National Clothesline

I am currently reading a book entitled The Management Myth by Matthew Stewart. The author takes the concept that a company can employ scientific methods to run its business, and then tears the concept apart.

Consultants, especially those who promise to increase efficiency and productivity through scientific methods, are treated like con artists.

I once worked for a law firm that hired consultants to analyze its business practices. The recommendations were to work harder, bill more hours, collect more fees, and instill fear of job loss into the firm’s employees.

I thought the first few recommendations were, in addition to being self-evident, hilarious, and the last recommendation absolutely stupid. Fear is a short-term motivator; eventually, employees will figure out how to leave, how to cover up, how to cheat, or how to test your resolve to fire them. Or worse, imagine an employee so afraid to disclose a mistake that he allows a dangerous condition to go uncorrected.

The reason business management cannot be scientific is because employees, customers, and vendors are unique. What motivates one employee could convince another to stop trying. One customer may welcome a particular comment, while another might resent the same comment. One vendor may be cheaper but unwilling to accept returns.

A good manager knows the personalities of each employee he supervises and manages accordingly. John responds to praise, Joe responds to good-natured joking, and Bill responds to threats. Some employees do best under pressure, and others fall apart, making job assignment an important management consideration.

Unfortunately, the employment and labor laws are based on the myth that all employees can be managed the same way (or scientifically). If employees are treated differently, courts make the assumption that the different treatment was based on race, sex, age, disability, religion, color, or some other improper reason.

Everyone must be treated the same, or so the nation’s labor laws seem to say. But what about cultural, personality, and skill differences that might affect how employees perform or view the actions of their supervisors?

When I write columns such as this one, I try to impart suggestions that will keep companies out of legal trouble. In doing so, I try to keep in mind the practicalities of running a business. In my mind, making money is the foremost business consideration, and a so-called perfectly run company without business or customers is not a perfectly run company at all. Management is more complicated than “treat everyone equally well” (or in some cases, equally bad).

My suggestion in this column is to start looking for managers who have good insight into psychology and, if possible, train current managers on how to deal with employees, customers, and vendors.

All too frequently, good workers are promoted into management positions because of skills that will make them bad managers. For example, hard-headed devotion to perfection is great in a laborer, counterproductive in a manager supervising imperfect employees. A good manager must have an arsenal of “management” techniques for use with a variety of different personalities.

There is also no substitute for experience. Managers should be encouraged to discuss problems among themselves to come up with valid, effective, and sensitive solutions. A manager may have dealt with a particular customer before and have insight into what makes that customer happy. A manager may also be able to give advice on dealing with an employee problem.

Attending trade association meetings — or reading trade publications such as the National Clothesline — can also give insight. Seeing a vendor or competitor in a quasi-social setting has its business advantages. You might even learn some “scientific” management techniques.