Now, naive as these replies may sound, one cannot
blame freshmen for being somewhat hazy about what goes
on in the business world. Unfortunately, their ignorance is
shared by far too many who are much older and should be
much wiser. The principles of management personnel
selection are often misunderstood, even by some who have
long been active in the management of businesses. I have
encountered more than a few supposedly experienced
businessmen whose concepts of the qualities and
qualifications they or other management personnel should
possess are nearly as muddled as those of the students.
Take, for example, the pompous—and obviously job-
seeking—executive who cornered me recently at a cocktail
party. He complained bitterly
that he had been passed over
for promotion twice by the well-known firm for which he
worked.
“I’m a victim of company politics,” he declared, obviously
believing it. “There’s no other explanation. I’ve always
performed my duties exactly as an executive should!”
“And how is that?” I inquired, my curiosity to hear what
weird theories he’d propound getting the better of my good
judgment.
“I keep a tight rein on the
people in my department. I
never let them put anything over on me or the company. If
they try, I fire them on the spot!” the man replied with
smug ride. “I don’t question my orders and always carry
them out to the letter, regardless of the consequences.”
At this point, I suddenly pret
ended that I’d just recog-
nized a long-lost relative across the room, disengaged my-
self and beat a rapid retreat. I’d heard all I cared to hear—
or could stomach.
I can readily understand why this so-called executive
hadn’t been promoted. What I can’t understand is why he
hadn’t been given the sack long before. Certainly, he
wouldn’t remain on my payroll for five minutes. He per-
sonifies the two worst qualitie
s anyone holding down a re-
sponsible managerial job in a modern business firm could
possibly possess. His attitude toward his subordinates is
clearly that of a slave-driving
martinet. His attitude toward
his superiors—at least to their faces—is just as clearly that
of a complete bootlicker utterly devoid of imagination or
common sense.
Let’s look at it this way. Business management may be
broadly defined as the art of
directing human activities so
as to carry out a business firm’s policies and achieve its
goals. Whether it be general or specialized management—
such as personnel, purchasing, production or sales—the key
to all business management lies in the words:
directing
human activities.
No one possessing the attitudes of the disgruntled execu-
tive I met at the cocktail party could possibly
direct
human
beings in any activity. His type can only drive or bully
those unfortunate enough to work under him. It is hardly
necessary to point out that these are not methods to which
employees will respond favorably or by which they can be
prevailed upon to work productively.
But our horrible example’s managerial failings do not
end there. His straight-faced avowal that he doesn’t
question his orders and always carries them out “to the
letter, regardless of the consequences,” brands him a toady.
It also proves him to be an
extremely stupid person who
has no concept of the responsibilities every executive owes
to his superiors and the company for which he works.
True, an executive should conscientiously and loyally
carry out the instructions he receives from those above him.
But this does not mean he should carry them out blindly,
like some mindless automation. If he is a good executive, it
follows that he will give careful consideration to “the con-
sequences.”
However exalted his position, no man is infallible. Even
board chairmen are human, and thus liable to make mis-
takes. An alert junior executive who recognizes errors, fal-
lacies or weaknesses in the orders he receives from his
superiors and fails to call their attention to them is not
being conscientious or loyal. He is simply shirking his
responsibility.
Any seasoned top-level executive would much rather
have his mistakes pointed out to him early by a
subordinate than have those mistakes make themselves
painfully apparent later in the company’s profit and loss
statement.
Years ago, I had to make some far-reaching decisions
regarding the operations of one of my American companies.
I was in Europe at the time and had received what I
thought were all the needed facts in the form of letters,
memoranda and reports from the company’s management
personnel. I didn’t know, however, that a last-minute
vitally important statistical report—which drastically
amended all such reports previously sent from the U.S.—
had been lost in the mails. Th
e report did not reach me, and
thus, I unwittingly based my planning on incomplete
information.
Arriving at what I considered were the correct decisions,
I sent an instruction letter to the company’s offices in the
United States. A few days later, I received an urgent trans-
atlantic telephone call from one of the firm’s executives. He
politely but firmly pointed out that I’d apparently failed to
take certain important facts into consideration, and that if
the program I’d outlined were implemented, the company
would suffer heavy losses.
After talking at what seemed to be cross-purposes for
several minutes, we both realized I had based some key
calculations on outdated statist
ical information. A copy of
the missing report was airmailed to me immediately and I
revised my calculations, decisions and instructions.
The program I finally outlined eventually proved
successful and profitable—thanks
to the alertness of this
company-management executive. I hate to think what the
results would have been if all the firm’s executives were the
kind who never questioned their orders and carried them
out “to the letter, regardless of the consequences!”
Naturally, I—like everyone else who owns or controls
businesses—have a great interest in management
personnel selection. I believe there are certain universally
applicable criteria by which a business executive’s potential
value to a company may be weighed.
I don’t pretend that my personal yardsticks are
infallible, but they are very similar to those used by a great
many other successful businessmen, and they have proved
fairly accurate through the years. Much of my own business
success is due to my executives’ loyalty and efficiency; thus
I think it reasonable to assume that the criteria by which
they were chosen and promoted are reliable.
How do I judge whether or not a man is—or would be— a
good executive? I hold that the first acid test of an executive
is his ability to think and act for himself. He should have
the intelligence and ability to originate ideas, develop
plans, implement programs, solve problems and meet situa-
tions without running constantly to his superiors for
advice. In my opinion, a man
who cannot do these things is
not an executive. He is a glorified office boy.
Once, when I asked a leading American industrialist
how he visualized the perfect management team, he
conjured up the following picture of a businessman’s
nirvana:
“My executives would be men I could call into my office
at nine
A
.
M
. on January first and tell them: ‘Look, boys, the
company has been making sausage skins for years. Last
year, our profit was a million dollars. This year, I’ve
decided that we stop making sausage skins and start
turning out nuts and bolts.’
“At that, all the executives would smile, nod and file out
of my office. I wouldn’t see them again until five
P
.
M
. on
December thirty-first. Then, they’d come back into my office
to tell me we were producing the world’s finest nuts and
bolts, underselling our competitors by fifty percent—and
had tripled our profits over the previous year!”
Of course, the industrialist’s happy pipe dream was just
that—a pipe dream. But it serves to illustrate the point I’m
trying to make. A good executive is a man who can think
and act independently and needs only the barest minimum
of instruction to carry out his job.
Now, an executive’s principal duty is to direct the activi-
ties—the work—of those under him. Direction being noth-
ing less than another word, leadership, it follows that the
good executive must, perforce, think and act as a leader.
Unfortunately, very few men are natural-born leaders.
There is only one Churchill to a generation. But most in-
telligent, willing men can acquire or develop traits and
qualities of leadership adequate to most situations they are
likely to encounter in their careers.
As for the men who become business executives, some
learn their lessons in leadership at college, others on their
jobs, yet others in company-operated management-training
courses. There are, of course, some who never learn—but
they are very much in the minority and seldom climb very
high on any business-management ladder.
Wherever it may be that an individual obtains his les-
sons in leadership, he learns certain basic rules which
apply with equal validity in a business firm or on a
battlefield. If followed, they go a very long way toward
qualifying any man for a position of leadership. Among
them are these five which I, personally, consider especially
important:
1.
Example is the best means to instruct or inspire
others. The man who shows them as well as tells them is
the one who gets the most from his subordinates.
2.
A good executive accepts full responsibility for the
actions of the people under him. If called before his su-
periors because something has gone wrong in his depart-
ment or office, he accepts full personal blame, for the fault
is his for having exercised poor supervision.
3.
The best leader never asks anyone under him to do
anything he is unable—or unwilling—to do himself.
4.
The man in charge must be fair but firm with his
subordinates, showing concern for their needs and doing all
he can to meet their reasonable requests. He treats his
juniors with patience, unders
tanding and respect and backs
them to the hilt. On the other hand, he does not pamper
them, and always bears in mind that familiarity breeds
contempt.
5.
There is one seemingly small—but actually very im-
portant—point that all executives should remember. Praise
should always be given in public, criticism should always be
delivered in private. Employees who have done a good job
should be told so in front of their fellows; this raises
morale all around. Employees who have done something
wrong should be told so in private: otherwise, they will be
humiliated and morale will drop.
I learned my own lessons in leadership many years ago
in the tough, no-nonsense school
provided by the oil fields.
Virtually all the wildcatting operators—including me—
knew the jobs of every man in
our prospecting and drilling
crews. We never asked a man to do anything we would
not—or could not—do ourselves. Wherever possible, we
showed our men what we wanted done and how we wanted
them to do it.
“The best boss is one who knows the business better
than I do, but trusts me—even though he never lets me
forget that he’s the boss,” an old-time rigger once told me.
“That’s the kind of man I’ll really work my tail off for . . .”
I think that basically every employee feels much the
same way. Although few of toda
y’s executives are out in the
field, sweating alongside their work crews, the old, tried-
and-proved rules still hold. I believe that the most
successful executives are those who follow them implicitly.
Yet another quality I seek in management personnel is
the ability to communicate. Time is money in business; mis-
understandings in the interpretation of requests, reports or
instructions can prove very costly. Thus, the good executive
is one who can explain things and tell people what needs to
be done quickly and clearly.
Interest and enthusiasm are two more qualities a good
executive must possess. No man can properly do a job in
which he is not interested. An executive’s interest must go
far beyond the limits of his own particular department or
office. It is essential that he know what goes on in other
departments and that he be completely conversant with the
company’s policies and over-all activities. Only thus can he
evaluate the role and relative efficiency of his department
and relate its operations as a functioning part of a
functioning whole to the other parts and to the whole itself.
Then, his interest should go
even further: to embrace the
entire field or industry in which his company operates.
Only if he knows the field can he understand his company’s
strengths, weaknesses and problems.