THE LOGIC OF CAVEMAN MANAGEMENT

SPAEF

THE LOGIC OF CAVEMAN MANAGEMENTAuthor(s): PETER KOBRAKSource: Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (WINTER, 1992), pp. 476-495Published by: SPAEFStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40861518 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 00:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

SPAEF is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public AdministrationQuarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 00:07:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=spaef

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40861518?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE LOGIC OF CAVEMAN MANAGEMENT

PETER KOBRAK Western Michigan University

INTRODUCTION

Several years ago I was chatting with Neely Gardner when a faculty member came along and thanked him profusely for writing Summitry. Upon eventually consulting the Social Science Citation Index, it became clear that I was not the only person who had never heard of the book. From the years of its publication in 1974 through 1988, it was not cited by a single author. Published by the small and now defunct National Training and Development Service Press, the book apparently sank without a trace. Even a casual reading, however, revealed that the work deserved a far better fate.

I subsequently learned that Gardner had written Summitry while engaged in a large Organization Development project with the California Department of Water Resources. As he later explained to a University of Southern California class in 1983, he was offended by what he called "organizational gangsterism." Such behavior by individual executives accelerated their personal career growth even while it simultaneously undercut organizational goals. Gardner initially encountered this destructive form of behavior in a corporation that was supplying components to NASA for the first moon shot. The organization consisted of on-the-go managers. "Its division chiefs," as he later put it, "were enemies, and not always silent enemies, though they hoped to be secret enemies." One such division chief succeeded in sabotaging the reputation of another to the point where a major government contract was lost.

The engineers, economists, and geologists with whom he subsequently worked in the California Department of Water Resources exhibited similar behavior. Many had been recruited from the U.S. Reclamation Service and the Army Corps of Engineers where they had already discovered that "if there is anything they loved more than building water projects, it was fighting with one another." As Gardner explained to his students, "I really became annoyed with



PAQ WINTER 1992 (477)

this process, to be honest, when they began to attack me. I didn't know from whence these salvos were coming, or exactly how it was happening, but I sensed that something uncomfortable was taking place." But how could Gardner get at this dysfunctional behavior? As he explained, "You don't just go to these crusty old civil service operatives and say, 'Now boys, you know you shouldn't act like this.'"

He decided to conduct some research in the department and compile an inventory of all the ploys that these organizational gang- sters were using to put down other people. Summitry followed as a monograph intended for department use. Couched in the form of a programmed text, it would permit a statement or premise, and then a couple of questions for people to answer. In Summitry, however, unlike a teaching machine that guides the student to the correct answer, all the "right" answers were actually wrong! As depicted in this satire, the rewards went to those who took the "gangster approach." Subtitled A Keen Analysis of Prevailing Management Prac- tices, with Advice on How to Solve Problems and an Iteration of Prin- ciples to Guide the Manager as He Climbs the Ladder of Success, the work allegedly throws bouquets to the person who selects the alternative best designed to achieve individual success- not the executive who works most effectively to achieve the organizational goals. "Remember," he pleaded sardonically, "your concern with the well-being of the organization is that it serves as a vehicle for you to use to your personal advantage."

By exposing this inventory of ploys, Gardner hoped to encourage people both to "mercilessly review" their own weaknesses and to recognize the dangers of character assassination. He felt that such "consciousness raising" would be more effective than legislating or otherwise punishing those who use such tactics- better "to laugh them out of existence." The executives would become their own policemen. And indeed later, when someone used such a ploy, others in meetings did point the finger and say, in effect, "Hey, that's from page 133 in Summitry." Gardner felt that organizational gangsterism was thereby reduced appreciably and far more open communication occurred. He argued that every organization has its own series of ploys that are woven into its mode of operation. There could thus not be a "gospel according to Gardner" comprised of such antics. Rather, individuals in a particular organization must root out their own inventory of tactics and surface such behavior in whatever form it festers.

Out of the pages of Summitry emerge what I have chosen to call



(478) PAQ WINTER 1992

FIGURE 1

v'^^



FAQ WINTER 1992 (479)

here a logic of caveman management. The following principles, minicases, and pictures (with the assistance of Joanne Kamiya and Marcia Bresee), gathered painstakingly by Gardner in an earlier incarnation, will hopefully demonstrate that the work continues to deserve attention.

Gardner understands the recalcitrance of his executives to buy into institutional change. After all, man has only recently escaped from the "primordial ooze" of the cave where he first learned to manage. Gardner traces these original experiences to the "Runy's"--a tribe of 1000--"preneanderthal" souls. While guilty of using the male pronoun when telling his story, Gardner's "matriarchal group" is ruled by Queen Gruj who is no "meek muffin." Men "perform the tasks of drudgery" and over dinner sit at the "second table," but in this society "you are pretty much on your own."

Indeed, while waiting impatiently to eat, these men often indulge in "ungentlemanly conduct." These hostilities often "resulted in untimely elimination of one or the other cave fellows." At such times, Queen Gruj would plaintively remark that she "could not afford the loss of so many hunters, although truth to tell she had a low opinion of men generally."

Confronted with these circumstances, "these unloved men react- ed as unloved people must. They were hostile, competitive, psychopathic." Only in the common danger faced in the hunt, when confronted by the dreaded sabre-tooth tiger, "did the males work together." Queen Gruj understood this problem. "Boys," she would say, "you seem to be able to work together when you hunt; hanging around the fire, everything falls apart. You forget you are on the team."

In addition to the Queen, the hierarchical society included Gj, the Number 2 Cave Lady; Mupt, "kind of a husband to Gruj"; Meyt, a staff man and witch doctor; Mort, the idea man; Maat, a "pretty savvy" cave executive who was good in the clinches; Mrat. who reported to Maat; and Meat, who reported to Mrat, believed in Organ- ization Development and eventually became known as "tiger snack.

Now, there is nothing wrong with adhering to the principles of organization, provided you realize that they are here to be abused as well as used. While one should "associate only with real cooperators," the shrewd caveman executive known that "there is a difference between seeming to cooperate and actually cooperating." Best to "develop the image (but not the naivete) of a cooperator."

When "you are being chased by a wild boar," or "sabered by a




FIGURE 2




sabre-tooth," however, "it is well to be doing so with the team. Better yet, have the team do this for you while you cooperate with them." Just don't fool yourself. Your colleagues, as a result of character weakness, may develop a self-generated need to cooperate. On one hand, they can then "be dependent upon to do right by you in all circumstances." On the other hand, you, "having developed greater flexibility and an image of integrity and cooperation, can join or unjoin the team at will. (Taking care to see that others do not recognize this fact.)"

Building trust and cooperation are thus important to the Runy leader. Never fail to "proceed with integrity if it is to your advantage to do so," advises Gardner, "but do not be blind to opportunity." Even when such golden opportunities do arise, though, "character assassination must not be brutal. It can and should be done in a kindly way." For one thing, "you cannot afford to be a fink. Never, never appear to belittle a rival, a boss, or an employee." And yet, "you can never be sure who will cause you trouble." So "when an opportunity arises to take liberties with someone's reputation, take advantage of your golden chance. You never know what the future will hold." In such cases, the principle to observe is that, if the boss and other important people are "jumping on Arnie" for taking an unpopular action, "you castigate Arnie too." Gardner concludes, "Avoid kicking a man when he is down unless he is a rival." Perhaps the saga of Mt and Maat will help you understand:

Queen Gruj, because of Maat's personality, background, and experi- ence, appointed him Head Fire Tender, a very soft touch as jobs for men ran in the Runy community. Mt was assigned to help him as were many other cave people. Most of these cavemen snapped and growled when

assigned such chores as gathering wood, keeping watch on the fire to see that it did not die during the night hours, making the long transport necessary from the sources of fallen trees to the camp, the laborious job of beating limbs apart with stone axes, and other attendant difficulties. Not so, Mt. He thanked the Queen for making him Maat's assistant. He gave assurance to Maat that he was there to help. He made great dis- plays of energy. No one brought in more wood that Mt. Sometimes when slothful cave colleagues neglected their duty, Mt was there, Johnny at the rat hole, ready to stoke the fire. Some small, jealous person said that Mt was particularly active when the Queen happened to be in position to notice his assiduous pursuit of activities.

Maat could not handle success. He became lazy and inattentive to




the fire, although it may be recorded that he became increasingly atten- tive to the cave ladies around the campsite.

As could have been anticipated, one day (when Maat was away on a

hunting trip), the fire went out and the Queen became angry. Mt, on

noting the fire had gone out and alert to opportunity, immediately left

camp and after a three-day journey came back with live coals in a hol- lowed rock. There was great rejoicing. "I am sorry that one of your care- less workmen did not perform his duty," said Mt to Maat. "When I saw the mess you were in, I immediately went after more fire. As I said, I wish to work with you." He, of course, pretended he did not know the

Queen was listening, but listening she was. She said, MMaat, you have worked hard enough as a firekeeper. I shall now turn this arduous task over to Mt.M

Thus ejected from the important post of firekeeper, Maat felt very bad. "I have been co-opted," he said.

"So, it was your idea," sneers Gardner, "that you should keep the team working toward common objectives. Ha! You will wake up some morning and find that the team has taken over your job." Recognize that management "is a fine art requiring a balance between achieving enough to keep out of trouble and not achieving so much that you are surrounded by competent and successful subordinates." Better to "divide and conquer." After all, "cooperation isn't everything. Competition has its virtues as well." Why not "build up their rivalries through giving parallel assignments, casting suspicions and doubts, publicly praising one employee above the other, and many other thoughtful strategies?" It is far safer to place yourself instead in "a position of achieving satisfactory production in spite of having a quarrelsome group of incompetent subordinates reporting to you."

There are, indeed, ways of achieving conflict resolution. If you really want to make peace," observes Gardner, "you point out areas of conflict and areas of difference. Isolating differences permits them to be examined, sometimes solved. Never fall into that trap," he warns. Instead, take advantage of the situation by saying, "You are really saying the same thing; it appears there is just a difference in semantics." Now the contestants must "prove that they really are differing. How could they admit that they stupidly misunderstood? This will prolong the argument and will fix opposite positions most satisfactorily. And all the while, you will be looked upon as the peace-maker."




FIGURE 3

¡ß'




There is, however, a time for humility. That occurs when you have made a mistake yourself. "Nothing throws the opposition off so much," observes Gardner, "as making humble but open display of your mistakes." Few men are "sufficiently stalwart or astute to attack a man who is openly confessing his sins. On the other hand, should you have an employee who uses these tactics on you, do not be hoodwinked. Take this opportunity to cut him even lower."

It is usually a good idea to maintain the sanctity of the chain of command, but not always. Gj "was sort of second lady in the Runy tribe" and she would face this dilemma when Queen Gruj took the day off and appointed Gj as "Acting Queen:"

Sometimes, when there was an unpleasant order to be given Queen Gruj was not above asking Gj to take over and to put the directive into effect.

Gj found that the Queen was using her as the "bad guy." Her pretty cave

lady brain worked and worked and finally decided "maybe the Queen should be the pigeon." So when assigned as a one woman goon squad to enforce some unpleasant directive, Gj would say, "I don't think it's a

good idea, myself, but since the boss said so, you are going to have to do it."

Research may be necessary, but the upwardly mobile executive must beware of ideas. "Ideas," contends Gardner, "particularly new ideas, can be as dangerous as people. And those persons who have and present new ideas are most dangerous of all. This truth, of course, has been passed on from father to son since the days of the Runy's." Gardner illustrates this danger with the saga of Mort, the idea man, and Mt, an organizational survivor:

Mt was well aware of the necessity for dealing with both ideas and

people. A kind of introspective cave guy named Mort, when not em-

ployed in useful duties assigned to him by Queen Gruj, moped and dreamed and looked off into space. As you know, this kind is always suspect. So Mt watched him and could see Mort was dangerous. "This

man," Mort said, "must be thinking." Having so classified the man, Mt was ready when Mort one day, in

front of the Queen's caves, drew a circle in the ground with a stick and in the middle drew another circle. "If we chipped and smoothed rocks to this shape," he said, pointing to the outer circle, "and put a hole through the middle and ran a log in between, the stone would roll. Rolling is less work than dragging. If we put a platform between the stones we would be




FIGURE 4



(486) FAQ WINTER 1992

able to carry heavy loads quite easily." Mt was ready. "What some guys will do to toot their own horn. That

idea? Why, it's as old as Adam. That gadget was tried by our great-

grandfathers. Never worked. Man, are you an eager beaver. I'm for you, bud, but for your own sake, you'd better get more practical."

Gardner approves of the "eager beaver" approach that Mt employed in this case. "Call your rival a vigorous young man, and you are building his reputation. Call him an eager beaver, and you care cutting him low." What's more, "saying that his idea is old hat will strengthen the eager-beaver name you have given him." Gardner encourages everyone to "practice this art assiduously" which is some circles is called "the down-rover technique."

Combating conformity is a commendable stance for "while you must be seen as kindly, cooperative, and steadfastly fair, you must not gain the reputation of being a yes-man." So you must say that "the boss can't get much help if we are all yes-men. Let's analyze the problem from all sides." By now, the reader should not be surprised, though, that Gardner also stresses that "you, however, will not actually disagree." While "opposing conformists with might and main," you are also bearing in mind that "he who deviates is lost."

After all, "should we suddenly develop a civilization of rugged individuals, our whole corporate structure will fall apart at the seams. There simply is no room for an individual in a joint effort society." Somehow, though, the organization is able to "permit a few psychopathic individuals to provide hostile, aggressive, and unrea- sonable leadership at the expense of the masses," even while "the great majority must conform."

A case in point is Gordon who has succeeded precisely "because of his psychopathic tendencies." Psychopathic behavior, explains Gardner, involves "violent, hostile, uncontrolled attack on the object of frustration, interference, or hate. Psychopaths don't love themselves. (How could they?) They don't care for anyone else, either." Unlike juvenile delinquents, adult psychopaths have learned to use their hatred and hostility to productive ends. The psychopathic executive "looks reasonable" and "knows how to strike fear in the craven hearts of his colleagues." Somehow, though, "his psychopathic tendencies are rarely exhibited in dealing with his boss." You may think that you have found a winning strategy, but it appears from Gardner's description that psychopathic personalities are born, not made. "You who lack capacity to inspire fear by throwing controlled




FIGURE 5

I ^ I *}y*




tantrums, had best leave this technique alone." Implementation is imperative to organizational success, but it can

be carried to extremes. What is to be done when an idea will work?

One day, while thinking, Mort found that he could shape bones and drills to put holes in sabre-tooth tiger teeth. With a thong through a tooth he said, "I can hang it around my neck. This would bring good luck. It would also look nice to the Queen." Had it not been for the fact that Mupt saw him hurrying into the royal cave, Mort might have precipitated an action that did not finally take place until some five months later.

"I have a great idea," said Mort to the Queen. "You penetrate sabre-tooth

tiger teeth with a sharpened object by manipulating it vigorously, taking advantage of both the sharpness and its abrasive character. You continue this

operation until you have developed an aperture through which thin objects, say a thong, can be passed. When this is done, it will be possible to ..."

Here cave spouse Mupt spotted trouble. He knew how difficult it was to obtain sabre-tooth tiger teeth. He knew that as the Royal Consort he would have to lead forays into the primitive waste. He had no stomach for extracting teeth from tigers. Good luck or not, ornamental or not, he must stop this play.

"What Mort really means is," said Mupt, "you get an object and you put a hole in it and use it as a charm against the evil eye. He wants to experiment with it, and I suggest that you give him permission." "Big deal," said the

Queen, and the matter was forgotten for a while.

Mupt here, explains Gardner, was "interpreting and altering an undesirable idea" by employing the "what he really means technique." It just shows how "in skillful hands statements can be interpreted so as to become completely innocuous." In this case, the Queen did not immediately accept the idea that sabre-tooth tiger teeth necklaces were "in." Mort's statement, instead, "was interpreted by Mupt in such a way that it had no personal meaning to the Queen." The phrase, "what you really mean is," Gardner observes, should be in every organization man's attache case.

Reporting is at least as important an any other part of POSD- CORB. This is true partly because, when done right, it can relieve you of the responsibility for making those critical decisions that potentially can come back to haunt you. After all, contends Gardner, bosses "like to give advice. It is essential that you learn to work them. There are several suggested ways of getting the boss to make the decision for you while you still appear decisive." One is the "I think I will check with you" before deciding ploy. Another is the "I think I




will" technique which proposes a step, but indirectly, naturally invites the boss to step in and make the actual decision himself.

Or there is the "here is a problem" technique that Mort, the idea man, used when he finally began to master the principles of organization. "Five months after the initial discussion of Mort and Queen Gruj on sabre-tooth tiger teeth," records Gardner, "Mort again had an audience with the Queen; this time alone." He began, "Because I am the thinking type, I am a poor hunter and the cave-hunters do not like me out with them." He warmed now to the task. "Here is a problem. I need sabre-tooth tiger teeth to use on a necklace for your majesty, strung in a manner of this sample here. You see, I only have two such teeth. Wouldn't this be handsome if it were a full necklace?" he asked. "Indeed it would, honey," replied Queen Gruj. "I'll send the boys out after tiger teeth immediately."

Mt too wanted to induce the Queen to make a decision. He chose to employ the "Mupt has decided" ploy. "Hunting sabre-tooth tiger teeth is attendant with peril," he thought. "I am top hunter. 1 hope to remain so." Whereupon he sought out Queen Gruj. "Mupt has decided," he said, "that he does not want to go after sabre-tooth tiger teeth until the coming of the new moon. Then he proposes to send me and a small party forth, but says he chooses not to lead the foray himself." Gardner is quick to point out that Mt was "taking some chance" here. Gruj could conceivably agree with Mupt. Mt was gambling that "the boss would be out of sympathy with a show of decisiveness by the Queen's Consort." Gardner feels, though, that Mt was on pretty safe ground. Bosses can rarely resist the opportunity to "second guess." But the clincher is that "since Mupt was both subor- dinate and spouse, it is likely that Mt was being very intelligent about the whole matter. Surely the Queen would wish to change the decision."

The word delegation for Gardner has an heroic ring. And it is "something we all say we want to do." Unfortunately, "some managers actually do fall for the propaganda line," even though delegation can be treacherous and we are not yet past the "ought to do it" stage. By way of illustration, delegation can even entangle a savvy cave executive like Maat when the boss wants something:

"Mupt, my dear husband, has been gone yet these two moons in search of sabre-tooth tiger teeth," said Queen Gruj to Maat. "And here I am still without my necklace. You'd better heave some ballast and scour the woods in search."




"For your husband, Your Highness?" "No, for the tiger teeth, stupid!" "I am certainly not worthy of such an honor, Your Majesty. I cannot

accept. Must I leave in disgrace?" "Yes, indeed," said the Queen, "and

you'd better hurry before I become wroth." "Not only am I unworthy," said Maat under his breath, "I am allergic

to sabre-tooth tigers."

"Most of the time," observes Gardner, "executives do not wish to extend authority and responsibility to subordinates." Furthermore, while subordinates might welcome more authority, it is a rare day when they want to "hunt tigers." And, "regardless of popular textbook philosophy, the manager should not get carried away with this delegation bit." Delegate only those things that are likely to cause you trouble," he counsels. "Keep for yourself those jobs which will make you look clever, intelligent, and effective."

But how and when should one delegate? As always, Gardner offers three alternatives:

1. It is better to sacrifice the employee at the lowest available level.

2. In the long run, principle pays and should not be discarded for short-term gains.

3. Delegate to the man who can do you the most good. You chose #2? Gardner can barely conceal his disappointment.

"You are still talking like this? Life makes stern demands. Sentimen- tality has been the downfall of many an otherwise capable person. Tough moral fiber is required of the staunch and the successful."

You chose #3? YOU ANSWERED CORRECTLY. While #! is a respectable miss, #3 is sounder. "All things being equal, do not sacrifice the troops. Naturally, one of them gets eaten by the organizational 'sabre tooth' at times, but do not encourage this." Never one to stand on ceremony-or be discouraged by a mixed metaphor- Gardner explains the need to "keep the support of the indians; spread dissension among the officers; and liquidate the other gener- als."

"Many people," Gardner complains, "have taken the rather naive view that people band together in organizations solely for the pur- pose of getting work done." They also perpetuate the myth of "span of control." The "traditionalists" pour over mathematical formulae which explain the disadvantages of a large span of control, while the "defectionists" defend a "flat" organization.




FIGURE 6




By skillfully employing the logic of caveman management, the reader is led in quite a different direction. Adopting an overly large span of control, Gardner explains, will encourage "comers" to "show their ugly heads." That is invaluable, since you "need a system that causes these ambitious and dangerous persons to reveal themselves. Only when you know they exist, can you combat them."

And what of the principle of unity of command! "This old bit about reporting to only one boss," maintains Gardner, "exists only in the fables paraded in management literature." While nice in theory, "if you tie yourself to only one boss, do as he bids and take instruc- tion from no others in the hierarchy, you may be doomed to failure. Even though you please your boss, you must remember that he will not be around always." As a matter of fact, "part of your job is to move your boss on, hopefully to better, but nonetheless other, things." Nor is matrix management the answer. "So we no longer say, an employee should report to only one boss." AXIOM: "Report to all highly placed executives when it is possible to do so without getting in trouble with your own boss."

What about the principle that "the staff advises and the line de- cides! Meyt, the number one Runy witch doctor, was "shook up clear to his rattle and feathers." Mupt had said, "I don't give a hoot what Meyt says about this being a good tiger time. Tigers are mean this time of year. Me, I'm not going tiger hunting." Mt glanced out the corner of his eye toward Queen Gruj and then addressed Mupt,"Tch, tch, I don't think you should ignore Meyt's advice. Remember that's what we have staff people for, to advise the line. In the last analysis you, or perhaps the Queen, will have to make the decision, but I believe we're obligated to listen to the expert."

When staff and line conflict, Mt, of course, knows that "all the loose talk about resolving the conflict between line and staff is so much sauerkraut." In the real world, a line person "cannot afford to be helped too much by the staff. Neither can afford to have staff inform the boss of his weaknesses. This means that a line executive must take care on those occasions when the staff interferes with his operation."

Gardner is reasonably relaxed in articulating most of his principles for getting ahead, but when it comes io participatory management, a note of alarm creeps into his voice, and he throws caution to the winds. "You probably wouldn't believe it, but there are real live executives who are firm supporters of democratic management," he confides. "Don't permit subversives of this type to gain a foothold.




Once you see an emergent human relationist, stamp him out without mercy." Ridicule, as usual, works best. "Call him a bleeding heart, a do-gooder, or a bubble-head. Imply that he is a kind, unrealistic, impractical, nice guy who has no feel for life's realities."

There is no alternative, though, to acting quickly. "You will find that given two or three years to install a participant management system, your competitor will have gained great support from many of his subordinates (of course, some will hate him because they wish to be told what to do in minute detail)." What's more, "this support will give him great power." And it sounds the death knell for the logic of caveman management that enabled you to arrive where you are today. You now have the knowledge of management theory and how to

use it. These lessons have depended largely on "glimpses of life in the Runy society back in the days when the world was beginning to submit to the primate." Even in those days, the cave executive "pursued duty unflinchingly. Never did he pale at the decisive act designed to contribute to his successes." An illustrative case that "will summarize our discussion" is the event involving Mt, the succeeder, and Mnt, whose fate one might say demonstrates one final time that no good deed goes unpunished:

Mt and Mnt, dispatched as a team by the Queen to the jagged, fearful sabre-tooth country beyond the western ridge, were thinking of

returning to the friendly tribal caves. Their success had been great. Thirty new sabre-tooth tiger teeth were available to complete the im-

pressive necklace of Queen Gruj. "My good friend," said Mnt, "I am going to be big in the eyes of our

beneficent Queen. Day after day, you have pointed out tigers to me and have helped me trail them to their lair. Day after day you have given me first choice of tigers, and even on some occasions when it looked as if I should surely be eaten, you have come to my rescue."

As they were walking, the two cave hunters came to the deep canyon of the muddy river- the river, which in one day's walk, would lead them to their own caves and waiting fellow tribesmen. The two men sat under the shade of a primitive tree and counted their loot. "I have indeed been successful," said Mnt. "I have collected eighteen teeth, whereas you have collected but twelve. This will make me great. I will be rewarded by the Queen and honored by our fellow tribesmen."

"I should envy you," said Mt, "but I do not. I see you as a brother. I am happy and warmed by your success."




FIGURE 7




"You are sincere and honest. You are certainly a good man. You are a first-class cooperator. As I say, friend Mt, while I do not fully deserve, nor in any sense understand your generosity. I am most grateful."

The two men talked for a while longer when suddenly Mt became alert. "What was that?" he asked. He sprang to the edge of the canyon.

"Where?" asked Mnt, jumping up and peering into the abyss. "Down there," said Mt pointing straight down the canyon wall. Mnt

leaned over in order to get a better view. The gentle pressure placed on his back, the friendly gesture of his friend, Mt, impelled him forward.

Mt watched Mnt's progress downward into the deep canyon. "My good friend certainly has a wonderful voice," said Mt. He then

gathered up all the tiger teeth and started wearily toward home and the inevitable excited acclaim of his friends.

But surely with all that we now know about implementing Organ- ization Development, the reader protests that this logic of caveman management is finally outmoded. In our hearts we know better. Polite to the core and addicted to the indirect teaching style, Neely Gardner would merely smile. Besides, why waste time? There is more than enough macho manager literature and other evidence coming out every year to convince past and present caveman executives that it's still a jungle out there.

NOTE

1. The writer would like to thank Ed Jasaitis for sending an audiotape of an OD class in which Gardner discussed how and why SUMMITRY was written, and Frank Sherwood for explaining the background of the OD project that Gardner conducted for the California Department of Water resources.



Documents

THE LOGIC OF CAVEMAN MANAGEMENT