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 , ΞΈΞ΅ΟΟΞ―Ξ±, 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:
Γ Initiating
Γ Organizing
Γ Clarifying
Γ 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:
Γ Encouraging
Γ Observing
Γ Listening
Γ 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:
Γ Charismatic authority; based on the
sacred or outstanding characteristic of the individual;
Γ Traditional authority : essentially a
respect for custom;
Γ 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
