Vol. 70, No. 6 — Nov./Dec. 1989 —
People in Organizations
Download
PDF version
'People are our most valuable asset' has
become more than a cliché for organizations in which more
work is done by fewer workers. To capitalize on that asset,
the human factor should rank first among managerial priorities
...
We tend to think of organizations as being inanimate. We
speak of organizational "structures" and "systems" as if an
organization were a building or a machine. Actually, it is
more like a warm- blooded creature. For it is first and foremost
an assemblage of living, breathing human beings.
It could be as big as a multinational corporation or as
small as a corner store; it could be seeking profits or not,
as in the case of a government department, social agency or
public institution. Whatever form it takes, an organization
brings people together to work towards common purposes. And
each of these persons has a unique set of feelings, thoughts
and attitudes.
So anyone who works for a business or similar organization
must cope with other personalities. Employees are enmeshed
in a complex web of relationships. Bosses must deal with subordinates
and vice- versa; subordinates must deal with each other on
their own level; middle managers must deal with people below,
above, and sideways. All of these individuals must "live"
together for a considerable portion of their waking hours.
As even the most happily-married pairs will attest, it is
not always easy to live with anybody. People are awkward,
inconsistent and unpredictable. They have prejudices, sensibilities,
foibles and weaknesses. They see things through their own
preconditioned perceptions, which might not accord with reality.
They have their justifiable pride and sometimes quite unjustifiable
egos. They do not always say what they mean, or mean what
they say.
If human relations are delicate anywhere, they are especially
so in the workplace. This is because work is so important
to people and their dependents; it has a crucial effect on
how they will live out their lives. Thus they are extraordinarily
touchy about what happens to them in their jobs; normal men
and women who will laugh off a personal fault in a neighbour
will spend restless nights brooding over the same fault in
their working colleagues. Such is the intensity of work relationships
that they can breed a mild form of paranoia. "He's out to
get me" and "he's got it in for me" are commonly-heard expressions
when workers talk in private about their supervisors or managers.
Although there may be bad blood among workers on the same
level, the most harmful problems in human relations are usually
between superiors and subordinates. In many cases these are
the product of a mutual inability to communicate. After a
lifetime of listening to contending parties, the great American
judge Louis D. Brandeis wrote : "Nine-tenths of the serious
controversies which arise in life result from misunderstandings,
result from one man not knowing the facts to which the other
man seem important, or otherwise failing to appreciate his
point of view."
Unfortunately, the potential for such misunderstanding seems
to be built into the system. One of the complaints most frequently
expressed in surveys of employees is that their bosses don't
keep them informed about matters that affect their work or
careers. To paraphrase Judge Brandeis, one party knows facts
that are important to the other, but refuses or neglects to
share them until they burst forth as disagreeable surprises.
There could hardly be a better formula for ensuring that people
will put forth the minimum of effort necessary to hold their
positions. Someone who feels left out of a group is not likely
to care much whether it meets its objectives or not.
"Without a free, full flow of information and ideas up and
down the organization there cannot be co-operation and understanding,"
wrote Scott Cutlip, professor of management at the University
of Wisconsin . The flow of information downward is impeded
by the hierarchical structure of management. Certain information
is deemed to be for management's eyes only; like military
officers and bureaucrats, managers place an exaggerated value
on confidentiality. The ego-building properties of status
also come into play - to know something that their subordinates
don't know gives managers a glorious sense of sitting among
the corporate gods.
Status can also stand in the way of arriving at the best
decisions. In their 1976 book New Ways of Managing Conflict
, the distinguished management studies team of Rensis and
Jane Gibson Likert wrote: "... Leaders often strive to maintain
and exploit status. When this happens, members of each group
learn that it is best for them to listen only to the leader.
They say 'yes' to the leader's solution without exploring
other possibilities. There is no search for better, more creative
solutions."
The situation, not the boss, decides
what
has to be done
Status owes its existence to power, and some managers and
supervisors are all too ready to wield that power to the indirect
detriment of the organization. It makes them feel big and
strong to give orders and have them obeyed. In discussing
what she called " the law of the situation," Mary Parker Follett
wrote: "One person should not give orders to another
person , but both should agree to take their orders
from the situation. If orders are simply part of the situation,
the question of someone giving and someone receiving does
not come up."
One of the prime tenets of the law of the situation is that
the situation does not "belong" to any particular individual.
There is a natural tendency to personalize issues; the media
does it all the time, as in "Bush's deficit."
When discussing problems at work, it is wise to separate
the issues from the personalities: it is not Jane's problem
or Joe's problem, it is simply the problem. A proposed
solution is not Jane's or Joe's, but one of our proposed
solutions. In the first instance, no one is made to feel he
or she is to blame for a situation; in the second, no one
is made to feel rejected if his or her ideas are turned down.
Managers of the old school might wonder why they should
concern themselves with such tender feelings. What does it
matter if a person feels persecuted or rejected as long as
the work gets done? The answer is that the work does not
get done as well as it could be. When people are discouraged,
they simply do not perform at their best.
An atmosphere of openness makes it
difficult to cheat
"The very essence of all power to influence lies in getting
the other person to participate," Henry Overstreet wrote.
"Influence" and "participate" are key words in the modern
management vocabulary . The old school subscribed to management
by authority, which meant that decisions were made at the
top and dumped from above on the people who would eventually
put them into effect. The new school subscribes to management
by influence, which means that decisions are made with the
participation of all concerned.
Management by influence cuts two ways. In an atmosphere
of participation, subordinates can, so to speak, manage the
manager. There is nothing manipulative about this: when both
sides implicitly agree that they are not in competition, it
is automatically agreed that the subordinate is free to call
some of the shots. Both submerge their egos in the search
for the best course of action. To carry this off, they must
keep in mind that they are in a symbiotic relationship - that,
like it or not (or like each other or not) they have to work
together to do their own jobs properly.
To a large extent, the nature of the relationship is determined
by the subordinate's approach: "If you treat your boss like
an omnipotent parent, you can expect him to treat you like
a small child. If you expect your boss to solve your problems,
the less freedom you can expect him to give you. In short,
behaving like a responsible adult is the surest road to being
treated like one," the American management consultant Michael
le Beouf wrote.
If both parties behave like responsible adults, they form
a partnership in which they both build on their individual
strengths and compensate for each other's weaknesses. It is
the old story of two heads - or two sets of judgments and
competencies - being better than one.
Far from fearing that they might be usurped, well-adjusted
managers realize that to coach subordinates to become more
independent is to improve their own positions by producing
better results for their particular operations. Of course,
the giving of more responsibility entails a degree of risk;
there could be foul-ups when an inexperienced person first
tackles an unfamiliar assignment. But it is worth it in the
long run, because there are bound to be days when the subordinate
has to step in and do all or part of the boss's job.
On the other side, covering off a boss's weaker points can
brighten a subordinate's career prospects by adding to his
or her experience and capabilities. "You don't have to like
or admire your boss, nor do you have to hate him. You have
to manage him, however, so that he becomes your resource for
achievement," Peter Drucker advised.
Regardless of the career considerations involved, a smooth
working relationship between the boss and the "bossee" saves
wear and tear on the psyche. When the two have worked out
a modus vivendi , they are not carrying frustrations
and resentments home with them. Both are happier in their
work when they can rest assured that they can rely on each
other for support.
Regrettably, there are times when such support is nowhere
to be found in the hard world of business or public service.
The only thing some ruthlessly ambitious bosses can be counted
upon to do is let you down.
If everyone were honest and forthright, if everyone lived
up to commitments made, it would be a joy to work with other
people. Anyone who has spent time in an organization, however,
knows that the reality is not nearly so ideal. Some people
are scheming and sneaky, ready to put down their colleagues
in their climb towards their personal ambitions. Some are
unreliable, some lazy, some incompetent, and will cheat to
cover up their deficiencies.
These unpleasant facts of life will never be eliminated
as long as people take short cuts to advance their careers,
but their worst effects can at least be ameliorated by developing
an atmosphere of openness in which it is difficult to act
deviously. From the organization's point of view, this might
save money and improve productivity by preventing people from
spending their time playing personal power games instead of
getting down to work.
If there are many sins of commission in working relationships,
there are as many or more sins of omission. Some managers
consistently make and implement decisions without involving
those who have to carry them out. They are, they will say,
too tied up with immediate problems to consult or inform the
people affected. They do not stop to think that many of those
immediate problems are back-lashes from previous decisions
which were made without checking out the consequences with
all concerned.
Managers should beware being cut off
by
their office walls
The former head of the Union Pacific Railroad, William M.
Jeffers, used to tell a story on himself about losing touch
with the grassroots. One day a veteran locomotive engineer
who had known Jeffers on his way up came to see him with an
idea for adjustments on some new equipment. Preoccupied with
corporate affairs, Jeffers responded vaguely. As the old railroader
was about to go out the door, he turned and said: "Bill, don't
ever get so damn busy that you haven't got time to think!"
It is difficult to convince some bosses that working with
people should be given the highest priority. Perhaps because
human relations are hard to quantify or control, they would
rather work with figures or paper or plans. They believe in
consultation just so long as it is with others of roughly
the same status. Their office walls have cut them off from
what is going on out there where the basic work is done.
One of the most tattered clichés in business is "people
are our most valuable asset." The current trend towards downsizing
is rendering that almost literally true. When there are fewer
employees , each becomes responsible for a greater share of
an organization's money. In the old days, it didn't matter
much if a pick and shovel worker walked off the job because
he couldn't get along with the foreman. But think of the financial
implications of having a $200, 000 machine lying idle because
its skilled operator has quit and can't be replaced right
away.
It is commonly assumed that the more technology an organization
deploys, the less the need for humans. This is true only in
the most superficial sense. The fact is that the utilization
of these expensive facilities in such a way that they fully
justify the investment made in them can only be accomplished
by well-motivated people. Anyone who discounts the human contribution
to productivity need only think of what happens to production
when a union instructs its members to "work to rule."
The community spirit can apply to organizations,
too
"The race advances only by the extra achievements of the
individual . You are the individual," the American poet and
editor Charles Towne wrote. So it goes with the organization.
It only moves forward through that little extra which individual
employees have to give - or withhold. That extra can no longer
be elicited by slave -driving or one-sided calls for loyalty.
Among the present tough- minded generation of workers, outstanding
effort will be not be volunteered unless it is demonstrably
deserved.
It can be elicited, however, by organizing human relations
in a way that offers individuals the opportunity to meet their
full potential . This recognizes the difference between today's
workers and those who have gone before them: on the whole,
people in western societies today are better educated, more
self-confident, more assertive, and more conscious of their
rights than any in the past.
For organizational managers, this implies promoting a regime
of participation, support, fairness, trust and candour. It
means encouraging people at all levels to contribute their
ideas on the premise that "none of us is as smart as all of
us." This should not be difficult to do, because it corresponds
with many fundamental psychological needs.
Deep down, people want to identify with a group, to make
a contribution, to express themselves and exercise their creativity.
They want to strive together with others to meet goals. They
want to feel good about their jobs, because this translates
into feeling good about themselves.
To conservative managers brought up in the produce-or-be-fired
tradition, it may seem almost a heresy to say that one of
the aims of an organization should be to make employees happy.
But more and more, a happy shop is a successful shop as the
emphasis in business swings towards the delivery of quality.
True quality cannot be achieved by people who take their jobs
for granted because they feel taken for granted themselves.
Conservative managers might protest that, by letting workers
have a say in what's to be done, you create an uncontrollable
free-for-all . But participation is not anarchy. People do
not object to controls as long as they know why the controls
exist.
Participants in any enterprise instinctively recognize that
" somebody has to be boss," but bossing has now become less
a matter of supervision and more a matter of leadership. Leadership
may be defined as the ability to stimulate and co-ordinate
the efforts of a group.
Real leaders do more proposing than imposing. They decide
in broad terms what should be done, then make plans for how
to do it - plans which can always be changed in the light
of overlooked considerations or events. They then attempt
to build a consensus among their followers on the course of
action to be taken in the knowledge that the less support
and commitment they have behind them , the less likely they
are to meet their objectives. Consensus, incidentally, should
not be mistaken for unanimity.
Organizations have been compared with communities, in which
not everyone agrees with his fellow citizens or with the leadership,
but everyone recognizes the desirability of contributing to
the general welfare. In a well-run community, the individuality
of each member is respected, and each is offered a voice in
community affairs. The members need not love their neighbours,
but they are willing to work with them peaceably once a policy
has been determined.
"We require individualism which does not wall man off from
the community; we require community which does not suffocate
the individual," wrote the American historian and presidential
advisor Arthur Schlesinger. Change the word "community" to
"organization," and you have the key requirements of organizational
management today.
Published by RBC Financial Group. All editions from the RBC
Letter collection are available on our web site at www.rbc.com/responsibility/letter.
Our e-mail address is: rbcletter@rbc.com.
Publié aussi en francais.
[ Return to RBC Letter
home page ]
|
