FOLLOWING AN OVERVIEW OF SUPERVISORS' BARGAINING RIGHTS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR, VARIOUS STATE LAWS AFFECTING SUCH RIGHTS ARE REVIEWED. THE SITUATION IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN IS THEN EXPLAINED IN DETAIL. IN MICHIGAN POLICE SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL FALL INTO ONE OF FIVE BARGAINING CATEGORIES: (1) SUPERVISORS AND RANK AND FILE OFFICERS REPRESENTED IN THE SAME UNIT BY THE SAME LABOR ORGANIZATION, (2) SUPERVISORS AND RANK AND FILE IN SEPARATE UNITS BUT REPRESENTED BY SAME ORGANIZATION, (3) SUPERVISORS REPRESENTED SEPARATELY BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS RANK AND FILE ONLY IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, (4) SUPERVISORS REPRESENTED SEPARATELY BY AN ORGANIZATION THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT RANK AND FILE PERSONNEL IN ANY JURISDICTION, (5) SUPERVISORS RECEIVING NO REPRESENTATION. THIS STUDY COLLECTED QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 291 SUPERVISORS ATTENDING MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT SEMINARS TO ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF FORM OF REPRESENTATION ON A SUPERVISOR'S IDENTIFICATION WITH MANAGEMENT. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE FORM OF REPRESENTATION ALONE HAD NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. HOWEVER, RANK HAD A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BARGAINING ARRANGEMENT AND IDENTIFICATION. LIEUTENANTS WHO WERE REPRESENTED BY THE SAME UNIT AS THE RANK AND FILE HAD MUCH STRONGER IDENTIFICATION WITH THE RANK AND FILE. FOR SERGEANTS THERE WAS NO DETECTABLE DIFFERENCE. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO DENY BARGAINING REPRESENTATION TO FIRST-LINE SUPERVISORS, BUT THAT AT HIGHER LEVELS THE IDENTIFICATION ISSUE MAY BE A PROBLEM. TABLES PRESENT STUDY DATA. REFERENCES ARE APPENDED. (GLR)