The Psychology of Management

Great Person vs. Great Opportunist A brief look at the history of leadership and management thinking is vitally important for any student of personnel behavior in the workplace. Beginning in what is called The Trait Era in the 1800s, it was commonly believed that individuals were granted good leadership “traits” by virtue of their birth. That is, it was thought that good leaders were “born into it.” The introduction of Darwinism helped to perpetuate this now outdated theory. By the 1940s, The Behavior Era blossomed in which researchers believed that “behaviors” were the more prominent source of good leadership. Before the close of the 1960s, The Contingency Era recognized that it was varying combinations of traits and behaviors which determine leadership effectiveness. The most intriguing aspect of the new thinking in the contingency era is the realization that it is not just that different styles are better for certain situations, but leaders must be able to discern the complexities in different situations and be able to adjust their style to fit those complexities. This new thinking brings the realization that there are an almost countless number of factors which determine the fate of an organization, any number of which may exert greater influence on outcomes than the leader. However, the leader can have varying influence on those factors. As in many other aspects of human behavior, there are two prominent theories concerning the “how” of becoming effective leaders. These include the Great Person theory and the Great Opportunist theory. Also influenced by Darwinism, the Great Person theory assumes that good leadership is not a trait that can be taught, but is instead genetic. Those who support this theory suggest that individuals in leadership positions that have not acquired these skills through genetics are forced to resort to coercion and scare tactics in order to lead. The currently available research finds no common thread to support these claims. This strongly suggests that individuals can indeed be trained to become effective leaders, so the Great Opportunist theory certainly has merit. Although, we should acknowledge that many managers choose not to partake in a constructive learning process to become better managers. As a result, they do engage in threatening behaviors which intimidate their subordinates. We will discuss this later in the book and show how devastating this can be to the overall organization. Pareto principle and the 80-20 rule What seems difficult for many researchers is the fact that there appears to be no predictable group of traits which guarantee good leadership. But there are some pretty good rules to follow and helpful traits which facilitate good personnel management. One of the simplest and most effective forms of time management is that of the Pareto Principle, developed by Vilfredo Pareto, a 19th century Italian economist and sociologist. Pareto asserted that there is a “predictable imbalance” of equity in all things because any activity is actually produced as a result of relatively few of the involved factors. As a rule for judging cause and effect, he suggested that a small percentage of causes are responsible for a greater percentage of effects. In other words, in anything we do, a small percentage of input, effort and work is responsible for a much larger percentage of output, reward, and result. Managers can use this concept in any number of situations. It is an easily applied way to save effort and ultimately, time and money. It provides a rule-of-thumb suggestion that 20 percent of all the work we do is responsible for 80 percent of what we accomplish. In using this concept, managers are prompted to identify which part of their effort makes up that 20 percent. If we can identify that 20 percent and adjust our behavior accordingly, we will accomplish much more positive results. This “80-20 rule” has a broad range of implications. It suggests that:  20% of the products we sell generate 80% of our revenues,  20% of our customers and clients are responsible for 80% of our sales,  20% of our customers and clients are responsible for 80% of complaints,  20% of our employees produce 80% of our work,  20% of employees are responsible for 80% of our problems,  20% of our mail contains 80% of the information we need to conduct business, and  If we had a list of ten important things to do, and we picked the right two, we would accomplish 80% of what was on the list. Those who most support the 80-20 rule do caution against relying too heavily on its strict interpretation. The general concept of focusing on “the vital few” is what is important, not the numbers “80” and “20.” The actual cause and effect for a given scenario could be 60/40, 85/15, or any other combination. The main focus is that a small percentage of cause is responsible for a much larger percentage of effect, and this should be realized in order to most efficiently maximize our time. An easy application of this principle would be to recognize (as exampled above) that only 20 percent of our mail contains 80 percent of our needed information. This lends great support to the concept of “delegation.” If we let a qualified subordinate wade through this maze of information and divert to us only that which is important, we filter out much of the “chaff” that does not maximize our time. Admitting that you’re naturally biased Confirmation bias refers to our tendency to prefer information that “confirms” what we already think. Even when there is greater information available that “disconfirms” or “disproves” what we think, we are more likely to choose the confirmatory information. This becomes a trap for many people as they discard very important information that may have helped keep them from embarrassing themselves or looking foolish. For managers, the important message here should be a reminder that it is better to look for information that “disproves” what you are thinking, rather than look for information that “proves” you are right. Not much different than confirmation bias is “self-serving bias” which reflects the way we are naturally biased in favor of what we find personally pleasing. It represents the way we naturally view certain outcomes not because they provide the maximum benefit but because they most benefit us, personally, right now. One of the most difficult tasks in decision-making is to remember that our preconceived notions greatly distort the information we are asked to review. Pre-conceived notions are greatly affected by our age, ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, and a host of other factors. While this seems simple, it creates a dilemma in decision making because we are inevitably very unreliable in what we find pleasing. What may be pleasing in one situation may not be pleasing in another. This is because our mood, how we interpret certain information, and a countless number of other factors affect the judgment of what we find satisfying. Unfortunately, many managers feel like they are not subject to common biases like everyone else. Managers acquire this weakness because they see themselves as having risen to positions of authority as a direct result of their own superior decision-making. This can be detrimental to the decision-making process. As we will examine in later chapters, the overall outcomes and results of decision making are affected just as much by the circumstances surrounding any given situation as by a manager’s decisions. We should therefore pay special attention to as many of the factors surrounding a given situation before assuming our decision-making alone will overcome them.