Page 28 - Journal of Management Inquiry, July 2018

310 Journal of Management Inquiry 27(3)

theoretical aspects of the Ohio State and Fiedler’s Contingency were and any further thoughts as to why getting this
Model of Leadership studies (House, Filley, & Kerr, 1971; seminal work published was so challenging?
House & Kerr, 1973; Kerr & Harlan, 1973; Kerr, Harlan, & Kerr: The original version of the article was quite differ-
Stogdill, 1974; Kerr & Schriesheim, 1974; Schriesheim & ent from the final published product. The number one
Kerr, 1974). More generally, Steve’s account of what helped problem that reviewers had with it was that it had no
form the basis for the “Folly” article provides us with a fasci- quantitative data. There was a split vote, one reviewer
nating look at how a good idea, at the right time, in the right liked it, and one reviewer didn’t. Of course, this was
context (particularly his previous work experience at better than my experience at the Eastern Academy of
Metropolitan Life), as well as persistence and good old luck, all Management, where the paper was outright rejected!
amazingly came together to provide us with a true management Regarding the lack of data, I was able to call upon my pre-
classic. Interestingly, the “Folly” article is not Steve’s most vious work experience at Metropolitan Life as a claims
cited! That honor goes to his work on the meaning and mea- approver. I have always thought that some of the zaniest
surement of substitutes for leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). aspects of reward systems involve rewarding attendance
For many of us, the “Folly” is best known as having four instead of performance. For example, as a claims
causes of inappropriate reward behavior. The first cause approver at Metropolitan Life, I had to take a doctor’s
involves the fascination with various objective criteria. The injury description and decide how much money and
second involves an overemphasis on highly visible behav- what kind of benefits employees were eligible to receive.
iors. The third cause involves hypocrisy, while the fourth and The trouble was that doctors tended to be short and
final cause involves the relative role of morality or equity cryptic in their descriptions. They might write that they
versus that of efficiency. Upon reflection, Kerr suggests that had surgically repaired a patient’s ankle. The problem
our understanding might be better served by combining the was that you didn’t know if the ankle was dislocated or
original first two causes. In addition, Kerr provides a further fractured. Furthermore, if it was fractured, was it a sim-
reflection on just what hypocrisy is (and is not) and the ple or compound fracture? This is important as each
important, but complex, role it plays in inappropriate reward malady had a different benefit code. Compounding the
behavior patterns. Readily apparent from this discussion is problem, Met Life evaluated on both quantity and qual-
the powerful simplicity to his argument: It is important to ity dimensions. So, claims approvers were judged on the
measure what is important to measure. It is not important to number of claims an approver processed as well as num-
measure what is easy to measure. ber of errors. Technically, when in doubt, you were sup-
posed to write to the doctor asking for further elaboration
Question: The “Folly” article is widely recognized as one of the injury and then inform the patient as to the status
of the classics in management theory. How did the idea of their claim. This takes time and you still have not paid
for the “Folly” come about? out the claim. Alternatively, you could just pay the
Kerr: Before the original publication of the “Folly” article claim. However, if you pay too little on the claim, you
(in the Academy of Management Journal in 1975), I will hear from the claimant. So, new approvers were
had published several articles pertaining to various taught by the veterans that the safest course of action,
psychometric and theoretical aspects of the Ohio State when in doubt, was to assume the most severe, costly
studies (House et al., 1971; Kerr & Schriesheim, 1974; treatment had been performed. In short, the new approv-
Schriesheim & Kerr, 1974). These were the result of ers were coached, “when in doubt pay it out” . . . the
well-articulated ideas about particular leadership top- “Folly” in a nutshell.
ics. On the other hand, early on in my career I began I was also informed by what was going on in society in
observing more and more, for lack of a better word, the early 1970s. In Vietnam, we would hear of
“odd” phenomena. For example, when I arrived at American soldiers who would refuse to take orders and
Ohio State University in the early 1970s, I suggested would “frag” their commanding officer. (Fragging
that we have a visiting speaker forum to bring in inter- refers to killing their commanding officer because he
esting speakers. I was told that there was not a budget volunteered his unit for dangerous missions). The 1972
for visiting speakers. However, there was a budget for presidential election between Nixon and McGovern
faculty recruiting and since “we were always on the was also informative to my thinking. While I wasn’t
lookout for good faculty,” it was suggested that I use interested in politics very much at the time, I would
the faculty recruiting budget to bring in visiting speak- listen to those politicians just prattling on about how
ers. My first thought was: am I being dishonest and we’re going to have better schools, better homes, and
how can my training in management theory and prac- better everything. Listening to these politicians is
tice inform my thought process? where I got the notion of rewarding dishonesty and
Question: We know of the challenges you faced in getting punishing the people who were honest. So, putting all
the paper published. Could you summarize what these this together, one morning I actually woke up with a