1. The downsizing of middle management has affected supervisory development significantly. Not only has the organizational structure changed as a result of downsizing, but the supervisors that are left afterward have been forced to regroup and operate differently. In many cases, the middle managers who left were the highest paid, and therefore the most experienced, so the remaining supervisors had to operate without that expertise. This further degraded the role of the supervisor. In other cases, the organization retooled itself to function virtually without supervision, making the role of the supervisor all but obsolete.
             2. I think this is true for two reasons. First, the real reason most people are fired is that they are not a good fit with the organization, not for performance reasons. Managers need employees who do not disrupt the organization by being significantly better, worse, or otherwise different from their coworkers and with whom they can work effectively. Second, evaluating performance is not as simple as it might seem. It is largely subjective, even when some type of metric is available to justify a firing, and companies do not want to risk liability if the fired employee decides to sue. Supervisors are hesitant to fire, because they do not have "a consistent termination approach" that enables them do it fairly across the board (Muir).
             3. A manager tries to develop staff in ways that are consistent with their preferences because it fosters employee satisfaction and a happier work environment. Staff must meet the organization's needs, or else there is no job for them there. A manager can develop staff through mentoring, training, education, or experience, but in most cases it is some combination of these.
             ...