The Role of Management in Contemporary Organizations - Essay Example

The Role of Management in Contemporary Organizations Name Course: Tutor: Institution: The Role of Management in Contemporary Organizations Introduction Management is a broad subject that covers a wide scope in terms of leadership and business. Management scholars and theorists such as Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol made an impact with their contributions into the field of management many years ago. Both Tailor and Fayol registered impressive managerial skills during their times, something which is linked to the theories that they subs cribbed to. Mary Parker Follett was a management consultant, just like Tailor and Fayol and she brought forward several literary materials that, in one way or another contradict with Tailor and Fayol. The role and responsibility of management makes it necessary for leaders to have unique qualities and characteristics that set them apart from the rest of the team. Management is a mechanism where the activities of an organization are controlled. In order to achieve the goals of the organization, groups have got to be organized in such a way that activities match the goals and vice versa. It is important to establish what the managers of an organization require in order to be effective. This paper seeks to establish whether knowledge and expertise are the core ingredients of management. It will also evaluate the importance of authority exercised by managers. Discussion Henri Fayol was a French Engineer who is credited for his contribution in the field of management. Breeze (1995, p.39) stated that Fayol came up with theories that later formed the basis of management in the contemporary business world. In his works, Fayol emphasized the need for expertise in the management of any organization. The fact that managers occupy a position of authority in an organization means that managers ought to be well versed with their field of expertise in order to carry out their duties effectively. Leadership in an organization is made effective by effective management. For this reason, Henri Fayol pushed for management studies where managerial expertise would be obtained. However, it is important to note that management is a role played by leaders, whose main component if influence. In order to be influential, leaders are expected to have authority. It is this authority that enables leaders to get things done in organizations. The lack of authority in the leaders would result in delays in the various operations carried out in the organization. This is the reason Fayol lays emphasis on the need for managerial skills and knowledge. He argues that a combination of knowledge and authorities results into effective management since most activities in organizations entail mental and manual work. According to Brunsson (2008, p.40), management is the act of controlling and coordinating the activities of an organization to achieve the set goals. These goals are expected to be achieved within a predetermined time limit. Therefore, it is the duty of the management to ensure that these goals have been met. In other words, the management is charged with the responsibility of coming up with a plan of ‘’who’’ shall accomplish ‘’what’’ in an organization. The “who” and “what” constitute the mental work that the management is supposed to do. The relationship between the workers and the management is an important consideration as it determines the attitude with which the workers approach their duties. Transformational leadership, according to Mary Parker, is achieved through an effective system of leadership whereby the managers evoke the workers to carry out their duties in a manner that is devoid of authoritarianism. Management systems where the leader seeks to create a win-win situation for the workers have proved to be effective in the sense that the management is not likely to face resistance from the workers. This is because the workforce is dedicated to the goals and objectives. Derksen (2014, p.150) asserts that managers who act less bossy at the workplace end up encouraging the workers to achieve the goals within the time limits. There are two perspectives of management as identified from Mary Parker’s statement. The two perspectives are social and scientific. Evans and Holmes (2013, p.1) stated that the social perspective looks at management from a social point of view whereby the relationship between the managers and the workers in an organization is based on mutual respect and the hierarchy of power is not prioritized as such. The position of management, form a social perspective is occupied by those whose educational qualifications march the responsibilities that come with management. Despite the fact that managers are, by default, expected to be authoritative, Parker’s school of thought emphasizes the importance of informal authority and the need for management expertise as an empowering tool to improve the performance and effectiveness of leaders in organizations (Gibson, Chen, Henry, Humphreys & Lian, 2013, p.454). Managing employees with influence from experience and expertise is what Mary Parker advocated for and she is respected for the contribution she made in the contemporary social work as far as management is concerned especially in Germany during the 19th century. However, it is clear that the idea of management from the social perspective is not that much widespread in the 21st century. This is because of the contributions of other scholars such as Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol, who pioneered the science of management. Mary Follett’s ideology discourages the tendency to centre formal authority in leadership. She agrees that one’s position in the hierarchy would automatically give them the authority but what really matters is their exposure; how knowledgeable and experienced they are in the field of management. An estimated 50% of the leaders of the 21st century are less effective as a result of counting on hierarchical positions as a source of influence and authority. The social perspective of management, coined by management consultant Mary Parker, (2005, p.1340) who advocates for lateral processes in an organization rather than the vertical, one-sided process of management where managers give orders to the workers without taking suggestions. She considers this type of management to be ineffective and terms it “overmanaging” the employees. Lateral processes would put into consideration one’s knowledge and expertise and not just the formal authority they derive from their position in the hierarchy. This perspective promotes equality and relationships in organizations; hence, making it a fundamental aspect of organizational behaviour. The complicated nature of organizational settings call for quite a variety of measures to ensure management is effective. This is why there had to be management theorists and consultants such as Mary Parker, to come up with a blueprint of management. The science of management, coined by Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol, is one of the most phenomenal contributions ever made into the field of management. This is because of the widespread applications that are drawn from the theories developed by these two management theorists (Spatig, 2009, pp.196-199). Management is considered an art and a process which involves the interaction between the decision-makers and the executers in an organization. The decision-making process is considered the mental work while the execution is manual. Once decisions have been made concerning the activities of an organization, the workers are expected to bring in their input under the supervision of the management to see to it that there are minimum deviations. Taylor (2012, p.1) argued that the management is charged with the responsibility of determining the timeframe of activities in an organization. This way, it will be possible and seemingly easy to estimate the performance. The science of management operates in a manner that the subordinates take orders and instructions are answerable to the management team. The need for management expertise is also emphasized in the science of management. It, therefore, follows that for one to be in a position of decision-making in an organization, they have to bear formal authority in order to command respect from the subordinates. This respect, according to (Zuffo, 2011, p.35) is vital as it drives formality processes in the management process. Henri Fayol’s theory of management is based on professional relations between the leadership team and the subordinates of an organization. He claims that social ties in an organization would derail the overall performance and, as a result, lead to failure. In this regard, Fayolism is for the idea that professionalism should take precedence at all times during the management process. This would eliminate a number of shortcomings (Taneja, Pryor & Toombs, 2011, pp.68-70). The ideologies propagated by Fayolism are different from Follett’s statement, which seems to be inclined towards social management rather than scientific management. It is worth noting that despite the fact that many look to Henri Fayol’s organizational theories with reverence, there is that section, which does not give any form of credit to these theories at all (Walter-Busch, 2006, p.220). As a matter of fact, the professional perspective of management as coined by Fayol, seemed to diminish soon after his demise. His ideologies were merged with those of his contemporary Frederick Taylor, an engineer and management consultant. Both having established themselves as the pioneers of scientific management, their ideologies find widespread applications in the organizations of the 21st century. In addition, scholarly materials in the education system where management is concerned subscribe to the theories brought forward by Taylor and Fayol (Reid, 1995, p.30). Frederick Taylor’s theory identifies functions and principles of management. The functions are so vital that ever since they were published, every other scholarly material concerning management revolves around them. They include planning and controlling, coordinating and organizing. Mildred and Taneja (2010, p.495) argued that with his science-based principles, Taylor theorized management as a process involving the interaction between workmen and the management in such a way that everything is in accordance with set goals. The process depended on the principles of science such as proportionality between input and output, the impact of motivation; both intrinsic and extrinsic. The functions and principles of management as described by Taylor and Fayol form the basis of management in the 21st century considering the fact that every organization is striving to be as professional as possible. Consequently, the social perspective of management as coined by Mary Parker is becoming less relevant in the 21st century. This leads to conflict, which breeds from the fact that managers are selected with an unstandardized criteria. This does not only eliminate but also renders the need for management inoperable. Therefore, most managers are a great asset to the organization, thanks to the theory of management from a scientific point of view. This is because scientific management values managers as the custodians of both expertise and authority (Rutgers, 1999, p.17). Since managers are expected to uphold leadership qualities in an organization, it is important that leadership positions be occupied by those who value both informal authority and knowledge in the field of management. This way, both social and scientific management will find relevance in the 21st century. So far, the relevance of the social perspective of management identified by Mary Parker is harmonized in the principles of management compiled by the modern-day scholars. Further, Wren (2001, p.482) stated that these principles are a modification of the four, which were developed by Taylor in his organizational theories. The fact that issues such as remuneration and motivation are raised in these modifications is an indication that in the light of a modernized professional corporate world, social aspects of workmen are considered. Social welfare of subordinates in an organization was one of the core concerns of Mary Parker. She disparaged the idea of formal authority and blamed it for the stratification of organizations along hierarchical lines (Beu & Leonard, 2004, p.1235). It is worth noting that looking at management from Mary Parker’s point of view gives one a clear understanding of how division of labour and specialization came about. Lateral processes in organizations allow the management to allocate resources economically and also to assign duties to the most qualified personnel in the respective field. It also gives room for suggestions from the subordinates to the management team. This results into productive collaborations within the organization (Chong & Park, 2003, p.29). Conclusion In summation, Mary Parker Follett carried the notion that effective management is one that is based on the knowledge and expertise and not formal authority derived from one’s position in the hierarchy. Parker’s theory of management is for the idea that managerial expertise and knowledge is essential in enabling managers execute their duties with discretion. Her argument is that lateral processes in an organization are productive compared to their vertical, one-sided counterparts. However, Taylor and Fayol, both of whom are management theorists and consultants, do not agree with Follett. They have a scientific perspective of management where they view it as a process where managers make decision, which are then executed by their subordinates. The management plays the role of giving orders to ensure the goals of an organization are achieved. In this case, the input of the subordinates in the decision-making process does not count. Follett terms this type of management “overmanagement”. References Beu, D.S. & Leonard, N.H. 2004, "Evangelism of great works in management: How the gospel is spread", Management Decision, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 1226-1239. Breeze, J.D. 1995, "Henri Fayol's Centre for Administrative Studies", Journal of Management History, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 37-62. Brunsson, KH 2008 ‘Some Effects of Fayolism’, International Studies of Management & Organizations, vol. 38, no. 1, Spring, pp. 30-47. Chong, J.K.S. & Park, J. 2003, "National culture and classical principles of planning", Cross Cultural Management, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 29. Derksen, M 2014, ‘Turning Men into Machines? Scientific Management, Industrial Psychology, and the “Human Factor”’, Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 148-165. Evans, C & Holmes, l 2013, Re-Tailoring Management: Scientific Management a Century On, Farnham: Gower, eBook Collection. Gibson, J, Chen, W, Henry, E, Humphreys, J & Lian, Y 2013 ‘Examining the work of Mary Parker Follett through the lens of critical biography’, Journal of Management History (1751-1348), vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 441-458. Mildred, G.P. & Taneja, S. 2010, "Henri Fayol, practitioner and theoretician - revered and reviled", Journal of Management History, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 489-503. Parker, LD & Ritson, P 2005 ‘Fads, sterotypes and management gurus: Fayol and today’ Management Decision, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1335-1357. Reid, D. 1995, "Fayol: from experience to theory", Journal of Management History, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 21-36. Rutgers, M.R. 1999, "Be rational! But what does it mean? A history of the idea of rationality and its relation to management thought", Journal of Management History, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 17. Spatig, L 2009 ‘Rediscovering Fayol: Parallels to Behaviouralist Management and Transformational Leadership’, Proceedings of Northwest Business Economics Association, pp. 196-199. Taneja, S., Pryor, M.G. & Toombs, L.A. 2011, "Frederick W. Taylor's Scientific Management Principles: Relevance and Validity", Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 60-78. Taylor, FW 2012, The Principles of Scientific Management, The Floating Press, e-book. Walter-Busch, E. 2006, "Albert Thomas and scientific management in war and peace, 1914-1932", Journal of Management History, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 212-231. Wren, D.A. 2001, "Henri Fayol as strategist: A nineteenth century corporate turnaround", Management Decision, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 475-487. Wren, D.A., Bedeian, A.G. & Breeze, J.D. 2002, "The foundations of Henri Fayol's administrative theory", Management Decision, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 906-918. Zuffo, RG 2011, ‘Taylor is Dead, Hurray Taylor! The “Human Factor” in Scientific Management: Between Ethics, Scientific Psychology and Common Sense’, Journal of Business & Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 23-41. Read More