First-Level Supervisor Essay

Management made mistakes in its predictions at a few different points throughout this case. Firstly, upper management did not appear to take concerns from a lower-level supervisor seriously. First-level supervisors are often times the only individuals within the supervisory chain of command who the employees have a personal relationship with (Fallon & McConnell, 2007). The employees felt comfortable enough with their first-level supervisor to report these union related activities, and their report should have at a minimum been considered as a viable possibility. It appears that upper-level management was so out of tune with its workforce that they did not initially consider unionization activities as a possibility. Instead of investigating these concerns and following up with employees about potential workplace satisfaction issues, the report was ignored entirely and employees’ potential grievances were not acknowledged. The lack of acknowledgement by upper management regarding employee concerns could be a sign of deeper communication issues. These foundational communication issues appear to have contributed further to the inaccurate predictions by upper management.

The second-level did not appear remotely interested in the concern from any of the subordinate employees, including the first-line supervisor. At that time, employees again reported that unionization activities were progressing, and again told their immediate supervisor of their concerns. When the issue was brought to the attention of the second-level supervisor a third time, it appears that the second-level supervisor became frustrated and somewhat disrespectfully brushed off the employees’