College and Research Libraries CHARLES MARTELL Administration: Which Way-Traditional Practice or Modern Theory? Recent technological and social developments are forcing many ad- ministrators to reassess the effectiveness of traditional managerial practices. Attempts to increase effectiveness by utilizing modern the- ories of management have frequently ended in failure. This arrticle maintains that features inherent in the traditional, "mechanistic" or- ganization hamper the creation of truly flexiblfJ and adaptive organiza- tions. If this is the case, it is crucial that administrators learn to rec- ognize and cope with these hindrances. This article focuses on three specific areas: (1) leadership; (2) group processes; and (3) organiza- tional structure. Where communication is perception, infor- mation is logic. As such, information is purely formal and has no meaning. It is im- personal rather than personal. 1 wHEN THE BOOK WAS PREEMINENT and unchallenged, the function of the li- brary in society was relatively clear. Events ·unfolded rather slowly and the library profession was allowed the lux- ury of adapting gradually. As an organi- zation, the library conformed to the tra- ditional mold. It was, in essence, ma- chine-like. "A properly designed admin- istrative machine has correctly assigned positions and levels of authority and definite rules exist for ensuring the cor- rectness."2 This mechanistic approach tended to ignore differences between in- dividual and organizational goals. The book is no longer preeminent nor unchallenged. Technological devel- opments have helped to create an en- vironment wherein "acceleration, diver- Mr. Martell is a graduate student in the Graduate School of Library Science, Syra- cuse University, Syracuse, New York. 104/ sity and novelty" are the rule, and grad- ual adaptation has become inadequate as a generalized response to change. As Lipetz suggests, the entire fabric of tra- ditional library practices and procedures borders on the state of chaos. 3 Outmoded procedures are but one small part of a far more general, far more complex malaise, i.e., the library's apparent inability to respond to the de- mands of an external reality. The li- , brary is not unique. Technological and societal developments have placed many organizations in a similar position. For years studies in the management and behavioral sciences have dealt with the problem of rapid change and its ef- fect on the viability of organizations. "The accelerative thrust forces time in- to a new perspective in our lives. It compels us to make and break our rela- tionships with . the environment at a faster and faster tempo."4 Both individ- uals and organizations are caught in this seemingly endless spiral. An administrator who can successful- ly integrate the often conflicting de- mands of employer and employee with- in a responsive organizational structure has come a long way toward insuring the survival of that institution, whether it be in business, government, or educa- tion. However, there are many elements inherent in traditional management practice which militate against such re- sponsiveness. In the following discus- sion, traditional practice and theory will be contrasted with certain aspects of modern management and behavioral theories; however, modern theories are frequently unsuccessful in practice be- cause they are largely incompatible with traditional forms of organization and managerial styles. Awareness of this di- chotomy should help the administrator gain a new perspective into the oppor- tunities and shortcomings existing in his own organization and in his own leader- ship style. This article will focus on three spe- cific areas: ( 1) leadership; ( 2) group processes; and ( 3 )_ organizational struc- ture. LEADERSIDP Traditional managerial philosophy bases leadership on the principles of control, direction, and planning. The organization itself is structured to fa- cilitate this arrangement. Within this structure, the manager manipulates his employee by .administering rewards and punishments in a systematic way. Ac- Administt·ation: Which Way I 105 cording to McGregor (see list of Sug- gested Readings which follows this ar- ticle) natural human tendencies are con- sidered antithetical to regular work re- quirements or, at best, are merely ig- nored. Managerial tasks are constructed so as to counteract those internal forces which are not directly supportive of the goals of the organization. 5 Throughout the twentieth century, r management theory has incorporated certain findings derived from the be- havioral sciences. The current emphasis upon the individual as a social being rather than as an isolated phenomenon has refined management theory; the once prominent view that saw man as a mechanical entity has changed. Man- agement practice, however, has failed to keep in step with these developments. When defined within the context of the following chart, management practice is primarily "custodial" in nature. While most research today is being con- ducted at the "supportive" and "collegi- al" levels, managers have progressed only slightly from the "custodial" to- ward the "supportive" area. A manager with an affinity toward a supportive style would frequently find himself handicapped by practical organi~ational constraints. Unfortunately, some of these so-called practical constraints re- . suit from managerial perceptions poorly FouR MoDELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AUTOCRATIC CUSTODIAL SUPPORTIVE COLLEGIAL Economic Mutual Depends on: Power resources Leadership contributions Material Integration Managerial orientation: Authority rewards Support & teamwork Employee orientation: Obedience Security Performance Responsibility Employee psychological Personal Organizational result: dependency dependency Participation Self -discipline Employee needs met: Subsistence Maintenance High-order Self-realization Performance result: Minimum Passive cooperation Awakened drives Enthusiasm Commitment to Morale measure: Compliance Satisfaction Motivation task & team Adapted from Keith Davis, Human Relations of Work: The Dynamics of Organizational Behavior (3d ed.; Kew York: McGraw-Hill, 1967) , p.480. Used with permission of McGraw-Hill Book Company. 106 I College & Research Libraries • March 1972 attuned to contemporary environmental and societal developments. The popularity of labels is not re- stricted to the area of management practice. They have also been used to characterize a particular :rn·anager's style of leadership. McGregor lists three cat- egories of managerial styles: "hard, soft, and firm but fair." These catego- ries are directly related to the Blake Managerial Grid, which is based on a manager's perception of his own style. The Grid theory suggests that there are two major variables affecting manage- ment style: ( 1) concern for production, and ( 2) concern for people. Concern for production and people are the two coordinates on the Managerial Grid. As each coordinate ranges in intensity from 1 to 9, it is possible to have eighty- one different managerial styles. For ex- ample, the team theory of management (maximum concern for production and people) would be ( 9,9) on the Grid. Managerial styles are frequently un- successful because they ignore the sig- nificance of intrinsic rewards and pun- ishments. Intrinsic rewards are "inher- ent in the activity itself: the reward is the achievement of the goal. Intrinsic rewards cannot be directly controlled ex- ternally, although characteristics of the environment can enhance or limit the individual's opportunities to obtain them. Thus, achievements of knowledge or skill, of autonomy, of self-respect, of solutions to problems, are exam- ples."6 No one style of leadership is ap- propriate · to · all situations, extrinsic or intrinsic reward systems notwithstand- ing. Each manager is unique and this will always be reflected in his style. Nev- ertheless, rapid change creates condi- tions in which the manager will have a greater likelihood of success if he uses an "optimizing" rather than a "control- ling" leadership style. 7 How, then, can managers change their style of leadership? I have come to believe that the presenta- tion of facts and theories, utilizing conven- tional intellectual methods of training and education, may often be ineffective when the subject m!ltter involved is related to the perceptions of managers with respect to their own ideas an.d to the nature of man. The most fruitful methods are those which utilize direct experience of a not too threat- ening kind, a safe environment for the open examination of issues, opportunities to test new behaviors, and positive reinforcement of such changes as do occur. 8 Summary In traditional management theory, an administrator exercises his leadership role by means of control and direction whereby important psychologiCal needs of the employee are ignored. This of- ten results in a mechanistic form of or- ganization. Thus, leadership is ill equipped to cope with rapid change, since it must rely on prearranged sig- nals rather than on the adaptive ability of the employee. Concern for produc- tion is the primary concern of the ad- ministrator in a mechanistic organiza- tion. Contemporary management and behavioral theories treat the organiza- tion as a biological entity. Administrators using an optimizing leadership style are more attuned to modern theory, which both accepts and seeks to .encourage em- ployee motivation. GROUP PROCESSES The tempo of contemporary existence is forcing management to consider ways of involving the employee in the attain- ment of organizational goals. Slater and Bennis state in their article entitled "De- mocracy Is Inevitable" that "democracy becomes a functional necessity whenev- er a social system is competing for sur- vival under conditions of chronic change," but that for "adaptability to change conditions, for rapid acceptance of a new idea, for flexibility in dealing with n()vel problems" and for "gener- ally high morale and loyalty, the more egalitarian or decentralized type seems to work better."9 Coordination of indi- vidual and organizational goals · is one important step in the creation of an ··egalitarian" organization. The mech- anistic approach to management is ill suited for the task since it assumes that all but a few workers are unmotivated. Seen from this point of view, the prin- ciple of involvement is farcical. Argyris believes that "the old forms are going to be more effective for the routine, noninnovative activity that requires lit- tle, if any, internal commitment by the participant."10 The problem of unmotivated workers is based on a misconception which is common to most managers: How do you motivate people? . . . You don't. Man is by nature motivated. He is an organic system, not a mechanical one . . . . This is the sense in which the behavior- Cll (J ~ e 0 Outstanding Good 't! Reasonable Cll p.. Minimal 10 Administration: Which Way I 107 al scientist distinguishes between an organic and a purely mechanical theory of nature.ll Involvement will tend to release mo- tivational forces inhibited by tradition- al management practice. It is only after the employee recognizes that his actions will lead to a degree of self-fulfillment that he will feel a sense of commitment toward the achievement of organiza- tional goals. There is every reason to be- lieve that this ~ill have a positive effect on performance (see chart below) . Participation in the decisions which affect his work situation is one means of obtaining individual commitment. Peter Drucker in his comments about the com- munication process and its traditional influence on motivation shows why par- ticipation is a prerequisite for commit- ment: For centuries we have attempted communi- cation downward. This, however, cannot 10 Unacceptable Non- Passive accept- Commit- ance ment Low Commit- ment Moderate Commit- ment High Commit- ment Commitment Relation of Commitment to Performance 0 ° From The Profess.ional Manager by Douglas McGregor. Ed. by Caroline McGregor and Warren G. Bennis (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967). Fig. 3, p.l28. Used with permission of McGraw-Hill Book Company. 108 I College & Research Libraries • March 1972 work, no matter how hard and how intel- ligently we try. It cannot work, fust be- cause it focuses on what we want to say. It assumes in other words that the utterer communicates. But we know that all he does is utter. Communication is the act of the recipient . . . all one can communicate downward are commands, that is, prear- ranged signals. One cannot communicate downward anything connected with under- standing let alone · motivation. 12 The start of communications in organizations must be to get the intended recipient himself to try to communicate.13 Group processes through dynamic in- teraction have the potential to bring the individual employee into the communi- cation process. In spite of overwhelm- ing evidence to support the notion of group participation, however, difficulties are frequently encountered in actual work day situations. Interpersonal Barriers to Effective Group Participation Behavioral scientists romp through management councils. Extemporizing on modern techniques for involving the in- dividual in the accomplishment of or- ganizational goals, they have created considerable interest among many ad- ministrators who feel that their organi- zations have shown themselves incapable of adequately anticipating the form of future markets, the effects of technolo- gy, and the specialized interests of the community served by that organization. However, administrators implementing programs suggested by the behavioral scientists often find themselves thor- oughly frustrated by the results. Partici- patory management, T -groups, D-groups, and a host of other laboratory-approved techniques have usually failed to meet management's subjective criteria for ef- fectiveness. A number of recent studies have explained these failures primarily in terms of interpersonal barriers, and organizational structure. At the upper levels the formal design tends to require executives who need to manage an intended rational world, to direct, con- trol, reward and penalize others, and to suppress their own and otherS' emotionality. Executives with these needs and skills tend to be ineffective in creating and maintain- ing effective interpersonal relationships; they fear emotionality and are almost com- pletely unaware of ways to obtain employee commitment that is internal and genuine. This results in upper level systems that have more conformity, mistrust, antago- nism, defensiveness and closedness than in- dividuality, trust, concern and openness.14 In the group process there must be some balance between emotionality and the demand for eff~ctive participation. Unfortunately, many individuals exhib- it little patience with remotionality. This is especially true of administrators who are accountable for group productivity. Groups which do not immediately con- form to expectations are categorized as unsuccessful and relegated to the ad- ministrators' mental dumpheap, or in rare instances disbanded. A great deal of time .and patience is necessary on all sides before a group can even begin to exhibit the first signs of true produc- tivity. Openness and trust cannot be se- cured overnight. Summary Social conditions are forcing admin- istrators to consider ways to involve the employee in the attainment of organiza- tional goals. Group participation is one technique that is frequently used. Un- fortunately, administrators participat- ing in thes e groups are usually condi- tioned to a mechanistic style whereby openness, trust, and emotionality are suppressed. The absence of these quali- ties causes group participation to b e no more than tolerably effective. Democrat- ic styles of organization which recognize and seek to encourage employee motiva- tion are inevitable, in spite of the fact that most organizations still adhere to more traditional forms. J , l ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Organizations are created for the pur- pose of exploiting a ·perceived need. People are grouped into various formal patterns or relationships in order to pro- vide the most effective ordering of re- sources. According to traditional organi- zation theory, this is best achieved: when workers are closely supervised, when workers and/ or their superiors re- port to and take directions from one and only one person, and when those in- dividuals with authority are held ac- countable for their actions and deci- sions. Such a structure lends support to a managerial philosophy which views the worker as unmotivated and mechan- ical. - The traditional structure is best suit- ed to those organizations in which it is possible for the top administrator to be effectively knowledgeable about most as- pects of his industry, where markets are relatively stable, and where the impact of technology is inconsequential. Fre- quent communication between different levels in such organizations is not essen- tial, since it is assumed that change oc- curs slowly and habitual patterns of re- sponse are well ingrained. During the 1950s, behavioral scientists offered management a systematic body of research findings which many felt would cure the ills affecting most orga- nizations. Group participation would, if applied correctly, encourage employee involvement, motivation, and commit- ment. This in turn would enable indi- viduals to cope with a rapidly changing organizational environment, and hope- fully would stimulate more creativity and innovation. When group participa- tion methods faltered, numerous stud- ies were und~itaken to determine why./ The study of organizational structure and design has provided some useful in- sights. What the behavioral scientists over- . looked was the complex nature of Administration: Which Way I 109 an organization's internal environment~ Many administrators initiating partici- patory management functioned within settings or structures which were inher- ently authoritarian. The organization was mechanistic, and it supported sim- ilar attitudes among its administrators. Accordingly, when participatory man- agement was undertaken, the primary emphasis was still on changing technolo- gy rather than on individual needs. Be- sides leading to many failures, this sub- jugation of human considerations to those of the organization demonstrated a continuing misconception of man's nature. The external environment has finally pushed itself right into the boardrooms. Management has been witnessing whole- sale disenchantment with the traditional structure of its institutions. Consequent- ly, the study of organizational structure and design has become a popular pas- time. Unique structures have been de- veloped to answer specific problems. Likert's .. linking pin" structure, the "Matrix" concept, and the "ad hoc-racy" or transitional task group are the best known. They feature free flowing sys- tems of communication and more effec- tive utilization of specialized knowl- edge. Unfortunately, they all share one basic weakness: relative inflexibility. They are merely limited types of re- sponse to .a particular set of circum- stances. Lawrence and Lorsch in Organization and Environment present a situational approach to organizational design called the "contingency" theory of organiza- tion.15 .. Their general point is that there is no 'one best way' to organize, but that different companies in different indus- tries require different kinds of organiza- tion structures at different times."16 The process of designing an organiza- tional structure appropriate to a partic- ular situation is extremely difficult. The number of variables to be examined, coupled with the complexity of the 110 I College & Research Libraries • March 1972 unit, precludes the creation of a "best way" structure. Three important vari- ables to consider are: external environ- ment, internal environment, and inter- action between the two. On the surface this listing appears somewhat ludicrous. Yet how can one ever hope to reduce the size of these variables to manageable proportions? Obviously, one cannot cope with their full dimensions. The favored approach is to attempt an iso- lation of the most important factors. The state of the national economy cer- tainly has an observable influence on the budgetary constraints of many organiza- tions. Technology alone can have a dis- tinct impact on the structure of viable institutions. Leadership styles can be de- termined, and clearcut suppositions based on these styles enumerated. Since the variables affecting an orga- nization are in constant flux, many plan- ners are trying to create individualized, adaptive structures. Some are even ig- noring formal charts-a radical event to say the least. The degree of flux is a cru- cial element in planning for change. Some industries are relatively static. Others are in a state of dynamic growth. It is important to recognize the vital factors. An industry is often static merely because uerception of its poten- tial has been inhibited. The railroad is a classic example of an industry which failed to develop as a viable medium of transportation because it chose to ignore the potential for expansion into other areas of transportation. An organization must be able to release the creative en- ergies of its personnel. A sick, static in- dustry, unable to free itself from out- moded practices, stifles the very energies which can lead to revitalization. Studies in the design and structure of on!anizations have yet to make a signifi- cant impact on managerial practice. This is due in part to the traditional gap between practice and theory. More important is the magnitude of change required for an organization to restruc- ture itself. Every function, division, and human relationship is affected. For this reason, widespread restructuring is unusual. It is more common to find ad- ministrators fiddling with their formal, organizational charts. To many, mini- mizing loss appears safer than maximiz- ing profit. Management is not riding a calm sea. As affi1med earlier, several developments are underway which seriously threaten traditional institutions. The aura of rapid change and acceleration has stim- ulated .an entire bevy of prophets. The ''knowledge worker" introduces difficul- ties of another kind. ". ; . Knowledge has become the central 'factor of pro- duction' in an advanced developed econ- omy ... to make knowledge productive will bring about changes in job struc- ture, careers and organizations as drastic as those which resulted in the factory from the application of Scientific Man- agement to manual operations."17 Em- ployees classified as knowledge workers are likely to be influenced by technic~! competence "rather than on the vagaries of personal whim or prerogatives of power."18 Inevitably this will lead to a direct confrontation with traditional structural approaches. A letter written in 1750 by the Ear I of Chesterfield for his son contained a truth which lasted . more than two hundred years: "Knowl- edge may give weight, but accomplish- · ments give lustre, and many more peo- ple see than wei!lh." If knowledge has indeed become the central factor of production, however, then those who neglect to revise the Earl's sentiment will gain little wisdom and less lustre. Summary Knowledge as a central factor of pro- duction creates difficulties for the typi- cal mechanistic organization. It is pos- sible that technical competence based on knowledge will become more valued and respected than personal power and authmity. Where effective group partici- r l l p.ation is hampered by organizational structure, changes in that structure will be called for. Anticipatory measures may become a matter of survival. Ad- ministrators must try to obtain a clear perception of their industry in order to develop organizational goals and time orientations appropriate to their envi- ronment. New approaches to organiza- tional structure stress the need for adaptability and flexibility. CoNCLUSIONs? There are none. One should not tidy up perceptions. Hopefully they remain amorphous, and competently so. And yet . . . a few months ago I read an ar- ticle in Newsweek, "New Architecture: Building for Man" by Douglas Davis. It gave me a new awareness: a mental connector between the substance of this discussion and the field of architecture . . . and further. Perceptions of struc- ture, whether of organizations, build- ings, or people, must be perceptions of life. Idealistic? But of course! "Behind the new architecture is no one design concept or social ideology but the basic idea that structures must be part of the social organism that in- cludes people and what they do as indi- viduals, families and communities. . . . The new architects see that promise in the beauty of flexible forms that in- spire, enhance and adjust to the chang- ing energies of human life."1 9 Administration: Which Way I 111 SuGGESTED READINGS Argyris, Chris. "Today's Problems with To- morrow's Organization," I ournal of Man- agement Studies (Feb. 1967), p.31- 55. Interpersonal barriers to effective man- ageme~t. Bennis, Warren G., ed. American Bu1·eauc- racy. New York: Aldine Publishing, 1970. Innovation, change, and need for new patterns· of organization. Drucker, Peter. Age of Discontinuity. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. A new age, new organizations-essential. Lawrence, Paul R., and Lorsch, Jay W. Organization and Environment: Manag- ing Differentiation and Integration. Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. , 1967. A comparative study . of several organiza- tions-get your feet wet .. McGregor, Douglas. The Professional Man- ager. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969. Finely balanced presentation-a must. Mockler, Robert J. "Situational Theory of Management," Harvard Business Review (May-June 1971), p.146-55. \ Generalized update of latest develop- ments. "What's New?-In Personnel Theory and Practice," reported by the 1970 ASP A Professional Information Committee, Pm·- sonnel Administrator (Jan.-Feb. 1971) , p.9- 16. . Discusses shift in values-useful bibliog- raphy. REFERENCES 1. Peter Drucker, T echnology, Management & Society (New York: Harper & Row, 1970)' p.12. 2. S. Krupp, Patterns in Organization Analy- sis: A Critical Examination (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961 ), p.80. 3. Ben-Ami Lipetz, "A View of the Special Li- brary of the Future," Drexel Library Quar- . terly (Oct. 1969), p.195-208. 4. Alvin TofHer, "New York Faces Future Shock," New York (27 July 1970), p.22. 5. Douglas McGregor, The Professional Ma:n- ager; ed. by Caroline McGregor and War- ren G. Bennis (New York: McGraw-Hill , 1967). 6. Ibid., p.7. 7. Thomas]. Sergiovanni and others, "Toward a Particularistic Approach to Leadership Style: Some Findings," American Educa- tio-nal Research Journal (Jan. 1969 ), p.62- 79. 8. McGregor, Professional Manager, p.67. 9. Philip E. Slater and Warren G. Bennis, ''Democracy Is Inevitable," Harvard Busi- 112 I College & Research Libraries • ~!arch 1972 ness Review (March-April 1964), p.53. 10. Chris Argyris, "Today's Problems with To- morrow's Organization," Journal of Man- agement Studies (Feb. 1967), p.49. 11. McGregor, Professional Manager, p.10- 11. 12. Drucker, Technology, p.15- 16. 13. Ibid., p.21. 14. Chris Argyris, "Management Information Systems: The Challenge to Rationality and Emotionality," Management Science (Feb. 1971), p.B276. 15. Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch, in their landmark work, Organization and En- vironment: Managing Differentiation and Integration (Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1967), analyzed four variables crucial to the success of any organization: ( 1 ) orientation toward particular goals, ( 2) time orientation, ( 3) interpersonal ori- entation, ( 4) formality of structure. 16. Robert J. Mockler, "Situational Theory of Management," Harvard Business Review (May-June 1971), p.147. Mockler finds a parallel development (situational ap- proach) in the behavioral area of manage- ment theory. "Attention has shifted from presenting universal leadership guidelines to studying such situational factors as op- erating requirements, individual and work- group needs, and the leadership style of in- dividual supervisors." p.147-48. 17. Peter Drucker, Age of Discontinuity (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p.264. 18. Slater and Bennis, "Democracy Is Inevita- ble," p.52. 19. Douglas Davis, "New Architecture: Build- ing for Man," Newsweek (19 April 1971 ), p.88.