Skills of an
Effective Administrator
Although
the selection and training of good administrators is widely recognized as one
of American industry’s most pressing problems, there is surprisingly little
agreement among executives or educators on what makes a good administrator. The
executive development programs of some of the nation’s leading corporations and
colleges reflect a tremendous variation in objectives.
At
the root of this difference is industry’s search for the traits or attributes
which will objectively identify the “ideal executive” who is equipped to cope
effectively with any problem in any organization. As one observer of U.S.
industry recently noted:
“The
assumption that there is an executive type is widely accepted, either openly or
implicitly. Yet any executive presumably knows that a company needs all kinds
of managers for different levels of jobs. The qualities most needed by a shop
superintendent are likely to be quite opposed to those needed by a coordinating
vice president of manufacturing. The literature of executive development is
loaded with efforts to define the qualities needed by executives, and by
themselves these sound quite rational. Few, for instance, would dispute the
fact that a top manager needs good judgment, the ability to make decisions, the
ability to win respect of others, and all the other well-worn phrases any
management man could mention. But one has only to look at the successful
managers in any company to see how enormously their particular qualities vary
from any ideal list of executive virtues.”1
Yet
this quest for the executive stereotype has become so intense that many
companies, in concentrating on certain specific traits or qualities, stand in
danger of losing sight of their real concern: what a man can accomplish.
It
is the purpose of this article to suggest what may be a more useful approach to
the selection and development of administrators. This approach is based not on
what good executives are (their innate traits and
characteristics), but rather on what they do(the kinds of skills
which they exhibit in carrying out their jobs effectively). As used here,
a skill implies an ability which can be developed, not
necessarily inborn, and which is manifested in performance, not merely in
potential. So the principal criterion of skillfulness must be effective action
under varying conditions.
This
approach suggests that effective administration rests on three basic
developable skills which obviate the need for identifying specific
traits and which may provide a useful way of looking at and understanding the
administrative process. This approach is the outgrowth of firsthand observation
of executives at work coupled with study of current field research in
administration.
In
the sections which follow, an attempt will be made to define and demonstrate
what these three skills are; to suggest that the relative importance of the
three skills varies with the level of administrative responsibility; to present
some of the implications of this variation for selection, training, and
promotion of executives; and to propose ways of developing these skills.
Three-Skill Approach
It
is assumed here that an administrator is one who (a) directs the activities of
other persons and (b) undertakes the responsibility for achieving certain
objectives through these efforts. Within this definition, successful
administration appears to rest on three basic skills, which we will call technical,
human, and conceptual. It would be unrealistic to assert
that these skills are not interrelated, yet there may be real merit in
examining each one separately, and in developing them independently.
Technical skill
As
used here, technical skill implies an understanding of, and proficiency in, a
specific kind of activity, particularly one involving methods, processes,
procedures, or techniques. It is relatively easy for us to visualize the
technical skill of the surgeon, the musician, the accountant, or the engineer
when each is performing his own special function. Technical skill involves
specialized knowledge, analytical ability within that specialty, and facility
in the use of the tools and techniques of the specific discipline.
Of
the three skills described in this article, technical skill is perhaps the most
familiar because it is the most concrete, and because, in our age of
specialization, it is the skill required of the greatest number of people. Most
of our vocational and on-the-job training programs are largely concerned with
developing this specialized technical skill.
Human skill
As
used here, human skill is the executive’s ability to work effectively as a
group member and to build cooperative effort within the team he leads. As technical skill
is primarily concerned with working with “things” (processes or physical
objects), so human skill is primarily concerned with working
with people. This skill is demonstrated in the way the individual perceives
(and recognizes the perceptions of) his superiors, equals, and subordinates,
and in the way he behaves subsequently.
The
person with highly developed human skill is aware of his own attitudes,
assumptions, and beliefs about other individuals and groups; he is able to see
the usefulness and limitations of these feelings. By accepting the existence of
viewpoints, perceptions, and beliefs which are different from his own, he is
skilled in understanding what others really mean by their words and behavior.
He is equally skillful in communicating to others, in their own contexts, what
he means by hisbehavior.
Such
a person works to create an atmosphere of approval and security in which
subordinates feel free to express themselves without fear of censure or
ridicule, by encouraging them to participate in the planning and carrying out
of those things which directly affect them. He is sufficiently sensitive to the
needs and motivations of others in his organization so that he can judge the
possible reactions to, and outcomes of, various courses of action he may
undertake. Having this sensitivity, he is able and willing to act in
a way which takes these perceptions by others into account.
Real
skill in working with others must become a natural, continuous activity, since
it involves sensitivity not only at times of decision making but also in the
day-by-day behavior of the individual. Human skill cannot be a “sometime
thing.” Techniques cannot be randomly applied, nor can personality traits be
put on or removed like an overcoat. Because everything which an executive says
and does (or leaves unsaid or undone) has an effect on his associates, his true
self will, in time, show through. Thus, to be effective, this skill must be
naturally developed and unconsciously, as well as consistently, demonstrated in
the individual’s every action. It must become an integral part of his whole
being.
Because
human skill is so vital a part of everything the administrator does, examples
of inadequate human skill are easier to describe than are highly skillful
performances. Perhaps consideration of an actual situation would serve to
clarify what is involved:
When
a new conveyor unit was installed in a shoe factory where workers had
previously been free to determine their own work rate, the production manager
asked the industrial engineer who had designed the conveyor to serve as
foreman, even though a qualified foreman was available. The engineer, who
reported directly to the production manager, objected, but under pressure he
agreed to take the job “until a suitable foreman could be found,” even though
this was a job of lower status than his present one. Then this conversation
took place:
Production
Manager: “I’ve had a lot of experience with
conveyors. I want you to keep this conveyor going at all times except for rest
periods, and I want it going at top speed. Get these people thinking in terms
of 2 pairs of shoes a minute, 70 dozen pairs a day, 350 dozen pairs a week.
They are all experienced operators on their individual jobs, and it’s just a
matter of getting them to do their jobs in a little different way. I want you
to make that base rate of 250 dozen pair a week work!” [Base rate was
established at slightly under 75% of the maximum capacity. This base rate
was 50%higher than under the old system.]
Engineer: “If I’m going to be foreman of the conveyor
unit, I want to do things my way. I’ve worked on conveyors, and I don’t agree
with you on first getting people used to a conveyor going at top speed.
These
people have never seen a conveyor. You’ll scare them. I’d like to run the
conveyor at one-third speed for a couple of weeks and then gradually increase
the speed.
“I
think we should discuss setting the base rate [production quota before
incentive bonus] on a daily basis instead of a weekly basis. [Workers had
previously been paid on a daily straight piecework basis.]
“I’d
also suggest setting a daily base rate at 45 or even 40 dozen pair. You have to
set a base rate low enough for them to make. Once they know they can make the
base rate, they will go after the bonus.”
Production
Manager: “You do it your way on the speed;
but remember it’s the results that count. On the base rate, I’m not discussing
it with you; I’m telling you to make the 250 dozen pair a week work. I don’t
want a daily base rate.”2
Here
is a situation in which the production manager was so preoccupied with getting
the physical output that he did not pay attention to the people through whom
that output had to be achieved. Notice, first, that he made the engineer who
designed the unit serve as foreman, apparently hoping to force the engineer to
justify his design by producing the maximum output. However, the production
manager was oblivious to (a) the way the engineer perceived this appointment,
as a demotion, and (b) the need for the engineer to be able to control the
variables if he was to be held responsible for maximum output. Instead the
production manager imposed a production standard and refused to make any
changes in the work situation.
Moreover,
although this was a radically new situation for the operators, the production
manager expected them to produce immediately at well above their previous
output—even though the operators had an unfamiliar production system to cope
with, the operators had never worked together as a team before, the operators
and their new foreman had never worked together before, and the foreman was not
in agreement with the production goals or standards. By ignoring all these
human factors, the production manager not only placed the engineer in an
extremely difficult operating situation but also, by refusing to allow the
engineer to “run his own show,” discouraged the very assumption of
responsibility he had hoped for in making the appointment.
Under
these circumstances, it is easy to understand how the relationship between
these two men rapidly deteriorated, and how production, after two months’ operation,
was at only 125 dozen pairs per week (just 75% of what the output had been
under the old system).
Conceptual skill
As
used here, conceptual skill involves the ability to see the enterprise as a
whole; it includes recognizing how the various functions of the organization
depend on one another, and how changes in any one part affect all the others;
and it extends to visualizing the relationship of the individual business to
the industry, the community, and the political, social, and economic forces of
the nation as a whole. Recognizing these relationships and perceiving the
significant elements in any situation, the administrator should then be able to
act in a way which advances the over-all welfare of the total organization.
Hence,
the success of any decision depends on the conceptual skill of the people who
make the decision and those who put it into action. When, for example, an
important change in marketing policy is made, it is critical that the effects
on production, control, finance, research, and the people involved be
considered. And it remains critical right down to the last executive who must
implement the new policy. If each executive recognizes the over-all
relationships and significance of the change, he is almost certain to be more
effective in administering it. Consequently the chances for succeeding are
greatly increased.
Not
only does the effective coordination of the various parts of the business
depend on the conceptual skill of the administrators involved, but so also does
the whole future direction and tone of the organization. The attitudes of a top
executive color the whole character of the organization’s response and
determine the “corporate personality” which distinguishes one company’s ways of
doing business from another’s. These attitudes are a reflection of the
administrator’s conceptual skill (referred to by some as his “creative
ability”—the way he perceives and responds to the direction in which the
business should grow, company objectives and policies, and stockholders’ and
employees’ interests.
Conceptual
skill, as defined above, is what Chester I. Barnard, former president of the
New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, is implying when he says: “…the essential
aspect of the [executive] process is the sensing of the organization as a whole
and of the total situation relevant to it.”3 Examples
of inadequate conceptual skill are all around us. Here is one instance:
In
a large manufacturing company which had a long tradition of job-shop type
operations, primary responsibility for production control had been left to the
foremen and other lower-level supervisors. “Village” type operations with small
working groups and informal organizations were the rule. A heavy influx of
orders following World War II tripled the normal production requirements and
severely taxed the whole manufacturing organization. At this point, a new
production manager was brought in from outside the company, and he established
a wide range of controls and formalized the entire operating structure.
As
long as the boom demand lasted, the employees made every effort to conform with
the new procedures and environment. But when demand subsided to prewar levels,
serious labor relations problems developed, friction was high among department
heads, and the company found itself saddled with a heavy indirect labor cost.
Management sought to reinstate its old procedures; it fired the production
manager and attempted to give greater authority to the foremen once again.
However, during the four years of formalized control, the foremen had grown
away from their old practices, many had left the company, and adequate
replacements had not been developed. Without strong foreman leadership, the
traditional job-shop operations proved costly and inefficient.
In
this instance, when the new production controls and formalized organizations
were introduced, management did not foresee the consequences of this action in
the event of a future contraction of business. Later, when conditions changed
and it was necessary to pare down operations, management was again unable to
recognize the implications of its action and reverted to the old procedures,
which, under the circumstances, were no longer appropriate. This
compounded conceptual inadequacy left the company at a serious
competitive disadvantage.
Because
a company’s over-all success is dependent on its executives’ conceptual skill
in establishing and carrying out policy decisions, this skill is the unifying,
coordinating ingredient of the administrative process, and of undeniable
over-all importance.
Relative Importance
We
may notice that, in a very real sense, conceptual skill embodies consideration
of both the technical and human aspects of the organization. Yet the concept
of skill, as an ability to translate knowledge into action, should
enable one to distinguish between the three skills of performing the technical
activities (technical skill), understanding and motivating individuals and
groups (human skill), and coordinating and integrating all the activities and
interests of the organization toward a common objective (conceptual skill).
This
separation of effective administration into three basic skills is useful
primarily for purposes of analysis. In practice, these skills are so closely
interrelated that it is difficult to determine where one ends and another
begins. However, just because the skills are interrelated does not imply that
we cannot get some value from looking at them separately, or by varying their
emphasis. In playing golf the action of the hands, wrists, hips, shoulders,
arms, and head are all interrelated; yet in improving one’s swing it is often
valuable to work on one of these elements separately. Also, under different
playing conditions the relative importance of these elements varies. Similarly,
although all three are of importance at every level of administration, the
technical, human, and conceptual skills of the administrator vary in relative
importance at different levels of responsibility.
At lower levels
Technical
skill is responsible for many of the great advances of modern industry. It is
indispensable to efficient operation. Yet it has greatest importance at the
lower levels of administration. As the administrator moves further and further
from the actual physical operation, this need for technical skill becomes less
important, provided he has skilled subordinates and can help them solve their
own problems. At the top, technical skill may be almost nonexistent, and the
executive may still be able to perform effectively if his human and conceptual
skills are highly developed. For example:
In
one large capital-goods producing company, the controller was called on to
replace the manufacturing vice president, who had been stricken suddenly with a
severe illness. The controller had no previous production experience, but he
had been with the company for more than 20 years and knew many of the key
production personnel intimately. By setting up an advisory staff, and by
delegating an unusual amount of authority to his department heads, he was able
to devote himself to coordination of the various functions. By so doing, he
produced a highly efficient team. The results were lower costs, greater
productivity, and higher morale than the production division had ever before
experienced. Management had gambled that this man’s ability to work with people
was more important than his lack of a technical production background, and the
gamble paid off.
Other
examples are evident all around us. We are all familiar with those
“professional managers” who are becoming the prototypes of our modern executive
world. These men shift with great ease, and with no apparent loss in
effectiveness, from one industry to another. Their human and conceptual skills
seem to make up for their unfamiliarity with the new job’s technical aspects.
At every level
Human
skill, the ability to work with others, is essential to effective
administration at every level. One recent research study has shown that human
skill is of paramount importance at the foreman level, pointing out that the
chief function of the foreman as an administrator is to attain collaboration of
people in the work group.4 Another study reinforces this finding and
extends it to the middle-management group, adding that the administrator should
be primarily concerned with facilitating communication in the organization.5 And
still another study, concerned primarily with top management, underscores the
need for self-awareness and sensitivity to human relationships by executives at
that level.6 These findings would tend to indicate that human
skill is of great importance at every level, but notice the difference in
emphasis.
Human
skill seems to be most important at lower levels, where the number of direct
contacts between administrators and subordinates is greatest. As we go higher
and higher in the administrative echelons, the number and frequency of these
personal contacts decrease, and the need for human skill becomes
proportionately, although probably not absolutely, less. At the same time,
conceptual skill becomes increasingly more important with the need for policy
decisions and broad-scale action. The human skill of dealing with individuals
then becomes subordinate to the conceptual skill of integrating group interests
and activities into a whole.
In
fact, a recent research study by Professor Chris Argyris of Yale University has
given us the example of an extremely effective plant manager who, although
possessing little human skill as defined here, was nonetheless very successful:
This
manager, the head of a largely autonomous division, made his supervisors,
through the effects of his strong personality and the “pressure” he applied,
highly dependent on him for most of their “rewards, penalties, authority,
perpetuation, communication, and identification.”
As
a result, the supervisors spent much of their time competing with one another
for the manager’s favor. They told him only the things they thought he wanted
to hear, and spent much time trying to find out his desires. They depended on
him to set their objectives and to show them how to reach them. Because the
manager was inconsistent and unpredictable in his behavior, the supervisors
were insecure and continually engaged in interdepartmental squabbles which they
tried to keep hidden from the manager.
Clearly,
human skill as defined here was lacking. Yet, by the evaluation of his
superiors and by his results in increasing efficiency and raising profits and
morale, this manager was exceedingly effective. Professor Argyris suggests that
employees in modern industrial organizations tend to have a “built-in” sense of
dependence on superiors which capable and alert men can turn to advantage.7
In
the context of the three-skill approach, it seems that this manager was able to
capitalize on this dependence because he recognized the interrelationships of
all the activities under his control, identified himself with the organization,
and sublimated the individual interests of his subordinates to his (the
organization’s) interest, set his goals realistically, and showed his
subordinates how to reach these goals. This would seem to be an excellent
example of a situation in which strong conceptual skill more than compensated
for a lack of human skill.
At the top level
Conceptual
skill, as indicated in the preceding sections, becomes increasingly critical in
more responsible executive positions where its effects are maximized and most
easily observed. In fact, recent research findings lead to the conclusion that
at the top level of administration this conceptual skill becomes the most
important ability of all. As Herman W. Steinkraus, president of Bridgeport
Brass Company, said:
“One
of the most important lessons which I learned on this job [the presidency] is
the importance of coordinating the various departments into an effective team,
and, secondly, to recognize the shifting emphasis from time to time of the
relative importance of various departments to the business.”8
It
would appear, then, that at lower levels of administrative responsibility, the
principal need is for technical and human skills. At higher levels, technical
skill becomes relatively less important while the need for conceptual skill
increases rapidly. At the top level of an organization, conceptual skill
becomes the most important skill of all for successful administration. A chief
executive may lack technical or human skills and still be effective if he has
subordinates who have strong abilities in these directions. But if his
conceptual skill is weak, the success of the whole organization may be
jeopardized.
Implications for Action
This
three-skill approach implies that significant benefits may result from
redefining the objectives of executive development programs, from reconsidering
the placement of executives in organizations, and from revising procedures for
testing and selecting prospective executives.
Executive development
Many
executive development programs may be failing to achieve satisfactory results
because of their inability to foster the growth of these administrative skills.
Programs which concentrate on the mere imparting of information or the
cultivation of a specific trait would seem to be largely unproductive in
enhancing the administrative skills of candidates.
A
strictly informative program was described to me recently by an officer and
director of a large corporation who had been responsible for the
executive-development activities of his company, as follows:
“What
we try to do is to get our promising young men together with some of our senior
executives in regular meetings each month. Then we give the young fellows a
chance to ask questions to let them find out about the company’s history and
how and why we’ve done things in the past.”
It
was not surprising that neither the senior executives nor the young men felt
this program was improving their administrative abilities.
The
futility of pursuing specific traits becomes apparent when we consider the
responses of an administrator in a number of different situations. In coping
with these varied conditions, he may appear to demonstrate one trait in one
instance—e.g., dominance when dealing with subordinates—and the directly
opposite trait under another set of circumstances—e.g., submissiveness when
dealing with superiors. Yet in each instance he may be acting appropriately to
achieve the best results. Which, then, can we identify as a desirable
characteristic? Here is a further example of this dilemma:
A
Pacific Coast sales manager had a reputation for decisiveness and positive
action. Yet when he was required to name an assistant to understudy his job
from among several well-qualified subordinates, he deliberately avoided making
a decision. His associates were quick to observe what appeared to be obvious
indecisiveness.
But
after several months had passed, it became clear that the sales manager had
very unobtrusively been giving the various salesmen opportunities to
demonstrate their attitudes and feelings. As a result, he was able to identify
strong sentiments for one man whose subsequent promotion was enthusiastically
accepted by the entire group.
In
this instance, the sales manager’s skillful performance was improperly
interpreted as “indecisiveness.” Their concern with irrelevant traits led his
associates to overlook the adequacy of his performance. Would it not have been
more appropriate to conclude that his human skill in working with others
enabled him to adapt effectively to the requirements of a new situation?
Cases
such as these would indicate that it is more useful to judge an administrator
on the results of his performance than on his apparent traits. Skills are
easier to identify than are traits and are less likely to be misinterpreted.
Furthermore, skills offer a more directly applicable frame of reference for
executive development, since any improvement in an administrator’s skills must
necessarily result in more effective performance.
Still
another danger in many existing executive development programs lies in the
unqualified enthusiasm with which some companies and colleges have embraced
courses in “human relations.” There would seem to be two inherent pitfalls
here: (1) Human relations courses might only be imparting information or
specific techniques, rather than developing the individual’s human skill. (2)
Even if individual development does take place, some companies, by placing all
of their emphasis on human skill, may be completely overlooking the training
requirements for top positions. They may run the risk of producing men with
highly developed human skill who lack the conceptual ability to be effective
top-level administrators.
It
would appear important, then, that the training of a candidate for an
administrative position be directed at the development of those skills which
are most needed at the level of responsibility for which he is being
considered.
Executive placement
This
three-skill concept suggests immediate possibilities for the creating of
management teams of individuals with complementary skills. For example, one
medium-size midwestern distributing organization has as president a man of
unusual conceptual ability but extremely limited human skill. However, he has
two vice presidents with exceptional human skill. These three men make up an
executive committee which has been outstandingly successful, the skills of each
member making up for deficiencies of the others. Perhaps the plan of two-man
complementary conference leadership proposed by Robert F. Bales, in which the
one leader maintains “task leadership” while the other provides “social
leadership,” might also be an example in point.9
Executive selection
In
trying to predetermine a prospective candidate’s abilities on a job, much use
is being made these days of various kinds of testing devices. Executives are
being tested for everything from “decisiveness” to “conformity.” These tests,
as a recent article in Fortune points out, have achieved some
highly questionable results when applied to performance on the job.10 Would
it not be much more productive to be concerned with skills of doing rather than
with a number of traits which do not guarantee performance ?
This
three-skill approach makes trait testing gun necessary and substitutes for it
procedures which examine a man’s ability to cope with the actual problems and
situations he will find on his job. These procedures, which indicate what a man
can doin specific situations, are the same for selection and for
measuring development. They will be described in the section on developing
executive skills which follows.
This
approach suggests that executives should not be chosen on the
basis of their apparent possession of a number of behavior characteristics or
traits, but on the basis of their possession of the requisite skills for the
specific level of responsibility involved.
Developing the Skills
For
years many people have contended that leadership ability is inherent in certain
chosen individuals. We talk of “born leaders,” “born executives,” “born
salesmen.” It is undoubtedly true that certain people, naturally or innately,
possess greater aptitude or ability in certain skills. But research in
psychology and physiology would also indicate, first, that those having strong
aptitudes and abilities can improve their skill through practice and training,
and, secondly, that even those lacking the natural ability can improve their
performance and over-all effectiveness.
The skill conception
of administration suggests that we may hope to improve our administrative
effectiveness and to develop better administrators for the future. This skill
conception implies learning by doing. Different people learn in
different ways, but skills are developed through practice and through relating
learning to one’s own personal experience and background. If well done,
training in these basic administrative skills should develop executive
abilities more surely and more rapidly than through unorganized experience.
What, then, are some of the ways in which this training can be conducted?
Technical skill
Development
of technical skill has received great attention for many years by industry and
educational institutions alike, and much progress has been made. Sound
grounding in the principles, structures, and processes of the individual
specialty, coupled with actual practice and experience during which the
individual is watched and helped by a superior, appear to be most effective. In
view of the vast amount of work which has been done in training people in the
technical skills, it would seem unnecessary in this article to suggest more.
Human skill
Human
skill, however, has been much less understood, and only recently has systematic
progress been made in developing it. Many different approaches to the
development of human skill are being pursued by various universities and
professional men today. These are rooted in such disciplines as psychology,
sociology, and anthropology.
Some
of these approaches find their application in “applied psychology,” “human
engineering,” and a host of other manifestations requiring technical
specialists to help the businessman with his human problems. As a practical
matter, however, the executive must develop his own human skill, rather than
lean on the advice of others. To be effective, he must develop his own personal
point of view toward human activity, so that he will (a) recognize the feelings
and sentiments which he brings to a situation; (b) have an attitude about his own
experiences which will enable him to re-evaluate and learn from them; (c)
develop ability in understanding what others by their actions and words
(explicit or implicit) are trying to communicate to him; and (d) develop
ability in successfully communicating his ideas and attitudes to others.11
This
human skill can be developed by some individuals without formalized training.
Others can be individually aided by their immediate superiors as an integral
part of the “coaching” process to be described later. This aid depends for
effectiveness, obviously, on the extent to which the superior possesses the
human skill.
For
larger groups, the use of case problems coupled with impromptu role playing can
be very effective. This training can be established on a formal or informal
basis, but it requires a skilled instructor and organized sequence of
activities.12 It affords as good an approximation to reality
as can be provided on a continuing classroom basis and offers an opportunity
for critical reflection not often found in actual practice. An important part
of the procedure is the self-examination of the trainee’s own concepts and
values, which may enable him to develop more useful attitudes about himself and
about others. With the change in attitude, hopefully, there may also come some
active skill in dealing with human problems.
Human
skill has also been tested in the classroom, within reasonable limits, by a
series of analyses of detailed accounts of actual situations involving
administrative action, together with a number of role-playing opportunities in
which the individual is required to carry out the details of the action he has
proposed. In this way an individual’s understanding of the total situation and
his own personal ability to do something about it can be evaluated.
On
the job, there should be frequent opportunities for a superior to observe an
individual’s ability to work effectively with others. These may appear to be
highly subjective evaluations and to depend for validity on the human skill of
the rater. But does not every promotion, in the last analysis, depend on
someone’s subjective judgment? And should this subjectivity be berated, or
should we make a greater effort to develop people within our organizations with
the human skill to make such judgments effectively?
Conceptual skill
Conceptual
skill, like human skill, has not been very widely understood. A number of
methods have been tried to aid in developing this ability, with varying
success. Some of the best results have always been achieved through the
“coaching” of subordinates by superiors.13 This
is no new idea. It implies that one of the key responsibilities of the
executive is to help his subordinates to develop their administrative
potentials. One way a superior can help “coach” his subordinate is by assigning
a particular responsibility, and then responding with searching questions or
opinions, rather than giving answers, whenever the subordinate seeks help. When
Benjamin F. Fairless, now chairman of the board of the United States Steel Corporation,
was president of the corporation, he described his coaching activities:
“When
one of my vice presidents or the head of one of our operating companies comes
to me for instructions, I generally counter by asking him questions. First
thing I know, he has told me how to solve the problem himself.”14
Obviously,
this is an ideal and wholly natural procedure for administrative training, and
applies to the development of technical and human skill, as well as to that of
conceptual skill. However, its success must necessarily rest on the abilities
and willingness of the superior to help the subordinate.
Another
excellent way to develop conceptual skill is through trading jobs, that is, by
moving promising young men through different functions of the business but at
the same level of responsibility. This gives the man the chance literally to
“be in the other fellow’s shoes.”
Other
possibilities include: special assignments, particularly the kind which involve
inter-departmental problems; and management boards, such as the McCormick
Multiple Management plan, in which junior executives serve as advisers to top
management on policy matters.
For
larger groups, the kind of case-problems course described above, only using
cases involving broad management policy and interdepartmental coordination, may
be useful. Courses of this kind, often called “General Management” or “Business
Policy,” are becoming increasingly prevalent.
In
the classroom, conceptual skill has also been evaluated with reasonable
effectiveness by presenting a series of detailed descriptions of specific
complex situations. In these the individual being tested is asked to set forth
a course of action which responds to the underlying forces operating in each
situation and which considers the implications of this action on the various
functions and parts of the organization and its total environment.
On
the job, the alert supervisor should find frequent opportunities to observe the
extent to which the individual is able to relate himself and his job to the other
functions and operations of the company.
Like
human skill, conceptual skill, too, must become a natural part of the
executive’s makeup. Different methods may be indicated for developing different
people, by virtue of their backgrounds, attitudes, and experience. But in every
case that method should be chosen which will enable the executive to develop
his own personal skill in visualizing the enterprise as a whole and in
coordinating and integrating its various parts.
Conclusion
The
purpose of this article has been to show that effective administration depends
on three basic personal skills, which have been called technical,
human, and conceptual. The administrator needs: (a)
sufficient technical skill to accomplish the mechanics of the particular job
for which he is responsible; (b) sufficient human skill in working with others
to be an effective group member and to be able to build cooperative effort
within the team he leads; (c) sufficient conceptual skill to recognize the
interrelationships of the various factors involved in his situation, which will
lead him to take that action which is likely to achieve the maximum good for
the total organization.
The
relative importance of these three skills seems to vary with the level of administrative
responsibility. At lower levels, the major need is for technical and human
skills. At higher levels, the administrator’s effectiveness depends largely on
human and conceptual skills. At the top, conceptual skill becomes the most
important of all for successful administration.
This
three-skill approach emphasizes that good administrators are not necessarily
born; they may be developed. It transcends the need to identify specific traits
in an effort to provide a more useful way of looking at the administrative
process. By helping to identify the skills most needed at various levels of
responsibility, it may prove useful in the selection, training, and promotion
of executives.
Retrospective Commentary
READ MORE
1.
Perrin Stryker, “The Growing Pains of Executive Development,” Advanced
Management, August 1954, p. 15.
2.
From a mimeographed case in the files of the Harvard Business School;
copyrighted by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
3. Functions
of the Executive (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1948), p. 235.
4.
A. Zaleznik, Foreman Training in a Growing Enterprise (Boston,
Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 1951).
5.
Harriet O. Ronken and Paul R. Lawrence, Administering Changes (Boston,
Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 1952).
6.
Edmund P. Learned, David H. Ulrich, and Donald R. Booz, Executive
Action (Boston, Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 1950).
7. Executive
Leadership (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1953); see also
“Leadership Pattern in the Plant,” HBR January–February 1954, p. 63.
8.
“What Should a President Do?” Dun’s Review, August 1951, p.
21.
9.
“In Conference,” HBR March–April 1954, p. 44.
10.
William H. Whyte, Jr., “The Fallacies of ‘Personality’ Testing,” Fortune, September
1954, p. 117.
11.
For a further discussion of this point, see F. J. Roethlisberger, “Training
Supervisors in Human Relations,” HBR September 1951, p. 47.
12.
See, for example, A. Winn, “Training in Administration and Human
Relations,” Personnel, September 1953, p. 139; see also,
Kenneth R. Andrews, “Executive Training by the Case Method,” HBR September
1951, p. 58.
13.
For a more comlete development of the concept of “coaching,” see Myles L. Mace,
The Growth and Development of Executives (Boston, Division of Research, Harvard
Business School, 1950).
14.
“What Should a President Do?” Dun’s Review, July 1951, p. 14.
A version of this article appeared in the September
1974 issue of Harvard
Business Review.
At the time this article was written, Mr. Katz was assistant
professor at the Amos Tuck School of Business Administration, Dartmouth
College. Since then he has taught in the graduate schools of business at
Harvard and Stanford, written three textbooks, and helped found five industrial
or financial companies. Until recently he was president and chief executive
officer of U.S. Natural Resources, Inc. Now he heads a consulting firm
specializing in corporate strategy and is a director of a number of publicly
held corporation
