Viewing Management Through Various Approaches

University Degree Business and Administrative studies

Viewing Management

Through

Various Approaches

-Rashmi Thapa

Trainee Manager, Personal Department

H

enry Ford used to be the best car producer in the world at his time while Jack Welch is the best electronic producer now. What is the difference between them then? The answer to this query could only be one. And that is their use of contrasting ‘management styles.’ Understanding management might be one of the toughest attempts so far, for the concept, style, meaning, process and implication has altered over the years. Management however can be defined as the process of getting things done with and through the help of people for the achievement of goals, the only concern now is how these things are achieved ‘with and through’ people. The different approaches to management shows how the concept of getting things done have been evolved and how people particularly manage today.

The initial organisations were recognised and coined by an American engineer called, Frederick Winslow Taylor a.k.a. F W Taylor, who devised the theory of ‘Scientific Management,’ This theory is concerned with the structure and activities of formal organisation, rather than the people working in the organisation, to control production between management and labour. Taylor propounded this theory by observing the intentional inefficiency of workers in his company. Taylor’s theory looks into the rational approach of organisational work and the measurement much accurate.

The method shot up productivity through division and specialisation of work. Employees were encouraged to work by giving extra pay for each extra time of work. It emphasised on the intake of right people for the right task and intensive training for the operation, which in turn increased ‘output per worker, reducing deliberate inefficiency.’ The theory also stressed on the control and close supervision on the performance of workers, which clearly meant less efficient work without any redundancies. Planned and formal information being used for the execution of work could be another benefit of this approach.

Taylor’s view of work being successful through management’s control and considering worker’s merely as an element of production isn’t quite applicable practically. The close supervision and rigid rules eventually lead to the dislike of work, for bonuses cannot compensate job satisfaction and motivation. The fragmentation of work on account of its emphasis on individual tasks leads to monotony. The social interaction between workers was also overlooked, which led to workers having to work in isolation. The planning, decision-making and control were given purely in the hands of the managers, which restricted initiatives in workers.

A more advanced form of ‘scientific management,’ was formulated by a French industrialist called Henry Fayol, who also focused on organisation in terms as a formal structure rather than the motivation of employees. This approach is termed as the ‘Classical Management Theory.’ This theory extensively talks about the importance and implementation of division of labour, the principle of chain of command, span of control, unity of command and direction; and job specialisation. This particular theory has been regarded important widely, for it developed the basic managerial functions, viz. planning, organisation, commanding, coordinating and controlling.

Fayol’s functions of management though altered slightly are still used immensely today. His view of job specialisation and close supervision led to effective results. He was the first person to create the actual management theory with his fourteen principles.

Though Fayol’s approach towards management was regarded as very beneficial then, in today’s world it isn’t quite relevant. Now days, humanistic aspect of people is vital for any organisation to succeed which the theory overlooked. Henry Mintzberg one of the prominent challengers of Fayol’s theory believed that managers weren’t always controlling the staff; they had other roles to play in the organisation like, interpersonal, informational and decisional.

Max Weber, another classical administrator looked into management having the power of ‘legitimate authority,’ which meant that managers had the power to control and coordinated the activities of employees. The organisations were to operate in strict rules and regulations also implied as ‘the red-tape.’ This theory is still used in organisations today and is called, ‘Bureaucracy,’ which emphasised on job specialisation, control, hierarchy of authority, rules and regulations and impersonal decisions

This is a preview of the whole essay

The notion of job specialisation in Bureaucracy again directed employees towards efficient and effective work. The clear line of authority enabled worker’s knowledge on whom they’re accountable to. The strict rules and regulations implied on the employee’s discipline and their work. The principle of impersonality nurtured job appraisals without any biasness.

The rigid rules and regulations, however led to employees wall of initiative, which in turn led to their dislike. The concept of specialisation hindered the growth of individuals and organisation, for they would be saturated.

A shift from work and the intense emphasis of increasing productivity took place when an American professor called Elton Mayo developed a study of individual workers, called it the ‘Hawthorn Studies.’ This study had four key stages comprising set of experiments among people, the first being the study of physical surrounding. The second stage analysed the effect of physical surrounding changes on the worker’s output; some changes being rests, pauses, lunch break duration, length of work etc. The third step was of conducting interviews with the workers about their working conditions, supervision and the morale. Final step was evaluating new people i.e. 14 men for six months on their reactions to different situational changes. The outcome of this theory proved that worker’s productivity was lowered due to control, supervision and least provision of breaks. And this theory is called, The Human Relations Approach, which looks into the human behaviour of the organisation, their motivation and the concept of leadership.

This approach is the first attempt to undertake a research on human behaviour. This theory showed the workers couldn’t be treated in isolation, they should be considered as a member of group. The efficient work of individuals couldn’t be achieved until some alterations are done in the physical surrounding and the need of social groups and status of workers are understood. This theory also highlighted on the need of supervisors to treat their workers as human beings not machines.

This theory however wasn’t quite applicable during the 1930’s to 1950’s when people were looked into as an element of production. Another drawback of this theory might be that it ignored the fact that people even had financial needs to work.

From human behaviour studies the focus then shifted to the organisations again, studying them as a whole as a system. This approach to management was called the ‘Systems Approach,’ which was developed at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. This theory looks into the work of the organisation, its structure and the environment. The theory views organisation as either being open or a closed system, open system being the only way of its survival. Open system shows organisation as complex systems of people, task and technology, which has to react with the change in the environment.

The theory enables the managers to understand their organisation and the various sub systems, i.e. departments in it. The external and internal environment that changes are also identified and understood, through this approach. It also encourages an organisation to be as an open system since it will be reacting to both the internal and external forces, for none of the businesses can survive in isolation.

In the late 1950’s a new approach of management was developed called the ‘Contingency Approach,’ which argued on there being no ‘one best way’ to structure and organisation. The theory states that organisation when being formulated will face a series of variables such as size, technology, environment to choose among, and if chosen the appropriate variable will succeed. For example, an organisation may have two different structures for two different departments.

This approach encourages managers to identify and define their needs and the ways to manager these needs. It ensures flexibility and change. This theory looks into the best way to identify and solve the problems of any organisation.

The theory however, analyses only the structure, environment, size and technology of the organisation. It doesn’t take the humanistic aspect. The management of different structures in the same organisation also become very tough.

The management of Robert Owen’s Organisation- an early management innovator

Robert Owen being a very traditional textile company believed in close supervision and control of work. This form of management can be best summed up as a Bureaucratic Approach, which states that there is a hierarchy of authority, recording, rules and procedures and impersonality. Similarly, the first aspect of work Owen tried to change was the increment in productivity, which at that time was very important. He did this through worker’s jobs being measured and controlled very strictly. There was a clear line of authority and the workers knew exactly whom they were to report to, since every worker’s performance was closely monitored and marked in either a red or a black board. The overseers then recorded the performance of employees as in recording a history of people’s work very impartially, which affected the organisation eventually. Another principle Owen used in his company very similar to bureaucracy was his keenness on discipline. The workers in his company were to follow very rigid rules of discipline and if not followed were given penalties. These strict and firm rules ultimately created worker’s de-motivation to work.

Owen however didn’t impose harsh unfriendly environment to his workers. He also looked into the ‘Human Relations Approach,’ for worker satisfaction and motivation. He provided nursery for worker’s children over one year old. Parallel to the theory, he conducted various experiments in cooperation and community building. Moreover he created new approaches that would raise wages and increase security of employment.

Management Today

For clear understanding of how managers and organisations operate today, I took the liberty of interviewing Ms. Sue Milhem, department manager of one of the top retail stores called, the House of Fraser (HOF). The outcome of the interview showed that HOF had both rules and regulations and it focused much on motivation. The organisation therefore ran under a bureaucratic as well as a human relation system. By bureaucracy, we mean that even tough HOF was very keen on discipline, ignored the concept of strict hierarchy of authority and job specialisation. The hierarchy of authority was turned upside down with the customers and lower level staff being the most prominent for HOF. The organisation believed in the concept of multi skilled workers rather than specialists. This skill as surveyed was very important for their invaluable customers and for the creativity of staff. When asked about the most important factor for the organisation, HOF clearly believed in the best customer service and feedback for better performance.

Another essential result of the interview was on the human relations approach that HOF used. A modern view of human relations called the neo-human relations approach was adopted by HOF. They believed that the smooth functioning and the achievement of goals of the organisation could only be attained by motivated employees, especially those who worked on the floor i.e. the operatives. HOF’s preserved the values of employees and tried to create a very conducive environment to make the employees feel at home. Their strength for motivating employees came from taking feed back from employees, giving them appropriated breaks, interacting and respecting their opinion, taking their performance appraisals and empowering them.

As a manager of HOF, Ms. Sue Milhem believed that she managed teams rather than people. She considered herself to be a ‘team leader’ in lieu of a ‘manager,’ striving to achieve goals with efficient synergy. For the execution of HOF and the management of teams, she described the functions all the mangers performed. Like any other firm, HOF planned initially by looking at the performance of the previous year and forecasting for the following year or month. All the mangers set up a meeting in which they brainstormed, discussed and reached the final standard. The supervisors were called upon another meeting to disseminate, discuss and rectify the plans if necessary. The most suitable plans were discussed again and the most appropriate one was organised and implemented. Proper feedback of the implementation would then take place from time to time. As commanding, the mangers of HOF believed in motivating their staff and influencing them rather than conducting various tools such as close control to their staff. These activities were then coordinated through distribution of work in different departments and getting the performance feedback every month. Different forms of promotions, like advertising, were used to attract customers. Finally the control was done through checking the performance and sales regularly. If any deviation occurred then a research for the cause was conducted and corrections were done if necessary.

Henry Mintzberg’s roles were more or less very applicable to the role played by Sue Millen in HOF. She identified her role as not just a senior figure of HOF but as a people’s person. She believed her basic role was to understand her employees in terms of their behaviour and work. Being a senior manager she also had the role of monitoring the activities and disseminating messages to the workers. As a planner her role was to ensure adequate resources being utilised and handling any disturbance at hand. She also expressed her role of being an active listener, influencer and negotiator.

Comparison of managerial roles

Robert Owen’s textile company operated during the late seventies to mid eighties. During that time the managers of any organisation were concerned with mass productivity, which was achieved through intense control and supervision of workers. It was a norm for each manager to form as rigid rules to the worker as possible. This led to major issues, such as ‘dishonesty, theft, embezzlement, immorality, drunkenness, temperament and devoid of truth’ employees. Moreover, these workers had ‘little or no experience of factory work’ and were illiterate.

Throughout such a chaotic working environment, Robert when tried to motivate his staff as much as possible. He tried to play a role as a figurehead and leader by providing education to the worker’s children. He monitored the performance of the employees through the standard of work. He also imposed rigid rules and regulations. His role as a manager can hence, be summarised as one that believed in flow of authority than negotiator. This role was applicable then, for there were various problems regarding the workers.

This role however is a contrast from that of Global Instruments Corporation (GIC) and the HOF. Today, the world being advanced through technology and globalisation, the roles of managers have been more focused into customers and behaviour of employees. GIC’s manager’s major role was focused on sales and customers rather than productivity. The managers on GIC had a role as entrepreneur, changing the structure of organisations as the technology changed. The managers were more influential than controlling. Rather than monitoring, managers of GIC focused on disseminating. HOF’s roles of managers, unlike Robert Owens were as an influencer, disseminator, entrepreneur and negotiator.

Nature of Managerial Authority

Another distinct change has been on the nature of authority amongst the organisations. This authority can be broken down as; power, authority, responsibility and delegation. During the early days these factors were centralised among the higher executive, but now they have been delegated.

In Robert Owen’s case, all the power, authority, responsibility and delegation rested on him i.e. the senior most manager. He had the power and authority to influence workers on working and developing rules of standard performance. He also had the sole responsibility of the organisation and its work. The authority delegation as very restricted to the lower levels. The decisions and plans were solely made by him, which showed the centralisation of authority.

GIC being a company established by a group of people i.e. entrepreneurs, had their power and authority divided amongst themselves. The control and decisions were done by the higher authority. This showed that there was a very clear line of authority, which later on shifted from managers to integrated teams. GIC being very much focused on sales had a very rigid delegation and responsibility. The responsibilities of the sales, the performance of work were all shouldered by the top managers. A very restricted delegation of power and authority existed in the organisation, which showed that authority was still centralised.

The modern organisations however believe the flatter the structure the more beneficial. HOF being on of the modern organisations has its hierarchy of authority flowing from downwards rather than upwards. The power and authority rested both on the management level and the operatives. There was a clear line of decentralisation of work and delegation of authority from top to bottom. The management decisions weren’t purely made by the high level executives but were influenced by lower level staff as well. This meant that even the operative’s opinions were considered while making decisions, which lead to a clear line of responsibility. The concept of empowering workers was much used to generate opportunities to take up new challenges. The flow of delegation of authority was clear since there was a wider span of control.

As an account of my understanding, I believe that if any organisation is to operate properly, it will have to analyse the evolution of the systems of management, consider all the different benefits that different changes have and alter its structure accordingly. The major element of this change being technology and the surrounding environment. In today’s competitive world of enhancing technologies and environment, if any organisation won’t respond to them will not be able to gain commercial survival let alone attain some portion of the market share. Another key factor for the organisations today is to understand their work force, which can be an asset as well as a liability of the company. The continuation of the traditional structure leads to nothing but isolation. And we all know that none of the organisations can survive in isolation. The most useful and applicable theory for today’s environment might be the systems approach, which looks into not just the organisation but also the outside environment threatening change; and the human relations approach, which analyses employees as people not factors of production.

Moreover, the Henry Ford management style of massive production and job specialisation, if utilised even today, will lead to nothing but the liquidation of the company. Now days there is more to management than just productivity, which Jack Welsh has so closely implemented the concept the managers use widely today are that of multi-skilled employees and proactive organisations.

References:

Laurie J Mullins, ‘Management and Organisational Behaviour,’ Fourth Edition (1996)
Andrzej Huczynski & David Buchanan, ‘Organisational Behaviour-An Introductory Text,’ Fourth Edition (2001)
G.A. Cole, ‘Management Theory and Practice,’ 3rd Edition (1990)
HNC HND BTEC Business Course Book, ‘Organisation and Behaviour,’ 1st Edition (2000)