Western Approaches to Management and Leadership - Research Paper Example

Western Approaches to Management and Leadership Introduction There are various leadership and management styles which are applied in business, in politics, and in society in general. These approaches or styles to leadership are all based on the nature and the activities of organizations. In general, choices of leadership are often founded on corporate or organizational culture as well as the goals and purposes of the organization. This paper shall critique the current Western approaches to management and leadership. It shall demonstrate an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the critical management theory and its application as an analytical tool for resolving problems in a post-modern organisation. This study is being undertaken in order to establish a comprehensive and specific analysis of the subject matter, including its impact and applications in organisations in the current modern setting. Body Management refers to the science of securing aims and purposes through the people and member resources (Olum, 2004). As managers also carry out supervisory work, management can also be considered as the process of watching over or assessing employee performance, or basically ensuring that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. These managers are expected to ensure productivity and the continued growth and improvement of the organization (Olum, 2004). It is also the process of establishing and maintaining a work or organization environment which is conducive to the needs of the workers while seeking to secure the accomplishment of selected goals (Koontz and Weihrich, 1990). Managers plan, organize, staff, lead, and control the organization. They also function in order to create surplus or significant profits for the members of the organization. It is highly concerned with productivity, mostly with the application of efficient and effective techniques in the organization or the workplace (Bolden, 2007). Leadership on the other hand is but a small part of management. It is a function which relates to the process of influencing people in order to ensure that these members contribute to the general goals of the organization (Olum, 2004). In other words, leaders are concerned with the interpersonal elements of management. Managers also have to be leaders because an essential part of their functions involves human interactions or interactions with their employees (Olum, 2004). In order to be effective managers, they also have to be effective leaders. Leadership also involves motivation, as well as elements and techniques in communication. There are various Western methods of leadership and management being applied in the organizations and corporations. These approaches usually interpret the changing qualities of the current organizational environment. One of these approaches is the Scientific Management School which includes the writings of Frederick W. Taylor and Lillian Gilbreth with her motion study (Olum, 2004). Taylor’s ideas for Scientific Management sought to discount the management rule of thumb and instead highlight the importance of actual timed observations which would eventually lead to the best practice (Waring, 2010). He also highlighted the importance of the systematic training of workers under this best practice, not allowing personal discretion to be incorporated in the practice. Taylor also believes that workload must be equally shared between workers and managers with the managers covering the scientific part and the workers carrying out the labour (Waring, 2010). The strong point of this theory or approach emanates from the concept of simplifying a complicated task into various simpler subtasks in order to ensure specific accomplishment of the subtasks (Olum, 2004). In order to accomplish such goal, the stop-watch measures are often used. There is however a dehumanizing element to this approach because it treats the workers as tools of the manager and of the organization (Guidi, 2005). This approach is a throw-back from the industrial revolution where the pace of the work was very fast and the managers had to approach the workplace and the work environment in a more authoritative manner in order to ensure competitiveness (Guidi, 2005). In the current setting, the Taylorism approach can be seen in the current pace of digital and electronic technologies. The developments in digital technology are pressuring many corporations to produce the latest advancements and to adapt to the use of these technologies (Daft and Marcic, 2008). The demand for workers to produce more results has not been reduced in the digital age; in fact the demands of workers seem to have increased especially with the availability of time-saving devices and technologies (Daft and Marcic, 2008). Despite the autocratic nature of the Scientific Management approach, it has managed to yield significant improvements in worker productivity and the quality of the work has been improved with the current resources available to workers (Daft and Marcic, 2008). Gilbreth’s study is based on the centrality of efficiency in governments. This approach is focused on how unnecessary motions can be reduced in the workplace (Olum, 2004). In the current age of labour and time-saving devices, unnecessary motions are indeed avoided (Sheldrake, 2003). This approach has created a more efficient work environment, where labour is utilized in a timely and appropriate manner (Sheldrake, 2003). This approach however does not give much room for learning and for errors. It is also rigid in its expectations in the workplace and creates a very demanding environment for workers and members of the organization (Sheldrake, 2003). Another Western modern management approach is the behavioural school approach primarily advocated by Elton Mayo (Berry and Sheltman, 2008). This approach is founded on behaviourism and human relations. This was a rejection of Taylor’s scientific management “best way” approach to management. In Mayo’s studies and discourse, he declared that work satisfaction is based on work conditions not on economic considerations (Lussier, 2011). Mayo also pointed out how responses were improved with changes in the work environments. His focus was on the development of industrial engineering, quality control and personnel developments as well as human relations movements (Lussier, 2011). Group dynamics, team work, and organizational social systems were secured under this approach (Olum, 2004). The application of this approach in the current setting is not practical in some regard because of the recent economic crisis where the primary consideration of employees and even organizations have shifted towards economic and monetary considerations (Lussier, 2011). These monetary considerations have become a priority over and above favourable work conditions. Other modern theories being applied in the current setting includes the team building theory. This theory has focused on quality circles, best practices, and continuous improvement (Olum, 2004). It mainly highlights the importance of teamwork and on the levels of hierarchy in the workplace. It is also supported by consensus management or involving as many people as possible in the decision-making process (Miller, 2011). This approach is a strong approach for most organizations because they feel more in touch with their employees, and the employees would likely feel more loyalty towards their organization. However, teamwork may sometimes be difficult to manage without a strong and capable leader (Harrison and Lock, 2004). The teamwork process also reduces the power and impact of the overall organization management. In some ways, it can reduce their impact and authority over the activities of the organization (Harrison and Lock, 2004). Finally, the chaos theory is another one of the current management and leadership approaches being applied in the West (Lorenz, 1995). This theory is based on Tom Peters’ ideas. This theory accepts the fact that things can be chaotic for organizations and rejects the idea that events can always be controlled within the organization (Lorenz, 1995). This theory also acknowledges the fact that various systems can naturally become complex and when they do, they often become very volatile and must therefore be managed to secure their complexity (Olum, 2004). As these organizations use more energy, they also need to reinforce their stability. This trend often persists until the system itself would split and combine with another system or eventually breakdown (Olum, 2004). An effective manager is needed in order to prevent such a scenario. In the modern Western setting, the chaos approach is increasingly being applied with the various disasters and economic difficulties which organizations are facing (Bowerman and Van Wart, 2011). Many organizations and corporations have been unable to make the necessary adjustments in order to effectively respond to disasters and similar chaotic events. As a result, many of these organizations have declared bankruptcy or have closed down (Bowerman and Van Wart, 2011). Applying this approach has assisted various organizations in eventually adapting to change and to chaos. This approach however has a more linear approach to management (Bowerman and Van Wart, 2011). In the Western setting, it has little functionality after the chaos is resolved and managed. This approach is not dynamic, nor is it diverse in its general applicability for organizations (Bowerman and Van Wart, 2011). The postmodernism approach has also emerged as one of the current Western approaches to leadership and management (Pearson, 2010). Postmodern organisations are perceived to be those who are influenced by technological determinism, structural variability, multiskilled jobs, and complex employment relationships, such as subcontracting and networking (Pearson, 2010). Postmodernism does not agree with the rational systems approach in understanding organizations; it also does not agree with the generally accepted explanations of society and attitudes. Instead, it supports the flexible and free-flow of information which can later be changed to meet the demands of the organisation (Pearson, 2010). This approach highlights the importance of moving forward and embracing the realistic and reasonable frames for organizations. In order to implement such scenario, shifts in assumptions in the social world have to be made (Das and Mukherjee, 2006). This postmodernist approach is however only applicable to the Western developed countries. It cannot be adopted in the global setting, because its libertarian principles are not wholly embraced by Asian and other conservative countries (Das and Mukherjee, 2006). Nevertheless, for the more liberalised countries, the postmodernist approach has a strong applicability. It is very conducive in application in the current digital and electronic age especially with the free flow of ideas and information (Das and Mukherjee, 2006). It is therefore more flexible and dynamic in application in the modern setting. Critical management theory offers an alternative to mainstream management; its goal is to transform the general management practice (Adler, et.al., 2007). The critical management theory is deeply sceptical of the moral defensibility and the social sustainability of the current management approaches in organizations (Adler, et.al., 2007). It is a theory which is motivated by the social injustice and environmental destructiveness that managers and organizations often create. The critical management theory views elements like teamwork as well as other mainstream management theories as problematic (Batt and Doellgast, 2006). Mainstream management often does not include the strength and solidarity of teams in establishing and fulfilling agendas and priorities. On the other hand, teamwork can also create oppressive internalized values and goals by their team members, who often end up exploiting themselves and disciplining other members in order to secure responsible team players (Batt and Doellgast, 2006). The conformism within the team opposes the democratic needs which are essential in fulfilling values and goals (Batt and Doellgast, 2006). This theory therefore discounts the applicability of some Western approaches to management as previously discussed above, labelling them based on critical standards as lacking and inadequate in some way. Critical management indicates how approaches like teamwork can reinforce hierarchies and class systems which are often oppressive to gender and ethnic equality (Adler, et.al., 2007). Critical management has focused on understanding the different elements which may teamwork favourable for employees despite their negative effects. Critical management research also indicates how developments which are utilised to implement and support teamwork often occlude social disparities (Batt and Doellgast, 2006). Critical management theory does not consider the issues seen in management approaches as intrinsic, rather this theory assesses their shortcomings in terms of how they are incorporated in the bigger patterns and bigger considerations of the organization (Jaques, 2007). Although issues in the work organization and management are an important element of critical management theory, it also seeks to consider the various management issues in various organizations including industrial relations, accounting, information systems research, marketing, healthcare, and international business (Batt and Doellgast, 2006). In these fields, the term critical means more than the establishment of standards in scientific scepticism; it also means a focus on issues which are crucial, not just those which are marginal (Jaques, 2007). Critical therefore means a more radical consideration of issues or elements. Radical considerations would include issues and elements which are more socially divisive and those which have a greater environmental impact including capitalism and neo-imperialism (Jaques, 2007). In applying critical management, there is a greater consideration and assessment of how the divisive and destructive activities impact on various organizational beliefs and practices. In the establishment of agenda, the critical management theory has been supported by modern developments beyond the scholarly grounds (Batt and Doellgast, 2006). A well-supported assessment of the basic features of contemporary capitalism has been compromised by more liberalised standards of practice. The development of social movements has also established new critical viewpoints (Batt and Doellgast, 2006). The broader applications of the European community and the rise of other markets in Asia have caused the Western approaches of doing business to be applied in relative ways to the appropriate organizations (Ibarra-Colado, 2006). After 9/11, doubts have eventually been settled and the emergence of major natural and social issues has brought into focus other issues which have not been given enough attention. These issues include business ethics, environmentalism, and neo-liberalism (Ibarra-Colado, 2006). These major developments have a significant impact on the daily management activities and the daily work experiences; however they do not often gain much attention in the academe and in the theoretical scenes. This critical management theory has a significant potential among scholars, practitioners, policy-makers, as well as activists who often cannot gain any progress on various issues (Adler, et.al., 2007). Critical management theory has established concerns on the demoralized status of management research – these are elements which are often not given enough concern. And critical management has considered and revolutionized the concerns expressed by other scholars like Ghoshal (2005). Ghoshal (2005) emphasizes that scholarly studies which are concerned with businesses and management has had some negative impact on management by supporting very ideal and unrealistic theories. Critical management has revolutionized these concerns by establishing how standard structures of domination create the gradual destruction of moral (Ghoshal, 2005). In resolving problems in post-modern organizations, the critical management theory overlooks the material concerns of organizations. Instead, it focused more on issues like business ethics, the environment, as well as neo-liberalism concerns (Banerjee, 2003). Critical management seeks to balance organizational concerns with bigger goals which include issues of society as well as the environment. Post-modernism is considered a more humanist response to modernism, making more realistic considerations of the same concerns under modernism (Ward, 2008). Postmodernism does not reject modernist approaches and gains, it just questions them and investigates the various assumptions, especially those with flawed assumptions. On matters of success, the postmodernism approach declares that flexibility and individual assessments are important in gaining success for any organization (Ward, 2008). Therefore, there is no great need to focus on perfect planning and previous knowledge. It is acceptable to be imprecise or to deviate from the usual practices. In relation to control, leaders must consider general principles in order guide and impact on their behaviour. Followers on the other hand have to use their own judgment. In relation to facts, these are situational considerations (Ward, 2008). What may be true in some regard may not be applicable to some other instances. The critical management well blends well under the postmodernist approach because it does not allow for the easy and unconscious acceptance of norms and standards within organizations (Ward, 2008). Instead, it challenges norms and standards and makes specific considerations on how they would apply to the postmodern setting. The post modern setting however is not as rigid as the modernist approach, especially in terms of control and leadership (Ward, 2008). The critical management theory seeks to resolve issues in post-modern organisations by implementing a more critical approach to management and to the assessment of standards within organizations, especially in terms of leadership and management practices, and also in terms of compliance with business ethics, legal policies, as well as business standards. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, the current Western approaches to leadership and management are generally appropriate for the efficient running of corporations and organizations. There are however gaps in their application, basically related to the unfavourable treatment of workers who are being treated as tools of management. The behaviourism approach is focused on work satisfaction which has not served practical purposes in the current economic difficulties which many countries are experiencing. The postmodernist approach applies well to western developed countries considering the liberal and free flow of information within organizations. The critical management theory considers other issues within organizations including compliance with business ethics and environmental issues, including neo-imperialism considerations. The management of issues in post-modern organizations focuses on other business concerns and redirecting them towards the more altruistic goals of the organizations. Where other leadership and management approaches direct their goals towards profit-making, the demands of the post-modern era is on the fulfilment of societal, environmental, and well as ethical goals. The critical management theory emphasizes the importance of managing these goals in order to meet the current economic, social, and ethical issues which various organizations are facing. The critical management theory applies appropriately for post-modern organizations as it seeks to control practices which solely serve corporate purposes and as it tempers the impact of the organization on the society and the environment. References Adler, P., Forbes, L., and Willmott, H., 2007. Critical management studies. Digital Measures [online] Available at: https://msbfile03.usc.edu/digitalmeasures/padler/intellcont/CMS-AAM-1.pdf [Accessed 23 May 2012]. Banerjee, S. B., 2003. Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, 24, 143–180. Batt, R., and Doellgast, V., 2006. Groups, teams, and the division of labor: Interdisciplinary perspectives on the organization of work. In S. Ackroyd, R. Batt, P. Thompson, P. and Tolbert, S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of work and organization. New York: Oxford University Press. Berry, L. and Seltman, K., 2008. Management lessons from mayo clinic: inside one of the worlds most admired service organizations. USA: McGraw-Hill Professional. Bolden, R., 2007. Trends and perspectives in management and leadership development. University of Exeter [online] Available at: http://www.mbaworld.com/blr-archive/scholarly/7/index.pdf [Accessed 23 May 2012]. Bowerman, K. and Van Wart, M., 2011. The business of leadership: an introduction. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Daft, R. and Marcic, D., 2008. Understanding management. London: Cengage Learning. Das, R. and Mukherjee, K., 2006. Complex issues management. UK: Tata McGraw-Hill Education. Ghoshal, S., 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 75–91 Guidi, M., 2005. The changing firm: contributions from the history of economic thought: selected papers from the 7th conference of Aispe. London: FrancoAngeli. Harrison, F. and Lock, D., 2004. Advanced project management: a structured approach. London: Gower Publishing, Ltd. Ibarra-Colado, E., 2006. Organization studies and epistemic coloniality in Latin America: Thinking otherness from the margins. Organization, 13(4), 463–488. Jaques, T., 2007. Issue management and crisis management: an integrated, non-linear, relational construct. Public Relations Review, 33(2), pp 147-157. Koontz, H. and Weihrich, H., 1990. Essentials of management. McGraw-Hill: Stoner James A. F., Freeman Lorenz, E., 1995. The essence of chaos. Washington: University of Washington Press. Lussier, R., 2011. Management fundamentals: concepts, applications, skill development. London: Cengage Learning. Miller, K., 2011. Organizational communication: approaches and processes. London: Cengage Learning. Olum, Y., 2004. Modern management theories and practices. Makerere University [online] Available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/AAPAM/UNPAN025765.pdf [Accessed 23 May 2012]. Pearson Highered, 2010. Approaches to organisation and management [online] Available at: http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0273757342.pdf [Accessed 23 May 2012]. Sheldrake, J., 2003. Management theory. London: Cengage Learning. Ward, D., 2008. Postmodern program management [online] Available at: http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/PubsCats/atl/2008_05_06/ward_mj08.pdf [Accessed 23 May 2012]. Waring, S., 2010. Peter Drucker, MBO, and the corporatist critique of scientific management. Ohio State Press [online] Available at: https://ohiostatepress.org/Books/Complete%20PDFs/Nelson%20Mental/10.pdf [Accessed 23 May 2012]. Read More