"If You Can't Keep it Simple, At Least Don't Make it More Complicated (Solving Problems by Communicating)"
Copyright © 1998 by Ethan A. Winning. All Rights Reserved.
I can't win: some people tell me I oversimplify; others tell me I have become cumbersome in my writing and am too "academic." Okay, I'll buy both of those premises, but I admit more readily to oversimplifying. It helps me cope with a very complex world.
On the other hand, perhaps my tendency to simplify matters is really an attempt to get directly to the "bare bones" without pigeonholing or labeling. An example is in order.
There is a formula for "Estimating the Present Value of a Future Economic Loss from Wrongful Discharge." In an article published in the "The Job Description," John F. Moeller and Charles R. Mann present just such an equation. It is too large to reproduce in this column, so the best I can offer are the definitions of the thingamajigs in the formula. "PVEL is the total survival-adjusted trial date present value of the economic loss as of the trial date; ATE is after-tax earnings, which is the product of the hourly wage and annual employment hours; FR is the monetized value of fringe benefits; PRE refers to the pre-discharge employer; POST refers to post-discharge employer(s); g is the assumed future earnings growth rate; PVEL [I don't know why there are two PVELs] is the survival adjusted present value of the economic loss for year t as of the trial date; PSVR is the probability the individual will survive to the end of year t; PRNR is the probability the individual will not retire in year t; i is the assumed discount rate; and T is the number of years covered by the analysis."
Why anyone would want to know this is beyond me, but IF I ever did want to know what the possible future economic loss of a wrongful discharge claim would be, I would take our corporate attorney's fees ($200 an hour) and multiply that by 100 hours. Then, factor in the possibility of losing the suit, and add another half-mill. That should cover everything, outside of internal employee restlessness, further claims, and psychological factors which, I note, the authors didn't seem too concerned with.
All right, let's try something else. In 1933 Freud wrote, "Instinctual cathexes seeking discharge -- that, in our view, is all there is in the id." Why would anyone want to know this? (It was part of my graduate oral exams.) So, there are benefits to simplifying, the first of which is that it allows the individual to relieve brain-clutter, very important when one's brain might have a limited RAM and ROM. This, in turn, leaves room for more important "programs" such as "Where should we go to lunch this week?"
I was once fortunate to have Abraham H. Maslow as a professor. Witty and concise in his lectures, in his book, Toward a Psychology of Being, Maslow was neither. But I recently reread it, and found that Maslow had indeed postulated the "hygiene/motivator" roots in needs. "The long-run deficiency characteristics," he said, "are then the following. It is a basic or instinctoid need if
1. its absence breeds illness,
2. its presence prevents illness,
3. its restoration cures illness..."
Maslow actually made (and his estate still makes) money from his book, a rare occurrence academic bookdom. But Herzberg, who simplified Maslow so that even managers could understand motivation, has "ridden this pony" a long, long time and has, maybe even justifiably (although he could have given Maslow a little more credit), made this a megabuck enterprise.
So, you see, simplification is not all bad, nor is it as the indictment goes, merely shortcuts leading nowhere and to no purpose other than keeping the perpetrator busy. Let me tell such accusers that simplification is not easy and has the most noble purpose of making the inane, impossible, or perplexing less so, and perhaps even useful.
I was once involved in a training program for managers, each of whom was given a case-study about an employee named "Susie." (It just so happened that Susie was real, and a member of the department the participants were supposed to be managing.) "Susie has been acting peculiarly as of late. She seems moody, snaps at supervisors and fellow employees, and comes in late two to three times a week."
There was no reluctance on the part of the seminar group to guess at what was wrong with Susie. "Maybe she's got trouble at home." "I heard she and her husband are breaking up." "She's been acting this way ever since we promoted Clarise as her supervisor. I think she believes she should have gotten the job." And, so it went, making assumptions and skirting the "shortcut" to defining the problem.
To make a long story short, not one of the male or female participants came up with the "brilliant" idea of talking to Susie.
Simple and, more important, direct. Not a solution, but the road to a possible explanation of Susie's behavior. Why is it that, when dealing with interpersonal relationships or the behavior of an employee, the shortest distance between two points becomes a zigzag when, in fact, directness and candor are the possible shortcuts to the truth.
Why do you read Disgruntled Magazine online? They're not pedagogical or pompous, but rather simple, concise, practical, and at times humorous. One does not need waders to read TPN or Disgruntled.
Why have you come to this web page, and why are you reading these articles? Hopefully, it is because we meet the needs of the "management community" by presenting relevant information in a fashion which makes the news readable. It is not the place to publish to see ones name in print. That is left to the more scholarly journals. The latter may have their place, usually on the HR Manager's or president's coffee table, but rarely on his or her desk.