More than two thousand years ago the ancient Romans coined the phrase, “Nihil
novi sub sole” -- There is nothing new under the sun. The actual author
is unknown but he might have been a manager considering the latest concept for use in the
ancient workplace.
Science has moved
technology into new worlds, but when it comes to management planning we continue repeating
the past. We rediscover old ways of doing things, but we give them new names and
celebrate them with books, videos and speeches.
During a consulting
career of nearly thirty years, this writer has witnessed a parade of “new business
solutions.” Only, the so-called new solutions are some form of variation of old
solutions with their new names. Moreover, these so called new concepts tend to run
into the same problems which doomed many of the original ideas during their previous
cycles. Those who reintroduce the ideas may not consider the reasons the original
faded; that’s why the concepts continue to come and go.
When Frederick Taylor
developed the concept of industrial engineering and Frank Gilbraith, who many consider the
first management consultant, (his life was portrayed by the late actor, Clifton Webb, in
the amusing movie, “Cheaper By the Dozen,”) they never could have foreseen that
their pioneering attempts to bring efficiency in the workplace would eventually be
repackaged. Industrial engineering is archaic, re-engineering is the current buzz
word. There are differences; but just as sure, there are similarities in the
difficulties organizations are having in installing Re-engineering; namely, employee
understanding, support and acceptance.
Back to Top
Other examples of how
management continues to reinvent the wheel abound. Prior to Henry Ford’s
development of the assembly line, employees crafted entire finished products.
Individual workers taught skills and they possessed a versatility which enabled them to
carry out a wide range of assignments. The assembly line speeded up production by
limiting workers to a few simple functions which reduced training time and turned workers
from craftsmen to human automatons. This practice revolutionized factory operations
and was hailed as a great management innovation.
Now the pendulum has
begun its return swing. During the 1950s, concepts such as “Job
Enlargement,” and “Job Rotation” were introduced to reduce employee boredom
(and consequential lower quality). Most recently, management everywhere have become
infatuated by a “novel new” concept called “Multi-Skilling.” Why
not train employees to learn additional tasks rather than limit them to only a few
functions. The assembly line mentality is passé, back to the craftsmen in office
and factory.
At the beginning of
the 20th century, prior to the assembly line, manufacturers produced goods without the
necessity of maintaining inventories. Parts were made as needed. One can only
imagine the excitement among managers when the idea of building inventories in order to
prevent shortages was first introduced. “How clever,” they must have
thought, “now there will be available parts when you need them.”
Industrialists must have blessed the idea that should there be a defective part, they
could sustain production because of the inventory of stored parts. Our thinking has
changed again. In our current business mode, inventories are expensive and wasteful
of space. The answer: Just In Time Systems. Who needs to inventory
parts? They can be made to arrive when needed. “JIT”--what a novel
innovation!
Even our current
efforts to raise quality of goods and probably the whole quality assurance movement is a
response to the reduced standards which became acceptable to business. Quality was
sacrificed for greater quantity. One of the reasons we refer to how well made were
the products of past generations, was that old time craftsmen made things correctly the
first time. Quality work was the norm; QA inspectors came later. Pride in work
was each worker’s badge of honor.
A recent innovation
in management semantics relates to how we view surplus employees. As long as there has
been business, there have been business down turns and the concept of laying off employees
was accepted as part of business routine. Recently our social conscience reached a
point which required new terminology. The term “layoff” evolved into
“down-sizing,” “right-sizing,” and “correct-sizing.”
We don’t go through layoffs, we initiate “reductions in force.” One
can be certain effected workers of past centuries experienced the same reactions as their
modern counterparts.
Back to Top
Quality Circles,
which the Post WWII Japanese used so successfully, actually was a process which helped
America defeat the Japanese. It was a practice employed extensively in American
defense factories as a way to get workers to share ideas and to improve what and how they
were doing things. There was no resistance because nobody was worried about losing a
job. After the war Edward Deming was instrumental in the Japanese becoming so
proficient in the concept of what we call quality management only because he couldn’t
get American manufacturers to use the formal process of Quality Circles. American
business was bathing in post-war profits and quality was winked at. As business
became competitive with foreign markets, Americans then gave credit to the Japanese for
learning how to build quality products.
Management by
Objectives (MBO) has had a great ride and currently is being somewhat revived as part of
what we now call Performance Management. And, speaking of MBO, the reason for the
difficulties many organizations had succeeding with it portends why Performance Management
may founder. Managers learned that the principle problem with MBO was not the
concept, but rather the lack of motivation by those involved. Measuring performance
by assessing how well stated, and agreed upon, objectives are accomplished frequently
became little more than a ritual. Those involved felt little inspiration to follow
through properly. Rewarding managers for results as Performance Management dictates
is diluted by poorly defined standards and the willingness to pardon low performers rather
than enforce high standards.
Similarly, managers
are finding that the concept of “Participative Management,” requires more than
getting employees “involved.” They require more than inclusion; techniques
to motivate must be inherent if the approach is to be successful.
Starting in the post
WWII business era, “psychological testing” became a popular tool in the
recruitment process. This was followed by another application of “psychological
management”--Sensitivity Training. The latter proved too hot to handle and the
negative results led to its abandonment. In fact, some organizations still are
reeling from its negative effects. Psychological testing in its purer form has been
maintained on a reduced scale but it’s now undergoing an (expected) revival as
managements are turning to “assessment centers” as part of the process of
succession planning and management development strategies. And, while sensitivity
training itself may have failed, there is a slight revival as many organizations have
found value in permitting employees to rate their bosses. The results of this effort
has not yet been determined.
Back to Top
An amusing phenomenon
which has resulted from pressures on organizations to reduce payroll has been
“flattening the organization.” But, flattening to what? The
flattening has returned organizations to what they were during earlier decades. When
C. Northcote Parkinson stated his “Parkinson’s Laws” in the 1920s, he
accurately described the growing pyramid organization. In the “olden days”
when someone built a company, nearly everyone reported to the top. Decision making
was rapid and insulation between the top and bottom was not a problem. As companies
grew, this structure was replaced by layers of managers, each supporting a higher
layer. Now that organizations are streamlining and reducing the unnecessary
hierarchy, many managers express surprise that such steps hadn’t been thought of
previously. When organizations already were flat there was no need to “think of
it.”
And, so it
goes. The swing between decentralization and centralization resembles a yo-yo, it
repeats often. Matrix organizations are coming back into vogue, though, there are
may be some modifications and, perhaps, new names. management’s infatuation
with “sure fire” concepts continues.
Let there be no
mistake, this review is not intended as a condemnation of management’s search for
better ways of doing things, but rather as an earnest plea to managers to learn more about
what they are doing and to do things correctly. One of Murphy’s laws,
“nothing is ever as simple as it seems,” applies to management. When
managers get on the band wagon to adopt the newest “great new ideas,” they
should also remember that nothing is so simple that it requires little effort. Every
process and concept can be a valuable weapon in management’s arsenal--but only when
applied properly. The problem in managers’ impatience to get too rapid results.
A fitting close to
this brief reflection is to quote from the introduction of a widely used U.S. government
publication: “It is more economical and more expedient to spending---minutes in
properly placing a new worker that it is to spend---days in trying to replace him.”
“It is becoming
increasingly difficult to supply skilled workers to meet the nation’s demands for
adequate production.---Production is in large measure determined by the extent to which
workers are satisfied with their jobs- for a well-satisfied employee will not only stay at
his job, but he will work at it with all his strength.”
“In order,
therefore, to maintain the production necessary---the most careful thought must be given
to the selection, placement and methods of retaining a competent and loyal force of
workers. To accomplish this, every applicant for work should be carefully examined
as to his qualifications, in order that he may be placed in the job where his special
abilities will not only best serve production, but will also permit him, as an individual,
to grow and develop. It means, furthermore, that the company should maintain a
contact with each employee that will be of mutual benefit and will make the worker realize
that the company is sincerely interested in his welfare.”
“The methods and
processes outlined and suggested are those that have been found successful in some of the
largest---corporations in the United States.”
Published:
Philadelphia, 1918.
The more things
change; the more they stay the same. Nihil novi sub sole.
Back to Top
