Is Organizational Science really a Science?

[George A Guajardo]

Greetings all.

I just began a discussion with another blogger about the scientific nature of psychology in the workplace. This is a discussion I often have in real life, but seldom have the opportunity to write about. I suspect many of you have some interesting perspectives to contribute to the discussion and I invite you all to dig in.

I believe psychology is a science and one that can be of value to promoting organizational effectiveness. Feel free to visit my blog to read the details.

Another blogger I follow closely suggests that psychology is not a science and should not play a role in organizational decision-making. I have provided a link to her discussion.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

[Ben Simonton]

Good points, George. Having managed people for over 30 years, once I started truly listening to them I learned what I had to do to unleash each employee's full potential of creativity, innovation, productivity, motivation, and commitment. Over those years, I was able increase productivity by over 300% per person. And I also learned that managing people is a science as is leadership. That science includes specific actions anyone can learn and use to become an exceptional manager of people.

Best regards, Ben
http://www.bensimonton.com/articles.html

[George A Guajardo]

That was one of the more surprising things I learned about human behavior. Before I researched leadership, I honestly believed that you either had or, or you didn't. This is a position I still see a lot of, even among professionals that should know better. After diving into the research, it became clear that leadership behaviors are as teachable as other types of behaviors.

[Ben Simonton]

Most people have been misled by leadership gurus. Professionals tend to follow gurus who mostly studied leaders, rarely followers.

Understanding what leaders do is unscientific and almost irrelevant. Understanding leadership can only be done by listening to followers and figuring out what they follow. (Gallup is almost alone in so doing as reported by Marcus Buckingham.) Once we understand how followers and non-followers react to their leaders, what needs to be done to lead people to unleash their full potential becomes almost obvious.

Best regards, Ben

[Bob Gately]

Hello George:

"... it became clear that leadership behaviors are as teachable as other types of behaviors."

We can always teach wannabe leaders and others how to behave--that is easy--but will they behave that way all of the time under all conditions?

Executives who believe they can teach their employees to be leaders will have a much harder time creating effective leaders than executives who hire for leadership talent as well as competence.

Bob

[Ben Simonton]

George,

You said "Executives who believe they can teach their employees to be leaders will have a much harder time creating effective leaders than executives who hire for leadership talent as well as competence."

Sorry to disagree, but I have proven the opposite to be true SO LONG AS, and that is a big IF, the executive really understands what it is followers (~95%) follow and how to convert followers into being self-directed like the 5% who are not followers. The result in the four separate turnarounds I successfully conducted, the biggest being a 1300 person unionized group in New York City, was north of 300% productivity per person.

Best regards, Ben
http://www.bensimonton.com/articles.html

[Bob Gately]

Hello Ben:

I wrote "Executives who believe they can teach their employees to be leaders will have a much harder time creating effective leaders than executives who hire for leadership talent as well as competence."

"Sorry to disagree, but I have proven the opposite to be true SO LONG AS, and that is a big IF, the executive really understands what it is followers (~95%) follow and how to convert followers into being self-directed like the 5% who are not followers."

You have proven that executives who believe they can teach their employees to be leaders will have a MUCH EASIER TIME creating effective leaders than executives who hire for leadership talent as well as competence?

"The result in the four separate turnarounds I successfully conducted, the biggest being a 1300 person unionized group in New York City, was north of 300% productivity per person."

It is amazing how much employee productivity increases when managers manage more effectively.

Were these employees new hires or existing employees?

Since they were union members weren't they were hired to do the work?

Are you making the case that everyone can become an effective leader?

Wouldn't employers be wise to hire people who need the least amount of behavior change to be effective leaders?

Bob

[Ben Simonton]

Bob,

Some responses to your questions.

You have proven that executives who believe they can teach their employees to be leaders will have a MUCH EASIER TIME creating effective leaders than executives who hire for leadership talent as well as competence?

Most of the executives who believe they can teach can't because they don't really understand leading. I caveated my response with ONLY IF ---- because in 30+ years of managing people I learned that ONLY IF ---- was a prerequisite.

"The result in the four separate turnarounds I successfully conducted, the biggest being a 1300 person unionized group in New York City, was north of 300% productivity per person."

It is amazing how much employee productivity increases when managers manage more effectively.

Huge, beyond anyone's wildest dreams!

Were these employees new hires or existing employees?

1300 existing employees. My boss told me to either get rid of them since their customers hated them or fix them, my choice of which.

Since they were union members weren't they were hired to do the work?

I don't understand what you are trying to learn from me. You could not be asking for the obvious answer.

Are you making the case that everyone can become an effective leader?

Over 90% can become effective and the majority can become exceptional at managing/leading people. I proved that during my four turnarounds.

Wouldn't employers be wise to hire people who need the least amount of behavior change to be effective leaders?
No, because our authoritarian society forces us to adopt methods inimical to being an effective manager/leader of people. So almost everyone needs behavior change. The only effective choice is to hire people who are aggressive, persevering hard chargers with integrity and honesty, and then teach them how to become effective managers/leaders of people. I have an advantage there since I have the script they need with all the whats, whys and how tos.

Best regards, Ben

[George A Guajardo]

This strikes me as an "individual differences" discussion. Arming individuals with the same knowledge, skills and abilities does not guarantee homogeneity of performance. It does, however, results in a reduction in behavior variance... in organizations, this sometimes all we can hope for.

In the best possible world, we could hire people who are already leaders and people who are currently not leaders but have the potential to grow into one.

The other caveat I can think of (again from personal and professional experience) is that too many organizations strive to obtain as many leaders as they can, but place them in positions where those talents can not be used. If you want someone to agree with your every plan, please do not hire or train a leader.

Good leaders are powerful weapons. As such it is imperative that we can handle their power.

[Paul Hebert]

I just posted on this issue yesterday linking to both you and Punk Rock on this issue. I'm in your boat. But I believe the issue isn't so much about whether it is a science but most folks want some sort of "rule" based on the science - like physics and the speed of light - but psychology doesn't have "rules" like physics - it has statistically supported ideas that provide directional information but not "laws of behavior."

Here's the link to the post:

http://incentive-intelligence.typepad.com/incentive_intelligence/2009/04/should-you-use-psychological-tactics-to-influence-your-employees.html

[Ben Simonton]

Paul,

I suppose that for a psychologist the issue makes for interesting discussion. But for me, a manager searching for ways to manage people in a way to unleash their full potential of creativity, innovation, productivity, motivation, and commitment, it is moot. Although I read quite a bit of psychology back in the 60s and 70s, it did not provide the answers I needed. Maslow was interesting, but the history of what man has done revealed more about the true capabilities I was attempting to tap.

For my first 12 years of managing, I used a form of the traditional top-down command and control approach. After those years and spurred by the Copernican Theory (workers are the sun around which the manager rotates rather than vice versa) evinced by a group of behavioral researchers from Harvard, I started truly listening to my people for the first time. The more I listened and respectfully responded to this life-giving source of energy, the more I learned how they reacted to managerial actions and what they needed to become the superstars they were all capable of being.

Over the years, I did find a set of laws that were just as scientific and immutable as those I had learned in electricity, classical physics, nuclear physics, mechanical engineering and other sciences. By following these laws, I was eventually able to reach what can only be termed managerial nirvana because my people did unleash their full capability on their work, had extremely high morale, loved to come to work, and literally blew away competitors. The actions I designed were simple and easy-to-understand by subordinate managers without whom I would not have been able to succeed in turning around a nuclear-powered cruiser or a 1300 person unionized group.

Best regards, Ben
http://www.bensimonton.com/articles.html

[George A Guajardo]

I am happy to learn you have found a formula that works for you. However, it is my experience that your success is not representative of managers in the field. Too many managers believe their approach to be unassailable, even in the absence of data to substantiate their claims. This is possible, in part, by the fact that humans are not really good at testing hypotheses. We engage in information searches that confirm our hypotheses, and ignore data that contradicts it. This is how we end up with so many poor management practices.

Psychology gives us a way of testing our assertions. Is a specific management practice working? How is it working? How much better is this approach than it alternatives. This is something psychology can do that experienced managers can not do all that well.

On a different note, right that many of the psychological theories of the 60's and 70's did not lend themselves to business applications. However, even back then a lot of actionable research was being published... it simply wasn't particularly accessible or popular. Since then, psychology has changed dramatically and is now in a position to add value to people with a stake in organizational success.Freud, Jung and Maslow have not been at the forefront of Organizational science in many decades, but are still synonymous with psychology.

[Ben Simonton]

George,

Glad to hear that psychology has improved.

Has it developed to the point of having a set of rules and techniques by which a manager can unleash the full potential of each employee, given each a strong sense of ownership, and made them highly motivated and committed with very high morale?

Best regards, Ben