 -. 01 02
.
Effectiveness Leaders perceivedeffectiveness 4 2.2 0.4 19 11
. .
Satisfaction Satisfactionwith one's leadership 2 2.7 1.1 -.03 12
.
(**p<. O1, * p<. 05)

As a group, the supervisor's scored highest on the transformational item, idealised influence, and lowest on the

laissez-faire item. The scores for each dimension from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire were

the job performance measure. None of the performance measures correlated significantly with
correlated with
job performance. The MLQ did not discriminate between effective and less effective performance.

161
 Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire Platform Ni Results

The respondentswere asked What three similar characteristics would define a large group of effective
The percentageresponsesare listed below.
supervisors?

Response % of total responses

involving employees 18.8
listens to his team 15.6

motivates his team 15.6

good technical ability 12.5

get results within budget 12.5

open and direct 9.5

people worrying for their jobs 3.1

Age 3.1

making decisions 3.1

not membersof onshore clubs 3.1

working for some goal 3.1

The respondentswere askedFrom your own experiencewhat is it that an effectivesupervisor does which others
do not? The percentageresponsesare describedbelow.

Response % of total responses

good communication 18.6

Trust - 14.8

clear priorities 14.8

involves employees 14.8

knows why we are here 11.1

Planning 11.1
has solution to everything 7.4

he is one of them 3.7

takes decisions 3.7

162
 Chapter Eight

The respondentswere asked If you could do whateveryou liked without penalty, what leadership style would

you chooseand how would you describe it? The percentageresponsesare describedbelow.

Response % of total responses

involve employees 22.1

empowerment/delegating 16.7

a little less democratic 16.7

create job satisfaction 11.1

team style 11.1

be democratic 11.1

taking decisions 5.6

more authoritarian 5.6

The respondentswere asked What is it that is most critical to being an excellentfirst line supervisor? The

percentageresponsesare listed below.

Response % of total responses

set dear priorities 27.3

takes decisions 13.6

understandsthe environment 13.6

develops team confidence in himself 13.6

good communication skills 13.6

Honesty 9.1

involves team 4.6

he helps with problems 4.6

The results of these four questions show that setting clear priorities was perceived as the most critical skill of an

excellent supervisor. Communication, confidence, taking decisions and understanding the environment were

factors that the sample felt would be relevant to being an excellent supervisor. 'Communication', 'trust' and

'involving employees' were the top three attributes that the sample of supervisors felt were exhibited by
they themselves were being supervised.
effective supervisors when

PerformancePredictions
As stated above, the findings showed that none of the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire variables was a

predictor of effective job performance.

163
 Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire Platform N1 Results

8.7 MULTI-VARIATE ANALYSIS

There were no significant regression equations that could be calculated.

8.8 CONCLUSION

The results obtained from the Offshore Supervisor Survey for Ni were largely exploratory. TEe performance- -

predictions were inconclusive as none of them was significant. It should be noted that the relationships between

the variables were calculated using only one outcome performance measure (appraisal ratings) and the sample

size was small (n=19). There were, however, some interesting qualitative comments. For example, this sample
had received more supervisory training and more commercial training than the supervisors on the UK platforms,

and were consequently more satisfied with their skill profiles as supervisors.

The next chapter describesthe findings for the total sample as one group. The findings from the Supervisory
Decision Making Vignettes and the qualitative responsesfrom the Offshore Managersare also described.

*I

164
 CHAPTER NINE

OFFSHORE SUPERVISORS QUESTIONNAIRE

INTEGRATED RESULTS FROM

UK1, UK2 & N1

9.1 INTRODUCTION

This final results chapter will be divided into two sections: Multi-variate statistics will be presented and
discussed as a combined group of all three platforms from the main study in order to demonstrate common

characteristics of "supervisors" across the North Sea and secondly to show potential differences between both
Norway and the UK, and also any other platform differences. The results from the decision making vignettes

and the qualitative responses from the OIMs, Operations Supervisors and the "onshore experts" are also

presented and discussed in this chapter as a combined qualitative dataset as this would have more substance

compared to splitting them across the three platform chapters.

The resultswill be divided into the following sections:

Section9.2: Biodata, Job Satisfaction,WES, MLQ and the PerformanceMeasure
Section9.3: Open questionson supervision
Section 9.4: Platform Comparison

Section 9.5: Multi-variate analysis

Section9.6: Decision Making Vignettes UK1, UK2 & NI

Section9.7: SupervisoryEffectivenessModel

164
 Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire Integrated Results From UKI, UK2 & N1

9.2 BIODATA AND SUPERVISORYJOB PERFORMANCE MEASURE

Job performance ratings were collected for only 91 of the 100 supervisors. Six of the supervisors had recently

joined platform UK I and three had recently joined UK2, and it was felt by their respective immediate superiors

it
that would be to rate their performance without having a better understanding of their capabilities as
unfair
Table 9.1 describes the frequency and range for each of the performance indicators.
supervisors.

Table 9.1
Supervisors' performance ratings
JOB PERFORMANCE 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean St.
INDICATORS Dev
Poor Outstanding

Technical/SpecialistAbility 0 1 11 37 31 11 4.4
.9
Communication 1 8 25 36 20 1 3.8
.9
Relationships 0 6 26 39 16 4 3.8
.9
Managing Resources 0 2 37 36 15 1 3.7
.8
Influencing Others 1 7 40 28 15 0 3.5
.9
Initiative 0 12 28 38 12 1 3.5
.9
Change Oriented 4 10 31 32 13 1 3.5 1.1

Overall Job Performance 0 5 19 47 19 1 3.9

.8
Total 6 61 217 293 131 20

Cronbach'sco-efficient alpha was calculated to determine the internal reliability of the appraisal scale. The

the is to 1, the greater the reliability. For the first seven items of the appraisal scale
closer co-efficient
Cronbach's a =. 82.

The job as mentioned in the earlier results chapters, was used to discriminate different levels
performance scale,
among supervisors. Range scores showed that the scales were employed to almost full width.
of performance
The ratings indicate that in the majority of cases, supervisors were given ratings around the mid-point of the

3-4 i. 'Performance is entirely satisfactory' to 'A good performer'. Although the raters were asked to use
scale e.,
there is a degree of central tendency within the ratings. As a group, the highest
the full length of the scale,
for Technical/Specialist ability and the lowest ratings were for Change Oriented.
ratings were

165
 Chapter Nine

Table 9.2
Correlations between biodata and performance measure
Dimension Group n mean sd r7

UK1, UK2 100 4.45 1.13 -.08

1 Age of Supervisor t
& NI

2 Length of service in current role of UK1, UK2 100 3.71 3.76 17

.
supervisor(years) & NI

3 Length of service as a supervisor (years) UK1, UK2 100 7.97 6.16 £ .04
i
& NI

4 Length of service offshore (years) UK1, UK2 100 12.5 4.5 08

.
&N1

5 Span of control (e. g. no. of subordinates) UK1, UK2 100 9.56 7.39 03
.
&N1

(**p<. Ol, * p<.05)

(` 65% of supervisors were aged between 36 and 47 years old. Scoring scale in age groups:

`18-23'= 1, `24-29'= 2, `30-35'=3,`36-41'=4,'42-47'=S,'48-53'=6, '53 andover'=7.)

The combined group of supervisors' job performance scores (n=91) were correlated with each of the biodata
(see Table 9.2), the job satisfaction scores,WES scores,the MLQ scoresbut none of the correlations
responses
was significant.

Regression equations were calculated, but none were found to be significant. The absence of any effects could

be caused by pooling the total sample which may mask potential findings between the groups. This is supported

by both the specific platform findings described in earlier chapters and the finding described in section 9.5.2.

9.3 OPEN QUESTIONS ON SUPERVISION

The senior management on each of the platforms (UK 1, UK2, & Ni) visited during the main study were each

four Their responses and those of the onshore experts who were nominated by their
asked open questions.
as previously being excellent offshore supervisors, although now working
company's senior management
described below. The offshore group comprised of fourteen OIMs and Operations Supervisors,
onshore, are
and the total group (n=23,2 were Norwegian) shall be referred to as `managers'.
and nine onshore experts
Some managers provided more than one response.

166
 Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire Integrated Results From UK1, UK2 & N1

The managerswere askedWhatmakesa good supervisor? The responsesare listed below.

In descending frequency: Other responses include:

Good technically (14) Keeps big picture

Good communicator (10) Inquisitive mind

Inspiringloyalty and respect (8) Outgoing personality
Knowshis team (6) Displays common sense
Makes quick decisions (5) Creates trust

Good team builder (5) Sets high standards

Good listener (4) Takes in lots of information

Does not get flustered (3) Supports team.

The managers' responses indicate that communication skills, inspiring loyalty and respect from team are key to

being a good supervisor. Strong technical ability probably provides an essential foundation to these skills
which
was the most frequently mentioned response.

The managers were asked What makes a bad supervisor? The responses are listed below.

In descending frequency: Other responses include:

Poor communication (12) Poor organisation

Lacks commitment (6) Reacts without thinking

Sees only one problem (5) Has got favourites in team
Poor job knowledge (5) Gets only short term results

Uses the big stick (5) Gives unclear feedback

No respect from men (3)

Lacks man-management skills (2)

No team work (2)

Not surprisingly, the converse of what makes a good supervisor are described above. Lacking commitment in

the role provides a different perspective on gaining respect from subordinates as clearly loyalty and respect are
difficult to generate from the team if the leader is not fully committed.

167
 Chapter Nine

The managerswere asked What is the difference betweenan excellent supervisor and a very good one? The

responsesare listed below.

In descending frequency: Other responses include:

Self work standards are high (7) Accepts responsibilities

Keeps many "balls" in the air (5) Team builder
Has initiative (5) Flexibility

More managerial (3) Experience

ý
iý

Can empower team (3)

Organisationalskills (3)
Strongworking relationships (3)
Goodjob knowledge (2)

The main difference to this question compared to the responses collected at question one is the increased

emphasis on the excellent supervisor possessing genuine management skills. Technical skills, while still being

mentioned, are probably perceived as a given for an excellent supervisor.

The managerswere asked What skills will the supervisor of the future have? Their responsesare described
below.

In descending frequency: Other responses include:

Able to managechange (9) More IT skills
More commercially aware (6) More team work

The safety environment (6) Performs in spite of legislation

More managerial less technical (5)

Can manage multi-skilled team (4)

Looks for improvements (4)

High performer (3)

High self motivation (2)

The same themes are repeated as above except that change management, commercial skills and safety

managementare highlighted by the managersas key skills for the future.

The responses from the majority of managers indicate a certain consistency and are also cross border in

Descriptions of good supervisory behaviour are in generic terms similar to

agreement. good man-management
but insights from the experts about what they perceive as both
practice, there are some excellent and future

supervisory skills; managerial, commercial and change management skills.

168
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnaireIntegratedResults From UK1, UK2 & N1

9.4 PLATFORM COMPARISON

The correlations or levels of association between the performance measure (the dependent variable) and each of

the other variables (the independent variables) have been examined above and in the previous results chapters.

It is, however, the intention of this section to further explore the difference scores on the independent variables

in order to investigate whether there are any differences between the platforms. For example, it is predicted

there are likely to be differences between the UK platforms and the Norwegian platform, although it should be
be rather than cultural differences.
noted that these could company ýi

The next few tables describethe significant results from an analysis of variance of the key instrumentsused in

the survey. Table 9.3 describesthe results from an analysis of variance of the ättitude scale. Higher means

representmore "agreement" with the statement indicated by `P' or more "disagreement" with the statement
indicatedby `N' (the scoreswere reversedfor negative statements).

169
 Chapter Nine

Table 9.3
Analysis of variance of Supervision and safety attitudes
Supervision and safety variable Platform F ratio F Mean Levene
Prob. Statistic
5 The best supervisory style is to provide firm UKI 8.4 0004 4.65* 3.62*
.
leadership

and direction to employees. (P) UK2 4.8*

(chi-square =16.3, p=.0003) N1 3.95
12 The future success of the offshore oil industry UK1 5.39 006 4.63* --fi 2.28
.
depends . -.`
heavily on the man management skills of all UK2 4.17
offshore

supervisory roles. (P) N1 3.89

13 Most supervisors sometimes turn a blind eye UK1 7.23 0012 3.25 12.3**
.
to the strict

safety rules to get the job done on time. (N) UK2 3.8
(chi-square=11.18, p=.0037) Ni 4.47*
14 The permit to work system ensures safe UK1 3.68 028 4.11 3.14*
.
working. (P)
(chi-square= 7.99, p=.0184) UK2 3.5
Ni 4.37*
16 If supervisors did not take risks now and UK1 5.9 0037 3.8* 959
. .
again the job

wouldn't get done. (P) UK2 4.03*

N1 2.79
18 The permit to work system is just a way of UKI 3.03 05 4.39 9.09**
.
covering

people's backs. (N) UK2 4.17

(chi-square = 7.15, p=.0280) NI 4.89*
19 There are certainly risks working offshore. (N) UK1 19.23 0000 4.7* 10.23**
.
(chi-square= 30.12, p=.0000) UK2 4.5*
N1 3.4
20 The role of the supervisor is not dominated UK1 21.06 0000 3.7** 355
. .
by

paperwork.(P) UK2 2.03

N1 2.37
I, ý pý-.u-J)

There were twenty attitude statements used in the survey, but only the significant results are described here.

Where the Levene statistic is not significant, the variances of the three groups are assumed to be equal. (The

Levene statistic is a key assumption of the analysis

non-significant of variance procedure). Where this

assumption was violated a non-parametric analysis of variance (Kruskal Wallis test) was used. These chi-

significance levels are shown in brackets. In order to test differences between the groups the
squared values and

170
 OffshoreSupervisorsQuestionnaireIntegrated Results From UK1, UK2 & N1

Tukey's honestly significant difference was calculated and these results are shown in the `mean' column. This

test displays one asterisk to indicate significantly different group means at the 0.05 level and two show

differences at the 0.01 level. Items 5,13,14,16,18 and 19 all displayed significant differences between the UK
Ippear
Norwegian platform. These to be mainly relating to risk and safety attitudes. For
platforms and the
Item 13, Most sometimes turn a blind eye to the strict safety rules to get the job done on
example, supervisors
difference between the UK and Norway as N1's supervisors significantly
time, underlines a clear cultural

disagreewith this statementcomparedto the two UK platforms.

Surprisingly, there were some non-cultural differences. Items 12 and 20 displayed significant differences
betweenUK I and platforms UK2 and N1. The platform difference for Item 12 is of particular interest since the
UKI view the future successof the offshore oil industry more biased towards man-management
supervisorson
skills than the other two platforms' supervisors.

The next table (Table 9.4) describes the only significant difference in the mean personality scores between

UK2 UK1 and Ni with regard to the personality dimension "emotional". The small
platform and platform's
differences between the groups should be treated with caution.

Table 9.4
Analysis of Variance of IMAGES
IMAGES Platform F ratio F mean Levene
Prob. Statistic

Emotional UK1 3.65 029 27.33 586

. .
UK2 28.43*

N1 24.89

(**p<. 01, * p<.05)

implies that supervisors on UK2 may find `switching off from their roles difficult. As a group,
This finding
important events more than their counterparts on the other two platforms, but are easier to
they worry about
Although significant, the low score for Ni is a logical one. The Norwegian supervisors on NI
motivate. not
laid back in their approach to their roles. There remains, however, a strong note of caution with
appeared very
IMAGES throughout the survey has been a poor discriminator.
regard to this result as

describes of the key work environment differences between the platforms using the results from
Table 9.5 some

the WES meanscores.

171
 Chapter Nine

Table 9.5
Analysis of Variance of the Work Environment Scale
Work Environment Scale Platform F ratio " F mean Levene
Prob. Statistic
Autonomy UK1 9.35 0002 4.17 79
. .
UK2 4.03
N1 5.56**
Control UK1 11.39 0000 7.57* - 1.87
.
UK2 7.57" =.

N1 6.26
Innovation UK1 17.63 0000 3.67 4.78"
.
(chi-square= 25.5, p=.0000) UK2 4.1
Ni 7.0"
Involvement UK1 15.21 0000 4.86 12.49"
.
(chi-square = 26.63, p=.0000) UK2 4.76
N1 7.95"'
Peer Cohesion UK1 9.2 0002 5.62 9.11"
.
(chi-square=18.03, p=.0001) UK2 6.13
NI 7.73"
PhysicalComfort UK1 32.54 0000 1.94 4.44*
.
(chi-square = 28.85, p=. 0000) UK2 2.6
NI 5.1

SupervisorySupport UK1 7.6 0008 5.29 8.09**

.
(chi-square = 14.84, p=. 0006) UK2 5.93
N1 7.47"
Task Orientation UK1 11.43 0000 5.37 3.56*
.
(chi-square = 20.84, p=. 0000) UK2 5.1
N1 7.32**
(**p<. 01, " p<.05)

The WES results above have provided several key insights into the differences between the Norwegian Sector

the UKCS. The significant differences were all between the UK platforms and NI. This indicates that the
and
environment was broadly the same amongst the UK supervisors. Apart from the mean
perception of the work
for "Control" (where the UKI & UK2 were significantly higher than N1) all other dimensions were rated
scores
by Ni supervisor's scores significantly higher than the UK supervisors. Of particular interest were the results

for "Innovation", "Involvement" combined with "Task Orientation". These findings describe an offshore

culture of variety, change and empowerment while recognising the need to plan, be efficient and get tasks

completed. Attributes that senior onshore UK managers would probably like to see demonstrated on their

platforms.

172
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnaireIntegrated Results From UKI, UK2 & N1

The next table (Table 9.6) describesthe findings from undertaking an analysisof variance for the mean scores
for job satisfaction. (Higher scoresindicate more satisfaction).

Table 9.6
Analysis of Variance of Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction Platform F ratio F mean Levene
Prob. Statistic

1 The physical work conditions UK1 11.39 0000 4.72* 4.9-

.
(chi-square= 20.94, p=.0000) UK2 3.83
N1 5.42" . -ýi
2 The freedom to choose your own method of UK1 9.62 0002 5.35" 8.3"
.
working
(chi-square = 16.11, p=.0003) UK2 4.37
N1 5.73*

3 Your fellow workers UK1 4.32 015 5.5 806

. .
UK2 5.1

NI 5.8"
9 Your chance of promotion UK1 7.32 0011 4.09* 427
. .
UK2 3.26
N1 4.47'

12 Your hours of work UK1 3.37 038 4.56 4.01*

.
(chi-square= 6.14, p=.046) UK2 4.43
N1 5.31

13 The amount of variety in your job UK1 6.27

.
0027 4.2 3.33'

(chi-square = 13.14, p=.0014) UK2 4.4

N1 5.6"

Job Satisfaction Total UK1 6.62 002 83.5 2.46

.
UK2 77.03
N1 89.9*

(**p<. 01, * p<. 05)

The analysis of variance of the job satisfaction scores between the three platforms has identified a broadly

finding: the supervisors of NI have rated most items significantly higher than the two UK platforms.
consistent
This may be by the work rotation in Norway which results in employees working, in effect, four weeks
caused
compared to the UKCS where they typically work an even onshore/offshore cycle. UKI
out of every eleven

significantly more satisfied than UK2 supervisors with respect to their "physical work
supervisors appear
"freedom to choose own working" and "chances of promotion".
conditions",

*P

173
 Chapter Nine

Table 9.7 describesthe findings from comparing the mean scores for the biodata variables across the three

platforms.
Table 9.7
Analysis of Variance of Bio-data
Bio-data Platform F ratio F mean Levene
Prob. Statistic

Length of time in current post (months) UKI 17.12 0000 33.35 7.89"'
.
(chi-square = 17.5, p=. 0002) UK2 33.4. K
ýi
NI 91.89**

Overall time as a supervisor (months) UK1 4.87 0097 77.16 2.49

.
UK2 101.33
NI 136.05*
(**p<. 01, * p<.05)

The findings in Table 9.7 show that the N1 supervisors have significantly more experience as offshore

supervisors compared to the UK sample. Although, as with the results in Table 9.6, there may be a cultural
distinction underlying these findings. It should be noted that the biodata variables did not discriminate

supervisory job performance.

Table 9.8 describes the results of comparing the mean scores of two transactional leadership variable scores

acrossUKI, UK2 and Ni.

Table 9.8
Analysis of Variance of Leadership
Leadership Variable Platform F ratio F Tukey- Levene
test
Prob. Statistic

Management by Exception 'Active' UK1 5.12 007 15.5* 82

. .
UK2 16.1'
Ni 12.2

Management by Exception 'Passive' UK1 3.15 047 6.1 3.39*

.
(chi-square = 9.1, p=. 0105) UK2 4.8 ±ýj

N1 7.6"
(**p<. OI, * p<.U-!
O)

tJK2 supervisors are significantly quicker to take corrective action when something goes wrong compared to

both UK] and NI. With UKI supervisors more proactive to correct mistakes than N1. And equally NI

themselves significantly higher as reactive workplace leaders (MBEP) compared to the two
supervisor's rate
These findings, although surprising from a leadership theory perspective, are in tune with the
l1K platforms.

the environment described in Table 9.6. i. e., employee involvement and empowerment arc
perceptions of work

174
 Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire Integrated Results From UK1, UK2 & N1

more apparenton NI compared to both UKI and UK2 and consequently the interference of the leader at the

workplace would be reduced.

9.5 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS

9.5.1 Discriminant analysis of supervisory performance

The aim of discriminant analysis is to classify cases into one of several mutually exclusive groups on the basis

of an observed set of characteristics. Therefore, the total sample of supervisors. was split into three groups;

"effective", "average" and "less effective". These groups were calculated on the scores collected by the job

performance variable. In effect, the top 30% were classed as "effective" and the bottom 30% as "less effective".
Using discriminant analysis with six variables (physical conditions, control, work pressure, management by

exception `passive', management by exception 'active' and length of time overall as a supervisor) group

membership correctly classified was 70.59%. See Table 9.9 below. These variables were selected because they

correlatedsignificantly with the performancemeasurein the previous results chapters.

Table 9.9
Discriminant analysis of supervisory performance

Classification results -

No. of Predicted Group Membership

Actual Group Cases 12
-------------------- ------ -------- --------

Group 1 26 17 9
effective 65.4% 34.6%

Group 2 25 6 19
less effective 24.0% 76.0%

Ungrouped cases 49 22 27
44.9% 55.1%

Percent of "grouped" cases correctly classified: 70.59%

The sample was randomly split into two groups in order to test whether the variables could repeat this high level

and the discriminant analysis was run again. Group `A` (n=55) predicted 78.13% of the cases
of prediction
The cases, Group `B' (n=36) were individually substituted into the discriminant function
correctly. remaining
Microsoft Excel using the unstandardised discriminant function co-efficients:
equation within

175
 Chapter Nine

D=(. 202 *work pressure) + (.394*contro!) + (. 188*physical conditions) + (-. 002*length of service supervisor)

+ (.054*mbea) + (-. 093*mbep) + constant (-3.95)

The following table (Table 9.10) describesthe results.

Table 9.10
Discriminant analysis of supervisory performance
Classification Results- " ,x
i

Actual Group No. of Cases Predicted Group

'B' Membership
1 2 3
Group 1 10 6 3 1

Effective 60% 33.3% 10%

Group 2 11 2 7 3
Less effective 18.1% 63.6% 27.2%

Ungroupedcases 15 3 4 8
20% 26.7% 53.3%

Percent of "group" Cases correctly classified: 58.3%

This technique of classification demonstrates that the six variables (physical conditions, control, work pressure,

by `passive', management by exception 'active' and length of time overall as a

management exception

are discriminating supervisory performance against the dichotomous variable; "effective" and
supervisor and)
"less effective" (although only 58.3% correctly classified). In short, supervisory experience, transactional

leadership behaviour (especially monitoring for mistakes and negative reinforcement when mistakes become

about the work climate (especially working conditions, management rules and general
serious), and perceptions
discriminate performance within this sample of supervisors. Therefore, as a model for
work pressure)
supervisory performance, the selection of future supervisors or the selection of poor
predicting effective
these variables ('control' the most influential predictor) are a useful, although not
performing supervisors,
definitive tool.

9.5.2 Predicting Platform Membership using Discriminant Analysis

supervisors was split into three groups; "UKI", "UK2" and "NI". Using discriminant
The total sample of
five variables (innovation, length in current role as -a supervisor, management by exception
analysis with
by exception `passive' and the attitude statement `the role of the supervisor is not
'active', management
by the highest F ratio value of all the attitude statements) group membership correctly
dominated paperwork' -
See Table 9.11 below.
classified was 77%.

176
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnaireIntegrated Results From UKI, UK2 & N1

Table 9.11
Discriminant Analysis of Platform Membership

Classification results -

No. of Predicted Group Membership

Actual Group Cases 123

-------------------- ------ -------- -------- --------

Group 1 51 35 13 3
UK1 68.6% 25.5% 5.1%
ýi

Group 2 30 5 23 2
UK2 16.7% 76.7% 6.7%

Group 3 19 0 0 19
Ni 0% 0% 100.0%
. .

Percent of "grouped" cases correctly classified: 77.00%

Table 9.12
Territorial Map of Platform Membership

Please see over.

or

177
 Chapter Nine

This analysis isalso shown below as a pictorial representation

(territorial map)in order to show the separation of the
discriminant scores.

Canonical Discriminant Function 1

2111dD1d6.0 -4.0 -2.0 4.0 6.0
.02.0

C 6.0 13
a 13
n 13
o 13
n 13
i 13
c 4.0 ý- 13 + +
-ý- -ý
a 13
1 13
13
D 13
i 13
2.0 + + 13 + +
s "i-
c 13
r 13
i 13
m 13
i * 13
0 + + 111113 + +
n
a 1111112222223
n 111111 222222 23
t 1111111 222222 * 23
1111112222222 23
F 11111222222 23
2222 + + + 23 f +
u -2.0
n 23
c 23
t 23
i 23
0 23
+ + ++ 23 ý.
n -4.0 ...
23
2 23
23
23
23
-6.0 23

p -4.0 -2.0 '0 4.0 6.0

_6. .02.

Territorial Map * indicates a group centroid

Symbols used in territorial map

Symbol Group Label

------ ----- --------------------

11 UK1
22 UK2
33N3
+ Group centroids

178
 OffshoreSupervisorsQuestionnaireIntegrated Results From UKI, UK2 & N1

The samplefurther randomly split into two in order to test whether the variables could repeat this high level
of
prediction and the discriminant analysis was run again. Group `A' (n=55) predicted 81.48% of the cases
correctly. The remaining cases,Group `B' (n=45) were individually substituted into the two discriminant
function equationswithin Microsoft Excel using the unstandardiseddiscriminant function co-efficients:

D, = (-. 032*mbea) + (. 081*mbep) + (. 021*length in role) + (-. 495 *dominated by paperwork) +

(. 211 *innovation) + constant (-. 089)

D2 = (-. 048 *mbea) + (. 113*mbep) + (.0102*length in role) + (-. 798 *dominated by paperwork) +

(.226*innovation) + constant(-3.86)

and these discriminant co-efficients were each plotted against the axis of the territorial map in order to
determine the platform groups.

The following table describesthe results.

179
 Chapter Nine

Table 9.13
Discriminant Analysis of Platform Membership
Actual Group No. of Cases Predicted Group
'B' Membership

1 2 3

Group 1 21 11 8 2

UK1 52.4% 38.1% 9.5%

Group 2 11 1 10 0 I

UK2 1% 90.9% 0%

Group 3 13 2 5 6

Ni 15.4% 38.4% 46.2%

percent of 'group' Cases correctly classified: 60%

This technique of classification demonstratesthat the five variables (innovation, length in current role as a

supervisor,management by exception `active', managementby exception `passive' and the attitude statement
`the role of the supervisor is not dominated by paperwork') are correctly discriminating this sample of

supervisors against the three way membership of each platform. In summary, supervisory experience,

transactional leadershipbehaviour, and perceptionsabout the level of both innovation and bureaucracy in the
discriminate which platform the supervisors belong to. It would not be too surprising that these
workplace
the supervisor's platform if the grouping variable was dichotomous such as UK versus
variables could predict
Norway, but to correctly classify betweenthree groups indicateskey differences betweenthe two UK platforms.
Furthermore,the UK platforms share several common characteristics such as same age, same operator, same
and same offshore field, and yet these findings suggest very different managementstyles
service company
between the platforms.

180
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnaireIntegrated Results From UK1, UK2 & N1

9.6 DECISION MAKING VIGNETTES UKI. UK2 & N1

9.6.1 Background

One of the critical questions at the outset of the research project was whether a quantitative or qualitative
be appropriate as a tool for conducting management research in the offshore-environment.
method would more
As discussed in Chapters Four and Five, the absenceof evidence in the literature that researchoffshore was

to style of data collection or the other, it was decided to use a mixture of both. There were
suited either one
for adopting this approach. Firstly, Jankowicz (1991), among others, argues that different
several reasons
better merely because they are quantitative or qualitative as it, is the researchproblem and
methods are not
that are the important issues. Secondly, the research environment was relatively new and a significant
purpose
the purpose was exploratory and qualitative research is particularly suited to this situation
part of research
(Ghauri, Gronhaug & Kristianslund, 1995) as it places more emphasis on understanding and hypothesis
building. Finally, given the unique nature of the researchproblem, a multi-method or a `triangulation' approach
to to capture an holistic view of an offshore supervisor's role.
seemedappropriate attempt

While quantitative and qualitative procedures are not mutually exclusive, they do provide distinct procedural

differences for and analysing data. During the data collection a number of quantitative measures
collecting
described previously. However, the design of the Supervisory Decision Making Vignettes (DMV)
were used, as
intended discrete qualitative method and there would be no attempt to overlap them with statistical
was as a
by Boyatsis (1982). The Boyatsis Model is described, however, to demonstrate a
analysis as was achieved
for further analysis of the offshore data. It should be stated that it was never the objective to
possible route
design scenarios that would provide data covering each of the behaviours described by the Boyatsis model (see

60-190, for a full description of his model). The scenarios were designed to cover a broad
Boyatsis, 1982, p.
"typical" that the offshore supervisor may have to address and ideally the qualitative process
range of situations
data for further analysis. (For further information on the development of these five
would generate useful
Chapter Five, section 5.2.4, section 6).
scenarios see

describe the results from the Supervisory Decision Making Vignettes. Firstly, there is a
This section will
description of how the grounded theory and thematic analysis was undertaken. This is followed by a section
results describing how the offshore supervisors responses matched the "expert
outlining per platform
thus giving them a performance score. Then, there is a discussion of how the Offshore
supervisors" group,
Effectiveness cluster measuresagainst the Boyatsis cluster of effective managementbehaviours.
Supervisory
And, finally this sectionwill outline an offshore supervisory competencemodel.

181
 Chapter Nine

9.6.2 DMV Analysis

This final section of the questionnaire was designed to discriminate between effective and less effective

supervisors by eliciting qualitative responses relating to what each supervisor would do if faced by five problem

situations. In order to determine a standard of performance, nine "expert" supervisors (who had previously

dealt with similar situations during their time as supervisors offshore) were asked to respond as if they were

currently in an offshore supervisory role. The data supplied by each of the experts for every-scenario were

marked using a process of thematic analysis (Spencer & Spencer, 1993) by three research psychologists from" -;
the Offshore Management Centre who all had offshore research experience. These psychologists were asked to

search for critical supervisory behaviours, i. e., what the supervisor said that they would do as a result of the

problem. These identified critical behaviours were grouped into "ideal" responses and were scored against the

ideal response, see Section 9.6.3.

The scoring was completed using the following scale:

Congruent match 4 This is an exact match. The supervisor said that he or she would
use all the same critical skills that were elicited from the expert
group in order to achieve a solution.

Substantial match 3 Most of the same skills were mentioned. However, the response
was not an exact match.
Moderate match 2 The supervisor's response contained about half of the required
skills.

Limited match 1 The supervisor's response contained very few skills of the "ideal
response".

Incongruent match 0 The supervisor's response did not concur with the ideal response
on any items.

A high scoring and low scoring "real" example for each vignette is shown below to demonstrate both how the

thematic analysis approach and scoring was achieved. The "key behaviours" are identified by underlined text.
Each of the examples are preceded by both the relevant supervisory scenario and the ideal response.

Vignette I

You are supervising many men on the platform. The flight programme has been cancelled for the last four days

there is a large backlog to clear. 14 men turn up at your door all claiming compassionate leave ranging
and
from "the wife is not well" to "my house has been broken into. " You are convinced that at least half of them are

trying it on...

OF

182
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnaireIntegrated Results From UKI, UK2 & N1

Ideal response
Listen, speak and show sympathy with each claim. Seek more information by questioning. Assess validity of

each claim. Prioritise claims with the use of onshore help and (1possible allow each team to decide who has

the most deserving case. Explain decision to team.

High Score Example Low Score Example

I would get them in one at a time to explain the On the case of the 'wife's not well", I would arrange for
situation. I'd listen carefullyto the excuses they came him to ring the hospital or the wife and test whether
up with to identify what we're working with. I'd do an they are in hospital or not. Arrange for them to have
assessment job on it. You can see by an individual's access to a phone to call insurance companies/police
reactionif they are trying it on. I would explain to them to make sure and again monitor if they do ring the
how a reductionof the workforce is going to impact on police and make a decision from that. Your immediate
the rest of their mates and how it is going to affect the reaction is to get the guy to the phone and get him to
operation as everyone is in the same boat. Look for ring home and discuss what it is and you might be
their reaction. If there are any genuine cases, organise able to persuade him that he does not have to go
some method of communicationwith the parties home, once he fully knows what the problem is. If they
involvedat home even if it is at the company'sexpense. are genuine and they do have to go home there is
If there are genuine cases you have to make nothing I can do to stop them. I just have to try and
arrangements to get them off and tell the rest of them arrange cover for them.
that they will be on the earliest scheduled flight.

Vignette 2
You have a technician who has worked for you a few months. His position has changed due to reorganisation

he is due to the additional demands. His previous supervisor did not tell you that the technician
and not coping

was unlikely to cope with any changes. The technician was an average performer in his previous position and

that within the new role he is not producing what is required of him...
now cannot accept

ftý

183
 Chapter Nine

Ideal response

Gather information about problem. Discuss with technician during an interview. Set mutually agreed goals

and provide training if necessary. Monitor and re-assess. Set out possible dismissal terms to technician if there
is no improvement after agreed period.

High Score Example Low Score Example

I would first have to discuss with the technician and try I would have a word with the previous supervisor. I'd
to get to the bottom of why he isn't performing. I would get the two together and get them to talk it amongst
explain first off, that in my view he is not reaching the themselves and decide what to do from there.
requiredstandards. I would want to know why. If he
was an average performer,then it could be basic
familiarity built up over the years. It could be personal
reasons which have affected the job. It could be
outside influenceswhich are causing him distraction.
His mind may not be on his new role. If he has got
problems at home or with the company, I would try and
assist him and sort it out if I could. If his basic ability is
that he can't cope with the new job, then I would try and
guide him and ask him where he thinks he is falling
down. He would probably recognise that he is not
performinghimself. I would discuss possibletraining
needsto get him up to scratch. We would put a time
limit on this. I would tell him that you expect to see
improvement. If after 12 months,the required
improvement hadn't been achieved, I think I would
actively seek to try and get him placed back into a
position where he felt more comfortable.

184
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnaireIntegrated Results From UK1, UK2 & N1

Vignette 3

The lead technician is reasonably experienced but is not the best communicator in the world. The team gets a

new recruit and you quickly discover that there is a personality clash between the new man and the lead

technician. You learn that the new recruit is a bit head strong and he feels that the lead technician hand is

picking on him. You are informed that the new man has been using threatening behaviour towards the lead

technician...

Ideal response

Gather background information. Speak to individuals separately. Get them to communicate together and- 't,

attempt to integrate into team. Emphasise team values. Explain job roles and explain your support for the

current management structure. Create a plan of action. Discipline and dismissal will follow if no improvement.

Situation is monitored

High Score Example Low Score Example

Interview them together and discuss everything in a Put him on the straight and narrow, that is, the man
group meeting. Try to get both sides of the story. Try who is using threatening behaviour. If he has a
clearing the air. Establish to the new recruit exactly grievance he has to go through the normal
what the responsibilities of himself and the lead procedures.
technicianare and I expect the new recruit to respect
that. Similarly, try to explain to the lead technician that
it is not all about personalities, the new man has got a
job to do, he hasn't come into the group for his
personality,he has come for his technical ability, his
capabilityfor doing the job. Just monitor them both. I
wouldn't have waited until a situation like this had
arisen.

Vignette 4

There are conflicting procedureson re-starting the plant after a plant shutdown. The official proceduretakes 45
but there are some aspectsthat may not be 100% safe. Unofficial "procedures" have been followed in
minutes
the past and are safer but take up to 90 minutes. You have recognised the need to update the proceduresto
incorporatethis longer safer method but have not yet done so.

The plant trips and the OIM has insistedthat company proceduresmust be strictly followed...

185
 Chapter Nine

Ideal response
Speak to OIM directly. Be assertive and convince OIM that the longer but safer method will have to be

adopted. Refuse categorically to undertake an unsafe act. Update procedures immediately after shutdown/re-

start.

High Score Example Low Score Example

I would take the safe method here. I would inform the As regards to the initial procedure, you must follow it
OIM that I was taking the procedure and that it would be as the OIM would insist. All you can do in this
90 minutes before we would be returning to service. If instance is follow it and fully log the events that had
he had a problem with that, he could take it up with my taken place and try in the future to have things
immediate supervisor. I'd make a decision there to stick changed.
by the 90 minutes method, even if the OIM or my
supervisor were to tell me otherwise. After the platform
is returned, l would make sure that new procedures are
written down, updating the unsafe 45 minute one. That
would be my first priority.

Vignette 5

One of your team is working through some technical elements of the new standardsof competence. He has

part and is now seekingconfirmation of his competencefrom you as the assessor.

completedthe self assessment

Your first impression is that he is underselling his actual competence and has marked himself down. You, as

the assessor, have to decide whether this is a genuine attempt to avoid responsibility or that he requires more
training.

Ideal response

Interview individually. Attempt to understand motives. Get technician to speak Gather

out about problem.

other information such as previous assessments and talk to previous supervisors. Be objective. Show and
demonstrate technician's evidence of ability Set goals with technician and review later.

High Score Example Low Score Example

Get him to explain to me why he said that he was poor We do six monthly assessments on the lads. We fill it
on this or below average on that. Maybe highlight past out and bring them in one at time. They'll read their
experienceor past jobs that he had done that would be assessments and agree or disagree. We'll write down
contrary to what he was saying. In other words if he what training they require and they have the
he sure how to pump the line then we will opportunity to make comments.
said was not
go look at the previous five times in the last six months
that he pumped the line. So, I would try and
demonstrate to him through his past performances that
what he saying was not true. But also try and not
was
force that upon him and convince him into believing it
because he may genuinely may need to be encouraged
to look at himself from a different point of view.

186
 OffshoreSupervisorsQuestionnaireIntegrated Results From UK1, UK2 & Ni

The five examplesabove describehow a subsetof the sample of supervisorswould tackle each of the DMVs.
As a technique,the DMVs do appearto have discriminated performance between the supervisors. In most of
the examples there is some degree of overlap but there are also differences in the style of approach between

higher scoring and lower scoring supervisors. The next section outlines the how the full sample compareswith

the `ideal' responsefrom a quantitative perspective.

9.6.3 DMV Results

All three platform DMV results shall be described separately per platform within this section so that any r"

potential differences between platforms are exposed. A score of zero was no match at all with the ideal

responsewhereasa scoreof four was perfect match.

Table 9.14
UKI DMV Results
DMVs % scoring 0 % scoring I % scoring 2 % scoring 3 % scoring 4 Mean S. D

Compassionate 13.7 47.1 35.3 3.9 0 1.3 76

.
leave

Skill deficiency 13.7 37.3 43.1 5.9 0 1.4

.8
Threatening 11.8 43.1 37.3 7.8 0 1.4
.8
behaviour

Safety versus 5.9 39.2 47.1 5.9 2 1.6 78

.
production
Standards of 9.8 39.2 47.1 3.9 0 1.4. 73
.
competence

Given the rationale of using "experts" and then identifying key behaviours from that group to form an ideal

it is not surprising that only one supervisor scored the top rating for one of the decision
response, perhaps

making vignettes. By using ideal response as the standard, many of the supervisors fall into the "average"

band. However, this narrow grouping of average scores is consistent with the job performance
performance
described in Section 6.1. The supervisors score highest in scenario four and lowest in scenario one.
ratings
This may reflect the supervisory style found offshore which is arguably more comfortable with rational decision

(safety versus production) rather than the personnel issues (compassionate leave).
making situations

187
 Chapter Nine

Table 9.15
UK2 DMV Results
DMVs % scoring 0 % scoring I % scoring 2 % scoring 3 % scoring 4 Mean S. D

Compassionate 30 33.3 33.3 3.3 0 1.1 89

.
leave

Skill deficiency 10 36.7 33.3 20 0 1.6 93

.
Threatening 6.7 30 46.7 16.7 0 1.7 83
.
behaviour
Safety versus 6.7 23.3 60 10 0 1.7 74.
. _
production
Standards of 3.3 46.7 50 0 0 1.5 57
.
competence

As above with platform UK], many of the supervisorsfrom UK2 fall into the "average" performance band and

is with the job performance ratings described in Section 7.1.

again this consistent

The supervisors, as with UK1, score highest in scenario four and lowest in scenario one. This finding is similar

to the results for UKI, i. e., that it reflects the supervisory style found offshore which is arguably more
decision making situations, however, there is a further distinction between the
comfortable with rational
in the results. In scenario four, UK2 score 70% as a percentage scoring `2', `3' or '4' whereas UK1
platforms
55% in `2', `3', or W. A smaller difference, although not significant, was found for scenario one, as
score only
UK 2 scores 63.3% in '0' or `1' whereas UKI scores 60.8% in `0' or `1'. Although there are only slight

differences, UK2 is rated more highly in the "safety versus production" scenario than UK1 but has "higher" low

for "compassionate leave" than UK1. This suggests that there may be a difference of supervisory style
scores
between the platforms. UK2 supervisors display a style more oriented toward binary decisions than UKI but

UKI supervisors are rated better in the more ambiguous situations. All the scores were examined using a t-test

but there were no significant differences between the two platforms. Table 9.16 outlines the DMV results for

the Norwegian platform NI.

Table 9.16
NI DMV Results
% scoring 0 % scoring I % scoring 2 % scoring 3 % scoring 4 Mean S. D
DMVs
7.7 53.8 30.8 7.7 0 1.4 77
Compassionate .
leave
23.1 30.8 38.5 7.7 0 1.31 95
Skill deficiency .
7.7 15.4 69.2 7.7 0 1.8
Threatening .9
behaviour
0 23.1 46.2 ^ 30.8 2.1 76
Safety versus 0
.
production
Scenario five, ("stanaaras or curnp-ncc -db Iwº uscu as IL was specIrnc to the current changes within uic

managementand education.

188
 Chapter Nine

also a common phrase within the UK management literature there are material distinctions from the US
definition. The UK definition refers to a skill or behaviour that relates to a specific outcome relevant for that

job role and does not differentiate between good and superior performance within that role). It is the "skill"

competence that is of particular interest in this study as it was the supervisor's behaviour that was intended to be

elicited from the Supervisory Decision Making Vignettes. Another important distinction is the difference

between competence and job function. A competence is the ability to demonstrate a system and sequence of

behaviour that is functionally related to attaining a performance goal (Boyatsis, 1982, p. 33), whereas a job
function such as selecting staff is an aspect of the job but not an aspect of the person's capabilities. In short,

competencies are defined not as aspects of the job, but as special characteristics of the people who do the job
best.

The tables below describe in turn the relevant Boyatsis cluster and the corresponding Offshore Supervisory

Effectiveness cluster as provided by the expert responses from the Supervisory Decision Making Vignettes.

(The Boyatsis model is used to facilitate the description of competencies of effective supervisors. It should be

noted that the DMVs were not originally intended to map against the Boyatsis `effective management clusters'
but are described below for comparative purposes only). The table columns are labelled "Competency",

"Skills" and "DMV". The "Competency" column describes the terms used in the Boyatsis model that relate to

job competencies that if exhibited by a manager correspond with effective and or superior performance in the

job. The same description is used under the section of the table titled "Offshore Supervisors". The "Skills"

column describes the observable behaviours used by the effective manager which relate to that particular

competency. The "Skills" column under the "Offshore Supervisors" section describes the behaviours that

effective supervisors use in the offshore working environment as collected by the Supervisory Decision Making
Vignettes. The "DMV" column cross-references the data collected to the DMV scenario number from which it

was captured. Table 9.17 describes the Goal and Action Management Cluster or in other words the behaviours

required by a leader. Table 9.18 describes the Leadership Cluster or how leader behaviour impacts on the

workforce they lead in order to be effective. Table 9.19 describes the Human Resource Management Cluster or

the behaviours required by an effective leader to make a team effective. Table 9.20 outlines the Directing

Subordinates Cluster or the behaviours required by the leader when addressing the individual needs of the team,

table 9.21 shows the Focus on Others Cluster or the "people" skills required by an effective leader.
and

or

190
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnaireIntegrated Results From UK1, UK2 & N1

Table 9.17
The Goal and Action Management Cluster for Effective Managers
The Effective Manager (Boyatsis, 1982) Offshore Supervisors

Competency Skills Competency Skills DMV

Efficiency Goal-settingskills Efficiency Set mutually agreed goals 2,5

orientation orientation monitor and review
Planning skills 2
Create a plan of action and
Skills in organising 3
monitor for improvement
resourcesefficiently " r4

Proactivity Problem solving skills Proactivity Gather information 2,3, S

Informationseeking skills Use questioning techniques 1,2,5

Pattern identification
through concept application
Diagnosticuse Deductivereasoning No evidence
of concepts collected
Concernwith Symbolicinfluence Concern with Explainjob roles and your 3
impact behaviour impact support for the current
management structure

Based on Boyatsis (1982), 1adle 4.1, p.U4.

Efficiency orientation, in Boyatsis terminology, represents the behaviour of wanting to continually improve.

Managers that have a strong need for efficiency orientation are usually very concerned with the monitoring of

to react to these results. In the offshore industry, supervisors, regardless of functional

results and the ability
be to respond to data relating to platform performance even if it is not directly relevant to their
role, will able

As table shows, this competency is required in both management environments. The DMVs collected
role. the
this skill was evident in the behaviour of the offshore supervisor and as such
several examples where
demonstrates that "efficiency orientation" is a key element in the make up of an effective supervisor.

Proactivity representsthe behaviour of taking action to accomplish a task. Managers usually seethemselvesas

to action and demonstrate skills in problem solving. As the table shows, the DMVs captured
the ones originate
these skills are used by an effective supervisor, thus the offshore supervisor is expected
many examples where
"proactivity" as one of the behaviours
essential within the role. The skill of seeking more information
to exhibit
is clearly relevant in many different occupations and perhaps the number of examples is not
through questioning
It is, however, another good illustration of the Boyatsis model remaining congruent with the skills
surprising.
in industry.
required the offshore

describes a way of interpreting events through a pre-determined mental picture.

Diagnostic use of concepts
this behaviour tend to "test" events against criteria within a mental model such as
Managers who exhibit

that leave early on a Friday as matching McGregor's (1985) Theory X system of management.
labelling staff

The data and described above suggests that none of the supervisors from the expert group display
collected
as defined by the Boyatsis methodology. However, the offshore environment is
"diagnostic use of concepts"
by and procedures such as Permit to Work (PTW) and it is inconceivable that the more
dominated processes

191
 Chapter Nine

effective supervisorsdo not decipher work problems through mental pictures. Therefore, it is likely that more
effective supervisorsdo exhibit this behaviour but that the scenarioswere unable to generateevidence of this
competency.

Concern with impact representsa behaviour that is concerned with the organisational symbols of power and
how theseaffect individuals. Managerswho exhibit this behaviour require large offices, for example, as one of

their tools of influence within the organisation. The offshore environment dictates a culture where strict
managementallegianceto the decisionsof the Offshore Installation Manager are necessaryfor normal operation
as well as emergencysituations and the evidence suggeststhat it is the effective supervisor that maintains this `loyalty.

While the table only denotesone scenariocontributing data, the example provided is, however, a useful

one. The following table, Table 9.18 describesthe behavioursrequired to be effective as a workplace leader.

Table 9.18
The Leadership Cluster for Effective Managers
The EffectiveManager(Boyatsis, 1982) Offshore Comparison
Competency Skills Competency Skills DMV
Self confidence Self presentation skills Self confidence Speak to OIM directly. Be 4
assertive and convince
Use of oral Verbal presentation skills Use of oral Explain decision to the team I
presentations presentations
Logical thought Organisation of thoughts Logical thought Prioritise claims with onshore 1
and activities help, if necessary
Sequential thinking

Conceptuali- Pattern identification No evidence

sation through concept formation collected
Thematicor pattern
analysis

Basedon Boyatsis(1982), Table 5.1, p.118.

Self confidence represents the behaviour of leadership in terms of decisiveness or presence. Managers who

this behaviour have no doubt about the decisions that they have made and have belief in their
exhibit a solid

to The offshore environment because of its harshness and masculine bravado backdrop has
ability succeed.
supervisors that frequently demonstrate this behaviour in order to survive both politically and
arguably created
There is clear evidence from the table above that this skill is essential when confronted with DMV 4.
socially.

Use of oral presentations is a described as a behaviour of being able to make effective verbal presentations.

Managers who have this skill can communicate to small or large audiences using both verbal and nonverbal

behaviour that reinforce the content of their message. Offshore supervisors would be frequently expected to
decisions to their teams, although to what extent they are effective is also determined by assessing
communicate
of the message from the recipient. Table 9.18 demonstrates that there
the understanding was evidence that
to a team is an effective skill.
making presentations

192
 OffshoreSupervisorsQuestionnaireIntegrated Results From UK1, UK2 & N1

Logical thought describes the behaviour of using a thought process that places events in a sequential order.

Managers who behave using this competency would be organised and would discuss situations in an order

which implies a clear pattern of cause and effekt. The offshore environment with its formulated working

procedures demands that supervisors adhere strictly to these rules (see Diagnostic use of concepts above) and as

shown in Table 9.18 there was clear evidence of this competency collected from DMV 1.

Conceptualisation describes another thought process except that it relates to identifying patterns amongst an

assortment of information. Managers who possess this skill can understand new information by interpreting it `

with a new concept. They also use metaphors to get their message across. As with `Diagnostic use of

concepts', it is likely that effective offshore supervisors do exhibit this behaviour, but as shown in Table 9.18

the scenarios did not capture any data.

Table 9.19
The Human Resource Management Cluster for Effective Managers
The EffectiveManager(Boyatsis, 1982) Offshore Supervisors
Competency Skills Competency Skills DMV

Use of Alliance producing skills Use of Socialised Emphasise team values 3

SocialisedPower Power
Attempt to integrate into team 3
Positive Regard Verbal and nonverbal skills No evidence
that result in people feeling collected
valued
Managing group Instrumental affiliative Managing group Allow team to decide who has 1
processes behaviours processes most deserving case
Group process skills

Accurate self- Self-assessment skills No evidence

assessment collected
Reality testing skills

Based on Boyatsis (1982), 1able b. 1, p. 13u.

Use of Socialised Power describes the behaviour in which the person uses forms of influence to build teams and
tasks, they bring individuals together to form groups that
alliances. In achieving may previously have not
These managers resolve problems through their newly formed "teams" and in doing so allow the teams
existed.

to drive through decisions. The offshore environment probably emphasises further the need to use teams.

Effective supervisors are likely to use their already established teams but enhance the decision making process

team to resolve work related issues. There is clear evidence from Table 9.19 that DMV 3 has
within the

gathered examples of this competency.

Positive Regard describes the behaviour where people view one another as positive. Managers that demonstrate

this competency may see themselves as an optimist, and attempt to make their employees feel valued. The

Supervisory Decision Making Vignettes did not generate any evidence of this behaviour, however, unlike the

193
 Chapter Nine

that provided no data, it is my opinion that this behaviour would not necessarily
above competencies
differentiate between effective and less effective supervisors. This is probably due to the `close-knit' nature of

the offshore environment that maintains an overt friendliness among its workforce. It could be argued that this

'atmosphere' masks the more direct and confrontational style that may exist in an onshore situation. Therefore,

while 'positive regard' can be described as a competence onshore, the offshore supervisor probably exhibits this

behaviour generally and the effective supervisor does something in addition and this was not captured by this

definition or the DMVs.

Managing Group Processesdescribesthe behaviour where managersbelieve that they can stimulate individuals

to work effectively within groups. Managerswho are able to successfully achieve this communicate to their
teamsthe needfor co-operationand collaboration amongsttheir own team and wiih other groups. The demand
for this competencyis ever increasingoffshore as a result of both the changing safety and commercial needsof

the industry, and evidenceof this competencywas expressed in DMV 1.

Accurate self-assessmentdescribes the behaviour of accurate self perception. Managers who display this
behaviour are able to describetheir own performancein terms of both strengthsand weaknesses.There was no

evidencecollected from any of the scenariosfor this competency, however, given the offshore culture which is

perceived as unforgiving when mistakes occur it is unclear whether the supervisor who is able to admit errors

can simultaneouslysurvive in this climate.

194
 Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire Integrated Results From UK1, UK2 & N1

TABLE 9.20
The Directing Subordinates Cluster for Effective Managers
The Effective Manager (Boyatsis, 1982) Offshore Supervisor

Competency Skills Competency Skills DMV

Developing Skills in feedback to Developing others Demonstrateevidence of 5

others facilitate self development technician's ability

Use of unilateral Compliance producing skills Use of unilateral Effective use of company 3
power power disciplinary policy to reinforce
correct behaviour
Spontaneity Self-expression skills No evidence
collected

Basedon Boyatsis(1982), 1able i. 1, p.15b.

Developing others is a behaviour where managersparticularly attempt to help a member of staff do their job.
Thesemanagersgive feedbackon performanceand then provide training resourcesto help develop in any areas

of performancerequiring improvement. The offshore supervisor has significant opportunity to "develop others'

while on a trip offshore. It is the effective supervisor, however, who is able to provide accurate feedback on

performance in an environment where claustrophobic work relationships may compromise supervisory

decisions. Evidenceof this competencywas elicited from scenarioDMV 5.

Use of unilateral power is a behaviour where people use their influence to gain acceptanceof their ideas.
Managersthat use this behaviour use commands,direction and perceived power associatedwith their role to
implement the policies of the organisation. Given the safety regime offshore, the effective supervisor will at

times be required to display this type of behaviour in order that compliance from the workforce is maintained.
DM W3 collected behaviouraldata that were congruentwith the description outlined in Table 9.20.

Spontaneity is a competency where people demonstrate the ability to express themselves in an impromptu

These managers can be guilty of speaking first before thinking and can as a result upset employees.
manner.
The managers, however, are secure with the way they express themselves. No evidence of this competency was

the DMVs. "Spontaneity" does, however, exist within constant banter

collected using among the offshore
but it is unclear whether this behaviour would discriminate between supervisors on levels of
workforce,

performance.

,.

195
 Chapter Nine

Table 9.21
The Focus on Others Cluster of Effective Managers
The EffectiveManager(Boyatsis, 1982) Offshore Supervisors

Competency Skills Competency Skills DMV

Self-control Self-control skills No evidence

collected

Perceptual Effective distancing skills Perceptual Gather information 1,2,3

objectivity objectivity Be objective 5

Staminaand Adaptationskills No evidence

adaptability collected
Coping skills

Concern with Nonverbal skills that result Concern with Show empathy 1
close in people feeling cared for close Attempt to understand motives 5
relationships relationships
Friendshipbuilding skills
-JI
Basedon Boyatsis(1982), Table S2, p.iuu.

Self control describesthe behaviour where employeeshold back personal needsat the expenseof organisational
Managers that demonstratethis competency often remain calm when confronted by an angry employee
ones.
to find out why an employee is upset. No evidence of this competency was collected using the
and attempt
DMVs, however, demonstrating calm under stress does appeal as a behaviour that would be vital for an
especially given their role in an offshore emergency. The need for this behaviour
effective offshore supervisor,
has recently been describedas a key quality by employers when selecting the ideal'offshore employee (Flin &
Slaven,1996).

Perceptual objectivity is a behaviour with which people can be objective in their view of situations and are not

limited by their own personal biases and prejudices. Managers that display this competency are able to describe

both sides of a conflict. This skill is essential from an offshore perspective as retaining an impartial view of

is difficult enough without the added constraints that the offshore workplace brings. Several of the
problems
DMVs collected data in this area as shown in table 9.21.

Staminaand adaptability describesthe behaviour where people have the energy to sustain long hours and adapt
in and organisationalenvironment. Managers who demonstrate this skill retain high
to both changes the social
levels of performanceeven after working long hours. No data was captured under this competency, however,

long hours, harsh working conditions and isolated working environment that exist offshore would suggest
the
such a competency to be effective.
that supervisors require

relationships is a skill where individuals endeavour to build friendships with work

Concern with close
Managers that display this behaviour spend time talking to employees without a work related
colleagues.
dominating the conversation. These conversations are not intended primarily to motivate an employee
reason
the employee on a friendship basis. The offshore environment is probably more suited to
but to find out about
than others because of the length of time that employees spend with one another. (Typical
this behaviour

196
 Offshore SupervisorsQuestionnaireIntegrated Results From UK1, UK2 & Ni

last fourteen days). However, this is a skill that could still differentiate levels of effectivenessas
offshore trips
less to use the "offshore friendship" solely for organisationalgain.
the effective supervisormay attempt

Discussion

The purpose of the Supervisory Decision Making Vignettes was to provide a tool that elicited qualitative
behaviours for pre-determined situations. From this exercise a list of key offshore supervisory
supervisory
developed. The scenarios provided a useful insight into the behaviours that are required by
competencies was
By mapping these against the established `Job Competence Model' from
an effective offshore supervisor.
Boyatsis (1982), the scenarios have demonstrated that they were a useful instrument in generating behaviours

broadly Boyatsis' effective manager model. Table 9.17 "Goal and Action
which overlapped with
Management", in particular, describes many of the skills deemed effective för US Managers as directly

for on an offshore platform. The areas where offshore supervisory behaviours did not
applicable supervisors
directly to the Boyatsis Model have been explained in the text, but it is likely that full behavioural event
map
interviews would have produced the full range of competencies. What is not clear is whether there are any

behaviours that may be required offshore but not in an onshore supervisory or management situation
effective
This problem is highlighted by the data described in Table 9.19 "Human Resource
and vice-versa.
Management" as the offshore environment may have excluded behavioural examples of other competencies.

For example, the offshore environment does create a climate where living and working together could

of the supervisor to make difficult man-management decisions. As discussed in Chapter

compromise the ability
One, there may be a competency which describes the behaviour of being able to reprimand a team member for
but communicate it in such a way that maintains social harmony on the platform. While
poor performance
"perceptual objectivity" does describe a similar behaviour, the offshore environment may mandate something

Another key competency that is required offshore is the ability of the supervisor to make decisions in an
extra.
as the supervisor is very often a key member of the platform emergency response team.
emergency situation
all designed to draw out behaviours necessary during a steady state operation. The use of
These scenarios were
(onshore) would facilitate the opportunity to record competencies required in an
a platform simulator
could not be captured during an interview. Another possible competency that maybe
emergency that clearly
is to cope with confinement and isolation (Flin & Slaven, 1996). These are issues for both
required the ability
their teams, however, it is the supervisor who is expected to maintain a productive
the supervisors and
irrespective of the impact of offshore related stressors. "Stamina and adaptability" (Table 9.21) does
workplace
of an effective manager, however, to what extent a supervisor needs to display this
overlap with the competency
has still to be tested. Some Norwegian companies job descriptions for OlMs describe
behaviour on a platform
(see Flin, Slaven & Carnegie, 1996)
this behaviour

evidence in this manner that was not described is where there is a significant over
One aspect of collecting
behaviour. For example, the supervisor who shows an abundance of "spontaneity"
emphasis of one particular
competence in "self control". Further analysis is required to identify if there are specific
has a potential weak
the competencies that are described above for the role of an offshore supervisor. This analysis
conflicts among
competencies that if used by an offshore supervisor would probably indicate excellent
has identified certain

197
 Chapter Nine

supervisory performance. Even though the method compartmentalises behaviour into segments, the

competencemodel does provide a better holistic insight into the supervisor's role than does the MCI personal

competencemodel. What the Boyatsis model has not shown is which competenciesare commutative and which

onesare not, and only further testing would explain this weakness.

The performance of the sample of supervisors when compared with that of the expert group indicate that there

are several areas for development as few supervisors matched the full range of behaviours from the expert

group against each of the DMVs. The analysis, however, provided a useful model from which` to benchmark.

supervisory behaviours against supervisory competencies using Boyatsis as an accepted framework. The driver

to understand what these competencies are and how to train supervisors to use them still remains a key driver in

the development of the "ideal" offshore supervisor.

9.7 The Offshore Supervisory Competence Model

The Offshore Supervisory CompetenceModel described below summarisesthe qualitative findings from the
DMV section. The model containsthoseelementsof the Boyatsis Model which have been describedabove but

also highlights possible competencies that were not gathered from the DMV expert interviews. The text in bold

these gaps and suggests areas where offshore behaviours might be found to complete the model. The
outlines

may add further value to the model but this will be discussed separately in Chapter Ten.
quantitative results

198
 OffshoreSupervisorsQuestionnaireIntegrated Results From UKI, UK2 & Ni

Table 9.22
The Offshore Supervisory Competence Model
Competency Generic Skills Offshore Skills

The Goal and Action Management Cluster for Effective Managers

Efficiencyorientation Goal-settingskills Set mutually agreed goals monitor

and review
Planning skills
Create a plan of action and monitor
Skills in organising resources
for improvement
Efficiently

Proactivity Problem solving skills Gather information

Informationseeking skills Use questioning techniques

Diagnosticuse of concepts Pattern identificationthrough Quickly identifies problems by

concept application matching previous experience to
new situation
Deductivereasoning

Concernwith impact Symbolicinfluence behaviour Explainjob roles and your support

for the current management
structure

The Leadership Cluster for Effective Managers

Self confidence Self presentation skills Speak to OlM directly. Be

assertive and convince him.
Explain decision to the team

Use of oral presentations Verbal presentation skills Prioritise claims with onshore help,
if necessary

Logical thought Organisation of thoughts and Uses 'mental models' to

activities understand new problems
Sequential thinking

Conceptualisation Pattern identification through

conceptformation
Thematic or pattern analysis

The Human Resource Management Cluster for Effective Managers

Use of Socialised Power Alliance producing skills Emphasise team values

Attempt to integrate into team
Verbal and nonverbal skills that Demonstrates friendly
Positive Regard
result in people feeling valued relationships among team but
does not let relationships
interfere with job
instrumental affiliative behaviours Allow team to decide who has most
Managing group processes
deserving case
Group process skills
Self-assessment skills Takes responsibility for both
Accurate self-assessment
their own and their team's
Reality testing skills
performance

199
 Chapter Nine

Competency Generic Skills Offshore Skills

The Directing Subordinates Cluster for Effective Managers

Developing others Skills in feedback to facilitate self Demonstrate evidence of

development technician's ability

Use of unilateral power Compliance producing skills Discipline and dismissal will follow
if no improvement

Spontaneity Self-expression skills In a work situation always thinks

before he/she speaks
Does not exhibit creativity in the
workplace
The Focus on Others Cluster of Effective Managers

Self-control Self-control skills Remains calm and collected during

stressful situations
Perceptual objectivity Effectivedistancing skills Gather information
Be objective

Stamina and adaptability Adaptation skills Maintains a 'quality' of work despite

Coping skills working long hours

Concern with dose relationships Nonverbal skills that result in Show empathy
people feeling cared for Attempt to understand motives
Friendship building skills

The Offshore Supervisory Competence Model describes a framework that could help in the recruitment,

and development of future offshore supervisors. Traditional models of job analysis have examined
selection
both the job and the person in the workplace, and then attempted to fit them together. Selection techniques

based on personality and leadership styles may be less useful as quantitative results have shown. The data

by the DMVs and then using the Boyatsis model for presentation have identified the key behaviours
collected
that are required by taking a person centred approach to offshore supervisory effectiveness (Klemp, 1982). This
the skills that are necessary to be an effective "manager" rather than traditional approaches to
method provides
training which can burden the manager with broad skills which may or may not result in improved
management

performance. Furthermore, the model provides examples of the skills that are requisite for an effective offshore

Thus, providing descriptions of the skills that fit with the environment under investigation.
supervisor.

9.8 CONCLUSION

described key results about the Offshore Supervisor Survey. The

'I'bis chapter platforms, unlike the three

were examined as a total sample. The results are presented from two distinct methodological
previous chapters,
instruments andqualitative "behavioural interviews". Although the findings
perspectives; quantitative some of
measures were statistically in different directions, there interesting
relating to the performance were some
from investigating all three platforms together. These are described below.
outcomes resulting

200
 OffshoreSupervisorsQuestionnaireIntegrated Results From UK1, UK2 & N1

Differences betweenthe UKCS & NCS

The statistical test `analysisof variance' revealedcultural differences betweenthe Norwegian Platforms and the
UK platforms. It appearsthat perceptionsabout safety attitudes are significantly different and although there

may be a company effect it is more likely that these findings are due to a cultural difference. The WES scale, in

particular, identified distinct differences between the UK and Norway. The Norwegian sample rated their

environment as possessing characteristics (concomitant with an environment) with intrinsic themes such as

workforce empowerment while recognising the need for rules and structure when it was necessaiy. The results..
.
for job satisfaction also identify cultural differences between the countries. The supervisors on Ni are

significantly more job satisfiedthan their counterparts on the UKCS. Furthermore, the Norwegian sample have

significantly longer offshore supervisory experiencethan supervisors on UKI and UK2 and as a consequence
may score higher job satisfaction because they are more familiar with their environment. The final key
difference between the two North Sea sectors was identified by the transactional leadership variable
"management by exception `active'. The NI supervisorsreport that they do not intervene at the workplace

when things are going wrong as readily as the UK supervisorsand as statedabove this finding is consistentwith
the WES results and portrays a more empoweredwork culture on this platform.

Differences between UKI and UK2

The analysis of variance results also describe some interesting differences between the three platforms. Of

the findings that differentiate UKI and UK2.. As stated earlier, these platforms have in
particular note are

of the potentially differentiating attributes that logically could account for differences such as
common many
type of platform, operating company and North Sea location. In essence, it is the `personnel' that are

for the variation. For example, the UKI supervisors rate the importance of man-management as
accounting
for the future of the offshore industry more highly than the other two platforms. UK2 supervisors
critical
the dimension "emotional" significantly higher than UKI supervisors. Although caution
scored personality
this personality instrument because of the sample size, this finding is curious since it is
should prevail with
is intentionally a different recruitment policy between these platforms and yet there is a
unlikely that there
difference in means for this personality dimension. Furthermore, UK2 supervisors report a different leadership

from their counterparts on UKI. Their style is more assertive in the workplace as shown by the findings in
style
Table 9.8. As supervisors, they portray a more active role with their teams which may indicate a platform

where trust is replaced by constant checking and reviewing.

management style

Differences betweenUK 1. UK2 and N1

Discriminant analysis was used to predict platform membership using certain independent variables (innovation,
in a supervisor, management by exception 'active', management by exception `passive'
length current role as
the role of the supervisor is not dominated by paperwork'). Supervisory
and the attitude statement responses
these variables demonstrated that where the supervisors worked was discriminating within the overall
against
This indicates that the five variables highlighted can describe that differences
sample. clearly not only there are
three platforms but measure the extent of them. Current selection and recruitment methods for
between the
not scientific and are at best 'trial and error'. Therefore, if this technique were expanded to
most platforms are

201
 Chapter Nine

increasethe data set to multiple platforms, it potentially could improve the selection of future offshore recruits
by mapping organisational,attitude and cultural factors in line with the platform style.

Quantitative Supervisory Performance

Discriminant analysis was also used to predict supervisory performance of the total sample. As above, for

platform membership, this technique proved very useful. The effective supervisors across these platforms were
different from the rest. They exhibited a common leadership style (proactive transactional), interacted with the

workplace differently (i. e., recognising the need for management rules and structure within a harsh .
environment) and were more experienced within their role. Therefore, to assist with recruitment and selection,

these variables (except for experience in role) can improve offshore supervisory performance as defined by the

criterion performance measure.

Qualitative Supervisory Performance

The use of the Supervisory Decision Making Vignettes (DMVs) was an innovative attempt at differentiating

supervisory performance. Although there were contrary correlations with performance as measured by
appraisals from superiors, the methodology produced both interesting findings and the foundations of an

offshore supervisorybehaviouralmodel.

Firstly, the scenariosgeneratedmany correspondingbehavioursto `Boyatsis Effective Manager'. Many of the

effective supervisory behaviours were similar to this model and while the DMVs were not intended to map
directly with the Boyatsis model it does indicate that as a tool they were both relevant and credible (see Table
9.20).

Secondly, this qualitative technique was probably the most appropriate technique for articulating what creates

the distinctions within the key groupings of `effective versus less effective offshore supervisory performance'
(The data set was not large enough to
and `onshore versus offshore supervisory performance'. effectively
differences between platforms). One of the main strengths of the technique was that it was environment
capture
a model that is offshore Therefore,
specific and consequently generates supervisor centred. as a job analysis
is immediately transferable in an offshore context and training, selection and or
technique, the output
development strategies can be driven by output which is directly applicable.

Finally, the methodological benefit of the DMVs were to triangulate the data with the standard instruments and

there mixed findings, it created a more holistic view of the offshore supervisory in
although were role and many
has identified factors that have discriminated performance.
areas

202
 CHAPTER TEN

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter will draw together the overall findings from the study. The model outlined in"Chäpter Five will
facilitate the description of the findings in conjunction with the aims. In summary, the main aims of the study

were to identify factors that differentiated a more effective supervisor from a less effective one, to investigate
the preferred leadershipstyles of offshore supervisorsand to assesswhether there were any differences between

supervisorsworking on platforms on the UKCS comparedto the NCS.

The key findings of the thesis were in the following areas; (i) the summary data described for the first time the

first line supervisor in terms of bio-data, personality, leadership style, job satisfaction and perceptions
offshore
(ii) the findings from these instruments, particularly the Bass leadership instrument,
of the work environment,
identified that supervisory effectiveness was dependent on the platform membership of the supervisor, (iii) the

supervisory decision making vignettes created a competence model that could be used for recruitment, selection
development of offshore supervisors and finally (iv) platform differences, in terms of supervisory style,
and
from both within the UK sector and between the North Sea sectors.
were elicited

Recommendationsfor the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry and directions for future researchare also proposed.

10.1 INTRODUCTION

The review of research into management of the offshore industry outlined the importance of this unique

to the UK economy, and surprisingly, how little management research was undertaken
working environment
into the industry. There have, however, been previous psychological investigations of shift work, occupational

physical health, job satisfaction and safety on North Sea installations (see Flin & Slaven,
stress, mental and
Hellesoy, 1985) which consistently (if tangentially) identify the important contribution of supervisors in
1996;

and satisfied workforce. The contribution of the onshore supervisor to job performance and
maintaining a safe
the workplace is unequivocal (Child & Partridge, 1982; Phillips, 1985). In Chapter Two several
productivity at
`supervisor' productivity effects were discussed. This included the by
of the seminal work undertaken

Woodward (1965). Her study, although thirty years old, still provides useful lessons for the current workplace.
the potential impact both the number of subordinates
In particular, understanding and the types of technology
While, Woodward's study does not provide the conclusive answer as to what creates
have on supervisory style.
it did provide clear directions for future research. Child and Partridge (1982)
effective supervision outlined

201
 Conclusionsand Recommendations

several models for the development of the supervisor. The difficulty is transferring their models to the
workplace and, if necessary,investing in both the time and the training required to implement them. Within the
offshore oil industry, the cultural/environment elements will have.a significant influence on the supervisory
If
model. These factors are integrated as part the "effective offshore supervisor model". This model is
described at the end of this chapter. Chapter Three outlined the empirical research into leadership in the

workplace and concluded that there is not one dominant/acceptedtheory of effective leadership. However,
there is value in studying the leader from different theoretical perspectives. In essence,an integrated leadership

concept comprising leadership behaviour, trait theory and the augmentation model of t ansformational_
leadership (Bass, 1990) may hold many of the answersin the searchfor effective leadership,although even this

model produced low magnitudeand at times contradictory correlations. The Bassmodel, while useful, was not
the definitive researchinstrumentthat was anticipated from the leadershipliterature.

The pilot study of offshore supervisors identified some key factors in researching the role and potential

weaknesses in the viability of the instruments used to measure leadership style. The main findings from the

pilot interviews were that the offshore environment was a significant element that made communicating with

and motivating staff more troublesome. The supervisors felt that potentially difficult interpersonal

conversations (such as criticism of work performance) were diluted, even avoided, because of the remote

environment. It was felt by the supervisors that the offshore workplace could negatively influence appraisals,

affect the selection of future supervisors and may compromise supervisory decisions. Finally, the supervisors

did perceive that change management skills would be required because of the increased focus on safety

management and the expanding commercial emphasis offshore.

202
 Chapter Ten

The results of the pilot study helped refine the data collection methodology for the larger survey. For example,

the offshore environment was repeatedly mentioned by the supervisors as a key factor that affected their roles.
As a consequence, the "offshore environment" was researched as a key independent variable in the full study.

The environment was measured directly using the Work Environment Scale (Moos & Billings, 1974) and this

instrument proved helpful in identifying key offshore characteristics. The use of the Work Environment Scale

(WES) was maintained in the full study. The use of the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (LOQ) and
Supervisory Behaviour Description Questionnaire (SBDQ) (Fleishman, 1953) were withdrawn for the full study

as a leadership measure because of the weak correlations with the performance measure and the central concepts,

were not reflecting current management thinking of this industry. Given the concurrent validation, namely an

untested independent variable (for this industry) and an untested performance criterion, there was a danger that
both `unknowns' is inaccurate. In spite this the decision was taken to search both for a
one or of these of risk,

potentially better instrument for investigating leadership and an improved performance measure. As a result,

Bass's Leadership Model (1985) and two alternative appraisal measures were used. The job satisfaction scale

(Warr et al, 1979) was found useful in classifying differences in job satisfaction levels between onshore and

offshore groups and also with previous offshore studies. Moreover, given the intention of attempting cross

cultural research, it was felt that this robust and relatively straightforward instrument could provide useful

data. Finally, the responses from Q. 26 (The situational scenario where equipment fails and the
comparative

were offered several prompts to indicate their next action) led to the development
respondents of the
Supervisory Decision Making Vignettes (DMVs). These vignettes were a rich source of qualitative data and are

described in detail in Chapter Nine, section 9.5.

203
 Conclusions and Recommendations

Thesefindings assistedin the formation of the aims of the full study. They were as follows:

(i) To record the experiencesand perceptionsof a sample of offshore supervisorsin relation to the
working environment,training, job satisfaction,personality and leadershipskills.

(ii) To discover which of thesefactors differentiate a more effective from a less effective offshore
supervisor in terms of job performance.

(iii) To investigate the preferred leadership styles of the supervisors and to test where these
differentiate the effective from the less effective offshore supervisor by incorporating the views
of the supervisors,the supervisors'superiorsand the supervisors' subordinates.
41
(iv) To examinetwo alternativetechniquesfor measuringsupervisory performance.

(v) To assess whether there are any differences between supervisors working on platforms on the
United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS) and those on the Norwegian Continental Shelf
(NCS); and between supervisors working for contracting companies as opposed to operating
companies.

These aims were examined within the context of the thesis model of the effective supervisor, described in

Chapter 5, section 5.4. It is presented again below as figure 10.1.

Figure 10.1
Model for Effective Offshore Supervision

Blodata (')

Work Experience
Job Performance

Superior Ratings
Personality
Peer Nominations
(A)
(iii)

Leadership

L Job Performance
f v)
Job Satisfaction Decision
Making
Vignettes
(v) (B)
Work
Environment

Six, Seven and Eight describe how the research findings fulfilled these aims. Chapter Nine describes
Chapters

of the aims across all three platforms as one sample. This chapter will review the
the examination research aims
conclusions through key offshore supervisory themes such as `the offshore supervisor in situ, '
and the major

204
 Chapter Ten

'the supervisory style of effective offshore supervisors' and `the platform effect'. Secondly the contribution of

the research to our understanding of leadership in the workplace will be described, and finally the chapter will

present both a framework for practical action for the offshore industry and suggestions for future research.

10.2 PLATFORM FINDINGS

:4

:
10.2.1 Overall Findings

The North Sea Offshore Oil and Gas Industry is a demanding, diverse and dangerousworking environment.
The sampleof the supervisorsstudied,although small, representedsignificant offshore experienceboth in terms

of length of service and their time as supervisors. As a group, they embodied the typical workforce of this

unique working environment and many of their views, characteristicsand skills probably mirrored the larger
offshore population. The next section describes, in summary, how the sample met each of the objectives

outlined above.

(i) To record the experiencesand perceptionsof a sample of offshore supervisors in relation to the
working environment, training, job satisfaction,personality and leadershipskills.

Most of the respondentswere aged between 36 and 47 years and the average length of service as a supervisor
The total offshore experienceof the sample was in excessof one thousand years with
was almost eight years.
typically supervised by each supervisor. Most of the supervisors had taken post secondary
nine subordinates
such as City and Guilds or Higher National Certificates before pursuing their careers
school examinations
offshore.

The majority received ratings from their superiors towards the higher end of the job performance scale. As a

Technical/Specialist Ability was the highest scoring indicator with the lowest
total sample, scoring performance

indicator Initiative on UKI, Influencing Others on UK2 and Change Oriented on N1.

they appeared to be a fairly heterogeneous group. There is some indication for UKI &
In terms of personality,
Imaginative, Methodical, Achieving and Gregarious (UKIonly) than a population norm
UK2 that they are more
but is only a preliminary finding. The Norwegian supervisors (n=17) appear more Methodical but
group this

less Emotional than a UK population norm group.

The job scores of the total sample of supervisors was higher than the technicians' scores and
satisfaction
higher on UKI and NI compared to UK2 (p<. 01). On UK2 there was no difference for
significantly significant
total scores (71.7 vs 68.6, t=-. 3). On UKI, they rate highest
the job satisfaction satisfaction with your fellow
but rate lowest satisfaction with the way your firm is managed, on UK2 the highest is
workers satisfaction with

205
 Conclusionsand Recommendations

your immediate boss and lowest with industrial relations between management and workers in your firm, and
finally on N1, the supervisorsrate the highest and lowest job satisfaction items similar to that of UK1, your
fellow workers but additionally rate highly the amount of responsibility you are given, and lowest satisfaction

with the way your firm is managed. In generäl, the three groups of supervisors were job satisfied and their
ratings were higher than previous offshore studies (Sutherland & Flin, 1991; Sutherland, V, & Cooper, 1986).
See also Table 4.4.

The work environment instrument scores were useful in identifying the supervisors' perceptiops of the work
-4-
climate. Both UK1 and UK2 platforms described the offshore workplace as having a high degree of pressure:

and time urgency to get jobs done, and management use rules to keep employees under control. Both

supervisor groups felt that the physical work conditions did not contribute to a pleasant working environment.

The UK2 supervisors specifically indicated that they felt there was a strong cooperative culture among the staff.

On NI, the supervisors described an environment with a strong cooperative employee culture and a high degree

of workplace innovation but within a culture of management control and task accomplishment. These findings

to the conclusions of Burnett and Tait (1996) on offshore workplace empowerment. Using a
are similar

separate question on stress, the majority of supervisors rated their role as mildly to considerably stressful.

The final key variable of investigation was the self reported leadership style of the supervisors using the MLQ

(Bass & Avolio, 1993). On platform UK1, three transformational items were rated highly; idealised influence,

intellectual stimulation and individual consideration. Laissez-faire was rated the lowest factor by this group.

On UK2, the supervisors scored highest on the transformational item inspirational leadership, and as with UK I,

the lowest item was laissez-faire. Finally, NI supervisors rated the item idealised influence and intellectual

stimulation highly and as with the two UK platforms laissez-faire the lowest. This showed that on the three

supervisors believed that they showed a proactive transformational style rather than the non-involved
platforms
laissez-faire style.

(ii) To discover which of these factors differentiate a more effective from a less effective offshore
in terms of job performance.
supervisor

This objective was the most critical of all. To determine the factors behind effective supervisory job

singularly the most interesting element of this research for the sponsoring oil industry
performance was
Regrettably, determining the skills of the effective offshore supervisor in terms of training, work
managers.
job and leadership style has remained inconclusive. The pooling of the data (n=91)
environment, satisfaction
themes in the data and statistically cancelled out possible effects. The platforms
may have masked underlying
have, however, identified some interesting findings. On UK1 and NI, none of the biodata
examined separately
items correlated with the job performance measure suggesting that these were not useful
or personality
However, on UK2, length of time as a supervisor (r=. 56, 01) and methodical (r=-
predictors of performance. p<.

05) correlated with the job performance measure.

37, p<. significantly
.

206
 Chapter Ten

In terms of job satisfaction, as a predictor of performance, the results were slightly more encouraging. On UK I,

several items correlated with the job performance measure. These included; the recognition you get for good

work, your opportunity to use your abilities and industrial relations between management and workers in your
firm. This suggests that higher performing supervisors are more satisfied with the social elements of the

workplace such as empowerment, management praise and management/employee relationships. On UK2 and

N 1, none of the job satisfaction items significantly correlated with performance.

Some of the WES items for UKI and UK2 were identified as useful discriminators of performance. On UKI,
both involvement and innovation showed significant correlations with the job performance measure. This

analysis suggeststhat the more effective supervisor on this platform understandsthe need for change at the
workplace and leads a team of subordinates who are committed to their jobs: On UK2, innovation also

significantly correlated with the job performance measure but was negative (r--. 56, p<.O1) implying that on this

platform the more effective supervisor does not perceive that the workplace is changing. None of the items for
NI correlatedsignificantly with the job performancemeasure.

The leadership variable was the final one that could potentially discriminate the effective supervisor from the

less effective one. On UK1, inspirational leadership and management by exception 'active' significantly

the performance measure, but on UK2 individual consideration and management by exception
correlated with
'active' both negatively correlated with the performance measure suggesting that different, almost opposing,

leadership styles are effective on each platform. None of the leadership items were significant on platform NI.

So in terms of predicting job performance, standardisedmeasureswere of limited value, although they did

provide structured descriptionsabout this workgroup.

(iii) To investigate the preferred leadership styles of the supervisors and to test where these
differentiate the effective from the less effective offshore supervisor by incorporating the views
of the supervisors, the supervisors' superiors and the supervisors' subordinates.

The preferred leadership style was investigated through open questions and a structured leadership

the MLQ by Bass and Avolio (1993). The responses to the open questions did not contain any
questionnaire;
about their preferred styles. The respondents used labels such as `motivates his team',
startling revelations
'discusses job with team' to describe the behaviours of effective supervisors. In fact, both UKI
'assertive' and
UK2 described `knowing the capabilities of team', `leadership' and `man-management' as the
and respondents
of an effective supervisor. But, as outlined briefly above, it was the inconsistent quantitative
most critical skills
for UK that was surprising. Moreover, it appears that the effective leadership
findings the two platforms style is
dependent. The UKI effective leadership behaviour is partially transformational i. e., using emotional
platform
to improved work performance and this is further enhanced by transactional leadership
appeals encourage
This is characterised by a supervisor who portrays a `hands on' style at the workplace. However,
behaviour.
is almost the antithesis of UKI. Effective supervisors
the UK2 effective style on this platform are physically

207
 Conclusionsand Recommendations

psychologically distant from both the workplace and their teams, and only take action when either
and
difficulties arise or situations become so chronic that they have to get involved. None of the
significant
leadership items correlatedsignificantly with the job performance measureon Ni and therefore no conclusions

were drawn about the effective style on this platform.

The perceptions of the subordinatesabout their supervisors' leadership style was measuredthrough the raters'

version of the MLQ. The work demands of the offshore environment meant the sample size of subordinates
low (n=70 for UKI, n= 41 for UK2 & n=20 for Ni). This resulted in a low ratio of raters td 'supervisors,so-,
was
this analysis was withdrawn. This was regrettable becausesubordinate ratings about the leadership style of

supervisors is an essential feedback loop in determining leadership behaviour and therefore future projects
should consider more carefully the logistics of ensuring a larger data set of subordinates.

(iv) To examine two alternative techniques for measuring supervisory performance.

The job performance measurewas the main method used to determine supervisory performance. It had been

used in a previous study with offshore subjects(Sutherland, 1994) and, as then, was found to have high internal

reliability. However, this measuredid not discriminate performance as effectively as anticipated (see Chapter
Six, Seven & Eight). There are weaknesseswith this type of measure,namely the central tendency with the

scoring and as the performance measure is single source, other factors can have an influence such as
" to increasethe subjectivity of the supervisory appraisal.
"impression management,

Peer nominations were attempted because of their advantages over performance measures such as appraisal

(Kane & Lawler, 1978). Their research showed this tool effectively discriminates group members who are

from those who are not with a high degree of validity and reliability. This method proved
extreme on a variable

extremely contentious on the confined atmosphere of an offshore platform and was withdrawn after the visit to
UK1. However, on this platform, peer nominations provided some interesting findings. These scores correlated

significantly with the WES item innovation (r=. 32, p<. 05) endorsing the finding from the job performance

measure that the who perceives change positively is a high performing supervisor. The leadership
supervisor
items also significantly correlated with the peer nominations. The transactional factor management-by-

`active' three of the four transformational factors (idealised influence, individual consideration &
exception and
inspirational leadership) showed that when rated by peers these were all leadership variables that identified

high performing supervisors. Future research should consider altering this method of appraising performance in

order to make it less contentious without compromising the functionality. For example, the "less effective"

scoring could be withdrawn and allow only positive ratings to be recorded, thus maintaining the performance
discrimination as the more effective supervisors should still receive the most votes.

208
 Chapter Ten

(v) To assesswhether there are any differences between supervisorsworking on platforms on the
United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS) and those on the Norwegian Continental Shelf
(NCS); and between supervisorsworking for contracting companies as opposed to operating
companies.

Some of the differences between the platforms have been described above such as the leadership scores and the

perceptions of the work environment of the UKI and UK2 effective supervisors. There were, hQwever, several
differences between the groups within the sample. The distinction -i
to examine was between:
other most obvious -
the two offshore sectors. The safety and attitude scale highlighted significant cultural differences between the

Norwegian sample and the UK one. For example, the attitude scale item if supervisors did not take risks now

and again the job wouldn't get done showed that the Norwegian sample significantly disagreed with this

statement(See Table 9.3 for other examples).

There were other between platform differences such as for personality which although not effective at
discriminating job performance, did reveal that UK2 supervisors were significantly more emotional than

supervisors on UK1 and NI.

The UK platforms were staffed by supervisors from two different companies. Typically, the operator

supervisors managed production and the contractor supervisors managed maintenance departments,

respectively. The samples, although small, did indicate some interesting differences between the two groups. It

be however, that there were no bio-data differences suggesting that other

should noted, variations can be
to the supervisors' parent company. On UKI, the contractor supervisors rated their role less stressful,
attributed
less work pressure but more control than the operator supervisors (see section 6.7). On UK2, the key

distinction was for the WES item innovation. Both groups significantly correlated with the job performance
but in opposite The higher performing contractor supervisors perceived
directions.
measure, change and new
to be encouraged whereas the higher performing operator supervisors perceived a static work
approaches were

environment.

differences were found between the three platforms, the two offshore
In short, significant sectors and the two

on the UK platforms. Broadly the results of this study, the first to investigate the
supervisor groups role of the
showed that the effective supervisor does have a distinctive style. It however,
offshore supervisor, appears, that
the supervisor is heavily influenced by the job context, and as stated the source employer
the effectiveness of
further distinctions. Therefore, each of the main findings from the three
created platforms studied are
individually as there were several key differences between them which are described in the next
summarised

section.

209
 Conclusions and Recommendations

10.2.2 The Supervisory Style of Effective Offshore Supervisors

The results from Chapter Six showed that effective supervisors on UK1 have a predominantly transactional

leadership style (i. e., exchange and reward in return for compliance). There is also some evidence of

transformational leadership among supervisory behaviours (i. e., raising followers expectations of possible

to higher levels), although only one dimension - inspirational leadership - predicted performance
performance
(see section 6.6). In other words, the effective supervisors take an active role in enforcing the compliance of

by their team and motivate higher performance from their team by using pep talks, enthusiasm and
standards
describing attainable visions of the future. They are also satisfied with the work opportunities that are open to

them and are satisfied with the employee relations on the platform as shown by the job satisfaction scores (see

table 6.9). Moreover, they are supervisors who understand the current changes offshore and supervise a team

who are committed to their work. Undertaking correlational analysis using only one performance criterion has

limitations (Yukl, 1994) and low magnitude correlations, although significant, bear out this weakness. Given

lack objective criteria, immediate superior evaluations of supervisory performance was,

the of easily accessible
in theory, the most reliable measure available. This is still the most popular method of measuring performance

UK industry (Cook, 1993). While an attempt was made to collect peer nomination scores on
within

performance, the close-knit community atmosphere of the platform made this extremely contentious and as a
for use on the other platforms in the study. However, the key findings using this measure
result was withdrawn

are presented in Chapter Six. Future research should address this issue and ideally multiple criteria of

should be developed.
supervisory performance

Overall, the results from UKI, indicate that there is some evidence of a distinct and effective offshore

The platform membership of the supervisor is a critical factor and the employer status of the
supervisory style.
further discriminate performance. For example, the contractor supervisor rated key aspects of
supervisor may
job satisfaction and items of the attitude scale more positively than the operator
the work environment,
This is broadly contrary to offshore research from the early to mid-eighties (Sutherland, K, 1994;
supervisor.
V, 1986) which recorded significant dissatisfaction generally with the offshore environment from a
Sutherland,

view. Factors that may have caused this change include the increased focus in improving
contractor's point of
by involving all groups of staff and the impact of outsourcing (Green, 1994). There is also
offshore safety
that the more effective supervisor perceives a changing work environment and understands these
evidence
Furthermore, they have higher levels of job satisfaction particularly with reference to using their skills
changes.
being for doing good work.
and recognised

that while the prominent leadership style of the supervisor is transactional, there is some
It is encouraging
leadership behaviours. Bass (1985) argues that transformational leadership has to
evidence of transformational
if are to meet the new challenges facing industry and there is substantial evidence that
he fostered organisations

210
 Chapter Ten

leadersimprove the performance of an organisation at all levels (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Bass &
transformational
Yammarino, 1991). The challenge for the offshore industry is to examine whether this model of leadership is

and assumingit is then to extend thesekey behaviours so that they become the norm rather than the
applicable ,
exception.

On platform UK2, however, the more effective supervisor appearsto display a style that it is counter intuitive

different development problems. For example, as shown by the Bass leadership model (1990)
and this poses
supervisor on this platform does not take an active role in enforcing the compliance of
the more effective
by their team and does not searchfor mistakes. But when mistakes occur, only intervenes when the v
standards
issues become really chronic as shown by the better performers demonstrating negative correlations for

`management by exception (active)' (see section 7.6). The more effective supervisor also takes little interest in

individual needs and wants of his or her team and finally perceives little or no change in the work
the
(as shown in section 7.5.1). This style is more autocratic and is not only at odds with the findings
environment
from UKI the current management and leadership literature but is also an anathema in a high risk
and
Although Bass(1997), arguesin a referenceto these findings (p. 137) that this may be due to a
environment.
distant, tough, no-nonsense onshore boss who is dictating the views of platform management. In reality,

however, this platform manager was highly visible making frequent offshore trips, was mild mannered
onshore
to make decisions by involving his offshore managers. Therefore, the evidence found describing this
and aimed
harsh offshore management style may be perpetuated consciously or even unconsciously by the offshore

group in isolation of the wider philosophy

management of the company.
management

for describing an effective supervisor on platform NI were less conclusive. The data set
The quantitative results
than platforms UKI and UK2, and as result none of the performance predictions were
was considerably smaller
However, there were aspects of the data that may store clues for identifying an effective supervisor
significant.
The performance ratings indicate that technical ability was rated as an essential skill for an
on this platform.
the majority of supervisors perceived their role as one of a team leader with
effective supervisor,
'involving employees' mentioned, and most supervisors felt that technical experience was
`empowerment' and
for the role. This is also consistent with the views shared by another Norwegian Platform Manager
essential
(Lynghaug, 1995).

for platform differences

Suggested reasons to account
findings unexpectedly, that supervisory performance is dependent on platform as
'fliese show, somewhat
appear effective on each of the UK platforms. Surprisingly, the `platform effect'
different supervisory styles
link to supervisory performance than other more tangible aspects such as biodata or parent
appears a stronger
The 'platform effect' or culture appears to exist independently of the fixed elements of the offshore
company.
and safety considerations. It is, however, both these static attributes and the
such as remoteness
workplace
many of the difficulties of investigating this workplace and ultimately to
culture that create make
platform
for change and improvement. For example, the findings from the three results chapters
recommendations
hydrocarbon production platform is a structured, potentially stressful and task oriented
indicate that a

211
 Conclusionsand Recommendations

workplace, based in an environment that is dominated by high inventory dangers and complex safety systems.

Although these attributes of the environment must remain fixed, the supervisory and managerial characteristics,

which have to change as a result of the current commercial impetus still seem to belong to the 'boom era' of the
;
late seventies and early eighties. A number of explanations may be entertained. One possibility is that current

industry wide commercial initiatives such as Cost Reduction in a New Era (CRINE) and the resultant message

are not making the impact that is required at the front line. Cynics may argue that no message gets through,
however evidence from the offshore industry shows that the Safety Case and other Cullen sponsored initiatives

have made an encouraging impact (HSE, 1995) If this is so, there still remains the challenge of nurturing

innovative work practices, proactive supervisory and management styles, and a general attitude shift without

compromising the safety culture of the platform (e. g. Simons, 1995). This 'safety discipline' versus 'workplace

empowerment' dichotomy was also discussed by Dawson (1989) who stated "Routine procedures must be seen

as critical and be encouraged and monitored, but people should also be developed to be alert, take initiative and

to think laterally" (p. 4). Similar challenges were addressed by Swiss chemical company Ciba-Geigy in the early

nineties. They attempted radical culture change to meet the environmental revolution that was concomitant

with the changing values of society. Using Robert Waterman's concept of "Directed Autonomy" (Kennedy,

1993), creativity and innovation were effectively maintained within pre-set departmental boundaries. Another

possibility is that the new safety initiatives offshore have merely encouraged a technically dominant work

culture to further focus on technical solutions. Thus, minimising the opportunity for "soft management factors"

to contribute to the change process. A third possibility is training. The UK sample, in particular, has not been

to deal of management/leadership/supervisory training (see section 6.3, for example) and this is
exposed a great
if both cost conscious and innovative supervision are to become a reality. Although training for
required
is
training's sake not being advocated but new training initiatives such as the new focus on safety culture (Flin,

Meares, Gordon & Fleming, 1996) have to match the needs of the organisation, fit the offshore context and

perhaps even the specific platform culture.

The following table summarises the main differences between the three platforms.

Characteristicsof more effective supervisors

PLATFORM UKI PLATFORM UK2 PLATFORM N1

Active role in enforcing of Passiverole in enforcing standards Experienced supervisors,highly job

standards, motivates performance until issue becomeschronic, satisfied, extremely safety

through pep talks, enthusiastic, and manages team autocratically and conscious supervisors, but could

describes attainable visions for the does not know the needs and improve on the job satisfaction of

wants of the individuals within teams.

workplace.
team.

Perceives the work environment Although well trained, fears the

Embraces change, is satisfied with
for themselves and culture to be stagnant and not increasing commercialism offshore.
opportunities
their team. needingto change.

212
 Chapter Ten

These descriptions, particularly for UKI and UK2, outline the difficulties of drawing generic industry

conclusions. Predicting the skills of the effective offshore supervisor appears to be platform specific.
Moreover, the finding for UK2 is inconsistent with the supervisory and leadership literature. While there are

issues relating to the method i. e., the specially devised performance rating measure, a leadership instrument

untested for this industry and a small data set, there is one significant factor of this field research which may

retain many clues; differences in the offshore work environment between the platforms.

The next section describesone of the main aspectsof the questionnairethat attemptedto extract the supervisory,
behaviours that exist on a given platform; the supervisory decision making vignettes. `

10.2.3 The Offshore Supervisor in situ

One technique that was used in order to investigate the cultural aspects of the work environment was the use of

the supervisory decision making vignettes. These vignettes were created in order to map the offshore

respondents' views about how they would tackle each scenario against a model answer. The results from the

decision making vignettes were of interest both from an attempt to gain a better understanding of
supervisory

supervisory behaviours and from a methodological approach. Any qualitative approach can be made difficult

by the infinite range of potential responses, but this was minimised by using these hypothetical yet structured

situations. This type of method is gaining popularity in the selection of future UK Managers (Potentia

International, 1997) and full extended behavioural event interviews (Boyatsis, 1982) in future research would

further enhance this qualitative method.

The findings from the DMVs indicated that the majority of supervisors were 'average' performers. This

also supported by the superior appraisal ratings, although the performance scores did not
conclusion was
(i. e., different supervisors were rated as average). In spite of this, the DMVs could be developed into
correlate

an instrument for differentiating supervisory performance and the Offshore Supervisory Competence Model

described many of the required behaviours in Section 9.7. These included themes such as the goal
and action
(efficiency orientation, proactivity and diagnostic use of concepts) the leadership
management cluster cluster

(self confidence, use of oral presentations and logical thought) and the directing others cluster (developing

power and spontaneity). A key strength of this approach has been the
others, the use of unilateral creation of
in role i. e., the theory underpinning this methodology is that while there may be overlap with
competencies
industry these competencies are highly relevant for an effective supervisor in the offshore
other sectors,
For the results chapters have repeated the need for a supervisor to lead
environment. example, a team
in a remote environment where the close-knit community, an almost claustrophobic society
effectively
a professional and disciplined approach to achieving tasks. Although "perceptual
dominates while maintaining
aspects of this competency it may not be enough for the offshore environment. Previous
objectivity" captures
by NASA may hold clues for the' effective offshore supervisor. Their research has shown that leaders
research
high groups in confined social environments (e. g. space stations) tend to be task and
of effective and performing
have a flexible (primarily democratic) leadership style, work to harmony
achievement oriented, maintain group

213
 Conclusions and Recommendations

and can tolerate intimacy and statuslevelling without losing authority or respectof the group. Effective leaders
are described as having self confidence, emotional control, self reliance, and the strength of personality to
maintain their authority during both sustainedintimacy and moments of crisis (Penwell, 1990, p.42-43). This
to
would appear match the competenciesrequired bf the effective offshore supervisor.

The offshore supervisor decision making vignettes identified certain competencies that if used by an offshore

supervisor would probably indicate excellent supervisory performance. Even though the method

compartmentalises behaviour into segments, the competence model does provide a better holistic insight into

the offshore supervisor's role than does the MCI personal competence model, for example. What the Boyatsis

model has not shown is which competencies are commutative and which ones are not, and only further testing

would explain this weakness. The results showed that were several areas for development. These included, for

example, communicating complex problems with team (DMV1) and addressing ambiguity generally (DMV2 &
DMVS) as few supervisors matched the behaviours from the expert group, but it created a useful model from

which to benchmark supervisory behaviours against supervisory competencies using Boyatsis (1982) as an

accepted framework. Furthermore, one particular strength of this method of data collection is with small data

sets and unlike the weaknesses of pooling with quantitative analysis, cultural and management style differences

can be found within these small samples. A final strength of this approach would be to combine it with an

independent and reliable performance measure, therefore creating a performance model that explains the

differences in supervisory performance. The remaining problem of identifying a reliable and valid measure of

supervisory performance is discussed below.

The next section offers an explanation for the difficulties in finding definitive answerswithin the study.

10.2.4 The Platform Effect

The `platform effect' has been a significant aspect of these results. Pooling the data across UK1, UK2 and NI
differences within the sample. The results described in Chapters Six, Seven
appeared to mask and Eight
identified platform specific supervisory characteristics. The data from platforms UKI and UK2 defined
specific

made an effective supervisor on their platforms, and in spite of the real and perceived
attributes of -what
the two platforms, there were key differences in this supervisory style. Discriminant
similarities of analysis was

statistical tool in identifying this platform effect (see section 9.5.2). But, as stated, throughout the
also a useful
the critical finding is the apparent differences between both the two groups of platform
results chapters,
the effective supervisors on UKI and UK2. These offshore platforms were linked by
supervisors and several
For example, they were designed and built in the early to they both
common characteristics. mid-eighties,
operated and maintained by approximately the same numbers of personnel. Moreover,
produced oil and were

were operated by the same company, maintained by the same service company, produced from
these platforms
field and were visible from one to the other. It is therefore
the same offshore surprising that so many
found between them. These include the following; the personality dimension
differences were emotional where
higher than UK1 supervisors, the job
(1K2 supervisors score significantly satisfaction items "physical work

214
 Chapter Ten

conditions", "freedom to chooseown working" and "chances of promotion" are all scored significantly higher
by UKI supervisorsthan UK2 supervisors,and finally UK2 supervisorsreport a more assertiveleadership in the

workplace as shown by the findings in Table 9.8 than UKI supervisors,although this finding is not significant.

While have been presented to account for these differences (see section 9.8), the work of
suggestions
theorists such as Dawson (1996), Hofstede (1990) and Peters and Waterman (1982) may explain
organisational
these differences exist. In particular, the work of Hofstede seems most relevant. After fifteen years of
why
discriminates large 'such
research into what national culture within multi-national organisations as IBM, he.

found that there were fundamentally different ways of perceiving `ways of working'. This would depend on
On the face of it, this theory would explain more
geography, ethnic and religious origins and experiences.
differences between the UK sector and the Norwegian sector rather than between the two UK platforms,
easily
but as stated above, there are examples within the data that suggest the `way of working' to be different within

UK culture. The findings described above may indicate that there are further distinctions
one corporate or sub-
this corporate culture at the platform level. Offshore safety research by Flin et al (1996) found
cultures within
that within offshore platforms there were significant differences in safety management performance between

and less effective supervisors and their respective subordinates. However, this supervisory research,
effective
finding consistent with this safety study, also found differences in corporate culture namely
while examples
determines supervisory effectiveness to exist at the platform level. A relatively new theory may explain
what
how to account for this further distinction within this corporate culture. Capra (1996) argues, in his book `The

Web of Life', that in order to comprehensively understand living systems such as organisations one has to

two different scientific approaches. They are the study of substance (or structure) and the study
synthesise of

form (or pattern). In other words, structure involves quantities, while pattern involves qualities (Capra, 1996).

he argues, an organism is studied by breaking it down to its parts, thus destroying the
In scientific research,

the The parts of the organism are still there, but the configuration of it or its pattern is not.
pattern of organism.

biological translates easily into this study of offshore supervision. While the research maintained
This paradigm
to both the data collection and analysis, it was predominantly a research method
a triangulation approach

investigating `structure' and linear relationships using quantitative analysis. The `pattern' or culture of the

was not expressly investigated, although many respondents commented on the styles of management,
platforms
"way do things here" approach and the WES, Job Satisfaction Scale, Multifactor Leadership
the we
IMAGES did capture attributes that were platform specific. In essence, the substantial
Questionnaire and
between UKI and UK2 may be explained by the patterns and non-linear relationships
differences specifically
environments. In practice, creating a new more effective offshore management style may
within these working
of the old one and this would include all the managers, the the
require the complete removal supervisors, and
as to how the platform community was governed. Assuming Capra's theory is correct
rules and regulations
the OIM and a few direct reports would not be revolutionary enough to change the old "style"
merely replacing
still remain. In reality the whole management team would have to be removed plus some
as the `culture' would
endorse the old "style" simultaneously and replace with the new "style" team. In the
influential characters who

industry, wholesale management expulsion is practically impossible. Therefore, generic corporate

offshore

215
 Conclusionsand Recommendations

wide initiatives such as new safety improvements or new cost cutting methods will have varying levels of

success depending on the platform. This reasoning would probably surprise many onshore staff tasked with

communicating and implementing these new strategies. For new offshore projects such as Dunbar and

Hibernia (offshore Newfoundland), significant efforts have been made to select staff for a particular type of

team working culture (Ling, 1995).

The next section discusses the prospects for the offshore supervisor within the context of the thesis, findings and

the literature review (Chapter's One to Three).

"i

10.3 THE FUTURE OF THE OFFSHORE SUPERVISOR

10.3.1 Changes within the offshore industry

The offshore oil and gas industry has continually been predicted to diminish since it began over 25 years ago.

These predictions have been wildly inaccurate. The future of the offshore supervisor along with the offshore

industry is assured for the immediate future, although the focus on continued cost reduction will remain (Wood

Mackenzie, 1996,1997). The role of the first line supervisor, however, will have to adapt and change in order

to fit with the changing demands of the industry. There are two main reasons for this. At the macro level, the

increased globalisation of the oil industry is demanding that the UK based companies search for new markets

and where appropriate export knowledge to these markets (e. g., the emerging Faroes, Falkland waters
abroad
improve margins at home. At the micro level,
and Far East) and as a result of this expansion also significantly
there is general consensus that there will be a significant reduction in offshore capital expenditure beyond
a

998 with the introduction of new, less capital, intensive technology such as Floating Production and Storage

(FPS). it is anticipated that there could be as many as 90 new floaters installed world-wide within the next six
(Moir, 1996). Therefore, the skills of the UK staff at all levels and the companies for whom they work are
years
both under pressure to evolve; the supervisors to update their technical, commercial and management skills, and

to invest in the development of their staff.

the companies

were described in Chapter Two especially the concepts proposed by Child and
Several models of supervision

Partridge (1982) and it may be a combination of these models that may suit this industry. On some offshore
headcount (under 100) the supervision model of improving the technical component of
platforms with a small
(Child & Partridge, 1982, `model iv') might improve organisational efficiencies. One of the main
the role
for this model is significant offshore experience and this clearly exists (see sections 6.2,7.2 & 8.2). The
criteria
is to invest in the resources and time required to improve the technical expertise of both the
next step
also the skills of the technicians. One of the benefits of this approach is the removal of the
supervisors and
to supervise and given the research findings (see section 9.6.3) this may be a more
reliance on the supervisor
Secondly, on larger offshore installations (>100) creating "empowered workforce"
appealing solution. an

216
 Chapter Ten

(Child & Partridge, 1982, `model i') while addressingthe caveatsraised earlier i.e., safety discipline but also

simultaneously raising the skills of the supervisorto that of f irst-line manager(Child & Partridge, 1982, `model
iii'), thus, creating the managementlayer required to meet the new commercial emphasisoffshore. This model

was indirectly advocatedby Craig (1997) who recognisedthe need to provide new opportunities to mid-career
employees as flatter organisations,such as the ones emerging offshore, reduce both job satisfaction and job
security. There may be a further alternative option for the offshore supervisor not described here which is
irrespective of platform headcountand technical challenge, but whatever the new supervisory paradigm this

group appearnot only to want development but are currently in danger of being disenfranchisod as the rest of.
the industry evolves aroundthem.

10.3.2 Measuring supervisory performance

The effective supervisory skills elicited from the thesis suggest that notwithstanding the supervisory model

there are several areas for improvement in this research methodology. These shall be described in
adopted,
turn. However, one of the key challenges throughout this research was the absence of a dependable supervisory
The companies surveyed were not able to produce both valid and reliable appraisal data
performance measure.

and therefore the use of the supervisors' performance rating scale was used. While this instrument appeared

(Cronbach's a =. 774 for UKI, 926 for UK2 and 847 for NI) it did not discriminate supervisory
reliable . .
to the levels anticipated. Efforts to develop an additional and alternative performance
performance measure

using peer nominations proved extremely contentious, and was only used with the first sample; UK1. This was
are driving towards a 360 degree model of performance appraisal (Nowack,
regrettable as many organisations
1993). The however, for peer nominations did not correlate with the supervisors' appraisal scale, thus
results,

the need to create a dependable performance measure. This measure could incorporate both
confirming
perceptions but also integrate the tangible performance indicators offshore such as `barrels
superior and peer per
day', `hours of downtime' and `performance against the platform plan' i. e., measuring actual performance
and finally, if appropriate, the use of scoring against "experts"
against expected performance, similar to the
for the DMVs. The supervisor's "manager" would still be required to provide the context
method adopted
these indicators in order to explain erroneous results.
around performance

217
 Conclusionsand Recommendations

The leadership skills of the effective supervisor, for example, were not found to be as transformational as

expected by both the literature (Bass, 1990) and the researcher. The effective supervisors, however, rated
themselves as exhibiting a more transactional leadership style than other leadership behaviours in spite of the

opposing findings for UKI and UK2 (see section 6.6 and 7.6, respectively). In retrospect, this finding is

consistent with the other factors found offshore such as the need to addressthe intense safety demands and the

genuine transactional nature of the environment. Many respondentscommented "the need to progress work"
their biggest source of stressand the findings for the WES (control the highest scoring dimension on both
was
UKI & UK2) further endorse the offshore supervisory style as heavily transactional. Given this finding,

supervisors should be encouragedto increasetheir pro-active transactional leadership style and (if appropriate
i. e., not compromise their safety responsibilities) augment not substitute this style with some transformational
leadership behaviours.

Disappointing results were found for the Occupational Personality Questionnaire IMAGES. None of the
-
dimensions correlated significantly with the performance measure, in spite of the likelihood of personality

differences between effective and less effective supervisors (Hogan et al, 1994). There was, however, an

interesting difference between the platforms with one personality dimension Emotional (UK2 supervisors

scored significantly higher than both UKI and Ni for this dimension) using analysis of variance (see Table

9.4). But, in general, this instrument proved inconclusive as a potential discriminator of supervisory

performance. Measuring personality differences is problematic and using this particular instrument, which is

detailed enough with only six personality scales, would not be recommended for future research.
probably not

The Job Satisfaction Scale developed by Warr, Cook and Wall (1979) has been used in several previous

(Sutherland, V., & Cooper, 1986; Sutherland, K., & Flin, 1991; Flin, Meares, Fleming &
offshore studies
1996) found to be a useful independent variable in this study. Not only did some of the
Gordon, and was again
job performance (e. g., item 4 the recognition you get for good work, r=. 45, p<. Ol) but it
items predict effective
key differences between the supervisors and their subordinates (e. g., freedom to choose your own
identified
t=-. 44, p<. 01), and job satisfaction differences among the three platforms (e.g., your chance
method of working
The debate remains, though, about the causation between job satisfaction and job performance.
of promotion).
due to the harshness of the offshore environment, it is more likely that an employee who enjoys their
However,
be in their job.
role will also more effective

to

218
 Chapter Ten

The Work Environment Scale (Moos & Insell, 1974) was extremely effective in this study in describing

differences between the three platforms (see Table 9.5). In particular, the NI supervisors rate their working

environment as involving the employees and encouraging new ideas, yet coexisting with the need to plan, be

efficient and complete tasks. This description Iould match the aim of many UK offshore operators (Tait &

Hutton, 1994). Certain subscales of the WES were also useful at discriminating effective supervisory

performance. In particular, Innovation, correlated significantly with the performance measure, but for UK1 and

UK2 the correlation was in opposite directions which may reveal a clear cultural difference between these two

platforms. Overall, the WES was an instrument that, notwithstanding its simplicity, was effective in discerning

cultural differences from each of the platforms, and where appropriate would be recommended for use in further

offshore researchto elicit and measureplatform differences.

Another interesting difference between the platforms was the cross border one identified through the attitude

scale (see Table 9.3). NI supervisors appeared to differ from their UK counterparts in most of the safety

that NI supervisors perceive significantly higher safety standards on their platform

statements which suggests
than the equivalent supervisors on UK1 and UK2. Given the recent (since 1988) multi-million pound

on offshore platform safety improvements, this is a potentially disappointing fording for the two
expenditure
UK platforms (see also attitude scale, Table 9.3), but across the UKCS there is significant evidence that safety

are making an impact (HSE, 1995).

messages

The decision making vignettes (DMVs) remained one of the key successes in the research
supervisor

methodology. As a technique for eliciting offshore supervisors' behaviours, this qualitative method proved very

effective. The supervisors' responses generated a list of offshore supervisory competencies (see section 9.6.4).

These descriptions of effective behaviour were job centred thus to undertake competency based interviewing

and selection using these offshore supervisory competencies should prove more relevant for this unique

than traditional selection techniques that attempt to fit generic skills to generic situations. The
environment
findings also provided support to this methodology. For example, the findings for transactional
quantitative
leadership style dovetail with efficiency orientation where the ideal offshore supervisor uses behaviours such as

"sets mutually agreed goals, monitors and reviews" and "creates a plan of action and monitors for

improvement". As a performance measure, the DMV `expert' responses, although underpinned by the

superior appraisal and therein those inherent interpersonal biases, demonstrated that it had
traditional method of

to be useful performance measure, particularly as a tool for matching supervisory behaviours to

the potential a

an ideal response.

The methodological descriptions above summarised the key variables that comprised the model for effective

This model formed the basis of the thesis and was presented above as figure 10.1. The findings
supervision.
implications for the original model described above. Based on the
from the thesis raise results, the following
to improve the model. Personality measurement using IMAGES Biodata are
proposals are made and
However, work experience, particularly company background, appears relevant and remains. The
withdrawn.
(MBEA & MBEP) and the transformational variables are retained. Job
key transactional variables satisfaction,

219
 Conclusionsand Recommendations

although not a discriminating performance variable, records useful baseline data for satisfaction and remains

part of the model. The Work Environment Scale was a useful instrument for describing some platform

differences. It did not, however, interact with the other variables sufficiently to explain the "platform effect"

and become the mediating factor of the model, and therefore remains as an independent variable. The

Supervisory Decision Making Vignettes (DMVs) provided excellent qualitative data about the background to

performance. There is still some doubt, however, as to how effective it would be as an independent
supervisory

measure. The DMVs are therefore retained within the model, but become an independent variable
performance
It is anticipated that 'platform work culture' is inserted as a mediating variable
assessing management style.
the model. Although `platform work culture' is difficult to quantify and isolate, there is strong evidence
within
to suggest that it had a significant impact on leadership, job satisfaction and work environment scores.

Formulating a reliable outcome measure or job performance measure still remainia key objective. A universal

"platform performance measure" that incorporates objective data such as barrels per day (bpd) and
`performance achieved against performance expected' and subjective data such as 360° feedback should be

developed and tested. Based on the above, the new model would then look like Figure 10.2 (see below).

220
 Chapter Ten

Figure 10.2
New Model for Effective Offshore Supervision

Work Experience &

company
background

Management
Style
Job Performance
I.
Reliable universal
II measure, including;
Leadership:
transactional & 360° feedback
k-
transformational
ure - performance against
platform plan
- valid objective
indicators
Job Satisfaction

Work
Environment

This model incorporates both the strengths of the previous model (figure 10.1) and the weaknessesof the
described above. The main difference in Figure 10.2 is the recognition of the `platform work culture'
method
is critical contribution of this thesis. Measuring the impact of this variable in the study still requires
which a
A larger data set including several more offshore platforms may store some
further investigation. significantly
An accurate job performance measure is also expressly stated as key objective for this type of research
clues.
a problem that continues to create challenges for this style of social scienceresearch.
methodology:

outlines some suggestionsfor the offshore supervisors in the current work environment and
The next section
proposals for further research.
some

221
 Conclusionsand Recommendations

10.4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

10.4.1 Concluding comments %

The first-line supervisor is an integral and critical part of the managementteam on an offshore oil and gas

production platform. As operating costs increase, fixed platforms get older and require more maintenance,and

oil and gas resources from existing fields becomemore difficult to extract, the supervisor remains a key figure
in the day to day challengeof maximising return at lowest cost within a safe working environment. However, '"
in spite of the importance of the role, there is no published research about what makes an effective offshore

supervisor. This thesis was the first research specifically to examine this role-and attempt to identify the

characteristics of what madea supervisoreffective in this unique working environment.

The research findings were not decisive. What makes an effective offshore supervisor was only
partially
namely that different, even contradictory, supervisory skills are required for different platforms. For
answered

example, on UKl the effective supervisor uses a transactional leadership style with some transformational

behaviours i. e., getting directly involved at the workplace but in addition is able to encourage his or her

subordinates to work harder towards mutually desired goals. This leadership style occurs within a changing

environment where effective supervisors and their subordinates are committed to their roles, and they are
work
with the recognition they get for good work and the opportunities that are open to them. On UK2, the
satisfied
findings were almost paradoxical given so many other common characteristics between these two UK

platforms. The effective supervisor also used a transactional leadership style, but in a passive way. The

supervisor would only get involved when the workplace issues became so deep rooted that they had no
effective

option but to take action. As a consequence, their leadership style was distant, autocratic, (almost macho) and

unlikely to know the needs and wants of their subordinates. This leadership style existed in a work
they were
that they perceived as static without requiring change. On NI, the performance measure did not
environment
quantitative findings, but this sample was well trained, experienced and safety conscious,
indicate clear
they were uneasy about the increased need for commercial thinking within their roles. Finally, there is
although
the NI supervisors' subordinates ratings for the job satisfaction items as many of them
a potential concern over
lower than the supervisor scores. In spite of these mixed results, the thesis, has identified
were significantly
interesting findings and possible suggestions for further research. These are described below.
several

10.4.2 Oil industry feedback

pieces of feedback about the research findings was the enthusiastic response from the
One of the most satisfying
industry managers. For them, the results vindicated their beliefs that there
--Sponsoring" oil were significant
issues offshore. They believed that these management weaknesses, if rectified, could enhance
management
industry wide cost reduction initiatives such as CRINE and consequently increase field life.
the
significantly
Company B, for example, company specific feedback reports were initially local
Within presented at

222
 Chapter Ten

management levels, i. e., the senior management responsible for the platforms visited. However, the response

gained here was very constructive and it was felt by this group that the next layer of Company B management

(those managers responsible for several platforms offshore) should also hear the findings. Again, a positive

was received at this level and a final presentation of the research findings were made to the Managing
response
Director and other senior directors of Company B on the 16th of December 1994 as part of their quarterly
business review.

The commercial success of Company B traditionally relied on building depth in technical expertise. It was,

therefore, both exciting and surprising to see a social science research project receiving positive "press" within-

this type of company culture. During this time a benchmarking project developed by management consultants

`McKinsey' projected that the costs per barrel of Company B's production of hydrocarbons were significantly

higher than their competitors. Company B set a financial target of producing a barrel of oil equivalent (boe) or

cost for one pound sterling by the year 2000 when the current cost was one pound and seventy-two pence
actual
boe. To achieve this result would require a step change in overall operational efficiency and in cost
per
Several different projects were launched at the beginning of 1995 in order to achieve this goal, but
reduction.
they were all linked by a common theme, the improvement of individual skills and capabilities. One of the

expressly stated objectives was `through upgrading skills, coaching and active learning at all levels to obtain

behaviours better in line with the company's cultural aspirations. ' While there is no written evidence that

any causation between the research into the role of the supervisor and the move to investigate
explicitly states
through skill improvement of offshore personnel, one of Company B managers commented that the
cost savings
findings about offshore supervision helped to sustain the view that technical innovation and process

development were saturated and that new approaches were required. The cultural, competitive and technical

have been briefly described above and it remains a key proposition to relate the thesis findings to the
challenges
tomorrow's effective supervisor. Suggestions for the offshore supervisor are described in the
needs of next

sections.

10.4.3 Supervisor remains pivotal but needs help

is undoubtedly a key member of the offshore management team. Their role is critical for day-to-
The supervisor
critical in safety management and critical for change. There is also a concern, raised
day operational activities,

Chapter One, that the supervisor may be given too much responsibility. The challenge, however, is for
in

management to facilitate an attitude shift among their offshore supervisors concurrent with the
onshore senior

requirements and safety expectations of the new era. As stated in Chapter Two, Wickens (1987) of
commercial
that first-line supervisors, as a group, can make more difference to the long term success of a
Nissan argued
than top management, but that it is the supervisors who deliver top management policies. In a
company other

article, Nissan were again endorsing the role of the supervisor in producing commercial success of
more recent
(Ashmore, 1997). It is clear'that the current cost consciousness that is sweeping the offshore
the company
(Craig, 1997) demands a new approach to supervision and regrettably it appears that traditional training
industry
current selection methods are not meeting this need. In fact, recent offshore safety research by
strategies and

223
 Conclusionsand Recommendations

Fleming, Flin, Mearns & Gordon (1996) suggestedthat there were distinct behaviours in safety management
between effective and less effective supervisors and that future supervisor safety training should focus on
interpersonal skills. (The differencesthat they found are coincidentally similar to those describedbetween UKI
& UK2). For example, the effective supervisorsappearedto "value their subordinatesmore", "visit the work
frequently and use these visits to see if their subordinates required any assistance" and "encourage
site
in decision making". The less effective supervisor appeared to "abdicate responsibility for their
participation
safety when they were not directly involved in the operation", "focus more on productivity and
subordinates
deadlines" and "appearedto feel pressureto get the job done such that at times it was difficult toe safe and get

the job done" (Fleming et al, 1996).

There is, however, a further complex challenge facing the offshore supervisor-and ultimately the offshore
The current commercial impetus towards cost reduction and external competitive pressures such as
workforce.
oil could have a disastrous impact on all the recent excellent initiatives to improve offshore safety. The
cheaper
culture of many offshore operators is now "more production, less shutdowns", although senior
company
industry management still focus on the priority of zero accidents and individual safety. This change of

emphasis creates a worrying paradox for the offshore supervisor. This paradox can be explained by the

following scenario. The supervisor in charge of the oil and gas separation process may attempt, in a response to

pressure by the OIM, to improve the business performance of the platform, to delay a shutdown.
management
For example, this supervisor could argue that to stop production every two years to maintain and possibly

`relief is unnecessary even though the 'safety management system' and the `safety case' of the
change valves'

might dictate it. The supervisor (with the support of onshore experts studying historical data) could
platform
claim that since the relief valves have never tripped or failed, to change them every two years is not
legitimately
delay this shutdown for a further two more years, thus maintaining production. The Offshore
imperative and

Safety Division (OSD) would be unaware of this change to the platform safety case, given that they only

every four years. Working within conflicting priorities is not new for the offshore supervisor
undertake reviews

despite the offshore safety improvements and a demonstrable change in safety culture, there is a
but significant
Alpha climate returning to the offshore industry. The critical difference, ten years on, is
risk of the pre-Piper
industry management are under pressure to support the drive towards greater and greater
that senior oil
(less shutdowns, less downtime, less manpower, less maintenance etc) and this has resulted in
profitability
to maintenance and operational strategies. These new methods are being generated by both
dramatic changes
technical expertise and offshore supervisors. Thus, the offshore supervisor supporting the company
onshore
wrong and potentially fatal decisions against a backdrop of safety education and
philosophy, may make
profit

technical rationale.

224
 Chapter Ten

10.4.4 Supervisor correctly selected could exceed performance expectations

it is strongly endorsed by the literature review that supervisory leadership style is a key measure
of
effectiveness in the workplace (Chapter Three). Therefore, it is essential for industry to attempt to select the
offshore supervisors of the future against the competencies required in the future and as a consequence jettison

current selection strategies. One possible way forward is the new leadership paradigm advocated by Bass and

Avolio (1990). This model requires further testing in an offshore environment, but some positive results were

found which appeared to discriminate between effective and less effective supervisory performances

Transformational leadership behaviours, although of a small magnitude, were found to exist among
a sample of

effective supervisors (UK I- see section 6.6) and should be reinforced and developed. Companies that favour

this leadership style and select future supervisors possessing these behaviours are more likely to achieve better

than expected organisational performance (Bass & Avolio, 1994). The current offshore leadership
style of "you
do this and you'll get this in return" (transactional) remains the foundation and is unequivocal because of the
demands but will not achieve the same levels of platform performance as the transformational style.
safety
Therefore, selecting future supervisors who can develop the performance of the individual to a higher level

using team and organisational goals which augment the traditional exchange and reward style (Bass, 1985)

as the ideal model of leadership for the future offshore supervisor.

prevails

1o. 4"5 Supervisor will probably be developed from within

The UK offshore supervisor population is ageing (see Table 9.2). Current promotional opportunities
are limited
therefore over the next few years stagnation among ambitious technicians could occur. Development
and
for these technicians have to be created, perhaps through Model IV advocated by Child
opportunities and
partridge (1982) which is to raise the technical skills of the technician to an expert level. Furthermore, the
more
supervisor may not embrace the attitude and culture change that is required within the role, and to
mature what
the phrase "an old dog cannot be taught new tricks" applies to this position remains a significant
extent
development issue. This problem which is further exacerbated by the current dearth
management of
across the UK which may make it more difficult to attract younger recruits to the offshore
opportunities oil and
industry (Urquhart, 1998, February 4) as salaries in onshore industries become more competitive.
gas

10.4.6 The way forward

examined the role of the offshore first line supervisor and, among other aims, attempted to
-F-bis research project
behaviours from less effective ones. The description of this sample of supervisors
define effective supervisory
that they had possessed a transactional leadership style with some evidence of transformational
showed
they perceived the workplace culture differently from less effective supervisors,
behaviour, and were job
;
in their roles particularly when they received recognition for good work. But, as stated earlier, it
satisfied
that the definition of "supervisory effectiveness" depended on the platform where the supervisor
;, ppeared

%vorked.

225
 Conclusions and Recommendations

While the study had mixed results in defining the non-technical skills of the effective offshore supervisor, it is
important to emphasisethat this was the first significant attempt to interview these supervisors in their work

environment. The impact of this method is essentially a smaller but fuller data set compared to other data

collection techniques such as a postal survey, for example. However, this technique highlights the need to

undertake a triangulation approach in order to describe the effective supervisor in the real work environment
because of the inherent weaknesseswith the criterion measure; i.e., the superior appraisal. Further research

should develop this strategy. The results chaptershighlighted some of the behaviours that diseripjinate between
1

effective and less effective performers such as leadership style, perceptions about the work environment and

ways of communicating with subordinatesas demonstratedby the DMVs, but there are still some issues that
have to be examined. They include; r

fa supervisory development strategy that encourages career progression, a transformational leadership style

and a new cost consciousness while retaining the technical skill profile of each supervisor.

fa model of supervisory man-managementcompetencieswhich mirror the new managerial, commercial

skills and safety skills required by an offshore supervisor in CRINE and beyond.

fa model for investigating offshore supervisory performance that recognisesthat 'effectiveness' may exist

within explicit and implicit sub-groups or mini-cultures such as at the platform level, the shift level,

betweenoperatorand contractor supervisorsand even the managementstyle of the platform management.

fa platform-wide multiple performance criteria that reflects the business performance of the production

platform and more importantly has 'buy-in' as an objective measurethroughout the platform workforce.

The supervisor is a key figure in the offshore industry. Identifying these effective supervisors remains a

fundamental research question. The offshore managers are readily able to identify who they perceive as their

best supervisors but describing their leadership characteristics has proved to be more challenging. Moreover,

is the need to select supervisors for the future. The thesis, without providing definitive answers, has
there

suggestions for (i) the recruitment, selection and development of effective supervisors, (ii) the
elicited some
that the role of the supervisor is heavily influenced by the offshore work environment and (iii)
recognition
to improve the research methodology;
recommendations

226
 REFERENCES

N
Adair, J. (1973). Action-centredleadership. London: McGraw-Hill.

Adair, J. (1988). Theeffectivesupervisor.London:The IndustrialSociety.

,{

Alvarez, A. (1986). Theadventureof north sea oil. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Ashmore, P. (1997). Nissan:The new first line supervisor. Personnel Today, June..

Bass, B, M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B, M. (1985). Leadership,good, better, best. Organisational Dynamics. Winter. 26 - 40.

Bass. D. M. (1990). From Transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the

vision.
Organisational Dynamics, 18 19-31.

Bass, B, M. (1991). Baseand StogdiLlshandbook of leadership: Theory, research & managerial applications
(3rd ed). New York: Free Press.

Bass, D. M. (1997). Does the transactional - transformational leadership paradigm transcend organisational and
boundaries. American Psychologist. 52,2,130-139.
national

Bass, B, M., & Avolio, B. J. (1991). Assessing leadership across the full-range. Paper presented at the Society

for Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Miami Beach, Florida. February.

[3ass, B, M., & Avolio, B, J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor
leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: PsychologistsPress.

Bass, 13, M., & Avolio, 13, J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organisational Public
culture.

Administration Quarterly, 17, I I2-122.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organisational effectiveness through transformational

//"aJership. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

liess. 13.M., & Yammarino. (1991). Congruence of self and others' leadershipratings of naval officers for
performance.
successful Applied Psychology,40,437-454.
t1nderstanding

225
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Thestrategiesfor taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

Bird, F., & Germain. (1985). Practical loss control leadership. Georgia: International Loss Control Institute.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton. J. S. (1964). Themanagerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Bose. (1957). A psychological approach to productive improvement. Paper presented at a psychology

conference. Bombay, India.

Bowey, A. (1973). Thechanging status of the supervisor. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 393-414

Boyatsis, R, E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York: John Wiley

& Sons.

Burgoyne, J. (1988). A manager's guide to self development. London: McGraw Hill.

Burgoyne, J. (1988). Development for the individual and the organisation. Personnel Management, June.

Burnett, J& Tait, R. (1996). Motivation. In Managing the offshore installation workforce, in Flin, R., &
Slaven, G., (Eds.). Managing the offshore installation workforce. Tulsa: Pennwell Books.

Burns, J, M. (1958). Managementin the electronics industry -a study of eight English companies. Social
Science ResearchCentre:University of Edinburgh.

Burns, J, M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrail-multimethod

matrix. PsychologicalBulletin, 56,81-105.

Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E. & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behaviour, performance and

New York: McGraw-Hill.

effectiveness.

Capra, F. (1996). Theweb of life: a new synthesisof mind and matter. London: Harper Collins Publishers.

Cattell, R. B. (1977). Handbook of modern personality theory. London: Wiley

Child, J., & Partridge, B. (1982). Lost Managers: Supervisors in industry and society. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

226
Chisnall. P, M. (1986). Marketing research. (3rd ed). London: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Chisnall. P, M. (1994). Marketing research. (5th ed). London: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

N
Coch, L., & French,J. (1948). Overcoming resistanceto change. Human Relations. 1(4). 512-32.

Confederation of British Industry. (1992). Focus on the first Line: The role of the supervisor. West Sussex:

Ditchling PressLtd.
A =.

Constable, J., & McCormick, R. (1987). The making of british managers. London: British Institute of
Management and Confederationof British Industry.

Coonen, R., (1994). Supervisory Competence. Unpublished Master of Personnel Management Sciences thesis.

University of Tilburg, Netherlands.

Coopers & Lybrands Associates. (1984). Challenge of complacency. NEDO/MSC: Crown Copyright.

Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessmentusing the revised
NEO personality inventory. Journal ofpersonality assessment.64 21-50.

Cox, T. (1993). Stressresearch and stress management:Putting theory to work. HSE Contract Report 61.
Suffolk: HSE Books.

Craig, 1. (1997). Developing people for an international future. The CRINE Network Conference. Aberdeen.
February.

Cullen, The Hon. Lord. (1990). The public inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster, Vols I& IL London:

IJMSO. CM1310.

Curphy, G. (1991). An empirical investigation of Bass' (1985) theory of transformational and transactional
leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Dawson, S. (1996). Analysing Organisations (3rd ed.). London: Macmillan.

Dawson, S. (1989). Managing safety offshore. Paper presented at the Offshore Operations Post Piper Alpha

Conference, February.

Day, M. (1988). Management competence and the charter initiative. Personnel Management, August

227
Doud, E., & Miller, E., (1980). First line supervisors: The key to improved performance. Management

Review, December.

Dowell, B, E., and Wexley, K, N. (1978). Development of a work behaviour taxonomy for first line

supervisors. Journal ofApplied Psychology. 63.563-572.

Drucker, P, F. (1983). Twilight of the first line supervisor? Wall Street Journal. June, 7th.

..
Drucker, P. (1954). Thepractice of management.New York: Harper and Row.

Evans, E. (1992). Supervisorymanagement:Principles and practice. London: Cassell.

Fay, C. (1993). Competingwith the World. Shell Briefing Service. London: Barwell Colour Print Ltd.

Fiedler, F, E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness.New York: McGraw Hill.

Fiedler, F, E. (1976). The leadershipgame: Matching the man to the situation. Organisational Dynamics. 4
(3), 6-16.

Fiedler, F, E., and House, R. J.. (1988). Leadership theory and research:A report of progress. International

review of industrial and organisational psychology. 73-92.

Fiedler, F, E., and Potter,E, H. (1981). The utilization of staff member intelligence and experienceunder high

and low stress. Academyof journal.

management 24 (2). 361-376.

Fiedler, F. E. (1986). The contribution of cognitive resources and behavior to organisational performance.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, (6), 532-548.

.

Fiedler, F. E. (1987). New approaches to leadership: Cognitive resources and organisational performance.

Mew York: John Wiley.

Fiedler, F., & Chemers, M. (1974). Leadership and effective management. Glenview III: Scott Foresman.

Fiedler, F., & Chemers, M. (1994). Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader match concept. New York:

Wiley.

Fiedler, F., Chemers,M. & Mahar, L. (1976). Improving leadershipeffectiveness:The leadermatch concept.
New York: Wiley.

228
Flanagan,J. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin. 51 (4).

Fleishman, E, A. (1953). Leadershipclimate, human relations training, and supervisory behaviour. Personnel
Psychology. 6.205-222.

Fleishman, E, A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal ofApplied Psychology 37 153-158.

Fleishman, E, A., & Harris, E, F. (1955). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee
-grievances and
turnover. Personnel Psychology 15,43-56. ''

Fleishman, E. (1957). The leadershipopinion questionnaire,in Stogdill, R, M., &Coons, A, E., (Eds.). Leader
behavior, its description and measurement. Columbus Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State

University

Fleming, M., Flin, R., Mearns, K., & Gordon, R. (1996). The offshore supervisor's role in safety management:

Law enforcer or Risk manager. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc (SPE 35906). New Orleans, June 1996

Flin, R., & Slaven, G. (Eds. ) (1996). Managing the offshore installation workforce. Tulsa: Pennwell Books.

Flin, R., & Slaven, G. (1992). Emergency command responsibilities of offshore installation managers.

Disaster
Management,4,197-201.

Flin, R., & Slaven, G. (1993). Managing offshore installations. Petroleum Review, 47 68-71.

Flin, R., & Slaven, G. (1994). The selection and training of offshore installation managers for crisis
Report OTH 92374. London: ilSE Books.
management:

Flin, R., Meares, K., Gordon, R. & Fleming, M. (1996). Risk perception and safety in the offshore oil and gas

industry. Report (OTH 94454) Offshore Safety Division London: HSE Books.

Flin, R., Slaven, G., & Carnegie, D. (1996). Managers and supervisors on offshore installations. In Managing

the offshore installation workforce, in Flin, R., & Slaven, G., (Eds. ). Managing the offshore installation

workforce. Tulsa: Pennwell Books.

Fuchs, R., Cake, G., & Wright, G. (1983). The steel island: Rural resident participation in the exploration

the oil and gas industry, Newfoundland and Labrador, 1981. Department of Rural, Agricultural
phase of and

Northern Development, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, Newfoundland.

229
Furnham, A., & Stringfield, P. (1994). Congruence of self and subordinate ratings of managerial practices as a

evaluation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 67 57-67.

correlate of supervisor

Gann, M., Corpe, U., & Wilson, 1. (1990). The application of a short anxiety and depressionquestionnaireto

oil industry staff. Occupational Medicine. 40 (4). 138-142.

Georgopoulos, B. S., Mahoney, G. M., & Jones, N. W., Jr. (1957). A path-goal approach to productivity.

Journal of Applied Psychology,41,345-353. .

.4

ä'

Ghauri, P., Gronhaug,K., & Kristianslund, I. (1995). Researchmethodsin businessstudies: A practical guide.
London: Prentice Hall.

Ghiselli, E. (1971). Explorations in managerial talent. 97-9. California:

Gibb, C. A. (1954). Leadership,in Handbook of Social Psychology, Gardner Lindsey, (Ed). Cambridge Mass:
Addison-Wesley.

Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. London: Bloomsbury.

Green, R. (1994). Collaborative relationships between producers and contractors in the UK Oil and Gas
Production Industry. Paper presentedat the Annual Conference of the British Academy of Management in
Lancaster,September.

Guest, D. (1987). Psychology at work. (3rd ed.). Penguin: Harmondsworth.

Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behaviour descriptions. In R. M., Stogdill

& A. E. Coons (Eds. ). Leader behaviour: its description and measurement. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business
,
Research,Ohio StateUniversity.

Handy, C. (1985). Gods of management: The changing work environment. London: Pan.

Handy, C. (1985). Understanding organisations. London: Pan.

Tandy, C. (1987). The making of british managers. London. National Economic Development Office.

I iarvie, C. (1994). Fool's Gold. The story of North Sea Oil. London: Penguin.

later, J.J., & Bass,B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptionsof transformationaland
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,695-702.
transactional

230
Hellesoy, O. H. (1985). Work Environment, Statfjord Field - Work Environment, health and safety on a North

Sea oil Platform. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget AS.

Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In R.

M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds. ). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus, Ohio:

Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

'
.f

Hemphill, J.K. (1950). Leaderbehaviour description. Columbus: Ohio State University.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard,K. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and DevelopmentJournal, 23
May.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1993). Management of organisational behavior: Utilizing human resources.

(6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Hitchens, D, Wagner, K., & Birnie, J. (1990). Closing the productivity gap: A comparison of Northern Ireland,

the Republic Ireland, Britain, West Germany. Aldershot: Avebury.

of

Hofstede. G. (1991). Organisations and cultures: Software of the mind. London: McGraw Hill.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Efeectiveness and personality.

American Psychologist. 49 6 493-504.

House, J, D. (1985). Working Offshore: The Other Price of Newfoundlands Oil. St John's: Institute of Social

Economic Research, Memorial University.

and

[louse, R, J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly. 16.321-

338.

IDS Study. (1991). Supervisors. 479, April. London: Incomes Data ServicesLtd.

IDS Study. (1988). Manual workers'supervisors. 416, August. London: IncomesData ServicesLtd.

Imberman, W. (1981). How to enjoy not having a strike? Management Review. September. 43-47.

Institute of Manpower Studies. (1984). Competence and competition. NEDO, MSC: Crown Copyright.

Jankowicz, A. D. (1991). BusinessResearchProjectsfor Students. London: Chapmanand Hall.

231
Jennings, E, E. (1961). The anatomy of leadership. Managementof Personnel Quarterly. I Autumn. (1).

Jennings,J. S. (1994). New Frontiers: The fifth Mike Adye lecture. University ofAberdeen, May.

Juran, J, M. (1988). Juran onplanningfor quality. London: Collier Macmillan.

Kane, .1., & Lawler, E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment Psychological Bulletin. 85 (3). 555-586.

.1
Kanter, R, M. (1986). When giants learn to dance. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1957). Some recent findings in human relations research; In Swanson,E., Newcomb,
T. & Hartley (Eds.). Readingsin social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Kerr, S., Hill, K., & Broedling, L. (1986). The first-line supervisor: Phasing out or here to stay? Academy of

Management Review, 11,103-117.

Klemp, G. (1982). Job competence assessment: Defining the attributes of the top performer. American Society

for Training and Development. Vol 8.

Komaki, J, L. (1986). Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and comparison of managersat work.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 71(2). 270-279.

Komaki, J, L., Slotnick, S. & Jensen, M. (1986). Development of an operant-based taxonomy and
index of supervisory behaviour. Journal ofApplied Psychology. 71 (2) 260-269.
observational

Kotter, J. (1988). Theleadershipfactor. New York: Free Press.

Kuhnert, K, W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional & transformational leadership: A constructive/development

Academy of Management Review. 12 (4) 648-657.

analysis.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., White, R, K. (1939). Patternsof aggressivebehaviour in experimentally createdsocial

climates. TheJournal of Social Psychology. 10 271-299.

Likert, R. (1965). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Likert, R. (1967). The humanorganisation: Its managementand value. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ling, M. (1995). Developing a team to operate Dunbar. Paper presented at the Fourth Offshore Installation

Management Conference: Team Working. Aberdeen, April.

232
Livy, B. & Vant, J. (1980). Better selection sharply reduced North Sea quit rate. Personnel Management.
April.

Livy, B. & Vant, J. (1979). Formula for selecting roughnecks and roustabouts. Personnel Management.
February.

Luthans, F. (1988). Successful vs effective real managers. The Academy of Management Ex6cutive 2,127-

132.

Lynhaug, E., (1995). Positive power by team management. Paper presented at the Fourth Offshore Installation

Management Conference: Team Working. Aberdeen, April.

ManagementCharter Initiative. (1992). Annual Review. London: ManagementCharter Initiative.

Management Charter Initiative. (1992). First line managementstandards. London: Management Charter
Initiative.

Management Charter Initiative. (1992). Middle management standards. London: Management Charter

Initiative.

ManagementCharter Initiative. (1997). ManagementStandards. London: ManagementCharter Initiative.

Mangham, 1,L., & Silver, M, S. (1986). ManagementTraining. University of Bath.

Mann, F, C., Dent, J, K. (1954). The supervisor: Member of two organisational families Harvard Business

Mant, A. (1981). The leaders we deserve. London: Pan.

May, T. (1993). Social research issues, methods and process. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

McGregor, D. (1985). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.

MCI. (1992). Management Standards. London: Management Charter Initiative.

MCI. (1993). Management Standards. London: Management Charter. Initiative.

MCI. (1994). Management Standards. London: Management Charter Initiative.

233
MCI. (1995). ManagementStandards. London: ManagementCharter Initiative.

MCI. (1996). ManagementStandards. London: ManagementCharter Initiative.

MCI. (1997). Management Standards. London: Management Charter Initiative.

McIntyre, R, M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing team performance: emerging principles from

In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds. ), Team effectiveness and decision making in

complex environments.

organisations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Mearns, K., Flin, R., Rundmo, T., Fleming, M., & Gordon. (1996). A comparative study of risk perception and

in United Kingdom and Norwegian Offshore Personnel. Report prepared for the Norwegian Petroleum
safety
Directorate and the Offshore Safety Division of the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive.

M intzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.

Misumi, J. (1985). The behavioural science of leadership, an interdisciplinary Japanese research program.
University of Michigan Press:Ann Arbor

Moir. J. (1996). Partnership-a key to the future. AberdeenCity Council NewsRelease. PR 105. November.

Moos, R. (1981). Workenvironmentscale. Palo Alto: California: Consulting PsychologistsPress,Inc.

Moos, R., & Billings, A. (1991). Understanding and improving work climates. Apply psychology in business:

The handbook for managers and human resource professionals. 552-562.

Moos, R., & Insell, P. (1974). Work Environment Scale. Palo Alto: California: Consulting Psychologists

Press, Inc.

MSC/NEDO (1986). A challenge to complacency: Changing attitudes to training. Sheffield: Manpower

Services Commission.

Mykeltun, R. (1993). Safety hazards related to the rotation of Norwegian platform managers. Paper presented

Second Offshore Installation Management Conference. Aberdeen, April.

at the

NEDO (1991). "What makes a supervisor world class". West Sussex: Ditchling Press Ltd.

(1985). Creatingjobs at the local level. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
OECD,

Development Countries.

234
Ohmae, K. (1982). The mind of the strategist: The art ofjapanese business. London: McGraw Hill.

Parkes, K. (1993). Human factors, shift work and alertness in the offshore oil industry. HSE Offshore
Technology Report (OTH 92389). HMSO: London.

Partridge, B. (1989). The problem of supervision. In Sissons, K. (1989). Personnel Management: A

comprehensiveguide to theory and practice in Britain. Oxford: Blackwell.

Penwell, L. (1990). Leadership and group behaviour in human spaceflight operations. Paper presented at the

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Conference, Alabama, September.

Peters, L, H., & Hartke, D, D., & Pohlmann, J, T. (1985). Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership: An

application of the meta-analysisproceduresof Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin 97 (2) 274-285.

Peters, T, J. & Waterman, R.H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best run companies.

New York: Harper and Row.

Peters,T. (1987). Thriving on chaos. London: Pan in associationwith MacMillan.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1971). Determinants of supervisory behaviour: A role set analysis. Human
Relations Volume28 2 139-154.

Phillips, J, J. (1985). Improving supervisorseffectiveness.London: Jossey-Bass.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Gloucester, Mass: Smith.

Potentia International. (1997). The Potentia System Reference Manual. Winchester: Hampshire.

Prien, E. (1963). Development of a supervisor position description questionnaire. Journal of Applied

Psychology. 47 (1) 10-14.

Pye, A. (1988). Management training acts of faith, scenes of competence. Journal of General Management.

13(4). 75.

Ries, A, L., & Trout, J. (1986). Positioning the battle for your mind. 1st Edition. Singapore: McGraw Hill

Rowell. (1981). The offshore supervisor. 365-366. In Hellesoy, O. H. (1985). Work Environment, Starfjord

Work Environment, health and safety on a North Sea oil Platform. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget AS.
l' geld -

235
Rundmo, T. (1993). Risk perception and occupational accidents on offshore petroleum platforms. Paper

the Second Offshore Installation Management Conference. Aberdeen, April.

presented at

Sasser,W, E., and Leonard, F, S. (1980). Let first-level supervisorsdo their job. Harvard BusinessReview.
March-April. 113-121.

Schriesheim, C. A. Kerr, S. (1977). Theories and measures of leadership: A critical appraisal. In J. G.

,&
Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds. ), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press.

Seltzer, J., & Bass,B, M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal

of Management16 (4) 693-703.

Shackleton, V. (1995). Business leadership. London: Routledge.

Shartle, C. (1957). Executive performance and leadership, (2nd ed.). London: Staples Press.

SHL Ltd. (1990). Occupational Personality Questionnaires: Concept 5.2. Surrey: Saville and Holdsworth
Limited.

SHL Ltd. (1993). Occupational Personality Questionnaires: IMAGES. Surrey: Saville and Holdsworth

Limited.

Shrimpton, M., & Storey, K. (1991). Work-related stress in the Newfoundland offshore oil industry:

Implications for health and safety. In Shrimpton, M., & Storey, K. (Eds). Social, pyschological and cultural
health and safety in the offshore oil industry. Newfoundland: Memorial University of
aspects of
Newfoundland.

Simons, R. (1995). Control in an age of empowerment. Harvard BusinessReview. March-April

Smith, M. (1994). A theory of the validity of predictors in selection. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology 6 (7) 13-31.

Spencer, L., & Spencer, S. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge

tiniversity Press.

236
Stewart, R. (1984). Choices for the manager: A guide to understanding managerial work. Pan Books in assoc.

with the MacMillan Press.

Stogdill, R, M. (1948). Personal factors associatedwith leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of
Psychology, 25,35-71.

Stogdill, R, M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York: Free Press.

Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Leader behaviour: Its description and measurement, research'

monograph 88. Columbus: Bureau of BusinessResearch,

The Ohio State University.

Sunde, A. (1983). Psycho-socialaspectsof offshore work. Paper presented at the Safety, Health and Offshore
Oil and Gas Extractive Industries Conference,Luxembourg, April. 176-187.

Sutherland, K. (1994). Psychosocialfactors: An investigation of the offshore oil industry. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation,The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen.

Sutherland,K., & Flin. R. (1991). Psychosocialaspectsof the offshore oil industry. In Proceedingsof thefirst
SPE conference health, safety & environment in oil and gas exploration and production. The Hague,
November. Richardson,Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers. (SPE23517).

Sutherland, V, J., & Cooper, C, L. (1986). Man and accidents offshore -an examination of the costs of stress

among workers on oil and gas rigs. Essex: Lloyd's of London Press Ltd.

Swedish Employers' Confederation. (1975). Job reform in Sweden: Conclusions from 500 shop floor projects.

Stockholm: Grafisk Reproduction.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row.

Tait, R., & Hutton, A. (1994). Is empowerment right for us? An examination of the barriers to empowerment

in the offshore industry. Paper presented at the Strategic HRM Conference, Nottingham Trent University, Dec.

Tannenbaum, R., and Schmidt, W, H. (1957). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review.

95-101.

Taylor, F.W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Thurley, K., & Wirdenius, H. (1973). Supervision: A reappraisal. London: Heinemann.

237
Urquhart, F. (1998, February 4). Shortage of skills hits oil industry. The Scotsman, 8.

Vecchio, R, P. (1990). Theoretical & empirical examination of cognitive resource theory. Journal of Applied
75. (2). 141-147. N
Psychology.

Vroom, H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organisations. Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

' .4

Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh `

Vroom, H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973).

Press.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B, M., & Yammarino, F.J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior: The
leadership. Group and Organisational Studies. 15,381-394.
augmentingeffect of charismatic

Walker, R. (1985). Applied qualitative research. Aldershot: Gower.

Warr, P., Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1979). Scales for the measurementof some work attitudes and aspectsof
Journal of Occupational Psychology. 52.129-148.
psychological wellbeing.

Watson, A. R. (1989). A study of relationships

supervisor-management in manufacturing industry. An

the effect of interpersonal

supervisor-manager relationships on the amount of authority and influence
analysis of
by first line supervisors.Henley the ManagementCollege, Brunel University: London.
experienced

Wentworth, F. (1993). It's time we took supervisorsseriously. Professional Manager. January.

Wickens, P, D. (1987). The Road to Nissan. London: Macmillan.

Brewster, J., & Edwards, G. (1989). The changing role of the supervisor. News, Notes and
Wickens, P.,

Research. 1-10.

Wills, S. (1993). MCI and the competency movement: The case so far. Journal of European Industrial

Training. 17 (1). 9-11.

Wood Mackenzie. (1992). North Sea service summary field data. Edinburgh: Country Natwest Wood

MacKenzie.

(1996). North Sea service summary field data. Edinburgh: Country Natwest Wood
Wood Mackenzie.

MacKenzie.

238
Wood Mackenzie. (1997). North Sea service summary field data. Edinburgh: Country Natwest Wood

MacKenzie.

Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial organisation: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press.

Woodward, J. (1980). Industrial organisation: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Wray, D. E. (1949). Marginal men of industry: The foreman. American Journal of Sociology.
.A
_ý

Yergin, D. (1993). The Prize: the epic quest for oil, money and power. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research Journal of Management. 15 (2)
251-289.

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organisations. (3rd ed.). London: Prentice Hall International, Inc.

Zaleznick, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review May-June.

OF

239
 APPENDIX I

Appendix title

"Pilot study of Offshore Supervisors on a Production Platform in the North Sea. " -
.4

i.

Introduction

On the 31st of March 1992, the researcher travelled to an Offshore Production Platform 100 miles east of the

Shetland islands and spent three days offshore undertaking interviews with seven first line supervisors. The

the trip to gather data that would contribute both to the researcher's understanding of the
objective of was
by offshore first line supervisors and assist in the formulation of a future instrument
managerial skills required
for a larger sample.

Methodology

Company A, an American owned multinational oil company, provided accessto their offshore staff for this
It platform in the UK sector of the North Sea.
study. operatesone production

The design the was based on (i) preliminary background reading (see Chapters One to Three)
of questionnaire
ideas made during a meeting with onshore senior management representatives from
and (ii) on suggestions and
Company A and the researcher. The instrument comprised of 35 open questions and covered the following

and training, management skills, and key roles and responsibilities of the offshore
areas; previous employment
Other specific themes were also examined such as the supervisors' perceptions about the potential
supervisor.
differences between working offshore and an equivalent position onshore, and questions relating to situations

that had beenmanagedby the supervisor.

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with seven first line supervisors from Company A. All the

directly to the OIM. The interviews were 60 minutes long and all but one of the interviews
supervisors reported
in the "quiet room" within the platform accommodation. The other interview took place in the office
took place
at the beginning of his night shift hours. At the end of the questionnaire all the respondents were
of a supervisor
invited to make comments regarding the structure of questions and to make suggestions for future investigation.

After the interview, if it was operationally viable, the supervisor showed the researcher round the platform

described the functions of the plant, thus, providing an opportunity for the supervisor to further
modules and
his questionnaire responses that related to specific processes within his technical expertise.
explain

240
Results

Bio-data and generalInformation

Six of those interviewed were production supervisors and the other was a maintenance supervisor. When asked

"How long have you been in your present job? " Four of the respondents had been supervisors for four years or

three respondents had only been in a supervisory position for about one year. The
more and the other
asked what their previous two positions were and their responses are listed below ; marine
supervisors were all
fitter, production operator, maintenance foreman, instrument technician; maintenance
engineer, apprentice
electrician, instrument technician, radio technician, maintenance supervisor, mechanic,
supervisor, maintenance
and utility assistant. When asked "What was your first job in the oil industry? " The
production operator
ranging from backgrounds in production, maintenance and electrical disciplines
responses were all varied,
to operator on an oil tanker. When asked "Did you have a previous job outwith the oil
offshore a radio

industry? " All respondents had worked in onshore non-oil related positions and none had held supervisory

The were all asked "How long had you worked in the offshore industry? " The responses
positions. supervisors
from 14 to 20 years. The minimum length of service with Company A was 13 years with 14 years
ranged years
one respondent had been with Company A for 16 years.
about the average, although,

Employment Training

When asked "How days in the last five years (approximately) would you say had accounted for training
many
days? " The supervisors' responses ranged from four to fifteen days, although, most of them added that this was

'off the job training' and that 'on the job training' was continuous. The supervisors were asked "What current

do you have? " Two of the supervisors responded that they had no formal qualifications
qualifications
mentioned "City and Guild", "ONC", " 'O' levels" and one had a mechanical engineering
whatsoever, others
The were asked "what type of training have you had? " Their responses are listed below;
certificate. supervisors
taught, gas compression course, supervisors course, turbines, loss control, gas lift, safety
mostly self
meetings, report writing, OIM regulations, instrumentation in hazardous areas and fiscal
representatives course,
Six of the supervisors had attended the "OIM regulations course. "
metering course.

The supervisors were asked "Have you had training which relates specifically to managerial skills? " All seven

that they had attended the 'supervisors course' which had covered the following types of
supervisors responded
training; task and role play exercises, man management techniques, interviewing, motivation, the
managerial
communication and incident and accident reporting. When asked "What skills did
psychology of supervision,
train you in? " Many of the responses were similar to the ones described above, although, some of
the course
that the course had given them a better understanding of leadership and team building and
the supervisors said
felt that he was now more aware of getting away from the 'task. circle and overseeing the whole picture'.
one
The supervisors were all asked, "How beneficial was the training? " Most of the responses were positive,

said that he was too old to team and another felt that the training should have
although, one supervisor
problems that occur on the platform. When asked, "In which aspects of your job do you feel
addressed specific
more training? " Three of the supervisors cited the need for more technical courses, three
t/uzt you require

241
 said that they would have wanted more man managementtype training, and one felt that he needed
supervisors
training the legislation in the offshore oil industry. The supervisors were asked, "What do you
more regarding
know about training and developmentin other parts of the oil industry?" One said that the companies were

about the same and the other six supervisors said that they did not know what happened. The final
probably all
question in this section asked "Which do you feel is more important technical or supervisory/managerial

training ?" Three supervisors said that they should be side by side, with one respondent adding that what is

important is that the supervisorknows the job and has gained the respectof his subordinates. One said technical

training and the other three supervisors said that it should be about 60:40 in favour of supervisbry/managerial-

training.

Supervisory Skills
The supervisorswere asked "With the benefit of hindsight could you comment on an incident that you feel you
have handled more effectively if you had had different training? " One supervisor said "no", five
could
"yes" and one supervisor said that each situation was different and did not think that training would
answered
have been of help. All the supervisors were asked to expand on their answers, three did not provide any

one supervisor mentioned 'appraisals', another said "disciplining the workforce", another said that
examples,
dealing with the workforce he can become too task orientated and one supervisor cited an example where
when
mismanagement in solving a relatively minor problem can cause a chain reaction resulting in continued
downtime and subsequentloss of production.

The supervisors were asked "Could they describe an incident that you managed very effectively and can
directly to training? " Four of the supervisors responded that any training that raised their
attribute your success
problems in the worksite would have helped in incidents that they had managed but no
awareness of potential
given. One supervisor said that a fire fighting drill became reality two days later and
specific examples were
followed to plan. Two supervisors said that they were always learning. When asked "How
everything was
do supervise? " The supervisors responses all varied from seven to sixteen directly and up to
many people you
indirectly. The supervisors are formally appraised annually and they also carried out annual
twenty five
their subordinates. The supervisors were asked "What key management skills do you think that a
appraisals with
should have? " Three supervisors said that communication skills were very important, one added
supervisor
further that you have got to sell management's view to the workforce. Other management skills that were put

forward include good organisation and planning, the ability to delegate and the motivation of the team. One

"you have to be the mother and father to everyone. " When asked, "What key management skills
supervisor said
do you have? " The majority of supervisors cited technical skills first, and added that it was important that good

and communication backed them up. Other responses included 'safety awareness', 'trust' and 'on the
planning
job training with the men'. The supervisors were then asked "Have you ever been assessed in a systematic way

to your management skills? " One supervisor said that the he is assessed through the appraisal
with regard
but the six other supervisors said that they had not undergone any systematic assessment of their
system,
When asked "What do you consider to be your
management skills. strongest asset in your supervisory

242
capacity? " Four supervisors said "technical knowledge", one added further that this was combined with

communication skills. Other responses included "the ability to get things done without creating animosity",

"organisation and planning" and "communication; and common sense".

The supervisors were asked "Do you think that your position offshore is different with respect to managerial

onshore? " One supervisor said that apart from the location, the work is very similar to
ability than a position

working in a refinery. The other six supervisors said that there were differences and they cited the following

"living with the men" "no available back up, closed environment and no real relaxation" "the:
reasons; , ,
is more affected by outside pressures" "being offshore is like being in the trenches, problems
offshore person ,
just do not go away" "the product creates problems and there is no hospital or firebrigade" and "the
,
to your advantage, particularly through increased budget controls. " The supervisors
environment can work
"In your role do you get involved in non work related issues such as counselling for example? "
were asked,
One supervisor said that he did not as he encouraged them to go and see the medic or the OIM. The other

that they did and their responses are listed below; "personal troubles"
"listening, giving
supervisors all said ,
someone with preoccupied thoughts" "not a day goes passed without something" "always
advice, recognising , ,
to "the homelife affects the job all the time" "you become a confidant".
a shoulder cry on" , ,

Views and opinions about the Oil Industry

When asked, "What do you feel are the most important issues in the North Sea Oil industry? " Six out of the

that'safety' was the most important issue offshore. Other examples included "too many
seven supervisors said
hours" and "ad hoc skills are not recognised. " The supervisors were asked, "What single change would
working
for the industry? " Two supervisors said that it was too late as there were only marginal fields left.
you advocate
Another two supervisors said that there should be a rethink in terms of working hours. Other supervisors

"too much paperwork" "too many mixed job roles and this creates conflicts" and "we need time to
mentioned ,
the new procedures". When asked, "What impact do you feel will the Cullen Inquiry have on your
understand
" One supervisor felt that the Inquiry has changed the company's attitude. The other respondents said
position?
had changed such as 'permit to work', it has increased the professionalism of both the
that although procedures

and the organisation. The final question was "Are there other areas of investigation that you feel that
workforce
/ should consider in relation to the role of the first line supervisor? " Their suggestions included "promotion, is

he always promoted from within" "the first line supervisor should always know the job that he is supervising"
, ,
"there is too much fire fighting and not enough implementation of ideas" and "qualifications are beginning to

dominate"

Conclusion

This preliminary survey was designed to enable the researcher to gather information concerning the offshore oil

industry and the role of the offshore supervisor. It may seem that the initial analysis is limited as only seven

interviewed. However their combined offshore work experience of 99 years enhances the
supervisors were
and can justifiably provide a suitable foundation on which to base further research.
validity of their responses

243
The central hypothesis of the research is to determine whether an offshore supervisor requires additional or

specialised managerialskills compared to an equivalent supervisor onshore. Six of the supervisors interviewed
felt that managerial ability was different onshore. This offers support for the hypothesis outlined above. It

could be argued that the other supervisor'sresponsealso supports the hypothesis. He stated that apart from the
location there were no differencesbetweenworking in a refinery and working offshore. It is the significance of

the "location" factor that theoretically creates the difference in management skills between the two work
environments. One element that was mentioned when asked about the differences was the impact of personal

problems in the workplace. It is likely that both onshore and offshore supervisors are involved in non-work v

related issueswith their subordinates and this raises the question of whether the remote offshore environment

creates a greaterneed for supervisorsto have "counselling" skills comparedto onshore supervisors.

The questions that related to management and supervisory skills generated some interesting issues. All of the

supervisors questioned had extensive offshore working experience and yet the vast majority were unaware of

what type of training and development occurred within other organisations. This suggests that although

for the generic "offshore oil and gas industry" their managerial development
employees are working exists in
isolation, although the impact of the Cullen Inquiry, particularly in aspects of safety, has already begun to

change this situation. The technical abilities of a supervisor were cited as the most important skills within the

role. Communication and planning were perceived as essential management skills in supporting the technical

abilities of the supervisor although only one supervisor said that he had had his management skills

that was through staff appraisal. This implies that the supervisors are supervising
systematically assessed,and
in the way that they feel is the most appropriate and are not following any specific supervisory directives from

senior management with regard to supervisory styles.

All of the supervisors had attended a "supervisors course" which had covered a multitude of supervisory and

management themes with one supervisor expressing a view that the course could have been platform specific.
This endorses a current theme across UK industry, which is attempting to focus training on the specific needs of

in which the training is needed.

the context

Although many of the themes raised within this pilot survey may be platform specific, there are issues, which

to the whole of the North Sea offshore oil and gas industry. Supervision and management skills are
are relevant
within the industry. This focus has been driven both by the Cullen Inquiry and the increased
of major concern
facing the industry. It is the researcher's view that as the first line supervisor is the
commercial pressures only

'real time' management position within the industry, further investigation is required to assess the specific skill

requirements of this role.

S&

244
 APPENDIX la

Appendix title

"Interviews with OffshoreSupervisorson a semi-submersibledrilling rig in the North Sea."'

.L

V
Introduction

On the 11th of May 1992, two days were spent offshore on a Semi-Submersible Drilling Rig 100 miles east of

the Scottish mainland and spent two days offshore to interview four first line supervisors. The objective of the

trip was to gather data which would contribute to a better understanding of the managerial skills required by

offshore first line supervisors working in the exploration industry and to facilitate the comparison between

supervisors supervising on drilling rigs and those from production platforms.

Methodology

Company D, an American owned drilling contractor, provided accessto their offshore staff for this study. it

operatesseveraldrilling rigs in the UK sector of the North Sea.

The design of the questionnaire was based on preliminary background reading (see Chapters One to Three) and

the responses gathered in Appendix 1. The instrument consisted of 30 open questions and covered the

following areas; previous employment and training, management skills, and key roles and responsibilities of the

offshore supervisor. Other specific themes were also examined such as the supervisors' perceptions about the

potential differences between supervising offshore and supervising onshore, and questions relating to situations

they had managed as supervisors.

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with four first line supervisors from Company D, who reported

directly to the Rig Superintendent. The supervisors were all involved in the drilling operation of the rig. The

job titles of the subjects were senior toolpusher, two toolpushers and one driller. Although all had varying

degrees of supervisory responsibility their responses will be described as a single sample. The interviews were

60 minutes long. Two of the interviews took place in the "quiet room" within the living quarters and the other

two interviews took place in a "visitor's" cabin. At the end of the questionnaire all the respondents were invited

to make comments regarding the structure of questions and to make suggestions for future investigation.

245
Results

Bio-data and generalInformation

The subjectswere askedto describethe main functions of their jobs. Their responsesincluded statementssuch

as "drill a hole with a team, the first line supervisor in the event of a drilling incident, a realtime supervisor,";

"smooth drilling operation for the client and safe working, "; "the overseer of all drilling operations, liaison
between all departmentsand liaison between the drilling contractor and client, " and "oversee Al drilling on a.
daily basis."

The supervisorswere asked "How long have you been in your presentjob? " Two of the respondentshad been

supervisors for one year, the other responseswere 6 years and 4 years. The supervisors were all asked, "What

was their first job in the offshore oil industry? " One supervisor had started as a mechanic and the other three
supervisors began as roustabouts. The supervisors were asked "How long have you worked in the Offshore
Industry? " The responsesranged from twelve years to eighteen years. The supervisors were then asked "How
long had they worked with CompanyD? ". The minimum length of service with Company D was 1 year and the
longest 9 years,with the averageabout 4 years.

The supervisorswere asked, "What current qualifications do you have?" One supervisor respondedthat he had
had school level qualifications but that he had completed most of the oilfield drilling qualifications. The
only
other three respondents said that they had oilfield qualifications. These included; 5-day firefighting, well

control, advancedwell control, drilling operations and techniques, casing and cementing, drilling calculations

and high pressures.

Finally, as part of this section, the supervisors were asked if they were aware of standards of competence and

their development for the UK workforce. Only one of the supervisors said that he was aware of recent
changes.

Employment Training

When questioned "What type of training have you had? " The supervisors all cited the oilfield courses that had

been outlined above. One supervisor mentioned the importance of 'on the job training' from others on the rig.

One supervisor had been on assertiveness training. Two supervisors listed supervisory effectiveness training

that would last between three and five days. The supervisors were asked, "How days in the last
courses many
five years accounted for training days? " Their responses ranged from 5 days to 10 days annually. The

were asked, "Have you had any training, which relates specifically to " All four
supervisors managerial skills?
said that they had had some. Three supervisors said that they had
supervisors attended courses geared
for supervisors. The courses focussed on leadership skills, negotiating skills and counselling skills
specifically
by simulating conditions typical of supervisory management. One supervisor said that his
training had come from working in real situations
supervisor/managerial on the rig. The supervisors were all
"How beneficial was the training? " One supervisor said that he was unsure of the benefits.
then prompted

246
Another said "initially back in the workplace it was good, but then some skills fell away. " Another supervisor

"Using training skills in the workplace is always difficult as you never really know what your team are
said
like i. don't know what they are like during their time onshore. " They were all then asked, "Which
really e., you
job do you feel require more training? " One supervisor said, "Motivation skills, the easy part is
aspects of your
floor hard is the people. " Another supervisor said "More managerial skills with particular
on the drill the part

on team skills. " The other two supervisors said that they needed more man-management skills with
emphasis
them that he also wanted more drilling training.
one of adding

The supervisors were asked, "What skills do you feel that you have acquired and use that 'training' would never

have provided you with? " (Each supervisor was reminded of the number of years experience that they had in
industry. ) Their answers included statements such as "Common sense, dealing with people,
the offshore oil
is for experience, " "Experience with people, and the experience gained during full
there no substitute ,
" "Communications skills, ", "Man management skills". The supervisors were all then
emergency simulations, ,
"In your role, which do you feel is more important - technical or supervisory/managerial training? "
questioned
it
One supervisor said that was 90: 10 supervisory to technical. "You don't have to be 100% but you must know

it. " Two supervisors said that technical was more important than supervisory with ratios of 70: 30
where to get
60: 40. The other supervisor said "50: 50. "
and

Supervisory Skills
The supervisors were asked, "How would you describe your managerial or supervisory style? " All the

described their individual supervisory styles with either adjectives or outcomes. They included
supervisors
"leading by be a motivator, have the guts to say that you are wrong and then get on with the job, "
example, ,
I don't fly off the handle, get the facts before you make a decision, get involved at the
"Never show panic,

if the team's language, use first name terms, be a perfectionist, be approachable, be more
worksite needed, speak
" "be relaxed but not slipshod, have an easy going attitude, make instant
participative than task oriented, ,
decisions, " "be relaxed and approachable, be aware of'looking busy' activities. "
,

The supervisors were then asked if they could comment on an incident that they felt could have been handled

if they had had different training? One supervisor said that nothing came to mind. Another
more effectively
that judgements could be made too quickly about people. The other two supervisors said that
supervisor said
have been handled better had they had training in handling
the full emergency simulation scenario could
They were then asked if training had helped them in an incident that they had managed? One
emergencies.
"When trouble seems to be brewing he always nips it in the bud. " Another said that he is more
supervisor said
in well control situations as a result of well control training. The other supervisors said that they were
confident
but that they were too numerous too mention. The supervisors were all asked "How many
aware of examples
do they supervise? " Their response were "three directly and twenty indirectly, " "eight directly and up
people ,
indirectly, " and two supervisors said "six directly and four indirectly. "
to twenty

247
The supervisors were then asked "By reporting to the Rig Superintendent does he have an affect on your

management style ?" All four supervisors said that it did not affect their own management style. The

supervisors were asked "Have you ever been ssed in a systematic way with regard to your management
assessed

skills? " Three supervisors said that they had never been formally assessed. The other supervisor said yes he

had but it was with a previous employer.

The supervisors were asked "What do you consider to be your strongest asset in your supervisory capacity? "

"Attempting to give people a sense of importance, when a team wins we all win, " said one supervisor. Another,

said "Technical knowledge and empathy with the team. " "People skills, " said the remaining two supervisors.

The supervisors were then asked "What personality characteristics do you feel that an effective supervisor
"
should possess? Their are
responses outlined below; "Honesty, integrity, be accountable,goal oriented, have a

commitment to continuity, a sense of humour, never talk down to people and always be in the process of
learning." Another supervisor said "Be friendly but firm, be there for questions no matter how trivial and

emphasise the importance of technical issues.

" Other responsesthat defined the personality characteristicsof an

effective supervisor were "Decisiveness, good communication, a sense of humour, sensitivity and
approachability."

The superv isors were asked, "Do you think that your position is different with respect to managerial ability than
" The supervisors' responses included statements such as "Tra nsferring the
a position onshore? responsibility
does not happen, tension is always there offshore and you only notice it once you are at home how
across shifts
tension was there, " and "The supervisory skills are different, decision making is instantaneous and team
much
is easier."
working offshore

The supervisors were asked to identify factors that justified their responses above. "Dealing with people who

don't see their families means that you must be patient and compassionate, " and "Working offshore can be
by the 2 weeks at home, " were two responses.
affected

Views and opinions about the Oil Industry

The supervisors were asked, "What do you feel are the most important issues in the North Sea Oil and Gas

Industry? " Their responses included statements such as "Safety, and improving technology. " "Becoming more
" "The Safety Case and the increasing complexity of downhole drilling. " "The lack of security
cost conscious.
the cynicism of long term contracts. " The supervisors were finally asked, "Are there any other areas that
and
feel should be considered in relation to the role of the supervisor? " One supervisor said "The training
º.oou
of management training only seem to get their information from books. " Another supervisor said that
providers
a big divide between onshore and offshore, and that it was a bigger barrier than just the water.
there was
Another comment was "Why does everything work alright during the weekend? " One supervisor said "There

problems with the power relationships on the platform, " "The lack of interest by the company concerning
are ,

248
the relationships between the wife and family becauseof the offshore environment," and "The stress factor -

offshore."

Conclusion

The central hypothesis of the research is to determine what differentiates an effective from less effective

supervisor in terms of managementstyle. While the aim of this pilot survey was not to correlate a performance
the management skills, which would be a requirement for measuring supervisory effectiveness,
measureagainst
the supervisors'responsesraised some interesting issues.

This survey was compiled to enable the researcher to gather information concerning the exploration arm of the

gas industry and the role of the offshore supervisor working on a drilling rig. Four supervisors
offshore oil and

were interviewed, out of a drilling rig supervision team of six, their offshore work experience of 57 years

considerably enhanced the validity of their responses.

Despite attendance at supervisory type training courses, the need for improving "people skills" was a theme that
Particularly since the supervisors recognised their supervisory skills as a
was raised throughout the survey.
function if not the largest part of their job. 'On the job' experience was also stated as a significant
significant
factor that provided supervisory skills, but without correlating these skills against a performance measure it is

difficult to assess whether that type of learning promotes good supervisory abilities or enhances previous

that are less effective.

customs and practices

One reason that may explain the shortfall of supervisory training is the failure of it to recognise the differences

between the onshore and offshore work environments. Living two weeks away from home and family life in a

24 hour society are significant factors that the supervisor has to learn to cope with both personally and as the

team leader for their subordinates.

the themes raised within this survey may be specific to drilling supervisors, there are issues
Although many of
to the whole of the North Sea oil and gas industry. Supervision and management skills are of
that are relevant
the industry. This focus has been driven both by the Cullen Inquiry and the
increasing significance within
facing the industry. It is the researcher's view that as the first line supervisor is the only
commercial pressures
position within the industry, further investigation is required to assess the specific
'real time' management

requirements of this critical role.

249
 APPENDIX II

THE OFFSHORE SUPERVISORS' QUESTIONNAIRE II

1993

f
DAVID CARNEGIE

OFFSHORE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH GROUP

THE ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY

CONFIDENTIAL

The Offshore Supervisors Questionnaire 1993

Dear Supervisor

final student at the Robert Gordon University investigating the management skills of the
I am a year research
Offshore First Line Supervisor.

Your participation in this interview is greatly valued, as this is the first time an independentstudy has examined

supervisor. Therefore your responses could have a considerable impact on the way oil
the role of the offshore
industry managementperceive the future needs of front line supervision.

during the semi-structured interviews will be confidential and will not be disclosed to anyone.
Your responses

Your employer will only receive summary results which will not reveal any individual responses.

Yours sincerely

David Carnegie.

250
Introduction.

This questionnaire contains a number of sections, which contain a series of questions. The sections are divided

into general background information, supervision, motivation, the work environment, leadership and

supervisory decision making. The questions vary from requiring a tick or circling a response to open verbal

answers. Standard scales will also be used which I will ask you to personally complete.

There are also a number of guidelines which should assistyou in completing this questionnaire. -
1. Your first answeris normally your natural answer, however pleaseanswer honestly and as accurately as'

you can.
2. Please answer all the questions. This is very important as I will be looking at groups of items and one

unanswered question can spoil the questionnaire.

3. Questionsthat require a discussion are few but where this is necessarythe timing of the questionnaire

will be maintained.
4. The questionnaire does not follow a traditional format and some questions may appear to overlap,
however this is part of the questionnairestrategy.
5. Please remember that all the answers you give will be held in the strictest confidence and will not be

divulged to anyone.

6. Before we start do you have any questions?

General Information

Q l. What is your job title?

Q2. What was your job title before you became (answer to Q1. )?

Q3. How long have you been in your current post?

Q4. How long have you been a supervisor?

Q5. How long have you worked offshore?
Q6. What was your first discipline when you began working offshore?

Q7. Circle your ageon the following scale.

18-23 24-29 30-35 36-41 42-47 48-53 53 and over

Q8. What qualifications do you have ? (mark as many as apply).

A. School leaverqualifications.
13. City and Guilds certificates.

C. ONC / HNC / HND.

[). Oilfield qualifications.

I:. University or College Degree.

I'. Masters / PhD.

i. Other.

251
Images Questionnaire

Every supervisor is read these instructions.

0 This questionnaireis used in order to provide objective information on personality, which is relevant to

successfulperformancein aspectsof the job.

" In the questionnaireyou are askedto rate yourself on a number of statements.
" The questions are concerned with how you typically behave at work, so if you are in any doubt try to

answer from a work point of view.

:ý
" People who try to guess what they think is wanted are often incorrect, so just try to rate yourself as=
i
accurately and honestly as possible.
" This is a questionnaireand not a test; consequently there are no right or wrong answers. It is concerned
with personality style and not abilities.

" There is no time limit, but you should work quickly rather than pondering at length over any one question.
Pleasecompleteall the questions. Most people take a maximum of 10-15 minutes to complete it.

Give Questionnaire and answer booklet to the supervisor:

Read aloud as supervisoralso readsthe instructions on the first page of the Images I Questionnaire.

Supervision

Q9. How many people do you supervise ?

Q 10. Who do you report to?

Q 11. What do you considerto be your best assetin your supervisory capacity?
Q12. Have you had any non technical training for your role as a supervisor?
Q13. What skills do you use currently that were taught at the training course(mentioned above)?
Q 14. Which aspectsof your job do you feel require more training and why?
Q 15. Have you had any commercial or financial training as a supervisor?
Q 16. Do you wish to be promotedand if yes into which position?

Q17. Pleasecircle the responsethat best describeshow you feel about the following statements.

A. The main role is that of "fire fighter" e. g making many rapid decisions. (P)
offshore supervisor's
AgreeStrongly AgreeSlightly NeitherAgreenorDisagree DisagreeSlightly DisagreeStrongly

B. The offshore supervisoris pushedfrom above and below at the sametime. (P)
Agree Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Strongly

C. On this platform, the best supervisory style is authoritarian with autocratic overtones.(P)
Agree Strongly Neither Agree
Agree Slightly Disagree
nor DisagreeSlightly DisagreeStrongly

D. The supervisor is not a key figure in reducing loss and increasing (N)
offshore profit.
AgreeStrongly AgreeSlightly NeitherAgreenorDisagree DisagreeSlightly DisagreeStrongly

F. The best supervisory style is to providettrm leadership and direction to

employees. (P)
AgreeStrongly AgreeSlightly NeitherAgreenorDisagree DisagreeSlightly Disagree
Strongly

252
F. The offshore supervisorhas becomeanother specialist whose main concern is organising and looking after
his/her workers. (P)
Agree Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Strongly

G. The offshore supervisorshould not have the statusof first line management.(N)
Agree Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Strongly

H. Staff reports and appraisalsdo not invite honest and open criticism within the offshore environment. (N)
Agree Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Agree not Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Strongly

1. The offshore supervisorshould be a team leader. (P)

Agree Strongly Agree Slightly Disagree Slightly
Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly

J. Man managementis lessimportant than technical ability for an effective offshore supervisor. (N)
Agree Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Strongly

Q18. K. Offshore supervisorsplay a key role in the successof "partnering". (P)

Agree Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Strongly

L. The future successof the offshore oil industry dependsheavily on the man managementskills of all offshore
supervisory roles. (P) DisagreeSlightly
Agree Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Agree not Disagree Disagree Strongly

M. Most supervisorssometimesturn a blind eye to the strict safety rules to get the job done on time. (N)
Agree Strongly Agree Slightly Disagree Slightly
Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly

N. The permit to work systemensuressafe working. (P)

Agree Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Agree nor Disagree DisagreeSlightly Disagree Strongly

0. The existenceof the Offshore Safety Division of the HSE does not make me feel safe. (N)
Agree Strongly Agree Slightly Disagree Disagree Slightly
Neither Agree nor Disagree Strongly

P. If supervisorsdid not take risks now and again the job wouldn't get done. (P)
Agree Strongly Agree Slightly Agree
NeitherDisagree
nor Disagree Slightly Disagree Strongly

Q. Most accidentsjust happen- there'snot much you can do about it. (P)
AgreeStrongly AgreeSlightly NeitherAgreenorDisagree DisagreeSlightly DisagreeStrongly

R. The permit to work system is just a way of covering people's backs. (N)
Agree Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Strongly

S. There are certainly risks working offshore. (N)

AgreeStrongly AgreeSlightly NeitherAgreenorDisagree DisagreeSlightly DisagreeStrongly

U. The role of the supervisor is not dominated by paperwork. (P)

Agree Slightly Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Strongly
Agree Strongly

253
Motivation

Q 19. Please rate each of the following motivators in terms of how they motivate You at work
Promotion
not effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 highly effective
Disciplinary action
not effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 highly effective
Praise
not effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 highly effective
Pay
not effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 highly effective
Job Pride
not effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 highly effective
Time off
not effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 highly effective
Q20. Pleaserate eachof the fol lowing motivators in how effective they motivate your team/shift at work ?
Promotion
not effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 highly effective
Disciplinary action
not effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 highly effective
Praise
not effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 highly effective
Pay
not effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 highly effective
Job Pride
not effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 highly effective
Time off
not effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 highly effective

Q21. What are the main challengesfor an offshore supervisor in terms of motivating his shift ?
Q22. What motivatesyou to perform better ? (3 examples)

JOB SATISFACTION

This set of items deals with various aspectsof your job. We would like you to tell us how satisfied or
dissatisfied you feel with each of thesefeaturesof your presentjob. Pleaseuse the scale below to indicate your
feelings.
I'm extremely dissatisfied =1

I'm very dissatisfied =2

I'm moderately dissatisfied =3

I'm not sure =4

I'm moderately satisfied =5

I'm very satisfied =6
I'm extremely satisfied =7

"

254
1. The physical working conditions.

1234567

2. The freedomto chooseyour own methodof working.

1234567

3. Your fellow workers.

1234567
4. The recognition you get for good work. .l

_ý
1234567
5. Your immediateboss.

1234567
6. The amountof responsibility you are given.

1234567
7. Your rate of pay.

1 2345 6 7
8. Your opportunity to useyour abilities.

1 2345 6 7
9. Industrial relations betweenmanagementand workers in your firm.

1 2345 6 7
10. Your chanceof promotion.

1 2345 6 7
I. The way your firm is managed.

l234567
12. The attention paid to suggestionsthat you make.

1 2345 6 7
13. Your hoursof work.

1 2345 6 7
14. The amount of variety in your job.

1 2345 6 7
15. Your job history.

1 2345 6 7
6. Now, taking everything into consideration, how do you feel about you job as a whole.

1 2345 6 7 by Warr, Cook and wall, 1979.

255
The Offshore Environment
Q23. What is it that worries most offshore supervisors?
Q24. What has beenthe single biggest changeiý the offshore oil industry in recent years. Describe ?
Q25. How stressfuldo you feel the post of supervisoris ? (pleasetick)
(1) Not at all stressful

(2) Rarely stressful

(3) Mildly stressful

(4) Considerablystressful i"

(5) Extremely stressful

Q26. What is the biggest cause of stress for most offshore supervisors?

Q27. What two suggestions would you make to improve the life offshore ?

Work Environment Scale by Rudolf Moos and Paul N. Insel (1974)

Instructions

There are 90 statements in this booklet. They are statements about the place in which The
you work.
are intended to apply to all work environments. However, some words may not be quite
statements suitable for
environment. For example, the term supervisor is meant to
your work refer to the boss, manager, department

head, or the person or persons to whom and employee reports. (Where some statements apply more to

describing the living accommodation area than the worksite, please respond in terms of the platform in general. )

You are to decide which statements are true of your work environment and which are false. Make all your

marks on the separate answer sheet.

If you think the statementis true or mostly true of your work environment, make and X in the box labelled T

(true).
If you think the is
statement false of your work environment, make an X in the box labelled F (false).

256
Pleasebe sureto answerevery statement.
I. The work is really challenging. 46. There is no time pressure.

2. People go out of their way to make a new employee feel 47. The details of assigned jobs are generally explained to

comfortable. employees.

3. Supervisorstend to talk down to employees. 48. Rules and regulations are pretty well enforced.

4. Few employeeshave any important responsibilities. 49. The samemethods have been used for quite a long time.

5. People pay a lot of attention to getting work done. 50. The place could stand some new interior decorations.

6. There is constantpressureto keep working. 51. Few people ever volunteer.

7. Things are sometimespretty disorganised. 52. Employees often eat lunch together.

8. There's a strict emphasis on following policies and 53. Employees generally feel free to ask for a raise:

regulations.
9. Doing things in a different way is valued. 54. Employees generally do not try to be unique and different.

10. It sometimesgets too hot. 55. There's an emphasison "work before play. "

11. There's not much group spirit. 56. It is very hard to keep up with your work load.

12. The atmosphereis somewhatimpersonal. 57. Employees are often confused about what they are supposed

to do.
13. Supervisors usually compliment an employee who does 58. Supervisors are always checking on employees and

something well. supervise them closely.

14. Employees have deal of freedom to do as they like. 59. New approachesto things are rarely tried.
a great
5. There's a lot of time wastedbecauseof inefficiencies. 60. The colours and decorations make the place warm and

cheerful to work and live in.

61. It is quite a lively place.
16. There always seemsto be urgency about everything.
17. Activities are well planned. 62. Employees who differ greatly from the others in the

organisation don't get on well.

18. People can wear non-work clothing while on the job if they 63. Supervisors expect far too much from employees.

want.
64. Employees are encouraged to learn things even if they are
19. New and different ideasare always being tried out.
not directly related to the job.

20. The lighting is extremely good. 65. Employees work very hard.

21 A lot of peopleseemto bejust putting in time. 66. You can take it easy and still get your work done.
67. Fringe benefits are fully explained to employees.
22. Peopletake a personalinterest in each other.
68. Supervisors do not often give in to employee pressure.
23. Supervisorstend to discouragecriticisms from employees.
69. Things tend to stay just about the same.
24. Employeesare discouragedto make their decisions.
70. It is rather draughty at times.
25 Things rarely get "put off till tomorrow."
71. It's hard to get people to do any extra work.
26. Peoplecannotafford to relax.
72. Employees often talk to each other about their personal
27. Rules and regulationsare somewhatvague and ambiguous.
problems.

to follow set rules in doing their work. 73. Employees discusstheir personal problems with supervisors.
28. People are expected
This be one of the first to try out a new idea. 74. Employeesfunction fairly independentlyof supervisors.
29 place would
75. Peopleseemto be quite inefficient.
30 Work spaceis awfully crowded.
31. Peopleseemto take pride in the organisation. 76. There are always deadlinesto be met.
77. Rules and policies are constantly changing.
32. Employeesrarely do things together after shift.
Supervisors give full credit to ideas contributed by 78. Employees are expected to conform rather strictly to the
33. usually

employees. rules and custom.

34. Peoplecan usetheir own initiative to do things. 79. There is a fresh, novel atmosphereabout the place.

place. *' 80. The furniture is usually well-arranged.

35 This is a highly efficient, work-oriented
36. Nobody works too hard. 81. The work is usually very interesting.

17 The responsibilities of supervisorsare clearly defined. 82. Often people make trouble by talking behind others' backs.

257
38. Supervisorskeep a rather close watch on employees. 83. Supervisors really stand up for their people,
84. Supervisors meet with employees regularly to discuss their
39. Variety and changeare not particularly important.
future work goals.

40. This place has a stylish and modem appearance. 85. There's a tendency for people to start their shift late.
; 86. People often have to work overtime to get their work done.
41. People put quite a lot of effort into what they do.
42. People are generally frank about how they feel. 87. Supervisors encourageemployees to be neat and orderly.

43. Supervisorsoften criticise employeesover minor things. 88. If an employee starts late, he can make it up by working late.

44. Supervisors encourage employees to rely on themselves 89. Things always seemto be changing.

when a problem arises.

45. Getting a lot of work done is important to people. 90. The rooms are well ventilated.
'.

Leadership

Q28. If all the effective supervisors in the offshore industry decided to go to a pub in Aberdeen what type of

pub would it be ?
Q29. What three similar characteristics would define a large group of effective supervisors ?

Q30. From your own experience what was it that an effective supervisor does which others do not ?

Q31. If you could do whatever you liked without penalty, what leadership style would you choose and how

would you describe it?

Q32. What is it that is most critical to being an excellent first line supervisor.

Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire

is to
This a questionnaire provide a description about your leadership. Answer the questions by marking your

in pen. When the item is irrelevant or does not apply, or where you are uncertain or don't know, leave
response
blank. Make no more than one mark for each question. If you want to change your answer, cross
the answer

out your responseand mark anotherone clearly.

Directions: Listed below are descriptive statementsabout leaders. For each statementwe would like you to

judge how frequently you have displayed the behaviour described.

Use the following for the five responses:

Key: ABCDE
Frequently Fairly Sometimes Once Not
if not always often in a while at all

I. I make personal sacrificies for the benefit of others. 41. I provide reassurance that we will overcome
obstacles.
2.1 involved when important issues 42.1 avoid making decisions.
avoid getting
arise.
3.1 talk to those I lead about my most important 43.1 display conviction in my ideals, beliefs, and
values and beliefs. values.
4. It requires a failure to meet an objective for me to 44.1 show that I am a firm believer in "If it ain't
broke, don't-fix it".
take action.
5.1 set high standards. 45.1 provide continuous encouragement to those
I lead.
focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, 46. My attention is directed towards failure to
6.1
and deviations from standards. meet standards.
exceptions,

258
7.1 emphasisethe value of questioning assumptions. 47. I seek differing perspectives when solving
problems.
8.1 give those I lead what they want in exchange for 48.1 tell those I lead what to do to be rewarded
for their efforts.
their support.
9.1 treat those I lead as individuals rather that just 49.1 spend time teaching and coaching those I
lead.
membersof a group.
10. I take no action even when problems chronic. 50. I delay responding to urgent questions.
11.1 remain calm during crisis situations. 51. I display extraordinary talent and competence
in whatever I undertake.
12. The work of those I lead has to fall below 52. Problems must become chronic before I will
minimum standards for me to try to make take action.
improvements. _ý
13.1 emphasise the importance of being committed to 53.1 take a stand on difficult issues.

our beliefs.
14.1 closely monitor the performanceof those I lead 54.1 search for mistakes before commenting on
for errors. the performance of those 1 lead.
15.1 envision exciting new possibilities. 55. I focus the attention of those I lead on "what
it takes" to be successful.
16.1 make clear to those I lead what they can expect 56. I make sure that those I lead receive
to receive, if their performance meets standards. appropriate rewards for achieving performance
targets.
17.1 re-examine critical assumptions to question 57.1 suggest new ways of looking at how we do
our jobs.
whether they are appropriate.
18.1 am absentwhen needed. 58.1 divert the attention of those I lead away
from addressingwork-related problems.
19.1 listen attentively to the concernsof those I lead. 59.1 treat each of those I lead as individuals with
different needs,abilities, and aspirations.
become serious. 60. I motivate those I lead to do more than they
20.1 fail to intervene until problems
thought they could do.
in
21.1 instil pride those I lead in being associated 61. My actions build respect for me from those I
lead.
with me.
22.1 spendmy time looking to "put out fires". 62. Those I lead earn credit with me by doing
their tasks well.
importance of having a strong sense 63. I clarify the central purpose underlying our
23. I specify the
actions.
of purpose.
those I lead on what 64. I talk enthusiastically about what needsto be
24.1 work out agreementswith
if they do what needs to be done. accomplished.
they will receive
the future. 65. I encourage those I lead to express their ideas
25.1 talk optimistically about
and opinions.
26.1 fail to follow-up requestsfor assistance. 66.1 teach those I lead how to identify the needs
and capabilities of others.
I lead to rethink ideas that had 67.1 display a senseof power and confidence.
27. I encourage those
been questioned before.
never
have done 68. I talk about how trusting each other can help
28. I tell those I lead what they wrong
have done us overcome our difficulties.
rather than what they right.
29.1 provide useful advice for the development of 69.1 arouse in those I lead an awarenessof what
I lead. is essentialto consider.
those
30.1 keep track of the mistakes of those I lead. 70.1 heighten the motivation to succeedof those
I lead.
3L I go beyond my own self-interest for the good of 71. I emphasise the importance of having a

our group. collective sense of mission.

32.1 negotiate with those I lead about what they can 72.1 articulate a compelling vision of the future
to for what they accomplish. for those I lead.
expect receive
33.1 consider the moral and ethical consequences of 73.1 get those I lead to look at problems from
my decisions. many different angles.
34. I resist expressing my views on important issues. 74.1 promote self development among those
lead.
35.1 express my confidence that we will achieve our 75.1 behave in ways that are consistent with my

259
goals. expressedvalues.
36. Things have to go wrong for me to take action. 76. I show determination to accomplish what I set
out to do.

37. I question the traditional ways of doing things. 77. I encourage non-traditional thinking to deal
with traditional problems.
38. I enforce rules to avoid mistakes. 78. I give personal attention to those I lead who
seem neglected.
39.1 focus those I lead on developing their strengths. 79. I get those I lead to do more than they
expectedthey could do.
40.1 provide assistance to those I lead in exchange 80. I express satisfaction when those Iýlead do a
for their effort. good job. Al
ý.
81. I encourage addressing problems by using
reasoning and evidence, rather than unsupported
opinion.

Use this key for the five possible responsesto items 82-85.
Key: ABCDE
Not effective Only slightly Effective Very effective Extremely
effective effective
82. The overall effectiveness of your group made 84. How effective are you in meeting the job-
those you lead and yourself can be classified related needs of those with whom you work?
up of
as?
83. How effective are you in representing your 85. How satisfied are you with your leadership
group to higher authority? abilities?

86. In all, how satisfied are you with the methods 87. In all, how satisfied are you with the methodsof
leadership you use to get your group's leadership you use to get you group'sjob done?
of
assignmentscompleted?
A. Very dissatisfied A. Very dissatisfied
B. Somewhatdissatisfied B. Somewhatdissatisfied
C. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied C. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
D. Fairly satisfied D. Fairly satisfied
E. Very satisfied E. Very satisfied

(This questionnaire was also translated into Norwegian for the supervisors on platform Ni)

260
 APPENDIX IIa

Decisi3n Making Scenarios

Five scenariosare outlined below. In each case you are asked to describe what you would do as an offshore

supervisor if facedby theseproblems.

ýý
What would you do ? . l
I.

1. You are supervising many men on the platform. The flight programme has been

cancelled for the last four days and there is a large backlog to clear. 14 men turn up
at your door all claiming compassionateleave ranging from "the wife is not well" to
"my house has been broken into. " You are convinced that at least half of them are

trying it on...
2. You have a technician who has worked for you a few months. His position has

changed due to reorganisation and he is not coping due to the additional demands.

His previous supervisor did not tell you that the technician was unlikely to cope with

any changes. The technician was an average performer in his previous position and

now cannot accept that within the new role he is not producing what is required of
him...

3. The lead technician is reasonablyexperiencedbut is not the best communicator in

the world. The team gets a new recruit and you quickly discover that there is a

personality clash between the new man and the lead technician. You learn that the

is a bit head strong and he feels that the lead technician hand is picking
new recruit

on him. You are informed that the new man has been using threatening behaviour

towards the lead technician...

4. There are conflicting procedureson re-starting the plant after a plant shutdown. The

official procedure takes 45 minutes but there are some aspects that may not be 100%

safe. Unofficial "procedures" have been followed in the past and are safer but take

up to 90 minutes. You have recognised the need to update the procedures to

incorporate this longer safer method but have not yet done so.

The plant trips and the OIM has insisted that company proceduresmust be strictly

261
 followed...
5. One of your team is working through some technical elements of the new standards

of competence. He has completed the self assessment part and is now seeking

confirmation of his competencefrom you as the assessor.

Your first impression is that he is underselling his actual competence and has

marked himself down. You, as the have

assessor, to decide whether this is a' enuine

attempt to avoid responsibility or that he requires more training... ` ;.

Scoring scalefor the DMVs.

The scale for scoring the DMVs is represented by the following scale:

Congruent match 4

Substantial match 3

Moderate match 2

Limited match 1

Incongruent match 0

AD.

262
 APPENDIX lib

JOB PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

For eachof the scales,pleaseindicate the appropriate level in terms of job performance.
6= An outstandingperformer.
5=A very good performer. {
4=A good performer.
3= Performance is entirely satisfactory.

2= Performsat somewhatbelow a satisfactory level.

1=A poor performer.

Technical/Specialist ability : Knowledge and skills demonstrated in the job.

654321
Communication : Ability to put acrossideasand information verbally or in writing.

654321
Relationships : Ability to superviseand to work with others as part of a team.

654321

Managing resources: Demonstration

of ability to makeappropriateuse of assetsand understandthe cost
implicationsof theirdecisions.
654321

Influencing others : Skill shownby the employeein handlingrelationshipswith superiors,subordinates

and
peers.
654321

decisionsandtaking appropriateactionto achieveresults.

in makingnecessary
Initiative : Effectiveness
654321

ChangeOriented : Attitude to flexibility both within the workplaceand the organisationalenvironmentin

orderto maintainlocalandglobalperformance
objectives.
654321
Overall job performance : Taking everything into consideration.

654321

263
 APPENDIX IIc

Peer Nominations

Listed below are the namesof supervisors working on this shift. You are asked to score these supervisors in

terms of who you think are the most effective supervisorsand also who are the least effective supervisors.

i"

Make your choice against performance indicators such as best team leader on the platform, best supervisor in
terms of motivating his shift and bestjob performing supervisor.

Most Effective Supervisors

2.

Least Effective Supervisors

04,

264