The primary differences between analyzing machines and people inhere in the methods of the diagnoses and the accuracy and extent of the results that can be obtained and ascertained. This will become clearer in the paragraphs that follow.
If it were as easy to diagnose people physically and mentally as it is to diagnose machines mechanically or electrically, we would “have it made” in the work place and elsewhere. Obviously, it is unrealistic to believe that we will ever come as close to analyzing people as completely and as accurately as we do machines and for reasons that don’t even need elaboration.
We are not, however, totally “dead in the water” when it comes to analyzing people in the work place. We can still take some major steps to improve the work place personal environment. The primary differences between analyzing machines and people inhere in the methods of the diagnoses and the accuracy and extent of the results that can be obtained and ascertained. This will become clearer in the paragraphs that follow.
Diagnosis by Computer: Machines
With the advent of high-technology parts and machines that require very sophisticated computer equipment to determine the location and possibly the nature of a malfunction, finding and dealing with these problems has become much easier and quicker. This is most true for those who have this equipment; who know how to use it; and who know how to interpret the results.
As machines and other devices have become more complex, we have gradually adapted to such changes, though relatively fewer people may actually have an understanding of them.
Diagnosis of the Human Factor in the “Business” Machine
There is still “nothing new under the sun” when it comes to people, who have remained complex since Adam and Eve. No computerized diagnosis of the human aspect of the business machine(i. e., a company) has been devised(or will be devised) to rival the computerized diagnosis of machines.
Why? Perhaps the chief reason is that there are too many variables to learn, program and control. By and large, each person has a free will and the ability to think independently, make choices, react and communicate in different ways and for reasons that may not be known, knowable or predictable in any way by the person himself or by others. Furthermore, all of these things will also be subject to varying interpretations by others as well.
What are the implications of the above for management in the work place? To be effective, management must set the stage with up-to-date policies, procedures, training and practices that are consistent in order to remove or minimize as many “unpredictables” as possible.
One of the worst mistakes that management can make is to assume that it has the same level of unbiased, objective and infallible sophistication of analysis that a computer can provide for a mechanical device, an electrical device or a combination of both.
Believing this, management could easily waste hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars attempting to “fix” something in the human part of the business machine that it believed was the problem (or problems), but with no proof for such. Guessing could create even more problems.
Where to Start
Despite the innumerable variables resident in the human part of the business machine, a diagnosis of the human element can be made to determine, at a minimum, areas of strengths and weaknesses in teamwork, management, supervision, economics, communications, achievement and more.
Making these determinations is necessary so that management can develop strategies for improvements where necessary. All of these determinations are geared to enhance predictability, control and a smoother functioning of the human element of the business machine.
The most basic and comprehensive start that can be made on the foregoing is to conduct an employee attitude survey. This will help to eliminate guessing games when a company is trying to determine the “heartbeat” of the company and the location of possible malfunctions.
Managers Making Assumptions
Managers or CEOs who assert that they know the “heartbeat” of their business, but who make no attempt to analyze their business objectively to validate their assertions, fall into one of the following categories:
(1) they are in the top few percent of all managers or CEOs anywhere who know their employees and operations very well
or
(2) their companies are so small that it is virtually impossible for them not to know their employees and operations well;
or
(3) they are presumptuous and believe that they are the ones who know everyone and everything concerning their employees and operations when, in fact, they do not
or
(4) they are fearful that they might learn some things that would reflect negatively on them and they don’t have the personal security to face up to these things and to deal with them as they should.
Experience has shown that most managers and owners fall under numbers three and four above, based on dozens of surveys done by this writer and consultant over a period of years for a variety of companies.
It has also been proven over and over that few managers and owners can come close (within one to three percentage points) to accurately estimating – in advance –the percentage of positive versus negative responses to surveys completed by their employees.
Some Caveats
Some companies are large enough to have their own in-house staffs to conduct their own internal surveys of employee attitudes. This can “work,” but with the following caveats:
1. Objectivity may be questioned by the employees, in which case their responses may be affected more negatively than they would be otherwise, which would prevent the company from getting a true picture of how the workers really feel about peers, supervisors, the work environment and the company in general.
Possible result: A company could overreact to a situation that is not as serious as it appears or it may “underreact” to a situation that is worse than it appears.
2. In-house surveys can be designed to produce certain results – somewhat like rigging tests in a laboratory through variations in time, temperature and pressure to get a certain result.
Human resources directors who are personally insecure may do this to get results that make the work place situation “look good” to the owner of the company or top management.
In fact, and unbeknownst to top management, an insecure HR director may be the weakest link in the company. His insecurity may be manifested in hiring only people deemed to be “lesser” than himself or in hiring those who are least likely to challenge him or threaten his job. Such practices perpetuate mediocrity and less in the work force.
Possible result: Bad situations might remain undetected and deteriorate to a point of no return or a very costly return.
3. The overall analysis of the results of an in-house survey may be colored by preconceived notions or biases held by the HR staff, the manager or all of them.
Possible result: This is sort of like the following: If you seek the truth believing that you already know it, you may never find it. Also, wanting or believing things to be true does not make them so. Realities will be overlooked.
In addition to the above possibilities, if a company has instituted special programs to deal with certain problems prior to an in-house survey, those analyzing the results may be tempted (or may be ordered) to make unjustified “stretches” to wring interpretations out of employee responses that are more “positive” than they actually are – if at all – to show that the special programs “really worked.” This will end up being self-defeating, though it may go unnoticed initially.
Conclusion
It is possible to diagnose the human element of the business machine to an extent adequate to provide direction for management. Companies that do this with in-house surveys must be very careful to avoid designing their questions to achieve certain results. Likewise, their analysis of the results should be reviewed by top management to ensure as much objectivity as possible.
Occasionally, companies with in-house HR staffs should consider utilizing independent consultants who have no preconceived notions or intentions with regard to the company, but only a concern for conducting an objective employee attitude survey and analyzing it similarly.
Such a move would provide a double-check on the validity of in-house surveys. Substantial differences in the results obtained should get the attention of top management, which should then re-assess its own HR department personnel and practices.
The bottom line is that as much objectivity as possible should be the goal of any employee attitude survey. This helps to direct the allocation of resources in the most efficient and effective fashion toward the end of making long-term improvements that are beneficial to the employees and to the company.
