Decision-Making Programmability

I believe it is a myth that some people are born leaders and others are born followers. I call this kind of talk “managerial racism.” I believe that potentially all people have all of the qualities necessary to be leaders, although these qualities may be dormant as a result of neglect. We are all, latently at least, (PAEI)s in different situations and over time. The environment in which we operate, and the training that is made available to us, will determine whether our latent capabilities will grow or disappear. Unless inhibited, people rise to meet challenges and exercise any of the four management roles appropriately as they are called for. So appropriate training, whether it’s in-house or at schools that give advanced degrees in management, can and should be provided. Without it, any organization’s ultimate success will be compromised. Under the new paradigm, since we start out with the demonstrated premise that a perfect leader or manager is an impossibility, that such a manager can neither be found nor trained, then we know we must turn our focus away from the impossible and toward entirely different goals – both inside the organization and as a revised mission for managerial schools.

Before we can discuss the training of individual managers, we must clarify the concept of decision programmability and the personality requirements of the (PAEI) model. The process of management is based upon the making of decisions. One cannot manage without deciding. However, decisions may be programmed or nonprogrammed. When a predetermined situation triggers a predetermined response, we can say that a decision is programmed. In computer terminology, a program is a ready-made decision that structures the computer’s tasks. For instance, an inventory system should be a programmed decision. A certain level of minimum desired inventory is predetermined. When the inventory reaches the minimum level, the computer will “decide” to print out an order. Here is a concrete example of a human programmed decision. You leave your office to drive home, and the next thing you know you are in front of your garage. Your last vivid memory is that of leaving the office. What happened in the meantime? What streets did you cross? Which lights were red or green? If you cannot remember, how did you drive? The answer is: In a programmed way. We can equate learning to drive with getting programmed. We are taught to stop at red lights by making certain motions. We are taught to accelerate at green lights by making certain other motions. Sooner or later, driving becomes an activity that we can perform without conscious thought. Nonprogrammed decisions are decisions that one has to make from scratch, with conscious effort. To make a nonprogrammed decision, one must search for information, identify the problem, evaluate possible alternatives, and act. Let’s stay with the car analogy: Imagine a car running a red light in front of you as you drive home. As this is not supposed to happen, you do not have a “programmed” reaction

stored and ready to implement. You have to gather information: At what speed is the other car moving, and in what direction? You have to identify possible courses of action (stop, accelerate, turn right, turn left, etc.). You have to choose among the alternatives. And then you have to act. Why is programmed driving easier than nonprogrammed driving? Those of us who have driven in a foreign country know the answer to this question. A few hours of driving in a strange place can be as tiring as several days of driving at home. This is because when we drive in a strange place we have to make nonprogrammed decisions, which demand creativity (generating and evaluating alternatives) and risk-taking (judging which alternative to choose). There is uncertainty and there is risk, and both create anxiety. Given a choice between anxiety and security, most people will choose security – that is, they prefer programmed to nonprogrammed decision-making. However, if all our decisions were programmed, we would be bored stiff in no time. It is the balance of programmed to nonprogrammed decisions that makes us feel capable or incapable of coping with a given situation. People who cannot cope with having to make nonprogrammed decisions – who need to have a set of rules for every situation – are highly inflexible. We all know of door-to-door salespersons who have to start their pitch from the beginning if they happen to be interrupted. Obviously their sales presentations are too programmed. By the same token, people who have to make every decision in a nonprogrammed way (even when the routine is self-evident) are also inflexible. They are constantly reinventing the wheel. We might say that their behavior is programmed to be nonprogrammed. They get exhausted fast, and they exhaust those around them. The four management roles involve different kinds of decisionmaking. (P)roducing results and (A)dministering programs involve programmed decisions. (P)roducing is a matter of applying a technology or a particular sequence to a task, whether it is manufacturing shoes, making sales, or raising funds. Occasionally nonprogrammed

decisions will be needed in performing these tasks, but management tries to systematize and teach the best-known methods so that even a minor talent can get major results. In contrast to (P) and (A), the (E) and (I) roles are not and should not be programmed. There is no program that can tell an (I)ntegrator or an (E)ntrepreneur what policy to initiate, or when, or how. When an (E) gets an idea, even he may not know what stimulated it. Thus it is not so strange that his work hours and staff meetings are unpredictable. Why can’t (I)ntegration be programmed? Because the (I) role deals with people, whose responses will never be entirely predictable. Even if the same group of people meets repeatedly, each member of the group will be in a different mood and dealing with a different set of circumstances each time; thus for an (I), each assembly of people is a new “happening.” (I)ntegrating is even less programmable than (E)ntrepreneuring because (E)ntrepreneuring does not necessarily deal with people, whereas (I)ntegrating involves uniting individuals behind a group decision. In fact, the most difficult, most creative job of all might be trying to (I)ntegrate a group of (E)ntrepreneurs into a cohesive unity – to forge group risk-taking from individual risk-taking, to fuse an individual sense of responsibility into a group sense of responsibility. There are some elements of both (E) and (I) roles that can be programmed. There are courses on how to stimulate creativity and there are courses on how to feel, understand, and relate to people. However, I strongly recommend that one not overdo this training. If (E) and (I) become too programmed, we will lose the spontaneity that is essential to these two roles. The essence of (E) is thinking out of the box, and the essence of (I) is an intuitive sense of other people. Thus it is counter-productive to try to program the box, or to become very mechanistic in our relationships. I’m sure you have met people who know how to smile, look you in the eye, listen and make encouraging, supportive remarks – but whom you somehow feel are not genuine. Instead of being accepted, these over-trained (I)-emulators cast doubt

on the credibility of others in the organization who are (I)-oriented, and can poison an entire company’s (I)ntegration efforts. If you arrange the four management styles into a hierarchy, with the least programmable type of decision-making at the top and the most programmable at the bottom, it would look like this:

1. (I)ntegrating (least decision programmability)

2. (E)ntrepreneuring

3. (P)roducing

4. (A)dministering (most decision programmability) Clearly, in the typical corporate hierarchy, the higher one ascends, the more nonprogrammed decision-making is required. In other words, the individual must be more and more creative and take greater and greater risks, since decisions have to be made from a more diffused and less structured database. In fact, the Peter principle – that a manager ascends to his level of incompetence – makes perfect sense when analyzed from the perspective of programmed versus nonprogrammed decision-making requirements. The reason promoted managers frequently fail is either that they lack the necessary creativity, they are afraid to take risks, or both.1