The Psychology of Sound Personnel Management

Many Years Ago, I had a conversation with one of America's leading industrialists, a man noted in business circles for operating his many companies with consistently great 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."

He went on to point out that management is, after all, nothing more nor less than the art of directing human activities, and he placed heavy emphasis on the word human.

"You can bully people and obtain results---up to a certain point." the industrialist observed. "But sooner or later---and usually it's sooner---they begin to resent or rebel. To get the most and the best out of people---whether they're associates, subordinates, superiors, customers or suppliers---you have to remember at all times that they're human beings and treat them as such. And there you have the beginnings of sound management psychology."

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 very early in my career, back in the days when I was a wildcatter 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 hardbitten, no-nonsense types of 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.

It was fortuitous that I had worked previously as a roustabout and tool-dresser on drilling crews. I had the advantage of having some understanding of how the men's minds worked and of what their probable reactions would be if I did this, that or another thing.

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 another, I made my views quite clear. I let the men see I respected them not only for their superior experience but also as individuals, and looked 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 acknowledging 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 business 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 several 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 employing methods and taking actions that have human appeal, that the individuals concerned can readily grasp.

I think my industrialist friend's definition of management as the art of directing human activities 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, inspire 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 definitive 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 programs 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 people 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 report the board chairman wants 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 example or his double standards become known, morale and output 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 during World War II, when I was actively 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 clocked pay if they were tardy.

Eire, it is said, can be best fought with fire---and I've always 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.

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 (continued on page 213) Sound management (continued from page 134) 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 management 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 respect. 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 career, 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. Worker---at all levels---are thinking, feeling human beings. They derive psychological satisfaction from the knowledge that management 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, interests, 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 on the individual: 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 frequently 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 stealings.

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 confined 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.

The psychology of sound management must necessarily be human and humane, a psychology that vitalizes the concept of management as the art of directing human activity. Few executives are professional psychologists, but management personnel should grasp the fundamentals of human relations, of dealing with people and getting the best from them.

It is as the successful businessman whose remarks I quoted at the beginning of this article said---people are human beings and must be treated as such. And that, I suppose, is just about as concise and accurate a definition of sound management psychology as can be found anywhere.