The Last Laugh

Few office rituals are more popular than grousing-or at least snickering and eye-rolling-over the latest management fad. Two of the most common put-downs-"flavor of the month" and "this too shall pass"-originated in response to management fads. Such reactions allow employees who see themselves as passive objects of management whims to bond against leaders of the organization.

Unfortunately, promoters of management improvement techniques contribute to this climate of derision with their jargony monikers and silly abbreviations. Usually, those are merely new names for old approaches. Top managers, particularly political appointees, tend to announce new initiatives, only to lose interest and go on to the next exciting whirl before the initiative has received sufficient time and attention.

But before jumping on the bandwagon with the critics, look at whether these fads accomplish anything. Nearly two decades ago, Professors Richard Guzzo, Richard Jette and Raymond Katzell analyzed 98 empirical studies by scholars on how organizational intervention programs affect employee productivity. The kinds of interventions included management by objectives, appraisal and feedback, goal-setting, pay for performance, and work redesign.

Guess what? Organizational improvement programs produce-organizational improvement. The professors concluded in Personnel Psychology, a scholarly journal, that on average all kinds of interventions, except one, had positive effects on productivity. Goal-setting and training were the most effective, with work redesign and appraisal/feedback scoring high as well. Some had such impressive results that they "could have profound economic and social benefits if the treatments were to be widely applied," the professors said. Such programs were more effective in government organizations than in for-profit or nonprofit organizations. And productivity gains were larger for professional employees than for blue-collar workers.

The one exception was pay for performance. "In some applications, financial incentives had very powerful effects of productivity, but there were other instances of negligible effects," the professors said. "Apparently, the effects of incentive programs depend heavily on the circumstances and methods of applying them . . . thus sounding a warning that incentive schemes have traps for the unwary or unsophisticated."

It's easy to ridicule management initiatives because they change all the time. One day it's "management by objectives," then it's "total quality management," then "business process reengineering" or "balanced score cards" or "business cases." But if one collapses all the phrases into their underlying concepts, then there are only a few themes. One is the use of performance measures to improve results ("management by objectives," "balanced score cards," and "business cases"). This one is particularly important in government, where bureaucratic rules often serve as a substitute for focusing on results. Another theme is to get the organization to focus on customers and taxpayers rather than the organization itself ("total quality management" and "business process reengineering"). A third theme is organizational efficiency ("activity-based costing" or "project management").

Management fads can be good for lots of laughs. Their promoters often focus on novelty rather than continuity. Senior managers and political appointees can have the attention span of a 5-year-old boy-flitting from one initiative to another. But these folks are engaged in crucial work.

If government is to gain the respect and support of citizens, then its performance must improve. Federal workers with a strong commitment to their organization's mission and to public service are a natural constituency for improvement efforts. Those who see their jobs as a way to serve time rather than to serve the public welcome any opportunity to preserve the status quo. Ridiculing management fads provides such an opportunity. By promoting resistance to change efforts, the jokesters can serve the ignoble cause of making it harder to create better government.

We should resist the temptation to poke fun and instead get down to the business of creating federal agencies that make us proud.