•
MANAGEMENT
Monsanto employees stop in lobby of present administration building to admire model of the new "world headquarters" n o w under construction in. St. Louis
Monsanto Mobilizes to M o v e N e w suburban office center will end space shortage for administrative staff; improve communications
H OUSEWIVES (and husbands) face serious problems when families outgrow their living quarters. The search for or construction of adequate housing can be costly and time-consuming, and a thousand headaches may crop up to plague the family's "management committee" before, on, and after moving day. Multiply the problems several hundred fold, and you may have some idea of the fun in store for the management of a major chemical manufacturer when it realizes it has hopelessly outgrown its quarters, and because of space limitations can no longer ease the situation by adding new sections to the corporate domicile. In just such a fix is Monsanto Chemical Co., now preparing for the day of moving from its present administrative headquarters on St. Louis's South Second Stieet. The company's adnainistrative staff has repeatedly outgrown its quarters until finally it has reached the
stage where there i s n o alternative to moving. But Monsanto's management is resolved that the lieaclaches involved in moving will be h e l d at a n absolute minimum through advance planning, close attention to e v e n small details, and careful scheduling of ttie steps required to complete i t s monumental moving task. Behind the decision to m o v e lie a number of hard facts. Because of its high rate o f growth, Monsanto has been chronically short of office space almost since the time trie company w a s formed. A s the office staff grew, almost constant rearrangement of space w a s under way, new wings were added to existing buildings wherever possible, and large blocks of space were leased in several buildings near tibe Second Street (Queeny plant) location and in the downtown St. Louis area. In only about two years of the company's existence prior t o 1950 was Monsanto able t o accommodate its entire staff
without leasing space; at present, in three scattered locations, Monsanto has under lease more than 250,000 net square feet of space. Compounding the problem is the economic fact that land at the South Second Street location is far more valuable for manufacturing than for the accommodation of office space. Land costs have risen sharply in this area in the past few decades, and additional land has become virtually impossible to secure. Furthermore, since office space requires more parking area for personnel than does manufacturing, large portions of the South Second Street area must now b e given over to nonproductive use as parking lots for employees' cars. Clinching the need for a change is the company's confidence that the company will continue to grow. Already Monsanto is very tighdy squeezed for land at its South Second Street location; from the long range point of view, it is in dire straits indeed. Chemical companies, including Monsanto, have traditionally doubled in size every five years. With every inch of available space already in use, there is obviously no margin for growth. • Better Communication. While the demands for additional space would have forced the move eventually, there are other compelling reasons why Monsanto management favors the move t o a new, more spacious location. Not the least of these is the desire of management to have divisions and staff departments at a single location for ease of communication. Interoffice communication at Monsanto is efficient even under present conditions of wide scattering of offices, but company officials are the first to admit that there is room for improvement on this score. The decision to place the n e w headquarters in a suburban location,- rather than downtown, was based on a finding that the center of population of the company's office employees lies well out toward the perimeter of the city proper, and that the employees themselves have no direct connection with, or need for daily contact with either downown St. Louis, or the Queeny manufacturing plant which occupies most of the South Second Street site. Monsanto's management had actually concluded more than 5 years ago that a move to the suburbs was in the cards. On December 12, 1951, in fact, Charles A. Thomas, Monsanto's president, had announced to all employees that the company had purchased land out in the country, and had formulated long-range plans to move its world headquarters there. On September of the following year, Thomas announced the beginning of construction on the new headquarters building, which was to be of JULY
2.
1956 C & E N
3255
MANAGEMENT contemporary' design, 8 stories high, with more than 300,000 square feet of floor space. Very soon after, however, on Jan. 2, 1953, Thomas announced that construction Had been deferred. Mon-
santo had invested so much of its re-
sources in manufacturing plants (especially Chemstrand, the Texas City plant, and a n e w phthalic anhydride
unit the Queeny none ofto whichatwould soon be plant), in a position show a return, that the company management d e e m e d it wise to postpone construction on the new office facilities. The building contractors simply closed up their construction sheds, and walked off. Some grading had been completed, and a few sewer connections made, but otherwise little progress had been m a d e on actual construction of the buildings. The halt in construction activity
caused some people in the area to con-
with individual employees and with employee groups, in order to promote complete understanding on all sides, and to appraise management of employee's opinions and needs. Population studies in 1951 and in 1955 had shown that the center oi Monsanto's office employee population—specifically those w h o would be affected by the move—was actually moving through natural causes in the direction of the n e w site. ( T h e reputation center was 1.5 miles closer to the new site in 1955 than it had been in 1951.) The majority of the people who will b e moving into the n e w quarters will save driving time in their daily trips to and from the office, and can count on small additional blessings such as driving counter to the metropolitan area's main stream of rush hour traffic. Monsanto has recently completed a poll of all employees to determine what
the move, will mean to each as an indi-
clude that Monsanto had abandoned its plans for a" rural office center, but in the light of earlier survey findings, this could not have been the case. Early in 1955, the company renewed
vidual. Questionnaires were distributed in salary envelopes, and collected within a week; rapid processing through IBM equipment provided preliminary—but highly useful—informa-
the study of its construction needs. At
whichonpersonal cars and car pools tion such matters as the extentwillto b e used, and how much public trans-
this time, Monsanto called in a group of office planning specialists to examine in more detail its actual office heeds. The group moved from office t o office at Monsaxito's existing facilities, checking the number of people at each location, inquiring about their activities, and preparing projections in both cases for five years ahead. As a result of their recommendations, purely on office arrangement, Monsanto changed its plans from an 8-story building t o a low, spread-out cluster of smaller buildings. The land was available, and it could have b e e n argued, besides, that an 8-story building in a rural location would stand out like a monument. The n e w buildings, which are now under construction, will b e completely air-conditioned and will feature improved lighting, numerous -windows which look out on attractive landscaping, and a considerably less congested atmosphere. Progress on construction at the site depends on the delivery of steel, n o w scheduled for July of this year. Completion of construction probably will require about one year after the delivery of the necessary steel. Present plans call for completion of the power plant and laboratory as the first order of business, to b e followed by the general headquarters buildings. • Individual Impact. Of primary concern to Monsanto's management from the inception of its moving plans w a s the effect that a move might have on the e m p l o y e e s directly concerned. Frequent discussions have been held 3256
C&EN
JULY
2.
1956
portation will be required. Monsanto expects to work closely with the Public Service Co. in setting up public transportation schedules, and may find it desirable to subsidize buses between the office site and principal residential areas. The survey has also served to point up a number of individual problems, many of which can b e worked out satisfactorily before the date of moving arrives. Another survey, similar in nature, will be conducted w h e n the date draws near. T o keep employees up to date on progress, the coordinating committee has created a company newspaper called News on the Move* in which both the advantages and disadvantages of the n e w site are objectively discussed, and in which the individual employee s point of view is given primary consideration. As the first issue of News on the Move points out, Monsanto management wants every employee to make the move along with the company. Population studies have shown that the shift will b e a convenience for t h e majority, but the rninority —those w h o have problems—have been asked to make their problems known in order that solutions can be found. Not only corporate headaches but individual headaches as well will b e avoided wherever possible as Monsanto prepares for the largest business-family
move St. Louis has ever seen.
•
COMMENT HOlD far new developments will t4ke U8 depends on hOlD lDeU !De are able to recognize and en· courage individual tJChifmement. lVe cannot move "erg rapidly if we shut the door on our tJblest people by abscwbing them in the lifeless tomb of mediocrity. If I were faced with (I choice between a society that subUmatccl the good with the bad, I think I would rather kike my chances with the scoundrels: than risk lORing the creatioe force represented by.the gifted individual, or wl1at lDeT might caR the uncommo'l Inan. Z am sure the country's long-term balance would sustain me here. To play Mark AntllOlI!J in reverse, it seems to me tha' the evil that men can do-survives them only a short time, whereas the good, far from being interred with their bones; goes on and on forever. And the good that aU men accomplish can be no more than the sum of their individual accomplishments. Try as we wiU, we can create no synthetic genius, no composite leader. Men are not inte1'changeable parts like so many pinion gear, or carburetors; genius, Il8 John Adams said, is bestowed "imperiously" by nature upon an individual. And behind every advance of the human race is a germ of creation growing in the mind of some lone individual, an individual whose dreams waken him in the night while others lie contentedly asleep. We need those dreams, for today's dreams represent tomorrow's realities. Yet, in the 'Very nature of our mass effort, there lies this grave danger-not that the irlClividual may circumvent the public wiU, but that he wiU himself be conformed and shaped to the general pattern; with the los8 of his unique, original contributior18. The group nature of business enterprise itself wiU fWovide Gdequate safeguards against public agront. The great problem, th.e great question, is to deDelop within. the frametDMk of the group the creative. genius of the I individual. ! CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT IE] President of Du Pont, before the . American Newspaper Publishers
Association
