"You cannot teach a man anything;
you can only help him to find it
Motivational Approach
to Management Development
By Rensis Likert
There seems to be widespread and increasing
dissatisfaction with current methods for review-
ing the work of managers and assisting them in
their development. Not only is the conventional
performance review failing to make a positive
contribution, but in many executives' opinions
it can do irreparable harm. For example, re-
cently a superior in a large company said, after
an experience with one of his men in a perform-
ance re\'iew interview:
"What I would give to have that hour back!
That discussion did more harm to my relationship
with Joe than I can overcome in. a year's time."
The aim of reviewing the subordinate's per-
formance is to increase his effectiveness, not to
punish him. But apart from those few employ-
ees who receive the highest possible ratings, per-
formance review interviews, as a rule, are seri-
ously deflating to the employee's sense of impor-
tance and personal worth. The relationship be-
tween the employee and his superior is damaged,
which in turn affects adversely the quality and
often the quantity of the work. It is virtually
impossible to tcll an employee either tiiat he is
not as good as another employee or that he
does not measure up to a desirable level of per-
formance, without having him feel threatened,
rejected, and discouraged.
During recent years members of the staff of
' Mark Twain, "Mark Twain Speaks Out," Harper's,
Doct'mbcr 1958, p. 36.
within himself." — Galileo
the Institute for Social Research at the Univer-
sity of Michigan have spent a good deal of time
on devising and improving measurements of em-
ployee reactions. These measurements indicate
to me that when subordinates say they want to
know how they stand with their boss, they real-
ly are asking for reassurance as to their future
in the organization. They want to be encour-
aged and helped in using more of their untapped
potential, but they do not want to be told of
their weaknesses and failures. Mark Twain ex-
pressed their orientation well in discussing ama-
teur writings:
"From old experience I know that amateur pro-
ductions, offered ostensibly for one's honest cold
judgment, to be followed by an uncompromisingly
sincere verdict, are not really offered in that spirit
at all. The thing really wanted and expected is
compliment and encouragement." ^
Unworkahle Process
The fundamental flaw in current review pro-
cedures is that they compel the superior tl) be-
have in a threatening, rejecting, and ego-deHat-
ing manner with a sizable proportion of his staff.
This pattern of relationship between the supe-
rior and the subordinate not only affects the sub-
ordinate but also seriously impairs the capacity
of the superior to function effectively.
An incident which occurred not long ago at
a workshop of experienced personnel men illus-
trates well the difficulty with the current per-
formance review process:
75
76 Harvard Business Reinew
This group worked out an ideal performance rat-
ing system and agreed unanimously that anyone
rated hy this process should be informed of the
results in order to help him grow and develop.
They decided that the review of any rating should
he done in such a way as to make the person rated
aware of his strong and weak points and to moti-
vate him to take steps to overcome bis weaknesses.
To illustrate how this should be done, the group
decided to role-play a particular case in which poor
planning and scheduling had occurred.
A group member volunteered to play the role of
tlie superior in the performance review interview
and demonstrate how to tell a person what his weak-
nesses were in such a way as to cause him to (a)
appreciate the information, (b) accept it as valid,
(c) motivate him to try to overcome the weaknesses,
and (d) react favorably to tbe interview. After 20
minutes the member playing the role of the supe-
rior gave up his attempt. He was unable to handle
the interview in a manner which did not make the
person playing the role of the subordinate feel he
was threatened, rejected, and even hostile. Others
who played the role of the man being rated also re-
acted as he did.
Three other members of the f>roup volunteered
to play the role of the superior and handle the inter-
view. All were equally unsuccessful in demonstrat-
ing how the interview eould be conducted so as to
meet the conditions specified. No one was able
to suggest how the interview could be successful.
Remember, tbis was a role-playing situation;
and tbe principals in it were intelligent, experi-
enced men of good will. If frustration attended
tbeir efforts bere, think wbat most executives
are up against in reaMife situations! It is no
wonder, tben, that in the light of tbis experi-
ence the members of the group reversed tbeir
previous position and decided unanimously tbat
tbe results of performance appraisals should not
be reported to the person rated.
New Pattern
Clearly there is a need to belp supervisors and
managers to appreciate deficiencies wbich can
and should be corrected. Is tbere a better metb-
od tban tbose now in general use?
I \^ ant to outline what I believe to be a new
and potentially promising approacb to tbe prob-
lem of performance review and managerial de-
- See, for example, R. L. Kahn, F. C. Mann, and S. E.
Seashore, Editors, "Human Relations Research in Large
Organizations, Part 2," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. XII,
No. 2, 1956; D. Katz and R. L. Kahn, "Some Recent Find-
ings in Human Relations Research," Readings in Social
velopment. Tbis approacb is based on what I
call a "modified theory of management." It bas
been obtained by integrating into an over-all pat-
tern the principles and methods used by man-
agers wbo are getting tbe best performance in
industry and in government.- Tbese principles
clearly indicate tbe need for a pattern of rela-
tionships between the superior and tbe subor-
dinate that is substantially different from the
pattern created by many performance review
systems.
Briefly, here are the most important assump-
tions and features of tbe new approach:
(1) The quality of superior-suhordinate relation-
ships exerts a major influence on the bebavior of
subordinates and on all aspects of the organization's
operation.
(2) The relationship between the superior and
his suhordinates which results in the best perform-
ance is supportive in nature and contributes to the
subordinate's sense of personal worth and impor-
tance. The superior dcmoiistrates to the subordi-
nate that he is genuinely interested in him and in
his career in the organization; believes in his capa-
bilities and is confident that he will perform at a
high level; considers him a human being and not
a cog in the machine; and is interested in the sub-
ordinate's mistakes from the point of view of train-
ing and not of punishment.
(3) Suhordinates seem to react unfavorably, at
least in our society, to negative evaluations b)' their
superior. (Some subordinates are so upset that they
actually fail to hear the unfavorable appraisals and
report that they do not know how they stand with
their boss.)
(4) People seem most willing and emotionally
able to accept, and to examine in a nondcfensive
manner, information about themselves and their be-
havior, including their inadequacies, when it is in
the form of ohjective evidence. (Although new or
unusual kinds of evidence may he resisted initially,
this resistance disappears as experience in the con-
structive use of data is obtained.)
(5) People tend to respond positively to infor-
mation suggesting potential impro\ements in their
behavioi" when tliis information is convened in the
friendly, supportive atmosphere of a small, well-
established group in whicb they feel secure.
(6) People seek to learn new and more effective
ways of behaving only when the\, theiiiselves, rec-
ognize the inadequacies in their present beha^io^.
Psychology, edited hy G. E, Swanson, T. M. Newcomb,
and E. L. Hartley (New York, Henry HoU & Co.. 1952),
pp. 650-665; and Rensis Likert, "Motivational Dimen-
sions of Administration," Atnerica's Manpower Crisis (Chi-
cago, Piihiic Administration Service. 1952), pp. 89-117.

(7) The extent of the individual's desire to learn
better ways of behaving depends on how important
he feels the situation is to him. The more impor-
tant he feels the situation is, the greater is his mo-
tivation to learn.
(8) When an individual is motivated to improve
and modify his behavior, it is essential that he re-
ceive prompt, accurate reports on the adequacy of
his efforts.
(9) Much of the learning needed for managerial
development must occur at the intellectual, emo-
tional, attitudinal, and behavioral levels. Learning
acquired at any one level is ineffective unless ac-
companied by corresponding changes in behavior
at the other levels.
(10) Persons in hierarchical organizations gen-
erally recognize the power of the hierarchy and try
to evoke favorable reactions from superiors who
have influence in the hierarchy.
(11) Participation in decisions in the small work
group under the leadership of a superior skilled in
the process is a particularly powerful method of
training and achievijig change.
Performance Variables
The foregoing approach poses a key problem:
Can we measure the human variables affecting
organizational performance well enough to sat-
isfy people's needs for objectivity?
Thanks to the achievements of social science
researchers, the answer is, I believe, yes. Ad-
mittedly, we have not reached the millennium;
a great deal more needs to he done in the way
of refining and improving the present tools. But
the measurements we can now make are accu-
rate enough, in my opinion, to enable a meeting
of the minds between superior and subordinate
on what the health and performance capacity of
a human organization arc. Here are the kinds
of variables that can be measured with objec-
tivity for a corporation as a wbole, a division, or
a smaller group:
1. Extent of loyalty to the institution and iden-
tification with it and its objectives.
2. Extent to whieh the goals of units and indi-
viduals facilitate the achievement of the or-
ganization's objectives.
3. Level of motivation among members of the
organization with regard to such variables as:
a. Performance, including both quality and
quantity of work done;
b. Concern for elimination of waste and
reduction of costs;
c. Concern for improving the product;
d. Concern for improving processes.
Management Development 77
4. Degree of confidence and trust among mem-
bers of the organization in each other and
in the different hierarchieal levels.
5. Amount and quality of the teamwork in units
and between units of the organization.
6. Extent to which people feel that delegation
is effective.
7. Extent to which the members feel that their
ideas, information, knowledge of processes,
and experience are being used in the deci-
siou-making processes of the organization.
8. Upward, downward, and sideward efficiency
and adequacy of the communication process.
9. Leadership skills and abilities of supervisors
and managers, including their basic philoso-
phies of management and orientation toward
leadership processes.
If there is any danger in using measurements
of the preceding kind, it is not their lack of com-
plete and absolute accuracy. It is that manage-
ment will ?/»^/t'rcstimatc the skill required and
assume that it is enough if a reasonably intelli-
gent interviewer asks people questions or if a
questionnaire is made readily available. Sueh
an attitude leads to costly mistakes and disillu-
sionment with the whole measurement idea. In
reality, the measurement of the variables just out-
lined is a complex process and requires compe-
tence in the social science Rckl.
Steps to Improvement
How can measurements of the performance
variables just described be applied? How can
they be used to help managers obtain better in-
sights into their strengths and weaknesses and
improve their performance?
In examining these questions let us keep in
mind that most companies are obtaining satis-
factory measurements for such end results as
production volume, costs, scrap loss, earnings,
and turnover. Moreover, most managers receive
regular reports on their performance as meas-
ured by these factors. Such indicators of per-
formance are well accepted in management cir-
cles. What we want to do now is build the
same kind of acceptance for measurements of
the impact of a manager's behavior on motiva-
tion, loyalty, communication, interaction, and
other aspects of the quality oi' the human or-
ganization. Unless we can watch changes in
these "intervening" variables, we cannot, as I
have pointed out in an earlier HBR article,
78 Harvard Business Review
assess tbe effects of a manager's action on the
future capacity of his organization.^
To illustrate bow tbe new measurements can
be applied, I sball take communication as a case
in point.
Communication Failures
Tbe efficiency of communication is often
judged by measuring bow well informed lower
levels in tbe organization are witb regard to
company goals, earnings, or similar items of in-
formation; or by measuring bow satisfied tbe
subordinates are witb the information made
available to tbem. These are useful yardsticks
but are not adequate to measure fully the ef-
ficiency of tbe communication process. For ex-
• The satisfaction of subordinates with the com-
munication and decision-making processes or
organization.
In addition, it is helpful for management to
know the extent to wbicb suhordinates estimate
correctly the goals of their superiors, and tbe
extent to wbicb they know and accept tbe ob-
jectives of the organization.
In situations wberc such measurements ha\'e
been obtained tbe communication process bas
turned out to be surprisingly inefficient. Tbe
results sbown for one organization in EXHIBIT I
are typical of tbe data produced in other studies:
At every hierarchical level subordinates clearly
feel that their superiors do not understand sub-

I. SUPERIORS THINK THEY UNDERSTAND SUBORDINATES' PROBLEMS WELL

BUT SUBORDINATES DISAGREE

PERCENT OFTHE MEN WHO SAY THEIR

FOREMEN UNDERSTAND THE MEN'S
PROBLEMS WELL

PER CENT OF THEIR FOREMEN WHO

THINK THEY UNDERSTAND THE PROB-
LEMS OF THEIR MEN WELL

PER CENT OF THESE SAME FOREMEN

WHO FEEL THEIR GENERAL FOREMAN
UNDERSTANDS THE PROBLEMS OF
THE FOREMEN WELL

PER CENT OF THE GENERAL FOREMEN

WHO THINK THEY UNDERSTAND THE
PROBLEMS OF THEIR FOREMAN WELL

PER CENT OF THESE GENERAL FORE-

MEN WHO BELIEVE THEIR SUPERIOR
UNDERSTANDS THE PROBLEMS OF
THE GENERAL FOREMEN WELL

PER CENT

ample, measurements sbould also be obtained
of the extent to which the superior can estimate
correctly:
• The production and performance goals of his
subordinates.
• The problems of concern to his subordinates,
and the operating problems of whieh the suh-
ordinates are aware but higher management
is not.
' Rensis Likert, "Measuring Organizational Perform-
ance," HBR March-April 1958, p. 4 1 .
ordinates' prohlems whereas the superiors feel that
they do. Similar discrepancies have been found in
the superior's capacity to estimate the performance
goals which his subordinates feel are reasonable
and which guide their productivity level; and sub-
ordinates are unahle to estimate correetly the per-
formance goals which their superiors expect of
them and consider reasonahle.
In bow many companies is communication
no better tban in EXHIBIT I ? Probably quite a
few. But tbe significant fact is tbat, at least in
my experience, neither superiors nor subordi-

nates are likely to realize how inaccurate and
inadequate the communication process is. As a
consequence, they are very much surprised when
measurements such as those shown in the exhihit
arc obtained and reported to them. Superiors,
particularly, are amazed to discover how un-
informed or misinformed they are.
Following Up
Given an analysis of the kind just described,
what does a manager do with it? Where do we
go from here?
As measurements of communication, loyalty,
and other such variables become available, each
manager can sec for himself what the data re-
veal about his strengths and weaknesses. He does
not have to depend on the subjective judgment
of a superior executive. He can decide for him-
self, on the basis of the evidence, where he needs
to improve and to develop. Moreover, analyses
based on the measurements give him informa-
tion to guide his choice of action. To illustrate,
let us go back to our communication example:
When a manager has analyzed the data for his
organization and becomes convinced that he can
and should improve conmiunication between him-
self and his subordinates, several alternatives can
be considered. Should he seek to use more writ-
ten and printed material between himself and his
organization? Should he hold stafE and organiza-
tional meetings in order to sbare information and
comniunicatc? Should he issue orders and exhort
his subordinates and organization to do more com-
municating? Or what?
One of the most useful types of information the
manager can have is data about the likely results
from each possible course of action. This he can
get from studies of past performance. Analyses
show, for example, that using large volumes of
printed material is not likely, in itself, to achieve
effective communieation — at least, as judged hy
the kinds of rigorous measurements which have
been suggested. But when the data measuring tbe
extent to which superiors can correctly estimate
the production goals of their subordinates are exam-
ined closely, the results show that the greater the
group loyalty and the better the teamwork which
exists in a work group, the better the communica-
tion and the smaller the errors. Thus, efforts to
* See, for example, Lester Coch and J. R. P. French, Jr.,
"Overcoming Resistance to Change/* Group Dynamics:
Research and Theory, edited by D. Cartwright and A.
Zander (Evanston, Row Peterson & Co., 1953), pp. 257-
279; Floyd C. Mann, "Studying and Creating Change: A
Means to Understanding Social Organization," Research
in Industrial Human Relations, IRRA Scries, Publication
17 (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1959), pp. 146-167;
Management Development 79
improve communication should also embrace steps
to improve group loyalt\' and teamwork.
Another illustration of the manner in whicb
the analyses of data can he used to help mana-
gers discover the best solutions to the problems
appears in EXHIBIT II. These data, collected by
Floyd C. Mann, indicate that when a superior
uses meetings to obtain the ideas and sugges-
tions of his subordinates and honestly tries to
do something about these ideas, his suljordinatcs
are much more likely to feel that he is good at
handling people than in the case of the superior
who holds meetings but whose behavior indi-
cates that he is not really interested in his sub-
ordinates' ideas. In other words, a supor\ isor is
better off never to hold a meeting tban to con-
duct meetings of his work group in such a man-
ner that the men feel he is not interested in their
ideas — a finding with an obvious bearing on
attempts to improve, say, the amount of team-
work and interaction among subordinates.
A high level of confidence and trust by the
superior in his subordinates is a basic require-
ment for full and frank discussion of problems.
Such attitudes and behavior on the part of the
superior arc deeply rooted in his personality and
are not easily or rapidly changed and improved.
But there is ample evidence that they can be
changed and improved if the superior himself
V7ants to change and iForks hard to do so.*
The use of measurements as guides to action
enables eaeh manager to tap the full experience
of his entire eompany — and other companies —
in seeking ways to improve his behavior and
his performance. He need not try eountless ways
of improving an operation on a trial-and-error
basis hoping that somehow he will find one that
will work.
Using the Tools
Measurements of human variables, together
with the traditional data on production volume,
costs, waste, earnings, and so on, provide the
hasic tools needed for a new approach to per-
fonnanee review and managerial development.
No doubt there are many ways in which the
Nancy Morse and Everett Reimcr, "The Experimental
Change of a Major Organizational Variahle," Journal of
Ahiiormal and Social Psychology, January 1956, pp. 120-
129; and Stanley E. Seashore, "The Training of Leaders
for Effective Human Relations," Some Applications of Be-
havioural Research, edited by Rensis Likert and S. P.
Hayes, Jr. (Paris, UNESCO Publications Division, 1957),
pp. 81-123.
80 Harvard Bush/ess Review

EXHIBIT II. WORKERS' JUDGMENT OF SUPERIOR'S ABILITIES IS MORE

FAVORABLE THE MORE MEETINGS THEY HAAE

lOO*
PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS WHO FEEL THAT THEIR SUPERVISOR IS GOOD IN DEALING WITH PEOPLE

90-^

80

70-- 74%

60--

577o
50-

40-•

30

20-•
25%
20%
10-•
12%

IN WORK GROUPS WHERE THE MEN

IN WORK GROUPS WHERE THE MEN
FEEL THEIR SUFERVrSOR LIKES TO
GET THEIR IDEAS AND TRIES TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT THE IDEAS.
FEEL THE SUPERVISOR IS NOT IN- IN WORK GROUPS
TERESTED IN THEIR IDEAS. THAT IT WHERE NO MEET-
IS JUST TALK. AND THAT THEY DO INGS ARE HELD
NOT REALLY GET A HEARING FOR
THEIR IDEAS.

review process using these measurements can be
conducted. The approach I shall outline is only
illustrative, and it is worth emphasizing that
the exact procedure which should he used in a
particular company and with a particular indi-
vidual must necessarily be tailored to fit the tra-
ditions and practices of the organization and the
background, expectations, and skills of the indi-
vidual. Accordingly, I shall concentrate on the
basic steps only. These will be much the same
from company to company and at low as well
as high levels of supervision.
1. Working with his snhordinates as a
teaivi, each manager sets objectives for the
next period ahead.
T h e period I am most concerned with here
is the short-term one — tliree months, nine
months, or whatever else is the normal period
used by the organization for planning and set-
ting goals.
Of course, the manager might also appropri-
ately set objectives for a longer term. They would
be more tentative, and should be examined and
readjusted at the end of each shorter period.
In any ease, the objectives would involve goals
expressed as (a) end result variables, such as
volume, production, waste and costs, and (h)
"intervening variables," such as motivations, at-
titudes, leadership, and communication.
Measurements of results tor previous periods
would be used as guides in setting or revising
the objectives.
T h e plans and objectives prepared by eaeh
manager and his subordinates would specify:
• Performance objectives for the kinds of vari-
ables which have been suggested (e.g., a speci-

fied reduction in waste or a specified improve-
ment in upward communication).
• Processes or procedures to be used to attain
these objectives.
• Specifications of measurements needed to as-
certain how well eaeh objective is reached,
how well each procedure is followed, and
what modifications, if any, are desirable to
achieve further improvement. Managers would
be encouraged to specify the measurements
which they feel they need in order to plan,
guide, and improve their operation and their
own performance.
Earlier in this artiele I indicated that tlie
system of measurements being proposed was not
yet perfect. As a case in point of this statement,
managers will probably find that for some of
the variahles they would like to see measured
no satisfactory yardsticks have as yet been de-
veloped. An imperfect but workable substitute
method in such situations is to obtain system-
atic judgments from several persons whose ob-
jectivity and competence are recognized and
accepted.^ These judgments, while far less satis-
factory than actual measurements, are still bet-
ter than appraisals made by the manager alone
or in conjunction with his chief.
Actually, in the developmental stages of the
performance review process proposed here, it
probably will be desirable to include only those
variables for which measurements can be ob-
tained. After the process is well established,
variables which can now be handled only by
obtaining systematic judgments might be added.
2. The manager and his superior review
the plans and objectives set hy the manager
and his work group.
Where the character of the operation permits,
this review should be done by the superior and
all managers who report to him as a team. When
appropriate, representatives of staff departments
should also be called in. In this way the objec-
tives of related units can be brought in balance
and integrated, and the balance and integration
achieved will be satisfactory to all concerned.
Where necessary the superior should also have
personal sessions with the individual managers.
Obviously, it is not wise to set objectives that
- For a fuller explanation of this method sec D. C. Pelz,
"Motivation of the Engineering and Research Specialist,"
Improvitig Mmiagerial Peiiormance, General Management
Series, No. 186 (New York, Amcriean Management As-
sociation, 1957), pp. 25-46.
Management Development 81
put managers under severe pressure. But the
targets should be such as to challenge them.
3. At the end of each period for which
plans and goals have been established, results
are reported on all of the variables measured.
These results should be reported for the en-
tire operation under each manager; where de-
sired they can also be reported separately for the
different sub-units under a manager. Along with
his own results each manager would receive
data from comparahle operations elsewhere in
the company against which to evaluate his own
performance. The other units may or may not
be individually identified in the data, depend-
ing on what top management thinks best.
4. Each manager studies the results of his
operation and evaluates his leadership and
performance.
What implications does he see? What in-
sights can he gain? Which results surprise him?
Following his own study, he should proceed to
review the data with his subordinates as a team
and examine such questions as:
• What was done well in relation to the objec-
tives set?
• Where did performance fail to measure up?
• Which factors contributed to the successes
achieved, and which contributed to the short-
comings experienced?
• What should be done in the next period to
extend the successes and to overcome the past
shorteoniings?
The manager should meet also with his supe-
rior and review the results reported as well as
the interpretations that he and his subordinates
have placed on them. Most of this review should
be done in group sessions with the superior and
with the other managers reporting to him so as
to gain the benefit of their experience, insights,
and suggestions.
5. At the same time that residts of the
previous period are being reviewed, objectives
and plans arc drawn for the period ahead.
Existing procedures and methods ean be im-
proved or modified as called for by the data;
new approaches can be devised. The aim, of
course, is to exploit all the data in order to bring
about desirable improvements. All of this work
can go on individually and in groups: by man-
agers working alone, by managers working with
82 Harvard Business Review
their subordinates in work groups, by the supe-
rior alone, and by the superior working with
the managers.
6. The complete cycle just described is
carried out continuously so that each manager
will have a constant flow of information com-
ing to him ahout his operation and behavior.
The process of planning, taking action, meas-
uring results, feeding data baek to management,
and planning again must be a never-ending one
if learning also is to go on continuously.**
Important Advantages
The basic pattern of executive relationships
just described is similar in many ways to that
which is sought in the new appraisal system de-
veloped by General Mills, Incorporated and used
also by General Electrie Company. The role
vi'hich that kind of appraisal plan prescribes for
superiors and subordinates has been described by
Douglas McGregor in the course of his excellent
article, "An Uneasy Look at Perfonnance Ap-
praisal," '' There are, however, two essential
differences between that plan and the review
process proposed here. The process I propose
uses objective measurements. It also empha-
sizes group procedures. The use of the group
(instead of tbe more private man-to-man rela-
tionship described by McGregor) is an attempt
to apply the findings of the Institute of Social
Research and other organizations making studies
in human relations.
The effect of these features is to create en-
tirely different roles for the superior and his
managers. The fact that they want the meas-
urements for their own information and guid-
anee motivates them positively. They cooperate
and assist in securing the information and strive
to see that it is accurate.
This is an entirely different situation from
what all too often prevails today where measure-
ments in the form of accounting data are used
by top management to police and "second guess"
the persons directly responsible for operations.
When measurements are used in this latter way,
the persons who are policed distort the data ef-
fectively to show the picture which top manage-
" The proposed cycle has been suggested by the work of
Floyd C. Mann, Don R. Hamann, and Virgil K. Rowland*
'HBR May-June 1957, p, 89,
^ See Chris Argyris, Personality and Organization
(New York, Harper & Brothers, 1957), pp, 229-239,
ment wants to see rather than the true picture.
This "doctoring" of the data has been found to
be widespread even in companies recognized as
being well managed.
Individualized Learning
With continuous measurements to guide him,
the manager's learning at all times is focused
efficiently on his deficiencies. He does not waste
time learning what he already does well by be-
ing compelled to participate in a variety of com-
pany-wide programs taking a shotgun approach
to training (and implying, by virtue of their be-
ing eompany-wide, that all managers have equal
need for the same training). He concentrates on
his own needs. Some managers need training
in methods of interviewing subordinates. Oth-
ers need coaching in improving communieation
or supervisory skills. Others need help in coordi-
nating activities. And so on. These bidividual
problems are the ones calling for attention.
Note the value of group discussions of the
measurement data. These discussions occur in
the two work groups of which the executive is
a member: the one in which he is the superior,
and the other in which he is a subordinate. He
has a key role in the interpretation of the data
and in the deeision on action to be taken. He
ean pace his learning and change to fit his situa-
tion. He gets constant feedback informing him
of the success of his efforts to improve. His hoss
does not evaluate him. He evaluates himself
and so grows in competence and self-confidence.
This is not to say that the individual should
not ask for assistance and counsel in making his
diagnosis and planning a course of action. He
should — and will. But when the measurements
given him are what he — not his boss — has
requested, he is far less likely to be submissive,
dependent, or defensive.*
The approach outlined in this artiele is not
a finished one. It needs experience, testing, and
refinement. Nevertheless, it does appear to rep-
resent a significant improvement over the pro-
cedures in widespread use at present. Those
procedures, I am convinced, are fundamentally
inconsistent with the pattern of management
used by executives who are achieving the best
performance in American industry. When effec-
tively applied, the proposed methods should help
a well-managed company achieve substantially
better results — both linaneially and in the
development and use of the full potential of
its personnel.