“Passion, style, and smarts”—industry perspectives on supervisor competencies in the mining industry

The Australian mining industry is well known as a pillar of economic strength and equally for its high-risk nature. Safe production is the industry’s stated number one priority, and supervisors play an integral role in enabling safe production on-site. A review of Queensland mining fatalities found that more than 50% involved inadequate or absent supervision and recommended that the industry better prepare supervisors for their role (Brady, 2019). The contemporary supervisory role includes managing unprecedented workforce and production challenges: turnover rates are accelerating (Minerals Council of Australia, 2023; Yam et al., 2023), inexperienced workers are replacing experienced workers (Minerals Council of Australia, 2023) and rates of psychological distress, burnout, bullying and sexual harassment are higher than similar sectors (Yam et al., 2023). Compounding these challenges, operators are being promoted to supervisory roles earlier and with less experience than previously (MacMahon et al., 2024). This workforce instability (Minerals Council of Australia, 2023) and expanding supervisory demands (Yam et al., 2023; Yarker et al., 2022) are placing strain on supervisors, frontline workers and the industry more broadly. To ensure supervisors are prepared and supported to do their job well in the current context, a better understanding is needed of the knowledge, skills, personal attributes, behaviours and environmental supports required.

Rapid industry changes call for greater supervisor role clarity. In mining, supervisory practices are crucial for promoting positive safety behaviours (Prinsloo and Hofmeyr, 2022). Much rests on a supervisor’s expertise and competence – their knowledge, capabilities, personal attributes and behaviours—to support their crew to optimise safe production. However, defining and measuring expertise is challenging, particularly in mining where role clarity is lacking (Chen et al., 2015; Prinsloo and Hofmeyr, 2022). While companies may rely on proxies such as years of experience, technical qualifications and safety track records, these measures often fail to capture the full spectrum of competencies needed for the supervisory role (Choudhry et al., 2005; Ericsson and Lehmann, 1996). Given these limitations, competency frameworks offer one approach to articulate the behaviours (how people do things), role requirements (what they do) and personal characteristics needed for a role (Yarker et al., 2022).

Lack of role clarity has significant implications. Without a clear understanding of their role, supervisors may be ill-equipped to meet complex demands, optimise a healthy and safe workplace, identify their own learning needs and manage their own well-being. Indeed, role clarity—along with the opportunity to develop the required skills—is essential for mental health and well-being (Yam et al., 2023). While Govaerts and Dochy’s (2014) systematic review revealed diverse conceptualisations of supervisory roles across industries, the challenge of role clarity is particularly acute in high-risk sectors like mining where supervisory practices directly shape safety and performance standards and culture (Fang et al., 2015; Lingard et al., 2012; Michael et al., 2006).

Research rarely engages frontline workers and supervisors, whose perspectives on contemporary supervision are essential. Recent constructivist research began to address this gap by directly engaging workers and supervisors, revealing the integral role that supervisors play in supporting workplace learning and safe production (MacMahon et al., 2024). Frontline workers and supervisors described how they influence and are influenced by their workplace environment and each other, with supervisors identified as integral to shaping workplace learning and culture (MacMahon et al., 2024). However, this social, evolving and dynamic workplace environment presented challenges (and opportunities) that supervisors did not always feel prepared for.

Building on this, the present study draws on Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; Bandura, 1986) as its primary theoretical lens. SCT’s emphases on self-efficacy and reciprocal determinism captures how individuals actively contribute to their own development and work environment. SCT conceptualises learning as a socially embedded process shaping competencies and actions through reciprocal determinism—the continuous interaction between personal factors (e.g. knowledge, dispositions and self-efficacy), behaviours (e.g. actions and communication style) and environmental influences (e.g. organisational culture and operational pressures).

This triadic framework makes SCT well suited to exploring what supervisory competencies are required in the role, how expertise is developed and enacted in the dynamic and high-stakes mining context and how training and learning can meet the needs of the role. Rather than viewing supervisory competence as a fixed set of traits, SCT enables us to understand how competencies emerge over time through ongoing interaction with real-world demands. Supervisors are not only shaped by their environment (e.g. production pressures, safety protocols, workplace culture), but actively shape that environment through their actions.

Several of SCT’s core constructs are particularly relevant to understanding this interactive process. Self-efficacy—an individual’s belief in their own capability to successfully execute behaviours necessary to produce specific outcomes—directly influences actions and persistence (Bandura, 1997). Individuals with higher self-efficacy are more likely to engage in challenging tasks, persist despite obstacles and recover from setbacks (Bandura, 1997). In supervisory contexts, this translates to confidence in one’s ability to manage teams, make decisions under pressure and manage complex workplace dynamics (Dwyer, 2019; Kim et al., 2021; Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). SCT also emphasises observational learning as a key mechanism through which individuals develop competence. This vicarious learning process suggests that supervisors develop their practice not just through formal training but by observing and emulating the behaviours of experienced others (Taylor et al., 2005; Kempster and Parry, 2014). Finally, self-regulation—the ability to monitor one’s own performance, set goals and adapt behaviour using self-reflection and metacognition—represents another essential SCT core construct (Bandura, 1991). In the mining industry, self-regulatory and metacognitive skills are increasingly recognised as essential leadership competencies alongside more traditional behavioural attributes (Yam et al., 2023; Yarker et al., 2022), particularly given the need to navigate complex operational dynamics and respond to changing conditions (Loon et al., 2019; Lord et al., 2010).

SCT’s focus on the interplay between the individual and their context is echoed in contemporary workplace learning research. For instance, Billett (2011) and Eteläpelto (2017) also argue against decontextualised views of expertise, emphasising that professional learning is situated and relational. Similarly, the challenges of navigating professional boundaries and integrating different forms of knowledge, as explored by Akkerman and Bakker (2011), are highly relevant to mining supervisors who must merge technical knowledge with interpersonal skills. By integrating SCT with these perspectives, we can develop an understanding of supervisor competencies and what training and development is required.

Therefore, this study aimed to examine how supervisory roles, responsibilities and competencies are understood and enacted in the Australian mining industry, with the goal of informing how supervisors are trained, supported and developed for success in complex, high-risk environments. Using SCT as our theoretical lens, we examine how supervisory capabilities and role requirements emerge from the interaction between personal attributes, their behaviours and their environmental context. This study used a convergent mixed-methods design, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data through surveys, alongside qualitative interview data, with integration occurring during analysis.

Data were collected from three mine sites in Queensland, Australia, comprising one aboveground (Open Cut) and two underground mines. Interview participants were recruited directly from these three sites, with the interview sample consisting of 83 participants, including frontline workers, supervisors and mine management personnel. Due to the operational constraints, interview participant availability was limited by shift schedules and role responsibilities. As such, participants were recruited opportunistically rather than purposively; those who were available and willing to participate during scheduled site visits were included in the study. The survey was disseminated more broadly through industry stakeholders and consisted of 28 participants (see Table 1 for participant demographics).

The survey consisted of a quantitative and a qualitative section. The quantitative section asked participants to rank the importance of different expertise indicators (Shanteau et al., 2002) on a 6-point scale (1 = most important, 6 = least important), including years of experience, certifications, performance measures, social consensus, knowledge tests and behavioural characteristics. The qualitative section included two open-ended questions asking participants to describe the qualities of good and poor supervision based on their personal experiences. The survey was administered online using Qualtrics survey software and took approximately 10 min to complete.

Semi-structured interviews were initially undertaken as part of a broader research project examining the barriers and enablers to effective learning and training in the mining industry (MacMahon et al., 2024). Participants were encouraged to share their learning and training experiences and factors impacting their job performance, reflecting on their broader industry experiences spanning multiple sites and organisations (see Sample Interview Questions):

• What do the terms “learning” and “training” mean to you?

• Tell us about your role within the industry.

• Tell us about the training you have received for your role. Comment on its value.

• What other training have you done, e.g. communication, leadership etc.? Why?

• Apart from the formal training that is compulsory for your job, how else do you develop knowledge and skills you need for your role?

• From your perspective, have there been any changes in learning and training needs over the past few years? Discuss. What about in the future—how do you see the industry changing and what might that mean for training?

• Is there other training that you think would be valuable to help you achieve your goals?

• Suggestions for improving training?

Source: Authors own work

From October 2022 to January 2023, we conducted semi-structured interviews and disseminated a survey at three mining sites with institutional ethics approval (2022/HE000635). Industry stakeholders facilitated recruitment and site access. The survey and interviews were scheduled during participants’ rostered shifts in private offices to ensure convenience and minimal disruption to daily operations. All interviews were audio-recorded for transcription and participation was voluntary, with the option to withdraw at any time, even post-interview.

To explore perceptions of supervisory expertise, survey participants ranked six indicators: behavioural characteristics, years of experience, performance measures, knowledge tests, social consensus (e.g. peer endorsement) and certification. Quantitative data from the survey were analysed using descriptive statistics and inferential tests. A Friedman test was conducted to assess differences in perceived importance, followed by post hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons. This approach enabled us to identify which characteristics or measures were considered most and least critical by the industry professionals in indicating expert supervision within their field.

Qualitative analysis integrated the open-ended survey responses and interview data guided by SCT and reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1986). This framework provided the initial structure for coding, categorising findings into personal, behavioural and environmental attributes. Analysis began with a thorough reading of all data before two researchers independently coded using NVivo. Data were assigned to conceptual bins that aligned with the theoretical framework, while new codes were developed inductively. Through multiple iterations and researcher consensus (Braun and Clarke, 2022), the analysis revealed six key themes that demonstrated the interconnected nature of these attributes in effective supervision.

The above quote illustrates how the complex supervisory role is shaped by the interaction between personal, behavioural and environmental dimensions. They described that quality supervision involves the interplay of passion—intrinsic motivation and enthusiasm for the role, the people and the industry, style—a sophisticated, respected approach and behaviour and smarts—a breadth and depth of knowledge and skills.

Participants emphasised that the supervisory role requires knowledge and skills including technical, logistical, safety and tacit expertise. They described the importance of a comprehensive understanding of site operations, such as pre-planning: “…plan the work for the shift” (WGB220), communicating task assignments: “what their roles [are] for on that shift” (WGB209), managing production targets: “…daily targets, and…monthly plan[s]” (WGB308) and safety management, recognising and controlling for environmental, operational and human risks: “You got to check, check, check” (WGB318).

Knowledge and skill in proactive safety management emerged as a priority competency, including identifying hazards, implementing controls and monitoring safety practices: “[…]understanding the risks that people are going to face, making sure controls are in place to manage the risk, and then allocating the task and then stepping back and going to check.” (WGB318). This involves ensuring compliance: “Making sure we’re […] being compliant with everything” (WGB317) and raising crew awareness of risks: “show them what the hazards are” (WGB209).

Participants valued supervisors who promoted a “strong safety culture” (WGBS08) through actions like being “willing to stop jobs when they have been told something isn’t safe” (WGBS19) and showing genuine “care for people’s safety” (WGBS05). Conversely, supervisors demonstrating “unsafe practices” (WGBS15), a general “disregard for safety” (WGBS23) and poor management of “hazards and safety issues” (WGBS19) were viewed as dangerous. Personal attributes like “poor work ethic”, “laziness” (WGBS06) or an apathetic “she’ll be right” (WGBS30) attitude translated into dangerous behavioural practices, creating workplace conditions that normalised risk-taking and eroded safety culture.

To manage daily operations, supervisors need to be efficacious: “confident in themselves that they know what’s going on” (WGB302). Industry knowledge and technical skills were highly valued, with supervisors needing “a very good understanding of machines and everything that happens in an underground mine” (WGBS22). Participants noted that tacit knowledge enables supervisors to be observant and responsive: “[Supervisors] can see when I’m struggling somewhere, like for example, getting a full load in your bucket […] He did see that I was struggling […]. So, he jumped in and taught me […]” (WGB201). Tacit knowledge also facilitated intuitive assessments of crew members: “I can genuinely spot someone from the floor. Whether it’s the way they present themselves, conduct themselves, subtle as a presence […] I don’t know exactly how to articulate it” (WGB227).

Tacit knowledge and skills are accumulated through repeated exposure to real-world challenges, feedback and reflection, allowing supervisors to anticipate risks, assess complex situations and mentor their crews effectively. This aligns with research showing that expertise develops through active engagement in complex, high-pressure environments, where individuals must continuously integrate technical skills, safety management and leadership to adapt to evolving demands (Hoffman et al., 2014; Klein, 2008). Supervisors with limited experience were seen as less credible by crew: “[…] you don’t have the same level of respect for them” (WGB306).

Yet possessing operational knowledge does not automatically confer the ability to manage the work of others (Chi et al., 1981). Effective mining supervision goes beyond technical skill; it demands adaptive expertise, blending safety management and interpersonal skills to ensure efficiency and safety. Participants acknowledged that: “your best operator’s not [always] your best supervisor” (WGB227), highlighting the need for leadership and interpersonal capabilities alongside experience.

The supervisory role requires an active, visible presence that shapes workplace culture and safety practices through demonstrated actions and attitudes. Participants emphasised that supervisors’ directly influence crew conduct and reinforce expected practices across technical, operational and interpersonal domains through embodied leadership. Our quantitative findings reinforce this emphasis on visible, embodied leadership (see Supplementary Materials for statistical analysis). When asked to rank indicators of supervisory expertise, participants showed clear preferences, with behavioural characteristics ranked as most important, followed by years of experience and performance outcomes (see Figure 1). The prioritisation of behavioural characteristics over formal qualifications aligns with leadership research emphasising authentic, transformational behaviours in high-risk environments (Judge et al., 2002; Barling et al., 2002). This preference suggests that frontline workers value supervisor leadership that is seen, heard and felt rather than based on formal credentials alone.

Participants valued supervisors who had integrity, upheld standards and acted as role models: “Values, work ethic, passion for standards, no wriggle room with safety, and a bit of mettle to be able to have the courageous conversation or to really just stand behind what you believe in” (WGB227). The role of the supervisor included modelling workplace culture, values and character:

Participants emphasised that they learned workplace standards, ethics and expectations not just through formal instruction, but through observation, valuing supervisors who “lead by example” (WGB310). This aligns with research showing that supervisors create environments that support skill acquisition (Blume et al., 2010; Govaerts and Dochy, 2014; Grossman and Salas, 2011; Yam et al., 2023), with behaviour modelling and effective feedback enhancing trainee confidence (Cromwell and Kolb, 2004; Taylor et al., 2005).

Visibility was repeatedly emphasised: “[…] if you’re not visible to your crew, like [if] they don’t see you, they don’t know who you are” (WGB303), with “No supervision” (WGBS19) cited by survey participants as a significant supervision failing. However, visibility required balance with autonomy:

This balance between presence and trust demonstrates sophisticated leadership understanding. Leaders who were “present, and observant, and knowledgeable” (WGB215) while encouraging independence were seen as most effective, supporting both learning and safety: “[…]my supervisors worked hard to get me up to speed on how things work, make sure that I’m not at risk” (WGB215).

A supervisor’s visible commitment to safety through active participation and resource allocation signals to employees that health, safety and workplace culture are overriding priorities (Lingard et al., 2009; Yam et al., 2023). Our data provided specific examples of this commitment, including proactively addressing hazards, fore-fronting safety discussions at pre-shift meetings and prioritising employee well-being over production pressures.

Supervisors actively engaged in crew development through multiple channels: inductions and formal training (“I do oversee their [greens] training[…]” WGB303) and on-the-job mentoring (“[…] taking the time to not…just tell them to go and do this but actually showing them” WGB209). This hands-on approach to development exemplifies how visible leadership extends beyond mere presence to active engagement in crew capability building.

Given workforce shortages and varying experience levels, visible leadership and the active demonstration of standards help ensure consistency and quality across operations. Through their actions, supervisors create environments where safety and learning are integrated into daily practice, demonstrating the reciprocal relationship between supervisory behaviours and workplace culture.

Participants valued supervisors who led with empathy and by example, inspiring their teams while demonstrating integrity, honesty and authenticity. Given the high-risk, dynamic nature of mining work and the fly-in-fly-out context, skills in self-management (intrapersonal) and relationship management (interpersonal) were identified as essential in the supervisory role.

At the intrapersonal level, supervisors were expected to regulate emotions and remain composed under pressure: “someone who’s pretty level-headed” (WGB214). This emotional regulation fostered approachability: “You can’t be standoffish as a leader; you need to be able to be approachable and be calm” (WGB303). Research shows that supervisory expertise includes stress tolerance in high-pressure situations (Abdolmohammadi and Shanteau, 1992). In the mining context, supervisors who remain calm and composed enable approachability during challenging situations, ensuring workers feel confident in seeking guidance.

Conversely, supervisors lacking emotional regulation—those who were “short-tempered”, “impatient” and “controlling” (WGB213) or who demonstrated “a rip-tear-bust attitude” (WGBS05)—were seen as ineffective. Poor emotional control manifested in confrontational behaviours that undermined effectiveness: “[…] someone who, you know, just barks and swears and carries on, all that sort of stuff—that doesn’t work” (WGB214). These examples demonstrate how personal emotion regulation capabilities directly influence behavioural expressions and, in turn, shape the workplace environment.

The interpersonal dimension of supervision focused on building trust and positive culture. As one supervisor explained: “It’s part of trust, is building relationships. Right?[…] you don’t have to be their best friend, but you have to have a working relationship…I think if you put something into their ‘trust bank’, they’ll give you that back” (WGB320). The “trust bank” metaphor illustrates the reciprocal nature of supervisor-crew relationships and workplace culture, where personal investment drives relationship building behaviours, fostering crew engagement and a positive work environment.

Attributes of good character were frequently cited as essential for supervisors, particularly integrity: “[Supervisors] can keep everyone’s problems to themselves. So that’s integrity, I guess” (WGB305); honesty: “[…] being a people person and being genuine” (WGB305) and trust: “The first rule of supervising for me is trust[…]you need to have that mutual trust with your team” (Supervisor, WGB320). These positive attributes are consistently linked to effective leadership across industries (Judge et al., 2002; Northouse, 2022; Yukl, 2013). Our findings provide industry-specific examples of how these attributes manifest in supervisory roles.

Supervisors who invested in relationships created positive environmental outcomes:

Conversely, supervisors who failed to prioritise these relationships were poorly regarded: “If you have a supervisor who is very autocratic and disrespectful and is a real hard ass […] it’ll actually work negative for him” (WGB305). Participants consistently linked “Poor people skills” with weakened crew cohesion: “could not keep a crew together because he was so abrasive[…]abrupt[…]arrogant” (WGB305).

Empathy emerged as another valued personal attribute, particularly given workforce diversity: “You got to have a fair bit of empathy at times, I believe, to deal with all different types of characters” (WGB317). While technical competence remains crucial, interpersonal and affective competencies are increasingly recognised as essential for safe production and well-being (Parker et al., 2022; Yam et al., 2023; Yarker et al., 2022), marking a shift in the understanding of effective supervision.

Respected supervisors “[…] genuinely cared for” (WGB318) their crew professionally and personally: “Support them […] show genuine concern and care[…]inside and outside of work” (WGB305). In high-risk environments, supervisors who demonstrate strength of character and emotional intelligence create foundations for health, safety and operational excellence, fostering positive safety climates through empathic leadership and open communication (Lingard et al., 2009). Conversely, supervisors who lacked empathy and used “aggressive” (WGBS06) and “bullying” (WGBS30) tactics created interpersonal barriers.

Supervisors modelling professional humility and self-awareness were respected:

This quote demonstrates how personal attributes (humility and self-awareness) translate into specific behaviours (stopping, asking and reviewing) that create environmental conditions supporting psychological safety and learning. This emotional support is crucial for motivating proactive safety behaviours and creating positive workplace cultures in high-risk environments.

Our findings revealed that quality supervision builds a collective approach to good practice through shared responsibility, accountability and collaborative problem-solving. Participants valued supervisors who facilitate collective decision-making over authoritative directives, describing how this approach develops crew capability while fostering operational excellence.

A fundamental shift in recent supervisory practice emerged from participants’ accounts. Supervisors who are “willing to take on people’s ideas” (WGB302) and enabled their team to: “interact and work problems out for themselves, rather than drum into them how to do this, how to do that” (WGB213) build capability within their crew. As one experienced supervisor noted: “Gone are the old days where it was do as you’re told and shut up. It’s now about providing guidance and setting tasks and goals for people throughout the day” (WGB318).

This shift from directive to facilitative leadership demonstrates how personal beliefs about supervision (moving from authoritarian to collaborative mindsets) translate into behavioural changes (e.g. enabling autonomous problem-solving) that create environmental conditions supporting crew development. Contemporary learning theories (Tangen and Borders, 2017) suggest supervisors must understand both what their teams need to learn and how learning best occurs. In mining, this means fostering knowledge sharing, collaborative problem-solving and collective decision-making, all of which are essential given workforce disruptions. Conversely, supervisors who were “pushy”, “didn’t share” or “micro-managed” (WGBS31) created barriers to collective growth and learning, with egocentric and siloed approaches demotivating crews and directly impacting retention: “I’ve had some bad supervisors at times and that’s why I no longer work for them” (WGB213).

The success of collaborative supervision relies on quality feedback and open dialogue: “[…] feedback for me is one of the most crucial things for a supervisor. Good supervisors will give feedback constantly, and it opens that dialogue […]” (WGB122). This continuous feedback creates conditions where crew members feel comfortable clarifying tasks, raising concerns and sharing ideas—essential elements for collective learning in high-risk environments.

Positive supervisor-employee relationships, built through collaborative exchanges of knowledge and feedback, create foundations for operational excellence and safety compliance (Fruhen et al., 2019; Hofmann et al., 1999; Simard and Marchand, 1994). Creating a culture of learning from mistakes was seen as an important outcome of good supervision: “[…]we need to learn from things that we’re doing wrong to be able to train people to do it better in the future” (WGB209). This perspective transforms errors into learning opportunities while supporting individual and collective well-being (Parker et al., 2022; Yam et al., 2023).

The supervisory role requires communication capabilities that are both multidimensional and multidirectional, serving to build understanding, relationships and a culture of learning. Multidimensional communication spans operational instructions, feedback, health and safety messaging, with participants valuing clarity: “the best supervisors[…] can explain it properly” (WGB227). Multidirectional communication emphasises two-way dialogue over one-way information delivery:

Active listening exemplified this multidirectional approach: “You’ve got to be able to listen, you’ve got to know when to speak, know when to listen” (WGB121). Supervisors demonstrating genuine engagement through active listening fostered environments where crew felt comfortable raising concerns, improving approachability: “Someone that can be approachable, that’s probably number one…someone you can talk to” (WGB301).

Conversely, supervisors who were “unable to listen” (WGBS24) or would “talk over their workers” (WGBS07) created barriers to effective communication. Those who were unwilling to share information or were “not a team player” (WGBS09) created silos hindering both communication and learning. These communication competencies directly impact workplace stress and culture (Yam et al., 2023; Yarker et al., 2022), demonstrating how behavioural practices shape environmental outcomes

Organisational systems theory emphasises that individual performance is embedded within and influenced by broader organisational contexts (Katz and Kahn, 1966; Bertalanffy, 1968). In high-risk industries, the relationship between individual capability and organisational systems is crucial for safety and operational outcomes (Yam et al., 2023). Our findings reveal how supervisors are reciprocally influenced by the broader environment in which they operate as they navigate systemic challenges, including workforce shortages, variability of crew experience, time constraints, workplace culture and production pressures. Participants perceived current training as inadequate preparation for these complexities.

A supportive culture, identified as a key supervisory responsibility, was seen as essential for safe production. Participants valued supervisors who fostered psychological safety: “I think to get guys to report that they’ve not seen it done before[…]they need that backing from your supervisor—you need guys to realise it’s okay to stop jobs” (WGB221). This demonstrates how supervisory behaviours create cultural conditions that enable workers to prioritise health and safety over production pressures.

Supervisors reported that operational pressures impacted standards and expectations:

Time pressures compounded these challenges: “time is tight down there” with unpredictability adding further strain: “If you factor in breakdowns…I bounce from one job to the next, checking up on guys, and sometimes you run out of time” (WGB209). These environmental pressures left supervisors stretched between responding to emerging issues and maintaining standards, demonstrating how workplace conditions influence supervisory behaviours and, when persistent, can erode standards over time.

Workforce shortages create additional demands on the supervisors who must juggle operational and leadership responsibilities: “We’re short of people and [supervisors] are operating—they’re doing both […]” (WGB102). The influx of inexperienced workers compounds these challenges as they often lacked practical, hands-on experience, despite formal qualifications: “[…]]they just go get tickets, come out, but have never actually operated the machinery” (WGB213).

Shifting workforce dynamics—“A lot more green people are getting into mining in large volumes much faster […] experience levels […] is a lot less than what it used to be” (WGB220)—raises safety concerns: “When you get somebody that’s green that’s never been underground before, that’s where your most concerns are because they just don’t know what the hazards are” (WGB209). Simultaneously, experienced operators are leaving: “We had a lot of people that were here for a long time […] we trained them all up, but just recently a lot have left so we gotta start again and go from scratch” (WGB213).

This turnover creates challenges, including unprepared operators being promoted to supervisory roles: “[…] they’ve come up through the ranks, and then all of a sudden, they’re thrown in there and in a supervisor’s position, and expected to just run up at this level, without any training at all, none” (WGB214). These workforce issues leave supervisors in a difficult position—they are expected to ensure safe production while managing inexperienced teams.

Supervisors undergo competency-based training, such as RIIRIS301E (Risk Assessment), RIIWHS301E (Workplace Health and Safety) and RIICOM301E (Communicate), which establish baseline proficiency (Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, 2023). They also complete formal training: “S 123—the supervisors training…” (WGB102) where they: “[…] learn to communicate the workplace hazard assessment and investigate incidents” (WGB115), with some accessing additional “on-site workshops […]. and […] offsite training […] which is a lot about leadership” (WGB308). However, these structured certifications neither fully capture the expertise required for effective supervision, nor were ranked highly by participants as key indicators of supervisory capability. Survey respondents consistently ranked certification and peer endorsement lower than behavioural characteristics and experience when describing supervisory expertise, despite the industry’s reliance on formal qualifications for supervisory selection. This finding supports Collins and Evans’ (2007) argument that formal credentials may not adequately capture the tacit knowledge and contextual expertise required for effective practice in complex, real-world environments.

In high-risk industries, training for operations, health and safety has frequently been approached through a compliance-focused or mitigation lens (Parker et al., 2022). However, there is an increasing awareness of the value of proactive, integrated, holistic approaches to training and development that seek to optimise mastery, professional growth and well-being (Parker et al., 2022; Yam et al., 2023). Supervisors expressed eagerness for opportunities to develop such holistic, integrated competencies: “[…] emotional intelligence and…developing us as leaders and how we’re gonna give our team to get the best out of people” (WGB308), including those interpersonal skills needed to understand: “how to deal with difficult people” (WGB102) and “[…] how to deal with situations, how to have […] hard conversations with people […]” (WGB221). Despite these skills being central to their daily role, opportunities to develop these were infrequent.

Despite the limitations of formal training, supervisors actively sought development through multiple pathways. Learning from experienced colleagues was valued above all: “For me it’s been a lot of on-the-job stuff, and learning under different leaders […] I’ve taken different elements of how they manage their teams…and put that into practice” (WGB303). This aligns with SCT’s concept of observational learning, where supervisors develop their practice by observing and emulating the behaviours of experienced others (Taylor et al., 2005; Kempster and Parry, 2014). Supervisors also drew on diverse learning sources including previous careers: “I’ve run my own […] company […] dealing with subcontractors and employees […] I’ve brought that to […] my present role” (WGB223).

Some supervisors demonstrated personal agency and self-regulation by pursuing self-directed development: “I’ve learned a lot from books on how to manage people […] that’s helped me no end” (WGB113). This reflected an understanding that supervisory skills require ongoing maintenance: “after a while, it will start to slip, and you need something to jog your memory and get you back on track” (WGB113), leading some to repeat training: “that’s why I’ve done [Supervisors training course] twice” (WGB113). Through these self-directed learning practices, supervisors demonstrate the self-regulatory capabilities that SCT identifies as critical by actively monitoring their performance and managing their ongoing learning (Bandura, 1991).

The nature of supervisory learning was fundamentally experiential and ongoing: “A lot of it is sort of on the ground stuff. You learn as you go” (WGB303), grounded in real-world application: “I think it’s just time spent in the role and doing the job myself […] Just time in the field and actually having situations that you’ve had to deal with as an operator […]” (WGB213). These diverse learning pathways—from peer observation to self-study to experiential learning—demonstrate how supervisors navigate system constraints and regulate their learning to meet role demands.

For supervision to be optimised, organisations must evaluate how their systems, processes and culture either support or constrain supervisory effectiveness. The moderate ranking of experience and performance measures by survey participants suggests they recognise that while expertise requires more time in the role (Ericsson and Charness, 1994), practical exposure to operational challenges remains valuable alongside demonstrated behaviours and outcomes. Given current workforce challenges where operators are promoted earlier in their careers (MacMahon et al., 2024), these findings collectively suggest organisations should reconsider selection criteria that overemphasise formal qualifications while undervaluing the personal and behavioural competencies that workers identify as most critical for supervisory effectiveness.

This study captures supervision during an unprecedented workforce crisis (Minerals Council of Australia, 2023), where traditional assumptions about experience and capability development no longer hold. Unlike previous mining research focused primarily on technical competencies and safety compliance (Chen et al., 2015; Prinsloo and Hofmeyr, 2022), our findings reveal that effective supervision requires attention to a comprehensive set of competencies—what one participant eloquently described as “passion, style, and smarts” (WGB318).

Our study documents a cultural shift in mining supervision, which has profound implications for how supervisors are selected, trained and supported. This shift is particularly significant given that over 50% of Queensland mining fatalities involved inadequate or absent supervision (Brady, 2019). While the industry continues to rely heavily on formal certification, our findings suggest these fail to capture the tacit knowledge and adaptive capabilities that distinguish effective supervisors (Ericsson and Lehmann, 1996; Shanteau et al., 2002), particularly in managing inexperienced crews under severe time and safety pressures. Role clarity and understanding role preparedness are especially critical as operators are being promoted into supervisory roles earlier in their careers and with less experience than in the past (MacMahon et al., 2024).

These insights have direct practical implications for how we conceptualise supervisory development, design training programmes and structure organisational support systems. Rather than focusing solely on narrow skill development, our findings suggest the need for systems-based approaches that address the complex interactions between person, behaviour and environment. The Supervisor Competencies Framework (Table 2) operationalises this systems-thinking. The Framework illustrates the depth and breadth of personal and behavioural competencies of supervisors in the mining industry and could be valuable in establishing role clarity and supporting recruitment and training needs. Future research should focus on refining and validating this Framework, investigating its practical application for recruitment, training, development and self-reflection to ensure its utility in industry settings.

This study contributes to clarifying the mining supervisor role and understanding their corresponding training and development needs. Through the lens of SCT, our findings demonstrate how the supervisory role is shaped by reciprocal interactions between personal attributes, behavioural practices and environmental factors. Using a mixed-methods approach, we identified six supervisor competency dimensions from the perspectives of those who experience it daily. While self-reported data has inherent limitations, these frontline perspectives highlight the importance of personal attributes, behavioural capabilities and organisational supports in enabling effective supervision. Our findings suggest a more comprehensive, holistic and integrated approach to learning and training is needed to ensure supervisors have the “passion, style and smarts” to manage the complexities of the contemporary supervisory role.

This work has been made possible through collaboration with industry partners, stakeholders and frontline workers. The authors thank them for their involvement in this study.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.