example of succesful decisin making in large complex systems.
But the skeptics among us will find this answer quite unsatisfactory
as an explanation of what constites greatness in a Pesident. In the
first place, history has no record of what would have happened had the
opposition`s point of view succeeded or if serious modifications had
been made in the choises of the so-called great Presidents. What if the
Union had not been saved, or or our independence declared? History
seems only to have recorded the episodes that followed upon the
particular decision that was made and does vot provide us with an
analysis of event that might have occured if an alternative had been
adopted.
More curios still is the implict that assumption that a successful
President made his great decision on the basis of his own particular
abilities. Since evidence is so often lacking that great Presidents of
the past had these abilities, there is a natural inclination on the
part of many of us to ascribe either determinism or randomness to the
activities of so-called successful managers. In the case of
determinism, we might argue that the events of the world occur by the
accidental conglomeration of many forces unknown to man these forces
produce “decision” that man in his innocence believes that he himself
makes. The decision of independence in 1776 was, according to this
view, simply the outgrowth of many complex human and physical
interrelationships. Those who adopt the idea of randomness simply add
to the physical determinism of events a random fluctuation of the sort
occuring in a roulette wheel or in the shuffling of cards. The would
then be willing to admit that other decision might have been made in
1776 or later, but that these decision would be very much like the
outcome of another spin of the roulette wheel. In either event, wheter
we choose to describe the world of decision making as determinism or as
randomness, we conclude that ascribing greatness to the decision makers
in Independence Hall would be a mistake unless one meant by greatness
some recognizable features of the determined or randomevents occuring
in the world. By analogy one might say that the man who spins the
roulette wheel is its “manager” who decides nothing about the outcome
of spins; a multitude of hidden physical forces determine where the
wheel will stop. Calling a President great is like calling the spinner
of a roulette wheel that happens to have a satisfactory result a great
spinner.
This is certainly a crass and impolite way to describe the great
managerial minds of the past. Surely we can do more for their memories
than describe them as irrelevant aspects of the history of society. We
might try ro look into the story og their lives to find evidence that
they really had superior methods of deliberation. We might try to show
that they had the sort of brilliance and courage that creates an
ability to handle confusing pieces of information and to reach
approprite decisions. Perphaps the great manager is an extremely adept
information processor who can act so rapidly that he himself is not
even aware of the comparisons and computations he has made.
Indeed, this last is more or less the the popular image of the great
manager. For example, many scientists who advice politicians, corporate
msnsgers, and other decision makers often state that they cannot
possibly attempt to tell such men what decision should be made. At best
they can merely tell the decision maker about certain outcomes if the
decision are adopted. Thus the more among the advisers believe that
they have mo intent of ‘replacing’ the managers they advise. And yet
if these scientific advisers are capable of discering at least some
aspects of the managerial decision, what is it they luck? What are they
incapable of doing that the politician and corporate manager are so
succesful in accomplishning? What is this secret ingredient of the
great president of vorporations, universities, and countries that no
scientiat or ordinary man could ever hope to acquire?
The answer usually given is that the president has information about
many different aspects of the world and has ability to put these aspect
together in a way that no analysis could possibly do. In other words,
he has a vision of the whole system and can relate the effectiveness of
the parts to the parts effectiveness of the whole. The hidden secret of
the great manger, so goes the myth, is the ability to solve the
puzzling problems of whole systems that we have been discussing so far.
This answer is myth, because it is totally unsatisfactory to reasoning
of intellectually curious person. Are ‘great’ managers fantastically
high speed-data processors? Do great managerial minds outstrip any
machinery now on the market or contemplated for decades to come? From
what we know of the brain and its capabilities, the answer seems to be
no. Indeed, it is doubtful whweter the great manager in reaching
decisions uses very much of the information he has received from
various sources. It is also doubtful wheter the manager scans many of
the alternatives open to him.... We describe how the scientist, when he
comes to grips with the problems of decision making, discovers that
they can only be reperesented by fairly complicated mathematical
models. Even in fairly simple decision-making situations we have come
to learn how complicated is the problem of developing a sensible way of
using available information. It seems incredible that the so-called
succesful managers really have inbuilt models that are rich and
complicated enough to include the subtleties of large-scale systems.
Suppose for the moment we descend from the lofty heights of the
decision makers in Independence Hall and the White House and begin to
describe a very mundane and easily recognized managerial problem
cencerning the nember of tellers that should be available to customers
in a bank. All of us have experienced the annoyance of going into a
bank in a hurry and spending a leisurely but frustrating half hour
behind the wrong line. How should the manager decide on the allocation
of tellers at various times of the day?
This is fairly simple managerial problem amd its like is encountered
by thousands of middle managers every day. Furthermore, this problem
has been studied quite extensively in operation research and its
“solution” is often found in the elementary texts. The texts say that
the scientist should try to answer the managerial question by
considering both the inconvenience of the customers who wait in the
lines and the possible idle time of the tellers who wait at their
stations when no customers. Thus the “succesful” manager can be
identified in an objective way, and we need not take a poll of
greatness or lack thereof to ascertain wheter the manager has performed
well. The succesful manager will be someone who has properly balanced
the two costs of the operation of servicing customers in a bank: the
cost of waiting customers and the cost of idle tellers. He will insist
that the cost of a nimute`s waiting of a customer in a line must be
compared to a minute`s idle time of the teller. On the basis of this
comparison, together with suitable evidence conserning the arrival rate
of customers and the time service each customer, the succesful manager
will determine the policy concerning allocation of tellers to varios
stations during the day. Perhaps no one will feel inclined to write the
biography of so ordinary a man as the manager of a branch of a local
bank, but in any case if this manager decides according to the rational
methods just outlined, his biographer may at least be honest about his
“greatness”.
Nevertheless, the analysis just outlined leaves much unanswered. For
example, an idle teller need not be idle while waiting at a station
where are no customers. Instead he may be occupied with other routine
matters requiring attention in the administration of the bank.
Consequently, if the manager can design the entire operation of his
bank’s many function properly, he may be able to decrease the cost of
idle time of professional who are servicing customers. If we look on
the othwer side of the picture, that is, the inconvenience to a
customer, we may find that in fact waiting in line is not an
inconvience at all if the customer happens to meet an acquaintance
there. Perhaps the manager should serve coffe and doughnuts to waiting
customers. Furthermore, if the manager could somehow or other hope to
control the behavior of his customers, he might be able to recognize
their arrivals in such a way that inconvenience costs are vastly
reduced. Add to these considerations other innovations that might be
introduced: For example, in many cases banks set up Express Windows to
handle customers who would normally have very low servoce times. Hence,
an overall average waiting time may not make senese if there are
different types of service tailored to the various needs of the
customers.
But then another, broader consideration occurs to us: Handling the
public’s financial matters by branch banking methods may be completely
wrong. Modern technology may of developing financial servicing methods
far cheaper for both bank and customer. After all, handling cash and
checks is an extremly awkward way for a person to acquire goods at a
price. With adequately designed information centers, the retail markets
need only input information about a customer purchase, and the
customer’s employers need only inputinformation about his income. Thus
every purchase would become simply a matter of centralized information
processing as woulod a man’s weekly or monthly paycheck. There would
therefore be no real need for any of us to carry money about and no
need to go to a bank and stand patintly in line. But this idea of
automated purchasing and income recording is followed by another
thought. We realize that any such automated finacial sysytem would
probably end in eliminating a number of clearical and managerial jobs.
Consequently we must examine the social problems of displaced personnel
and the need for retraining, otherwise total social costs of automated
banking might be far greater than the convenience gained by introducing
new technology.
Before we can decide whweter the manager of the branch bank is
performing “satisfactorily”, we must decide a much broader issue-wheter
the particular system that the manger operates is an appropriate one.
This question leads to deeper consideration concerning the potential of
modern technology and their inplications with respect to automation,
job training, and the future economics of many lives.
Страницы: 1, 2
