Using Intangible Resources to Legitimize Managerial Authority - Coursework Example

Using Intangible Resources to Legitimize Managerial Authority by Student’s name Code+ course name Professor’s name University name City, State Date The role of management became apparent at the wake of the divorce between ownership and control. Fundamentally, ownership is the right to possess and use property or anything that is capable of ownership under the legal framework (Bennis et al 2008). On the other hand, control is concerned with the ability and authority to influence the actions and decisions of those below a person in the lead, so as to achieve some desired objectives. The power and authority of the control function of management took root when management came out as a steward of the owners or the shareholders of a business concern. During the industrial revolution, the assumption was that the average worker had to be influenced to work and that for such a worker to deliver the desired results, they had to be compelled to work. The managers, who were autocratic in nature back then, believed in the use of threats and punishments as a way of achieving results. Arguably, it was during this time that management authority was seen as illegitimate among the workers and other junior employees in the organization. This paper seeks to explain the way in which intangible resources can be employed in legitimizing management authority. In contemporary business practice, consultative management is gaining popularity among the modern corporations. The major reason behind this trend is the fact that the modern corporate world is tending towards theory Y of management. Theory Y is one of McGregor’s theories of management that emphasizes on the need to treat all employees as people who are sufficiently grown-up to make valid decisions (Villalonga 2004). Worth noting is the fact that the traditional autocrat has no place in modern management circles. The modern manager is more of a team director than a manager. The major reason why management is being replaced by leadership is the fact that management is associated with unreasonably forceful power. The traditional manager’s authority is considered illegitimate as it provokes negative reactions from the employee. In order to legitimize the authority of the manager, the organization can employ it intangible resources in doing so. Notably, all the intangible resources within an organization tend to imply equality. One of the principal intangible resources is power. Power has been described various as the ability to influence team members so as to achieve the most desirable results. According to Max Webber, power may mean the influencing of people, sometimes against their will, in order to achieve the outcomes that are in line with predetermined objectives (Howell & Costley 2001). According to Webber’s assumptions, a manager may not be the workers’ darling since his aim is to achieve results irrespective of the method used. Even so, power is one of those assets that can easily legitimize the authority of managers. One of the ways in which a manager can use power to legitimize management authority is through incorporating expertise into the power. By expertise, it means that the manager or the leader should go about his duties professionally. They should let the workers see that what is being done is aimed at results and that the manager is exercising such power as a team leader and not as a paternal autocrat. The management of an organization should ensure that the powers are used in a culturally reinforced manner. This is because all the individuals working within an organization are somewhat determined by the culture in which the organization is operating. The power of the manager should be reinforced by both the corporate culture and the customs of the community within which such organization operates (Hersey et al 2008). In simpler words, the manager should practice their power in a manner that can be approved by the cultural environment. This way, the workers and employees can possibly distinguish between legal-rational authority and traditional authority. Culturally approved power is seen as team leadership rather than force. As such, power can be used effectively as a tool for legitimizing managerial authority. The second intangible resource that can be used to legitimize the managerial authority is ethics. There is not perfect or precise description for the term ethics. However, the term has been described variously to mean a standard predetermined and binding code of conduct whose observance is strictly expected of each and every associate of the organization for which such a set of standards is designed (Hall 2006). In simpler words, ethics are governing principles that act as a framework within which the conduct of all individuals affiliated to the organization is expected to be evaluated. Much like rules, regulations or laws, failure to observe and stick by the ethics set by the organization’s management may prompt a punishment or apprehension. The major objective e of ethics is to make the organization’s members of staff act in a particular preferred manner without much supervision. With the presence of a strict set of organizational ethics, the supervisor will have easy time since they will not be all over the workers instructing them on how they need to behave. One way through which ethics, as an intangible asset can be employed in making managerial authority legitimate is through applying them equally. The ethics as codes of conduct, should be binding to all. As such, the manager’s authority will not have to get on the nerves of each and every worker. In essence, an organization with ethics will not require the manager to keep dogging the workers monitoring their behaviors and general conducts (Bowman 2006). This is one of those duties that make a manger unpopular and trigger negative attitudes from the employees’ side. With a predetermined set of conducts, the manager will only exercise his authority in ensuring the employees all have a clear understanding of all the codes of conduct. The essence is that once an employee fails to observe the predetermined ethics, they will not have the manager to blame for the consequences. This is because, the consequent decision by the manager to subject the said employee to the disciplinary procedures will not be seen as malicious, but rather as an objective and procedural measure. Ethics help in legitimizing the authority of the manager through eliminating subjectivity and embracing objectivity in all decisions taken. Additionally, ethics helps bring equality in the organization. This means that all the people affiliated to the organization will be bound by the provisions of the code of ethics (Simon 2011). This essentially means that even the manager, will be subject to the codes of conduct. Much like the law or rules governing an institution, none of the employees is above the code of ethics. This brings uniformity in the organization. Such uniformity makes the employees see the manager as a team member with the capability to lead rather than the commanding autocrat. Additionally, ethics may provide the manager with a reliable guide that can help them make viable decisions. In a nutshell, ethics legitimize authority of the manager by regulating their conduct and guiding their decision making. One other significant intangible asset that can be applied in the legitimization of management authority is rationality. Being rational refers to the ability of an individual to make justifiable choices. A rational individual may sometimes make a decision that is contrary to the rules of the organization. In so doing, he may use discretionary power to determine that which is good for the welfare and general results of the organization. Rationality therefore can go against the rigid bureaucratic procedures of those organizations that observe red tape management. Rationality has a primary function to play as far as legitimizing the manger’s authority is concerned since it is through such rationality that neutrality can be achieved (Bowman 2006). Neutrality is exceptionally important in an organization since bias can make a manager prejudicial. Holding prejudices in the place of work can make a manger unpopular and hence ineffective. A manager should remain impartial all through his duties. Impartiality is associated with legitimate managerial power. Managerial power may be seen as illegitimate if it is misused or used wrongly. Abuse of managerial power can be a potential threat to the organization as well as to the manager. Besides rationality introducing a touch of objectivity to management, it comes with objectivity. It is imperative to note that in modern corporate practice, bureaucratic procedures are not observed since they are archaic and have detrimental effects on the performance of the employees as well as the organization as a whole (Simon 2011). The absence of unnecessary procedures enables a manger to make rational decisions. It is important to note that there is a big difference between knowledge and objectivity. Knowledge is the rigid observance of absolute facts. This is an inflexible philosophy that as it leaves the decision maker with no choice but to stick to the knowledge associated with the profession. On the contrary, rationality is a more flexible philosophy concerned with the use of moral relativism in decision making. Moral relativism means that a case is solved, or a decision is made according to the context of the present circumstances. Being rational entails the used of logically acceptable arguments to make a decision. For this reason, rationality has always been associated with scientific management as it makes use of various scientific principles. Scientific principles are guidelines are practically sound. This may involve the act of politicizing management since employing situational relativism amounts to political reasoning (Villalonga 2004). Politics is associated with situational decisions. All corporations in the modern world emphasize the use of best practices. Best practices include, but are not limited to legitimizing management authority. Legitimization of management authority through rational thinking is one way through which a company can possibly embrace best practices. Rationalizing professionalism can as well yield in legitimate management authority. Yet another intangible resource that can be effectively employed in achieving legitimate management authority is the concept of efficiency. Efficiency has been assigned various definitions. However, they all point to the fact that efficiency is concerned with doing the correct things in the right way. Therefore, efficiency can be achieved through making efforts to perfect that which may appear to be the root of problems in an organization. The way in which efficiency can be used to legitimize management authority may not be apparent since efficiency may include training and instruction (Farrell 2007). The concept of management education came into the picture in the year 1980. Management education is an arrangement through which the managers within an organization are taken through training and advanced managerial skills. The importance of management training is that it exposes the managers to the most innovative management styles and techniques. Such techniques are aimed at improving efficiency. Efficient managers practice legitimate authority since, through the application of various novel ideas, the managers learn to use their authority in a manner that is not abusive to the subordinates. Efficiency as an intangible resource can be a way and a result at the same time. For instance, by training managers on how to act legitimately, they become efficient. Thus, efficiency is a result of training. Similarly, through working with and handling others efficiently, the managers are seen to be practicing legitimate authority. As such, efficiency is a means to some outcome. It is for this reason, the organization can emphasize on the efficiency of both the managers and the employees in a bid to legitimize management authority (Farrell 2007). Rationally, a manager cannot unjustifiably fire an employee that is efficient in their work since efficiency and effectiveness is all that is required of an employee. The relationship between efficiency and legitimacy is a close one and may entail consultative management. Consultative management is the process through which the managers and the employees work together and in consultation with one another. Another key intangible resource that can be employed in the process of legitimizing the authority of the managers is ideology. An ideology can be described as a widely acceptable belief. Ideologies are the basis for culture and group beliefs. The fact that the members of one organization have one standard way of reasoning out things and making decisions in a standard manner means that they embrace one ideology (Eagleton 2004). Ideology therefore forms the basis for organizational culture. Organizational culture can be said to be the generally accepted way of doing things within a specific setting. In other words holding the same ideology within the organization can go a long way in making the power of the manager as well as their authority legitimate. By legitimate here it means, acceptable within the context of the organization. The management and the employees can work together effectively when they have one point of reference to work with. Where the managers and the employees have to refer to the same ideology as well as one code of ethics, there is little chance of there being a stalemate at any one point. The manager’s conduct and decision over some question can be predicted with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Actually, ideology is the foundation and basis for management education. The managers are usually educated so as to understand which ideology they need to apply in the making of organizational decisions. Management authority is based on one particular ideology. This is to say that management authority is established by ideology. Ideology provides the basis for controlling the subordinates. Exercising control over the junior members of staff calls for the efforts of a company to embrace a relevant ideology. Essentially, ideology creates a common language in the organization. This is why specialists in the domain of management argue that all organization should endeavor to develop reliable and relevant ideologies as they create a common language and eliminate controversy within an organization (Eagleton 2004). Usually, controversy is a result of two or more ideologies clashing. Where such a clash occurs, different conflicting arguments arise, each argument being held valid under the different ideologies. Controversy can be a cause of organizational failure because it tampers with unity of direction. Controversy can hamper development as it causes the members of the organization to lose focus. In conclusion, it is apparent that, from the above discussion, of the intangible resources, organizational success depends upon the extent to which management authority is legitimized. Practically speaking the workforce will not be productive if the manager practices illegitimate authority. Illegitimate authority is power that is not justifiable within the culture of the organization. Similarly, legitimate authority is a way of exercising power that is approved under the ideology that is the basis for organizational culture. As discussed above, power, ideology, efficiency, ethics and rationality are the most important resources in the efforts to legitimize the authority of the managers. These resources can be employed in the legitimizing of the management authority and achieving of management best practices. Key to the aspect of legitimate authority is management education. Management education holds together all the above discussed intangible resources. Reference List Bennis, W. G., Berkowitz, N., Affinito, M., & Malone, M. 2008. Authority, power, and the ability to influence. Human Relations, 11(2), 143-155. Bowman, J. S. 2006. Managerial ethics in business and government. Business Horizons, 19(5), 48-54. Eagleton, T. 2004. Ideology: an introduction (Vol. 9). London: Verso. Farrell, M. J. 2007. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 120(3), 253-290. Hall, R. 2006. The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic management journal, 13(2), 135-144 Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. 2008. Management of organizational behavior. Howell, J. P., & Costley, D. L. 2001. Understanding behaviors for effective leadership. Prentice Hall Simon, H. A. 2011. Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 125-134. Villalonga, B. 2004. Intangible resources, Tobin’s< i> q, and sustainability of performance differences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54(2), 205-230. Read More