THE PSYCHOLOGY OF
SOUND PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
No successful businessman has ever made his fortune
without the dedicated help of his employees. The
realization of almost every idea requires the intelligent
work and cooperation of all involved. An ambitious
executive must know how to summon the best from those
around him, regardless of the pr
essure or lack of it. This is
an essential skill that seems to come naturally to some, but
can also be learned.
Many years ago, I had a conversation with one of Amer-
ica’s leading industrialists, a man noted in business circles
for operating his many companies with consistent success.
“You certainly seem to have a magic touch,” I remarked
at one point during our discussion.
“Magic touch?” the magnate said. “No, I don’t think I
have anything of the kind. The reason I’ve done pretty well
is that I long ago discovered the secret ingredient that
makes all the difference in business—the use in
management of applied psychology based on common
sense.”
I could readily understand what he meant, for I had
learned my first lessons about
what sound psychology could
do to make business management more efficient in the
Oklahoma oil fields. I’ll admit the lessons were blunt and
basic—and sometimes even harsh—but then, this was to be
expected when working with the men who formed my
drilling crews.
I was young and relatively inexperienced; the men who
worked for me were mostly older in years and much wiser
in practical knowledge and experience. My position was
somewhat analogous to that of a freshly commissioned
second lieutenant who suddenly finds himself commanding
a unit made up of tough, veteran regulars. I had the
authority and the final responsibility; the seasoned
campaigners watched with wary skepticism to see how I
would use and discharge these, and waited for me to prove
myself.
I knew it would be worse than useless for me to assume
a stern, authoritarian role, to play the martinet; I would
only appear ludicrous and
reap nothing but contempt,
which the men would show by doing as little work as
possible. It would have been equally fatal for me to remain
aloof or, on the other hand, to try to ingratiate myself by
being overly familiar and pretending I was “one of the
boys.” I realized I would have to strike some viable median.
I did not think of it as “psychology”; I doubt if I was then
aware the term could even be used in any such context. It
was simply a question of finding the most effective
techniques for managing the activities of the men on whose
morale and performance my business success hinged.
The direct approach seemed most advisable—if for no
other reason than that the men would have instinctively
sensed any attempt to “con” them. By one means and an-
other, I made my views quite clear. I let the men see I
respected them not only for th
eir superior experience but
also as individuals, and look
ed upon our association as a
mutual effort in which I assumed the financial risks,
accepted the major headaches and was willing to do my
share of the work. I gave no orders or instructions without
explanation, meticulously avoided meddling or nit-picking,
but was always ready to lend a hand on even the messiest
and most difficult tasks whenever a hand was needed.
Within a remarkably short time, my men were acknowl-
edging that, although I was a tenderfoot, I was not a total
ignoramus and, in fact, apparently possessed a fair amount
of knowledge about the oil bu
siness in general and drilling
operations in particular. We rapidly developed a strong
degree of mutual respect, and work on the drilling site
progressed quickly and efficiently. There were, of course, a
few rough spots and potentially taut situations—one of
which I particularly recall.
In those days, drilling crews worked twelve-hour shifts
six days a week. This left little time for week-night sprees
in town, but some of the men were unable to resist the
temptations of the boomtowns, notwithstanding the fact
that morning-after work in the broiling Oklahoma sun was
brutal punishment. One morning, one of my roustabouts
appeared on the drilling site suffering from a monumental
hangover. Although we were at a crucial stage of drilling,
he showed he had no intention of doing any serious work
that day and began to openly soldier on the job.
The other members of the crew watched closely to see
what—if anything—I would do. Luckily, two things were in
my favor. I, myself, had been out the night before and the
crew knew this, and the hung-over goldbricker was only a
few years older than I was.
“Feeling rough?” I asked him. He just glowered at me.
“I’ll make you a deal,” I went
on. “I’ll spot you ten seconds
and race you up the rig. If you beat me, you can have the
day off with pay.”
The roustabout squinted up to the top of the drilling
tower. “Boss, you’re on,” he grunted. I handed one of the
other men my watch. At a signal, the roustabout started a
monkey scramble up the rig. Exactly ten seconds later, I
followed suit—and succeeded in reaching the crown block a
second or two before him.
We were both winded when
we got back down to the
drilling platform—but it was obvious that I had won sev-
eral victories. The other members of the crew were grinning
broadly. I’d handled the situation in a manner that they
could appreciate and had proved my right to be “boss.” The
roustabout was good-naturedly jeered—and he took it all in
equally good stride.
“OK,” he groaned. “I’ll work this shift if it kills me!” He
did work the shift—and it didn’t kill him. Thereafter, he
was one of the hardest-working and most conscientious
members of the crew, and subsequently worked for me on
many other drilling jobs.
I’ll grant the incident is an elementary illustration of
how applied psychology can solve management problems
and help business operate more efficiently. I would hardly
recommend that, say, the executive vice-president of a
construction company enter into a hod-carrying competition
with an apprentice bricklayer in order to prove his
managerial bona fides. Nonetheless, the example serves to
demonstrate that, in directing human activities, there is
much to be said for employin
g methods and taking actions
that have human appeal, that the individuals concerned
can readily grasp.
I think my industrialist friend’s definition of
management might be stated in another way, namely that
the primary function of management is to obtain results
through people.
Consequently, sound management
psychology will motivate, direct, encourage and, in those
exceptional instances where management is in the hands of
exceptional individuals, inspir
e people so they will achieve
the results that make possible the attainment of given
objectives.
There was a time—happily, long past—when
management gave little if any thought to the human
material which has always formed the most valuable asset
of any business. Employees
were considered highly
expendable, stockholders were at the mercy of
manipulators and sharks, and attitudes toward even
customers and clients found de
finitive expression in the
classic utterance “The public be damned!”
The entire concept of management-people relations has
undergone radical change in recent decades. Business and
business management have grown up; they have become
knowledgeable, sophisticated, aware that people count.
Granted, the changes did not come about spontaneously;
they were aided, even forced, by outside pressures.
However, this is not of importance here. The important
thing is that modern management has become acutely
conscious that it must deal with and depend on human
beings, that to get the most out of people it is necessary to
do more than merely growl or shout an order and, above all,
that human beings must be led and never driven.
Having recognized—and regretted—its past errors and
oversights, the business community has done much to
correct them and to develop an enlightened management
psychology. Proof of this can be found in the extensive pro-
grams designed to maintain good employee, stockholder
and public relations and in the effort most companies take
to insure that they are “projecting a favorable corporate
image.” These are all significant manifestations of modern
management’s awareness that it can only obtain results
through people.
Although, broadly speaking, all companies want to
obtain very similar results—such as high employee morale,
high levels of quality production, healthy profits—the
patterns and methods of application of their management
psychology vary, not only in detail but also in effectiveness.
Far too many executives at all levels still fail to
comprehend that sound management psychology, like
charity, begins at home and, while elaborate public-
relations programs doubtless accomplish much, the place to
start applying management psychology is no more distant
than the nearest stenographer, machinist or salesclerk.
No psychological weapon is more potent than example.
An executive who seeks to achieve results through the peo-
ple who work under his direction must himself demonstrate
at least as high a standard of
performance as he hopes to
get from his subordinates. If he makes a habit of spending
three hours over lunch, he has no right to complain when
his secretary dawdles an extra ten minutes over her coffee
break or lacquers her nails when she should be typing a re-
port the board chairman want
s to see the next morning.
Executives need to establish and maintain single
standards in other regards as well. Some fail to do so and
exert a strong adverse psychological influence on their
subordinates. There are those who adopt a
“quod licet
jovi, non licet bovi”—
“what is permitted the gods is not
permitted the cattle”— attitude, blandly assuming their
rank not only bestows privileges but also grants license.
Typical of the genus is the executive who issues menacing
warnings about pilfering and the personal use of company-
owned property. It’s not beyond him to fire the office boy for
appropriating a lead pencil or a five-cent stamp—yet this
same man will blandly spend hours dictating personal
letters to his secretary and will send subordinates out to
run his personal errands on company time.
Workers are quick to learn of such things; a company
grapevine is one of the swiftest means of communication
known to our society. And, when an executive’s bad exam-
ple or his double standards become known, morale and out-
put plummet in his department. I’ve encountered both
types of men during the course of my career and can cite
two representative examples from my experience when I
was managing the Spartan Aircraft Company.
At one point, I became intuitively aware that employee
morale was sagging. I soon found out why. Several
executives had gotten it into their heads they could arrive
for work anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour late each
morning. Naturally, this did not set very well with the
rank-and-file workers who were required to punch time
clocks and were docked pay if they were tardy.
Fire, it is said, can be best fought with fire—and I’ve al-
ways felt that bad management psychology is best
countered by forcefully positive applied psychology. I did
not waste time issuing threats of disciplinary action. I
simply announced that, thenceforth and until further
notice, I would hold daily conferences at which I expected
all management personnel to be present—and the
conference would begin promptly 45 minutes
before
the
start of the regular working day.
I lost a bit of sleep in the next two weeks or so, but I won
a major battle. My executives got the idea; there was no
more habitual tardiness, and worker morale was restored
to a high level in record time.