Gerrit Bauer, Jean-Marie Jungblut, Walter Müller, Reinhard Pollak, Felix Weiss, Heike Wirth MZES, University of Mannheim, ZUMA ESeC Workshop on Application of the Classification Bled, Slovenia, June 2006 Issues in the Comparative Measurement of the Supervisory Function

2 Overview 1.Introduction 2.‚Mannheim Study‘: Different measures of ‚supervisory status‘ and their effect on the proportion of ‚supervisors‘ and the distribution of ESeC classes 3.Labour Force Surveys: Operationalisation of the ‚supervisory status‘ 4.Conclusions

3 1. Introduction ‘Supervisory status’ one important information required for the construction of ESeC –Used to allocate employees otherwise coded as ESeC 3,7,8,9 into ESeC 2 or 6  Supervisors are different in their employment relations to ‘rank and file workers’ Problem: –The theoretical concept of the ‘supervisory status’ is not very much developed or discussed in the literature –ESeC Draft User Guide: “Supervisors are neither managers nor professionals but are responsible as their main job task for supervising the work of other employees”  measurement of ‘supervisory status’ respectively where the boundaries between supervisors and employees as well as managers should be set, is not really defined  Operational procedures used to code employees as supervisors varies in national and cross- national population surveys

4 1. Introduction In the following our interest is in the –Effects of different measures of ‘supervisory status’ on the Proportion of employees identified as supervisor Distribution of supervisory responsibilities Class distribution along the ESeC schema –Findings are based on the ‘Mannheim Study of Employment and the Familiy, 2006’ Small sample size (N = 931) Experimental Design Respondents were randomly assigned to two groups (split A; split B) Five different questions were included to identify employees who hold a supervisory position Questions chosen as close as possible to existing operationalisation in the ESS and the LFS Split A: Three questions Split B: Two questions

5 2. Mannheim Study: Different measures of ‘supervisory status’ (1)

6 2. Mannheim Study: Different measures of ‘supervisory status’ (2) Supervisor-QuestionPercentage of Supervisors N ESS question42 %360 Formal Responsibility31 %172 Supervising part of main tasks13 %172 Data Source: Mannheim Study of Employment and the Family 2006 Table 2: Proportions of employees identified as supervisors by different measures

7 2. Mannheim Study: Different measures of ‘supervisory status’ (3) Table 3: Summary statistics of supervisory responsibilities (a) by different supervisory measures

8 2. Mannheim Study: Different measures of ‘supervisory status’ (3) Table 3: Summary statistics of supervisory responsibilities (a) by different supervisory measures

9 2. Mannheim Study: Different measures of ‘supervisory status’ (4) Table 4: The distribution of ESeC based on different supervisor-measures

10 3. Labour Force Survey (LFS) Operationalisation of the ‘supervisory status’ - Examples LFS: Output harmonisation –Internationally agreed definition of a variable (not question) –Leave it to each country how to implement the variable (however recommendations in explanatory notes) –Definition of ‘supervisors’ in the LFS explanatory notes: “a person with supervisory reponsibilities takes charge of the work, directs the work and sees that it is satisfactorily carried out” Supervisory responsibilities refer to –Formal responsibility –Supervising employees other than apprentices –Main job and should be on a regular basis

11 3. Labour Force Survey (LFS) Operationalisation of the ‘supervisory status’ – Examples Table 6: The wording of LFS supervisor questions in different countries

12 4. Conclusions (1) Conceptualization and operationalization matters Mannheim Study: –Different wordings of questions not only have impact on the the proportion of employees identified as supervisors, and hence on the distribution of ESeC classes, but the various supervisor subpopulations identified also differ in the extent of their supervisor responsibilities

13 4. Conclusions (2) Progress is a process in steps precise definition how to operationalise the supervisory status knowledge how different operationalisations work in different countries (e.g. replication of the Mannheim study) cross-nationational harmonisation could be improved through a comparison of measurement procedures in different countries => Further work is needed and can improve the supervisory concept itself as well as its cross-national comparability

14 Thank you for your Attention!

15 Appendix A: English Supervisor Questions in the LFS English Belgium Do you have a responsible job, in other words, do you supervise other personnel ? Ireland Do you supervise the work of other people on a regular basis? Note: This does not include people who monitor quality control only or persons who only supervise on a temporary basis. UK In your job, do you have formal responsibility for supervising the work of other employees? Sweden Do your tasks include managing and supervising the work of other employees?

16 Varying Operationalisations: Impact on ESeC

17 3. European Social Survey (ESS) and Labour Force Survey (LFS) Operationalisation of the ‘supervisory status’ (2) Table 5: The wording of ESS supervisor questions in different countries