First, the theory suggests that the principles for managing people will change as the dynamic systems evolve because what people see as good for them or bad for them will also change. When people are at the second level they will consider that it is good for them to be told what to do, when to do it, how to do it and those who are in power will consider it is good for them to tell. Management will operate best in a pyramidal organization structure, highly structured central systems, downward communicating systems and individual incentives based on the mechanization of jobs will exist. But when any large mass of the supervised moves to the third level a radical change in managerial principles will need to be developed and applied if management is to be effective. Humanizing of the pyramidal structure will begin to take place, management led participation management with communication from above and feedback and feed up from below will come into play. "Human relations training" of management and supervision will be operant, socialization of work will take place, group studies of attitude and morale will function, grievance procedure will come in to humanize controls, incentive payment will move to group incentives with individual pay a decision of the group, not of management. Then when fourth level behavior develops the flat or decentralized concept of the organization will develop, power of decision will be moved downward to he who should functionally make the decision. The supervisor will begin to work for the supervised rather than the underling working for the superior or the company. The Herzberg, Mousner type of incentive to work system would operate etc.

This situation of changing dynamic systems requiring change in managerial practices is much more complicated than just outlined. One complication stems from the rate of change. The systems of which I speak are probably changing at a rate that is almost beyond comprehension. The systems are a function, as I see it, of the life circumstances of people and these life circumstances are in a rapid state of flux. The general progression since late 1940 has been out of second level systems, through third level and on into fourth with some reaching for the fifth level. But at the same time we have had regressions such as the 1957-58 recession, the cold war, Sputnik and space anxiety which dropped many people back. Some of this is still present today. This situation of progression-regression brings us to a second implication.

At one and the same time, in most organizations, there will be people who are operating at different dynamic levels. Therefore, any manager must know how and upon whom to use what system of management. A second level manager discussing how to supervise with his first line people would need to be cognizant of all we have said and more. Not only will some people require constantly changing managerial practices because they are moving up the scale; not only will some require constant not changing treatment by management because they are fixated, but also some who are unstable will require day to day, week to week or even month to month shifting from one set of managerial principles to another set of managerial principles. This group will be so sensitive to changing life circumstances that they will swing from one dynamic behavior level to another as rapidly as their life circumstances change.