Air University Review, May-Jun 1971
A “BIT” in computer parlance is the smallest unit of information with which a computer operates. A “generation gap” is a concept not yet defined by Webster and for which an “understood meaning” has not been reached by consensus. Deductively then, this article contains a little bit about a subject too complex to understand—all of which doesn’t make a lot of sense until put into the frame of reference of the computer in the modern management environment And, in this management environment a “happening” is going on that needs to be examined.
The story is told of the young boy who wandered into a blacksmith shop and was immediately intrigued by the glowing, red-hot horseshoe being heated in the coals. The blacksmith instinctively cautioned the youngster not to touch the horseshoe. This only piqued the youngster’s curiosity. He picked up the horseshoe, and with lightning reaction he dropped it. To this the blacksmith chided, “Got burnt, didn’t ya?” After a moment’s reflection, the boy replied, “No, it just doesn’t take very long to look at a horseshoe.”
And so it is with the “management happening” we need to look at: it doesn’t take very long to realize that there is a message to be learned.
The Air Force is getting younger with each passing day; that is, the mean age of the average Air Force member is falling at a rapid pace. Yet we have as our senior management group personnel who entered the service during World War II and the Korean conflict. Relative to the computer, two distinct management groups have been generated. On one end of the spectrum is the young lieutenant or captain, by requirement a recent college graduate, who is most likely schooled formally in computer fundamentals and management-science techniques such as linear programming, multiple regression, modeling, and simulation. The epitome of this group can be seen as a young captain with a master’s degree in mathematics, econometrics, computer science, or operations research, assigned to the planning and analysis directorate of the Air Staff or major command headquarters. His objective is to use his “technological tools” to quantify and mathematically optimize information to help provide top-level management better intelligence as a basis for decision-making. He uses his slide rule, management-science techniques, and the computer simply as tools to help get the job done in an optimal fashion. Accordingly, this young specialist has been dubbed with such labels as “industrial carpetbagger,” “slide-rule weenie,” “whiz kid,” “technocrat,” etc. More important is the fact that this young technocrat has no hang-up about applying these modern management tools. It must also be remembered, however, that he doesn’t have the seasoned experience that our senior managers have in understanding and handling real-world practical problems. The senior traditional manager is a professional, too, additionally educated in the school of hard knocks.
Functionally, in our Air Force structure the technocrats, also known as systems analysts, have migrated to an analysis shop whose function it is to bring the services of the computer and the management-science techniques to the operational manager. The clustering of these technocrats has been brought about by their scarcity. The outside world provides salaries and opportunities that lure these young progressives from the Air Force ranks. The fallout of this situation is that we have both the technocrats and the traditional managers in our managerial environment—the usual ingredients for a generation gap.
I mentioned that the concept of a “generation gap” is not universally defined or understood. Within the environment of modern technology, it seems to be a communication gap. Behavioral scientists tell us that learning or perception operates as follows:
P = E + S
where P is perception, E is experiences of a lifetime, and S is the stimulus of the moment. Because the traditional manager and the technologist have entirely different lifetime experiences, the experience factor is different in the perception formula, and consequently the two do not perceive or view solutions in the same light. Hence, a generation or communication gap. A useful computer product is the result of a collaborative effort on the part of the manager and the technologist. When they do not perceive a situation in the same light, they cannot communicate with each other and utilize their respective talents to provide an optimal practical solution.
Eventually, these young technocrats will migrate up the organizational ladder, learn “traditional management” by experience, and fill the shoes of the managers they are serving today. When this happens, we will no longer have a communication gap because the manager of the future will be a crossbreed between the technologist and the traditional manager as we know him today. However, this will take at least a decade or more What do we do about our problem today?
The solution lies, for the interim period, in neutralizing the E (experiences of a lifetime) factor in our perception formula. If both manager and technologist have the same experiences from which to depart, perception will be, at least academically, the same for both; or, in practical terms, they will use the same techniques in making decisions.
Equalizing the E factor is no small chore. Perfect equalization is impossible. However, the wide range of the E factor provides a spread that can be reduced considerably. From the technologist’s or systems analyst’s point of view, he must realize that the manager is as much a professional as he is. The manager may not have a “professional language” such as computerese with all its buzz words and acronyms, and he doesn’t have a bookcase full of technical journals describing his profession, but he does have modern management theories in his discipline, such as Management by Objectives, Participative Management, and Decision Theory. He studies behavioral science and is concerned with sensitivity training, motivation, job fulfillment, and job stretching. He has his apostles in the likes of Peter Drucker, Rensis Likert, Saul Gellerman, and George Odiorne. The technologist needs to bring his E factor closer to the manager’s by self-education in management concepts.
The senior manager, unfortunately, has the hardest row to hoe. Before we suggest how he brings the E factor closer to that of the systems analyst, let’s clarify one point. The traditional manager is not to be blamed for misunderstanding or not understanding the potential of modern management’s technological tools. The computer was born during his generation. He was never formally schooled in the “new math,” the management-science techniques, or the computer.
The affluent management world of today is deeply involved in change. This change was brought about by a population explosion, a knowledge explosion, social change, economic uncertainty, world political unrest, and technological progress. The manager surely has his hands full putting out the fires caused by the interactions of these changes. To ask him now to become a “technological expert” is perhaps asking a great deal. However, it is the manager who can cope with change that will survive to fill the plush seats of the future front office.
Many senior Air Force managers seem to believe that they can sneak out the back door of their careers before the computer catches up with them. This is shortsighted for two reasons. First, the manager who buries his head in the sand of the past will not see the adaptive, responsive manager pass him by as be progresses up the organizational ladder. And second, when the Air Force manager leaves the Air Force, he usually slips into the management environment of the outside world, which is even more involved with the computer and the management sciences. Unfortunately for him, the technological problem will not go away. It must be mastered.
Now, the big question. How do we get the manager’s E factor to associate with the technological concepts that the technocrat espouses? No matter how you slice it, it requires training or education. The manager must understand how a computer operates and what it is capable of producing. This removes the mystique in which managers often like to enshroud the computer. It also has a spin-off effect. There is no better way to put a systems analyst—impressed with his trade and generous with its computer jargon—in his place than by throwing some computerese back at him. It makes the analyst aware that he is not impressing anybody and that he is talking to someone who is not going to buy everything lock, stock, and barrel just because it is associated with the glamorous computer.
Besides understanding the computer, the manager must understand the working logic of the management sciences. This does not mean that he must become a statistician, a linear programmer, an expert in mathematical modeling and simulation, or an expert in program evaluation and review technique (PERT). It does mean that he must have a logical understanding and conversational knowledge of these techniques and be able to understand and use them.
How, then, does the manager educate himself in the computer and the management-science techniques? There are two avenues:
(1) formal Air Force educational programs and (2) off-duty education, both formal and self-taught.
The Air Force has more than 1200 computers in its inventory, dedicated to serving all functional areas of management. Purchase and rental costs of hardware, plus the cost of software development (programs that run the computers), are rising at a tremendous rate. The Air Force budgeted in excess of $421 million in FY 1970 to support its computer operations. Some 27,000 Air Force personnel are directly involved with the computer. Yet training programs to teach managers how to utilize the potential of this expensive resource are very slim; the professional education program of the Air-Force—Squadron Officer School, Air Command and Staff College, and Air War College—provides only a token orientation in this area.
If one were to speculate as to what will have the greatest impact on management philosophy and operation in the next decade, it most likely would be the computer and the management-science techniques. The Air Force professional schools provide an initial but disproportionately brief coverage of this most important area. Computer electives are currently available in the Air War College and the Air Command and Staff College. Attendees should avail themselves of all opportunities in this area, to include writing theses on computer and management-science applications. Additionally, the Department of Defense Computer Institute provides excellent courses. Unfortunately, these formal schools are attended by a very small percentage of Air Force managers.
The “on-the-job” manager must therefore resort to self-education. This can be accomplished through off-duty formal college courses or through home reading. The computer has been with us long enough that some excellent books have been written on the computer and the management-science techniques that are management-oriented and written in layman’s terms. Periodicals such as Datamation, Business Automation, Fortune, etc., have excellent articles to help bring management up to speed. Of course management must exercise self-discipline if it is to devote some of that precious and scarce leisure time to learning what it is all about.
Our affluent management environment is getting so complex that the days of decision-making by intuition or seat-of-the-pants induction are gone forever. The number of interacting variables associated with our problems is so great that one “management mind” can no longer comprehend all the relationships and intelligently predict the outcome of a decision. The computer as an extension of the manager’s mind and the management-science techniques as mathematical optimizers and synthesizers of data are no longer luxuries. They are management’s guarantee of survival.
Air University Institute for
Professional Development
Major Eugene P. Wagner (M.S., Texas A & M University) is Chief, Management Information Systems Division, Professional Personnel Management Course, Institute for Professional Development, Air University. A SAC navigator, he has worked in personnel in SAC and Thirteenth Air Force, Philippines. Major Wagner was a systems analyst in the Personnel Directorate of the Air Staff, where he received extensive IBM and RCA training.
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