Can Theories of Management Be Applied to Media Manager - Coursework Example

Can theories of management apply to media manager, organisations and /or activities or are such theoretical applications redundant Management theories come and go. Most of them are just fads around a guru. But there are standard management theories that have endured the test of time. These ones can really be applied to media management as long as the peculiarities of media people are taken into account. There are some special traits in the realm of media environments that should be taken into consideration at the time of applying the different standard management theories. Media people are most of the time free spirits. They tend to be very liberal and their behaviours are not so standard. Many of them are artists in the purest meaning of the word. In order to understand why standard management theories cannot be applied all of the time to media management it is necessary to take a look at some of those theories and their relationships to media management. First, it is interesting to understand the difference between administration and management as the Wikipedia states it: "Administration can be defined as the universal process of efficiently organizing people and resources so to direct activities toward common goals and objectives. Administration is both an art and a science (if an inexact one), and arguably a craft, as administrators are judged ultimately by their performance. Administration must incorporate both leadership and vision. Management is viewed as a subset of administration, specifically associated with the technical and mundane elements within an organization's operation. It stands distinct from executive or strategic work." (Wikipedia, 2006a). Then the Wikipedia follows giving an idea about the different management theories: "Administration reflects management models. Such models become popular, peak in influence, and are then superseded by other emerging models. Recently influential management models have included Management by objectives (MBO) and Total Quality Management (TQM). Each model continues to have have its proponents." (Wikipedia, 2006a). It is also important to understand the interactions of the managers with their employers and the employees. These interactions make a great difference in practical terms. "Public, private and voluntary sectors place different demands on managers, but all must retain the faith of those who select them (if they wish to retain their jobs), retain the faith of those people that fund the organization, and retain the faith of those who work for the organization. If they fail to convince employees that they are better off staying than leaving, the organization will be forced into a downward spiral of hiring, training, firing, and recruiting." (Wikipedia, 2006b). According to The NSW HSC Online of Charles Sturt University (n. d.), there are four major theories of management: "Classical/scientific approaches. Behavioural/human approaches. Systems/contingency approaches. Political/collaborative approaches." This classification is comprehensive as it gives a clear idea of the state of affairs in the realm of management theories. These approaches divide and sub-divide themselves but at the end of the road they stand in the same position in terms of classification. Carter McNamara in his "Brief Overview of Contemporary Theories in Management" (1999a) deals with three different kinds of theories as follows: "Contingency Theory Basically, contingency theory asserts that when managers make a decision, they must take into account all aspects of the current situation and act on those aspects that are key to the situation at hand. () Systems Theory ()A system can be looked at as having inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. Systems share feedback among each of these four aspects of the systems. () The effect of systems theory in management is that writers, educators, consultants, etc. are helping managers to look at the organization from a broader perspective. Systems theory has brought a new perspective for managers to interpret patterns and events in the workplace. () Chaos Theory As chaotic and random as world events seem today, they seem as chaotic in organizations, too. Yet for decades, managers have acted on the basis that organizational events can always be controlled. A new theory (or some say "science"), chaos theory, recognizes that events indeed are rarely controlled. Many chaos theorists (as do systems theorists) refer to biological systems when explaining their theory. They suggest that systems naturally go to more complexity, and as they do so, these systems become more volatile (or susceptible to cataclysmic events) and must expend more energy to maintain that complexity. (McNamara, 1999a). These three theories belong to the "systems/contingency approaches" according to The NSW HSC Online. Carter McNamara (1999b) also took a look at the history of management theories. He dealt very briefly with the following management theories: "Scientific Management Theory (1890-1940) At the turn of the century, the most notable organizations were large and industrialized. Often they included ongoing, routine tasks that manufactured a variety of products. The United States highly prized scientific and technical matters, including careful measurement and specification of activities and results. Management tended to be the same. Frederick Taylor developed the "scientific management theory" which espoused this careful specification and measurement of all organizational tasks. Tasks were standardized as much as possible. Workers were rewarded and punished. This approach appeared to work well for organizations with assembly lines and other mechanistic, routinized activities. Bureaucratic Management Theory (1930-1950) Max Weber embellished the scientific management theory with his bureaucratic theory. Weber focused on dividing organizations into hierarchies, establishing strong lines of authority and control. He suggested organizations develop comprehensive and detailed standard operating procedures for all routinized tasks. Human Relations Movement (1930-today) Eventually, unions and government regulations reacted to the rather dehumanizing effects of these theories. More attention was given to individuals and their unique capabilities in the organization. A major belief included that the organization would prosper if its workers prospered as well. Human Resource departments were added to organizations. The behavioral sciences played a strong role in helping to understand the needs of workers and how the needs of the organization and its workers could be better aligned. Various new theories were spawned, many based on the behavioral sciences (some had name like theory "X", "Y" and "Z"). (McNamara, 1999b). On the other hand, Alan Chapman (1995-2005b) studies Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Chapman sums up this theory as follows: "Only when the lower order needs of physical and emotional well-being are satisfied are we concerned with the higher order needs of influence and personal development. Conversely, if the things that satisfy our lower order needs are swept away, we are no longer concerned about the maintenance of our higher order needs." (Chapman, 1995-2005b). Next, Chapman looked at the different scales built around this model: First Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (1954): "1. Biological and Physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep, etc. 2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, limits, stability, etc. 3. Belongingness and Love needs - work group, family, affection, relationships, etc. 4. Esteem needs - self-esteem, achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, managerial responsibility, etc. 5. Self-Actualization needs - realising personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences." (Chapman, 1995-2005b). 1970's adapted hierarchy of needs model: "1. Biological and Physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep, etc. 2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, limits, stability, etc. 3. Belongingness and Love needs - work group, family, affection, relationships, etc. 4. Esteem needs - self-esteem, achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, managerial responsibility, etc. 5. Cognitive needs - knowledge, meaning, etc. 6. Aesthetic needs - appreciation and search for beauty, balance, form, etc. 7. Self-Actualization needs - realising personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences." (Chapman, 1995-2005b). 1990's adapted hierarchy of needs: "1. Biological and Physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep, etc. 2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, limits, stability, etc. 3. Belongingness and Love needs - work group, family, affection, relationships, etc. 4. Esteem needs - self-esteem, achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, managerial responsibility, etc. 5. Cognitive needs - knowledge, meaning, etc. 6. Aesthetic needs - appreciation and search for beauty, balance, form, etc. 7. Self-Actualization needs - realising personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences. 8. Transcendence needs - helping others to achieve self actualization." (Chapman, 1995-2005b). Alan Chapman (1995-2005a) also studies Theory X, Theory Y and Theory Z as management models of real significance that can be considered seriously because of their own merits. Theory X and Theory Y were explained in great detail by Douglas McGregor. Chapman sums McGregor's ideas as follows: "McGregor maintained that there are two fundamental approaches to managing people. Many managers tend towards theory x, and generally get poor results. Enlightened managers use theory y, which produces better performance and results, and allows people to grow and develop." (Chapman, 1995-2005a). Chapman deals with Theory X and Theory Y as follows: "Theory x ('authoritarian management' style) The average person dislikes work and will avoid it if he/she can. Therefore most people must be forced with the threat of punishment to work towards organisational objectives. The average person prefers to be directed; to avoid responsibility; is relatively unambitious, and wants security above all else. Theory y ('participative management' style) Effort in work is as natural as work and play. People will apply self-control and self-direction in the pursuit of organisational objectives, without external control or the threat of punishment. Commitment to objectives is a function of rewards associated with their achievement. People usually accept and often seek responsibility. The capacity to use a high degree of imagination, ingenuity and creativity in solving organisational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population. In industry the intellectual potential of the average person is only partly utilised." (Chapman, 1995-2005a). When dealing with Theory Z, Chapman specifies that this model comes from William Ouchi, not McGregor. Chapman sums it up the following way: "Theory Z is often referred to as the 'Japanese' management style, which is essentially what it is. () Theory Z essentially advocates a combination of all that's best about theory Y and modern Japanese management, which places a large amount of freedom and trust with workers, and assumes that workers have a strong loyalty and interest in team-working and the organisation. Theory Z also places more reliance on the attitude and responsibilities of the workers, whereas Mcgregor's XY theory is mainly focused on management and motivation from the manager's and organisation's perspective." (Chapman, 1995-2005a). In media management there are three major ingredients: values, culture and content. These terms are associated to a journalistic environment, but they are still valid for any kind of media organization. Michael P. Smith (n. d.) deals with these three concepts when speaking about journalism: "In order for change to work, a newspaper must align its values, culture and content. Then it must examine its structure, systems and work processes to support the values, culture and content. There are many ways that this can be approached." (Smith, n. d.). We live in a global world where culture has to be considered a high priority when communicating with each other. Any media manager has to face this fact in the present society. On the other hand, John Pick and Malcolm Anderton (1995) study in great detail the administration in the arts in their book entitled "Arts Administration" published by Spon Press in London, England. They take a close look at arts organisations and the way they are administered either by arts administrators or arts bureaucrats. When they use the term bureaucrats, they mainly refer to its political connotation. They draw a distinction between an arts administrator and an arts bureaucrat along the following lines: "Yet, even if some art and some arts activities are given in advance a kind of benediction by arts bureaucrats, it is still the arts administrator's duty to create the circumstances in which as many people as possible may draw the maximum pleasure and benefit from it. The arts administrator must strive to bring the work beneficially into contact with the largest possible audience so that it may genuinely earn its title as an art". (Pick & Anderton, 1995: 19). Pick and Anderton follow the works of Etzioni when building the theoretical framework for the arts administrator. First, they deal with power from Etzioni's point of view: "Etzioni (1961) first developed what has become a standard model for understanding the internal mechanisms of organizations and the way they work together. He first suggested that there were three kinds of power which those in authority may use to control those in lower positions within the organization: -Coercive power, which depends upon threat of punishment or reprisal. -Remunerative power, which depends upon material rewards such as money or increased leisure time. -Normative power, which depends upon the allocation of symbolic rewards of esteem and prestige." (Pick & Anderton, 1995: 28). For Etzioni there are three kinds of involvement as Pick and Anderton stated: "-Alienative involvement is strong disapproval, hostility and compliance only under threat. -Calculative involvement is relative indifference, depending upon the rewards obtained through commitment. -Moral involvement is strong approval of the authorities, based on a shared commitment to the organization's values and aims." (Pick & Anderton, 1995: 28). Speaking about relationships between power and involvement, Etzioni suggests the following according to Pick and Anderton: "Etzioni argues that three in particular are more effective, because the kind of authority exercised is matched by the type of involvement sought by the rest of the organization. These three congruent relationships Etzioni respectively terms the coercive organization, the utilitarian organization and the normative organization." (Pick & Anderton, 1995: 28-29). As it is logical to deduct, normative organisations are the most suitable for the arts environment. Pick and Anderton stated the following regarding the normative organisations taking Etzioni as the point of reference, and at the same time they deal with the goals or aims of any organisation: "Etzioni elaborates further, and in the process suggests the reasons why arts organizations work best when they have normative characteristics. He devides general organizational aims, or goals, into three general categories: -Order goals cover organizations which exists to control deviant behaviour. -Economic goals belong to those producing goods and service. -Cultural goals are set by organizations creating and preserving symbolic objects." (Pick & Anderton, 1995: 29). Pick and Anderton summarise the functions of an arts administrator with the following words: "It is already clear that the administrator has to play many different roles. The arts administrator is critic, planner, communicator, catalyst, energizer, negotiator and enabler all at once." (Pick & Anderton, 1995: 30). Legitimate authority according to Max Weber (1947) is based upon different grounds. Pick and Anderton take Weber as reference and speak about them in the following terms: "1.- Rational Grounds - resting on a belief in the "legality" of patterns of normative rules, and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands (legal authority). 2.- Traditional Grounds - resting on an established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of the status of those exercising authority under them (traditional authority). 3.- Charismatic Grounds - resting on devotion to the specific and exceptional sanctity, heroism and exemplary character of an individual person (charismatic authority)." (Pick & Anderton, 1995: 30-31). So we have as a result of Weber's hypothesis that there is a relevant difference between a bureaucratic organisation and an arts organisation. Pick and Anderton explained it as follows: "In a more bureaucratic organization, when the administrator exercises legal authority, contact will tend, as Weber (1947, op. cit.) pointed out, to be impersonal, and all decisions and instructions will refer to an agreed and detailed set of rules. Constant consultation and internal dialogue are not needed in such organizations." (Pick & Anderton, 1995: 31). Summing everything up we come to the conclusion that there is a different way of dealing with an arts organisation in relation to a bureaucratic one as Pick and Anderton stated: "In government and neo-government departments decisions are made according to crearly laid down procedures, and without the charged and general dialogue that often accompanies decision-taking in an arts organization." (Pick & Anderton, 1995: 32). We can draw as a conclusion from all this that media management feeds itself from the major theories of management but at the same time media management has certain particularities that make it different in some aspects. The main management theories can be adapted to media management but not in their entirety. We also have to recognise that the main standard management theories are the ones that predominate in the work environment of the present society as Matthew Benjamin (2003) states it in his article entitled "Fads For Any and All Eras" published by the US News and World Report: "Most workplaces today are a combination of Taylorism, Sloan's approach, and the more modern practices of Drucker and McGregor. () Recently, management became personalized in the form of celebrity CEOs. For decades Alfred Sloan, a low-key, country-club type who didn't consort with the workers and managed by interoffice memo, typified the chief executive. By the 1990s, CEOs had become new-age messiahs, spreading a flamboyant gospel of motivation and empowerment that could bring success to all aspects of human enterprise. The personification of the breed: former General Electric CEO Jack Welch." (Benjamin, 2003). Media management needs the wisdom of the most important management theories and at the same time it needs to adapt itself to the kind of people who form its organisations. Media people are mainly normative people driven by cultural goals who are motivated quite distinctly than the bureaucratic employees for the simple reason that media is related to the arts and as such it belongs to a free-spirited realm of the human spectrum. In practical terms, it is very useful to know all major management theories in order to know when to apply their principles to media management. It is also important to understand that there are many contradictions among all major management theories so we have to be wise enough when applying them in media management. That way we will approach media management with an open eye, and we will have the necessary abilities for a clear discernment between major management theories and media management practice. Works Cited Benjamin, Matthew. "Fads For Any and All Eras". (24 February, 2003). In US News and World Report. 15 Jan. 2006. . Chapman, Alan. "Douglas McGregor - Theory X Y". (1995-2005a). 14 Jan. 2006. Chapman, Alan. "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs". (1995-2005b). 14 Jan. 2006. McNamara, Carter. "Brief Overview of Contemporary Theories in Management". (1999a). 15 Jan. 2006. McNamara, Carter. "Very Brief History of Management Theories". (1999b). 15 Jan. 2006. Pick, John, & Anderton, Malcolm. "Arts Administration". (1995). London, England: Spon Press. Smith, Michael P. "Values. Culture. Content." (n. d.). In Media Management Center. Northwestern University. 15 Jan. 2006. The NSW HSC Online. "Theories of Management". (n. d.). Charles Sturt University. 14 Jan. 2006. Wikipedia. "Administration". 12 January, 2006a. 15 Jan. 2006. . Wikipedia. "Management". 14 January, 2006b. 15 Jan. 2006. Read More