Do Managers Take Decisions for the Good of the Organization - Essay Example

? Do Managers Take Decisions for the Good of the Organization Or Do They Behave the Way They Do for Other Reasons? of the of the Instructor Do Managers Take Decisions for the Good of the Organization Or Do They Behave the Way They Do for Other Reasons? Introduction The modern business enterprise has not been around for more than 100 years or so. In fact multinationals and conglomerate forms of business enterprise have evolved from small and humble beginnings. It is the skill and expertise of the owners in the management of the business and their vision and continued success which has propelled them into the present business landscape as an international enterprise. In the process of evolution, it is highly likely that the business developed from a one man enterprise or family business to a partnership, then to a public limited or private limited company. Ultimately it branched out from a local to regional and regional to international undertaking. It is highly probable, even inevitable, that the evolution and change in outside form also bring about changes in the internal handling of business decisions and operational practices. This becomes necessary as the tasks of managing the different aspects of the business become too complex and heavy for one man or a number of partners to manage alone. Ultimately as the business expands, it has to reinvent itself as a model of modern business enterprise. This will invariably involve the assignment or scheduling of tasks to professionally hired managers, with expertise in production techniques, Human Resources, marketing and sales, finance and accounting etc. Each departmental head becomes a prized resource, responsible for meeting his departments and workers goals and assignments. Authority and responsibility become interlinked, but seldom has it been seen that the upper management is taken to task for targets not achieved or a failed project. Rather, more often than not it is the middle and lower management and supervisors/ workers that are made to bear the brunt of the axe and the shame associated with it. This state of affairs often makes one stop and think- do managers take decisions for the good of the organization or do they behave the way they do for other reasons? This paper will argue that the interests of the organization are not always uppermost in the minds of the managers, rather, as they gain and wield power- managers tend to collude with each other for their own collective benefit, while in many cases insisting that failure was because of the ineptitude of people on the lower rungs of the ladder. I would rather state that managers keep their own interests uppermost in their mind at every turn. They are interested in their own survival, going as close to the top as they can, and toppling others who they consider as competition. The lower management or their subordinates are just pawns in the game (Rosen, 1988). The Evolution of the Modern Business Enterprise If we look at the evolution of a modern business, we see that it is quite likely to have its beginnings as a sole proprietorship or family business, in which every family member has a share of responsibilities. Or it could have started as a partnership, where two or more partners pooled together their skills, resources and business acumen to offer products and services to the general populace or those that needed their wares. The disadvantage here was that of unlimited liability, or cases where even their personal property could be attached to repay debts if the business failed. In time this led to the evolution of the corporate form of business ownership. As the Industrial Revolution swept through Europe and the Americas, investment was needed from both public and private sources to raise capital for infrastructure and the laying of railroads, transport and communication, factories and warehouses. The beginning of assembly line production at the Ford Motor Company meant that things could now be mass produced after breaking down the process into a series of steps. Then F.W. Taylor and Henri Fayol invented the principles of scientific and modern management which also led to the proliferation of the corporate form of business enterprise, division of labor, piece rate incentive schemes etc. Suddenly the worker became just a cog in the wheel, a factor of production and a cost to the business rather than an asset. As management became enamored with the goals of profit making, increasing sales, production and output, efficiency was the name of the game and the only thing that mattered was the bottom line. Management aligned itself with the owners of enterprises and sat across the table in union negotiations, a collective bargaining tool invented out of necessity to protect the rights of the workers. The divide between labor and management had begun (Bakan, 2004). Can Organizational Culture Be Managed: The Case of the English Slaughtermen We often refer to the way an organization operates as its culture or way of doing things in that particular business enterprise. The culture is an embodiment of many things- company traditions, the interests and leanings of the present owners, the age old values that have to be respected, or simply what the present breed of managers wants followed as set out in policies and procedures from time to time. A CEO or business head can also have a particular way of doing things. He may be rational in some areas and irrational in others. What is being argued here is that senior management and their actions become the embodiment of culture in an organization over time and everybody has to respect it. We cannot separate the culture from the workplace. Companies that seek to change their culture have often to make sweeping, far reaching and wide ranging changes in the way things are done in order to change employee and management focus, work attitudes, discipline etc. (MacIntyre, 1981). In their article Can Culture Be Managed? concerning work performance and attitudes at a slaughterhouse in Casterton, Ackroyd and Crowdy (1990:3) suggest that the attitudes that workers bring to the workplace originates outside of them. Although the literature has often regarded the organization, its managers and its values to be the prime motivators of an attitude of success, Ackroyd and Crowdy argue otherwise. In my opinion, taking the case study of a slaughterhouse is not very pertinent in this respect. The workers are neither very cultured- nor do they have an idea of organizational culture. They are at most concerned with hygiene factors and the incentives to work performance, as well as the stigma associated with the job. How Attachment to Work Reflects on our Self Image At the same time, it is often argued that the bulk of a man’s self image is determined by his job status and position at work. Ask any man or woman who they are and they will invariably reply that “I am a Sales Representative at Highfield Laboratories” or something very similar. The truth is that we spend the bulk of our waking hours at work, slogging at some endeavor and hoping to earn a fair day’s wage and management recognition for work well done, if we are worthy of that. Our work lives have affected our very perceptions of ourselves. Our position at work defines our paycheck, lifestyle and even our self worth. But what happens when our future is put in the hands of a superior called a manager? Does he know and even appreciate how hard we work? I should think not. Managing and working are very different. Since the goals of the organization and the manager are to make the lower level work harder, the worker gets all the actual work to do. The manager can pretend to understand but often does not. He can only empathize with the worker when he has himself been promoted through the ranks. But often when he becomes a manager, his attitude towards those lower than him changes. He has to do this to become part of management- as distinct from the workers (Knights & Roberts, 1982). He uses the carrot and the stick-authority to hire and fire and make the employees miserable at his bidding. This is his entire means of control- the performance evaluation and the appraisal report. He can make or break an employee’s future but is most interested in his own. Consequently we find that even the new employees are disillusioned soon after they learn the realities of the workplace and office politics (Clegg et al, 2008). Social Responsibility and its Effect on the Company’s Brand and Image In the modern era, it has been mentioned that good companies stand out in terms of their social responsibility or efforts to pay back to the community they operate in. I for one find it difficult to believe that a company so focused on the bottom line, the maximization of wealth and the financial well-being of its shareholders could be so magnanimous to give back something to the community. Be certain therefore that everything is done for a prior and hidden motive. The motivation here is to look good in the eyes of the community. In return you may be sure that there will be more advertising, more hoopla and more concerted sales efforts as their products and services are pushed down your throats. After all, you are buying from a socially responsible company! Let us be very clear that corporations and their owners-managers have their own interests at the very top of the heap. They use people as pawns in the game- citing the highest values but using every means fair or foul to get ahead themselves (Wilden,1980). Was Kate Moss Made a Scapegoat? Yes, I believe she was. Although the Swedish company concerned did have a point that her act of cocaine abuse (Avecedo et al) made her a bad brand ambassador for their H&M retail line, I found their treatment a bit harsh. If Kate Moss smoked cocaine, a lot of celebrities do and the firm should have known that before employing her as brand ambassador. Delving into someone’s private life and making what we do at home an issue for firing us from the job is in my opinion taking things too far. Kate Moss taking cocaine does not immediately relate to Kate Moss modeling for H&M. I wonder if the CEO of H&M would have the moral fiber to fire his own son or daughter if they were found guilty of taking drugs at or off work. Most likely he would have the matter hushed up and rush them to a rehabilitation clinic. The modern corporation has no permanent allegiances or affiliations for the long term- it will use you and abuse you like yesterday’s newspaper after its work is done (Roberts, 1984). This is what the super-efficient diehard employee has observed soon after his retirement- his importance to the company is over. Does it make sense to spend your blood, sweat and tears in promoting an unfeeling behemoth who does not even have a real existence- apart from the legal one it has on paper? Certainly not. You have been warned that managers have their own interests at heart, and they are often not in the best interests of the workers or even the organization itself (Bakan, 2004). The Work of Management Theorists in Influencing Managerial Thought and Behavior in Organizations- Six Competing Theories Andrzej Huczynski makes some very interesting observations of how management theories and fads have impacted the field of management in practice over the last hundred years or so. He underlines that the bulk of these ideas fall under bureaucracy, scientific management, classical management, human relations, neo-human relations and guru theory. He argues that management fads can be used to guide behavior or answer a perplexing management problem, to motivate employees within the organization and to bring about organizational change (Huczynski, 2003) How Managers Take Decisions: The How and Why of Decision Making in the Institutional Setup Management fads can be and are used by both organizations and individuals. We often see them used by those who have been brought into management from other specialist areas such as engineering or finance, and have no deep understanding of the underlying management theory or its wider implications for the enterprise. For them it is a panacea that has been known to cure a specific problem that they or the organization is faced with. If a manager’s effort becomes particularly successful, he becomes the new blue eyed boy of the organization. So in the final analysis, we find that managers motivations to get ahead are primarily self centered and selfish and it is coincidental when the benefits to the manager coincide with those of the organization. The wise manager will always see “what’s in it for me” before implementing a new initiative that meets organizational goals and will remind management that he has to be rewarded for his efforts (Jackall, 1988). What Lies Behind the Decisions of Managers: Self Preservation and Aggrandizement or a Supplication to Organizational Goals After reading a lot of literature on the subject, I would say that managers are primarily motivated by a sense of self preservation and aggrandizement as they begin to achieve success and move up the ranks of an organization. Managers will want to be more and more successful and powerful and have a say in decisions that matter, thus bringing them further to top management’s attention. It is often erroneously assumed by newly promoted or hired managers that what is good for the organization is good for them. But after mulling about with the senior managers for a while, they too get corrupted and become part of the status quo, playing the management game for personal and team rewards. As Peters and Waterman have noted, even the most successful companies change their strategies and responses in the light of new problems, they have to and this year’s fad overcomes last year’s mantra. It is only hoped that the goals of the organization will also be served by this changing set of strategies. Conclusion We have seen how managers tend to hold on to the reins of power and prestige while making life good or bad for their subordinates. A good or bad management culture is often the reason that an employee leaves an organization. It could be an issue with his supervisors, his colleagues or event the policies, but the end point is that his efforts are not being given due recognition by management. References Acevedo, B.; Warren, S. & Wray-Bliss, E: The Devil in High Heels: Drugs, Symbolism and Kate Moss (under review, not dated). Ackroyd, S. & Crowdy, P.: Can Culture Be Managed? Working with Raw Material. The Case of the English Slaughtermen. Personnel Review, Volume 19, Issue 5, 1990. Bakan, J. The Corporation, 2004. Clegg, S; Kornberger, M. & Pitsis, T.: Managing and Organizations, Second Edition. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2008. Huczynski, A.: Explaining the Evolution of Management Fads. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Volume 4, Issue 2, 2003. Jackall. Looking Up and Looking Around. In Moral Mazes, 1988. Knights, D. & Roberts, J.: The Power of Organization or the Organization of Power.Organizational Studies, Volume 3, Issue1, 1982. MacIntyre, A.: After Virtue, Duckworth Publishers, London, 1981. McIvanney. The Prisoner, 1989. Roberts, J.: The Moral Character of Management Practice. Journal of Management Studies, Volume 21, Issue 3, 1984. Rosen, M.: You Asked for It: Christmas at the Bosses Expense. Journal of Management Studies, Volume 25, Issue 5, Sep. 1988. The Ugly Face: Organizations as Instruments of Domination. Wilden, A.: System and Structure. Tavistock, London, 1980. Read More