I. ABSTRACT
This Paper was initially written in 1995, to help the Nordic-SADC Journalism Center (NSJ Center), a Mozambique-based educational and media development institution geared towards the training of journalists and other media personnel, in Southern Africa. The Paper deals with the use of Scientific Method as a powerful tool for the successful management of Human Resources, or Personnel Management. The logical framework followed, and the examples mentioned in this article, emanate from a pilot study that I conducted over a period of 5 years, from 1983 to 1988, while residing in Canada and studying at York University, in Toronto, and simultaneously doing a number of odd jobs ranging from dish-washing to painting, translation and interpreting, to survey research and university teaching assistantship, as part of a personal initiative to uncover the major causes of job-related conflicts. It is a retrospective assessment of past job-related experiences, from the perspective of the scientific method and its use in personnel management.
The focus of this paper is ?The Use of the Scientific Method in Personnel Management?, a methodology that I first tested to be valid at the NSJ Center in Maputo, Mozambique, and later in other different workplaces across the City of Maputo. In general terms, the paper discusses the functional nature of the Scientific Method, and concludes that a careful use of the Scientific Method in the diagnosis, analysis and resolution of job-related problems does indeed contribute to a better management of human resources, hence Personnel Management and improvement of employee motivation and satisfaction.
The strategy that I chose to adopt is one of resorting to primary experiences, and supplementing them with secondary experiences extracted from relevant literature on successfully settled job-related disputes, and on employee motivation. The paper is structured along thematic areas, starting with the introduction, and going through the definition of the Scientific Method, to the use of the Scientific Method in Personnel Management.
The primary conclusion drawn out of the studies conducted and experiences lived, is that unlike the old traditional model of management, which is characterized by emphasis on ?strong? bosses who spend a lot of time controlling or ?managing? their subordinates, the Scientific Method allows the manager to be less intrusive in the job performance processes of his/her employees, and takes his/her time to objectively reflect on any existing problems before attempting to solve them. Most importantly, he/she does not jump to conclusions: he/she formulates hypotheses, tests them and, if valid, makes objective decisions. The paper also concludes that where the Scientific Method fails to be used or is not firmly implemented in the management of Human Resources, which may result in the inability to be objective in employee assessment, assertiveness and/or communication and conflict management, employees may succumb to overwhelming feelings of alienation from the employers goals and objectives, causing dramatic drop in their motivation and, subsequently, productivity.
II. INTRODUCTION
At the time of its writing, the NSJ Center, then managed by its then Executive Director, Ms. Karin Lis Svarre and the Deputy Executive Director, Mr. Faray Munyuki, was facing enormous problems of personnel management: the communication links between management and staff were broken or inexistent, and there was no interaction among workers themselves. What existed was a fierce struggle of each individual staff member of that institution for recognition, characterized by gossips, influence peddling and a general sense of alienation from the institution?s mission.
I was admitted in March of 1995, to work as an Administrator. Although the work contract clearly stated that I was going to work as an Administrator, there were no terms of reference about what should be expected from me. When I approached the Executive Director for clarification, the answer was: ?Don?t you want to work?? As the reader may guess, for a recently employed person willing to be productive, the obvious answer could be a yes. And my answer was a clear yes that I wanted to work. To my answer she shot back: ?Then go back to work?you will, sooner or later, find out what your terms of reference are.?
After two months of continued work with the NSJ Center, it became obvious to me that I was working in a dysfunctional environment that was not conducive to professional growth and satisfaction. Also, I realized that the institution?s top management did not have any courage to face the reality of the conflict-ridden environment at the Center. As an Administrator without any terms of reference, I found myself in a dilemma or, at the crossroads: I did not know where the boundaries of my power as an Administrator lay, nor was I sure if personnel management was one of my responsibilities. One thing, for sure, I knew: something had to be done, and fast, in order to change the situation the NSJ Center was going through.
One morning, while seeping through a cup of coffee in the Deputy Executive Director?s office, I remembered that if I could only bring up my concern to him, at least someone else would know what is going wrong with the management of the NSJ Center (if nobody else knew, of course). I began by asking Dr. Munyuki to give me a historical background of the Center, with a particular emphasis on the responsibilities that go hand-in-hand with the Administrator?s position. Dr. Munyuki briefed me about both the NSJ Center and the duties and responsibilities of past Administrators. Among other very important facts about the Center revealed by Dr. Munyuki, I learnt for the first time that personnel management had always been the responsibility of the Administrator, and that although the NSJ Center?s organizational chart had a provision for an Administrator, there had not been any Administrator during the first 2 years of activity before my engagement.
Since the Deputy Executive Director had agreed to back me if I presented a proposal on the management of the Center?s human resources, I decided to get involved. Then, I remembered my own previous management experience as an Insurance Broker in Brampton, Ontario, where I was saved by the Scientific Method.
With my Brampton inspiration in mind, I started to diagnose the NSJ Center and soon discovered that I was dealing with an institution that was being managed by a Heroic Manager, who viewed herself as the center of gravitation of all decisions and activities at the NSJ Canter. In fact, Heroic Managers (find definition of heroic managers). So, single-handedly, and without any solicitation from my immediate bosses, Dr. Geoff Nyarota and Mr. Farayi Munyuki, I decided to prepare this short guide in an attempt to help the NSJ Center deal with its immediate personnel problems. Quite surprisingly, it did: the guide lent an insight to the way in which the NSJ Center was managed, identified the major problems at the root of dysfunctional personnel management and interaction there and even helped the CEO and other senior managers better realize their full potential. Furthermore, and because the guide helped everyone became aware of his/her duties and responsibilities in the organization, the management was able to ?locate? the terms of reference, which existed at the Center and were elaborated by the Nordic countries members of the NSJ Center, but were either not noticed or simply ignored. As a result, both senior and junior management, and the staff, were able to adhere to the terms of reference for each and every position that existed at the NSJ Center.
Due to its proven rapid positive impact on personnel management, I decided to share this Guide with all those interested in improving the management of their human resources and, to a certain degree, job-related communication and assertiveness.
In order to make its absorption much easier, this document is written in simple English, and is divided into three parts in addition to this introduction: Part one describes the Scientific Method, part two deals the use of scientific method in personnel management, and part three brings forward a number of suggestions to be followed, including case studies and management styles, in the management of human resources and in the resolution of labor conflicts.
III. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Scientists learn what they know by using a tool called scientific method. The heart of the scientific method is the testing of theories. It was not always so. Before about 1500, philosophers believed statements because they sounded right. For example, the great philosopher Aristotle (322-384BC) believed that if you took the gold out of mine it would grow back. He believed this because it fitted in with a more general picture that he had about the workings of nature. Vladimir I. Lenin (1870-1924) once said: ??gold will eventually be used to coat the walls and floors of public lavatories.? (He?s been proven wrong ever since he uttered the words). In ancient times, this was the way most thinkers believed. If a statement sounded right, they believed it without testing.
About 1600, the scientific method came into use. Let us look at an example to see how the scientific method operates. The Greek physician Galen (A.D. 130-200) recognized that the blood on the left side of the heart somehow gets to the right side. This is a fact. A fact is a statement that is obvious to anyone who cares to look, that is a statement based on direct experience. Having observed this fact, Galen then proposed a hypothesis to explain his assumption. A hypothesis is a statement that is not obvious. But it is offered to explain facts. Since Galen could not actually see how blood got from the left to the right side of the heart, he came up with the hypothesis that there might be tiny holes present in the muscular wall the separates the two halves.
Up to this point, modern scientists and ancient philosophers would have behaved the same way. Each offers a hypothesis to explain the facts. From this point on, their methods differ. To Galen, his explanation sounded right and that was enough to believe it, though he couldn?t see any holes. His hypothesis was in fact believed by most physicians for more that 1000 years. When we use scientific method, we do not believe a hypothesis just because it sounds right. We test it, using the most rigorous test that we can think of.
Around 1600, William Harvey (1578-1657) tested Galen?s hypothesis by dissecting human and animal hearts and blood vessels. He discovered that there are one-way valves separating the upper chambers of the heart from the lower chambers. He also discovered that the heart is a pump that, by contracting and expanding, pushes the blood out. Harvey?s teacher, Fabricius (1537-1619), had previously observed that there are one way valves in the veins, so that blood in the veins can travel only towards the heart and not the other way?and the story goes on.
The scientific method is thus very simple. We don?t accept a hypothesis or theory just because it sounds right. We devise tests; only if the hypothesis or theory passes the tests do we accept it. The enormous progress made since 1600 in both life sciences and the other sciences, including the management sciences of which human resources management is an integral part, is a living testimony of the value of the scientific method. In other words, the scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, “Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view.” In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing a hypothesis or a theory. The scientific method is, therefore, the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world .
A. The Use of the Scientific Method in Personnel Management
The use of the Scientific Method is not confined to science laboratories. It can be used profitably anywhere a person wants to understand something that isn?t immediately obvious. Good personnel and executive managers use the Scientific Method in screening, selecting and recruiting employees. They also use this method to motivate employees and to investigate and solve job-related complaints among employees in the workplace. Following is an example of the use of scientific method in personnel management: The personnel office of a large North American law firm received the following problems, separately?a thirty-year old male articling lawyer had long been complaining about bad working environment in the office where he was articling, and his complaints were basically leveled against his young female colleague he alleged to be against his professional advancement. Quite coincidentally, the same female lawyer the complainant was referring to was also experiencing tremendous laws in the workplace. As she had confided the personnel manager, this was because she had been receiving anonymous ?obnoxiously suggestive? typewritten love letters, and because she did not know who was writing these letters, the situation was affecting her morale and performance at the law firm.
1. Managing the Brampton Office
My experience as a manager of an insurance brokerage in one of Canada?s predominantly Anglo-Saxon cities, Brampton, put me face-to-face with a sensitive situation that characterizes Canada?s social mosaic: social closure. In fact, as a predominantly Anglo-Saxon city, Brampton is one of the most difficulty places for any Canadian from a non Anglo-Saxon community to do business. This was reflected in the nature of places where you could find Jewish-Canadians, Greek-Canadians, Portuguese-Canadians and West Indians, to mention but a few, doing business?the majority of their clientele came from the same ethnic backgrounds of the business owners. Since ethnic Canadians are a minority in Brampton, it goes without saying that ethnic businesses had little clientele. The business of my employer, Vieira and Associates, was no exception. It catered only to a few Portuguese or Brazilians residing in Brampton.
The Brampton branch of Vieira and Associates was managed by a Portuguese insurance broker, Ms. Connie. On my arrival, the Brampton office had failed to break even. Even the costs for its maintenance had to come from the Maputo Head Office of Vieira and Associates, a situation that had led the owner to consider closing that branch. Five years of continued service had proven to be futile in terms of a profitable portfolio of insured?s. In Brampton, I was saved by the Scientific Method. Using the Scientific Method, I first held a meeting with all of the branch?s employees, seven in total, and asked them to brief me about the workings of the Brampton Office. Beginning with the outgoing manager, all employees gave their views on what they thought about the Brampton Office of Vieira and Associates. At the end of the collective briefings, I had a ?clear? idea of what was going on at our Brampton Office.
But with the Scientific Method in mind, I still questioned myself if what I had heard was all the truth. So, I decided to call each employee, one at a time, for a clear focus on the problems?both perceived and real?of the Brampton Branch. Generally, when employees are asked to focus on the major problems of their work-place, they are more likely to be honest and willing to volunteer information that can serve as important guide spots that can influence the management of job-related problems or conflicts, rather than empty statements.
1. My Findings at the Brampton Branch
After having spoken to all 6 employees, except the former manager whom I met alone later, I realized that:
1.1. Careful attention to the quality of people working at the Branch was lacking. For example, common knowledge has it that under normal circumstances of employment, people are recruited for their qualifications, not for similarity of social class, race, tribe, political or political party affiliation, gender or religion. At the Brampton Office, all employees were either second or third generation Portuguese-Canadians, or Brazilians; while the former spoke English fluently without any ?funny accent?, the latter often spoke English with a foreign accent, and were in charge of customer service.
1.2 Judging from the quality of the Brampton insurance portfolio at the Branch, I realized that there was no emphasis on quality work and on performance and, which suggested that the management had no commitment to help people reach their potential and to support their efforts to improve.
1.3 Surprisingly enough, because there were only 06 employees plus the manager at the Brampton Office, I discovered that there were at least two turfs at work which, in my view, implied that work-related information was not freely transmitted among members as well as between members and the boss.
1.4 Unlike the information collected during the group interventions, the person-to-person interviews revealed that genuine disagreements at the Branch were never acknowledged upward, because the manager did not encourage employees to speak their minds and, instead, killed the messengers for bringing bad news. Similarly, the manager failed to encourage members to be open with each other in order to reveal task and strategy disagreements so that they could be resolved. Instead, he pitted subordinate against subordinate.
As the reader may already have noticed, lack of careful attention to the quality of employees recruited at Brampton Office reveals a great weakness of the Branch Manager. Considering that Brampton is a city that is heavily populated by an Anglo-Saxon majority, and taking into consideration the mentality of English-speaking Canadians in relation to people speaking English ?with an accent?, it does not make any sense that the manager selects people using English as their second language to be Customer Service Representatives; this gross lack of cultural sensitivity must have been behind the lack of new business (clientele) at the Brampton Office, a situation that almost killed the Brampton Branch of Vieira and Associates Insurance Brokers. After all, almost all Canadian institutions, including Insurance Brokerages, place value on diversity. Furthermore, according to the policies guiding Canadian Multiculturalism, cohesion is produced through commitment to a common goal toward which all citizens, in this case employees, work, not by everybody?s thinking and acting the same. From a business perspective, in line with this, different viewpoints about how the goal is attained surface and various approaches are encouraged; conformity in thought and style is definitely discouraged. In fact, in spite of the fact of the owner of Vieira and Associates Insurance Brokers Ltd. Being a Canadian of Portuguese background, our Toronto Office was managed by two Anglo-Saxon ladies?Millie and Helen?who led the Accounts and Payroll Departments, respectively.
Regarding the poor quality of the portfolio at Vieira and Associate?s Brampton Office, this reveals that employees in our Brampton Office shared no commitment to making the Branch extraordinarily successful in accomplishing agreed-on organizational objectives. As reflected by the existence of a large number of renewed policies with huge claims paid resulting from frequent losses, it became obvious to me that there was no focus on quality business. In fact, some employees revealed that the choice of the quality of both new business and eligible renewals was the exclusive property of the manager. No other member of the Branch shared the responsibility of selecting the quality of business to be written at that Branch.
Lack of team spirit was another factor that led to the situation described in the previous paragraph. The six employees of the Brampton Branch had to wait for their boss to notice any problems regarding methods, service, coordination, marketing strategy and the like. Nobody was satisfied with this procedure, but because the boss had been successful in dividing her workers into turfs, she ruled supreme without any challenge. As a result, nobody worried about the lack of clientele at the Brampton Branch, as long as their wages were timely paid, from the Head Office, of course. In other words, nobody worried about the business as a whole and no one took initiatives to see what problems existed and how they had to be dealt with. Likewise, nobody seemed to know what objectives, if any, were set for the Branch and how they were met. Since there were no clear individual responsibilities and accountability, everyone passively accepted things going wrong because all were saying ?it is not my job.?
As point 4 above clearly illustrates, the problems that I found at the Brampton Office Branch were caused by the model of leadership used there. The model used by Ms. Connie at the Brampton before my arrival there is long outdated and is now inadequate in eliciting ideal best performance in complex, contemporary organizations like our Insurance Brokerage. Although David Bradford and Allan R. Cohen (1987:10) claim that ?all theories of leadership and management irrespective of what label is used and how participatory they claim to be, contain core assumptions that actually prevent excellence from being obtained in contemporary organizations??, I believe that managers must be facilitators able to encourage competent subordinates to have plenty of room to do things for the business.
2. How I Saved the Brampton Branch
In essence, I believe that leadership in any organization must be active, in fact proactive, strong, yet avoiding to become heroic. It must tap the energies and potential of talented subordinates whose skills and knowledge are vital for dealing with complexity and change. But above all, I believe that in order to perform better, all managers, particularly personnel managers must be able to use the Scientific Method (through a thorough study of a company?s past history, its potential and actual productive capacity, and future employment plans), and need to know their work environment first in order to be able to design proactive improvement plans.
So, after having spoken to all employees, and taking into consideration the assumptions mentioned in the four paragraphs of number 2 above, I decided to see the former manager alone. After telling me his side of the story (he was not aware that I had spoken to his former subordinates independently), I asked him the following question: ?What do you think that is going wrong with the Brampton Office?? The former manager?s answer was a quick one: ?There are too many insurance brokerage firms here in Brampton, and ours is not one of the best. Also, Brampton is a small town, inhabited by people who do not sympathize much with Portuguese-Canadians?they just do not seem to notice us. Another problem that I have personally detected, is that all of my collaborators are lazy and do not want to canvass, looking for new business?theirs is a labor of endless complaints!? At this point, I was able to formulate a hypothesis about why the Brampton Branch was not working well. Here is the hypothesis that I came up with then:
Here is a heroic manager, the type of what A. R. Cohen (1987) called ?the military commander whose coolness under fire and consistently correct orders wins the day, the business maverick who doggedly holds to one idea and pushes it through to economic success, and the western hero who single-handedly eliminates the town?s problems.? She was a victim of her inability to overcome the performance difficulties that she was facing, which I am sure came from softer and more touchy issues of how to motivate others, handle conflicts and disagreements and make and meet company objectives or commitments. Or is it because a particular knowledge is lacking among the employees of the Brampton Branch?
Now that I was sure my conversational strategy had proven useful, and had drawn my hypothesis, all there was still to be done was to test the above hypothesis and prove or disapprove its validity. I spent the first 3 weeks holding regular collective meetings with all employees trying to influence their behavior in order to do away with the ?we don?t get along well? phenomenon that seemed to prevail at the Branch Office. At the end of three weeks, I realized that there were, indeed, softer touchy issues that caused my colleague to fail and even threatened the job security of all the other employees at the Branch. Many of my new colleagues had difficulty speaking up in conflict situations. Others seemed to feel intimidated by pushy people, or to have low self-esteem and regularly put aside their own desires in favor of what others wanted. In my view, this must have resulted in the variety of problems, especially depression, with feelings of low self-esteem and helplessness. Lack of assertiveness made most of my colleagues feel powerless.
Because a team can seldom mature if some of its members can?t be trusted to take responsibility, and I had pretty good reasons to believe I could not rely on all employees that I found in Brampton, I started using the system of distributing specific job assignments for each employee. Each assignment lasted two days and workers were given the opportunity to share their doubts and learn from each other thus enabling them to effectively interact.
Experience has taught us that working out problems around an issue that involves many parties, which in turn require the ability to diagnose other people?s motivations and develop an appropriate strategy for gaining cooperation, can be a particularly difficult task for those who are unfamiliar with the Scientific Method. For me, and because I had been wrangling with the Scientific Method as applied to Personnel Management and knew its merits, I used conversation both with individual employees and their former manager, to reinforce the reliability of my findings and, with them as a base, to expand on what steps I should take to best manage the Brampton Office of Vieira and Associates Insurance Brokers.
