Who's In Control?

It is always a great mistake to command when you are not sure you will be obeyed.

— Mirabeau

MANAGEMENT CONTROLLING

   Louis Allen defines "management-controlling" as "the work a manager performs to assess and regulate work in progress and completed."¹ Concepts and terms involved in the subject of control include:

Performance Standards: criteria by which methods and results will be evaluated.

Performance-Measurements: recorded and reported work, both in progress and completed.

Performance-Evaluations: appraisals of work in progress and results secured.

Performance-Correction: regulation and improvement of methods and results.

Page 176

Assessment: appraisal.

Regulation: adjustment; return to a predetermined course.

Performance: the act of doing work.

Results: the outcome of performance.

Methods: the way work is done.

  To the manager who is unaccustomed to thinking in managerial terms, the subject of control may seem very unfamiliar and uncomfortable. In Christian organizations it may, in fact, be purposefully avoided because of a supposed conflict with God's leading.

   Twenty-five executives of Christian organizations met in Chicago at a Christian management seminar at which this question was raised: "What about the aspect of manipulation where we seek to motivate and persuade our people to follow a certain course of action?" A companion question was also asked: "How does God's leading fit in?"

   Although we must admit the danger of oversimplification, the sound approach to the critical area of control within Christian organizations would appear to be that applied in industry. David Ewing found that "an administrator's attitude toward the manipulation of subordinates has momentous consequences for his career." It has a bearing on whether the work of assistants will bear their stamp or his; it determines that number of people the manager can utilize effectively; if affects the general atmosphere and morale of the organization (since "frustration, guilt, resentment of authority and self-confidence are all partial outgrowths of the control relations between manager and managed"); and, finally, the extent and quality of manipulation will have a bearing on the total effectiveness of the organization.

   Ewing summarizes the spectrum of control possibilities by citing several elements he chooses to designate as follows: force, hidden persuasion, open persuasion and the

Page 177

final alternative of job definition. Conceding that the first three techniques may be found necessary in given situations, Ewing concludes that the one with a managerial mind experiences a gnawing discomfort from using any technique of manipulation. He or she yearns for something better.

This question brings us to a fourth approach: defining the job and its purpose, picking people carefully and giving them all your possible support, then trusting to their own ambition and judgment to see the work through. The boss says, in effect, "Here is a job that needs to be done." It may be tough, demanding, or even unpleasant, but that makes no difference. The boss believes that once he understands the nature of the mission, he will supply his own motivation and, technically qualified, do best as his "own boss." It is vital, however, to ensure that the subordinate is never excused from the responsibility for producing according to exacting requirements. In fact, his independence from detailed supervision may even lead to higher expectations.²

   Thus one answer to the problem of manipulation is found in the managerial technique of "management by job assignment." The assumptions underlying this technique are of importance through understanding:

1. The people who staff organizations are of unequal ability.

2. The manager believes he or she can pick good people for the job.

3. The administrator acknowledges dependence upon other people, who are, in turn, dependent upon the administrator.

4. The manager feels justified in letting the power of creative relationships work in ways that he or she may not understand.

5. He or she feels no compunction in placing heavy

Page 178

burdens of judgment and decision-making authority on subordinates' shoulders.

6. The supervisor assumes that it is good for employees to be genuinely concerned about the operations of the enterprise. This is despite the probability that the supervisor will have to accept interruptions of the office schedule, "talking back," and conflicts of opinion between managers and workers.

7. The manager assumes that most people like to be challenged to use their ingenuity and that, in taking this approach, does not risk personal effectiveness or popularity.

8. The manager assumes that he or she can be loyal to the organization and to the people in it without having to agree with people's decisions about the way they do their jobs.

9. The manager assumes that he or she cannot really put himself or herself in another employee's place.

   An issue which is omnipresent but seldom faced in Christian organizations is that of tolerance of waste and inefficiency. At this point consultants caution against overemphasis on efficiency. It can result, they argue with persuasion, in even greater and more devastating types of waste — that of personal abilities, initiative and morale.

   Why control? Management is "getting things done through people." Therefore it seems evident that planning, organizing and leading may not be enough. The adage about "the best-laid plans of mice and men..." is relevant at this point. Follow-through is essential if the end results of all your efforts as manager are not to be left to chance. From the scriptural view of those in management and all known philosophies of leadership, the fallibility of mankind stands out as an accepted verity.

Page 179

Controlling, or "assessing and regulating work in progress or completed," therefore becomes an essential. Seeking to apply the principles of responsible stewardship, Christian organizations place even greater importance on this last of the four functions of management.

   Control may be exercised in several different ways. Most common, of course, is that of personal inspection. Many situations demand this type of control because of their peculiar nature, whether it be urgency, variability or lack of criteria for evaluation. The great disadvantage of personal inspection is that it limits the scope of the manager to that which can be personally observed and appraised. Furthermore, it may tend to discourage subordinates by making them feel that they are being "watched" or are "not quite trusted for the final results." In organizations which are undergoing rapid growth, it is not uncommon for the founder to bring the enterprise through its initial period of growth with effective supervision of a personal nature. When the organization grows too large to supervise personally, its effectiveness may be jeopardized if the founder fails to adjust the methods of operation.

   Management by exception simply means control through reports of what is going wrong. Since the methods to be used and the results to be expected have been predetermined, no reporting is required while progress continues according to plan. When problems of sufficient import arise, the manager is alerted. Thus much time is saved for other and more important considerations which ought to be occupying the manager's time.

   The Allen Principles of Control offer a most interesting perspective on two aspects of this important subject.³

   Principles of Least Chance: "In any given group of occurrences, a small number of causes will tend to give rise to the largest proportion of results." In any group a few

Page 180

will produce the most work; a few will produce the most errors. In a fund-raising campaign it is not uncommon for 20 percent of the donors to contribute 80 percent of the funds. The typical list of donors will reveal not too dissimilar results. The value of this principle lies in the capability it gives us to maximize results by concentrating our efforts on the minimum resources which hold the greatest potential for end results. Industrial management is urged by modern consultants to be "opportunity-oriented," that is, to concentrate its efforts and resources on its principal opportunities. Thus major expenditures of resources are committed where maximum results can be expected. This approach is particularly recommended to offset the tendency to become "problem-oriented" or to spend our efforts and energies in putting out yesterday's fires, rather than in furthering our progress toward our objective. In his classic presentation, Managing a Manager's Time, William Oncken divides expenditure of time into three categories: refining yesterday's answers to last year's problems; finding answers today that were due yesterday; and taking action today that was planned yesterday for results expected tomorrow. The action that counts, of course, is in the third category.

   Principles of Point of Control: "The greatest potential for control tends to exist at the point where action takes place." Consider for a moment the relative efficiency of management control at the top where the chief executive receives reports, evaluates, decides upon corrective action, and issues instructions which must pass through several layers of organization to the point of action. Compare this with control established at the supervisory level immediately above that at which the action occurs. In terms of optimum expenditure of time and effort there is no question that the control point ought to be established as

Page 181

close to the action as possible. Considerations of personal qualifications for exercise of such control point ought to be established as close to the action as possible. Considerations of personal qualifications for exercise of such control, including capacity for sound decisions, are of course important.

   Caution should be advised against emphasis on results to the exclusion of methods. Results are in the past and therefore beyond correction. While corrective action is possible to prevent recurrence, more effective action will include control over methods which make possible timely corrective action. Another caution warns against the quantity of information generated for control purposes without regard to its quality. The emergence of data-processing threatens to make more complex an already difficult problem — that of more information than managers can digest and utilize. As Allen succinctly put it: "Sound control depends upon the development of the minimum amount of information that will do the job, and reporting it quickly enough to be useful."⁴

   A word about accounting and financial information is in order because this is the area with which most managers in Christian organizations have least familiarity. Courses in "Finances for Nonfinancial Executives" and "Accounting for Nonaccounting Executives" are now common, emphasizing the need for comprehension of principles in this area by those who manage. Control of finances is thought by many Christian executives to be the most critical area of their responsibility.

   In order for top management to place its maximum emphasis on the future where it belongs, according to the consensus of informed opinion, careful analysis of how, where and when to apply control techniques is mandatory. Many books have been written on the subject of management-reporting.

Page 182

Good judgment will answer most of the questions if proper attention is given to the subject. Suffice it to say that no successful manager can afford to overlook it.

ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

   To assess or appraise the results of an organized effort requires some knowledge of how actions ought to be performed. To know when actions are performed incorrectly requires that one know how they are performed correctly. Simple though this principle appears to be, it is seldom heeded. Few managers have consciously thought through this critically important area.

   One of the greatest values of performance standards is the objective basis they provide for appraisal. Other benefits to be obtained from their use include the encouraging of initiative; the encouraging of self-appraisal and self-development; and the providing of a basis for effective reporting.

   The American Management Association has presented the following rules for managing by objectives and establishing effective performance standards:

Joint developments by supervisor and employee (to insure understanding and reduce areas of disagreement).

Statement of basic results expected (including defining of all important duties, responsibilities and functions of job and specifying of results desired in all areas).

Identification of accurate means of measurement.

Clear statement to avoid misunderstanding.

Measurement of both quantity and quality of work performed.

Attainability.

Provision for periodic revision.

Page 183

   The difficulty with aspects of performance thought not to be quantifiable is generally overrated. Persistence in efforts to quantify such factors often yields results. The Civil Service from CSAC 125 presents the following example of nonquantitative standards (task statement on left; standard on right; at bottom the general aspects of position not measurable in quantitative terms):

Represents the bureau at a variety of meetings attended by representatives of departments and agencies.

Opinions expressed, judgment displayed, general conduct and demeanor, and accuracy of information released are at sufficiently high levels to reflect credit upon the bureau and the commission.

General Performance

Requirements

A. Is reliable. Can be depended upon to carry out assignments promptly and in accordance with instructions, procedures, etc., and to be ready and available for special assignments.

B. Applies time, interest and energy to duties without wasting own time or time of others.

C. Is co-operative. Willingly assists and works with others in the total interest of the organization. Observes office rules and regulations and works through channels.

   Checklists for Performance Standards (developed by the United States Civil Service Commission):

1. Have you broken down the work assignment into its separate tasks?

Page 184

2. Have you prepared task statements which describe the "doing" parts of the job in "action" language?

3. Does each task statement contain only one significant duty?

4. Are the especially important tasks underlined?

5. Do performance standards state not outstanding, not perfect, but satisfactory performance?

6. Does each performance standard tell how much, how well, in what time, or in what manner?

7. Does performance standard state the full range of satisfactory performance, so that everything above standard is outstanding and everything below it is unsatisfactory?

8. Is each task fully covered by enough standards to provide a complete and well-rounded check on how well the task is being performed?

9. Is the language simple, definite and easy to understand? Has every effort been made to avoid "weasel" words in favor of objective, concrete words and phrases?

10. Has the employee participated in developing personal task statements and standards of performance? Do the supervisor and the employee have the same idea of what each of the standards mean?

   The following checklist suggests types of measures that may be appropriate to various tasks and may help you to make your standards more specific:

1. How Many — Specific number of units of work.

2. How Soon — What is the time within which the task should be started or completed?

3. What Results, Quality — What happens when an adequate number of work units has been produced?

4. What Method — How must the work be done?

Page 185

5. What Knowledge — What must the employee know to perform the task?

6. Appearance of Adequate Work — How does an adequate unit of work look?

7. How Many Errors — Number of percentage of work units in which the errors are permitted.

8. What Results, Accuracy — What happens when accuracy of the work is adequate?

9. Personal Characteristics — What attitude, appearance, voice characteristics, etc., are necessary for adequate performance?

   The American Management Association devotes a portion of Unit III of its management course to a discussion of performance standards. When Lawrence Appley taught the course, he paid the following tribute to the importance of performance standards:

   A great experience awaits the executive or supervisor who calls together his or her immediate subordinates for a conference to develop standards of performance. In answer to the question "What are the major activities of the job that should be measured?" the executive will be amazed at the difference in opinions and at the length of time it takes to get agreement.

   The first objective of the group is to list on the blackboard the major segments of the job. The development of the list may take an hour; it may take half a day. Regardless of the length of time, it is a most important development. Having developed a list of the major segments of performance, the discussion leader should now ask the group to select one of those segments for which to develop standards....

   Standards of performance should deal with the basic results that management desires and which are actually secured through individual performance... Any manager should have statistics available to tell him the progress he is making toward the accomplishment of basic results.

   People who are responsible for making reports and records are constantly begging units of the organization to tell them

Page 186

what is wanted... This very careful detailed study tells them what the executive needs to know.

   One of the greatest benefits of this work on standards of performance is not the finished material that goes on the blackboard, but the discussion that takes place in getting it there... It is a process of discovery.

   Patient, continuous, well-organized effort is required to produce the type of standards that will create the attitudes and produce the performance desired.

   Experience shows that standards of performance can be written for any job.

   Allen considers the psychological factor in preparation of performance standards to be fully as important as the mechanical considerations. The first purpose, he points out, is to make people want to excel. A standard not only informs the worker about performance, it makes him or her want to improve. As a result of the identification of outstanding performance, a strong motivation for excellence is built into the system. Similarly, the identification of inadequate performance provides a strong incentive to excel. Group needs should not be overlooked in the recognition of individual accomplishment lest this encourage concentration on individual effort to the detriment of the overall objective.⁵

   We need not feel that Christian organizations are alone in overlooking the use of performance standards; it is well known that industry, with the exception of the more forward-looking organizations, has long been lacking in this area. Other areas of American life yield even more discouraging observations. "The Pursuit of Excellence," the Rockefeller Brothers Fund report published in the America at Mid-Century Series, declares:

If we ask what our society inspires in the way of high performances we are led to the conclusion that we may have, to

Page 187

a startling degree, lost the gift for demanding high performance of ourselves.⁶

   John Gardner, former president of the Carnegie Foundation, produced a most discerning work on the general subject of whether excellence is possible in a democracy. Entitled Excellence, the book carries on its front cover this trenchant observation.

This book is the first on a hotly controversial subject, one that deeply concerns a growing number of people: the lack of  high standards of performance in too many areas of American life, the reasons for it and what can be done to encourage excellence.⁷

   That we as Christians must face this challenge should be self-evident. Responsible stewardship of the resources in personnel, facilities, equipment capabilities and opportunities which God as entrusted to our organizations demands that we impose the highest standards on ourselves to insure maximum utilization of these resources for His purposes.

   While we give lip service to this principle, as a practical matter our performance is far from this objective. Missionary executive Dr. Clarence Jones observes that "the dollars lost through poor judgment would finance all new projects on the horizon."

   Clark Breeding, as partner in the nationwide accounting firm of Peat, Marwick and Mitchell, once concluded, "Nothing is so badly managed as Christian money."

   All of this is not a consequence of intent, but rather of neglect. To elevate our aim, to utilize all of the resources God has given us, to maximize the results of all our efforts in and for His kingdom ought to be our aim. Senator Mark Hatfield perhaps stated this best in "Excellence, the Christian Standard":

Page 188

   Our first responsibility is to utilize and mobilize the resources, the capacity, the intellect, the drive, the ambitions and all that God has given us, and to use these to the fullest. That comes first in whatever endeavor to which we are committed. If you are a student or professor in an educational institution, your first responsibility is to perform with the highest degree of excellence as a part of that institution.

   At this particular time in history, we have the greatest opportunity as well as the gravest responsibility to live our lives in a committed manner in order to make the greatest possible impact upon our associates, our institutions, upon all men!⁸

PERFORMANCE-MEASURING

   Allen defines this activity of management as "the work a manager performs to record and report work in progress and completed." To record means "to make notation of, to set down in writing"; to report is "to convey information."⁹

   The emphasis placed by Allen on recording and reporting information will be appreciated by all managers who are aware of the great distortions to which factual information is subjected by these two processes. We realize that in order to be recorded, facts must be observed. Experience has taught us that in the process of observation a great many factors may be involved, including the value systems of observers, their sensitivity to the particular situation; the keenness of their power of observation. "Things are seldom what they seem" is the apt phrase epitomizing the fallibility of depending upon the complete authenticity of facts as observed.

   The process of reporting facts as observed threatens even further distortion. We have mentioned the experiment of sending a verbal communication through a group from person to person. Not infrequently the end product bears only the most remote resemblance to the initial

Page 189

message. Semantic difficulties alone, involving the different meanings that may be given the same word or phrase, may account for a great variance in content as the result of transmission.

   The manager in a missionary organization, for example, who must evaluate information from fields remote from the office, depends upon the accuracy of the observation of facts in a given situation, and then upon their accurate communication or transmission. Proper information must tell us the essential facts and in an understandable way. Furthermore, if communication is more a matter of securing understanding than transmitting facts, then the meaning of the facts being recorded and reported becomes important.

   There probably are few Christian organizations which have solved the problem of deciding upon and implementing an effective reporting system. From the foregoing discussion, highlighting as it does the manager's complete dependence upon knowledge and understanding of what is going on, the tragedy of this failure becomes apparent. Lack of certainty that one is being informed effectively of situations concerning which decisions are required of him, can erode the confidence of a director.

   A common experience of management consultants in reviewing office procedures is the discovery that the majority of forms and reports required are no longer fulfilling the purpose for which they were intended. "Forms control" is a significant business today as a result of the ease with which the number and complexity of forms proliferate in the average office situation. We are quick to devise a new form to meet a need, but slow, so very slow, to review the old forms to learn which are no longer even being read, let alone utilized. One noted case concerns a consultant who was so busy discovering all of

Page 190

the forms being used in a large company for a multitude of hazy reasons that it took him several months to catalog them by origin, purpose, distribution and utilization. However, by the time he finished this job he discovered that since he had started the cataloging, so many new forms had been created that he faced another month's work to catalog them. When the manager looks for "time wasters" (see chapter 8), forms offer an excellent place to begin the search.

   Accurate, concise, relevant and timely reports are essential to effective management. They do not "just happen," however. Careful preparation in terms of discussion, analysis of need, and most effective utilization will return great dividends. Constant review to weed out unnecessary forms and reports will result in great savings of time and effort.

   One of the most interesting concepts in reporting is that of "stewardship-reporting" as recommended by Allen. Suggesting that reports should analyze the stewardship of accountable individuals, Allen proposes that reports account for stewardship of facilities, materials and people entrusted to the care of the person reporting. Thus stewardship-reporting measures an individual as manager of the particular organization or division.¹⁰ The difficulty of this kind of reporting is seen in the fact that it depends not only upon normal accounting principles but also upon managerial principles.

   The need for reporting the trend, rather than presenting an isolated picture of individual accomplishment, is important. This gives the manager the big picture in perspective that is essential to complete understanding.

   A word about unnecessarily complicated accounting procedures is in order for those Christian organizations which have succumbed to the temptation to accept what

Page 191

has been presented. Good accountants concern themselves with detail and frequently find themselves in the role of "watching the pennies" for the organization. Occasionally, the language of finance so permeates budget and finance reports that they become virtually meaningless to the manager for whose use they are intended. At this point managers frequently hesitate to admit their lack of understanding or to require that the reports be recast in understandable terms.

   Also there is a tendency for such reports to be unnecessarily complicated. To accommodate the need of the manager or executive for fast information and timely reports, special attention should be given to concise summary-reporting which gives essential information in estimated form on relevant matters where corrective action should be considered immediately. Otherwise control is lost and the manager becomes more a spectator than a participant since all of the information is two to six weeks old when he or she first sees it. Large companies have developed departments specializing in graphing relevant information for quick and easy understanding of the basic essentials and their presentation to top management. The principle here is applicable to most Christian organizations whose operation is affected seriously by the financial picture.

   Finally, to be relevant in the most important aspects, reporting ought to be done in terms of planned accomplishment. Thus progress toward organizational objectives is plotted in a visible manner which  is subject to corrective and timely action by the manager. Attention thus is focused on the most important single factor in the organization's work — that of whether or not it is accomplishing or moving toward its objective.

   We have looked upon "management-measuring" as the

Page 192

recording and reporting of information about the work of the organization either in progress or already completed. Effective communication involves both sending and receiving reports. Such reports ought to relate to planned accomplishments or objectives and keep managers informed of their progress in this regard. Managers and supervisors ought to be held accountable for the stewardship of the resources under their control. Reports must be in understandable language; relate to job requirements; be kept up-to-date to spur timely action; and emphasize managerial needs before accounting needs.

PERFORMANCE-EVALUATING

   Must Christians in positions of management falter at the point of evaluating the performance of others? Probably every manager or supervisor in a Christian organization knows something of the tensions that can surround this question. Either the manager may find himself desperately uncomfortable in the task of judging the actions of others, or the employees may find themselves resenting the judgmental character of appraisal made of themselves or their work.

   Allen's definition of "performance-evaluating" helps at once by placing the emphasis upon the work rather than the individual. "It is," he says, "the work a manager performs to appraise work in progress and results secured."¹¹ So we find at once that we are looking at work primarily, not at the person who performed it. What is being appraised (this term seems more acceptable than judged) is the performance rather than the individual. What could be more logical and necessary following the setting of standards, which tell us where our actions ought to be, and the reporting of results, which tell us where we actually are?

Page 193

   Self-appraisal of performance has gained great favor among analysts of managerial behavior. No one is closer to the action appraised than the manager whose work is being appraised. Except for the lack of objectivity, this manager ought to be in the best position to evaluate personal performance, and certainly to take timely corrective action while the activity continues. Perhaps no other incentive can prove a stronger motivation for excellent performance than availability of appraisal results.

   The principle of "management by exception" enunciated earlier helps to clarify an important concept at this point. If what concerns management are the exception to, or variances from, the plan — then appraisal efforts ought to be concentrated at those strategic points. There may be little benefit in appraising what went according to plan, except in certain circumstances where even better alternatives are sought for answers to problems successfully handled previously. Thus we evaluate the variances as a result of which corrective action can be implemented more effectively.

   The allowable limits of tolerance in deviating from the plan are an important matter for consideration. In discussing performance with subordinates, managers are cautioned not to overlook deviations within allowable limits, since such tacit acceptance of "allowable deviations" may tend to define new limits of the standards desired. Progressive deterioration of standards would be the almost certain consequence of this oversight.

   It has been said that Christian organizations frequently refuse to utilize managerial procedures which are biblically based, and which secular organizations have used successfully for years. One such procedure is the appraisal interview. As a result of the failure to utilize this proven procedure, many Christian organizations discover too late

Page 194

that basic misunderstandings about responsibilities, authority, assignments and performance have festered beneath the surface and ultimately reach unmanageable proportions. Regular appraisal offsets this tendency and enables such natural differences to be identified by both supervisor and employee, discussed and corrected.

   The greatest benefit received from the appraisal initiated by the person whose work is being appraised is the lessening of tension which otherwise could result. A person asked for a self-appraisal is often more critical than the manager would be. On the other hand, when faced with the prospect of "being told what was wrong," this same employee will probably become defensive over the very same points. In addition, the objectivity provided by performance standards also tends to diminish potential tension by keeping the focus on the work rather than the person.

   There is an axiom in management that "people have a right to know how they are doing." Managers in Christian organizations ought to go one step further. People must know how they are doing. The injustices done to people in the name of "saving them embarrassment" are multiplied over and over again. What greater disservice can be done to people than to hide the facts from them so that they can do nothing about improving the situation? If their talents are not being fully utilized where they are, is it not a service to both employees and their Lord to do everything possible to help them either equip themselves adequately for their positions or to find others that fit?

   But how does a manager do this diplomatically? First he or she identifies the problem in its incipient stages, before it becomes critical. Then, instead of "pushing it under the rug" in the vain hope that it may disappear, the manager thinks creatively and seeks for a way to discuss the

Page 195

problem. No better way has ever been devised than the performance-appraisal system we have been considering. When such a program is applied uniformly across the organization, the personal element is removed and the matter becomes routine. Most important of all, the system aids in the identification of problem areas before they reach the critical and oftentimes uncontrollable stages.

   The Presidents' Association of the American Management Association introduced its handbook, What to Do About Performance Appraisal, by Marion Kellogg, with the following observation.

   One of the most demanding and continuing responsibilities facing a manager is appraising the performance of subordinates. It is an essential, day-to-day management activity, for without appraising the manager cannot promote or fire, counsel or criticize, coach or transfer. Without appraising he cannot truly manage.¹²

PERFORMANCE-CORRECTING

   "Correcting of performance," says Allen, "is the work a manager performs to regulate and improve methods and results."¹³ In the Preface to her excellent work on the subject, What to Do About Performance Appraisal, Kellogg urges strong action to achieve this goal: "Let the manager look to the reason for his appraisal and select an instrument designed for his purpose. Having made his appraisal, let him select and carry out a course of action which will resolve his problems or achieve his purpose."¹⁴

   Kellogg's theme is the admonition from The Mikado, "Let the punishment fit the crime." While this may cause us to wince a bit, its clarity and decisiveness serve a useful purpose. Much that masquerades as corrective action in Christian organizations does not fit the offense or inadequate performance it is intended to correct. Many who

Page 196

manage to get over the hurdle of appraising inadequate performance are bogged down when attempting to decide what to do about it once it has been identified.

   In approaching this most difficult managerial activity of performance-correcting, we are reminded by Allen of three conditions that must prevail for the manager to initiate effective correction action:

1. The manager must understand and accept responsibility; the manager must know what work he or she is expected to carry out.

2. The manager must agree to and accept the standards of performances by which management is judged; that is, he or she must know what results are expected and must agree that they are reasonable and necessary.

3. The manager must have command over his or her personal performance. If the manager cannot regulate the present operation and make the changes necessary to secure the results desired without constantly checking with superiors, he or she cannot be expected to carry out correction action.¹⁵

   Because of the emotional overtones that invariably cloud the area of performance correction, consultants are in agreement that certain cautions must be observed to insure the most effective results. The decision to approach the employee directly as a result of an appraisal (assuming it has not been made in co-operation with the employee) should depend, according to Kellogg, on the relationship existing between the employee and manager and on the probable receptivity of the employee. No problem should exist here if the employee respects the manager's knowledge in the performance area and believes the manager is sincerely interested in helping employees do a better job. She cautions, however, that, unfortunately, managers frequently

Page 197

tend to overestimate the soundness of the relationship between employees and themselves. This is true, she continues, not only because their own evaluations often hide resentment, dislike, disparagement and other unfavorable attitudes which might harm their relationship with the boss. In all relationships an employee's perception of the manager's competence and interest in helping employees do a better job is a critical factor. Kellogg maintains that the manager is admittedly able to get only an imperfect grasp of this view. Therefore it will always be safer, when one is implementing or coaching appraisal decisions, to assume that a poorer relationship exists than may actually be the case.¹⁶

   Factors affecting employee receptivity which warrant thoughtful review include (1) differences in age and experience; (2) rivalry; (3) unusual work pressures; (4) health; (5) off-the-job pressures; (6) length of time on the job; (7) desire for advancement; (8) recency of salary increase or other recognition; (9) change in managerial attitude; and (10) historical managerial actions.

   Where the manager is unsure of the probable receptivity even after considering the foregoing factors, he or she may elect to experiment with a small suggestion to observe reaction; to ask for the employee's feelings about trying a few suggestions for performance improvement; to wait for the employee to ask or suggest the appropriate time to discuss performance improvements; to proceed on the basis of past experience, assuming the employee will respond as before, or choosing an indirect approach.

   In the appraisal interview itself, self-criticism may be minimized by concentration on the standards for action which were mutually agreed upon initially. The manager should keep the emphasis on the "we" aspect rather than the "you" and upon the "action" or "results" rather than

Page 198

upon the person. When the employees have the opportunity to identify personal mistakes first, they are in a much more secure position than when they learn their mistakes for the first time from a manager in a direct confrontation situation. Attention should be concentrated on matters that are of significant importance to insure that the effect of the interview is not scattered over too broad and unimportant an area. Maximum participation and communication should be sought at every stage to overcome emotional resistance.

   Finally, management should assume the posture of "looking first to itself for the causes of ineffective performance." Improper instruction; inadequate instruction; lack of insuring understanding of assignment; poor communication — these are a few of the causes which can be corrected by the manager himself and they are appropriate areas of discussion with the employee. Allen concludes as follows:

   When taking corrective action, every variance should prompt a check to ensure that the cause of the exception is not an inadequacy of our underlying management. In this way, we can use our controls to ensure that we are accomplishing the results we want, within the limits we have set for ourselves. This is the final test of professional management.¹⁷

Chapter Thirteen  ||  Table of Contents

REFERENCES:

1. Allen, Louis, A., The Management Profession, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964.

2. Ewing, David W., The Managerial Mind, The Free Press, New York, 1964.

3. Allen, The Management Profession.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. "The Pursuit of Excellence," America at Mid-Century Series, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., 1958.

Page 199

7. Gardner, John W., Excellence, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1961.

8. Hatfield, Mark, "Excellence, the Christian Standard," Collegiate Challenge, May, 1965.

9. Allen, The Management Profession.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Kellogg, Marion, What to Do About Performance Appraisal, Rev. ed., American Management Association, 1975.

13. Allen, The Management Profession.

14. Kellogg, What to Do About Performance Appraisal.

15. Allen, The Management Profession.

16. Kellogg, What to Do About Performance Appraisal.

17. Allen, The Management Profession.

Chapter Thirteen  ||  Table of Contents