Manpower

by Lincoln C. Andrews

Talks by the Big Chief.—The head of any organization will get far better results if he will make occasions for assembling all his subordinate leaders in a body and talking to them of his policies, his plans, and of how things are going in general. The day has passed when the source of authority is supposed to be clothed in awe-inspiring majesty, whence issue commands for servile obedience. That chief who denies close relationship to his subordinate leaders, who does not take them into his confidence and let them know his plans and how he proposes to carry them out, creates to-day the suspicion either that he is not sure of himself in his job or that his plans and purposes will not bear the light. The big man does not fear close scrutiny and does seek co-operation and suggestion. The successful business head to-day makes himself the captain of a team whose members co-operate intelligently for the team's success. For this purpose he brings them together in a body where shoulder to shoulder they feel their comradeship in a common cause; where they all get the inspiration of their captain's personal leadership, and absorb enthusiasm from his personal presentation of his hopes and plans. All are thus filled with a common purpose and return to their tasks each better fitted and more highly determined to play his part to the best advantage of the larger organization. Thus the most successful American commanders, like General Summerall, took time and pains to go about before a battle and explain in person to assembled groups of their commands the general plan of the coming action and the exact part this particular group was to play. There was no effort at oratorical appeal to passion or patriotism, simply a recognition of the American's ability and willingness to do his full part if he only knows what it is. It never failed to work, and it will work as well in civil affairs.

Mutual Acquaintance Among Subordinates.—Another important thing is to get these subordinates together in such a way that they will get to know each other personally. They are really partners in the same enterprise, and a knowledge of each other's personal equations is quite indispensable to their successful teamwork. Personal acquaintance and even better, friendship, will add tremendously to their efficiency. The various departments of an organization are more or less interdependent, and Smith will give quicker and better attention to the needs of Jones if he knows him and especially if he thinks him a good fellow. Thus in battle the covering fire of the artillery is far more efficient when its commander knows that his friend Bill is out there commanding the infantry. Therefore army control takes pains to bring those two commanders into personal relationship before the battle. So in business the head should make occasions for getting his subordinates together in friendly personal relations. They will be pleased to find that they all speak pretty much the same language, though some may not have thought so before. This closer association removes the affectation of some and the extreme humility of others, and exposes them all for what they really are, fellow members of the same purpose; equally sincere in striving for its success, and equally to be judged on their sole merits of performance. This has been tried out successfully in many industrial enterprises, with happy surprise for the holier-than-thou skeptics. It is sure to be of advantage if the management goes into it with sincerity of purpose.

Supervision of Workers.—It is plain that the leader's job is one of supervision and direction. It is his business to see that each member of the team does his part to the best advantage for the general result, and so to know the individual capacities of his men that he can assign the right man to each task. This, as in fact do all the other duties of leadership, requires him to be continually watching the individual performances of his men, commending, correcting, and co-ordinating their efforts. This forbids his actually taking part in the work himself, not because to do so would be beneath his dignity, but because to become involved in doing the actual work would distract his attention from the duties of supervision, and many things would be going on without his knowledge. If the boss shows himself anxious to use the pick or shovel, there is always some man willing to lend him the tools and watch his efforts with assumed interest. I recall the case of an officer charged with building a piece of government road in the mountains of California. No one could have been more faithful, he set a wonderful example of energy, but expended it all on personally working the road plow. Meantime the contractor was putting in blind culverts and otherwise so slighting his work that most of the road slid down the mountain that winter.

There are always some members of the team who need to be held up to their work. For the leader to allow them to "get away with it" in shirking their parts of the task, would naturally cause chagrin to the others. The leader is responsible for the spirit of teamwork, which requires that each man may feel sure that all the others are equally faithful in doing each his part, and he must therefore see to it that they are. Of course conditions may arise, as when the task is unfamiliar or peculiarly difficult, when the leader may jump in for a minute to show the men how or to set the pace—but he should never put himself in as an actual performer of the work.

Choosing Men for Tasks.—The duties of a leader constantly require him to be picking some man to do this task or that. In the minds of his men this is always a test of both his ability and fairness—and he wants to prove that he has both. He does this by picking the right man for the job—the right man not alone because he is the best qualified but because everything considered it is best for the team that he be chosen. This requires that the leader know their capacities and their spirit, and that he shall have kept general track of their conduct and work. Each group generally has certain cheerful, willing souls who seem almost to invite the task. The leader who is not sure his orders will be obeyed will always pick one of these men to avoid the possibility of disobedience. The shiftless leader will pick one because it is the easiest course. Both would be wrong. They would thus fail in fairness, and, by putting extra work on the more willing, put a premium on being mean spirited and so injure the group discipline. They would do better to choose the lazy or sullen ones for the extra work, thus putting the premium on cheerfulness, and showing that they had a sense of justice and an ability to run the team.

Cheerfulness, a Responsibility.—It is plain that men cannot do good work in an atmosphere of gloom. In fact in happy Burma, "The Land of Mandalay," the people refuse to work at all unless things are cheerful; and the best labor boss there is he who can crack the most jokes and keep his men chuckling. That has its application even in handling stoical Anglo-Saxons—"Angry Saxons" as one of our colored soldiers called it. Elastic muscles, alert minds, superior energy and endurance come from cheerful spirits and happy hearts. That group is unfortunate which does not contain at least one indomitable soul (generally Irish) who will joke and jolly the crowd along through hardships and to far greater accomplishment. You know why the bo's'n always leads the sailors in a swinging song or in cheering as they haul the heavy sheet. He puts this spirit into them for the greater exertions they will make. One group of marching soldiers will sing and joke themselves happily into camp, when other grim and silent ones will barely drag themselves in for their fatigue. Yet true as all this is there are leaders who sacrifice it by such surly, inconsiderate, dominating control as to keep their men sore and heavy-hearted, discouraged with themselves and the work, and indifferent to results. These leaders create an atmosphere of impenetrable gloom, and then expect the impossible in demanding good work. Cheerfulness and hopefulness must always emanate from the leader—no possible hardship or obstacle may justify his failing to radiate these helpful qualities. They shine out from a character too strong and resourceful to be overcome by any obstacle, too confident of the excellence of his men and their ability to overcome it to be other than cheerful in meeting it. You will find occasions when it will test your own courage, physical fitness and vitality to do this; for you must give of your spirit to put spirit into the men, and by the sheer force of your cheerful dominance over the adversity, lead them through to a happy conclusion.

Growling Permissible.—As to growling and "kicking agin the government," it all depends on who does it and how he does it. A certain amount of thus letting off steam seems good for the soul of man—and so far should not be denied to your men. You may ignore it, make light of it, and even sometimes get a good laugh out of it and so clear the atmosphere. It is doubtful if you may ever indulge yourself in it in the hearing of the men. And if it smack of real disloyalty, then you may not tolerate it, for it will undermine their morale, and injure that determined spirit of putting things over at all costs. You must know your men so you may use good sense about taking their vaporings too seriously, and still prevent anything like real disloyalty. As members of a group men lose much of their individual responsibility and become more or less like children. You consider this in judging their real feelings as they talk together.

I recall the case of a French lieutenant whose platoon, just out of a severe fight, was ordered to go back into it in fifteen minutes. He sat complacently smoking while his resting men audibly growled about it and told each other the dire things that would take place before they would go in again. He knew his men and let them growl it out, and when the time was up not one of them hesitated to obey his order to fall in and swing back into the fight. In his place a hot-headed youngster could easily have started a mutiny. And equally true, a few vicious disloyal spirits among those men would have made it wrong for the lieutenant to have allowed them to growl and threaten. Such situations require a level head and a knowledge of the true spirit of the men—and are interesting tests of one's qualifications as a leader.

Loyalty by Example.—One of the basic things the leader has to develop in his men is loyalty—and loyalty not alone to him and to the team, but to the larger organization. To this end he may do much by the power of his own example in cheerfully carrying out the instructions from higher authority. If you are told to do some disagreeable thing, do not try for cheap popularity by saying to the men "so and so has ordered this, and we have got to do it." Accept the full responsibility of your subordinate office, and take your men loyally and unquestioningly through the work. Your team is a member of the larger team, and should play its part therein as loyally and keenly as you want the individuals to play their parts in your team. You should try to arouse their pride in having their team do its part well, their interest in the success of the larger team, and their belief in the ability of its leader.