Showing fragments matching your search for: <strong>""</strong>

No matching fragments found in this document.

Statistical as they may try to be, such tests are utterly worthless. They
are not on-the-job statistics. They are classroom or laboratory statistics.
They are definitely cooked data. And when used for personnel and promotion
they cook a lot of careers. And by putting eggheads on post, they cook a
lot of parts of an org if not the whole thing. They have some small value
in determining someone's quickness or slowness, but the conditions are too
unreal and the necessity level of real environmental emergency is missing.
It's like a plane crash synthesized in bed. No jolt. So, poor (but not the
worst) of cooked data.

    Maybe the working environment demands a dumb guy  who  is  too  slow  to
panic at awesome futures! Yet bright enough  to  see  what  policy  applies.
When men with small experience in it can qualify to run the world, they  can
only then administer tests to advise who should run it.

    Only statistics that represent action and accomplishment are fair  tests
of ability and who deserves promotion or the gate.

    Therefore the only organization that is  a  sound  organization  is  one
WHOSE EVERY ACTIVITY can be tabulated by statistics.

    If you wish to reorganize you must do so with an eye  toward  "Can  this
post (dept or Division) be statisticized?" Any body of people such  as  "the
typing pool" or "the instructors" must be broken  down  to  individuals  one
way or another. One has three things then that must be tabulatable: (a)  the
individual, (b) the part and (c)  the  whole.  Each  of  these  must  be  so
organized as to be capable of being seen through accomplishment or  lack  of
it. Only this is fair organization. All other types  are  unfair,  will  not
select out leaders or good workers and subject these to the enturbulence  of
the lazy or those with other philosophies to fry.

    If you have any other type, people are promoted or fired by rumour, back-
biting or common brag and either type has only liability. In using them  one
destroys empires and every great civilization  that  is  dead  died  because
opinion and rumour were the key causes of personnel changes.

    It is unfair to every decent staff member to have an org that cannot  be
tabulated by relative income, work or traffic.
    The common way of the dead and dying past was  to  put  some  fellow  in
charge and then shoot him or reward him if things went  wrong  or  well  and
neglect the rest. This works unless a society only protects the man  at  the
bottom and routinely weakens the man at the  top.  When  that  happens,  the
system is useless. Only by chance do things go well. So chance is  added  to
rumour as the means of promotion or the  gate.  No  wonder  the  Asiatic,  a
member of our oldest civilizations, says "Fate!" and  explains  it  all.  He
had too many rulers who ruled by rumour or chance or  didn't  rule  at  all.
And so the power died. Only when you can find out who did which or  why  can
you be just. And only when an  organization  can  be  fully  viewed  top  to
bottom through raw data of how much or how little  can  individual  show  be
rewarded and individual nuisance be weeded out.

                                   REALITY


    Reality in policy, in  orders,  in  advice  depends  upon  either  great
insight or great experience. Combining both gives great success.

    But no matter how great the insight may be, viewing the actual condition
is a vital step to resolving it. Remote solutions not  based  on  experience
or close inspection are usually unreal.

    Therefore no orders should ever be issued without  data  and  experience
and  insight.  Data  comes  from  tabulation  of  actions  and  amounts   in
organizations.  Experience  comes  from  working  in  similar  or   parallel
situations. Insight comes from the  ability  to  observe  coupled  with  the
courage to see and the wit  to  realize  without  any  thought  of  personal
importance.

    Therefore,  the  soundest  leadership  comes  from  the  most   extended
experience  and  intimate  knowledge  of  that  or  parallel  circumstances.
Leadership without this will lack judgement.

    Remote leadership is best when it itself is involved close to  its  hand
with the same problems. Therefore  remote  leadership  must  have  under  it
similar organizational problems and  traffic  at  home  that  exist  at  the
remote point. Then understanding is quick and solutions are real.