6.7. A FEDERAL R&D LABORATORY CASE

Some people believe that there is considerable inconsistency in the way vacation time, flextime, being allowed to work at home, and other personnel matters are handled by the various department managers. Some managers are very liberal, while others are not at all. Some employees see their friends in other sections of the organization behave in ways in which they are not allowed to behave.

While the personnel department allows considerable flexibility in such matters, it interferes when performance evaluations are done. A case in point is Dr. Blank, who is a researcher and has provided the following account. His supervisor, Dr. Ablex, asked him to do some work that was rather unskilled, simply because the work had high priority. At the time the work was assigned, Dr. Ablex assured Dr. Blank that this would not affect his income, but when the personnel department did an evaluation of Dr. Blank they found he was doing less skilled work and demoted him. Dr. Ablex claimed that he could do nothing about the personnel department's action.

Contributing to Dr. Blank's demotion were, however, several other factors. First, it appears that the high-priority work that Dr. Ablex wanted done precluded publication of papers. Yet the personnel department considered publication as one of the criteria for performance evaluation. Second, the job assigned to Dr. Blank required his undivided attention and was such that one person could perform it without subordinates. So there were no technicians, graduate students, research assistants, or associates under Dr. Blank. The personnel department, on the other hand, considered the extent a person supervised others as a criterion for evaluation. Finally, Dr. Blank had been encouraged by directors of the R&D laboratory to participate in national and international associations and committees of his discipline. However, Dr. Ablex did not want Dr. Blank to spend his time in such activities instead of doing the high-priority study, and he provided no funds for travel. Rather than paying for such travel out of his own pocket, Dr. Blank simply did not participate in committees, but the personnel department considered participation in national and international committees as a factor in the evaluation of Dr. Blank's performance. The result is that Dr. Ablex's job assignments and behavior created conditions that made Dr. Blank look professionally isolated and without influence—hence the recommendation that he be demoted. Dr. Ablex's behavior has been a problem in other ways and to other people as well.

In this example Dr. Ablex is getting his high-priority job done, but the results, in terms of motivation, are devastating to Dr. Blank. The situation is demotivating in a number of ways: There is little overlap between the goals of the organization and the goals of Dr. Blank; the consequences of pursuing organizational goals have been disastrous for Dr. Blank; it is unlikely that Dr. Blank is enjoying this high-priority job; and while such jobs may have to be done occasionally, to have them become so central to a person's career is undesirable.

The case also indicates that the situation in Dr. Ablex's division is unsatisfactory since some people get privileges that others do not. Such inequities are bound to be demotivating. One can defend the principle that some inequities are unavoidable, but when they have to happen it is good to evoke Rawls's principle that equality is desirable, except when inequality is to the advantage of the least powerful. In other words, if the young scientists are given some extra privileges so they can finish their dissertations, that is fine; but if those with power are given the privileges, that is undesirable. In any case, Ablex should have discussed the rules he uses in granting such privileges, and his subordinates should have an opportunity to argue and to participate in the formulation of the rules, and once these rules are set they should have been followed.

Could Dr. Ablex have split the high-priority work among two or more people so that Dr. Blank's position would not be adversely affected? Should the personnel department have such absolute authority and ignore organizational high-priority needs? Was Dr. Blank's performance marginal all along and this high-priority assignment added to the poor record of accomplishments?