managerial leadership through motivation by objectives

Managerial Leadership Through Motivation

by Objectives

B y DAVID A. EMERY

Manager Development Consulting Service General Electric Company

THE main purpose of this paper is to outline an approach to managerial leadership that provides effective and practical means for fulfilling both the work objectives of a business (or business department) and the relevant personal values of individuals in the organization. Once the theory has been set forth, some of its implications for certain current issues in the field of managerial methods and corporate responsibility will be considered.

Elements of the Theory

A brief explanation of certain assumptions should be helpful in understanding the central hypothesis :

Assumption 1 : The values that people see in work are primary factors in their motivation to work and their attitudes toward the entire work situation (9, pp. 35-63). These values exist at both conscious and unconscious levels in the individual, and can be observed by both direct and indirect means. Surveys and depth interviews (7, 18, 19) have repeatedly identified the following items as primary values seen in work: security, achievement, contribution, sense of belonging, etc. Values of this type are assumed to be relatively durable in most people, frequently persisting for months, and even years. Work is assumed to be a fundamental, but not the only channel for fulfilling such values.

Assumption 2: These work values are dynamic in the sense that their relative importance may shift f rom time to time in any one individual. Also, these values are unlikely to be identical

65

66 DAVID A. EMERY

between diflerent individuals or groups. This assumption has an important bearing upon the leadership methods recommended later in this paper. At this point, let us simply note that such “internal” dynamics as psychological satiation (8) and matura- tion (15) and “external” factors like increased difficulty of the task or new opportunities can cause major shifts in the relative importance of work values within an individual. In work groups, such shifts as a new leader or a change in group standards can have immediate impact upon values the group induces upon its members (14).

Assumption 3: Most people in our culture are more ready to accept and follow their own decisions than the recommendations of others. While it is recognized that tremendous individual differences exist along this dimension, it is believed that most Americans place a high value on “freedom” or self-determina- tion, and want to see themselves as primary factors in the decisions upon which they take action. This observation does not conflict with the common tendency to hold others responsible if the results of the action seem unfavorable ( 5 ) .

Assumption 4 : Ever3 business organization and component’ of a business organization has one or more explicit or implicit objectives. Some phrase their objectives in terms of providing goods or services, and to equitably distribute the benefits derived from this activity among members of the organization. Others simply focus directly on maximization of profit, or they may include other purposes such as improved product and service, better relations with dealers and suppliers, better internal working climate, more effective cooperation with other components of the business, etc. Organizational objectives tend to be fairly general for the company as a whole and more specific for the components within a company.

Assumption 5 : L i k e personal work values, these organizational objectives are dynamic. They may change in content or relative

1 “Component” as used throughout this paper refers to any organization unit that consists of employees reporting to a full-time manager. This could be an entire company, or a division, department, scction, etc.

MANAGERIAL LEADERSHIP 67

importance as a result, of internal factors such as change in product line or personnel, or external factors such as changes in the market or competition (10, pp. 429-432).

Assumption 6: In business organizations as they are usually structured today, the manager of an organizational component i s held responsible for the objectives of that component and for the integration of those objectives with the objectives of the company a s a whole (10). While this assumption is essentially a statement of prevailing practice in organization structuring, it needs emphasis because this particular managerial responsibility sets a critical limit on the methods that can safely be used in order to stimulate man’s motivation through component objectives.

The Theory

The central hypothesis offered here is that regardless of organization level or type of work, men will work hardest, gain most personal satisfaction, and contribute most to the organization a s a whole i f they regard “contributing to the work objectives of the component” as the best available means to fulJilling their own work values now and in the foreseeable future. I n this f rame of mind people are more likely to be motivated toward high productivity, creativity, and self-discipline by forces from within themselves, instead of j u s t meeting the minimum required by “external” pres- sures.

Put negatively, the theory postulates that if some alterna- tive route other than contributing to the objectives of the man’s present component begins to look like a better means of fulfilling his work values (“better” meaning easier, quicker, surer to be effective, or more challenging-whatever is more appealing to the individual in question) then that is the moment when his productivity begins to fall below potential. This is because the present work will a t least have lost some of his attention, and probably also some of its apparent value.

(Parenthetically, let us be sure to acknowledge that the positive statement above represents a theoretical ideal, and

68 DAVID A. EMERY

that any attempt to apply it in real life must take into account the tremendous range of individual differences in potential to respond to even the most promising and stimulating work situation with “maximum productivity, creativity, and self- discipline.” Therefore, in the following attempt to develop practical managerial methods for creating the kind of work situation and psychological “~l imate’~ that will stimulate motivation from within, it is being continually assumed that some individuals are unlikely to respond a t all, some would proceed under their own power even under highly “unfavorable” managerial approaches, but the majority will be afected to a significant degree by their manager’s approach.)

Implications for Managerial Leadership

There are many things a manager can do to help build this “means-end” compatibility between component work objectives and the work values of individuals and groups reporting to him. Some of these steps are outlined below. Before proceed- ing to specifics, however, it seems appropriate to point out that all of these detailed methods have something in common which may be regarded as adding up to a particular approach to managing.

The central theme of this managerial approach is to expand the role of non-managers through increased participation in decision-making and greater sense o j personal responsibility by methods that will increase component productivity and yet pre- serve the managerial control needed to integrate the work of the component wi th the work of other components in the organization. This is not a new theme, but neither is it one that has been mastered. The challenge to “stimulate more participation” and “delegate more” has too often resulted in time-consuming meetings and loss of managerial control. This situation, in turn, has frequently been followed by a swing back to heavy- handed, fly-specking authoritarianism.

The methods of managerial leadership described below are believed to offer a solution to the “too tough-too soft” dilemma


by indicating how people’s participation and sense of personal responsibility can be increased without loss of managerial control.

A . Participation in setting objectives

process-can be accomplished in two ways : Establishing objectives-the initial phase of any planning

1. The manager can think the matter through by himself and announce his conclusions and the reasoning behind them to his subordinates.

2. The manager can solicit his subordinates’ individual or group recommendations (or both) on the grounds that their ideas are likely to be helpful to him in fulfilling his responsibility for having a set of explicit component objectives (1, pp. 85-87).

The second approach is strongly recommended for several reasons :

a. Consciously or unconsciously, people are sure to pro- ject their own work values into the recommendations they develop for work objectives of their component. For example, the man who places high value on creativity in himself is almost certain to stress technological leadership and innovation as important component objectives. On the other hand, the man who is more concerned with security is likely to stress objectives such as increased share of the market and profit margin. As a result of the inevitable operation of psychological projection (6, 17), any manager who wishes can gain considerable insight into the personal work values of his people by seeking their recommendations on component long- and short-range work objectives. However, managerial insight into subordinates’ work values is not considered the primary purpose of solicit- ing recommendations on component objectives in this case. The main purpose is to produce a set of component

70 DAVID A. EMERY

work objectives which o$er the maximum opportunity for realization of subordinates’ work values possible wi th in the l imits of the charter and responsibilities of the component as a whole. And since both the responsibilities of the component as a whole, and the work values of the individuals in it are always subject to change, participation in developing component objectives should be a continuing-not a ‘ ‘one-shot ”---process. (See Assumption 2. )

b. The second reason for recommending a “participation” approach to developing component objectives is that people are much more likely to understand and support ideas they helped formulate. There is considerable empirical work to support this proposition (3, 12, 13). One point needs to be clarified : the concept of “participation” has been widely used to refer to a variety of group processes ranging from submitting recommendations to group decisions requiring a unanimous vote. For present purposes, “participation” means submitting recommendations individually and/or in groups with discussion of these recommendations between the manager and his subordinates either individually or in groups but withJinal decision a s to which recommendations will become formal work objectives of the component reserved fo r the manager alone. This approach is taken because it is believed that a component manager cannot delegate his responsibility for component objectives. It is also believed that most subordinates do not expect or wish him to do so.

c. A third reason for recommending participation in developing component work objectives is that this approach is likely to produce a better set of objectives. “Better” in this case can mean more appropriate to the facilities and personnel, more complete, and even more challenging. “Better” can also mean fuller


utilization of available technology. This is increasingly important in our era of accelerating technological complexity. In more and more situations it is becoming impossible for the manager to be a leader in all technological areas represented among his subordinates, or even to keep abreast of all developments in his own field of specialization (other than managing).

A word of caution should be added at this point: It has been found that groups can become so involved in setting challenging objectives and standards for themselves that they recommend unrealistically high goals. If such recommendations are allowed to become established standards, group members may react to their negative results with rejection of formal or in- formal leaders, or even each other (22).

d. Finally, chances of achieving mutual understanding and effective teamwork are increased if participation begins at the point of establishing or reviewing objectives, rather than improving methods, measures, or other work elements. This doesn’t mean to say that participation should be avoided in these other phases of work (the balance of this paper recommends participation by subordinates in organizing work and appraisal). The point here is that participation should begin with objectives because- . . . people frequently agree on objectives even when

they differ widely on methods, and the feelings of compatibility that grow out of agreement on fun- damentals provide an excellent framework for ex- ploring differences on specifics;

. . . apparent agreement on methods is bound to be short-lived if there are unexplored differences as to basic objectives.

These points have special impact at organizational levels where cooperation between different functions

72 DAVID A. EMERY

(e.g., manufacturing, engineering, marketing, etc.) is required. If functional managers have participated in establishing over-all department objectives, the objectives are more likely to take into account-and to stimulate-optimum contributions from the various functions.

B. Organizing for individual achievement and teamwork Participation in planning and setting objectives can con-

tribute greatly to subordinates’ readiness to work productively. But whether such good intentions result in greater contributions, no change at all, or serious frustration depends upon more than the planning process. Perhaps the most critical other factor is the way in which the work for which the component is responsible is divided and structured among individuals and groups (4).

It is beyond the scope of this paper (and the present ability of its author) to set forth anything like an adequate guide for structuring work in organization components. All that is at- tempted here is to list a few criteria that seem relevant if individual productivity and teamwork are to operate at a high level :

1. The work of the component must be divided into “man- sized” portions in the sense that real contribution is possible for the individual doing the work.

2. While these pieces of work must be “doable,” they should also be sufficiently difficult for the worker to feel chal- lenged as he approaches the work and have a sense of achievement when he completes it.

3. The units of work must be measurable and appropriate standards must be set. These measures and standards should be understood and applicable by both the worker and his manager.

4. The portions of work structured for individuals should also be structured to permit a balance of individual work and teamwork. Available data (18, pp. 379-550) indicates


that people need both: individual achievement and a share in group productivity.

Fulfilling this last criterion is probably the most difficult task any manager faces in organizing the work of his component-particularly since the nature of the work itself often places limits on the way it can be structured. Here again, however, the manager can be greatly helped if he encourages participation (through review and recommendations) from his subordinates. None of these four criteria will ever be perfectly satisfied, but subordinates’ sharing in managerial efforts toward improvement will usually work wonders with their own frustration tol- erance.

C. Appraisal plus self-appraisal Our third criterion for structuring work specified that what-

ever measures are developed should be applicable by the worker himself as well as his manager. This is believed to be important because-

. . . component work objectives, whether “handed down” or developed through participation, are of little value unless measures are available to permit evaluation of progress toward the objectives;

. . . the whole process of building subordinates’ awareness of participation and increased responsibility is likely to be undermined unless the subordinate not only helps formulate the work objectives, but has a real and significant role in measuring progress toward those objectives.

This last point is not meant to exclude managers from work appraisal. The proposal here is that just as both manager and man have responsibilities for, and should participate in the processes of planning and organizing, so do they both have responsibilities for, and should participate in work appraisal. One increasingly common device for accomplishing this is to have the manager and the man whose work is being evaluated

74 DAVID A. EMERY

each make their independent appraisal and then review their observations together. Again, since the manager is ultimately responsible, it is h i s final synthesis that must constitute the basis for decisions on pay, promotion, etc.

D. Managerial investments for growth This somewhat ambiguous heading is intended to take us

back to the primary purposes behind the managerial approach suggested here, and to bring out two additional recommendations for day-to-day managerial leadership.

Up to this point, the main gains promised in return for apply- ing this admittedly complex approach to planning, organizing, and appraising has been greater productivity and more favorable attitudes among subordinates toward their manager, the organization as a whole, and each other. There is, however, another possible gain that has been receiving more and more attention in modern business and industrial organizations : accelerated development of personnel including those with managerial potential.

It is believed that expanding the subordinate’s role along the lines indicated above will provide the strongest possible stimulant and optimum climate for personal growth. It is also believed that participation in managerial decisions (within the limits indicated) is one effective means of finding and developing managerial potential.

Here are two specific recommendations for day-to-day managerial leadership that have critical impact on productivity and growth of personnel but which are rarely practiced con- sistently:

1. Encourage “uiorlc-centered” criticism. Very few managers go beyond allowing occasional criticism. The reason for this is usually the ultimately threatening implications of any criticism for the manager. The element of personal threat can be minimized, however, by encouraging critical examination of the work methods and results- without reference to personal responsibility. Even though this approach does not completely eliminate implicit


2.

threats to security, a critical outlook is believed to be an important element in work quality and the growth process of an individual or a component. It hurts a little, but it pays; and as time passes, it hurts less and less. This is particularly true when the manager shows by example that he places a positive value on a critical view of the work-especially when the work happens to be his own (21). Reward “ ~ ~ n ~ t r ~ ~ t i v e ~ ’ mistakes. This means that within the limits permitted by budgets and deadlines, a manager should not only not punish people for mistakes made in attempts to improve, he should actually reward them in some appropriate form. If improvements in methods and personnel development are desired, mistakes are es- sential-as they are in all human learning where immediate, total insight is not the rule. One of the great unmeasured losses in business and industry is the un- realized innovations inhibited by fear of disapproval lest the attempt prove a failure.

Two current issues

Since the preceding discussion has emphasized a particular approach to managerial leadership, it should-and does-have implications for the controversy over the relative value of “command” versus “persuasion” as a managerial method for dealing with subordinates :

I. “Command versus Persuasion” Some students of managing suggest that managers should avoid giving direct commands and should use “methods of persuasion” in their place. Apparently, “methods of persuasion” include leading questions, suggestions, recommendations (2, pp. 105-106). In order to come to grips with this issue, it is necessary to define “command.” Webster defines “c~mmand” as “to direct authoritatively; to order.” But for our purposes this definition needs further specification : Does the source of the authority derive primarily from the power

76 DAVID A. EMERY

designated in the manager’s position?-or does it derive primarily from the responsibilities and knowledge inherent in his position? It is agreed that managers should never issue directives supported only by the power of their position. But it is also believed that there is nothing wrong with managerial directives that stem from the particular set of responsibilities and knowledge that are structured into the organization position filled by a “manager.” “Commands” or directives deriving from these factors may be likened to the calling of signals by a quarterback. The team has agreed that this is his appropriate function, and he is expected to fulfill it. The present theory bears on this issue in the sense that, while no attempt is being made to decrease or increase the number of managerial directives, one of our purposes is to plan, organize, and appraise the work of a component in a manner that liberates more of the manager’s time and energy for his primary task of integrating the work of his component with work of other organization components and with the organization as a whole. Directives to this end will be expected and required by his subordinates, since the nature of their positions offers a much more limited view of the larger organization than is available to the manager (16, 20).

There is considerable discussion, both through congressional investigation and among the public at large, as to the long- range role and contribution of large corporations in our “free- enterprise” system. The type of internal leadership approach used in these corporations may have a critical bearing on the public’s acceptance of big corporations, since the employees of these organizations form a significant source of over-all public opinion.

2. “Legitimacy of the Corporation” This refers to questions raised by private individuals, unions, and some government officials about whether modern corporations have grown “too big,” and have


come to possess “too much power” (16). Obviously no attempt will be made to settle this issue here, since there are many factors to be studied in any effort to treat the matter objectively. One point, however, seems relevant: It is believed that one criterion for evaluating the “legitimacy” of a large corporation is whether i t i s able to support a n internal set of man-manager relationships and general working climate that i s at least as conducive to individual self-realization and growth as our over-all national political and social climate. The recommendations in this paper are seen as containing major potential for fulfilling and even surpassing this criterion.

Conclusion

One theoretical approach to improving productivity, component climate, and over-all organizational integration has been offered. Many excellent efforts toward these goals are already in print. But disappointingly little systematic, empirical work is being done to test these theories. For example, there is a tremendous need for research on such critical items as-

. . . what forms of component and company structure (number of levels, size of “spans of control,” communication channels, etc.) are most effective?

. . . what approaches to managing are best suited to different types of organization structure?

Some authors have suggested that as automation and data- processing techniques advance, organizational re-centralization will follow and “middle-management”-as we now know it- will no longer be the locus of significant decisions. From these assumptions, it has been concluded that concern over morale and productivity is likely to fade out as a managerial problem since, “The execution of controllable routine acts does not require great enthusiasm by the actors” (1 1).

Frankly, this approach seems over-simplified to me for three reasons :

1. Many “rank-and-file” activities today are following a

78 DAVID A. EMERY

close program (according to the authors cited above), but where is the operation in which rank-and-file morale and productivity are not major concerns to the management?

2. Even if the new methods should eliminate “middle- management” as we know it today, the leadership and decision problems of this group will, in all probability, shift upward into the “Tight Little Oligarchy” described by Leavitt and Whisler (11).

3. No one has yet suggested that the new methods referred to will eliminate critical decision-making and “front-line’’ leadership needs in construction and maintenance types of work.

Therefore, I believe that improvements in managerial leadership will be the central factor in bringing our entire social structure closer to its ideal of individual freedom and growth within flexible, productive organizations-for us and for our grandchildren. I hope that business and industry will become increasingly sensitive to the need for basic research on these problems, and will respond by providing many times the men and facilities now engaged in such work.

References

1. BARNARD, C. Organization and management. Harvard University Press, 1952. 2. DOOHER, J. AND MARQUIS, V. Egective communication o n the job. New York:

American Management Association, 1956. 3. EMERY, D. The field theoretical approach to social research. In Social Research,

1950, 17, 479480. 4. EMERY, D., ETAL. Task structure as a determinant of behavior in cooperative and

competitive social situations. New School for Social Research Library, 1951 (mimeographed).

5. FRENCH J. R. P., JR. The behavior of organized and unorganized groups under conditions of frustration and fear. Studies in topological and vector psychology, 111. Iowa City: University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 1944. Pp. XX and 229-308.

6. FREUD, S. Collected papers. Vol. I1 and Vol. IV. London: Assoc. Bookseller, 1925. 7. HERZBERG, F., ET AL. J o b attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh:

8. KARBTEIN, A, Psychische Sattigung, Psychol. Forsch., 1927, 10 and 142-254. 9. KOHLER, W. T h e place of value in a world of facts . New York: Liveright, 1938.

10. KOONTZ, H. AND O’DONNELL, C. Principles of management. New York: McGraw-

Psychological Service of Pittsburgh, 1957.

Hill, 1955.


11. LEAVITT, H. AND WHISLER, T. Management in the 1980’s. Harvard Bz~siness Re- view. Boston: Harvard University, 1958, 36, 41-48.

12. LEWIN, K. Forces behind food habits and methods of change. In The problem of changing food habits. Committee on Food Habits, National Research Council (Bulletin No. 108). Pp. 35-65.

13. LEWIN, K. Group decision and social change. In Newcomb, e t al. Readings in social psychology. New York: Henry Holt, 1952. Pp. 459473.

14. LIPPITT, R. AND WHITE, R. An experimental study of leadership and group life. In Newcomb, e t al. Readings in social psychology. New York: Henry Holt, 1952.

15. MEAD, M. Adolescence in primitive and modern society. In Newcomb, e t al. Readings in social psychology. New York: Henry Holt, 1952. Pp. 531-539.

16. MCGREGOR, D. Getting effective leadership in the industrial organization. A d - vanced hfanagement, 0ct.-Dec., 1944, Pp. 148-153.

17. MURPHY, G. Personality. New York: Harper & Bros., 1947. 18. ROETHLISBERGER, F. J. AND DICESON, w . J . l~anagemen t and the worker. Cam-

bridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1943. 19. SCHWARZBEK, E., ET AL. Management attitude surveys by General Electric

Public and Employee Relations Services, 1958 (mimeographed). 20. SIMON, H. Authority. In Research in industrial human relations. Industrial Rela-

tions Research Association. New York: Harper & Bros., 1957. Pp. 103-118. 21. TORRANCE, E. Function of expressed disagreement in small group processes. Paper

presented a t Institute of Management Sciences. Kew York: October, 1955. 22. WILLERMAN, B. Group decision and request as means of changing food habits.

Committee on Food Habits. National Research Council, 1943 (mimeographed).

Pp. 340-354.

managerial leadership through motivation by objectives

Documents