Document created: 5 November 2003
Air University Review, September-October 1974
In the recent past there has been a succession of writers offering new management techniques with the apparent objective of putting down the “old days.” These experts generally have no real experience in personnel supervision, but they do have a wealth of theories gained through academic endeavors. One assumption these new management theorists make is that authoritarian methods and capricious behavior used to be the way supervisors operated. The fallacious assumption that the man in charge had unlimited and unquestioned authority is a fair indication of the lack of perspective on the part of persons new to the realities of supervision. The propensity of “enlightened” writers to reinvent the management wheel is evident in most of these literary efforts.
During the past fifty years social changes and technological advances have impacted heavily on military and business activities. This has resulted in many different approaches to participative management, with great emphasis being placed on the art of persuasion. Evidently, a theory has developed that assumes changing technology also has caused a significant evolution in mankind. So many names have been given to leadership and so many management techniques have been offered that new managers become confused when they assume responsibility.
The supervisor-subordinate situation always depends on the application of the personality of the person in charge to motivate the people being directed. Poorly directed, unhappy employees simply cannot function effectively. Supervisors who do not recognize their own limitations, balanced with employees’ needs, usually stumble along hypnotized by their own genius, probably never realizing that they offend subordinates when they ignore the fact that most people work for them out of economic necessity. It is easy to convince yourself that you are as good a manager as you wish you were. There is plenty of evidence that lack of leadership ability is no bar to advancement. Therefore, assignment as the boss is not necessarily a credential of leadership.
Principles of management for supervisors and prospective managers are taught at nearly every organizational level. This educational process usually is concerned with advice to prospective supervisors regarding the functions of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling an enterprise of one kind or another. How to manage is supposed to be the substance of these courses. In addition, numerous books and articles have been written regarding human relations and how to get along with subordinates. Management programs become complicated because we attempt to tell managers how to do things. The trouble with this approach is that an unlimited number of things can be done, and the variety of ways to do things is practically unlimited. Reams of paper can be written, and proposals can be expounded to infinity.
It seems to me that we should take the principles of management and apply them within certain constraints. If management is looked at from a historical standpoint, one revealing conclusion can be reached: When God handed down the law to Moses, He placed great emphasis on what the people should not do. If we establish a few “thou shalt nots,” we give the manager a framework designed to avoid dissension within his organization. It is impossible to legislate intelligence, but it is possible to prevent managers from inadvertently destroying their organization by use of some simple “thou shalt not” rules.
Three basic rules are offered by which a supervisor can evaluate his own performance and give his subordinates some methods of operation that may achieve organizational objectives without unnecessary conflict. These three “thou shalt nots” do not limit the ability of managers to function. Rather, they give some evaluation criteria for the manager’s protection, his subordinates’ peace of mind, and their combined ability to achieve mission objectives.
The three “thou shalt nots” are as follows:
(1) Thou shalt not tell subordinates how to do their jobs except in training situations.
(2) Thou shalt not violate the organizational structure.
(3) Thou shalt not emphasize specific behavior traits.
If the manager looks at his position and the positions of his subordinates in the light of these few constraints, he has an excellent chance for success.
Most people want to do a good job. They need the satisfaction that comes from being given a task and being permitted to do it without being analyzed every step of the way. Once an organization is established, a real leader simply permits people to accomplish their work (in their own area) and does not attempt to reorganize around individuals or add additional tasks simply because the leader has the authority to do so. Organizational structures are important to subordinates, and they should be important to managers. The use of specific evaluation criteria places undue emphasis on behavior patterns and causes people to respond in the terms by which they are judged. If a supervisor emphasizes certain personal traits, behavior becomes more important than mission accomplishment.
If you tell a man what to do, he usually will get the job done, but if you tell him what to do and how to do it, you invariably run into an element of resistance and a communication difficulty that is frustrating not only to persons being supervised but to the supervisor himself. One of the greatest assets a leader can possess is the ability to allow his subordinates to do their jobs in their own way. If the supervisor can keep his people working in the job for which they were employed and refrain from directing the way they do their jobs, loyalty, conscientious application, and real accomplishment will probably be the result. You cannot order anyone to love you or respect you. You can only give him the sense of dignity that comes with your expression of confidence that is shown in your ability to let him perform.
The story of the football coach whose quarterback was not performing the way the coach thought he should emphasizes this point. During a losing game the coach called the quarterback to the sidelines and said, “It’s now second down, and we’re on our own 10-yard line. I want you to do exactly as I tell you for the next three plays. Run with the ball on the next play, throw a forward pass on the third down, and punt on the fourth down.” The quarterback then followed his coach’s instructions to the letter. On the next play he carried the ball for a 40-yard gain. On the second play he threw a forward pass, which was caught by a tight end who was tackled on the 1-yard line. The quarterback then punted the ball. The coach ran on the field and said, “What the hell were you thinking about?” The quarterback replied, “I was thinking I had a pretty stupid coach.”
Every supervisor has subordinates, they really are people, and they all have feelings. If you want to damage morale and efficiency, just harp on how to do the job. This gives subordinates the impression that you have no confidence in them and that you think you know more about their tasks than they do. When you tell people how to do their jobs, when to go one place or another, and what to do with their time, they invariably develop an intense dislike for the organization and the supervisor. We can demand organizational loyalty, sing the company song, dress in the company uniform, and memorize the company slogan without risk, but when we begin to pick at the way people do what they know they should do, we destroy initiative, ingenuity, and the willingness to support the organization.
In an era of specialization, many managers pride themselves on their detailed knowledge of activities under their supervision. Depending on the level of supervision, of course, it is not always necessary for the supervisor to have an intimate knowledge of every facet of all operations under his control; besides, the very human tendency to offer advice is often misinterpreted as orders concerning how to do a job. The words of former Secretary of Defense Robert A. Lovett are well worth remembering in this context:
Keep me from the fatal habit of thinking I must say something on every subject. Release me from craving to straighten out everyone’s affairs. With my vast store of wisdom and experience, it seems a pity not to use it all, but thou knowest, Lord, that I want a few friends at the end.
Whatever the job may be, no one appreciates having someone else do it for him or criticize the way it is done. It may seem fashionable—and safe—to attack functional areas other than one’s own or offer “how to” advice. However, if everyone rows on his side of the boat and in his own place at the oarlock, there is a good chance that the boat will travel forward at a reasonable rate. The supervisor is then responsible for steering the boat. When the manager permits one person to do another’s job and causes people to cross lines of functional responsibilities, though, it soon becomes evident that there simply is not enough room for everyone to paddle on the same side of the boat.
Organizational structures generally are a good thing. The director or supervisor who feels compelled to assign individuals to special projects or organize working groups and committees when he already has the organizational structure to accomplish the job is doomed to lose the support of his staff and create dissension within the organization. A difficulty with much top-level management is that some managers choose to ignore their own organizational structure by using expediency as an excuse.
A kind of disregard for channels of authority that has an extremely detrimental effect on morale and discipline is a supervisor’s use of the so-called “open door” policy. Contrasted with the “olden days” when the chain of command was scrupulously adhered to, the recent open-door practice dangerously erodes the authority of middle managers and confuses not only the workers but all levels of subordinate supervision. The most flagrant violations of organizational structure stem from top managers who seek out complaints and encourage individuals to bring problems to them personally for instant solution. The supervisor who dips his oar into the responsibility ocean of subordinate managers by generating complaint sessions and visiting workers on the job, with the apparent objective of countermanding the orders of middle-management, effectively undercuts all levels of supervision within his organization. The moment workers discover that they have easy access to the top man, with the added knowledge that he will “straighten things out,” intermediate supervisors are placed in the defensive position of responding to orders only. The boss then loses the willing support of his intermediate supervisors, destroys initiative, and creates workloads at the expense of mission objectives.
Nor should the energy and personality traits of individuals overshadow the functional responsibilities with which they are charged. All of us have seen organizations where one functional area is more important than others in the eyes of the manager because of the personality of the man in charge of that function. Supervisors must be acutely aware of this fact. Simply because a man is particularly capable should not be an excuse to permit him to do someone else’s job (dip his oar into someone else’s ocean). This guideline must be adhered to if positive results are to be expected.
The supervisor who will not permit subordinates to question decisions in their functional area will develop an organization of “yes men.” Many an organization has a system of evaluation and a promotion procedure that a reasonably bright person can cope with if he applies a few techniques that adhere to the personal viewpoints of his superior. The way to advance is to follow the party line and always agree with the boss. A person need not necessarily give up his integrity in order to be promoted, but parroting policy statements is politically expedient. If we are aware that most management techniques do not really consider subordinate employees as people but merely as tools through which personal objectives and organizational goals are achieved, we can modify our own behavior. Once this is recognized, supervisors must perform within a framework of constraints. Because management trainees are taught to avoid all negative aspects of personal relationships, we place undue emphasis on the art of persuasion. It is my opinion that how a manager looks at himself is important, but it is even more important that he try to realize how he appears to others.
If supervisors at all organizational levels made decisions within the framework of three simple constraints, we could avoid situations that now appear to cause a work discontent unknown in the past. Managers must emphasize effort that advances organizational goals and yet is within given constraints:
· Don’t tell people how to do their jobs.
· Don’t violate the organizational structure or permit the structure to be violated.
· Don’t place emphasis on methods when evaluating performance.
Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee
Colonel William I. Truesdell was Base Commander, Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tennessee, on his retirement, September 1974. He served as pilot instructor in T-33, T-39, and T-37 aircraft; commander of squadrons at Williams AFB, Arizona; personnel staff officer, Hq USAF; Assitant Deputy Commander for Operations, Andrews AFB, Maryland; Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Hq TUSLOG, Turkey; and Base Commander, Vance AFB, Oklahoma, and Clark AB, Philippines.
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.
Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor