The Psychology of Management

 

 

The Psychology of Management means the effect of the mind that is directing work upon that work which is directed, and the effect of this undirected and directed work upon the mind of the worker.

Value of Psychology. — First of all, then, what is there in the subject of psychology to demand the attention of the manager?

Psychology, in the popular phrase, is "the study of the mind." It has for years been included in the training of all teachers, and has been one of the first steps for the student of philosophy; but it has not, usually, been included among the studies of the young scientific or engineering student, or of any students in other lines than Philosophy and Education. This, not because its value as a "culture subject" was not understood, but because the course of the average student is so crowded with technical preparation necessary to his life work, and because the practical value of psychology has not been recognized. It is well recognized that the teacher must understand the working of the mind in order best to impart his information in that way that will enable the student to grasp it most readily. It was not recognized that every man going out into the world needs all the knowledge that he can get as to the working of the human mind in order not only to give but to receive information with the least waste and expenditure of energy, nor was it recognized that in the industrial, as well as the academic world, almost every man is a teacher.

Value of Management. The study of management has been omitted from the student's training until comparatively recently, for a very different reason than was psychology. It was never doubted that a knowledge of management would be of great value to anyone and everyone, and many were the queer schemes for obtaining that knowledge after graduation. It was doubted that management could be studied otherwise than by observation and practice. Few teachers, if any, believed in the existence, or possibility, of a teaching science of management. Management was assumed by many to be an art, by even more it was thought to be a divinely bestowed gift or talent, rather than an acquired accomplishment. It was common belief that one could learn to manage only by going out on the work and watching other managers, or by trying to manage, and not by studying about management in a class room or in a text book; that watching a good manager might help one, but no one could hope really to succeed who had not "the knack born in him."

With the advent of "Scientific Management," and its demonstration that the best management is founded on laws that have been determined, and can be taught, the study of management in the class room as well as on the work became possible and actual.

Value of Psychology of Management. This question, like the one that precedes it, is answered by Scientific Management. It has demonstrated that the emphasis in successful management lies on the man, not on the work; that efficiency is best secured by placing the emphasis on the man, and modifying the equipment, materials and methods to make the most of the man. It has, further, recognized that the man's mind is a controlling factor in his efficiency, and has, by teaching, enabled the man to make the most of his powers. In order to understand this teaching element that is such a large part of management, a knowledge of psychology is imperative; and this study of psychology, as it applies to the work of the manager or the managed, is exactly what the "psychology of management" is.

Five Indications of This Value. In order to realize the importance of the psychology of management it is necessary to consider the following five points:

1. Management is a life study of every man who works with other men. He must either manage, or be managed, or both; in any case, he can never work to best advantage until he understands both the psychological and managerial laws by which he governs or is governed.

2. A knowledge of the underlying laws of management is the most important asset that one can carry with him into his life work, even though he will never manage any but himself. It is useful, practical, commercially valuable.

3. This knowledge is to be had now. The men who have it are ready and glad to impart it to all who are interested and who will pass it on. The text books are at hand now. The opportunities for practical experience in Scientific Management will meet all demands as fast as they are made.

4. The psychology of, that is, the mind's place in management is only one part, element or variable of management; one of numerous, almost numberless, variables.

5. It is a division well fitted to occupy the attention of the beginner, as well as the more experienced, because it is a most excellent place to start the study of management. A careful study of the relations of psychology to management should develop in the student a method of attack in learning his selected life work that should help him to grasp quickly the orderly array of facts that the other variables, as treated by the great managers, bring to him.

Definition of Management. To discuss this subject more in detail

First: What is "Management"?

"Management," as defined by the Century Dictionary, is "the art of managing by direction or regulation."

Successful management of the old type was an art based on no measurement. Scientific Management is an art based upon a science, — upon laws deducted from measurement. Management continues to be what it has always been, — the art of directing activity.

Change in the Accepted Meaning. — "Management," until recent years, and the emphasis placed on Scientific Management was undoubtedly associated, in the average mind, with the managing part of the organization only, neglecting that vital part — the best interests of the managed, almost entirely. Since we have come to realize that management signifies the relationship between the managing and the managed in doing work, a new realization of its importance has come about.

Inadequacy of the Terms Used. — It is unfortunate that the English language is so poor in synonyms in this field that the same word must have two such different and conflicting meanings, for, though the new definition of management be accepted, the "Fringe" of associations that belong to the old are apt to remain. The thoughts of "knack, aptitude, tact, adroitness," — not to speak of the less desirable "Brute Force," "shrewdness, subtlety, cunning, artifice, deceit, duplicity," of the older idea of management remain in the background of the mind and make it difficult, even when one is convinced that management is a science, to think and act as if it were.

It must be noticed and constantly remembered that one of the greatest difficulties to overcome in studying management and its development is the meaning of the terms used. It is most unfortunate that the new ideas have been forced to content themselves with old forms as best they may.

Psychological Interest of the Terms. Psychology could ask no more interesting subject than a study of the mental processes that lie back of many of these terms. It is most unfortunate for the obtaining of clearness, that new terms were not invented for the new ideas. There is, however, an excellent reason for using the old terms. By their use it is emphasized that the new thought is a logical outgrowth of the old, and experience has proved that this close relationship to established ideas is a powerful argument for the new science; but such terms as "task," "foreman," "speed boss," "piece-rate" and "bonus," as used in the science of management, suffer from misunderstanding caused by old and now false associations. Furthermore, in order to compare old and new interpretations of the ideas of management, the older terms of management should have their traditional meanings only. The two sets of meanings are a source of endless confusion, unwarranted prejudice, and worse. This is well recognized by the authorities on Management.

The Three Types of Management. We note this inadequacy of terms again when we discuss the various types of Management.

We may divide all management into three types:

(1) Traditional

(2) Transitory

(3) Scientific, or measured functional.

Traditional Management, the first, has been variously called "Military," "Driver," the "Marquis of Queensberry type," "Initiative and Incentive Management," as well as "Traditional" management.

Definition of the First Type. In the first type, the power of managing lies, theoretically at least, in the hands of one man, a capable "all-around" manager. The line of authority and of responsibility is clear, fixed and single. Each man comes in direct contact with but one man above him. A man may or may not manage more than one man beneath him, but, however this may be, he is managed by but one man above him.

Preferable Name for the First Type. The names "Traditional," or "Initiative and Incentive," are the preferable titles for this form of management. It is true they lack in specificness, but the other names, while aiming to be descriptive, really emphasize one feature only, and in some cases with unfortunate results.

The Name "Military" Inadvisable. The direct line of authority suggested the name "Military," and at the time of the adoption of that name it was probably appropriate as well as complimentary. Appropriate in the respect referred to only, for the old type of management varied so widely in its manifestations that the comparison to the procedure of the Army was most inaccurate. "Military" has always been a synonym for "systematized", "orderly," "definite," while the old type of management was more often quite the opposite of the meaning of all these terms. The term "Military Management" though often used in an uncomplimentary sense would, today, if understood, be more complimentary than ever it was in the past. The introduction of various features of Scientific Management into the Army and Navy, — and such features are being incorporated steadily and constantly, — is raising the standard of management there to a high degree. This but renders the name "Military" Management for the old type more inaccurate and misleading.

It is plain that the stirring associations of the word "military" make its use for the old type, by advocates of the old type, a weapon against Scientific Management that only the careful thinker can turn aside.

The Names "Driver" and "Marquis of Queensberry" Unfortunate. The name "Driver" suggests an opposition between the managers and the men, an opposition which the term "Marquis of Queensberry" emphasizes. This term "Marquis of Queensberry" has been given to that management which is thought of as a mental and physical contest, waged "according to the rules of the game." These two names are most valuable pictorially, or in furnishing oratorical material. They are constant reminders of the constant desire of the managers to get all the work that is possible out of the men, but they are scarcely descriptive in any satisfactory sense, and the visions they summon, while they are perhaps definite, are certainly, for the inexperienced in management, inaccurate. In other words, they usually lead to imagination rather than to perception.

The Name "Initiative and Incentive" Authoritative. The term "Initiative and Incentive" is used by Dr. Taylor, and is fully described by him. The words themselves suggest, truly, that he gives the old form of management its due. He does more than this. He points out in his definition of the terms the likenesses between the old and new forms.

The Name "Traditional" Brief and Descriptive. The only excuses for the term "Traditional," since Dr. Taylor's term is available, are its brevity and its descriptiveness. The fact that it is indefinite is really no fault in it, as the subject it describes is equally indefinite. The "fringe" ¹² of this word is especially good. It calls up ideas of information handed down from generation to generation orally, the only way of teaching under the old type of management. It recalls the idea of the inaccurate perpetuation of unthinking custom, and the "myth" element always present in tradition, — again undeniable accusations against the old type of management. The fundamental idea of the tradition, that it is oral, is the essence of the difference of the old type of management from science, or even system, which must be written.

It is not necessary to make more definite here the content of this oldest type of management, rather being satisfied with the extent, and accepting for working use the name "Traditional" with the generally accepted definition of that name.

Definition of the Second Type of Management. The second type of management is called "Interim" or "Transitory" management. It includes all management that is consciously passing into Scientific Management and embraces all stages, from management that has incorporated one scientifically derived principle, to management that has adopted all but one such principle.

Preferable Name for Second Type of Management. Perhaps the name "Transitory" is slightly preferable in that, though the element of temporariness is present in both words, it is more strongly emphasized in the latter. The usual habit of associating with it the ideas of "fleeting, evanescent, ephemeral, momentary, short-lived," may have an influence on hastening the completion of the installing of Scientific Management.

Definition of the Third Type of Management. The third form of management is called "Ultimate," "measured Functional," or "Scientific," management, and might also be called, — but for the objection of Dr. Taylor, the "Taylor Plan of Management." This differs from the first two types mentioned in that it is a definite plan of management synthesized from scientific analysis of the data of management. In other words, Scientific Management is that management which is a science, i.e., which operates according to known, formulated, and applied laws.

Preferable Name of the Third Type of Management. The name "Ultimate" has, especially to the person operating under the transitory stage, all the charm and inspiration of a goal. It has all the incentives to accomplishment of a clearly circumscribed task. Its very definiteness makes it seem possible of attainment. It is a great satisfaction to one who, during a lifetime of managing effort, has tried one offered improvement after another to be convinced that he has found the right road at last. The name is, perhaps, of greatest value in attracting the attention of the uninformed and, as the possibilities of the subject can fulfill the most exacting demands, the attention once secured can be held.

The name "measured functional" is the most descriptive, but demands the most explanation. The principle of functionalization is one of the underlying, fundamental principles of Scientific Management. It is not as necessary to stop to define it here, as it is necessary to discuss the definition, the principle, and the underlying psychology, at length later.

The name "scientific" while in some respects not as appropriate as are any of the other names, has already received the stamp of popular approval. In derivation it is beyond criticism. It also describes exactly, as has been said, the difference between the older forms of management and the new. Even its "fringe" of association is, or at least was when first used, all that could be desired; but the name is, unfortunately, occasionally used indiscriminately for any sort of system and for schemes of operation that are not based on time study. It has gradually become identified more or less closely with

1. the Taylor Plan of Management

2. what we have defined as the "Transitory" plan of management

3. management which not only is not striving to be scientific, but which confounds "science" with "system." Both its advocates and opponents have been guilty of misuse of the word. Still, in spite of this, the very fact that the word has had a wide use, that it has become habitual to think of the new type of management as "Scientific," makes its choice advisable. We shall use it, but restrict its content. With us "Scientific Management" is used to mean the complete Taylor plan of management, with no modifications and no deviations.

We may summarize by saying that:

1. the popular name is Scientific Management,

2. the inspiring name is Ultimate management,

3. the descriptive name is measured Functional management,

4. the distinctive name is the Taylor Plan of Management.

For the purpose of this book, Scientific Management is, then, the most appropriate name. Through its use, the reader is enabled to utilize all his associations, and through his study he is able to restrict and order the content of the term.

Relationship between the Three Types of Management. From the foregoing definitions and descriptions it will be clear that the three types of management are closely related. Three of the names given bring out this relationship most clearly. These are Traditional (i.e., Primitive), Interim, and Ultimate. These show, also, that the relationship is genetic, i.e., that the second form grows out of the first, but passes through to the third. The growth is evolutional.

Under the first type, or in the first stage of management, the laws or principles underlying right management are usually unknown, hence disregarded.

In the second stage, the laws are known and installed as fast as functional foremen can be taught their new duties and the resistances of human nature can be overcome.

In the third stage the managing is operated in accordance with the recognized laws of management.

Psychological Significance of This Relationship. The importance of the knowledge and of the desire for it can scarcely be overestimated. This again makes plain the value of the psychological study of management.

Possible Psychological Studies of Management. In making this psychological study of management, it would be possible to take up the three types as defined above, separately and in order, and to discuss the place of the mind in each, at length; but such a method would not only result in needless repetition, but also in most difficult comparisons when final results were to be deduced and formulated.

It would, again, be possible to take up the various elements or divisions of psychological study as determined by a consensus of psychologists, and to illustrate each in turn from the three types of management; but the results from any such method would be apt to seem unrelated and impractical, i.e., it would be a lengthy process to get results that would be of immediate, practical use in managing.

Underlying Ideas and Divisions of Scientific Management. — These underlying ideas are grouped under nine divisions, as follows:

1. Individuality.

2. Functionalization.

3. Measurement.

4. Analysis and Synthesis.

5. Standardization.

6. Records and Programmes.

7. Teaching.

8. Incentives.

9. Welfare.

It is here only necessary to enumerate these divisions. Each will be made the subject of a chapter.

Derivation of These Divisions. These divisions lay no claim to being anything but underlying ideas of Scientific Management, that embrace varying numbers of established elements that can easily be subjected to the scrutiny of psychological investigation.

The discussion will be as little technical as is possible, will take nothing for granted and will cite references at every step. This is a new field of investigation, and the utmost care is necessary to avoid generalizing from insufficient data.

Derivation of Scientific Management. There has been much speculation as to the age and origin of Scientific Management. The results of this are interesting, but are not of enough practical value to be repeated here. Many ideas of Scientific Management can be traced back, more or less clearly and directly, to thinkers of the past; but the Science of Management, as such, was discovered, and the deduction of its laws, or "principles," made possible when Dr. Frederick W. Taylor discovered and applied Time Study. Having discovered this, he constructed from it and the other fundamental principles a complete whole.

Mr. George Iles in that most interesting and instructive of books, "Inventors at Work," ¹⁵ has pointed out the importance, to development in any line of progress or science, of measuring devices and methods. Contemporaneous with, or previous to, the discovery of the device or method, must come the discovery or determination of the most profitable unit of measurement which will, of itself, best show the variations in efficiency from class. When Dr. Taylor discovered units of measurement for determining, prior to performance, the amount of any kind of work that a worker could do and the amount of rest he must have during the performance of that work, then, and not until then, did management become a science. On this hangs the science of management.

Приложение №1 2