|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Organizational Environment |
Air University Review, May-June 1968
An important subject in the world today is air pollution, Nations, states, and municipalities are working on of approaches to solve this problem. Some people say that the world’s human population is slowly poisoning itself out of existence continued pollution of our air supply. The threat is receiving increasing attention at all levels, and undoubtedly a sane and logical will be found.
How many people, though, are concerned about pollution of the organizational atmosphere or environment in which we work? Is it possible that our management “industry” is spewing pollution into the working climate at a rate beyond our clean-up capability?
Every organization has an atmosphere or environment. This atmosphere is to a large extent conditioned by the actions and philosophies of those who run the show. In our civilian economy these people are called managers. I our defense establishment they are called commanders, directors, or managers. For simplicity, we shall refer to them all, whether in civilian enterprise or government, as managers.
The managers sets the tone—creates the atmosphere—for his organization by the things he does, the requirements he establishes, the policies he sets, and way in which he does these things. According to an old adage, “There is no greater fertilizer than the boss’s footsteps.” In other words, the boss’s attention and concern enhance or inhibit any action in any organization. His interest acts as a fertilizer; his lack of interest acts as an inhibitor.
Thus, the actions and the interests at each level of management create an atmosphere. These actions and interests can be pollution-free or they can be pollution-prone.
The organizational environment may fall at either of two extremes, foul or clean, or somewhere between. Such extremes might be shown in block form as follows:
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Organizational Environment |
The relative position of any organization could be established by comparing the degree of “management pollutants” with the degree of “management cleaners” in the organization’s operation. We could then show the “pollution block” thus:
|
|
| Figure 2. Organizational Environment |
Therefore, an organizational environment in which pollutants outweigh cleaners would be positioned to the left, tending toward “foul.” The “clean” environment, positioned to the right, would be one in which the cleaners outweigh pollutants.
Pollutants are those things which hamper, constrain, restrict, or otherwise limit human development or the exercise of intelligent logic in action. Cleaners are those things which encourage initiative, creativity, human dignity, and professional craftsman-like performance.
I would readily acknowledge that few if any organizations would fall at either extreme of the block. I would further acknowledge, and just as readily, that organizational position in the block would vary, depending upon current mission pressures and other factors. In fact, the organization would likely move up and down the slant line as conditions, pressures, and other stimuli are experienced. The movement would be in rather limited range, and an “average” position could be established.
In actuality, of course, no organization would likely be on the extreme left or extreme right. A penal institute might approach the “foul” because of the need for absolute control and little personal freedom. Another organization near the “foul” might be one of the strictly disciplined religious orders. We might conclude, then, that all “foul” organizations need not be “bad” in nature. An organization approaching the ultimate “clean” might be a medical research facility in which there are few organizational constraints and there is maximum individual freedom to pursue the research goal. Another nearing the “clean” might be a hippy commune in which personal freedom is almost totally uninhibited. Here we might conclude that all “clean” organizations need not be “good” in nature.
The organizations in which most of us work would fall between the two extremes. The relative position would result from the acts, impressions, and attitudes of the various managers. Since all managers are human and subject to the variations of human emotions and reactions, our organizational environment will vary from day to day. Again, an “average” location can likely be determined.
Management environment is further varied by the local interpretation and application of definite limiting factors. Certainly, legal rulings and Public Law determine some limits of manager actions. Moral values, ethical considerations, and spiritual backgrounds of our society impose further limitations. Thus, the manager’s impact on the organization, while of considerable scope and strength, is not without some applied and implied control. Even so, the manager determines in which direction, within these control limits, the organization will move: toward “foul” or “clean.”
In view of the fact that the manager does not have full control over the environment, we might alter our “pollution block” to look like this:
|
|
|
|
Figure 3. Organizational Environment |
In this block, no organization reaches either extreme: note that the more put into the cleaners, the less effect from the pollutants. And this is my aim to this point: additional management attention and concern are needed if the organizational atmosphere is to be cleansed.
the indicators
There are indicators that may be used to measure the organizational atmosphere. Most of them are controllable by management and, therefore, are a likely reflection of the manager’s beliefs and inclinations. They relate to the degree of cleanliness in the management atmosphere. They can show the need for investigation and action if the manager is not satisfied with his position in the block.
Seven primary indicators apply to all organizations. The degree to which they apply might be used as the measure of atmospheric pollution. None is completely go no-go, all black or all white. Even so, general statements may serve to permit organizational self-analysis, and that of itself may be worth the total exercise. No organization will remain unchanged by a careful, conscientious, in-depth review of these indicators:
Policies
Procedures (process instruction)
Rules or directives
Instructions
Duty assignments
Areas of responsibility
Communication
In this discussion extremes will be emphasized in hopes of providing an adaptable measure. It is understood that peculiar and specific needs of individual organizations may dictate certain use of an indicator which is not indicative of the manager’s personal philosophy. That, is, the manager may have little leeway in one or more areas because of requirements of higher management. In these instances the manager must be even more diligent in the indicator areas over which he does have control.
It is not the intent of this article to encourage a manager to do anything he would not normally do, except perhaps analyze his organization’s atmosphere. If this analysis shows the manager that he can help clean his organization’s atmosphere, he would be expected to act—logically within the limitations of his authority and the needs of his organization.
policies
Policies establish settled courses of action to be followed. The quantity of the organization’s policies and the amount of detail in them constitute a measure of the atmosphere. The extreme left on our scale would represent detailed policies in great profusion. The far right atmosphere would contain few policies, and those would be broad in scope, containing little detail.
Most of us have worked in organizations approaching both ends of the scale. We have been in units where everything is covered by policy, sometimes in sickening detail. Not only were all the possible major events covered by policy but so were all the unlikely events. In this organization the policy file, or manual, grows visibly because each problem, no matter what size, results in a new or revised policy publication. The “book” becomes so stifling that individuals feel they need clearance and guidance before they can accomplish even the most basic task. Creativity, initiative, and innovation are subordinate to following the pattern of set policy. It is in this type of organization that people develop a “sheep complex” and follow their leaders with no thought except, perhaps, a hope for salvation through reassignment.
The difference in the atmosphere of the two extremes is usually quite obvious. At the opposite pole from the “detailed and many,” the “broad and few” present a different picture. Here we find a basic trust in people and in their wisdom and inherent desire to do the right thing for a successful association. The policy guidance is limited in quantity, and that which exists relies to large degree upon logical interpretation and application by the people. The atmosphere is clear and clean. The people sense the trust and confidence, and they act accordingly. Of course there are occasional “goofs,” but these do not result in new policy even though they may require discussion between manager and subordinate. Both elements (the leader and the led) learn from this, and policy may be—and likely is—established, even though it is neither spoken of nor related to in such terms.
Most organizations will be maneuvering between these extremes. Some policy will be established by higher levels of management, and the organization must fit into that guidance. Even so, within a given structure, a manager determines whether or not he will add to the policy already established. He determines the detail to which he resorts. This is his area of management control in which he can affect his organization’s atmosphere. The wise manager will avoid the trap of extensive policy documents because he will recognize the probability of fouling the environment.
When the manager feels that many or more detailed policies are required, a basic communication fault may exist. There is a possibility that the manager’s urge for policy relates to his people’s inadequate response in some effort area. Perhaps this inadequacy results from the manager’s failure to achieve adequate and satisfactory communication of goals or objectives to his people. Perhaps, too, the inadequacy stems from a deeper source of trouble—an organizational atmosphere that makes the people feel unneeded, unimportant, or useless. If either of these conditions exists, an increase in policy quantity or content will not correct the situation but, indeed, may worsen it.
procedures
Procedures (process instructions, if you prefer) are developed to describe a particular way in which management wants something accomplished. They are needed, to some degree, in all organizations beyond the most simple or basic. The need is for a plan of activity (the procedures) by which management may control or affect progress toward meeting the mission need.
In terms of this article, the “foul” atmosphere would be one in which the manager creates and imposes an array of local procedures added to those directed by higher management. These are generally actions which the manager hopefully calls “guidance” or “control.” They are often unneeded and more often are used as disciplinary traps when the manager is dissatisfied but can think of little else to do. The people normally recognize these as unneeded, normally do not observe their requirements, and almost always consider them as irritants.
These local procedures often contain very specific details as to who does what, when, and how. They may be classed, as they frequently are, as examples of red tape and needless impositions which force activity into inefficient channels. Almost always they are effective when followed; that is, they do achieve the stated end. But they rarely do this easily or efficiently. They form one base for what is commonly considered as bureaucracy at its worst. They are sometimes the result of small people with large jobs.
The worst part about this sort of management action is that it hangs on through changes of managers and after a bit assumes the sainthood of tradition or custom. At this point the procedure becomes almost untouchable, and real bravery is required even to question the subject, let alone challenge it. The horror is that these things then become bigger than the people, and control passes from the human manager to the inanimate paper and its hallowed tradition.
In the “foul” atmosphere we find these items unquestioned—even defended—by the manager even though he may never analyze the need or the result. At its worst, we find the procedures still being followed, directed by management, even though the original need no longer exists or has been radically altered. These are the tradition-bound resource expenditures which return little gain in mission capability. The people may—and usually do—recognize the futility and needless expense of this directed activity, but they are unable to convince (maybe even unable to communicate with) management about it. Management continues its way down the well-worn rut without ever considering the reason or, even worse, the cost.
A manager, eager to help clear the organizational air, can do so by a hard-nosed approach to these local procedures. Investigation and a stern demand for proof of need can go a long way toward changing the environment. Such a step requires an alert and curious mind, plus a free and active communication flow through which the people can suggest or recommend.
Obviously, all procedural pollutants are not of the manager’s own doing. Some of them impact upon his organization from lateral elements. Some impact from higher management. These, too, require consideration and evaluation. Each manager must insure that he, like his people, provides to the next higher element those recommendations and suggestions which could help clear the air.
Some procedures are vital; some are desirable; some are foolish. No large or complex organization will be completely free of them. The manager’s challenge is to insure that all those in his organization are vital and desirable and that they all bear the close analysis for current need.
rules or directives
Rules attempt to relate responses that have been effective in the past. They should permit the alternative of another response should conditions change. The need for this alternative flexibility must be obvious and acceptable to everyone in view of the relative rarity of recurrent problems under identical conditions. Yet, the usual view of the rule is, “There! That solves that problem now and later!”
Rules are necessary in any organization, no matter what its goal or mission. The manager’s task is to determine what rules have to be established and to recognize and act when a rule is no longer needed or when it requires change. Rules of wise management give purpose and direction to people but are flexible enough to allow these people to respond rapidly and effectively to changing situations. Less wise management permits rules to remain unchanged regardless of changing conditions and fails to recognize the situation as the organization slips into blind ritual.
Discussion with many managers indicates they personally prefer an assignment with few restricting rules or directives. They prefer a low quantity of broadly stated rules such as those in the “clean” area. Yet these same managers unhesitatingly state they do not feel the people working for them can effectively produce under the same type of guidance. Thus, although they want limited rule or direction, they want to provide more quantity and greater detail in rules for their people. The atmosphere comes to contain pollution agents, and the degree of pollution is determined by the wisdom of the manager.
Managers are also employees. If they thought of this occasionally, perhaps more care, thought, and attention would go into their actions. They are employees of a special type, with special considerations, but employees just the same. The manager at one level is a worker (employee) for the next higher level. He experiences the same frustrations, pleasures, fears, needs, and wants as any other employee. The things that annoy him or reward him will be very similar to those affecting others. Why, then, should the manager not consider his personal reactions when he is considering or evaluating a rule or directive? Why should he think his subordinates will react or respond any differently than he under similar stimuli?
Evaluation of rules must consider the general tone of the rule or directive. Those in the “foul” zone will be predominantly negative in nature. They will contain positive guidance in such negative phrases as: “You will not—,” “It is forbidden to —,” etc. These rules will be explicit and exact in prohibitions and negatives and will either ignore or only broadly reference the positives, the things that should be done. As a result, the rules in this environment will restrict action, limit freedom, and choke initiative. Subordinates will be found in perpetual struggle with them. Morale, esprit, and enthusiasm will be less than desired. People will fear to act, except as directed, because failure will likely cause punitive or degrading actions. Even worse, failures, even minor mistakes, will likely result in additional rules. The “foul” atmosphere therefore serves as its own breeding pond, and the restrictive, negative rules beget more of the same.
instructions
Instructions furnish direction. They are similar to orders or directives except that generally they are verbal and relative to the job of the moment. We all receive instructions continuously throughout life. Our memories of parents, teachers, and contemporaries are tinged with our reactions to their instructions. The content and the method of expression affect our attitude and our response. It is probable that instructions form one of the major building blocks of our personality and our career.
Each time a manager gives an instruction he creates a part of his organizational atmosphere. If he goes to extreme detail, he limits the range of action possibilities of the recipient. Thus, he must learn to know his people and their individual capabilities and knowledge so that he may tailor his instructions.
A major fault in instructing people is to assume that the same detail is necessary for everyone. One would not, for example, give the same flight instructions to a Lindbergh as to a new pilot student. Capabilities, experience, and backgrounds differ widely, and instructions must consider each in its proper light. Yet so often this is forgotten and a person is offended by overinstruction or penalized by underinstruction.
Another fault of a manager is to rely upon the authoritarian instruction in which he directs, demands, or orders. No one likes to be ordered to do anything. People more readily accept instructions couched in palatable terms, even though the instructions are no less positive than an order might have been. But, here again, the manager often forgets and falls back upon his “manager status” and resorts to an order that so-and-so be done. Sometimes, in his impatience or haste, these orders become rather ridiculous instructions. A prime example is the early air base commander whose instructions to his pilots, by order, said, “From this date, there will be no more crack-ups!”
It should be plain that the “foul” atmosphere will be one in which instructions are detailed and specific. The normal situation is one in which each job assignment is accompanied by complex, explicit, time-consuming instructions about “what” and “how” with less attention (probably considerably less) to the “why.” The instructions are given regardless of the experience of the worker and without consideration of previous accomplishment of the same job. The intent, again, is to insure that goals are met. The cause of the depth of detail is likely a mistrust of the people or a basic insecurity feeling which the manager attempts to alleviate by displaying his great knowledge.
In most organizations it would be as bad to experience no instruction. The people would stumble and fret in indecision which could be extremely expensive in terms of mission accomplishment or goal capability. Yet, some really do need very little instruction other the “what” and some good background for the “why” to answer the normal human curiosity. The effective manager recognizes those need little instruction and those who need more. He provides to each that which applies. This is not easy. It requires conscious attention and study and a methodical approach to learning individual capabilities and needs. The effort is rewarding in better personal relationship, an increased respect on both sides, I improved management effort. After all, manager’s job is to arrange to get things through people. This understanding of people together with tailored attention to their needs, will do just that, with a great big plus: improved and increased cooperation.
duty assignments
Each person in an organization was hired or assigned, for a specified job accomplishment. It should go without saying that each job is essential and important. Therefore, so should each person be. Experience indicates that while jobs may be considered important and necessary, many people do not consider themselves important in their jobs. The difference may contribute to retention problems and poor organizational morale.
Some people refer to the job description as the greatest hoax and fable in history. Are review of randomly selected job description in one’s organization might cause him to think this way also. Flowery phrases and high sounding words are found in all, from me task to top-drawer executive position. In addition, job titles often give an impression that differs widely from the actual on-job performance requirements. One lecturer on this subject tells of a change in title from “undertaker” “mortician” to “grief therapist,” and he as “Is the next step to be ‘professional boxer’?” What, really, is the job, and how can it simply described? Is a “milkman” any more effective as a “bovine products distributor” would that merely foul the environment again?
The problem, of course, is not merely job description or job title. It could be said the name is not the thing. Performance is what counts. If the man on the job knows what is expected of him and has the capability to accomplish it, we can expect production if we provide the means. The secret of the difference between enthusiastic professionalism and reluctant amateurism is probably the way the job-holder feels about his duty assignment. In the organization on the “foul” side of our scale, we are likely to find duty assignments of such restricted nature that the people feel them to be dull and routine. They lack the motivation fort from a viewpoint of personal security rather than pleasure in accomplishment.
Work or duty assignments should be aimed at mission accomplishment. The mission, in all its ramifications, must be known to all the people in the organization. Knowledge of mission requirements and confidence that the manager is assigning jobs for the accomplishment will go a long way toward adding to the will of the people. It is suggested that if the manager is not convinced of job assignment importance, the people surely will not be. If the manager is convinced but his people are not, he has failed to accomplish part of his management function. If he fails to convince the worker of his (or the job’s) importance, it is not beyond probability that the job or position may be superfluous to mission requirements.
A high degree of “want” exists in the job environment. People want to belong to a successful organization. They want to feel important to that organization. They want to know they are actively involved in a successful group effort. They want to be recognized for the capabilities they possess. When these wants are not recognized or not met by management, esprit de corps falls and the individual’s feeling about the job becomes dul, listless, and discouraged.
Every effort of management to increase the challenge of the job, within reason, will result in greater personal performance and all the good that goes with such increased involvement. One simple test is to observe the organization’s pattern for reporting to and departing from the job. When challenge is missing from the duty assignment and the environment is more “foul” than “clean,” we note on-time arrival and on-time departure; very little voluntary overtime will be noted. Few, if any, will be motivated to “see the job through.” After all, “They only pay me to do what I’m told, no more.” Further, the people may feel that extra effort will be looked upon with suspicion and motive may be questioned.
areas of responsibility
There is an old adage, “Everybody’s responsibility is nobody’s responsibility.” It means that if responsibility is too widely spread, people are apt to count on “the other guy” to do what has to be done, with the result that no one does it. There is some natural truth in this. Unfortunately, many managers have taken it so literally that every possible responsibility is painstakingly defined, detailed to great degree, and explicitly assigned to one specific individual. In this environment, close to our “foul” scale, the elements of teamwork, cooperation, and coordination find the going very rough. If they exist at all, they do so in spite of management rather than because of it.
People like responsibility or accountability if it is properly placed and not beyond their capability for control. They do not like it when it is too narrow or restrictive or when it is too broad for fulfillment. Inadequately assigned or defined responsibility leads to a self-protective atmosphere in which each person jealously insures his own clean hands but passes all else because all else is “Joe’s job.” Voluntary commitment to assistance of another is rare under these conditions, and the will-to-do falters. We have all seen organizations in which necessary work remains undone until the boss specifically assigns it. Why? More than likely, responsibilities were ill assigned and no one felt he had reason to assume the job requirement. This, too, approaches our “foul” area.
Some managers mistakenly feel that every person must have a detailed responsibility assignment. They feel that work flow—at least, work assignment—then becomes almost automatic and administrative procedures are streamlined. While this may actually result in smooth administrative functioning, it generally leads to little active and voluntary coordination above the minimum required for individual job completions. It is possible that more broadly assigned responsibilities, coupled with assurance that each employee knows and understands the organization’s goals, will foster active coordination in addition to cleaning the atmosphere. Under these conditions the people know there is probably some overlap of functional responsibilities, and they know they must coordinate in order to fulfill their job responsibility and progress to achievement of organizational goals.
We all want to feel important. If our responsibilities are broad and we have adequate authority to fulfill them, we know we are important and we act with the common good in mind. Our every effort is aimed at organizational success because we feel the organization is ours and its success will reflect in our success. The motivational influence of such a climate is tremendous.
Managers are never successful alone. They succeed only through the efforts of others. It would seem, then, that managers would work at all times in all ways to insure that the efforts of others are contributing to successful and optimum organizational accomplishments. It would further seem that managers would be constantly studying the people who work for them to insure that the organization’s atmosphere is always conducive to effective, efficient personal effort toward mission accomplishment.
communication
Serious management students recognize that within all formal organizations there is an informal organization. The formal is easily viewed in the organizational charts. The informal may be felt but not seen. It is often not recognized even by those who keep it going. The informal organization is formed by the personal relationships which exist within the formal, and it usually establishes a separate status grouping from the official hierarchy. The individual feelings within the group as to who is important, who is the unnamed leader, who has the job knowledge etc., establish this ghostlike structure. It is in this informal structure that the individual finds an identity and relates to the whole organization. The health of the informal of organization has much to do with the organization’s success in meeting its goals.
A major factor of the informal organization is communication. Knowingly or unknowingly, the leaders of both the formal and informal organizations do communicate. The freedom with which they communicate will generally determine the efficiency of the organization as a whole. Attempts to channel communication or restrict it to certain people or positions are stultifying. This frustration creates a real, sometimes permanent, bar to peak effectiveness and efficiency.
Successful management (effective and efficient accomplishment of established goals) demands communication, coordination, and cooperation. The latter two, to large degree, depend upon the first. We might conclude that a prime ingredient of successful management is communication. The successful organization will provide for downward, upward, and lateral communication because all are vital and essential. A sure sign of a “foul” environment is restricted communication in any direction. Any manager who feels that he must insure only a clear channel for downward communication is creating a major problem for his organization and adding to the environmental pollution. It is extremely important that we provide for, permit, and encourage upward and lateral communication as well as downward, so the informal organization may live and participate productively.
An indicator of pollution in the communication function is the degree to which management insists upon channeling. This is not an argument for uncontrolled communication but merely a plea to prevent the delay-producing, stifling insistence that all communication must go, position-to-position, through a labyrinth of channels before action results. This, often, is a major complaint against the tradition-bound manager who sometimes is referred to as “military-minded.” Those managers in the Defense agencies, and in all government agencies for that matter, must constantly be alert to prevent a slip into this trap under the guise of control. Again, this dictum is not aimed at acquiring a controlless communication process. It is aimed at asking managers to insure that unneeded, restrictive, and unimaginative processes, procedures, policies, and rules are eliminated.
We should encourage the passing of information for job performance freely from person to person. The person who needs information to do his job should be able to obtain it from the person who has it with minimum intermediate steps or processes. Therefore, for informational purposes, we should encourage person-to-person contact with little regarded to position or rank within the organization and minimum requirement to “stick to channels.”
organizational traits
The manager’s action cause two types of results. One is production toward meeting the organization’s mission. The other is impact upon the organization’s atmosphere. In this article I have discussed the second result, with the thought that it affects the first to some extent. Let us now briefly review the traits we might find in organization at the two environmental extremes earlier established.
On the left of the block we find an organization operating in conformity to a rigidly defined set of rules, processes, policies, and instructions. It may be described as hidebound and tied to tradition. It would be the type of unit in which the people seriously state, “There is no reason, it’s just policy.” There is resistance to the new or different. Ideas are looked at with suspicion. A very low degree of creativity exists. There is a tendency toward a stagnation of thought and detached relationship to the unit by the people. Task failure is feared, and the reward for failure id punishment. Little concern exists for growth of the people continue to work because they either have no choice or they value security more than personal involvement and satisfaction. The total picture is unpleasant and undesirable. Fortunately, few organizations are this far to the left. But there are many which approach the extreme in some of the indicator areas described. Managers in these units must act or face the probability of ultimate failure should individuality, initiative, or creativity ever be required.
On the right of the block we find an organization in which the people display an avid eagerness to work. Their lives are wrapped up in their jobs. Innovation and creativity are present in all activity. The organization is free to accept and react to change with less reluctance to leave the traditional. Task failure is not condoned but is understood and used as a learning and growth opportunity. The whole organization is concerned with insuring the development of each individual, and organizational capability is steadily increasing. Involvement is great, and everyone has a sense of vitality and participation. Unfortunately, not all organizations can be this extreme in total. Some must, by virtue of the mission, be purposely held more to the center. But most organizations could move more to the right than they are presently positioned and gain immeasurably by the action.
Management would do well to heed the following encouragement:
Use leadership and managerial skills to the fullest. Create the clean atmosphere which encourages people to grow and develop.
the key
The key to changing the organization’s environment or atmosphere is the manager. He can change only if he wants to change. It may frequently happen that he wants to change but lacks the idea, the thought, needed to energize his action. It may be that he is not aware that a change is needed or that a change might be beneficial. It may be that he is not fully aware of the things currently “bugging” his people and those which irritate or inflame them. It is to this possibility that we now address ourselves.
Change is brought into being by action on an idea. Ideas are the lifeblood of progress, and ideas will be the moving force of the future just as they have been the moving force of the past. Thus, every manager must be constantly alert for ideas from any source.
Ideas have no value unless they are acted upon. To get action, the idea must be communicated. Therefore, the wise manager always insures that in his organization there is free communication, permitting anyone to present his ideas or thoughts to someone who can do something with them.
Obviously, not all ideas are good and not all ideas are currently useful. Even so, all ideas merit attention and logical evaluation. This, perhaps, is the biggest attitude problem facing the manager and his organization—and the one requiring the most continuous emphasis and attention.
A common tendency is to hastily—too hastily—listen, incompletely evaluate, and quickly reject ideas, particularly those which do not seem “big” in scope. Often one tends to rely on roadblocks or negatives when he listens to or reads an idea presentation. A most difficult chore is the establishment of a positive attitude toward idea evaluation. One may, of course, finally decide to reject the idea (in total or in part); but he owes it at least a logical, positive evaluation prior to that action.
Suppose the Wright brothers had rejected the idea of flight through the “It’s been tried before” approach? Suppose the Manhattan Project had stumbled against the “It’s too big for us” roadblock? Suppose the inventor of the hula hoop had listened to “It’s not really practical.” These common objections to ideas are usually given before the idea has really been evaluated. One wonders how many really earthshaking ideas have failed to materialize because they never made it through the jungle of resistance.
The point is this: There is a very good probability that any organizational environment can stand management review and cleaning. Ideas are necessary to do this. As a manager, one must realize that he is not the only thinking man around, and he must provide the climate which encourages idea development and the atmosphere which permits sound evaluation and management action.
It is up to you, Mr. Manager! Where in the scale is your organization now located, and what are you going to do about it?
Air Force Institute of Technology
Bibliography
Bennis, Warren G. Changing Organizations.
Brown,
Drucker, Peter F. The Concept
of the Corporation.
Goodwin, Herbert F. “The Exciting New Dimensions of Managing Improvement Through Work Simplification,” Advanced Management Journal, XXXII, 4 (October 1967).
Hoke, Peter J. “Airman Retention—Management’s New
Challenge,”
Kaiser Aluminum News, Volume 25, Number Two/67, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, Oakland, California 94604.
McConkey, Dale D. “The Results Approach to Evaluating Managerial Performance,” Advanced Management Journal, XXXII, 4 (October 1967).
McFarland,
Whyte, William H., Jr. The
Organization
Wrapp, H. Edward. “Good Managers Don’t Make Policy Decisions,” Management Review, American Management Association, November 1967.
Major Jerome G. Peppers, JR., USAF (Ret) (B.G.E.,
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this
document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression,
academic environment of
Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor
