v1n5 Perspectives of Management

Management Notes Online
April & May 1997

Alan L. Joplin, Publisher

Perspectives of Management

The managerial skills of leaders determine the success or failure of an organization. Such skills are not necessarily inborn but are acquired through the study of literature in the field, through seminars and discussions of managerial problems, and through careful observation of successful managers. To develop as managers, it is important that individuals acquire knowledge of techniques and processes pertinent to effective management.

A manager works with five basic resources: Money, Material, Machinery, Methods and Manpower.

Money: Money is the lubrication of an organization; it is the common denominator which relates to all phases of an organization. Money management is as essential to organizational management as the circulation of the blood is to the human body. In management, the term money includes capital expenditures and working funds. The manager must utilize his project budget in the most effective manner; the manager must understand the fact that money spent affects the total stability of his organization.

Material: In all various types of organizations, materials are necessary components, with the degree of necessity varying from organization to organization. For example, in service organizations, management controls a variety of supplies; however, materials in this type of organization are of less importance than those in a product-oriented organization.

Machinery: The proper selection and utilization of machinery, such as office machines and computers, are major aspects of a manager's job.

Methods: A systemic approach to organizing and implementing resources can make the difference between success and failure. The expertise of managers depends upon their command of techniques and methods; effective methods of dealing with problems should be incorporated as a major resource of an organization.

Manpower: None of the four M's mentioned above mean anything without the manpower to implement them; for if all of the first four were taken away and only personnel (manpower) were left, the manager could still function. Effective utilization of personnel in an organization can overcome defects in the other resources. Poor utilization of manpower will negate the effectiveness of the organization even if it is strong in all of the other resources.

Management depends on Manpower, not just to be the hand that manipulates the machines but also to be the brain which determines how the organization should function and to insure that it does so function. Peter Drucker feels that people are the key to success, and managing people effectively is the factor that separates the " have " from the " have not. " The key word should be considered again, MANAGEMENT. The syllable which should be accented should be considered, MAN-AGEMENT. The MAN should be concentrated on in developing all other resources; MAN used generically as meaning all human resources, both male and female. MANPOWER is the catalyst that makes all of the other resources succeed or fail. It is necessary that good management utilize all resources to the maximum; but in concentrating upon MANPOWER, the fifth of the big M's, the manager will be able to achieve the objectives most effectively. If managers become aware of the human element, if they understand that people are not machines, the work management can become HUMAN-AGEMENT.

There is paramount concern over this element which grows continuously day by day. Management specialists are studying the behavioral sciences. They have adopted--from the fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology and related disciplines--many concepts which have not only resulted in an increase in productivity, but also have made the world of work a more pleasant environment, enabling significant numbers of people to achieve a large degree of satisfaction from their work.

For as long as mankind has had formal organizations, those who have directed and controlled them have been concerned with how well tasks are being done and which tasks are actually being done. The idea of an organization as a system is not new; the concept of Professional Management has origins lost in history. Though the management profession appears to have been spawned in the twentieth century with tools and techniques that seem distinctly modern, this is not at all so; for it is said that, contrary to other ideas, Management may be the world's oldest profession. Following are a few examples:

Four Thousand (4000) BC.: Egyptians and Sumerians developed systems of planning and record keeping. Egyptians are credited with recognizing the need for planning, organizing, and controlling the activities of large groups of workers.

Two Thousand (2000) BC.: The concept of decentralized organization existed.

Eighteen Hundred (1800) BC.: Hammurabi established a minimum-wage system.

Eleven Hundred (1100) BC.: The Chinese developed planning and control systems.

Four Hundred (400) BC.: Socrates spoke of the universality of management functions in organized human endeavor.

Three Hundred Fifty (350) BC.: Alexander the Great made brilliant use of the military staff system.

Fourteen Hundred Thirty-Six (1436) AD.: One famous arsenal of Venice employed over 1000 people in ship building and armament, making extensive use of accounting systems, planning, inventory control, assembly line techniques, interchangeable parts and a formal system of personnel management.

Eighteen Hundred Eighty-One (1881) AD.: Joseph Warton established college courses in business management at the University of Pennsylvania.

All of these endeavors were geared toward the problem of how to make organizations function more effectively, this being the central theme of analysis, experimentation and design. Why one army defeats another; why one country grows and profits while another fails; why one small business enterprise after another goes bankrupt; why a government agency is abolished; why one non-profit institution flounders and dies while another exerts a dynamic force for social improvement are all questions of performance. A variable which stands out as most instrumental in organization effectiveness is the variable of managerial performance.

Organizational effectiveness, however, depends much on the situation, including significantly the right timing, the right national moods, the hot new product, the untapped demand for a social service, the charisma of leaders, the special skills and political acumen of top executives, and lucky events in the environment.

More than sixty years ago five distinct schools of management were developed. These are:

Scientific Management (1920s). This view focuses its attention on workers interfacing; that is, the key to efficiency is in getting the worker to fit the job. The concept leads to developing the worker so that efficient performance at the highest grade of work for his natural ability fits. Frederick Winslow Taylor, an American engineer whose career began as a laborer was significant in this school of thought. His man-job fit was, however, more physiological than psychological; the method was, in part, to train workers to move in the best way at an optimum speed. Fayal, while associated with Taylor, was more concerned with management. Together they constitute the Functional School of Management which is sometimes referred to as being primarily concerned with organizations without people. The primary emphasis is technology, the way work is or can be done.

Human Relations (1930s). Switching from the worker's physical labor to his psychological makeup, Harvard University conducted some long-term experiments which have been identified as the Human Relations School. Emphasis was placed on the informal organization rather than the formal: the worker and his or her personal psychological need held emphasis. The fact that productivity was affected by the worker's perception of the interest management had in him or her surfaced. It also became obvious that output could easily be restricted, and perhaps was, by social pressures to conform to standards set by co-workers. Alton Mayo, an Australian who spent most of his working life at the Harvard Business School, has been said to have been the founder of the human relations movement and of industrial sociology. His most significant research project was an investigation at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company near Chicago.

This and other research demonstrated the importance of groups in affecting the behavior of individuals at work. Such studies led to significant research which focused on psychological and sociological forces in industrial organizations. Morale and job satisfaction boomed, a fact which led to the approach being termed "people without organization." Fritz Roethlisberger, another important figure in this school, made further inquiries into the human effect of work and working conditions.

Argyries and Heryberg, in their efforts in this area, showed how the expression of the organizational philosophy, or of technology, interacts with the worker and inhibits his psychological maturity or motivation. Although it is clear that an important situation element must be subordinates, many believe that the human relations approach is somewhat one-sided. It has been shown that production is not necessarily related to morale and that it is far-fetched and non-realistic to seek favorable attitudes over and above the organization objectives. McNair and Whyte stood out as being significant critics of the human relations school.

Group Dynamics (1940s). With its interest in the interaction among people, the emphasis given to informal organization, the stressing of the lowering of the power differential between superior and subordinate, and the emphasis on thinking of group rather than group dynamics has led this school to much involvement with group dynamics training, or more specifically, sensitivity training. Soon after World War II, this school produced many writers who became social scientists, writers whose passionate concern has been man's inhumanity.

No single person is the dominant figure emerging from this group, though Bradford, Bennis and Miles are prominent names in this school. Many persons, however, have fiercely attacked group dynamics as a training device. Odiorne has done so in "The Trouble With Sensitivity Training." On the other hand, the school has been strongly defended by Arhyris in "T-Groups for Organizational Effectiveness." The suggestion most prevalent in this school is that organizations should move to eliminate boss-subordinate roles and to substitute co-worker roles instead. The question arises: Can managers go that far? Wherever the answer, it is clear that co-workers is also a significant situational element.

Management Styles (1950s). The idea that a manager should respond in a particular way to most situations, or in a flexible way, depending on the situation, is a focus with growing interest. This focus implies that the manager is seen primarily as reporting to subordinates or situations rather than changing them. This approach, being essentially psychological in the classification scheme of style theorists, focuses significantly on personality variables--such usually being task and relationship rather than situational. McGregor, Blake and Jennings are prominent figures in this school and the important structural element is that of superior.

Organization Theory (1960s). Being viewed as a single entity, this school is said to have a culture of its own, independent of technology or styles of those persons who hold positions in the organization. Purely sociological, this approach eliminates personal factors from consideration. It provides helpful insight, but it fails to recognize that people exist. The school's key focus is upon culture, philosophy, ethics, or the climate of the organization as being the important situational elements.

Five approaches have been mentioned and each has provided valuable insights and opportunities for improving effectiveness. Each has strong adherents and practitioners today, and each is a part of management development courses all over the world. Each has strengths and is useful but cannot be the solution to all management problems. Each of them deals with different aspects of the total situation with which a manager deals. Thus, the opportunity that managers should seek is the eclectic approach--the intermingling of the best of all these approaches, with no undue focus on any one. The focus should be upon the total situation, rather than on any one situational element, a recommendation which leads to consideration of the situation theory.

Situational Theory. A theory which draws on all five schools is said to be nothing new. Mary Parker Follett proposed that managers structure the situation and follow the "Law of the Situation." Her approach began with a question about technology demand, "What do you want people to do?" and then, "How do you scientifically control conduct to accomplish this?" From this, a currently popular expression has been utilized relative to situational theory: "leader-follower situation approach." Today, Fiedler, Likert and Stogdill figure prominently in this approach as they successfully pieced together research to develop a comprehensive situational theory of worker performance. They have recognized the complexity of the relationships among production, satisfaction, and morale relationships, which had once been considered simple and free flowing.

The paragraphs above have looked at some distinct schools of thought in management, each presenting some significant and unique idea critical to management effectiveness, the extent to which a manager achieves the output requirements of the position and the effectiveness of behavior on the situation. Prior to further looking into the leading research on managerial behavior, it is best at this point to consider some definitions.