Not long thereafter, I learned an executive had taken
some company-owned lumber and nails with which he
constructed a dog kennel in his back yard. Although the
lumber came from old, dismantled packing crates, I felt
he’d set a dangerous precedent which could lead to all kinds
of trouble and cause pilferage losses to soar if employees
learned he’d gotten away with it. Since he was a valuable
man, I did not want to fire him and relied on another
applied-psychology stratagem to handle the situation. I
sent the man a pleasantly worded memorandum, asking for
a detailed inventory of the material he’d taken and saying I
would have its appraised value charged against his salary.
The inventory was prepared; the appraisal showed the total
value to be about four dollars, and this sum was duly
charged against his pay. I got the point across, not only to
the executive concerned, but also to the thousands of
Spartan employees, for the story made the rounds rapidly.
We had remarkably little pilferage loss from then on. The
workers, realizing that not even the “brass” could get away
with appropriating company property, evidently took the
lesson to heart themselves.
It should be obvious that the integrity of management
personnel is a decisive factor in creating a sound manage-
ment psychology that will work with subordinates,
superiors, equals, customers and anyone else with whom
executives or their company has contact. Executive
integrity is a many, faceted thing. For example, the good
executive who practices sound management psychology
realizes he cannot bluff those with whom he deals, whether
they be subordinates or superiors. Subordinates in
particular can sense when the boss is bluffing, when he
does not know the answer to a question or problem or has
made a mistake and is trying
to cover up. Nor should the
executive resort to buck passing. Bluffing will only cause
loss of respect, while a frank admission of error or
ignorance will gain human resp
ect. Buck passing will earn
him nothing but the contempt of those who know he passed
the buck and the mortal hatred of those to whom he passed
it.
In dealing with employees, it is essential they be given
recognition as human beings, as individuals. Nothing
achieves this more effectively or establishes a healthier
mental and emotional climate among workers than what
has been termed “responsible participation.”
Unquestionably, financial reward is the principal
motivation that causes people
to work. However, this is not
the sole motivation. For the majority of people—even
though they may not admit or even realize it—work
satisfies a distinct psychological need. The need is most
fully satisfied, and the worker is motivated to do his best, if
he can feel, as Roger Falk puts it, “that he is participating
responsibly, whether alone or in a group, in an enterprise
the over-all objectives of which he can understand.”
Yale’s Professor E. W. Bakke states the proposition as a
management responsibility to insure that an employee
“understands the forces and factors at work in
his
world,”
in other words, in his own work environment. The employee
who is told the whys and wherefores of the job he does, of
the instructions that are given to him and the things that
happen around him, is made to feel he is participating
responsibly in the over-all operation, and is consequently a
happier, more enthusiastic and better worker.
It is indeed sound management psychology to carry the
process of making the worker feel he is participating
responsibly several steps further. There is no more effective
way of doing this than by letting the employee know his
views are of interest to management. Where practicable,
workers should be asked what they think of a problem,
projected innovation or change. Not only will this produce a
surprisingly large number of worth-while suggestions, but
it will give the individual worker a sense of pride—a sense
that he is participating, playing a significant role.
I have long been aware of the value—both intrinsic and
morale-building—of consulting subordinates, asking their
opinions and advice. More than a few times during my ca-
reer, some grizzled driller, veteran machinist or alert
secretary has hit upon simple solutions to problems that
baffled me and my executives, or offered suggestions that
proved of immense value.
It all adds up to this: The worker is not a brute animal
or a robot that can only respond to command. Workers— at
all levels—are thinking, feeling human beings. They derive
psychological satisfaction from the knowledge that man-
agement is interested in their
brains as well as their brawn
and gives thought and consideration to their feelings.
Sound management psychology calls for continuing
interest in all employee problems, even personal ones. This
does not mean management should pry into any employee’s
private affairs. It does mean that management should lend
a sympathetic ear—and, where reasonable, provide
assistance—to an employee with personal problems.
This is done on a broad scale in many companies; there
are employee-welfare programs, counseling services, credit
bureaus and a host of similar facilities. Nonetheless, it is
excellent psychology to carry this spirit through at all
managerial levels. No, a department head should not be a
father-confessor or a Dutch uncle to all his subordinates.
On the other hand, if an executive is to achieve results
through people, he must possess an element of compassion
in his make-up, and must always bear in mind that every
individual has his hopes, intere
sts, problems and fears. If a
worker respects his superior, it
is human nature for him to
seek the superior’s counsel—and it is the soundest
management psychology for the superior to hear him out
and, if possible, help him.
Fairness is another major building block in the structure
of sound management psychology. Management must be
fair to its employees, stockholders, customers and
suppliers. Executives should not play favorites among their
subordinates or customers. Stockholders are entitled to
somewhat more than an even break. Suppliers cannot be
treated capriciously. Salaries and wages paid to workers
should be fair and equitable; promotions should be made on
the basis of merit. The psychological impact of unfairness is
likely to be shattering to the in
dividual; failure to be fair at
all times means just that for management: failure.
Among other things, fairness to employees implies trust.
The feeling that he is not being trusted damages—and fre-
quently destroys—employee morale and performance. No
worker can be contented and productive if he senses that
management distrusts his competence or distrusts him
personally.
In his book
The Naked Society,
Vance Packard
quotes Yale University’s Dr. Chris Argyris, whose
researches into human behavior have shown that “one of
the most powerful motivators of constructive human
conduct is simple trust.” Packard goes on to cite what Dr.
Argyris describes as a “causal chain” of mistrust that
develops in some companies:
1.
The employee comes into the organization with
honest, earnest motives.
2.
He experiences the frustration that comes from a
feeling of failure because he is given little feeling that he is
trusted and little responsibility.
3.
He reacts by feeling less responsibility for the well-
being and success of the organization. He also may
gradually respond to his feeling of failure in a number of
active ways, including stealing. Partly he steals because it
is a safe way to express his aggression. In a deeper sense
“he steals from a company which has helped to alienate him
from feeling responsibility, commitment and trust.”
4.
Once the stealing occurs, management tightens up
the very factors that caused the original stealing.
5.
Now the distrust of the workers is out in the open.
They begin to feel “OK, if they think I cannot be trusted, I
will act as if I cannot.”
Dr. Argyris has found in his studies that distrust is not con-
fined to the lower-level employees. “In my opinion there is a
lot of distrust at the upper levels,” he states.
In discussing the psychology of sound management, one
inevitably and invariably comes full circle, returning to the
fact that business depends on
people and cannot operate
without them. It doesn’t make
much difference how much
other knowledge or experience an executive possesses; if he
is unable to achieve results
through people,
he is
worthless as an executive.