Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
The remaining 3 did not describe personal reaction in these terms but it
was clear from their more general response that 2 would have come high on
the positive end of the scale and 1 low on the negative end.
It should possibly be emphasised that this, to the best of my belief, was
not a casual offhand reaction but the considered response of a group in
which the great majority were currently concerned with the possible commit-
ment of their Company's time and money on this kind of activity.
What could lead such a high proportion of senior and experienced
managers to find, as personally beneficial, the study of such a relatively
simple concept? To an.swer this, even specuiatively, rtrquires some descrip-
tion of the seminar.
First it involves some 25-30 hours of pre-work including the reading of
the book The Managerial Grid and various related activities. For example
a case history is provided and intending participants are asked to assess
234 THE MANAGERIAL GRID
the most characteristic managerial style (in grid terms) and the next most
characteristic style of each of the five leading characters in the story. Early
in the course of the seminar, at which those attending have been divided
into teams, each team meets to try to achieve an agreed team answer to this
same problem. The material is of sufficient difficulty to ensure that it is very
unlikely that all members of the team will have produced, individually, the
same answer. Their various judgements have to be argued out and resolved.
Already, in an earlier exercise designed to assess and improve their know-
ledge of the book they have become aware both of the time pressure and of
the comparison that will be made, by scoring the team answer, against the
other teams. There is no doubt, on experience, that teams become involved.
Quite fierce arguments can develop particularly in a team that has done
none too well in the previous inter-team comparison. When the exercise is
complete (and this has to be done in a fixed period of time) both individual
pre-work answers and team answers are scored in general assembly. A wall
chart is completed which shows the highest and lowest individual score (the
individual is not named) the average of the individual scores for each team
and the team score. Teams are ranked according to the relationship between
team score and average individual score, this relationship being used as a
measure of team efficiency.
Later in the week another exercise of the same kind is undertaken. This
time participants see a film (a full-length first feature film by cinema
standards). Then six leading characters have to be assessed in grid terms
both in general behaviour and in certain particular aspects of behaviour. The
assessments are made individually. Then teams meet to agree and produce a
team answer. Einally there is the same kind of scoring session as described
above.
Tt is clear both from the volume of argument at team sessions and from
the scoring (and degree of error) at general sessions that the concept, simple
as it may seem, has hidden depths to it. A second question immediately
arises. Given that the grid concept may not be as simple as at first appears
to be the case, are these hidden depths worth exploring? Observation, at
many seminars, leads to a personal conviction that they are. Eirst, in a
general sense, they provide a vehicle for the study of group behaviour in the
same, but more structured, way as sensitivity training. The great majority of
participants are struck by the fact that the team answer is almost always
better than the average of individual answers; that as the week progresses
a failure by the team to beat the individual average is less likely; that the
team quite frequently does better than the best individual in the team. All
this puts a steady pressure on team members to accept the need to listen to
and give real consideration and weight to another member's views. A high
proportion reach the conclusion that the need to listen to the other man is
something to which they have only paid lip service in the past; or that their
ability to listen, in a sincere attempt to achieve the best answer or decision,
is something that requires a great deal of development and improvement.
This list could be extended. Sufficient to say that the understanding of group
behaviour grows apace and without any need for formal teaching.
THE MANAGERIAL GRID 235
In the course of the seminar this figure drops to between 25 and 30 per cent.
In my own experience with 371 managers attending 14 successive seminars
the proportion assessing themselves as 9.9 fell from 61 to 31 per cent.
This I believe to be a crucial starting point in Blake's programme of
organisational development. Achieving real progress in developing the
organisation is extraordinarily difficult. The corporate body seems to have an
enormous inertia. One reason may be that the organisation is made up of
individuals and if each individual sees his own performance as satisfactory
progress is bound to be slow. Tt is necessary to convince the individual that
he falls short of excellence.
Normally the step we take is for the superior to criticise the subordinate-
in spite of the weight of evidence suggesting that this method is compara-
tively ineffectual. It is certainly my experience in talking to the senior man
or senior men of a company that the question is never how can I become a
better manager; always how can I make my subordinates into better
managers. These same subordinates have a double problem. They want to
know what can be done to improve both their bosses and their subordinates.
The Managerial Grid Seminar deserves high marks for its ability to make
some impression on this highly intractable situation.
However the study of the managerial grid and later steps in organisation
development cannot be justified solely in terms of attitudinal change. It is
desirable to show that the change in attitude brings with it other benefits.
This is none too easy since much of industry tends to leave social science
research to the academics. Additionally, the most acceptable measure of
benefit lies in the profit and loss account which is affected by many other
variables; which variables, in turn, the Company is unwilling to hold steady
while experiments on the effect of attitude change are carried out.
One research team (Barnes and Greiner) has studied a large oil company
which had chosen to go ahead with this kind of programme. After allowance
had been made for al! other variables over 40 per cent of the profit increase
seemed attributable to reductions in controllable costs—i.e., those costs the
size of which was govemed primarily by management effectiveness. In the
company concemed these cost reductions accounted for millions of dollars
in the year. None of this could be attributed to greater investment, better
machinery, better people or better working hours. From company records
it was reasonably certain that about two-thirds of the cost savings was
achieved through manpower reduction. The other third, still amounting to
several million dollars, came from higher productivity per man-hour. This
was judged to be primarily related to increased operating effectiveness
achieved through the organisation development effort. The increase in
productivity was impressive. The company calculated an employee pro-
ductivity index. From a previous high point of 103.9 the year before the
development effort began, it rose to a new high of 131.3 at a pomt inter-
mediate in the programme.
In another study on the unloading of tankers the average discharge time
at the docks was reduced from 14 hours to 9 hours. It seemed reasonably
certain that this was achieved entirely as a result of change in attitude of the
IHK MANAGERIAL GRUi 237
people concerned; and that the change in attitude stemmed from Managerial
Grid application. The saving in time added over $200,000 to proflis in six
months.
Finally it should be noted that the Managerial Grid Seminar is no more
than an introduction to a programme of organisation devektpment. It
prepares the ground; it enables managers to make a more realistic assessment
of their own effectiveness; it enables them to assess the organisation in which
they work and to get a clearer view of the improvement they, and the
organisation, might achieve; it is Phase t.
Phase 2 extends the learning process to the work situation. It provides a
structured programme for the development of small work teams (typically
made up of an executive plus those who report to him). The work team
applies grid learning on the job. identifles barriers to their effectiveness,
studies them and plans how to overcome them.
Phase 3 is designed to deal with a recurring problem frequently identified
during a Phase 2 programme. Very often a work team will conclude that a
serious barrier to their effectiveness arises in their relationship with some
other group. Phase 3 is designed to resolve this, to improve co-ordination
across departments and between divisions.
Phase 4 is used to help 'produce a blueprint'. While Phases 1 3 are largely
concemed with improving and correcting, with modifying things as they are.
Phase 4 is a possibly radical review of the foundations of the company in
order to contrast how it is now with an ideal concept of how it would be
organised and operated if it were truly eflective. It moves into problems
that require commitment throughout the organisation to get more and
better performance
Phase 5 is designed to aid with the implementation of the organisational
plan and the achievement of the organisational objectives produced during
Phase 4.
Phase 6 is a review of accomplishment so far and a replanning for still
greater eflectiveness. It is used not only t(» support and strengthen the
changes achieved through earlier activities but also to identify the need for
further change.
The entire programme could take anything from three to five years. This
seems a suitable point at which to return to the most frequent criticism of the
Managerial Grid; that it is a simple and obvious concept. So., too, is a door-
way. The real interest, surely, is in what lies beyond. There can be little
doubt that the problem of achieving results through people is basic. There is
much evidence to show that we are not yet very successful at it. And among
those who have attended a managerial grid seminar ihere is a substantial
proportion who believe that they can now see. beyond this doorway, a road
leading to better management and the better attainment of organisation
objectives.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIAKE, R. B.. MoirroN, J, s., BARNES, L. B. and (IRRINER, L. E. Breakthrough In Organization
Development, Harvard Business Review. November-December, 1964.
BLAKE. R. R. and MOUTON. J. s. The Managerial Grid. Texas: Gulf Publishing Company, 1965.
MCGRKiOR, D. The Human Side of Enterprise. L.ondon : McGraw-Hill, 1960.