The Reald World of Management - Assignment Example

? THE REAL WORLD OF MANAGEMENT THE REAL WORLD OF MANAGEMENT The practice of management entails various aspects of deliberate and intentional practices that are carried out in the purpose to either guide or influence a team of persons towards a common goal in matters of resource use and outcome. In the current world, leaders are assumed ‘strategic managers’ in their own position in that they are responsible for managing teams of workforce and other production resources for the common goal of effectiveness in production of goods and services (Olum, 2004, p. 1-2). There are various phases of management such as human resources, manufacturing management and overall management in the context of production processes. For instance, management in human resource entails a wide range of practices such as hiring, training, promotion, career development as well as motivation all geared towards efficiency and effectiveness in production. Theories are conceptual frameworks which explain phenomena from a generalized perspective and whose origin is research studies. Through theories, we are able to learn from a generalization of ideas and are able to study a concept more precisely from a more comprehensive approach. However, evolution in academic circles has lead to a discriminatory approach by analysts that the academic approach to theories as they are does not represent the real life perspectives. Nevertheless, others view that good theories are always very practical and thus reason that the inapplicability as observed with much of the theoretical frameworks that are applied within scholarly circles is because of poor formulation. Thus, bad theories are equally always not practical. This paper intends to carry out a critical analysis of some of the scholarly theories as they are applied within the field of academics and compare them with the real world perspectives. “Theory X”, Douglas McGregor developed the theories of motivation ‘X’ and ‘Y’ which were meant to be instrumental in explaining the motivational factors to the behaviors of human beings and has since been implemented within a wider spectrum of spheres including explaining organizational behavior, management of human resources, organizational development as well as organizational communication. The theory ‘X’ has been commented on greatly in the scholarly field in that it assumes that human beings are inherently lazy by default and as such does not like working (Stewart, 2010, p.1-2). The resultant of this in the real world is the devising of control mechanisms and supervisory tools to be used within organizations by the management. The reasoning of the theory is that people work because of coercion or by enticement through material gains without which the persons are determined to avoid working; therefore, the ambition of workers to engage in productive activities is boosted or controlled by enticements. This implies that management within this theory’s framework have to use coercion and threat in order to get work done or have general compliance by the workers. It is therefore concluded that all employees go out for their personal gains and, force or some sort of coercion must be sought in order to realize cooperation by the workers. However, a critical evaluation of the theorem as is applied within the real life context proves differently in that people vary in the matters of personal drive and motivation; the generalization of this theory is erroneous because not always does workers require being extrinsically motivated. Personal drive and intrusive values go a long way in determining the productivity of individual persons as unlike the proposition by the theory. Moreover, a critical weakness in the explanation of this theory is noted in that it fails to explain the motivators of management personnel, as they are equally persons who would equally illustrate the same traits as other employees. The theory is thus seen as a tool effective in explaining the relationships within organizations between individual employees and the management. “Theory Y”, On the other hand, the theory ‘Y’ takes a reverse assumption to the previous theory in that it takes persons are motivated by intrinsic values. It is thus equally an explanatory theory oh the nature of interpersonal relationships between management groups and the individual employees. Individuals are self-motivated, exercise self-restraints in matters of working, and as such do not require any external influence in their productivity and delivery (Olum, 2004, p.20). The theory is taken to imply that employees take pleasure in engaging their physical as well as mental capacities as they carry out duties assigned and as such take work to be as a natural duty. Moreover, the theorem holds that in most instances, the natural abilities of individual employees are often underutilizeddespite having high capacities to creative problem solving mechanisms. The managements ascribed to this theorem have the perception that whenever workers are provided with the necessary framework to exercise self control and regulation, workers would always strive to have the best for their delivery. The theory is thus taken as a positive theorem for workers and as such, personal motivation of doing work emanates from the level of satisfaction realized through working. The general perception of this theory is that management ought to be positive in their view to workers through which the optimality of workers delivery would be realized. It is therefore, more likely that theory ‘Y’ managers would develop trust in their employees and subordinates due to the high level of responsibility that is exhibited by the workers as postulated by the theory. Nevertheless, critics of the theory proposes that despite the notable acknowledgement of personal drive in delivery of duties by employees, the aspect of leadership and guidance cannot be overlooked within any working environment. The productivity effectiveness and efficiency of workers rely on both personal motivation as well as the external motivations such as through appreciation tokens through wages and salaries. Moreover, the environmental factors through which workers deliver are instrumental in determining workers attitudes and motivations and cannot be overlooked. These two theories therefore work in complimenting each other in terms of academics while the reality in practicality is quite different. The theory ‘x” insinuating the necessity of extreme coercion for delivery by workers and the ‘Y’ counterpart insinuating the purpose of intrinsic factors in determining the effectiveness of workers cannot fully explain the factors that influence delivery by individual workers. Other frameworks that would bring about the intersection of the working of the two theories would be more influential in explaining the purpose of intrinsic as well as external factor in determining the management practices to an organization for effectiveness in delivery. Leader-Member Exchange Theory In another theory that tries to explain the interaction between management (leaders) and employees (workers) in an organization, this theory explains that there exists a phenomena classification of employees within an organization by the managers into two groups; the inner as well as the outer groups. It is an explanation of how leaders relate with individual subordinates at a more personal framework as against a generalized treatment. It is thus unlike the perception of many of the management theories which hold that leaders treat all subordinates in a more or less alike manner. Nevertheless, as this theory has it, the leaders often relate to individual subordinate in a more customized manner and develop more contrasting relationships with individual employees. In these relations, the quality differs in that to some subordinates, the mangers may develop more trust and open perceptions while relations that are more restricted may develop between the leaders and other subordinates. While in the latter case poor communication may be a dominant feature, the earlier case may be characterized with more open and well-structured communications. In an in-group relationship, members are more engaged in decision making and are assigned to various responsibilities. This implies that the management allows some level of self drive to this group and a more non-contractual kind of a relationship develops. Nevertheless, in response to such kind of relations, the subordinates within this structure respond through high level of commitment to their mandates besides initiating self drive towards expected areas of service. Beside the in-group relationship, the management may develop another relationship referred to as the out-group kind of relation. In these high levels of strict supervisions to employees is exercised by the management. Strictcontractualguidelines are followed to the latter and the leaders (supervisors) exercise their supervisory role as regards duty and not beyond the frameworks of the contract (Lunenburg, 2010, p. 1-2). Critical analysis of this theory reveals that the out-group supervision is influenced by ‘authority’ as against ‘leadership’ attitude as ought to be. This therefore means that the workers then take the responsibilities as expected and not any further beyond it. The out-group may feel inferior and as a result be complacent in delivering the expected effectiveness. In analyzing the theory, the practicability of the theory within organization braises the concerns of good practices in management. the questions that linger in academic fields concerning this theory is therefore how professional the application of this theory is in working organizations besides questioning the moral authority in support to the theory. Nevertheless, the confirmation of the application of the theory in organizations as have been indicated by the studies is a significant step in supporting the authenticity of such a theory. It is thus quite clear that besides being a theoretical framework acknowledged within the academic circles, it is equally widely used within working circles of organizations in explaining the group interactions with the corporate management of the organization. The theory ‘Z’ The theory ‘Z’ as an extension of human resources management theories that were developed and purported to have significance in understanding the interrelationship between the management and the employees revolves around explaining the effect of bureaucracy in effectiveness of productivity of workers. It is equally an explanatory theorem just as ‘X’ and ‘Y’, which describes the corporate organizational role of the management in managing resources. The theory describes the critical role that the philosophies of good leadership, communication, trust as well as participative decision making has in the overall effectiveness of both the organizational management and the employees. The organizations committed to the course of the theory ‘z’ has their concerns in long term kind of employments for workers and the efficiency in explicit as well as implicit communication ; interdependence in workers as well as the managers is facilitated by trust and consensus between the parties. Moreover, the theory support the full inclusivity of all workers at varying positions of service in matters relating to decision making as well as upholding high levels of values in the affairs of the organizations. The development of roper interpersonal skills is effective in assisting the effectiveness in decision making by groups as a necessary tool in organizational management. This is necessitated by the need to have higher levels of cooperation in an organization by the management. Nevertheless, the theory disapproves hierarchical organization and instead acknowledges the self will of individual workers of an organization coupled by the high levels of trust brought about by the egalitarian atmosphere that an organization should create (Drushal, nd, p.15-16). Therefore, this description of the philosophies of the theory purports that the theory is holistic in that it encourages the interworking of the workers at different facets of the organization as well as the management. However, literature reveal a shocking phenomena in the corporate set ups where the theory is seen to be meaningful only in theoretical academic spheres. An analysis of different firms within the U.S in the aim of establishing the contributing factors to the declining effectiveness of the firms in terms of productivity lead to the acknowledgement of the critical role that employees motivation play in the overall outcomes (Mroczkowski, 1983, p. 297). According to Mroczkowski, there needed to be an overall shift within the American organizations in terms of social integration as postulated by the theory. It therefore meant that one of the major challenges that faced the US organizations was the application of ineffective theoretical structures, which neglected the critical role of social integration. This would thus confirm that despite having such profound theories within the academic circles, the implementation procedures within the working of organizations is often overlooked or challenged by other factors which results to the overall underperformance of these organizations. However, as the report points there exists theoretical myths which are responsible of the fears and confusions that rock the adoption of these theories as projected through the academic formulations. The report therefore com pares the effective organizations from other parts of the globe such as Japan to the organizations that are shaped by the poor human resource management. The latter are referred to as the traditional organizations ‘A’ while the former represent the progressive modern ‘Z’ organizations (Mroczkowski, 1983, p. 298). The leadership contingency The leadership contingency theories as held prominence in the late twentieth century had it that the effectiveness of a leader develops from the interplay of situational factors as well as the personal attributes by the leader. Effective leaders according to the school of thought must be considerate meaning that they have the capacity to develop good rapport and relationship with the subordinates. Moreover, consideration in this respect revolves around good interpersonal relationships through which a leader would be instrumental in motivating supporting the subordinates; the theories cite the ability to instantiate structures by a leader to be fundamental. In initiating structures, the theory purports that effectiveness in leadership would imply the ability to delegate or assign responsibilities; schedule activities and plan on behave of the organization. This is seen to be necessary in that it enables leaders to realize set goals, or ensure that tasks targeted are completed successfully. Despite the great attention that the theory has received over the academic circles since its development, more and more research studies continue to be carried out in the topic in order to bring about more refined findings, which would champion future changes for the theory. The path-goal theory is such a good example to the contingency theories, which postulates that leaders should be in a position to be command influence depending on specific situations aimed at eliciting follower’s motivation as well as satisfaction. This theory therefore leans on four basic features of and effective leader, which include supportive, directive, participative leadership as well as leadership, which is achievement oriented. The application of the theory depends on particular situation sphere in situations of dull expectations; the theory states that the leader should be in a position to incite motivation to the followers. Moreover, in the situations where the assignments may be ambiguous, effective leaders take the responsibility of clearing the ambiguity in order to have the subordinates realize set targets and goals (Viviane, 2009, p.1-3). However, as Viviane writes, methodological shortcomings have characterized past research studies regarding this theory and thus it is relatively immature in applying the theory in real life scenario. Despite the great contributions that the theory has brought on board in the influence of leadership on the overall performance of workers, there has been noted little research studies that has been done in relation to achievement oriented as well as participative leadership. Therefore, the application of the theory outside the academic fronts has been faced with the challenge of authenticity. However, despite the shortcoming, the path-goal theory is credited in explaining the effect of leadership efforts to influence the outcome of subordinates as part of a wide range of contingency theories. It can thus been interpreted to be effective in explaining the importance of proper interactions between the leadership and the subordinates in resource management. Power distance theory Organization management is a subject of potential influence by such factors as culture and inequalities between the employees and the management. Through the evolution of theories describing leadership, servant leadership has now become a particular focus point among scholars. There are various principles that form the basis of servant leadership as regards the empowerment of the leaders as well as interactions at the place of work. Hannay writes that the effectiveness of a servant leader is realized when exercised within cultures that have low cultural distances, low to moderate masculinity, low individualism, reduced uncertainty avoidance and high long-term moderation as explained by Hofstede within the theory of power distance (Hofstede, 1993, p.1). The leaders’ principles, values as well as beliefs are pointed out to influence the servant leadership unlike the traditional leadership theories, which are often behavioral. It is equally effective in explaining the importance of proper interactions between the leadership and the subordinates in resource management. The purpose of a leader in this theory is thus to be a pace setter through leading by example as against authoritative kind of leadership. Among other outstanding leadership traits that distinct servant leadership and other forms of leadership is the sense of high regard of other person’s interests against one’s; effectiveness of servant leaders is achievable through significance in participation and interaction with employees. According to Hofstede, servant leadership through which power distance is instrumental in allowing the employees feel part of the management by allowing them air their opinions, thoughts as well as personal recommendations. The easy flow of ideas and opinions empower the employees to be part of the organization through which voluntary responsibilities are easily adopted by the employees without the prior coercions. Nevertheless, critics of the power distance theorem as described by Hofstede refute its applicability within formal set-ups of organization because majority of organizations leaders have assigned authority by the framework under which they work through which the conflict between servant leadership and the actual leadership. The pursuit of power and self-actualization can be easily pointed out to be the main challenge that leadership of organizations face as explained by Hofstede. He argued that management is just as any other processes that happen around us (Robinson, 2005, p.36-37).The effectiveness in applying the theory is thus only evident within the academic spheres as against within the corporate working scenarios. The theories of management have had great evolutions since the twentieth century when they were designed through to the current twenty first century. The management thought has sailed through evolution from the pre classics, classics to the current modern theoretical frameworks as they are used in explaining the issues of management (Hartman, nd, p.1-2). However, poor theories of management have been constantly blamed for causing good management practices to be unappreciated because of the genearfalization of their poor performance (Ghoshal, 2005, p. 75). Nevertheless of critical concern between the current scholars are the applications of these theories in the real life situation s as they are seen to be highly probable through academics by rather inapplicable when in real life scenarios. This paper has concentrated in the analysis of the management theories as they have been in use through real life application as well as through the academics. The most outstanding phenomena is that majority of scientific theories only gain essence within the academic field unlike the inapplicability within the modern day organizational frameworks; this paper has had special attention to the evaluation of the following theories: the theory ‘Y’, “X’ and ’Z’. Besides these theories, the explanation of organizational behavior through leadership contingency theory, power distance theory as well as the ‘leader-member exchange’ theory. The theory ‘X’ has been commented on greatly in the scholarly field in that it assumes that human beings are inherently lazy by default and as such does not like working. The resultant of this in the real world is the devising of control mechanisms and supervisory tools to be used within organizations by the management. The reasoning of the theory is that people work as a result of coercion or by enticement through material gains without which the persons are determined to avoid working; therefore, the ambition of workers to engage in productive activities is boosted or controlled by enticements. Individuals are self-motivated, exercise self-restraints in matters of working, and as such do not require any external influence in their productivity and delivery. The theory is taken to imply that employees take pleasure in engaging their physical as well as mental capacities as they carry out duties assigned and as such take work to be as a natural duty. The challenges of bureaucracy in management are studied in theory ‘Z’. The power distance theorem on the other hand was developed to explain the value of cultural relations in management and the employees. The contingency theorem revolves around understanding the spectacular traits of individual leaders that use to motivate and inspire the employees. Biblioggraphy Drushal M. E. nd. Motivational Components Of Theory Z Management: An Integrative Review Of Research And Implications For The Church. Available at Ghoshal S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of management learning and education, 4, (1), pp. 75-91. Hartman S. W. nd. Management Theory. New York Institute of Technology. Web. Available at: [Accessed 22 June 2013]. Hofstede G. 1993. Cultural constraints in management theories. The Executive. 7, (1). p.1 Lunenburg F. C. 2010. Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Another Perspective on the Leadership Process.International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration13, (1). p. 1-2 Mroczkowski T. 1983. Theory Z: Myths, Realities and Atlernatives. Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations, 38, (2). p. 297-318 p. 298 Olum Y. 2004. Modern Management Theories And Practices: A Critical Overview. Being a paper presented at the 15th East African Central Banking Course, held on 12th July 2004, at Kenya School of Monetary Studies. Web. Available at: < http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/AAPAM/UNPAN025765.pdf> [Accessed 22 June 2013]. Robinson D. 2005. management development. Training journal. Web Available at: < http://www.gdufs.biz/theorists.pdf > [Accessed 22 June 2013]. Stewart M. 2010. Theories X and Y, Revisited. Oxford Leadership Journal, 1, (3). p.1-2 Viviane S. 2009. Contingency Theories of Leadership. Encyclopedia of Group Processes & Intergroup Relations.NY: SAGE Publications. Read More