Air University Review, March-April 1969
This discussion is dedicated to that large segment of our population now
engaged in management analysis under any of the several names by which it is
known.
R.L.P.
The onrush of modern technology has brought about many obvious changes in the electromechanical aspects of twentieth-century living. What is not so obvious is that there has also been a concomitant-though not clearly independent-revolution in the social sciences. This revolution has fostered new points of view on the interrelationships among nations; on the prosecution of military adventures, and on such mundane exchanges as the purchase of groceries. Nowhere, however, has the impact of the new social technology been greater than in the area which is the subject of this discussion: the confrontation of man and problem.
individual vs. committee
In less sophisticated times, it was thought that problems were best solved by individuals. Thus, if one wanted to know about radium, he simply turned loose M. Curie-or at most, M. Curie and wife-in a. well-equipped laboratory. Having done this, nothing more was necessary. In time, the brainchild of their erudition would appear. This concept of individual vis-a.-vis problem, however, is no longer in favor.
The individual has been replaced by the committee,1 and we should
be clear as to the reasons for this change. It is not, as many think, because
several men can do several times as much work as an individual. Indeed, there
have been committees of fifty that scarcely did as much as a single full-time
worker. And it is not because the quality of the committee product is
necessarily superior to what might be produced by a single problem analyst. It
is simply because we have found that regardless of how competent the individual
may be, his work will be colored by his personal biases and, hence, will be
satisfactory only to those few who share the same prejudices. A committee, on
the other hand, involves many individuals and, therefore, covers a complete
spectrum of biases. Its work is not, for this reason, satisfying only to those
few who are uniquely prejudiced.2
selecting a committee
There are some subtleties that may escape the neophyte in the matter of selecting committee members. For example, the amateur, acting on impulse, may attempt to enlist the services of those who are recognized as being most knowledgeable in the problem area at hand. A little thought will show that this is a mistake, for people working in the same subject area are likely to suffer from similar mental quirks, which will defeat the objective of heterogeneity in viewpoint. More important, however, is the fact that the main purpose of a committee is to manage the study effort, not to do the studying. The infusion of only a few problem-oriented people will constantly upset the workings of the committee, for persons of this type usually insist upon focusing on details important to the study itself but totally irrelevant to the matter of study management. Further, they are apt to be impatient to get on with the work and entirely unsympathetic with the slow but thorough cogitations which are the hallmark of true committee process. On the other hand, it will become necessary at some point actually to do the study. So it may perhaps be diplomatic to invite a number of subject matter experts and even some workers to participate in the committee. They can always be assigned to some study group after the first or second meeting.3
To achieve the goal of heterogeneity in viewpoint, the committee proper should be composed of individuals at a fairly high level. This ensures that the primary members will often be busy at some other major problem and forced to send substitutes to the committee meetings. By the use of this simple stratagem, a committee of perhaps twenty-and hence limited to twenty opinions-may be expanded to as many as a hundred or so, with all of the attendant benefits.
Persuading high-level personnel to accept committee membership is, of
course, a matter which requires a great deal of tact, for people at very high
levels are reluctant to join committees unless they can act as chairmen. But
persuade them one must, for persons with less authority in the organization may
find difficulty in commandeering substitutes. All of which somehow brings us to
the subject of selecting a chairman.4
selecting a chairman
If nothing else is done properly during the life history of the committee-and there have been committees like that-the selection of a chairman must be wisely made. His role is so vital to the success of the committee that there is no point in even calling the roll until a capable leader has been found. Fortunately, there are some ground rules which can be used to ensure that this most important step is taken correctly.
Since committee members must be persons of considerable stature in the organization, it follows that they should not be led by some simple gonfalonier of low position. Quite the contrary. The chairman must rank any other committee member by at least one notch if he is to maintain the air of benevolent discipline and sociological aplomb that is so important to the committee decision-making process. If the organization is military in nature, selection of a major general is highly recommended. If civilian, perhaps a vice-president will suffice. However, not just any general or vice-president will do. He must have certain important personality characteristics.
Consider, now, the role the chairman must play. First, he must enlist the cooperation of potential committee members, convincing them of the importance of their participation. This may require a certain personal charm, as well as a considerable disregard for facts. To put it more bluntly, the effective chairman should be the type who is able, with sincerity in his voice, to convince the charwoman that the fate of the nation hinges on how she does her job and on whether or not she gets to work on time. The personality characteristics which enable a man to do this are not easily describable. But perhaps it is enough to say that one who admires veracity and has a penchant for facts will hardly fill the bill.
Once the chairman has convinced a sufficient number of the right people to serve, his next task becomes one of persuading them to continue to serve. This is done through a series of “pep talks,” friendly pats on the back, whispered confidences to individuals whose interest seems to be flagging, real or imagined communiques from higher authority, and a variety of similar tactics, all designed to preserve that sense of self-importance which motivated the membership to join in the first place.5 The exact nature of the techniques which a good chairman will employ are more easily observed than described. Rather than waste more words on description, then, let us get on with the dynamics of a functioning committee-always “keeping an eye out,” of course, for the subtle methods employed by the chairman in steering his group toward a satisfactory solution to the problem at hand.
the first meeting
The first meeting will usually be held about a half-hour before quitting time on a Friday afternoon-and this is not accidental. It is simply the chairman’s first move in projecting the kind of image he desires. Those who have been hoping to “duck out” a little early for a weekend at the beach will come to understand that there are some things more important than their personal pleasures. Further, they will realize that the chairman is a busy man, unable to fit even an important project into the normal working day, and certainly not a man who watches the clock or stints in giving of himself for the good of the organization. And finally, the members will get the hint that this project will probably require a lot of overtime.6 This realization will accelerate their efforts to line up not one but several potential substitutes for future meetings, thus again furthering the goal of heterogeneity.
The meeting begins something like this:
Men, for those of you who may not know me, I am Mr. (Dr. or General, as the case may be) McBong-Everett to you, since we will be working very closely together on this project. 7 And I am honored to serve as your chairman during the course of our deliberations. I cannot impress you too much with the importance of the problem we are addressing here. The very future of our organization may well depend upon the decisions reached by this committee. The Chief recognizes this and has instructed me that every man who serves on this group shall be handpicked-chosen for his outstanding analytical capability and his loyalty to our common cause. You are, then, a blue-ribbon group, and great things are expected of you. I intend that we shall succeed in our endeavors and am prepared to promise you all the help you may wish. I have contacted the major research organizations in this country, and you have but to ask and they will be at your disposal. Gentlemen, the sky is the limit, but succeed we must. Now, the first order of business is to choose a code name for this group. To facilitate this process, I have prepared a list of possible names. The secretary will read these and. I will then call for a show of hands on each.
Gentlemen, the proposed names are as follows: Slippery Car, Joe’s Joint, Balmy Spring, Screaming Arrow, and Twilight Raider.
The list is read again with McBong calling for a show of hands after each code name.
Gentlemen, here are the results:
Slippery Car-five
Joe’s Joint-three
Balmy Spring-zero
Screaming Arrow-twelve
Twilight Raider-twenty two.
McBong turns to the secretary.
Dammit, Ed, are you sure you counted those right? I could swear there were some votes for Balmy Spring. Let’s run through that again.
The poll is repeated with the same results. At this point, McBong realizes he has a small problem with this committee. Despite the fact that he has hinted at a preference for Balmy Spring, not one single member has seen fit to change his vote. This calls for some strategy.
Men, I’ve looked over these results, and it’s apparent to me that there is a considerable diversity of opinion. This matter is too important to be settled without a clear majority, so I suggest we table the whole thing for the moment and take it up again after we’ve had time to think it over.
Unless someone has some
additional business, I recommend we adjourn.
But, sir . . .
Yes, Eagen.
You said something about a problem to be studied.
I think, Eagen, you have received enough information on this in your
pre-meeting notes. No use to take up committee time, just because you didn’t do
your homework.
But, sir, I didn’t receive any pre-meeting notes.
Dammit, Ed, didn’t you get those notes in distribution?
No, sir.
Well, why in the hell not?
Well. . . sir. . . you were about to dictate them yesterday when your luncheon
date arrived. I guess you were too busy to get back to it after lunch.
Oh . . . hmm . . . well. . . yes, there was that board meeting in the afternoon. Well. . . I suppose I could highlight the main thrust of our problem situation. . . hmm. . . . But maybe we’d better let that go until the next meeting. Be better for everybody, That’s all then, men. You’ll be notified regarding the time and place of our next get-together.
the second meeting
The second meeting is held at 0700 on the following Friday. The early hour is chosen to permit a good full day of discussion and planning, so that the committee can get on with full-time work the following Monday. The chairman opens the meeting with a few remarks.
Men, I’m pleased to open this meeting with the announcement that we have at last resolved the matter of a code name for this project. Henceforth we will be known as the Balmy Spring committee.
But, sir. . .
Yes, Eagen.
But, sir, I thought we voted last Friday.
Oh, yes. True, we did take a rather indecisive ballot on the matter. However,
since that time, I’ve had a chance to chat with The Chief on several occasions.
I find he definitely prefers Balmy Spring. So I’ve gone ahead and made it
official.8 Now, I promised to give you a little run-down on the
problem we are to study. As you may know, our organization faces an extremely
crucial decision regarding which way we should go on equipment. On the one
hand, we can choose the Binary Duplexing Processation route-and it has certain
costs, capabilities, advantages, and disadvantages. Or we can elect the
Winchester-Dublef Procedurization route-and it too has its good and bad points.
Or, I suppose we could go for something quite different, although I don’t know
what it would be. At any rate, I’m not going to stand up here and say Binary
Duplexing Processation or Winchester-Dublef Procedurization over and over
again. From now on, we will call these two systems BINDUP and WINDUP. Any
questions? . . . Okay, Ed, see that those acronyms get into the record, will
you?
Yes, sir.
In order to systematize our coordinated efforts, The Chief and I9
have prepared some handouts. These suggest committee assignments, a few general
ground rules, and some procedural methodologies. Rather than waste our time
reading them here, I recommend we adjourn this meeting, break up into
the appropriate groups, and get right on with the job.
conducting the study
The next few months are busy times for most of the committee. Office space and supplies are obtained and the Protocol Group undertakes the unhappy task of allocating furniture and other accouterments on the basis of rank or position-but in a manner aimed at suggesting that each man is as important as the next, if not a good bit more so. As it turns out, there are enough mahogany desks and individual costumers for the group chiefs; team leaders are provided with metal furniture; and the working personnel get what working personnel in general deserve.
The matter of secretarial help becomes a rather critical problem at this time, for not just any secretary can meet the requirements of a committee. The good committee secretary must not only be adept at the normal secretarial arts, such as shorthand and typing, but must also be endowed with a certain physiological stamina that permits her to work long and unusual hours. Her personal relationship with the opposite sex should not include a jealous husband or an overly possessive boy friend. And above all, she must be able to make good coffee.1O It is common knowledge that the diet of the thoroughgoing committeeman consists almost entirely of black coffee smothered in cigarette smoke. There is probably nothing, therefore, which will so quickly demoralize a committee as lousy coffee.
After what seems like an almost endless series of interviews, the necessary secretarial support is obtained. Not all committee members are entirely happy with the choice of girls, but this is a matter of small consequence considering how unhappy the girls will be with the committee before they are finished with it.
With the organizational problems solved, the Data Group fans out over the country in search of someone somewhere who has done something analogous to the problem at hand and who has some numbers-preferably on computer cards or magnetic tape. These numbers will be transmitted to the Analysis Group, whose members are already gathering a staff of coders, programmers, mathematicians, and electronic specialists in anticipation of the plethora of data about to descend upon them. Once the data arrive, the technical staff will have the task of translating the borrowed information into a totally new machine language which only the Balmy Spring computer will understand.
In the meantime, members of the Steering Committee are “getting in bed” with
members of The Chief’s personal staff, seeking to determine what sort of
language is most palatable, what kind of logic will be acceptable, and what
sort of study results are likely to please.ll
As the data begin to accumulate, the enormity of the task begins to become apparent. This brings about a crucial situation in the life of the committee. Some of the neophytes in committee procedure begin to make suggestions aimed at simplification of the problem, or streamlining of the study method. Others speak of the prospects of contracting the study, or at least part of it, to some outside agency. There is talk of getting more people, preferably from the organization’s lower echelons where workers are in greater abundance. And the most radical of all begin to espouse the point of view that perhaps everything should be thrown away in favor of a completely new approach to the problem.
A skilled chairman such as McBong is quick to sense such manifestations of insecurity, typical of a certain phase in most studies. And he is equally quick to take the necessary action. On the basis of a fictitious communication from The Chief, deadlines are tightened, and the entire study schedule is compressed. Then, in order to meet this “emergency,” working hours are changed to 12 on and 12 off, seven days a week.12
At about this point in time, the effort to obtain assistance from nationally recognized research organizations begins to payoff. The committee is visited by a number of eminent researchers, each of whom is given an eight hour briefing on the problem, the methodology, and the progress made to date. Almost without exception, the experts nod in acquiescence or make some innocuous suggestion regarding the method. And again without exception, they depart immediately after the briefing, leaving only their perfunctory expression of appreciation for having been “brought up to speed” on the study effort.
Once more, dissident voices arise from within the committee. Each visit
consumes the better part of a precious working day, and apparently yields
nothing constructive that can be used in the study. This is of course a
shortsighted view, for there could be no happier outcome than that which has
occurred. The experts, wise in the ways of committees, have done nothing to
further confuse the committee’s work. At the same time, they have by their very
presence-and their unwillingness to introduce something for which they might
later be blamed-put the chairman in a position where he can say that the best
brains in the country have reviewed the committee’s work and in no way disagree
with what it is doing.13
Some two weeks later, lightning strikes again. The decision point has been advanced. The committee, which was counting on another three months to complete its work, is now given only two weeks to finish the job. Working hours are increased to 16 a day, eight days a week, and even the group chiefs are forced to pitch in with the work. As the days go on, committee members become haggard, their wives become belligerent, and the secretaries threaten hourly to resign. But a strong chairman can pull a committee through difficult times, and McBong does. Exactly thirty minutes before the deadline, the final product is ready: eight handsomely bound volumes of material, each consisting of some 600 pages with a total of 3267 graphs and figures.
With appropriate pride, the study is delivered to the office of The Chief, and McBong calls a final meeting of the group for the following day.
Men, I’ve called you all together to compliment you on a job well done and to offer you my sincere appreciation for your faithful devotion to the organization, as evidenced by your labors over the past several months. I had thought that this would be our last meeting together, but it seems that it is not to be. As you know, our report was delivered to The Chief yesterday. He was most impressed by it-and, by the way, he also sends thanks and a hearty “Well done.” However, it seems that despite your valiant effort, we were overtaken by time. The crucial point in the decision process has passed, and we are now on a decisional plateau which will require no further action on the WINDUP-BINDUP matter for at least a year. In the meantime, The Chief has made the point-and it’s a very good point -that despite the excellence of our effort, our report represents only one of the several possible ways to study this problem. He has therefore directed that we go back into session, taking advantage of the decisional reprieve we have been given, and institute a full-blown study aimed at determining the most cost effective way to study the WINDUP-BINDUP problem. Men! Let’s give it our best!
Hq Strategic Air Command
Notes
1. The term “committee” should not be confused with “ad hoc group,” “study group,” or “working group.” While the latter two may be subunits of a committee, they do not themselves enjoy committee status. The term “study group” implies a small body working continuously, and the term “ad hoc” connotes limited objectives and temporary tenure. None of these things is true of a bona fide committee.
2. We shall ignore here the prospect that a committee’s work may not be satisfying to anyone.
3. If one encounters difficulty in reassigning personnel to groups with less prestige, it may be necessary to rename the functions. The committee will become the Steering Committee, and working groups may be called Study Committees. This is only a temporary solution, however, for in the interest of discipline it will sooner or later become necessary for the Steering Committee to make it clear that the Study Committees are really only working groups in disguise.
4. The problem of selecting committee members may be conveniently dropped at this point. After all, the selection of committee members is the responsibility of the chairman, and once he has been selected, we need have no further concern regarding membership.
5. This activity requires a very delicate sense of emotional rapport. What we are suggesting verges closely on what Abraham Lincoln once said could not be done-fooling all of the people all of the time. On the other hand, given the proper opportunity, it is not really difficult for the average committee member to maintain his sense of self-importance for quite long periods of time.
6. There is an additional benefit to this strategy. If the chairman should be queried by his boss regarding progress on the project, he can simply answer that the committee is working very hard on it-in fact, until seven or eight on Friday night. (Incidentally, in selecting a chairman, it might be well to look for a single man, or at least a man who doesn’t get along with his wife.)
7. Most of the group wouldn’t dare call him “Everett” to his face, and they have better names for him when his back is turned. However, it is a safe way for the chairman to extend a friendly democratic hand (again in the interest of the right image), for with the exception of a few colleagues chosen for the steering committee, it is unlikely that the group will ever see him again until the project is finished. By then, there will be little chance that anyone will want to become overly familiar with him.
8. With this little ploy, the chairman has made a couple of good points: (1) it is evident to the more sensitive members that despite the chairman’s words about friendly and informal relationships, this committee will not be a democracy, and (2) he, the chairman, is a close friend or colleague of The Chief and therefore a man of some importance. The first of these two lessons will be driven home when Eagen is appointed to a subgroup in charge of finding office space, obtaining supplies, and running errands for the committee proper.
9. Actually, it was Ed.
10. There will be those who will insist that she also be physically attractive. These individuals simply do not understand the problem. Where can one find a physically attractive female who can make good coffee and does not have some jealous male in hot pursuit of her?
11. The importance of this kind of activity is sometimes overlooked by inexperienced study groups. This is of course a mistake, for they stand in grave danger of wasting the committee’s time on a study which arrives at conclusions unacceptable to top management. Such committees are usually redesignated ad hoc groups and immediately disbanded.
12. This is known as the “transference process.” Members of the committee will no longer complain about the study; they will only complain about the hours.
13. There is a further benefit worth noting. As a result of having prepared the briefings, some committee members- certainly the briefers-are now familiar with what the committee thinks it is doing.
Robert L. Petersen (M.A., University of Miami) is Deputy Chief, Operations Analysis, Headquarters Strategic Air Command. After three years on the faculty of the University of Miami, teaching advanced statistical methods and experimental psychology, he accepted appointment as Chief, Research and Analysis, 3908th Strategic Evaluation Group, in 1954. He joined Operations Analysis, Hq SAC, in 1957 and became Chief of the Operational Capability Division in 1961. He was in Operations Analysis, Hq USAF, 1963-64, and then returned to SAC in his present position.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.
Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor