Air University Review, May-June 1969
Some of the current management and organization theory is directly concerned with the growth and development of people and with the organizational conditions that foster or inhibit this growth. This body of theory has particular relevance to the United States Air Force. Since much current management and organization theory is based on more general psychological concepts, what I have to say will be clearer if I begin with a couple of these concepts.
There was a long period of time when most psychologists conceived of human beings as motivated solely by their need to reduce tension or discomfort. For example, man has a need to eat, and if not served in a reasonable period of time, this need leads to tension or discomfort; the man is thus motivated to get food in order to reduce this discomfort. At one time all of man’s behavior was explained according to this concept and in terms of the tension-reduction model of motivation. This model pictures man as a creature who seeks to maintain a state of equilibrium through reduction of incoming stimuli; i.e., with this model man is seen as an organism that is characterized primarily by avoidance of discomfort.
However, during the last several decades psychologists have found more and more evidence that leads us to believe that the tension reduction model, while correct, explains only a part of human behavior. Some human behavior seems to be of a tension-seeking rather than a tension-reducing nature. That is, in some situations the healthy human organism seems to be characterized by a kind of approach behavior, as opposed to avoidance, in which he is seeking to increase the amount of tension (stimulation) that he is experiencing. In such situations man is often trying to learn or grow in competence, i.e., he is seeking challenge. It is this kind of behavior which we will be discussing in this article—man’s need to “self-actualize”! or fulfill his potentialities, to become the most that he is capable of.
Let us first discuss the ways in which men want to grow and develop and then examine the structure of formal organizations, such as the Air Force, to see whether they foster or inhibit growth and development.
man’s growth toward independence
For our purposes, let us define man’s growth as “movement in the direction of the fulfillment of his potential.” Then a prerequisite to an understanding of the concept of growth is an answer to the question, What are man’s potentials? It is certainly not within the scope of this article to delineate a complete answer to this question; but by making use of a system developed by Chris Argyris, I will attempt to outline a general conception of the continua along which man develops his potentials.2 Argyris’s work is a particularly good choice for our purposes here for at least three reasons. First, it should be generally representative, since it constitutes a confluence of the work of many other theorists from whom Argyris has drawn, including Erikson, Brofenbrenner, White, Lewin, and Rogers.3 Second, it is very clearly organized and stated. Third, and perhaps most important, it is particularly relevant to the Air Force because Argyris later applies it to formal, structured organizations.
Argyris views man’s growth as consisting of a group of developmental trends:
(1) a tendency to develop from a state
of passivity as an infant to a state of increasing activity as an adult,
(2) a tendency to develop from a
state of dependence on the environment as the determiner of behavior to a state
of independence of such influences,
(3) a tendency to develop from
being capable of behaving in only a few ways to being capable of behaving in
many different ways,
(4) a tendency to develop from
having erratic, quickly dropped interests to having deeper interests,
(5) a tendency to develop from
having a short time perspective to having a much longer time perspective,
(6) a tendency to develop from
being in a subordinate position in the family and society to aspiring to occupy
an equal or even superordinate position,
(7) a tendency to develop from a
lack of awareness of self to an awareness of self and control over self, i.e.,
control over the outcome of one’s effort through self-determination.4
The central idea running through all these trends is development from passive dependence to active independence with respect to the environment. This point should be obvious in numbers 1, 2, 6, and 7. Number 3 implies independence through developing competence5 or mastery over the environment. Number 4 implies independence through development of more permanent involvements that are less subject to changing environmental conditions. Number 5 also implies independence through development toward a state of being less time-bound and, thus, less dependent on present environmental circumstances. Argyris is certainly not alone in this emphasis. Many other theorists have also emphasized the importance of growth toward independence and autonomy in man’s development: for example, Erikson, Allport, Adler, Murray, Rogers, Horney, Freud, and Jung.6 More recently (1966), Herzberg also emphasizes that growth toward independence is man’s natural bent when he writes, “One of the highest levels of psychological growth is becoming an individual-desocializing and separating the individual from his environment, as his organic condition suggests is a natural thing to do.”7 Thus a major theme in this body of theory is that man desires growth in the direction of increased independence and autonomy. In order to relate this concept to the job situation, we must examine the importance of work as a vehicle to growth.
the importance of work to growth
What is the role and importance of work in man’s growth and development? For purposes of this discussion, “work” means a meaningful task (i.e., meaningful to the worker) that provides him an opportunity to achieve psychological growth, to become more competent.
Gurin, Veroff, and Field concluded their nationwide survey of Americans development:
Much of man’s life is spent at his job. Potentially, a man’s work may be the focus of his identity, his social status and prestige, his feelings of masculinity, worth and competence.8
Thus, a man’s work is very often the vehicle through which he must achieve his independence, his competence, and his growth. We in the Western Hemisphere have made meaningful work increasingly important feelings of independence by placing heavy emphasis on a man’s job as a measure of worth of the man. The widespread degeneration of the self-concept of the American Negro male (which has resulted in large part from his extremely limited job opportunities) attests to this fact. Thus, work comes to mean “having a purpose, gaining a sense of accomplishment expressing oneself.”9 Without the opportunity to experience such feelings, it will be difficult or impossible for an individual to grow towards independence. I am not saying that work is the only route to growth, but in our industrialized culture, work is likely to be the best way for an individual to gain a sense of accomplishment, express himself, and achieve a feeling of independence and autonomy. Harry Levinson has said, “Work becomes a fundamental resource, something to hold onto as long as possible. It is a psychological give which often holds a man together.”l0
The fact that many individuals spend a sizable portion of their lives in educating themselves to work is an important consideration in the relationship of work to growth. During these years of preparation, the individual has presumably acquired considerable potential, which he hopes to utilize. If he is not given an opportunity to do so, we may assume that this potential will not be fully developed and that the individual’s growth will be blocked. What conditions might cause this blocking to occur? The most likely reason would be that the individual finds himself in an environment which provides no opportunity to develop his independence and autonomy, an environment which provides no vehicle for growth.
Is it not possible that formally structured bureaucratic organizations (e.g., the U.S. Air Force) tend to inhibit man’s development toward independence by providing no vehicle for growth?
growth and the modern formal organization
For purposes of the article, growth is considered a kind of definition of mental health in the sense that mentally healthy people are growing in the direction of independence and autonomy. Let us presume that organizations want their people to be mentally healthy and that there will be some generally accepted idea in an organization of what “healthy” behavior is like. I think there is an implicit assumption in our modern formal organizations that mentally healthy behavior is embodied in the ability to adjust to one’s environment, and I think this assumption has led to inadequate opportunities for growth and development of men on their jobs. I say this because “growth” as I use the term here and “adjustment” as it is thought of in formal organizations are completely contradictory ideas.
In the context of the formal organization, the “good” employee is the one who most closely fulfills his job specifications and job description, and the requirements of the task become the major criterion for judging the worth of the individual. To the degree that an employee conforms to the requirements of the job or “adjusts” to the situation, he is “job adjusted.” If he is unable or unwilling to fulfill the requirements, he is “maladjusted to the job.”
It is generally assumed that it is the employee’s responsibility to adjust to conditions as he finds them. Admittedly, management has been devoting a tremendous amount of time and money to providing a more comfortable environment—witness the human relations movement. But this movement itself is a result of management’s desire to change people’s attitudes, sell them free enterprise, and make them more interested in the organization. That is, even these human relations gestures are attempts at inducing the employee to adjust to his work environment. If we apply this practice to the Air Force (and my observations lead me to believe that it applies quite well), I would say that the man who is valued as a “good” Air Force man is one who meets the requirements of his position by adjusting as necessary. That sounds very positive, but what is implied is that the man is expected to accept conditions as he finds them and somehow mold himself to conform to these requirements.
In business and industry, studies of middle management executives (who correspond roughly to majors and lieutenant colonels) show that the ability to adjust to company requirements, to be a “good soldier, a loyal, hard-working company man,” is considered very important by most organizations.11 I am suggesting that the tendency of the organization to require people to adjust to conditions as they find them, to do things according to rules and regulations, and to function within the somewhat narrow confines of their position descriptions runs counter to their healthy development toward independence and growth. I am also suggesting that this problem is a direct result of the formality of the organizational structure. Again, we can refer to Argyris’s work for an explanation of this point.
Argyris feels that “the most basic property of formal organization is its logical foundation or, as it has been called by students of administration, its essential rationality.”12 The organization has been conceived and built to serve the intended purpose of its creators, and, as Argyris points out:
The underlying assumption made by the creators of formal organizations is that man, within respectable tolerances, will behave rationally, i.e., as the formal plan requires him to behave.13
Argyris feels that this creates an inherent conflict between the needs of the individual and those of the organization. That is, since the organization requires that the man be dependent and his natural tendency is toward independence, a conflict results.
Ohlin feels that, through sheer size and complexity, organizations often require their members to become increasingly dependent on one another for the achievement of personal and organizational success. He feels that such dependency is inherent in large organizations because of the principles by which they are constructed.14 Some of the basic principles of formal organization that have application in the Air Force are:
(1) Chain of command. This
is the “leadership” principle that is utilized to give control, direction, and
coordination to the organization members. It creates a directive hierarchy of
authority. This principle is, of course, basic to all military organizations.
(2) Task specialization.
This is the principle that organizational and administrative efficiency is
increased by the breaking down of tasks into well-defined, repetitive elements.
It has led, in its most extreme application, to the automobile production line.
It is widely used in the Air Force.
(3) Unity of direction.
This is a logical derivative of the task specialization principle, i.e., it
dictates that each unit shall have a single activity (or homogeneous set of
activities) that is planned and directed by the leader. In the Air Force, this
is expressed as the “mission” of a unit.
(4) Span of control. This
principle states that maximum administrative efficiency can be maintained by
organizing the work force in such a way that no more than five or six members
report to a supervisor. This leads to a very “tall” organization, having many
levels of authority, which is descriptive of the Air Force.
According to Argyris:
If the formal organization is defined by the use of such organizational principles as task specialization, unity of direction, chain of command, and span of control, and if these principles are used correctly, the employees will work in situations in which they tend to be dependent, subordinate, and passive toward the leader.15
I have certainly seen many Air Force officers behave in this way in the presence of their superior officers. It is obvious that these principles offer the worker very little control over his working environment. Super discusses the importance of such control to a man’s feelings of independence, pointing out that to any man, whether in a factory or an office, independence means freedom to control the pace of work, freedom from close supervision, and freedom to express opinions concerning the work being done or to be done.16
the blocking of growth
One of the most damaging results of the use of these principles of organization is that the roles which people are required to fill are very clearly defined in terms of the behavior called for. Willis has called this process of standardization of behavior “psychomation.”17 He points out that if psychomation were carried to its logical extreme, the individuals occupying the various positions in the organization would make no unique or special contributions and individuality would be diminished to the vanishing point. He concludes that, with complete psychomation, if we make the assumption that all members of the group are equally capable of playing any role, there will be perfect interchangeability among individuals. Willis obviously does not believe that this will ever happen, but he does make the point that psychomation, in its milder forms, is common in formal organizations. And he observes that “the conforming, dependent Yesman is the preferred type in such situations.”18 Once again, I have observed this to be true of many situations in the Air Force.
Thus, the overdefinition of roles through the use of formal organization principles leads to partial utilization of abilities and, thus, to the blocking of growth.
Gillespie has suggested that the roots of these organizational principles can be traced back to the basic economic assumption that “the concentration of effort on a limited field of endeavor increases quality and quantity of output.”19 Herzberg traces the “system of utilizing only the lowest common denominator in the catalogue of ability” to FrederickTaylor’s theory of scientific management. 20 Herzberg suggests that the essence of industrial engineering, which is the basic discipline of scientific management, is to remove the effects of one of the most important laws of psychology, the law of individual differences. That is, industrial engineering assumes that the most efficient procedure for organizing work is to structure and limit the task performed by each man so as to reduce both the possibility of error and the cost of training and retraining. Herzberg says the result of “using only the minimum in a man’s repertory of behavior was, in a sense, the amputation of the rest of his capabilities.”21
Argyris has been very much concerned with his findings that organizations tend to allow employees to use very few of their abilities. He also finds that those abilities which are used tend to be the ones with limited potential for providing a feeling of accomplishment and success. He writes:
Most human problems in organizations arise because relatively healthy people in our culture are asked to participate in work situations which coerce them to be dependent, subordinate, submissive and to use few of their more skin-surface abilities. 22
Ohlin agrees that human problems are multiplied in situations where the division of labor and specialization of tasks are greatest. White has suggested the importance to man of what he calls the “competence” motive or the need to achieve mastery over the environment, to become competent at a task. It is obvious that this motive is receiving very little attention in situations like that I have described. These authors point out that many formal bureaucratic organizations have structured jobs in such a way that there is little or no opportunity for the employees to “grow,” to be independent and autonomous, and to develop their potential by using all their abilities.
Argyris suggests that as we go down the chain of command we may expect to find less and less opportunity for independence, growth, and autonomy. He asserts that at all levels, particularly the lower ones, “healthy individuals will tend to have their self-actualization blocked or inhibited because of the demands of the formal organization.”23
effects on personnel
What are the results of this blocking of self-actualization? What happens to people whose natural potentials are not allowed to develop? One thing that happens is that they leave the organization. I believe that the retention problem in the Air Force can be traced in large part to the problem I have been describing. Morse suggests that there are two other possible avenues to be taken by a man who has certain aspirations that are not fulfilled by his environment over an extended period of time. First, he may continue to aspire and actively seek those objectives he has always held (i.e., he may continue to seek independence and growth), in which case he will not make such a good “adjustment” on the job. His other alternative is to resign himself and turn to other or more modest aspirations, in which case he will presumably eventually become well “adjusted” to the job situation.24 Argyris suggests that such resignation often takes the form of an increased emphasis on the monetary return for work. That is, although he feels that the employee is still a complex organism seeking growth, he says:
It is precisely because he is not permitted truly to actualize his potential that he makes a decision to “simplify” his personality, making money and other material factors most important. 25
Thus, another result of the blocking of growth may be an increasing tendency on the part of some of the people to emphasize the environmental aspects of their work situation to the exclusion of satisfaction derived from the performance of the task itself. Many of the people (particularly those to whom independence is especially important) will experience a great deal of frustration if their needs for growth are not met by their jobs. This will be true in jobs which are repetitive and/or in which required rules and procedures restrict an individual’s opportunity for independent decision-making. As a result of this frustration people often begin to be more demanding concerning the conditions under which they are required to work. They are saying, in effect, “If you can’t give me something interesting and challenging to do, at least make me comfortable while I’m being bored.”
Demands to be made more comfortable may take many forms. They may be expressed in terms of demands for improvements in actual physical working conditions, such as improved working hours, better lighting, or better heating and cooling. They may also take the form of requests for more money (i.e., “reimburse me for my frustrations”). Sometimes this tendency takes the form of increasing emphasis on the social aspects of the job situation; the man may begin to consider it more and more important to establish and maintain good interpersonal relationships with others. Lieutenant Colonel Robert Drumm has suggested that this may be particularly true of the “older generation” of Air Force officers.26 If an individual’s task does not afford him some satisfaction, he will look for satisfaction in the environment in which he performs the unstimulating task; and since a comfortable environment does not give a feeling of accomplishment (which is what he really wants), his demands will be insatiable.
A number of studies have found that long-term blocking of growth often results in employees’ losing initiative and becoming passive, dependent, and resigned to their fate. Ghiselli, for example, found that initiative among line workers dropped off sharply with increasing age.27 Chinoy also found that as workers get older they realize there is no future for them, begin to accept their fate, and cease fighting the job.28 I believe that what happens is that they just plain get tired of “fighting the system,” succumb to the endless regimentation and bureaucracy, and look elsewhere for their satisfactions in life. Such people are not very productive workers and are certainly not happy, fulfilled individuals.
What can be done?
I have suggested that highly structured formal organizations often lead to tasks which people find uninteresting and unchallenging and that this situation may lead them to leave the organization or, if they stay, to place increased emphasis on material rewards and conditions surrounding their tasks and ultimately to poor work performance.
The task of improving work performance and, at the same time, contributing to the employees’ feelings of satisfaction and accomplishment is a very difficult one. However, current research and application in the behavioral sciences can provide some answers. A clue to the answer may be seen in a slight modification of the oft-quoted phrase, “Any job worth doing is worth doing well.” If we change it to read, “Any job not worth doing is not worth doing well,” we may understand why poor work performance is so often obtained on uninteresting jobs. It seems quite unreasonable to me to provide a man a boring, repetitious, or unchallenging task and then expect him to put forth maximum effort in carrying it out. His thought must be, “It’s not worth doing, so why do it well?”
I do not mean to imply that this is the case with most of the men and jobs in the Air Force, but I think we can be certain that it is true of many. Most efforts to remedy this situation, both in and out of the Air Force, take the form of improving the conditions surrounding the task. That is, we try to offer people improved working conditions, security, perhaps some status, etc., in the hope that they won’t notice that their tasks are still boring and unchallenging. Such attempts generally result in short-term improvement in productivity and attitude, but the situation returns rather quickly to normal.
The solution lies in the realization that it is the task itself which needs to be changed. If a man doesn’t like the lighting in the room where he works, improve the lighting; but if he doesn’t like doing the task he is assigned, don’t expect better lighting to make him like it more. He may be able to see it better, but he will not like doing it any more than he did before. You have got to make the task more interesting.
It is man’s inherent need to grow and develop toward independence that we must serve when we attempt to make his task more interesting. This has been done by building into tasks more opportunities for people to achieve, to gain recognition for that achievement, to be responsible (i.e., make decisions), and to learn new skills.29 When we have provided such opportunities in jobs, the results have been that job performance improved and the people involved were much happier with their jobs. In the studies we have been of lasting duration.
This approach, which is called job enrichment, is not the answer to all management problems, and it is certainly not the only valuable concept that current behavioral science thinking has to offer. It does, however, provide a viable answer to the particular problem we have been discussing here, i.e., poor work performance and job attitude resulting from over-structured situations. Colonel Drumm implies that this may be an increasingly serious problem in the Air Force with the expanding “generation and value gap.” He suggests that this need to grow and develop in competence may be more important than ever to the young officers now entering the Air Force, and I agree with him. If we are correct, the ability of the Air Force to provide meaningful, challenging assignments for these men may make the crucial difference between their being retained or being lost to the Air Force.
Cleveland, Ohio
Notes
1. A. H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954).
2. Chris Argyris, “The Individual and Organizational Structure,” American Management Association Personnel Service, 1956, 168, 3-11; Personality and Organization (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957); “Individual Actualization in Complex Organizations,” Mental Hygiene, 1960, 44, 226-37; Integrating the Individual and the Organization (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964).
3. Argyris, Personality and Organization, pp. 50-51.
4. Ibid.
5. R. White, “Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Competence,” Psychological Review, 1959, 66 (5), 297-333.
6. E. H. Erikson, “Identity and the Life Cycle,” Psychological Issues, 1959, 1, 796-815; G. W. Allport, Becoming (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955); A. Adler, The Practice and Theory of Individual Psychology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1927); H. A. Murray, et al., Explorations in Personality (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1938); C. R. Rogers, Counseling and Psychotherapy: Newer Concepts in Practice (Boston: Houghton Miffin Co., 1942); Karen Homey, Neurosis and Human Growth (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1950); S. Freud, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works, ed. J. Strachey (London: Hogarth Press, 1953); C. G. Jung, Collected Works, Vol. 17, “The Development of Personality” (London: Kegan Paul, 1954).
7. F. Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man (New York: World Publishing Co., 1966), p. 67.
8. Gerald Gurin, et al., Americans View Their Mental Health (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1960).
9. Nancy C. Morse and Robert S. Weiss, “The Function Meaning of Work and the Job,” American Sociological Review, 1955, 20, 191-98.
10. Harry Levinson, “What Work Means to a Man,” Menninger Quarterly, 1964, 18, 1-11.
11. Robert N. McMurry, “Manhunt for Top Executives,” Harvard Business Review, 1954, 32, 54.
12. Argyris, Personality and Organization, p. 54.
13. Ibid.
14. Lloyd E. Ohlin, “Conformity in American Society Today,” Social Work, 1958, 3, 58-66.
15. Argyris, Personality and Organization, p. 77.
16. Donald E. Super, The Psychology of Careers (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957).
17. Richard H. Willis, “The Yes Man, the No Man, and the Thinking Man,” Personnel Administration, 1964, 27 (6), 6-12.
18. Ibid., p. 8.
19. James J. Gillespie, Free Expression in Industry (London: The Pilot Press, Ltd., 1948), p. 34.
20. Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man, p. 36.
21. Ibid.
22. Argyris, “Individual Actualization . . . ,” p. 228.
23. Argyris, Personality. . . , p. 76.
24. Nancy C. Morse, Satisfactions in the White Collar Job (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1953).
25. Argyris, “Individual Actualization. . . ,” p. 235.
26. Robert H. Drumm, “The Air Force Man and the Cultural Value Gap,” Air University Review, XIX, 4 (May-June 1968), 42-51.
27. E. E. GhiseIli, “Correlates of Initiative,” Personnel Psychology, 1956, 9, 311-20.
28. Ely Chinoy, Automobile Workers and the American Dream (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1955).
29. Herzberg, “One More Time: How Do You Motivate Your Employees?” Harvard Business Review, 1968, 46, 53-62.
Dr. David A. Whitsett (Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University) is Assistant Professor of Psychology at that university. He has served as lecturer and consultant to numerous business, industrial, and educational organizations (including Air University’s Institute for Professional Development) on motivational and management problems and the contributions of behavioral science in solving them. He has been staff psychologist with Psychological Research Services, Cleveland, Ohio. He is author of two recent articles on motivational theory in Personnel Psychology.
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