Why Most Supervisor Training Gets It Backwards: What 15 Years in the Trenches Taught Me

Related Reading: Check out these supervisory training insights and leadership development resources for more perspectives.

Three months ago, I watched a supposedly "experienced" supervisor reduce a 20-year veteran tradie to tears in front of his entire crew. Not because of safety violations or poor work—because the bloke asked for clarification on a procedure change that hadn't been properly communicated. That moment crystallised everything wrong with how we approach supervisor training in Australia.

We're teaching people to be managers when what we actually need are translators.

The Translation Problem Nobody Talks About

Here's what they don't tell you in those glossy supervisor training workshops: 87% of workplace conflicts aren't actually about the work itself. They're about translation failures between different operating systems—and I don't mean computers.

Think about it. You've got Gen X tradies who communicate through eye rolls and practical demonstrations. Millennial engineers who want everything documented and risk-assessed. Gen Z apprentices who process information through questions that sound like challenges but aren't. And Boomers who assume context everyone else missed because "it's obvious."

A good supervisor isn't someone who can follow a procedural manual. They're someone who can speak multiple workplace languages fluently.

I learned this the hard way in 2019 when I was brought in to fix a Perth construction site where productivity had dropped 40% in six months. Management kept blaming "attitude problems" and "lack of respect for authority." Classic response.

Turned out the new site supervisor—lovely bloke, excellent technical skills—was translating everything into corporate-speak before passing it down. Simple instructions became PowerPoint presentations. Quick safety reminders became 15-minute briefings with handouts. The crew wasn't being difficult; they were drowning in unnecessary translation layers.

What Tradies Know About Leadership (That MBAs Don't)

You want to know the best leadership training I ever received? Six months working under a 55-year-old electrician named Tony in Townsville. Tony never read a management book in his life, but he understood something most corporate leadership programs miss entirely.

Leadership isn't about being the smartest person in the room. It's about making everyone else feel smarter.

Tony had this habit of asking questions instead of giving orders. Not fake coaching questions—real ones. "What do you reckon would happen if we ran that cable through there instead?" "How would you tackle this if I wasn't here?" "What am I missing that you can see?"

Brilliant, right? He wasn't actually asking because he didn't know. He was creating space for people to own their expertise instead of just following instructions.

Compare that to most supervisor training, which basically teaches people to become walking policy manuals. We wonder why engagement scores are terrible when we've trained an entire generation of supervisors to treat their teams like they're reading comprehension problems to be solved.

The Myth of Consistent Management

Here's an unpopular opinion that'll probably get me uninvited from some training conferences: consistency in management style is overrated rubbish.

Not consistency in standards or safety requirements—that's non-negotiable. I'm talking about this weird obsession with treating everyone exactly the same way. It's the participation trophy approach to supervision, and it's killing workplace effectiveness.

Sarah in accounts needs clear deadlines and minimal check-ins because micromanagement makes her anxious and less productive. Dave in logistics needs regular touch-points and brainstorming sessions because he processes problems out loud. Treating them the same way isn't fair—it's lazy.

Good supervisors are like good bartenders. They read the room, adjust their approach, and give people what they actually need rather than what the manual says they should need.

I remember working with a mining supervisor in the Pilbara who had this figured out perfectly. Quiet guys got pulled aside for one-on-one conversations. Loud guys got public recognition that fed their need for attention. Detail-oriented people got comprehensive briefings. Big-picture thinkers got the why behind decisions. Same standards, different delivery methods.

Results? Best safety record in the region and 23% above productivity targets. But according to most supervisor training programs, he was "inconsistent" and "lacking clear procedures."

Sometimes I think we've confused good management with paint-by-numbers instruction following.

The Construction Site Philosophy Applied to Office Politics

One thing construction sites get right that most offices get spectacularly wrong: they understand that hierarchy and respect operate on different planes entirely.

On a good site, the project manager might be in charge, but everyone knows the old-timer operator is the one you listen to when things get complicated. Formal authority and practical wisdom don't always wear the same hard hat, and smart supervisors learn to navigate both systems.

Office environments often struggle with this because they're obsessed with org charts and reporting lines. But influence doesn't follow dotted lines on paper. The person who actually knows how to get things done might be three levels down from the person who's supposed to know.

I consulted for a Melbourne tech company where the official supervisor was a recent MBA graduate with impressive PowerPoint skills and zero practical experience. Meanwhile, the person everyone actually turned to for real guidance was a mid-level developer who'd been there for eight years and understood both the technical challenges and the office politics.

Instead of pretending this dynamic didn't exist, the smart move was acknowledging it. The MBA supervisor became excellent at strategic planning and stakeholder management. The experienced developer became the unofficial technical mentor. Both got recognition for what they actually contributed rather than what their job descriptions said they should contribute.

Why Most Supervisor Training Feels Like Amateur Hour

The problem with most supervisor training is that it's designed by people who've never actually supervised anything more challenging than a quarterly budget review.

Real supervision isn't about performance management frameworks and KPI dashboards. Those are tools, not skills. The actual skill is reading people, situations, and environments quickly enough to prevent problems instead of just documenting them after they happen.

You know what they should teach in supervisor courses instead of conflict resolution models? How to spot when someone's having a bad day before it affects their work. How to tell the difference between confusion and resistance. How to give feedback that actually changes behaviour instead of just covering your legal obligations.

Basic human intuition stuff that somehow gets lost when we turn supervision into a process.

The best supervisor I ever worked under—a facilities manager in Adelaide—had this uncanny ability to predict problems about three days before they became obvious to everyone else. Not because he was psychic, but because he paid attention to small signals. Who was staying back late more often. Which teams stopped eating lunch together. When someone started asking different types of questions.

These aren't things you learn from a manual. They're pattern recognition skills that develop from actually paying attention to people instead of just managing their outputs.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Authority

Most people in supervisor roles are afraid of their own authority, and it shows in everything they do.

They either swing too far toward being everyone's mate (which helps nobody) or they overcompensate with unnecessary strictness (which helps even less). Neither approach actually uses authority effectively.

Real authority isn't about making people do things. It's about creating conditions where people want to do good work and have the support they need to deliver it.

This means making decisions when decisions need to be made, even unpopular ones. It means backing your team when they're right and holding them accountable when they're wrong. It means taking responsibility for outcomes instead of just delegating accountability downward.

Most importantly, it means being comfortable with the fact that being in charge sometimes means being the bad guy. Not because you enjoy it, but because someone has to make the call and that's literally what you're paid for.

What Actually Works (Based on What Doesn't)

After 15 years of watching supervisor training programs come and go, here's what I've learned actually moves the needle:

Give people problems to solve, not procedures to follow. The best supervisors aren't the ones who can recite policy—they're the ones who can figure out what to do when policy doesn't cover the situation.

Teach people to ask better questions instead of giving perfect answers. "What would good look like here?" is worth more than any flowchart you can download.

Focus on developing judgment, not just technical knowledge. You can teach someone to use a system. You can't teach them when to bend the rules intelligently or how to tell when something's not quite right even though all the boxes are ticked.

Most importantly: stop treating supervision like it's a promotion you give to your best individual contributors. It's a completely different skill set that requires completely different training.

The Bottom Line Nobody Wants to Hear

We're probably overthinking this entire thing.

Good supervision is mostly about paying attention, making reasonable decisions with incomplete information, and treating people like adults who want to do good work. The rest is just paperwork and process refinement.

Maybe instead of sending supervisors to another workshop about emotional intelligence frameworks, we should just ask them to spend more time actually talking to their teams about what's working and what isn't.

Revolutionary concept, I know.

---

Further Resources: Explore more workplace training perspectives and practical supervision strategies from industry professionals.