"How Should Who Lead Whom to do What?"

by Dr. Clare Graves

YMCA
Management Forum 1971-1972

From the Historical Collection of the work of Dr. Clare W. Graves
- presentations, papers, recorded transcripts, notes-
William R. Lee                                                                                                                      August 2003

The position adjustment inventory, again involving the same twenty factors can be utilized by the employee to show what there is about the job, he is on, that is or is not motivating to him. Through these expressed preferences his supervisor can now confer with him as to whether the job characteristics can be changed in order to better fit the person and still accomplish organizational goals. If they agree it cannot be changed and still accomplish organizational goals then the supervisor, employee and personnel officer, if they desire, can utilize the results of the position adjustment inventory, the job preference inventory and the comprehensive job description to discuss transfer, training or other possibilities. In this manner, since the theory of organizational life I have expressed is built into this triad of instruments, the job applicant or incumbent indicates through his own expressed preferences his level of operation and the level of job he prefers. Categorizing tests are not necessary.

Another triad of instruments operates to enable supervisory people to express the way they prefer to manage. Thereby the organization is provided the information for establishing congruency between level of operation of both supervising and supervised.

Other systems exist which enable one to incorporate into management all that is indicated in Figures I through VIII, but time does not permit me to go into them at this time. So let me close with the following words.

I have tried to convey to you that ineffective performance arises when we don’t know How, Who, Should Lead Whom, To Do What – that the viability of an organization will be threatened when the relationship between work and sub-systems get out of phase. I have tried to convey that we have tremendous organizational problems for which we need some new ways of thinking in order to arrive at innovative solutions. For example, I have pointed out the problem that in any organization, in any department, we may find work requiring a basic kind of producer being done by people at many different levels who want to be managed in ways different than is the natural style of the manager.

If this be one of the major reasons for ineffective performance in organizations, as I firmly believe it is, then we have before us, one and all, a whopping organizational problem. And we need some genius-like thinking to frame them for us so that we can think innovatively about them.

Now it is time to close this paper and now it is time to take a final backward look. What is it I have brought before you? What is it I have said? For certain I have offered no simple pat answers to your problem of ineffective performance. I have offered you no solace. But may I say in closing, I hope no one ever does, because – if ever one should bring you pat answers to your problems than the fun of managing will be gone. If ever some one does, it will be the signal that we are near the end – the end of human being – the close of man’s experiments for organizing human life.

< previous  | 12 |  beginning