Directive Control Behaviors in Supervision: When and How

Introduction

This paper addresses many different aspects of effective supervision, training, and evaluation, but its main concern is control. One might assume that a supervisor has control over the supervisory situation, but this would be an oversimplification of the relationship between a line employee and their direct supervisor. Control is a shared entity: although the supervisor may determine the course an employee must take, the employee ultimately decides whether to follow that direction. Thus, the supervisor must demonstrate competence in the job before expecting the employee to comply.

This is the foundation of directive control behaviors. A supervisor who uses directive control behaviors must be a subject matter expert. If they cannot claim expertise in the elements the job entails, they are less likely to have genuine influence over the employee's direction. This approach gives the manager control over the process of improvement. Following an evaluation of the employee, the supervisor can correctly identify areas that need improvement, set specific and achievable goals, and reward the individual once they have reached the desired level of competence (Bailey, 2006). This paper discusses this supervisory method, how its various elements are applied, and when the approach is most appropriate.

In a world that demands constant awareness of rapid technological advances, no one can successfully perform any job without some form of ongoing training. For teachers, this may be especially true. Not only must educators understand new developments and how they relate to their subject area, they must also be able to use new electronic technologies to enhance their lesson plans. Training is therefore essential to equip educators with the tools needed to perform their roles competently.

Professional Training

The general goal of training is to raise an individual's competence to a required level. In this context, supervision is one of the most effective training tools available. A supervisor can train employees using several methods, but as Baumrind (1966) outlined, there are three supervisory stances a leader can take: permissive, authoritarian, or authoritative. Baumrind was writing specifically about parenting styles, but these translate directly into common leadership styles across any population being led. The labels may change — for example, "laissez-faire" is often used in place of "permissive" — but the underlying styles are essentially the same.

Each of the three leadership styles has characteristics that make it work better in some situations than others. The permissive supervisor generally takes a creative outlook and avoids suppressing the creative spirit of employees. With a workforce that needs little specific direction, this can be workable, but it is generally not the strongest supervisory stance. The authoritarian supervisor leads in one way — their way — without flexibility. In limited cases, such as military combat situations requiring swift, unquestioned compliance, this style is appropriate. The third style Baumrind (1966) outlined is authoritative. Though this sounds like authoritarian, it is distinct. An authoritative supervisor combines elements of the other two styles: they know the occupation thoroughly and understand what is required for success, while also allowing employees to exercise creativity within defined boundaries. The supervisor provides guidelines designed to help subordinates reach their potential. This style of leadership can also be described as directive control.

Many studies have been conducted, and numerous theories proposed, regarding the types of supervision individuals employ and which is most effective. It can even be wise to use different types of supervision depending on the individual being trained. This seems obvious, since people have different personalities and skill levels, yet in practice many supervisors adopt a single supervisory style and apply it regardless of the individual being supervised. One such approach is the directive control method, which Glickman (2002) describes as follows:

"When a leader directs a teacher in what will be done, standardizes the timeline of and criteria for expected results, and reinforces the consequences of action or inaction, then the leader has taken responsibility for the decision. The leader is clearly determining the actions for the teacher to follow. These behaviors are called a directive-control interpersonal approach" (p. 42).

Philosophy of Supervision

Although this could be labeled authoritarian, it is more accurately an authoritative approach because the supervisor's direction stems from a position of subject matter expertise.

Glickman (2002) also breaks down the specific elements of directive control beyond the requirement for supervisor expertise:

"The leader clarifies the teacher's problem, presents his or her own ideas on what information should be collected and how it will be collected, directs the teacher — after data collection and analysis — on the actions that need to be taken, demonstrates for the teacher appropriate teaching behavior, sets the standard for improvement based on the preliminary baseline information, and reinforces teacher behavior by using material or social incentives" (pp. 59–60).

Each of these steps is necessary because together they outline a specific plan the teacher can follow to reach the expected level of competence. Clarification is required because the issue at hand may be perceived differently by the supervisor and the teacher; ensuring that both parties agree on what the true problem is forms the basis for any corrective action. The data collection phase is an informative process through which the teacher further examines the issue. In education, this phase is especially important because it leads to the appropriate type of direction needed for the teacher to plan corrective actions effectively. The demonstration step can come directly from the supervisor or through observation of a colleague who has already demonstrated competence in the area requiring improvement.

Standard-setting, as Glickman presents it, may be somewhat misplaced in practice: for teachers, standards are generally set by the district and the state. A supervisor who imposes higher standards on a specific issue beyond those established externally risks slipping into a less productive authoritarian stance. The incentives used in this process can be as simple as a favorable evaluation when the supervisee meets the standard, or they can be more tangible, such as an award or formal recognition. All of these steps help the supervisee reach the goals necessary for professional improvement and continued employment.