Personal Management Framework - Research Paper Example

? Personal Management Framework < > < > Introduction This paper will describe a proposed Personal Management Framework based on readings, outside research, and experiences. Beginning with a review from the Scientific Era, the Humanistic Era and to the present times, the concepts, theorists and history involved with organization and management thinking sets the tone and lays the foundation for why management methods are the way they are and how they could yet be improved upon. These lessons from the literature are what this management framework was derived from. By presenting a working management framework, the manager can benchmark the history and theories of the past to avoid repeating mistakes and benefit from lessons learned. Scientific Era As the industrial era began to take hold, Frederick W. Taylor and his scientific, mathematical methods and philosophy led the way for many others in how these methods applied to gaining worker efficiencies (Locke, 1982; Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2003). Crain (2003) says that Taylor was noted for his scientific approach, his ability to solve problems, and his ability to invent things. His thought was that “measurement increased productivity” (p. 45). In one example, the test subject “increased production by 400 per cent while receiving 60 percent more in pay”. Taylor became well known for carrying a stopwatch, but he believed that money is what truly motivated the worker. Hodgetts’ (1995) study of ten U.S. organizations against Taylor’s principles and found that “each in its own way used Taylor’s four principles to help focus their total quality management strategy” (p. 218). Henry Gantt worked closely with Taylor. Gantt brought a human quality into the scientific side of Taylor’s work. Gantt developed a bonus pay structure for the employee who completed their piece rate work for the day and was able to complete more than the assigned tasks. With Gantt’s methods of the use of incentives for employees production was doubled (Noe et al., 2003). Frank Gilbreth was known for establishing the hope of finding the one best (most efficient) way to do any and every task. The administrative perspective builds on the scientific perspective by focusing on the structure of the entire organization rather than the individual job or task of the single employee and then looking for efficiency. The major theorists of an administrative perspective that are discussed here are Fayol, Weber, Gulick, and Urwick. Henri Fayol started out in a French coal-mining company (Crainer, 2003). Fayol took the perspective of the organizational view, but was also concerned with the need to gain efficiency. He is famous for identifying the major functions of management: leading, organizing, and controlling. Max Weber is known as the father of bureaucracy. He developed the characteristics of the bureaucracy, such as labor, rules, regulations, hierarchy, and impersonal relationships. Gulick and Urwick worked together to develop POSDCORB or planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting (Noe et al., 2003). Gulick and Urwick focused their theories on the administrative function of the managerial role and how the better efficiencies could be gained by the manager doing their personal best. The administrative perspective had a significant impact on the personal management framework developed in this report. Humanistic Era While the scientific methods were being put in place and were in place the human element in the workplace was secondary. Management did not care how the worker was feeling at the end of the day. There were no regulations on the length of a work day or the number of breaks employees were entitled to. The company could demand and get whatever it wanted from the workers at that time, if that person wanted a job. Then the stock market crash came, followed by the Great Depression, and World War II. Pro-union legislation came about during The Humanistic Era. The concept of the social person (a human existing within an organization as a person and a worker) and the relations between workers and managers did not exist prior to The Humanistic Era theorists. To Fallott and other theorists, the person was not recognized in the workplace as a human being with a social need and they believed that needed to be changed to achieve a higher level of productivity for the company and happiness for the individual worker. Under the scientific perspective the person was a means to get a job done. Anything that deviated from the work that took away from maximizing production per the Taylor school of thought was not permitted (Owens & Shakeshaft, 1992). Taft-Hartley Act (the right-to-work) and The Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act) (Noe et al., 2003) were part of the pro-union legislation that came to be during this era. Mary Parker Follett published in 1924, the management theory that would “facilitate the growth of individuals and the groups in they belonged” (Hatch, 2006, p. 33). She became well known for her work on conflict resolution. Her position was that much could be learned to better the individual and the company by getting differences out in open rather than staying silent. Other theorists did not want to deal with conflict in the workplace as an element of discussion. Fallott was one of the first theorists to propose workplace democracy and the concept of workplace purpose. Follett did not believe that purpose could be developed without a coordinated purpose being upheld. Chester I. Barnard, former president of the New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, presented a theory on cooperative social systems which focused on integrating worker goals with that of the organization. Later theorists believed Barnard focused too heavily on cooperation and ignored the benefits of analyzing and resolving conflict in the workplace (Hatch, 2006). Abraham Maslow took apart the subject of what truly motivates people and put the pieces back together again in an entirely new manner. As Coles (2001) cites Harper in her article entitled Satisfying Basic Needs, getting people to do what you want depends on that person. Maslow is considered a founding father of the humanistic movement and famous for his hierarchy of needs. One cannot truly attain self-actualization without the other needs being met prior to (Noe et al., 2003). Douglas McGregor’s theory was to blend scientific management with humanistic theories. He believed that there were just two kinds of people. One group of workers existed that wanted to be employed and be responsible and another group of employees that didn’t want to work and be responsible (X and Y). McGregor did not teach that it was the employees’ fault that they were an X or a Y, but the result of circumstances within the organization. Beyond the Humanistic Era The relevance of the Humanistic Era to current management practices exists today, but is challenged by the current practice of organizations failing to maintain humanistic practices when financial challenges are faced. Organizations drop human resource programs calling them unnecessary to operations and resort to autocratic management practices (Noe et al., 2003; Owens & Shakeshaft, 1992). It seems employers set aside what Humanistic theorists had worked so hard to establish. In 2005, Byrne wrote a suiting tribute to the late Peter Drucker and described him as an amazing management theorist who made it his life’s work to help organizations build meaning for the people who worked there. Drucker introduced the ideas of decentralization in the 1940. He believed workers should be treated as assets, not as liabilities to be eliminated. He published several articles and a book regarding knowledge workers beginning in the 1970’s long before anyone knew there was such a person as a knowledge worker. Drucker and the Knowledge Worker Drucker’s Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge, can guide the leader/manager to explore "What is the Task?" in today’s terms (p. 84 – 86). Thinking about the knowledge worker and a general, traditional worker, the differences in their tasks, experiences, outputs, and controls between the two different types of workers are shown in the table below: Grid title columns Knowledge workers Traditional workers Tasks What is the task? Eliminate all other non-value added tasks other than the primary task. The task at hand is obvious. Experience Only the knowledge worker knows what needs to be done. Ask the worker what they think. The worker is told how to do the work and how to do the best job possible if the method is known. Outputs Knowledge workers are responsible for their own contribution. They require autonomy. Traditional workers report to the manager and the manager is ultimately responsible for results. Worker accountability is diluted. Controls Judgments rather than measures. Defining the task and what it should be or could have been. Measures, audits, productivity. Drucker (1993) states knowledge workers need to be asked if the work is necessary to the primary job that the person is required to do and does the task contribute to the persons’ performance? This is not the case with the traditional worker. With factory work or farming, the task is clear. If the job is to bring in sand or do some shoveling, Taylor’s scientific methods recommend the most efficient way to go about completing this task. If a machine is involved, the machine “concentrates” the worker (p. 90). With knowledge workers, productivity involves identifying and eliminating whatever activities do not contribute to performance and relegating those duties to another worker that is specialized in those tasks (Drucker, 1999). Personal management framework The management framework documents the philosophy as it relates to the current functions of management (plan, lead, organize, and control) and what is needed for managing in the present (humanistic blend), and the future (new wave/flexibility). Participative Management Style Framework (Blended Scientific, Administrative, Humanistic, & Knowledge) 1. Plan – behind the scenes, little or no team input initially 2. Lead – communicate plan with team input, decision-making 3. Education with team members – the team needs to understand why specific tactics are being used. As an example, why a knowledge worker may get less oversight than a traditional worker. Establish a virtual team room, team documents, put as much communication in the team room so that all members can see what is being said as possible. This avoids miscommunication or hurt feelings. 4. Organize – make adjustments to the plan, organize, assign, with team input 5. Communicate – with team input and involvement, decision-making 6. Reassure team members – they can do what need to be done, it may be challenging and they may falter, but they can do it. The manager believes in them. 7. Control – with team input and involvement, decision-making, what will measures be based on traditional or knowledge roles. Has the team been given any measures by management that is not up for discussion? 8. Team member ratings – discussion with the team members, have an on-going system – NO SURPRISES! Concerns are handled one on one. Issues that have been addressed one on one can then be brought to a meeting with no name attached. Foundation of your framework: assumptions, values, beliefs, and practices The concepts from the Classical Era that are reflected in this personal management framework are the focus on personal efficiency gains. This manager is striving to do the job in the most efficient manner. If the manager can tell the employees by my being more efficient that leaves me more time to assist and work with all of you, as Gulick and Urwick recommended, coordination of effort will lead to achieving efficiency (Noe et al., 2009). The practice of documenting methods and processes to ensure secondary downtime is a managerial best practice to be adopted. Documentation of processes does take some time, but when the next time comes for that process to be conducted, whether by the manager, or a trainee, the step-by-step instruction is there to pull from the computer or the shelf and the person is not searching their memory or the files only to struggle or come up blank and have to start over. Working as an efficient team was not a consideration for Taylor at that time. Team efficiency has come about because of global economic gains that were needed and the need for specialists to compare notes. Personal Management Framework Integrates and Synthesizes relevant Theorists, Theories, Concepts, and Ideas Today, change is a constant. In Taylor’s day, there was no need for a focus on managing change because a time study was completed the efficiency was calculated, the employee was shown the new way of doing the task, and that was the end of it. Now, it seems, the efficiency can be calculated, the employee trained, and tomorrow, a new efficiency has to be calculated, and the process begins all over again. Bolman & Deal (2008) suggest that rational systems of business have difficulty dealing with uncertainty. “Uncertainties pose major challenges to rationality” which means that other means of organizational life and design need to be explored (p. 49). Taylor’s scientific management and Weber’s theory of bureaucracy may no longer be flexible enough for what the global economic environment demands. From a Humanistic Era perspective the focus needs to continue to stay on the thoughts and feelings of the employees. Brown (1995) states, as cited by Faith Ralston, that emotions in particular can be messy, but can yield great power in productivity and connectivity between the manager and the employee. As with a great actor or actress, if the individual can touch us emotionally, we connect with that person as no other person can. The same holds true between manager and employee. The organization may be filled with uncertainty, but if the manager can extend a hand of empathy and compassion, turn on the listening skills and remember what priority to each employee is, the personal management framework is strong and reinforced for the future. Relevance of Key Contributors - the Role of the Manager, Worker, and Organization in your Framework. When companies revert back to autocratic management methods they force the employee into the mentality of repeating the cycles of the past. They drive employees to crave the humanistic frame, looking for and inviting unions in so the worker can get, once again, what they are entitled to. As the humanistic needs are met, employees will go on to seek places of employment where that feeling can continue. As Maslow states, meeting survival needs are not enough to drive an employee for the long term. Hawthorne’s study proved that it is about more than the pay for the worker. Observation of the workers improved morale, productivity, and attitude. Human beings are looking for a sense of joy in their work, a sense of accomplishment, food, shelter, and a personal sense of well-being (Adams, 1998; Noe et al., 2003). Define within your framework the tasks, expectations, and outcomes of the job AND how you would approach these two different types of workers. Rowe (1996) points out even with all the focus in the last few decades about empowerment, engagement, team building, and employee satisfaction, employee communications, and organizations adopting a more participative culture, but when the recession hits, people power is abandoned to “revert to a more autocratic, Taylorist approach” (p.18). This is a case where the leaders are utilizing a scientific management mindset when approaching problems. Rather than involving the managers and the employees in solving what is happening the problems are being resolved (if you want to call it that) at a much higher level and the orders are rolling down with managers expected to carry them out. In this case, the role is reversed, where the manager may be the knowledge worker expecting to work with autonomy using their good judgment, but in fact, not being allowed to for whatever reason. Even though the industrial revolution has yielded to the service industries, the hierarchical structure predominates within most organizations. The manager framework may lean in a more humanistic slant, utilizing teams and manager listening skills, but the overall productivity could be constrained by the organizational structure and mixed messages of senior leadership wanting to continue to work from the top down. The manager choosing to work as a team member could be seen as a weak management method at some companies. Those companies have stated values of respect, trust, and teamwork, but do not practice them on a day-to-day basis. This dichotomy is a fact in many companies. Managers need to note this fact and move forward with caution. The effective manager needs to focus on the leadership techniques that work with the majority of the people and stay positively focused on what motivates the individual (Moorcraft, 2005). Staying focused on what that manager does best, and motiving those around them to do the same, is a good start no matter what the organizational character or circumstances. References Adams, S. (1998). The joy of work: Dilbert’s guide to finding happiness at the expense of your co-workers. NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th ed.). CA: Jossey-Bass. Brown, Tom. (1995, May). The emotional side of management. Industry Week, 244(9), 30. Retrieved March 22, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1877352). Byrne, J. (2005, November 28). The man who invented management: Why Peter Drucker’s ideas still matter. Retrieved March 19, 2011from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_48/b3961001.htm Chadha, A. (2008). Scientific management progression in HR. Retrieved March 8, 2011 from http://managehrnetwork.blogspot.com/2008/03/scientific-management-progression-in-hr.html Coles, S. (2001). Satisfying basic needs. Employee Benefits Supplement, 3 – 6. Crainer, S. (2003). One hundred years of management. Business Strategy Review, 14(2), 41 – 49. Drucker, P. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California Management Review, 41(2), 79-94. Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. NY: HarperCollins Publishing, Inc. Hatch, M. J. (2006). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. NY: Oxford University Press. Hodgetts, R. M. (1995). Frederick Taylor: Alive and well and ready for the 21st century. Academy of Management Proceedings, 218-222. Lepore, J. (2009). Not so fast: Scientific management started as a way to work. How did it become a way of life? Retrieved March 8, 2011 http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/10/12/091012crat_atlarge_lepore?currentPage=allWiley & Sons Inc. Locke, E. A. (1982). The ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: An evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 14-24. McShane, S. L. & Von Glinow, M. A. (2005). Organizational Behavior: Emerging Realities for the Workplace Revolution (3rd ed.). NY: McGraw Hill Moorcroft, R. (2005). The ONE thing you need to know ... about great managing, great leadership and sustained individual success. The British Journal of Administrative Management, 10-12. Retrieved March 22, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 911489241). Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. (2003). Human resource management: A competitive advantage. NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Owens, R. & Shakeshaft, C. (1992). The new “revolution” in administrative theory. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(2), 4 – 18. Rowe, C. (1996). Evaluating management training and development: revisiting the basic issues. Industrial and Commercial Training, 28(4), 17 – 23. The Science Museum. (2004). Industrial Psychology in Britain. Retrieved March 19, 2011 from http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/stories/the_age_of_the_mass/05.ST.06/?scene=3 Read More