Dr. Clare W. Graves

Now let us look at what the theory says about training for management. And as we do, let us ask a specific question, the sense of which will not be clear until this section is covered. What does this theory say about a managerial policy such as Cordiner’s concept of decentralization? This is a concept to be admired, but can it be achieved? This theory says the large mass of managerial people and the large mass of the supervised must have achieved at least fourth level dynamics before such can function. Unfortunately one must doubt that such has been achieved by many. To implement such a managerial policy into operation one must, first of all, establish assessment techniques which will measure whether those who are to implement this policy are at or can be brought to at least the fourth dynamic level. If one can find managerial material at the fourth level then such managerial people must be trained to work toward using, but not necessarily to use always the totality of the meaning of decentralization. They must be trained in all techniques applicable to each level so they can manage by those techniques appropriate to the people they are managing. They will find decentralized managerial techniques hopeless if those managed are not the fourth level. The managers will have to be trained to seek out replacements who are not fixated at lower levels or else decentralization will never have a chance. And higher management must learn that no amount of prodding, encouraging, cajoling, reasoning or even threatening will change a second level manager into a fourth level manager. On beyond this is the need to recognize that if decentralization is a reasonable concept for managing fourth level behavior what is to be the next centralized concept of management to be readied for the fifth level people we hope will come along some day.

At this point I should like to move to quite a different frame of reference and shall try to give sense to a number of business and industrial phenomena, which are puzzling some today. We find many activities occurring which trouble many people. Man workers seem to respond peculiarly to incentive systems, yet a system such as used at the Lincoln Electric Company just doesn’t work for other companies. There is much evidence that workers don’t seem to show the company and product loyalty that managers would like to see. If there is loyalty it is shown to the workers group and not to the product or company and even to the group rather than self in the more economic sense of the word. Dalton, in his book "Men Who Manage" portrays a picture of amazingly devious practices at all levels of management, many of which can be viewed in older ethical frameworks as quite unethical. Dalton’s book, by the way, is one I would recommend if you seriously doubt that there is some kind of substance in this theory. Then there is that behavior of very high management, which has been so much in the news in the last two years - - price fixing between manufacturers in certain industries.

If one views the actions mentioned from the position of first and second level ethics then such actions would be unethical. But, is loyalty one’s group over self or others unethical if we see such from a third or fourth level frame of reference? Is it unethical to lack loyalty to a product one produces if one sees that to produce it one is required, in terms of competitive economics, to shade overall quality for gimmicky sale-ability. Such is the view that third or fourth level workers would have. And what of the problem of incentive systems? Within second level ethics rugged individualistic production is good even if self oriented hard work of a few causes some to have no jobs. This however is not good to those operating from a third level framework. At the third level it is right to work only so hard as will assure that one’s friends will also have a job. The Lincoln Electric system fits second level people but it does not fit third level workers.

Are the devious practices reported by Dalton to be seen as unethical? Or, is it more meaningful to see them as what any decent self respecting fourth level person should do when his self-respect is strangled by the circumstances of his work day world?

Is there really any difference between one workers collusion with another to hold down production so that both are assured of work and a group of high-level managers agreeing to share markets and set prices so that all companies may survive. From a second level point of view both are unethical. From a third level point of view neither is unethical but both are unfortunate because neither set of actions considered sufficiently the problem of the consumer.

<< back | 7 | next >>