“Practical Psychology” in Departmental Organisation.
| Date | 01 January 1934 |
| Published date | 01 January 1934 |
| Author | H. Townshend |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1934.tb02372.x |
Notes
“
PRACTIC-~
PSYCHOLOGY
’
’
IN
DEPARTMENTAL
ORGANISATION.
By
H.
TOWNSHEND
F
late years, increasing attention has been devoted
rn
this
country
0
to the art
of
organising satisfactory relations between large
institutions, such
as
Public Deparhents, and the public; satisfactory
attitudes, that
is
to say, towards individuals outside the Department
on the part
of
the officials within it
who
come into contact with them,
and
vice
uersa.
The belief is
gaining
ground that these attitudes
can
be and should be consciously influenced for good by the Administra-
tion,
if
it applies itself
to
the problem in a scientific spirit-as it
is
in
the habit
of
applying itself to its other problems, instead of leaving
the friction naturally generated at the points
of
contact
to
be aggra-
vated by the gall
of
old custom and arbitrarily irritated by casual
prejudice. The principles to be followed may be called practical
psychology1
or
organised common-sense, or, in the American tongue
now becoming acclimatised in
this
country,
“
Salesmanship.”
The movement began in commerce, as soon as
it
was realised that
the metamorphosis of the small shop, managed by
its
owner, into the
multiple store served by salaried assistants organised under depart-
mental managers
in
a hierarchy, was depriving the business, as
a
seller of
goods,
of
an essential element
of
efficiency, known to its
customers as
“
the personal touch.” The movement spread,
via
Public
Utility
Authoritieses, which sell services, to Government Depart-
ments, which interpret policy, approved by the public as a whole
thrrough its elected representatives, to its individual membew-or,
in
the American metaphor,
“
sell
”
ideas.
The subject
of
“
Salesmanship
”
in its application to Public
Authorities is at present engaging the attention
of
the Institute
of
Public Administration, and was discussed at the last Summer Con-
ference. Nevertheless, and in spite of the fact that large administrative
institutions-at least, military and ecclesiastical oneskare much
older than
“
big business
”
in
any form (multiple shops
or
business
1
See
a
suggestive article by
hfr.
H.
F.
Carla,
entitled
‘‘
Administrative Habits
of
based.
2Both
analogies were
drawn
years ago by the late Professor
Graham
Wallas.
At
this
date,
most
Civil
Sewants
of
20
years’ standing can verify the military
analogy
from their experience. The steps which
a
Commanding 05cer,,mmust take to ensure
the
good discipline and morale essential for efficiency in action
are
well recognised by
every military authority: and officers
of
the figh%g Services are specially trained from
vouth
in order to habituate them to
taking
those steps. The following facts establish
the prescience
of
Graham
Wallas
in
suggesting
so
long ago the ~clesiastical
analogy.
A
recent course
of
Salesmanship
(1932-33)
conducted by
a
firm
of
consultants in
this
country for
a
large utdffY organisation, to
train
its
canvassing
salesmen, includes
several
se,?
of forms
for
self-examination
”;
the
lorms
consist
of
lists
of questions of
the type
Am
I
fxw
from
-?”
“
Do
I
consciously develop
-?”
‘‘
Have
I
-?”
(certain personal qFties); the
salesmen
taking
the cfurse are enjoined
to
refrain from
“
map judgments come back at
intervals
”
to
the
self-examination forms, and
only
to
be satided
if
they
can
give themseIves
pro-
gressively more
satisiactory
answers.’’
Mind,” in
PUBLIC
ADMINTSTRATION,
VOl.
VJII,
pp.
TI9
et
seq.,
on
which
this
paper
ki
on
these ,questions;
they
are
to
E
65
To continue reading
Request your trial