Management and Organisational Behaviour - Term Paper Example

? Management Theories AFFILIATION: Management Theories Introduction The management field has developed in its structures throughout the final part of Nineteenth Century and during the Twentieth Century along with the emergence of the industrial revolution. The development of management theories was required to direct the development of industrial production in the Europe and the United States. Management Theories offer a stable foundation for helping the requirement of management theory using the management procedures for planning, organization, directing/leading, and controlling. In 1911, Taylor suggested management a process in which that he suggested that if planned scientifically, would direct to success. His guidelines of scientific management started a revolution in the ways we assumed the procedures and the status of a manager. Numerous early writers in management challenged that there was an appropriate way of organizing work and completing tasks. Others established on the engineering approaches to approve the effects of bureaucracies. Mintzberg elaborated the responsibility and role of a manager in leading the organizations to attaining goals in a logical manner. The informational, interpersonal, and decisional roles he distinguished are equally practicable to the managers operating in private, public or nonprofit organizational set up (Buchanan and Huczynski 2010). Classical Management Theory Classical management theory engages making multiple standards of workers to enhance profitability. Employees working at the lower levels find their jobs supervised by managers, who in turn, are supervised by upper level management. At each level, employees are required to perform jobs according to particular procedures created to boost productivity. Moreover, this theory concentrates on a distant side of the business. Employees and managers are advised to resist friendly and personal communications within the organization. Rules and regulations must be followed with precision, and the recruitment of employees must associate only to the potentials they attain. However, classical management theory is not employed in many organizations because some of its loopholes. As few elements of the theory, like crafting procedures for accomplishing tasks and keeping personal matters out of business, assist an organization concentrate on the current job, the theory fails to identify the disparity among employees. When employee emotions and opinions are not considered, the business may not flourish or may confront high ratios of employee turnover. Since, the employee feels deprived of establishing a relationship and they leave the organization in search of a more fulfilling job. The classical management theory highlights on the ways management can be or designed to acquire productivity. Henri Fayol, an eminent name in management science, crafted several management theories directed towards success, like designing a unified way among managers, discipline, and centralization. Numerous other management theories focused on establishing team confidence (Buchanan and Huczynski 2010). On the other hand, the major weakness of the classical management theory emerged from its difficulty, and stubborn structure. One of the core principles of the classical management theory is to raise productivity and performance; however, acquiring these objectives often came at the cost of human bonds and creativity. For instance, managers would utilize assemble line procedures and project management theories that concentrated on successful division of jobs. However, employers overlooked the relational factor in employees, in the procedure of attempting to forecast and manage human behavior. In reality, the human relations movement raised in reaction to the classical management theory, as a method to understand the responsibility of human motivation in efficiency. Also, too much depending on previous experience is another flaw of the theory. The theorists of this era only examined their assumptions with particular industries, like manufacturing and other high performance organizations. However, in a modern environment, the stubborn design of classical management theory would not interpret well in many companies. Many businesses understand the significance of enhancing employee motivation and attitude, and execute departments dedicated only to enhancing human bonds. Organizational Example: Law enforcement agencies represent a good example of practicing classical management theory where the major emphasis is upon the delivery of performance, regardless of employee’s personal emotions.  Human Relations Theory Human relations theory is also widely known as the behavioral management theory, and is focused on the individuals in a corporate setting than procedures, and processes. In place of directions coming from the top management, a human relations theory offers communication between managers and employees, permitting them to communicate with one another to assist in making decisions. In place of offering workers quotas and requiring particular processes, workers are exposed to emotional and motivational techniques to help them raise productivity. The main focus of this style is developing motivated and productive employees and assisting workers to invest in an organization. However, this kind of management approach has few perils. Organizations risk employees becoming excessively emotional or easily moved by personal emotions and perceptions when making decisions, rather than depending on logical reasoning. It sometimes becomes very complex to reprimand workers for poor productivity or fire them after they have become the part of the company. Beside these threats, human relations theory has the capability to increase employee retention ratios and productivity. As workers feel more cared by an organization, they invest in that organization and its highest good (Thompson and Mchugh 2009). This theory was crafted after a well known research by George Elton Mayo, the Hawthorne studies. The study assessed the effects of social links, employee satisfaction, and motivation on business productivity. Elton focused on the following areas: Natural social groups in which social factors take priority over operational organizational composition. Two way communication from employees to the top management, and vice versa. Unity and effective leadership are required to interact objectives and to ascertain effective and unified decision making procedure (Watson 2012). Moreover, Mary Parket Follet who wrote a sequence of amazing theories related to the human side of management believed that the basic issue in all companies was in sustaining and creating dynamic and persistent relationships. According to the theorist, who was an eminent and pioneer of the new line with the National Society for the study of education, believed that the theory is not just about developing and sharing of articles, it is also to offer an opportunity for employee growth and self actualization through better management of human relations. The procedure of efficiency is as crucial as that of the well being of the society as product of efficiency. According to the theory, the formal employee group and the social ambience have tremendous impact on the organization’s productivity. For Elton Mayo and other researchers, the idea of social person who is motivated by social desires, looking for on job relationships and more reactive to employee groups than in the administrative control, has to restore the old idea of logical person motivate by individual economic requirements. This theory highlighted the beginning of the identification of human factor in the success of an organization. Additional proponents of the Human Relations Theory include Douglas McGregor, Abraham Maslow, and Chris Agris. Under this theory, McGregor’s theory X and theory Y along with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory (Watson 2012). Organizational Example: Organizations where more importance are given to its people to achieve maximum input, for example, organizations related with the food and beverage service industry in which employee’s motivation and workplace satisfaction are among the top most priorities to ensure effective service to their clients (Thompson and Mchugh 2009). Systems Theory By definition, a system is a combination of inter related and inter mingled components led to acquire specific objectives. According to this theory, an organization is an open and organic system comprised of various sub systems. As a system, an organization is made up of various sub systems like for production, assistance, maintenance, flexible management, employees and informal social groups. All of these sub systems function in an inter-related and inter dependent relationship. The numerous subsystems or elements of an organization are joined together through interaction, decisions, power, responsibility, associations, motives, rules, processes and other factors of corresponding system. Organizations working as systems have numerous goals. The crucial among them are endurance, addition and adaption with environment and development. The core features of the theory with the study of management can be summarized as below: An organizational system is comprised of inter related elements. The study focused on the study of numerous components in their inter dependencies rather than in separation with each other. The study takes out the difficulty of a practical management issue much more prominently than any other studies. The study may be used by any of the other studies. The study has been employed in studying the operation of intricate organizations and has been the basis for new forms of organization. The systems theory has an advantage over the other studies with regard to its closeness with the practical applications and real life problems related to management. Nevertheless, the issue with this study is its absolute intricacy specifically when it comes to a stupor big and difficulty corporate set up. The ideological framework of management offered by this study is too vague to be effective in actual managerial scenario. The approach identifies the input of surroundings but does not operationally relate it to management ideas and tactics (Thompson and McHugh 2009). Organizational Example: This theoretical framework can be witnessed in organizations where various components or departments formalized the major area of the overall performance. The formal or multinational product or service organizations in which several elements join together to form an effective organizational performance. Contingency Theory Contingency theory has been evolved chiefly in 1970s. The main contributor of this theory in management is Fielder, Joan Woodward, Lorsh, Lawrence and many others. Theorists of all other studies of management have not included the environment. They mostly perceive that their studies and systems have general applications. The contingency theory integrates the environment and tries to cover the theoretical gap. This theory develops on the main premises of the systems. It teaches that an organization is an open and organic mechanism of inter related components which are linked with the organizational scenario along with various other sub systems. This theory targets at involving the theoretical studies with the practical applications. According to this theory, management is all about different situations occurring in a working set up. This theory denies the generality of the management approach. It suggests that managers should construct organizations, elaborate aims, and develop policies in accordance with the current situation and environmental scenario. Also, management should develop adequate skills to predict and understand environmental alterations, and to adjust change. Ultimately, it should utilize the contingency model in formulating the organization developing its data and communication pattern, adopting successful leadership forms and designing appropriate objectives, procedures and practices. Therefore, this approach offers a method of assessment as well as a way of involving organization with its scenario. A contingency theory seems to sustain a great deal or commitment for the prospect development of management practice and opticaltical framework. The other studies to management can all involve into the framework of contingency. Currently, the contingency theory seems to be the only one pragmatic method to study management. It sufficiently clarifies the nature of management. Therefore, it is the most appropriate approach from the rest (Mullins 2011). Organizational Example: Organizations which need a push strategy to create public awareness like consumer goods practice a contingency approach towards their management styles. Marxist analyses of the capitalist labor process Marx assumed the capitalist method of productivity to be an intrinsically exploitative, aggressive and class dominant socioeconomic structure. The featureless working groups would importantly surrender control of their labor, which is the only object they have to deal with, to the capitalist groups who utilize it to obtain a profit in the market arena. Braveman’s assessment in 1974 positioned that a form of dominated capitalism had emerged which had strengthened the division of labor and directed to a procedure of deskilling, generally referred to as Taylorism in the labor groups. Beside its significant contribution to important perspectives on the capitalist labor procedures, Braveman’s elaboration had some flaws, for instance: The theory never elaborates what is meant by, or taken as a skill and ignores the reality that skill is a construction of social values that highlights the authority imbalances prevailing in the society. The theory romanticizes the concept of pre-capitalist labor of the working groups, through little proof to suggest that this concept was ever the form of work involved in by the majority of that class. It ignores any sense of organization or objectivity within the working groups, overlooking the fact that employees can or do avoid aggressive implementations through the show of strikes, or perhaps less prominent methods like challenging authority and restricting output (Mullins 2011). Organizational Example: The automotive manufacturing industries can be evident example where the emphasize on division of labor is much evident in order to achieve precision in performance. References Buchanan, D. and Huczynski, A. 2010. Organizational Behaviour. 7th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Mullins, L. 2011. Management and Organisational Behaviour. 9th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Thompson, P. and Mchugh, D. 2009. Work Organisations. 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Watson, T. 2012. Sociology, Work and Organisation. 6th ed. London and New York: Routledge. Read More