Definition of Management - Essay Example

?Management is a crucial aspect of any organization, regardless of what the organization does, how they do it, or why they do it. The act of managingothers is comprised of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling roles, all of which led to successful organizational outcomes. Although the degrees to which managers depend on these different roles, and the degrees to which they are skilled in each of these different areas, depends on the individual manager, these four aspects of management consistently crop up in managerial science. This dimension of the so-called “classical”, or “technical-rational”, definition of management has remained relatively unchanged since the 1970s, when authors like David Knights, John Roberts, and Studs Terkel wrote about the working world and the conduct of managers within it. A technical-rational concept of a manager helps us, from an academic standpoint, comprehend the function and role of a manager within an organization. However, for a more in-depth understanding of what it means to manage people within the context of a work setting, one must actually go beyond simply learning the definitions and the principles to applying them in the real world. The application of one’s knowledge to a more realistic concept of management is an essential process to leads to a clearer picture of what is going on within the 21st century work environment. First, the classical definition of management includes a “planning” role, which refers to the predetermining a course of action for accomplishing organizational objectives (Watson, T. 2006). Planning is an activity that top-level managers perform to a larger degree than first-level managers; however, the need for planning, even at the most basic levels of an organization, is palpable, especially when crises arise that could have been prevented with low- or first-level planning. In addition, the planning role requires decision-making; that is, until a decision has been made or a plan has been set in place, the planning role of the manager is unfulfilled. Planning requires action above all. Second, the classical definition of management contains an “organizing” element, which means managers are in charge of arranging the relationships among work units for accomplishment of objectives and the granting of responsibility and authority to objective those objectives (Watson, T. 2006). An important consideration with respect to this organizing role is that a manager must not understand his power to be “power over people”; rather, one must understand that power to be “power between people” (Knights, D. & Roberts, J. 1982). By recognizing one’s dependence on staff, a manager can avoid the use of coercive force over others and an organization can reach its full potential. Similarly, the point of organizing is to utilize all of the resources available within an organization toward achieving a final goal. Thus, part of organizing the elements and relationships between them in an organization are an intentional, goal-directed process. Once every person knows his or her function within the whole and understands that role to be intentionally crafted, the manager has succeeded in filling the organizing role of management (Watson, T. 2006). Thirdly, successful managers fill a “leading” role. A “leading” role is creating an atmosphere that will assist and motivate people to achieve desired end results (Watson, T. 2006). Overall, this function relies heavily on an understanding of psychology and a mastering of the performance-environment. Top-level managers, who primarily focus on controlling and organizing, do very little leading; however, first-level supervisors, who lead on a daily basis in the presence of others, rely very heavily on this role. By taking a proactive approach to satisfy the motivations and desires of individuals, managers can avoid the most common source of organizational problems: people’s desires, attitudes, and behaviours. So long as a manager can inspire individuals to follow him, using motivation and communication, managers can achieve the sorts of goals and objectives that are placed upon them. Lastly, the classical definition of management incorporates “controlling”, which is different from “leading” insofar as the former refers to the establishment, measurement, and evaluation of performance directed toward planned objectives (Watson, T. 2006). Examples of controlling include financial auditing and inspecting records, which, as forms of measurement, track performance against a benchmark of plans. In this manner, one can see how the different functions of a manager are integrated through the process of planning the outcome, measuring performance in terms of the outcome, and controlling resources in order to achieve that outcome. However, a manager’s effectiveness (or ability to control) should not be measured without reference to his ability to do so morally (Roberts, J. 1984). Although managers often see themselves as a morally neutral character, whose concern for effectiveness ought not to factor into ethical decision-making, it is important to recognize that a manager’s responsibilities extend beyond classification into categories like planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. In the real world, the technical-rational definition of management is not only somewhat accurate, but also experientially helpful for fulfilling one’s duties. The classical view of management describes managers as emphasizing the precision of one’s subordinates’ tasks, organizing tasks into discrete jobs, and further, organizing jobs into production systems (Watson, T. 2006). Although this is a useful tool for understanding the hierarchical structures of organizations, it is a mechanistic way of describing the world. In real life, a manager is not an automaton, creating artificial systems for the production of some finished good. Especially in the 21st century, in which the United States is an information economy, the end product of an organization is often intangible, and the skills and processes needed to create it require something more from a manager than a simple ability to organize tasks into jobs and jobs into systems. Dealing with people is far more complex and nuanced than this, and it seems the outcomes often shape the kind of manager one has to be. Directive management, for instance, will differ significantly from country-club, laissez-faire management, and they serve completely different purposes. In some situations, one needs to step back and let his employees innovate; in other situations, one needs to step forward and give orders in order to see a process through. The primary skill of a manager is not in his ability to plan, organize, lead, and control. Rather, the real skill of a manager is to adapt these abilities to his environment. A manager who likes to step back and let his employees run the business can only do so if his employees are competent enough to run the business. Similarly, a manager who needs to dedicate his entire life to his company does so because the employees who work around him do so (Terkel, S. 1974). A manager can either step into this environment or create himself; regardless of what the case happens to be, a manager should be prepared to be dynamic in how he plans, organizes, leads, and controls, because, from real life experience, that is how truly successful managers get to where they are. Ultimately, the technical-rational, or “classical”, view of management is an intuitively appealing theory in the abstract, but when it comes to real life, the facts “on the ground” are more complex, more varied, and more dynamic. The essence of management is not a static ability to fulfil the academically-prescribed roles of manager, but to meet those roles in different contexts as he adapts to an ever-changing environment within the information economy. Likewise, no two managers are alike, and to expect all managers to fit into a certain mould, according to some set of strict standards, is unrealistic in the worst sort of way. Forcing standards on managers could backfire: leading some to give up an appreciation for the nuances of their job and to embrace black-and-white thinking. The best standard of management is experience. Reference List Knights, D & Roberts, J 1982, ‘The power of organisation or the organisation of power?’, Organisation Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 47-63. Roberts, J 1984, ‘The moral character of management practice’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 287-302. Terkel, S 1974, Working, Penguin UK, Middlesex. Watson, T 2006, Organising and managing work, 2nd edn, Penguin UK, London. Read More