Compare and contrast the various approaches to the roles of management.

There are many theories which discuss management and in each case they are looking for the most effective way of management apart from contemporary views. Contemporary views are the only set of ideas that take into account the changing set of circumstances for each organisation on a daily occurrence. Every other theory assumes that certain variables stay the same and this can be seen as a drawback as new strategies and ways of thinking are needed as the micro and macro environment change, for example a change in legislation will curb the way in which a company will produce a product or a change in the size of the organisation will induce more difficulty into communications within the organisation. During this essay I will be exploring the various similarities and differences in the way in which the most influential theorists think and the way in which theories can be placed in certain categories.

There are 3 main areas in which management theory can be placed into, Classical, Human relations and Contemporary perspectives. Under the heading of Classical come further headings of Scientific, Bureaucracy and Management science.

The Classical theorists are all looking for the one best way to manage which of course is a ludicrous idea as there is no one organisation which is even remotely similar to the next. Every organisation is going to have a different culture, different work ethics and different people and therefore are not realistically going to be able to apply any theory. What these theories set out to improve is efficiency and productivity with either a controlling ethic or a motivating ethic.

Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs set out to identify what will motivate an employee to do his job. Maslow sets out areas of motivation which make us happy in the job which are Physiological, Security, Affiliation, Esteem, and Self actualisation. Maslow stated that each level of the hierarchy must be fulfilled before you can go to the next level. There are strong criticisms of his work such as “It is patronizing and elitist in terms of the values it expresses. The idea of some needs are primitive and some advanced are ridiculous” (Lazarus 1971). To a certain extent this is true. Where on a general level much of Maslow’s work is relevant and good but it is well known that an employee can reach higher levels of the hierarchy with out first filling needs below it. An organisation who has taken into account employees needs for security and affiliation is Asda. Asda offer a saving scheme to their employees which can be very rewarding for them. The saving scheme involves the employees buying shares which are bought for them by taking the money straight from their wage packets and then watching their money ‘grow’ as the company expands and makes higher profits. This would be seen as a motivator because the harder they work the more of a return they can get on their share preference.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Frederick Taylor on the other hand thought that the best way to improve productivity would be through a controlling ethic. One of his theories to management was to provide a frame work in an organisation which consisted of a clear delineation of authority, delegated responsibility, separation of planning from operations, incentive schemes for workers, management by exception and task specialisation. These were combined to make an efficient and well motivated work force. An example of management through a controlling ethic is the factories of Henry Ford. Henry Ford adored the idea that organisations were modelled on machines and workers were regarded as 'cogs' and invented the 'assembly line': a system of assembly-line production (known as Fordism), based on divided labour linked together mechanistically. These 'cogs' should be steered in a systematic way to boost efficiency and had no ability to innovate, think or improvise. If every cog had been assigned a specific, repetitive task, everything was supposed to go well. Everything was organised through a pyramid of control designed in a purely bureaucratic fashion.

If we see the 3 areas of management under the heading “Classical” as a procession it is plan to see that Scientific theory is operations orientated, Management science theory is management orientated and Organisational structures is somewhere in between. So if we take Management science as an “opposite end to the spectrum” theory to Scientific theories we see that the difference is that management science has an emphasis on the efficiency and performance of a manager instead of an emphasis on control of operations. A key theorist to management science is Henri Fayol. He saw that a mangers job had basic factors that were, planning, organizing, commanding coordinating activities, controlling performance. Fayol also said that there are 14 principles to management, I will select the main few, specialization of labour encouraging continuous improvement in skills and the development of improvements in methods, Unity of command, each employee has one and only one boss, Scalar Chain (line of authority), formal chain of command running from top to bottom of the organization, Unity of direction, a single mind generates a single plan and all play their part in that plan. The draw back to this theory is the same as most of the other theories, it relies on a constant set of circumstances which is not probable in the business environment.

There are then theorists that believe that evoking co-operation within the workplace will motivate and increase productivity, these come under the heading of human relations or behavioural studies. An example of an organisation which will strive for equality and co-operation in the workplace would be a union. They believe that if a worker is treated correctly and is motivated well then productivity and efficiency will rise. A theorist which explored the factors in which an employee can change the management style simply by his/her persona is Douglas McGregor. McGregor states that there are generally 2 types of employee, these are known as the theory X and theory Y concept. McGregor sets out that there are 2 ways of motivating employees because basically thee are only 2 types of employee. Theory X employees are seen as lazy, ill-motivated, un-ambiguous, dis-liking responsibility and only after the financial reward. The management style which accompanies this theory is a ‘hard’ style of management and a constant observation and inspection. Theory Y employees are seen as self-motivated, self-directed and committed. Managers can spot these types of employees and use an appropriate managing style. Generally however, McGregor wishes managers of industry to take from his studies this; staff will contribute more to an organisation if they are treated as responsible and trusted employees. Where as the classical theorists had only thought for improving efficiency by control alone, human relation theorists have raised awareness for the need of flexible and open organisations. They showed that it is possible to raise efficiency without such an iron grip over employees. However these theories still see organisations as mechanical and consistent.

The last area under which management theorists can fall under is contemporary perspectives. There is a holistic view to management and a situation specific view to management. The holistic view can be seen as systems theory. The central principle of systems theory is that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Each part is considered as it interacts with changes, and is changed by every other part within the system. This theory is a very “open-ended” theory and is a step further to having a theory which is of more practical use to an organisation. It is very important to have a defined and structured hierarchy in which employees have direction and a sense of purpose.

After years of research by all the theorists it has become a common idea that there is no one best theory but a collection of all the ideas set out by all the theorists would be best. All contingency theories are basically saying that managers need to assess each individual organisation and apply a management theory which would be most affective given the type of employees, type of tasks and the structure of the organisation. If assessed correctly there should be no reason why an organisation would have un-happy employees and low productivity levels.

To conclude, there are certain ideas we can take for certain, the classical bureaucratic nature of the “boss” is no longer a good way to motivate employees. An emphasis needs to be placed on the “freedom” of employees, as they will be more dedicated to their work if they are encouraged to make decisions of their own. Management has become a lot more complex. The role of the manager has had to become far more multifaceted as more demands are given to them. Managers will have to be seen as colleagues and not the “boss” if effective motivation of the workforce and individuals is to be carried out.

Bibliography

Mullins, L, J (2004) Management and organisational behaviour

Naylor, J (1999) Management

Firstmonday.org (2004)

Accel-team.com (2005)

Analytictech.com (2004)