Chapter 17 – Organizing – Providing Clear Directives
Organizing –
Providing Clear Directives
Organizational Fundamentals
Organizing encompasses all activities required to collect and configure resources for effective and efficient plan implementation. This function operates across multiple organizational dimensions, beginning with personal organization. Managers must create environments conducive to productivity – providing appropriate freedom, minimizing distractions, and ensuring resource accessibility.
The organizing function extends to role definition and employee development. This includes creating job analyses, descriptions, and recruitment materials, along with establishing training protocols and performance evaluation systems. These processes incorporate time management, meeting facilitation, and appropriate motivation techniques. Additional considerations include establishing disciplinary procedures, termination protocols, and project cancellation methods when initiatives prove counterproductive.
Contemporary organizing increasingly involves relationship development – leveraging networking opportunities, engaging board members or mentors, managing committees, and developing cross-functional teams. The “soft side” of organizing includes ethical planning and communication strategies that may not directly generate revenue but create trust-based environments capable of effectively communicating organizational strategies and goals.
The Consequences of Ambiguous Expectations
Consider a manager who enters one employee’s office to deliver criticism, then visits another employee to convey praise and promise rewards. If both employees were operating under clearly defined objectives, these differentiated outcomes would generate limited controversy – particularly if one employee failed to meet standards while the other exceeded them.
The dynamics change dramatically when explicit performance standards are absent. Without clear criteria, employees justifiably question the basis for differential treatment: Why was one employee criticized while the other received praise? What behaviors earned reward versus reprimand? This ambiguity breeds resentment and undermines organizational trust.
Effective managers create environments with transparent expectations where employees receive equitable treatment without favoritism. The most common perceived inequities arise when evaluation criteria remain unclear. The biblical narrative of Cain and Abel demonstrates this principle through humanity’s first workplace conflict.
The Cain and Abel Narrative
Genesis 4:3 In the course of time Kayin brought an offering to ADONAI from the produce of the soil; 4 and Hevel too brought from the firstborn of his sheep, including their fat. ADONAI accepted Hevel and his offering 5 but did not accept Kayin and his offering. Kayin was very angry, and his face fell. 6 ADONAI said to Kayin, “Why are you angry? Why so downcast? 7 If you are doing what is good, shouldn’t you hold your head high? And if you don’t do what is good, sin is crouching at the door – it wants you, but you can rule over it.”
4:11 Therefore you are more cursed then the ground, and the ground was already cursed.
Organizational Elements in the Narrative
Differentiated Performance Evaluation
This narrative illustrates a critical management concern—providing appropriate performance evaluation based on role differentiation. When employees perform tasks with varying difficulty levels, should evaluation standards adjust accordingly? Should those undertaking more challenging assignments receive greater recognition for their efforts? These questions highlight the importance of clear instruction, appropriate rules, and understanding employee motivation.
Task Complexity Considerations
Genesis 4:2 establishes differentiated occupational roles: “Hevel became a herder of sheep and Kayin was a tiller of land.” This occupational distinction carried significant implications within the biblical context. Agriculture represented the more demanding occupation – God had specifically cursed the ground after Eden’s expulsion, declaring that “by the sweat of your brow you will eat food” (3:17). Kayin’s agricultural work thus occurred under explicitly cursed conditions, while shepherding carried no similar divine impediment.
Both occupations presented significant challenges. Shepherding required protecting flocks from predators, managing disease, conducting seasonal shearing, and identifying suitable grazing areas. Agriculture demanded soil preparation, planting, cultivation, irrigation management during rainfall deficits, growth monitoring, and timely harvesting. Each profession required substantial effort, but the farmer depended more heavily on divine cooperation through appropriate weather conditions.
This dependence on divine provision required greater appreciation for supernatural assistance, potentially explaining why Jewish liturgy contains numerous prayers for dew and rain, including their regular mention in the Shmonah Eseri (Eighteen Benedictions) recited thrice daily. Despite working cursed land, Kayin’s agricultural profession demanded heightened appreciation for divine involvement in his success – an appreciation potentially absent in his “basic” offering compared to Abel’s “best” offering.
This differentiated task complexity highlights the management principle that evaluation systems must consider job difficulty. While all roles contribute organizational value, performance standards should acknowledge varying challenge levels. Managers must carefully evaluate position requirements to ensure fair assessment for employees performing different functions.
Initiative Without Direction
Kayin demonstrated significant initiative by offering the first documented sacrifice. The text contains no previous mention of sacrificial practices or divine commandment to offer sacrifices. Kayin’s offering represented voluntary appreciation rather than mandated obligation – a “service of the heart” performed without prior instruction or established protocol.
Abel’s offering appears secondary – “Hevel too brought” suggests responsive rather than initiative-driven behavior. This “me too” approach indicates Kayin’s sacrifice was considered worthy of emulation rather than representing independent inspiration.
Though Abel offered a “firstborn sheep” – potentially superior quality – divine preference for firstborn offerings wasn’t established until much later (Exodus 13:12). No sacrificial requirements existed when Kayin initiated his offering.
Kayin’s experiment with an innovative practice carried inherent risk. While initiative deserves recognition, collaboration might have produced better outcomes. Consulting with divine authority about preferred sacrificial approaches or partnering with his brother to develop appropriate offerings could have prevented his subsequent rejection experience. This illustrates the managerial principle that innovation, while valuable, benefits from appropriate consultation and collaboration rather than isolated experimentation in unfamiliar territory.
Inequitable Reward Systems
Divine acceptance of Abel’s offering alongside Kayin’s rejection occurred without explicit explanation – a management approach that invites organizational turmoil. Managers who reward one employee while punishing another without transparent criteria face legitimate scrutiny and potential organizational resistance.
The subsequent divine statement that Kayin should “hold his head high” if “doing what is good” (4:7) compounded the confusion. Without established criteria, Kayin reasonably believed his initiative represented positive contribution. His agricultural work required substantial effort to produce anything on cursed land. Without specific direction regarding acceptable offerings, Kayin could reasonably expect his voluntary contribution would receive appreciation rather than rejection.
Divine criticism characterizing Kayin’s offering as “not good” lacked constructive guidance for improvement. Traditional interpretations suggest divine insight into Kayin’s motivation rather than the offering itself, but such implicit evaluation criteria remain textually unsupported. This scenario demonstrates the critical importance of documented evaluation systems with transparent criteria. Without such frameworks, most observers would likely sympathize with Kayin’s perception of unfair treatment.
Rabbi Nathan Laufer suggests Kayin may have attempted symbolic atonement—offering fruit (produce) to counterbalance the forbidden fruit that triggered Eden’s expulsion. This theory further complicates assessing divine rejection, as such reconciliation attempts would seemingly merit appreciation rather than rebuke.
This interaction demonstrates the managerial principle that supportive feedback remains essential even when correction is necessary. When employees invest substantial effort, even imperfect results deserve acknowledgment before corrective guidance. Managers who declare work “no good” without constructive direction create demotivation rather than improvement. While standards should remain high, feedback should acknowledge effort while providing specific improvement pathways.
Future-Oriented Motivation
Despite questionable execution, divine feedback demonstrated important motivational principles. Rather than dwelling on past performance, the comments directed Kayin toward future improvement. The statement that Kayin could “rule over” doing evil emphasized growth potential rather than past failure.
This future-oriented approach offers valuable guidance for contemporary managers. While poor performance requires honest assessment, effective feedback primarily focuses on improvement pathways rather than extensive blame assignment. Managers should acknowledge current reality while directing attention toward future possibilities.
Competitive Dynamics
The Kayin-Hevel interaction illustrates potential dangers in unmanaged workplace competition. While appropriate competition can motivate performance beyond comfort zones (like sales contests with defined parameters), unmanaged rivalry can escalate dangerously. Kayin’s initial verbal confrontation with his brother escalated to lethal violence in the field (4:8).
This progression demonstrates how seemingly minor disputes can intensify without appropriate intervention. While managers shouldn’t eliminate healthy competition, they must actively monitor competitive dynamics to prevent destructive escalation. This story illustrates how organizational competition requires careful calibration – encouraging productive rivalry while preventing destructive conflict.
Planning Considerations
Work as Divine Purpose
Genesis 2:15 establishes that “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it,” suggesting humanity’s divine purpose includes productive labor. The garden provided learning opportunities rather than merely supplying effortless sustenance.
This arrangement parallels the developmental difference between children who receive everything without effort versus those who earn rewards through work. The latter develop greater appreciation for achievements through earned accomplishment.
Through garden cultivation, Adam could develop both appreciation for Eden’s value and transferable skills for eventual application beyond paradise – preparing for the command to “fill the world” (Genesis 1:28). Eden potentially served as a training ground for skills applicable in less hospitable environments.
Curiously, beyond animal naming (Genesis 2:20), the text doesn’t mention Adam working in the garden. Ideal development might have required that Eden produce food only through human cultivation – creating earned sustenance rather than passive consumption. This earned-reward approach would have fostered appreciation for both productive labor and the enabling environment.
Despite human free will, divine omniscience potentially anticipated Eden’s departure. The garden assignment thus provided skill development opportunity before necessity arose. However, the text notably lacks any mention of divine instruction regarding cultivation techniques or Adam teaching these skills to his sons. This instructional absence suggests self-taught approaches, potentially explaining Kayin’s personalized reaction to sacrifice rejection. The apparent planning failure to provide training and clear expectations created conditions for subsequent conflict.
Sacrifice Protocol Ambiguity
The text contains no earlier sacrificial references or requirements. If divine authority desired specific sacrificial practices, clear instruction should have preceded performance evaluation. Later biblical passages establish detailed sacrificial requirements, suggesting either evolving divine expectations or concession to surrounding cultural practices (Psalms 40).
Regardless of rationale, the absence of clear sacrificial guidelines created inevitable confusion. When management expects employee initiative, detailed performance specifications must accompany these expectations to ensure alignment between performance and evaluation.
Directive Implementation
Emotional Recognition in Performance Conversations
Divine interaction with Kayin demonstrates sophisticated emotional awareness. The questions: “Why are you angry? Why are you so downcast?” (4:6) recognize distinct emotional states requiring separate acknowledgment.
This dual questioning suggests recognition of sequential emotional response to negative feedback—initial anger followed by depression. Anger might target rejected sacrifice, superior sibling performance, or insufficient guidance. Depression follows as secondary response – concern about future implications, potential further rejection, or comparison anxiety.
This progression mirrors typical employee responses to performance criticism. Initial anger (at circumstances, self, or others) typically transitions to depression about implications. Effective managers recognize both emotional stages and address each appropriately rather than focusing exclusively on initial reactive anger.
By acknowledging both emotional responses, divine management demonstrated psychological awareness. The subsequent positive redirection—encouraging future improvement rather than dwelling on past failure – represents effective emotional management. Managers must recognize that performance conversations trigger predictable emotional sequences requiring both acknowledgment and constructive redirection.
Constructive Redirection
Divine response provided solution-oriented guidance rather than extended criticism. While “do better” might seem insufficiently specific by modern standards, it focused on improvement potential rather than past inadequacy.
Contemporary motivation theory would recommend more specific guidance – providing additional tools, resources, or explicit performance criteria. Nevertheless, this future-oriented approach demonstrates the managerial principle that performance conversations should conclude with improvement pathways rather than terminal judgment.
Forgiveness Consideration
The narrative raises questions about the appropriate forgiveness threshold. Given no documented prior issues with Kayin, should divine management have overlooked this initial offense while encouraging future improvement? Proverbs 19:11 suggests that “a man’s wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense,” establishing forgiveness as virtue rather than weakness.
While the subsequent murder required significant consequences, the initial sacrificial misstep could have become teaching opportunity about both performance standards and forgiveness principles. Effective managers recognize that disproportionate reactions to minor initial infractions can create antagonistic relationships where remediation becomes increasingly difficult.
Performance Evaluation
Measurable Standards
Effective evaluation requires measurable standards. The sacrificial comparison suggests quality-based evaluation – Hevel offered his “best” while Kayin offered merely “some.” However, without established standards, such quality determinations remain subjective and potentially arbitrary.
Managers should establish clear performance forums where employees can demonstrate achievements and receive appropriate feedback. While 360-degree reviews and other formal evaluation processes fall within organizing functions, the metrics themselves represent controlling functions. In this narrative, sacrifice quality served as control metric, though without documented standards.
Without transparent quality criteria, evaluation becomes problematic. The text doesn’t specify whether either brother received advance performance standards or what specific qualities determined acceptance versus rejection. This ambiguity underscores the importance of communicating evaluation criteria before performance assessment.
When providing feedback, managers should generally acknowledge effort before offering constructive criticism. This appreciation-before-correction sequence preserves relationship foundation while facilitating improvement. Only with fundamentally inadequate performance should appreciation be withheld, and even then, correction should address behaviors rather than personal worth. Once conflicts become personalized rather than performance-focused, remediation becomes exponentially more difficult.
Deliverables
Effective organizational communication requires managers to:
- Establish Clear Performance Expectations: Ensure employees understand evaluation standards before performance assessment.
- Develop Objective Criteria: Create measurable performance standards rather than subjective evaluation whenever possible.
- Calibrate Competitive Environment: Encourage healthy competition while monitoring interactions to prevent destructive escalation.
- Recognize Emotional Response Sequences: Acknowledge that performance feedback triggers predictable emotional progression requiring both recognition and redirection.
- Provide Future-Oriented Feedback: Focus performance conversations on improvement pathways rather than extensive criticism of past performance.
Discussion Questions
- If you were a consultant hired by Kayin to give a sacrifice (of anything) what would you have told him?
- How should the Lord have dealt with the sacrifices?
- How should the Lord have dealt with the brothers before, during, and after the sacrifices?
