Strengths and Weaknesses of Studies on Research on Managerial Work - Essay Example

Strengths and weaknesses of studies on research on managerial work- how research on teamwork should shape future research on managerial work By [Student’s name] Foundation Course- Sociology Professor: [University’ Name] [Department] 14 January 2015 Strengths and weaknesses of studies on research on managerial work- how research on teamwork should shape the future of research on managerial work 1.0 Introduction Management is widely defined as a function that facilitates the organisation and coordination of all activities taking place in a business or organisation. The size of a management in an organisation depends on the size of the organisation and its resources and thus can range between one to a few thousand in large organisations such as multinational companies. The roles of management differ from one organisation to the other although the central role involves the provision of direction towards achievement of the organisational goals and objectives (Gronn 1983). However, there has been a raging debate over the years concerning the actual work of managers in organisations. This has enhanced development of theories and researches by various scholars and researchers, all in an attempt to explain their stands on managerial work. This paper will discuss major research studies and theories on managerial work, stating the strengths and weaknesses of each. The discussion will then focus on the importance of teamwork in an organisation, explaining how more research on the topic should help to shape the future of managerial work. 2.0 Theoretical scope of managerial work- an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the existing studies As earlier mentioned, there have been numerous studies over the years that have attempted to explain managerial functions. Two of the major studies were conducted by Henri Fayol (1949) and Henry Mintzberg (1975). 2.1 Fayol’s approach to managerial work According to Fayol, there are five core managerial functions as follows; planning, organising, controlling, coordinating and commanding. Planning entails the process of assessing the future while taking action to make a provision for it. Management, therefore, should engage several actions in order to meet its plans, for example, through ensuring that there is a continuity of tenure in the organisation and through recruitment of competent professionals who are capable of helping the organisation meet its objectives (Fells 2000; McNamara 2011). Organising involves provision of all useful components to an organisation in order to achieve optimum productivity. Some of the key components involved include capital, raw materials, tools and qualified personnel. Management should, therefore, ensure that the resources match to the organisational plan through harmonising all the components and providing a favourable environment for goal achievement. According to Fayol, this role is the most important of all managerial works in an organisation. Coordination function involves harmonising all the activities in an organisation through the accordance of rightful proportions to all the resources and actions. According to Fayol, management should supervise and ensure that all efforts in an organisation are directed towards successful achievement of specific objectives and goals. Control means all activities and actions in an organisation adapts to the instructions availed, adopted plan and principles that have been put in place. The key importance of this management role is to highlight the errors and flaws in an organisation’s components, remedying them and thereby preventing relapse. Finally, Fayol outlined command as a management function and whose main objective is to enable the organisation to get going. Management utilises this provision in order to get the best from its human resource. Management does this through calling for unity, providing motivation and energy, encouraging initiative thinking and enhancing loyalty among its personnel (Katz 2009). According to Fayol, management exercises the command role through eliminating the incompetent employees and developing well-defined channels of communication within an organisation among other methods. The study on the roles of management by Henri Fayol is one of the most popular in the management circles to date. However, various scholars have followed to criticise Fayol’s stand concerning the topic, with probably the most well-known of all critics being Henry Mintzberg. 2.2 Managerial work according to Mintzberg Henry Mintzberg (1975) plainly dismissed Fayol’s description of management functions, terming them as “folklore” rather than facts. Mintzberg described managers as people who are always much occupied with numerous demands and day-to-day activities such as information and direction giving and interactions among other to even burdens. This, therefore, means that managers are only left with very little time and attention to always handle careful roles such as planning and other roles as highlighted by Fayol. Managers are, therefore, forced to work on most of their roles as per demand and pressure. According to Mintzberg, management serves ten main roles which can be categorised into three major groups; informational-processing roles, decision-making roles and interpersonal roles (Mintzberg 1971). Interpersonal roles Under this category, there are three managerial functions in an organisation; leader, liaison and figurehead. Leader role Management in any organisation is required to provide direction and guidance to its subordinates while also ensuring that they remain motivated. In this role, management participates in functions such as hiring and training, promoting and dismissing others. Liaison role The management is responsible for creating and maintaining relationships in and out of an organisation for information collection. Figurehead The management is legally responsible for performing certain symbolic functions such as signing documents, presiding meetings and performing various ceremonies in an organisation. Information-processing role According to Mintzberg, there are three main functions of management under this category; monitor, disseminator and spokesperson. Monitor Management is responsible for information searching from various sources such as reports, memos, observational tours and meetings and briefings. Most of the information sought by the management is used to unearth existing problems, discover opportunities and create awareness of both the internal and external environments of an organisation. Disseminator The role of management in distributing information to various entities of its subordinates lies in whether the subordinates receives the information in its original form or after editing. Spokesman Usually, this role entails the management being tasked with providing information to outsiders such as the board of directors, business owners and other people outside their organisational sub-unit. Decision-making roles Under this category, managerial work is classified as entrepreneurial, resource allocator, disturbance handler, and negotiator roles. Entrepreneur In this role, management initiates and designs a change in order for an organisation to exploit certain available opportunities that seek to improve an existing situation. Disturbance handler According to Mintzberg, management should prioritise this role as it deals with how to handles crises in an organisation. This is described as one of the most important among all roles of management. Resource allocator It is the role of management to decide what amount of resources to be allocated to various areas of an organisation. These resources range from personnel, money, equipment, services and facilities among others. Through this role, management is able to controls strategy formation in an organisation. Negotiator role An organisation’s management may be involved in various negotiation processes on behalf of the organisation especially in cases that involve commitment of resources. Some examples of such cases include merging or acquisition processes and contract negotiations with suppliers and customers among others (Mitzberg 1975). 3.0 Strengths and weaknesses of Fayol and Mintzbergs approaches to managerial work According to most scholars, both Fayol and Mintzberg’s approaches to managerial work are quite similar to each other. The only core difference between the two is that Fayol approach is quite classical, in that the management is quite a distinct body over the subordinates in an organisation majorly acting through commands. On the other hand, Mintzberg approach suggests that management has to be in the leading position in all activities in an organisation. Fayol’s approach of managerial work has some several strengths and weaknesses. Looking at the strengths, Fayol encourages the management to be sensitive to their subordinates during their carrying out of roles. He urges the management to perceive their organisations’ employees as people who require attention and consideration during their work. Additionally, Fayol facilitated the establishment of management training as a foundation to achieve organisational success. He also encouraged open communication between the management and the subordinates. A key weakness of his approach, however, is that it is widely questioned due to the impracticability of some of the principles and roles of management which are described by both Mintzberg (1973) and Kotter (1999) as unreal. On the other hand, Mintzberg’s approach to managerial work, also seconded by Kotter (1999) is seen as more real and practical to today’s business world. He says that people in top management positions endure too much work pressure and interruptions from subordinates to create time for major planning and decision-making processes. However, through good time management, they can improve their work and skills. Mintzberg suggests adoption of role typology model by management which encourages working on managerial responsibilities as per demand. However, one of the major weaknesses of Mintzberg approach is that he neglects the relationship that exists between the behaviour of the management and how it affects the effectiveness of an organisation. Also, considering that Mintzberg conducted his study on only a few organisations, it would be difficult to determine whether his principles and outcomes can be applied in all other industries or management positions. 4.0 The future of research on managerial work- a focus on teamwork Having looked at some of the main studies that have so far being carried out in determining the roles and responsibilities of management in an organisation, it is important to focus on the future research on the topic as well. The studies discussed earlier have shown gaps that need to be filled and thus the necessity to conduct further research that will help to explain clearly what roles the management should perform in an institution. According to Kanter (1988), managerial work is undergoing rapid changes which are being characterised by reduced hierarchy and lack of clear title distinctions in an organisation. Competitive pressures are the main source of these changes, forcing organisations to adopt more flexible strategies and organisational structures. It is becoming increasing common practice where organisations are adopting horizontal ties of communication and activity between peers as opposed to the traditional vertical ties. Companies are also encouraging more cross-departmental collaboration within the management circles. According to experts, this kind of changes are enabling organisations to become less bureaucratic and more entrepreneurial which is highly recommended (Clegg & Hardy 1999, pg. 10). Looking at these changes, one thing is becoming clearer as far as changes in managerial work is concerned- organisations are moving and inclining more to increased teamwork in their working environments as opposed to the traditional boss/subordinates arrangement. Considering the benefits associated with teamwork, it is easy to tell that this should be the next area of research on managerial work. The discussion will, therefore, expound more on teamwork in an attempt to show how this can shape the future of research on managerial work. Teamwork in an organisation can be explained using three main models namely Tannenbaum and Schmidt model, Tuckman model and Johari Window model. 4.1 Tannenbaum and Schmidt Model The Tannenbaum and Schmidt Continuum is one of the models of the leadership theory which is used to show the relationship existing between the freedom level provided by a manager to a team and the level of authority exerted by the manager. Typically, an increase in the team’s freedom means that the manager’s authority decreases. This is beneficial for the development of both the manager and the team. Using this model, managers should allow their teams to make independent decisions through delegating various responsibilities in accordance with their ability. However, managers are always held accountable for all outcomes of the group responsibilities, thus it is important that the management takes the necessary precautions if the teamwork is to succeed (Lussier & Achua 2010, pg. 159). 4.2 Tuckman’s Model Published in 1965 by Dr Bruce Tuckman, Tuckman’s theory explains that over the period of team development and maturity, there are relationships that form and this shape the leadership style adopted by a leader. The model describes the changes in leadership style as moving from giving directions, coaching, encouraging team participation, delegating and to a near detached stage. It is after the detachment stage that succession can take place with the team producing a leader while the existing leader moves up to form another team. This type of progression is important in creating a continuation of team leadership and behaviour (Clements & Jones 2008, pg. 208). 4.3 Johari Window Model This model is an important tool for facilitating improvement in self-awareness and creating mutual understanding between members of a team. The model is widely used today in facilitating improved communication skills, self-awareness, cooperation, behaviour development and interpersonal growth among group members. The model is illustrated using four parts which represent the stages of attaining self-awareness in a group. The four stages are open/free area, blind area, hidden area and unknown area (West & Turner 2011, pg. 274). 5.0 Relevance of the teamwork models in explaining changes in managerial work As earlier outlined, the discussion has shown the various ways through which managerial responsibilities have evolved over the years. From Fayol’s description of managerial functions to Mintzberg’s criticism of Fayol’s study, the evolvement of the roles is still going on. As noted by Kanter (1988), the management roles are increasingly becoming open to their so-called subordinates. The managers are highly delegating most of their duties to their subordinates while they are leading by example in performing duties that are traditionally allocated to the junior staff (Hales 1999). Additionally, an increasingly growing trend in organisations today is the use of teamwork where activities and communication are pursued across horizontal ties involving peers and other employees within similar levels. This has greatly reduced the use of vertical command chain and instead allowed managers to handle more sophisticated responsibilities such as forming strategic alliances involving suppliers and customers (Kanter 1988). This is a recommended way of relieving senior management of the trivial roles in an organisation thus allowing them to be more effective and productive. It is, therefore, important that organisations adopt the teamwork models as earlier outlined since they facilitate increased productivity in a working environment, both to the management and their subordinates. Despite teamwork showing prospects of changing the managerial roles to the better, the topic has yet to gain enough attention to research. It is, therefore, necessary that more research be directed towards expounding on the feasibility of teamwork in replacing the current remaining approaches to managerial work by scholars such as Henri Fayol and Henry Mintzberg. Bibliography Clegg, S., & Hardy, C. (1999). Handbook of organization studies. theory & method Part 1, Part 1. London, SAGE. Clements, P. E., & Jones, J. (2008). The diversity training handbook a practical guide to understanding & changing attitudes. London, Kogan Page. Fells, M. J. (2000). Fayol stands the test of time. Journal of Management History (Archive), vol.6, no. 8, pp.345-360. Gronn, P. (1983). Talk as the work: The accomplishment of school administration. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1-21. Hales, C. (1999). Why do managers do what they do? Reconciling evidence and theory in accounts of managerial work. British journal of management, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 335-350. Kanter, R. M. (1988). The new managerial work. Harvard business review, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 85-92. Katz, R. L. (2009). Skills of an effective administrator. Boston, Mass, Harvard Business Press. Kotter, J. P. (1981). What effective general managers really do. Harvard business review, vol.60, no. 6, pp. 156-167. Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2010). Leadership: theory, application, skill development. Australia, SouthWestern/Cengage Learning McNamara, D. E. (2011). From Fayol’s Mechanistic To Today’s Organic Functions Of Management. American Journal of Business Education (AJBE). vol. 2, no. 1. Mintzberg, H. (1971). Managerial work: analysis from observation. Management science, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. B-97. Mintzberg, H. (1975). The Managers Job: Folklore and Fact. Harvard Business Review, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 49-61. .WEST, R. L., & TURNER, L. H. (2011). Understanding interpersonal communication: making choices in changing times. Boston, Wadsworth. Read More