THEORIES OF MANAGEMENT

by ArinzeChukwu E

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.......................................................1

THE THEORIES OF MANAGEMENT............................2

THE  BEHAVIOURAL THEORY....................................3

THE MANAGEMENT SCIENCE THEORY......................6

THE CLASSICAL ORGANIZATION THEORY..................8

CONCLUSION...........................................................13

REFERENCE..............................................................14

 

INTRODUCTION

Etymological, the word manage comes from the Italian maneggiare (to handle, especially tools), which derives from the two Latin words-manus(hand)  and agere(to act).

According to Henri Fayol, "to manage is to forecast and to plan, to organize, to command, to co-ordinate and to control.

Management is business and organization is the function that co-ordinate the effort of people to accomplish goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively.

Every organization will always have a means to achieving its objectives. To achieve a goal, all modern organizations have some programme and methods. The programme might be to practice playing skills, to rehearse a certain number of times before each performance like in a drama group, or to manufacture and advertise a product to ensure good sales. It is also a practice that consciously and continually shapes organizations.

Moreover, the word “theory” originally derives its name from the Greek word theoria , θεωρία, which roughly translated means contemplation or speculation. Modern understandings of the word “theory” are slightly different from the ancient Greeks, but the basic idea of contemplating an idea or speculating about why something happens is still very much in-line with the modern definition. A theory is a “group of related propositions designed to explain why events take place in a certain way.”Theory is a “group of related propositions,” which is a series of statements designed to be tested and discussed. Ultimately, these statements propose an explanation for why events take place and why they occur in specific fashions.

Just like physicists have been trying to understand why the planets rotate and don’t crash into each other, organizational scholars have attempted to create theories for how and why organizations structure themselves the way they do; why people behave the way they do in organizations; why leaders and followers interactions lead to specific outcomes, etc…

Eric Eisenberg and Lloyd Goodall wrote that “the way we talk about a problem directly influence the solutions we can articulate to address the problem. Theories of organization and communication should enhance our ability to articulate alternative ways of approaching and acting on practical issues”.

THE THEORIES OF MANAGEMENT

Management and organizations have evolved through historical and social times and places. It may not be too difficult to understand management theory evolution especially in terms of how people have coped with matters of relationships with one another. An insight into management theory would however reveal that the challenges that faced early practitioners like Henry Ford are different from what is facing modern managers. However, even today some scholars have argued that by keeping a tab on how these early practitioners faced their challenges, we are likely to put ourselves in their shoes as students and practitioners of modern management.

There are many theories of management which includes:

i)Behavioural  Theory   

ii)Management  Science Theory

iii)Classical Organization Theory

iv)Ouchi's  Theory

v)Scientific  Management Theory

vi)McGregor's Theory X   and Theory Y  e.t.c

THE  BEHAVIOURAL  THEORY

ASSUMPTIONS

Leaders can be made, rather than are born. Successful leadership is based in definable, learnable behaviour.

DESCRIPTION

Behavioural theories of leadership do not seek inborn traits or capabilities. Rather, they look at what leaders actually do. If success can be defined in terms of describable actions, then it should be relatively easy for other people to act in the same way. This is easier to teach and learn then to adopt the more ephemeral 'traits' or 'capabilities'.

DISCUSION

Behavioural is a big leap from Trait Theory , in that it assumes that leadership capability can be learned, rather than being inherent. This opens the floodgates to leadership development, as opposed to simple psychometric assessment that sorts those with leadership potential from those who will never have the chance. A behavioural theory is relatively easy to develop, as you simply assess both leadership success and the actions of leaders. With a large enough study, you can then correlate statistically significant behaviours with success. You can also identify behaviours which contribute to failure, thus adding a second layer of understanding.

The organization is about people. Theory arose in an attempt to package the human side of organization. Managers suffered /frustration because people did not always follow predicted or expected patterns of behaviour. Thus there was increased interest in helping managers deal more effectively with the "people side" of their organization.

A critical part of the behavioural school is the human relations movement. According to Bernard(1938) the behavioural school is frequently used as a general term to describe the ways in which managers interact with their employees. When "employee management" stipulates more and better work, the organisation has effective human relations. When morale  and  efficiency deteriorate, its human relations  are said to be ineffective.

Behavioural theories of leadership are classified as such because they focus on the study of specific behaviours of a leader. For behavioural theorists, a leader behaviour is the best predictor of his leadership influences and as a result, is the best determinant of his or her leadership success.

This behaviour-focused approach provides real marketing potential, as behaviours can be conditioned in a manner that one can have a specific response to specific stimuli. As a result, we have gone from the supposition that leaders are born, (Great Man Theory) through to the possibility that we can measure your leadership potential (Trait Theory) via psychometrics measurements and then to the point that anyone can be made a leader (Behavioural Theories) by

teaching them the most appropriate behavioural response for any given situation. When a few of those situations are combined; you have a program that you can trademark and market!

The evolution of leadership: From Philosophy to Market article explores that question. On a side note: There are excellent leadership programs available to guide you on your leadership journey, just assure that the program you chose is complete.

There are two important Behavioural studies/two groups of behaviours that were strongly correlated. These were defined as

 i) Consideration (People Oriented Behavioural Leaders)

ii) Initiating Structure (Task Oriented Leaders).

 Task Oriented Leaders

The task concerned leaders are focusing their behaviours on the organizational structure, the operating procedures (S.O.P.) and they like to keep control. Task-oriented leaders are still concern with their staff motivation; however it's not their main concern. They will favour behaviours that are in line with:

Ø Initiating

Ø Organizing

Ø Clarifying

Ø Information Gathering

People Oriented Leaders

The people oriented leaders are focusing their behaviours on ensuring that the inner needs of the people are satisfied. Thus they will seek to motivate their staff through emphasizing the human relation. People oriented leaders still focus on the task and the results;  they just achieve them through different means. Leaders with a people focus will have behaviours  that are in line with:

Ø Encouraging

Ø Observing

Ø Listening

Ø Coaching and Mentoring

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE THEORY

At the beginning of the World War II, Great Britain desperately needed to solve a number of new but complex problems in warfare. With their survival at stake, the British formed the first Operational Research (OR) teams. By pooling the expertise of mathematicians, physicists, and other scientists in Operational Research (OR) teams, the British were able to achieve significant technology and tactical breakthroughs. When the Americans entered the war, they formed what they called Operational Research (OR) teams, based on the successful British model to solve similar problems. The teams used early computers to perform the thousand of calculations involved in mathematical modelling.

When the war was over, the applicability of Operational Research (OR) to problems in industry gradually became apparent. New industrial technologies were being put into use and transportation and communication were becoming more complicated. These developments brought with them a host of problems that could not be solved easily by conventional means. Increasingly, Operational Research (OR) specialists were called on to help managers come up with answers to these problems.

Over the years, Operational Research (OR) procedure have been formalized into what is now more generally called the MANAGEMENT SCIENCE SCHOOL.

The management science school gain popularity through two post war phenomena.

FIRST: The development of high-speed computers and of communications among computers provided the means for tackling complex and large-scale organizational problems. Today the management science approach to solving a problem begins when a mixed team of specialists from relevant disciplines is called to analyze the problem and propose a course of action to management. The team constructs a mathematical model that shows, in symbolic terms all relevant factors bearing on the problem and how they are interrelated. By changing the values of the variables in the model, (such as increasing the cost of raw materials) and analyzing the different equations of the model with a computer, the team can determine the effects of each change.

Management science offered a whole new way to think about time. With Sophisticated mathematical models, and computers to crunch the numbers, forecasting the future based on the past and present became a popular activity. Managers can now play with the "WHAT IF THE FUTURE LOOKS LIKE THIS" questions that many management theories could not handle.

At the same time, the management science school pays less attention to relationships per se in organizations. The criticism is thus that management science promotes an emphasis on only the aspects of the organization that can be captured in numbers, missing the importance of people and relationships.

CLASSICAL ORGANIZATION THEORY

As we can see, the scientific management movement was concerned with increasing the productivity of the shop-floor and individual worker but "the classical organization theory grew out of the need to find guidelines for managing such complex organizations as factories says Coubrough(1978) Pioneers of classical movement were  Henri Fayol (1841-1925) and Max Weber (1864-1920). These men although were not first to investigate managerial behaviour, but they were the first to systemize it according to Coubrough's translations. Coubrough had stated that with his faith in scientific methods, Fayol was like Taylor, his contemporary. While Taylor was basically concerned with organizational functions, however, Fayol was interested in total organization and focused on management, which he felt, had been the most neglected of business operation. Before Fayol, it was generally believed that "managers are born, not made". Fayol insisted, however, that management was a skill like any other one that could be taught once its underlying principles were understood.

Taylor believed that any job could be performed better if it was done scientifically. Taylor created time and motion studies that resulted in organizational efficiency. Working as a foreman at on for the Bethlehem Steel Works in the 1900s, Taylor observed how workers could do more with less time. He analyzed coal shovelling at the organization. He noticed several workers would bring different size shovels from home. Workers who brought small shovels could do more but it took them longer and workers who brought big shovels could do less but it was faster. He observed that the best size shovel was one that weighed about twenty pounds. Hence, he ordered the organization to provide all the workers with the same size shovel. He also provided pay incentives for workers who could shovel more coal. By making these changes, the organization was able to increase production drastically.

In order to have a more productive organization, Taylor believed that there were several steps involved. First, one must examine the job or task. Second, one needs to determine the best way to complete the job or task. Third, one must choose the most appropriate person for the task at the same time properly compensating that person. Lastly, one must be able to train the person to do the task efficiently. Taylor believed that by using these scientific steps, then organizations would have fewer misuses of human effort.

Taylor’s idea of scientific management originated during the time in history when most training of workers was based on apprenticeship models. In an apprenticeship, a person would be taught and skilled by a more experienced person, who would illustrate the task so that the inexperienced person could model the behaviour. Taylor believed that this was a very ineffective way of training because he felt that workers would differ in terms of tasks that were performed and the effectiveness of the tasks would be dependent on the type of training received. Taylor argued that the there should be only one way to explain the job and one way to execute the task. He did not believe that it should be left up to the expert to train apprentices on the task. Overall, Taylor felt that employees were lazy and needed constant supervision. He posited that “the tendency of the average [employee] is toward working at a slow easy gait.” In other words, he noted that this tendency is called natural soldiering, which is affected by systematic soldiering, which occurs when employees decrease their work production based on input or communications from others. According to Taylor, systematic soldiering happens when employees feel that more production will not result in more compensation. In addition, if employees are paid by the hour and wanted to increase their income, then they might demonstrate that it takes more time in order to get compensated more than they would if they exerted more effort. Because Taylor feels that employees also impact the rate of production.

The German sociologist Max Weber reasoning along this line in his research work found that any goal-oriented organization consisting of thousands of individuals would require the carefully controlled regulation of its activities. He therefore developed a theory of bureaucratic management that stressed the need for a strictly defined hierarchy governed by clearly defined regulations and lines of authority. He considered the ideal organization to be a bureaucracy whose activities and objectives were rationally thought out and whose divisions of labour were explicitly spelled out.

In Nigeria today, we often think of bureaucracies as vast, impersonal organizations that put impersonal efficiency ahead of human needs. People would now talk about the inefficiency in the Nigeria civil service they refer to delays linked with bureaucracy.

In Max Weber differentiating among- Bureaucracy, power and control

Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally the exercise of control on the basis of knowledge (Weber, 1947). For the sociologist, power is principally exemplified within organizations by the process of control. Max Weber distinguished between authority and power by defining the latter as any relationship within which one person could impose his will, regardless of any resistance from the other, whereas authority existed when there was a belief in the legitimacy of that power.

Weber also believed that technical competence should be emphasized and that performance evaluations should be made entirely on the basis of merit.

Weber classified organizations according to the nature of that legitimacy:

Ø Charismatic authority; based on the sacred or outstanding characteristic of the individual;

Ø Traditional authority : essentially a respect for custom;

Ø Rational legal authority; which was based on a code or set of rules.

The latter is the predominant form of authority today, replacing the crude use of naked power and historical practices. According to Weber, rational legal authority is attained through the most efficient form of organization: bureaucracy. He argued that managers should not rule through arbitrary personal whim but by a formal system of rules. He listed the beliefs which underlie rational legal authority:

1.     A legal code can be established which can claim obedience from members of the

     organization

2.     The law is a system of abstract rules which are applied to particular cases; and

      administration looks after the interests of the organization within the limits of that  

      law

3.     The person exercising authority also obeys this impersonal order

4.     Only through being a member does the member obey the law

5.     Obedience is due not to the person who holds the authority but to the impersonal order which has granted him this position

   

Weber is usually described as having believed that bureaucracy is the most efficient form of organization. In fact, Weber believed bureaucracy to be the most formally rational form of organization. As such, Weber conceived of bureaucracy as being more effective than alternative forms. In his day administration was based on written documents. This tended to make the office (bureau) the focus of organization. He did not share the modern conception of a bureaucratic organization as being slow, rigid and inefficient. His primary concern was to establish ways of behaving which avoided the corruption, unfairness and nepotism characterizing most 19th century organizations. Based on his ideas concerning the legitimacy of power.

Weber outlined the characteristics of bureaucracy in its purest form. Such an organization is characterised by:

1.     '...a continuous organization of official functions bound by rules';

2.     Specialization: each office has a defined sphere of competence, involving division of labour. The tasks of the organization are divided into distinct functions given to separate offices. These functions are clearly specified so that the staff know exactly what is expected of them. Job-holders are given the authority necessary to carry out their roles;

3.     A clearly defined hierarchy of offices: a firm system of supervision based on clear levels of authority. Each official knows whom to report to with specified rights of control and complaint procedures;

4.     Rules: a stable, comprehensive system of conduct which can be learned and may require technical qualifications to understand and administer;

5.     Impersonality: no hatred or passion with equality of treatment for all clients of the organization. Staff members are free of any external responsibilities and constraints. They are able to attend to their duties in a fair and objective way;

6.     Free selection of appointed officials: selected that is on the basis of professional qualifications, with proof shown by a diploma gained through examinations. They are appointed rather than elected so that there is no question of bias or favour;

7.     Full-time paid officials: usually paid on the basis of hierarchical rank, the office being their sole or major concern. Officials are appointed on the basis of a contract. They have a monetary salary, and usually pension rights. The salary is graded according to the position in the hierarchy. The officers can leave their posts, and under certain circumstances employment can be terminated;

8.     Career officials: there is a career structure and a system of promotion based on seniority or merit based on the judgment of superiors;

9.     Private/public split: separates business and private life. The official works in a detached fashion from the ownership of the organization. The finances and interests of the two should be kept firmly apart: the resources of the organization are quite distinct from those of the members as private individuals. Officials may appropriate neither posts nor the resources which go with them. A radical notion at a time when bribery was the norm and officials regularly took a cut of any fee or payment due to their office;

10.                        There is a strict, systematic discipline and control of the official's work. Despite being based on the idea of formal rationality, Weber's concepts were idealistic. He believed that bureaucratic control would lead to a number of social consequences (Weber, 1947): tendency to a levelling of the social classes by allowing a wide range of recruits with technical competence to be taken by any organization; plutocracy, because of the time required to achieve the necessary technical training; greater degree of social equality due to the dominance of the spirit of impersonality or objectivity.

Classical theories focus on organizational structure, analyzing aspects such as optimal organizational performance plans, organizational power relationships, and compartmentalizing different organizational units.

CONCLUSION

As more and more people left the family farm or local weaver in hopes of bettering their lives and the lives of their families through employment in larger organizations, new tools and models for managing these workers had to be developed. Perhaps, the most widely known theories of organizational communication are those during the classical period that stemmed out of the industrial revolution. The main idea of the classical perspectives of organizational communication is that organizations are similar to machines. Hence, if you have a well- built and well-managed machine, then you will have a very productive and effective organization. The assumption is that each employee is part of a large machine, which is the organization. It one part fails then the entire machine fails.

We are to believe also that the reason why most organizations failed was due to the fact that they lacked successful systematic management. The best management is true science resting upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles, as a foundation.

Under scientific management arbitrary power, arbitrary dictation ceases, and every single subject, large and small, becomes question for scientific investigation, for reduction to law .

As organizational communication scholars these theories help us better appreciate, recognize, and comprehend interactions and behaviours.

We should be careful, though not to apply our negative connotations of the word bureaucracy to the term as Weber used it. Like the scientific management theorists, Weber sought to improve the performance of socially important organizations by making their operations predictable and productive. Although we now value innovation and flexibility as much as efficiency and predictability, Weber's model of bureaucracy was a particular pattern of relationships for which Weber saw great promise.

REFERENCE

Principles of Scientific Management Taylor, F. (1913).

Principles of scientific management . New York, NY:Harper.

University of Michigan (1950s) Lead by the famous organizational psychologist, Dr. Rensis Likert, the leadership studies conducted at Ohio State University.

Fisher, D. (2000). Communication in organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Jaico

Infante, D., Rancer, A., & Womack, D. (2003).

Building communication theory(4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, pg. 356

Theory and practice of Management by Dr. Ellis I. Idemobi