jim.shamlin.com

2: Imitation

Imitation consists of recognizing that someone else is getting better results at a task and mimicking what we do in the belief that it will enable us to get the same results. This is often true, provided we can find someone who is doing better, discover which of their behaviors is causing them to get results, and emulate them perfectly.

Imitation is our first mode of learning: an infant imitates the sounds he hears in his cradle, and this is the way he learns to speak a language: if he is in America he hears and imitates English and if in China he hears and imitates Chinese. Parents may later coach the child to speak "properly" but he utters his first words on his own.

Imitation is not limited to infants. As adults, "we unconsciously imitate whatever actions happen to catch our attention." And it is the method by which societies progress, as the improvements gained by one man are of little impact on the aggregate unless others recognize and imitate his behavior.

Imitation is a common method of learning, as the student emulates the behavior demonstrated by his teacher. The problem in industrial matters is that we may need hundreds or thousands of men, sometimes dispersed across many locations, to imitate someone in the same way. This requires finding an effective method for spreading knowledge.

Given that mass production involves many workers doing the same things in the same way, the idea of training workers has become rather popular, albeit with some limitations: they train only new workers basic skills and neglect to teach experienced people improved skills, and then they prevent any deviation (improvement on) the behavior to which they are trained, preventing the discovery of better methods and undermining confidence that the methods they have been forced to use are best.

There is a brief mention of teaching by example versus teaching buy percept. People put greater faith on and will more readily adopt something that is demonstrated (more so when both the action and output are seen) than they will when something is merely described to them.

He mentions that psychologists had undervalued imitation as a practice only for animals, children, and weak-minded people who cannot figure out how to do something on their own and must mindlessly copy another. It is in fact the way that very intelligent and capable people improve themselves, though their imitation tends to be mindful (they analyze what they see, decide whether it is worthwhile to imitate and what precise elements are contributing to another's success, rather than mindlessly mimicking.)

That is not to say all mimicry is intelligent. If the owner of an unsuccessful business sees a successful competitor wearing a Panama hat, he may foolishly conclude that if he also wears that style of hat, and does nothing else, his business will become successful. Clearly, this is irrational because there is no connection between the hat and the performance of a factory or store - but there are very many less extreme examples of one manager proposing to mimic a competitor's behavior without determining whether that particular behavior is a factor in their success. (EN: I will even add that they seek to mimic the behavior of less-successful competitors.)

Scott recognizes that there are two classes of imitation:

(EN: This could go further, and perhaps distinctions will be made, as a "conscious" choice is not always a wise choice, and an "unconscious" choice may be due to constraints rather than instinct.)

Unconscious imitation is particularly concerning for the workplace, because people may unconsciously imitate unproductive behavior - such that one "loafer" in a group of first-class men diminishes the productivity not only by his idleness, but that which he encourages in others by example. (EN: This presumes the imitation is unconscious. The first-class workers may consciously imitate the loafer, and the loafer may even actively encourage the other workers to slow down.)

Conscious imitation, meanwhile, tends to be positive. We are aware of what we are imitating and aware of the difference in results as a consequence of imitation. If we get better results with less effort, we adopt the imitated behavior permanently; if we do not get better results, we abandon the practice. All of this is done by active observation and deliberate thought.

In the workplace, managers and foremen are tasked with improving the efficiency of their workers - and in doing so requires mitigating imitation to ensure that the best methods are imitated and less efficient methods are abandoned. This is the only effective and sustainable way to increase output.

It's mentioned that the worse sort of manager is the one who demands an increase in output without providing his workers the means to achieve the output more efficiently - but merely by working faster or longer hours. This may increase output temporarily, but before long the negative effects of mistakes and errors as well as diminished morale, negate the effects of working harder and longer. Even offering financial incentives for increased output do not improve efficiency - the men may wish to earn more income, but their physical and mental capacities are not limitless.

The author mentions company newsletters as "house organs" that can spread the word quickly about effective practices. It is not merely to recognize the salesman who closed a major deal or the worker who set a new record in production, but to hold up their practices for emulation. He mentions that this has become a method by which "larger sales organizations have obtained remarkable results."

This is similar to the function of the newspaper within a society, particularly in terms of fashion: people wish to emulate the dress and habits of those they admire, in order to win admiration for themselves. There is no financial incentive for this, and people actually pay significant sums of money to do so - the reward is often esteem or self-esteem alone.

A few tips are encouraged for promoting imitation in the workplace:

There is an oblique mention of work procedures as a method of standardizing and encourage practices. Providing a "model" of how a task is done serves as instruction and reminder. However, there is some danger in mandating the method of work, as this prevents men from discovering more efficient ways of working.

The most common use of imitation in the workplace is training new employees by pairing them with the most productive workers. While the task may be explained to them, it is not until they observe someone that they are able to put the knowledge to practical use. Where feasible, the novice worker begins with simple tasks and, as he gains mastery of them, is taught more complex tasks.

Retraining an employee who has become habituated to inefficient methods of work posts a more significant problem, as they must "unlearn" the wrong before acquiring the right. Too little effort is put into this training, assuming an employee who is competent in an existing process will take quickly and naturally to a new method.

Those whose work is less visible, such as a mechanic or an accountant, also learns by observation, though in these instances it requires a workman who is not merely efficient in his tasks but can also articulate the mental processes that cannot be seen. It is particularly important to mentor these kinds of workers because they cannot learn by mere observation without a narrative of the reason for the actions.

Conventions and conferences are mentioned as valuable training events, in which even experienced workers can benefit from the knowledge of those who are not merely the best in their company, but the best in their industry.

More random tips follow: