Blog

The Forgotten Art of Supervising Teams: Why Your Best Workers Are Probably Your Worst Supervisors

Here's something that'll ruffle feathers: the person you just promoted to supervisor because they were brilliant at their job is probably going to be terrible at managing people. I learned this the hard way after watching a mate of mine – absolute gun at sales, could charm the birds from the trees – turn his entire team into nervous wrecks within six months of being made team leader.

The problem isn't malice. It's that we've got this backwards idea that technical excellence automatically translates to people management skills. It's like assuming the best chef in the kitchen will naturally know how to run the restaurant. Different skills entirely.

The Great Promotion Mistake

I've been watching this play out across Australian workplaces for nearly two decades now. Companies take their star performers and chuck them into supervisory roles without a second thought. Then act surprised when productivity drops and staff turnover skyrockets.

Take Sarah (not her real name, obviously). Brilliant accountant. Could spot a discrepancy from three spreadsheets away. Got promoted to supervise a team of eight. Within twelve months, five of them had either quit or requested transfers. The remaining three were basically walking on eggshells.

What went wrong? Sarah managed people the same way she managed numbers – with precision, zero tolerance for errors, and absolutely no understanding that humans aren't formulas. She'd hover over shoulders, correct minor mistakes immediately, and couldn't grasp why her team seemed stressed all the time.

The Technical Trap

Here's where it gets interesting. The very qualities that make someone exceptional at their technical role often work against them in supervision. Perfectionism becomes micromanagement. Attention to detail becomes nitpicking. Self-reliance becomes an inability to delegate effectively.

I've seen this pattern repeat itself in construction sites, offices, retail stores, and manufacturing plants. The master tradesperson who expects apprentices to just "watch and learn" without explaining anything. The star salesperson who gets frustrated when their team can't replicate their natural charisma. The brilliant analyst who can't understand why everyone else takes so long to reach obvious conclusions.

The irony? These newly minted supervisors often end up doing more of the technical work themselves because it's easier than teaching others or dealing with the inevitable mistakes that come with learning.

What Actually Makes a Good Supervisor

After years of observing what works and what doesn't, I've come to some conclusions that might surprise you. The best supervisors I've encountered weren't necessarily the top performers in their previous roles. They were the ones who could:

Connect without being mates. There's this delicate balance between being approachable and maintaining authority. The supervisors who try to be everyone's best friend usually end up respected by no one. But those who are completely distant create cultures of fear.

Explain the "why" behind decisions. People aren't robots. They need context. The supervisor who just barks orders without explanation will always struggle with buy-in. But explaining every decision in detail can be equally problematic – it signals you don't trust their judgment.

Accept that their team might do things differently. This one kills a lot of technical experts turned supervisors. Just because someone reaches the same outcome via a different method doesn't mean they're doing it wrong. Some of the best innovations I've seen came from team members who were given permission to experiment.

The Delegation Disaster

Let's talk about delegation – or rather, the complete inability to delegate that plagues most new supervisors. I watched one supervisor (let's call him Mike) work 70-hour weeks for three months because he couldn't bring himself to hand over any meaningful responsibilities to his team.

Mike's logic was simple: "It's faster if I just do it myself."

And he was right. In the short term.

But what he created was a team of people who felt undervalued, underchallenged, and completely dependent on him for every decision. When Mike eventually burned out and took stress leave, the entire department ground to a halt.

The thing about delegation isn't just about workload distribution. It's about developing your team's capabilities and creating systems that don't rely on any single person. But that requires patience, tolerance for initial mistakes, and the wisdom to know when to step in and when to let someone figure it out themselves.

The Communication Conundrum

Communication in supervision is nothing like communication in regular work relationships. You're not just sharing information anymore – you're managing emotions, expectations, and sometimes delivering news that people really don't want to hear.

I remember one supervisor who was fantastic at casual workplace chat but completely fell apart when it came to performance conversations. He'd avoid difficult discussions for months, hoping problems would resolve themselves. When he finally did address issues, they'd built up to the point where formal disciplinary action was the only option.

The opposite problem is equally destructive. Supervisors who are constantly providing feedback, usually negative, create environments where people are afraid to take any initiative. Every small mistake becomes a teaching moment, every success gets qualified with suggestions for improvement.

The Authority Paradox

One of the strangest things about moving into supervision is suddenly having authority you're not sure how to use. Some people become power-drunk overnight. Others are so uncomfortable with hierarchy they pretend it doesn't exist.

Both approaches are disasters.

I've seen new supervisors who started making dramatic changes on day one, just because they could. Rearranging office layouts, implementing new procedures, changing meeting schedules. All well-intentioned, but creating chaos for the sake of proving they were in charge.

On the flip side, supervisors who refuse to make any decisions that might be unpopular end up being managed by their teams instead of managing them. They become coordinators rather than leaders, which helps nobody.

The Training Nobody Gets

Here's what really gets me fired up: most organisations provide zero meaningful training before throwing people into supervisory roles. Maybe a day-long course on "management principles" or a glossy manual that nobody reads.

But effective supervisory training needs to address the psychological shift that happens when you move from being responsible for your own work to being responsible for other people's success. That's a fundamentally different job requiring fundamentally different skills.

The good news? These skills can be learned. But it takes time, practice, and usually a few mistakes along the way.

Cultural Considerations

Working across different Australian industries, I've noticed that supervisory styles that work in one environment can be completely wrong in another. The direct, no-nonsense approach that works well on construction sites might create unnecessary tension in creative agencies. The collaborative style that thrives in tech startups could be seen as weakness in traditional manufacturing.

But here's something that transcends industry boundaries: people want to feel heard, valued, and trusted to do their jobs well. Regardless of whether you're supervising engineers in Melbourne or retail staff in Perth, these fundamentals remain constant.

The Long Game

Perhaps the biggest mistake new supervisors make is thinking their job is about immediate results. But really, supervision is about building systems and capabilities that produce consistent results over time.

That means accepting that initial productivity might actually decrease while people adjust to new ways of working. It means investing time in training that won't pay off for months. It means having difficult conversations early before small problems become big ones.

Making the Transition

If you're currently facing the transition from technical expert to supervisor, here's some practical advice: start thinking of yourself as a coach rather than a doer. Your success is now measured by your team's performance, not your individual output.

Also, find a mentor who's successfully made this transition. Not just someone who's been a supervisor for years, but someone who remembers what it was like to struggle with the change and can guide you through the specific challenges you'll face.

Don't try to be perfect from day one. Your team knows you're learning, and acknowledging that occasionally actually builds credibility rather than undermining it.

The Real Measure of Success

After watching hundreds of people navigate this transition, I've come to believe that the best supervisors are those who can make themselves somewhat redundant. Not completely – there's always a need for leadership and decision-making. But if your team falls apart every time you're away for a day, you're not supervising effectively.

The goal should be developing people who can think independently, solve problems creatively, and take ownership of their work. That only happens when supervisors resist the urge to control every detail and instead focus on providing clear direction, adequate resources, and the trust that comes with appropriate boundaries.

It's harder than it sounds. But get it right, and you'll wonder why anyone thinks supervision is about being the smartest person in the room.

Further Resources: Training Matrix Blog | Growth Network Resources