Management Theories Comparison - Coursework Example

Management Theories Comparison Name: Management Theories Comparison Course: Tutor: Institution: Date: Introduction Organisational management efficiency is a critical success tool. As Mullins and Christy (2013, p.67) noted, the success or failure of any organizational venture is pegged on the type and nature of management structures applied. Therefore, the concept of management has evolved over the years, influenced by both internal and external environmental factors. An illustration of management concept changes is illustrated by the emergence of different management theories at different periods of time over the years. This essay offers a review of the contributions of one of the crucial management theorists Chester Bernard, who developed the Natural systems theory and the Inducement-contributions theory. The theorist contributions are compared and contrasted with other management theorists namely Elton Mayo and Mary Parker Follet who developed the Hawthorne studies and organisational theory respectively. Chester Bernard Theory Background Chester Bernard was an American public manager and business executive who lived between 1886-1961 (Scott, 1992, p.107). Over this period, he had encountered a number of organisations emerging and declining over his leadership years. Essentially, he sought to establish the cause and reasons as to why organizations were not perpetual, and often lasted for less than a century. One of the fundamental influences for the management theory formulation was Chester’s experience in managing American public and private sector organisations. In this case, as an executive management, he realised that lack of a systems approach, coordination and links between the executive management and the low level employees was a key challenge (Gitlow, 2004, p.17). Thus, as an individual, this motivated Chester to developing a theory that could help the executives overcome the challenge in the future. A second influencing factor for the theory development was the rising cases of globalisation. In this period, as Jaffe (2006, p.57) noted, the American corporations were venturing to the global market to emerge as multinational corporations. In this case, as American and global western MNCs emerged, there was the need to develop proper and operational systems. The operational systems were meant to ensure that the different global branches and organisational outlets functioned as a single system in the long run period. Therefore, the need to develop and establish a global functioning system for multinational corporations. A third influencing factors for the theory development was he rising global market competition. In this regard, as globalisation spread, the American corporations were facing increased competition from other foreign organisations. As such, there was the imperative need for the organisations to develop a sustainable model through which their operational effectiveness and efficiency would be facilitated (Nohria, Khurana and Anand, 2010, p.27). Therefore, in order to create a sustainable organisational model, Chester developed the natural systems theory. In this case, the theorist developed a definition for organisational effectiveness and efficiency, by noting that while as effectiveness was meeting organisational goals, efficiency was delivering on the employee needs and emotions to increase motivation. Through the theory development, organizations were expected to harmonise their operations. As such, through crating functional and coordinated systems, the theorists expected to enables organisations increase their efficiency in the wake of expected increased market competition. Thus, the above analysis evidences that besides the external market management factors, the development of Chester’s natural systems theory was also a product of his personal professional encounters. Comparing and Contrasting with Mary Follet Theory Perception An analysis of Chester Bernard Natural systems theory and Mary Follet organisational theory reveals a number of similarities as well as differences. In this case, this essay section offers an analysis of the key theories similarities and differences respectively. Similarities One of the key similarities between both theories was the focus on the employees. On one hand, Mary Follet theory was pegged on the need to develop and establish relationships with the employees. In this case, the theory held that organisational success was not only base on the existing tangible resources, but also the intangible resources (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2012, p.119). In this regard, the theory was a development form the classical scientific theory model. In this case, unlike the earlier theories, it advocated for the developed of employee relationships. Thus, rather than mainly focusing on developing scientific systems, the theory advocated for relationships. In particular, the theorist argued that in order to increase organisational success, the management should develop relationships with the employees. In this case, it advocated for the development of relationships with the employees (Graham, Kanter and Drucker, 2003, p.135). The theorist argued that through the concept of power in organization could not be exercised and imposed over the employees. Instead, it argued that power could only be derived from the employees. Therefore, the theorist argued for the creation and development of a win-win situation between the management and the employees. As such, the theorist offered the first focus on the adoption of an employee rather than productivity focused management approach (Tonn, 2003, p.137). Similarly, Chester Natural systems theory was based on the same perception. In this case, the theorist developed the Inducement-contribution theory. The theory was based on the understanding that one of the approaches through which to boast performance was through proper treatment of the employees. In this case, the theorist held that employee motivation to deliver and produce in an organisation was base on the rewards offered to them. The theorist held that through the development of incentives, managers could increase employee contributions (Gautam and Batra, 2007, p.33). Therefore, similar to Mary Follet, Chester held that the only key approach to increasing employee productivity was through creating relationships. As such, Chester developed the win-win situation through the provision of incentives. In this case, while as the employees won through incentives and remunerations, the mangers won through increased employee motivation and productivity in their respective organisations. Therefore, the above analysis on both Chester and Mary Follet had a similar perception on management in that the use of HR relationships and incentives was a core management success element (Sheldrake, 2003, p.117). Differences Besides the discussed similarities between Mary Follet and Chester Bernard theoretical perspectives, both of the theories had their differences. One of the differences is based on the main theoretical focus. On one hand, Mary Follett’s organisational theory was based on the development of HR workforce as a critical management component. In this regard, the theory was based on developing the role of employees’ inclusion and relationships in managing an organisation successfully (Follett, 2013, p.92). Therefore, the analysis evidences that Mary Follet was inclined to developing HR as the only critical component to management success. On the contrary, Chester Bernard had a differing perception. In this case, the theorist, although recognising the role of managing HR in n organisation, was inclined to the conclusive integration of all the organisational systems. Through the theorist advocacy for system equilibrium it is evidence on the theorists’ perception. The system equilibrium analogy holds for the need for organisations to establish equilibrium with both the external and internal factors. Therefore, based on this analogy, Thompson (2011, p.34) argued that Chester as a theorist believed that successful management was not based on a successful management of the internal factors and resources alone, but also through aligning an organisational systems with the external environment. Hence, based on the above analysis, it is apparent that where as Mary Follet focused on managing the internal resources to increase management success, Chester focused on integrating both internal and external factors to create a functional management and organisational sustainable system. In summary, the comparison and contrast between Mary Follet and Chester theories indicate that Chester built on Mary Follett’s idea of employee and management win-win through incentives. However, the theorist expanded the perception of management to include external factors and elements besides the internal elements consideration as Mary Follet had argued. Comparing and Contrasting with Elton Mayo Theory Perception This essay analysis section offers a review of the similarities and differences between Chester Theoretical perceptive and Elton Mayo’s. Similarities The two Theorists, namely Chester and Elton had similar perceptions to management in organisations. On one hand, Elton Mayo developed the Hawthorne studies. The Hawthorne studies were a series of studies evaluating the key issues that motivated employees. In this case, the theorist analysis was guided by the understanding that employees’ management and motivation was a critical component to facilitating organisational management success in organisations (Trahair and Trahair, 2005, p.27). The theorist analysis argued that employees were increasingly motivated by management inclusion and managerial attention. Thus, its main conclusion was that through management attention and employee group involvement, the employees were motivated to increase productivity in their respective organisations. The theorist findings were similar to the theoretical arguments developed by Chester (Barnard, 1968, p.73). On his part, Chester argued on the adoption of the incentives d persuasion for employees. In particular, the theorist addressed the issue of persuasion including inoculation that involved educating employees on organisational values. In this case, Chester argued that through educating employees on organisational and professional values, it incorporated understanding and resulting employees motivation in the long run period. The analysis can be described as in congruence with Elton Mayo’s’ argument on role of management commitment and employee inclusion (Cole, 2004, p.32). On one hand, the process of educating employees on professional and organisational values described by Chester is a demonstration of management commitment described by Elton in his later Hawthorne studies. Similarly, both Chester and Elton were focused on the role of employees’ motivation in enhancing management success. In this regard, the underlying motivation for both theorists’ perspectives was based on the need to develop a framework through which employees’ inclusion could be applied as a practical approach to mitigating management challenges in organisations. Thus, on one hand, Chester developed a recommendation based on the inducement-contribution theory to encourage employee reward to increase motivation (Hefner and Seifert, 1980, p.37). On the other hand, Elton advocated for increased employee motivation through management involvement and group use among the workforce. Differences Although there are a number of similarities between Elton and Chester, the two theorists have differing perceptive. One of the main differences is the use of financial incentives. On one hand, Chester had argued that employees could be motivated through incentives. In this case, as Witzel and Warner (2013, p.127) noted, key of the incentives proposed by the theorist were financial incentives. In this case, the theorist argued that if the financial incentives and rewards were often higher than the perceived employee contribution, the employees would increase their contribution and motivation respectively. As such, the key pillar of the inducement-contribution theory was the development and use of incentives as a critical tool to increasing employee motivation and productivity. However, Elton arguments contradicted these arguments (Montana and Charnov, 2008, p.23). Based on the Hawthorne studies, the theorist concluded that other than financial incentives, management commitment and employee groups use were the critical motivation aspects. In this case, Elton emphasised on the need for the management to develop relationships and offer commitment to the employees. In this case, Crowther and Green (2004, p.35) noted that Elton’s argument argued on the need for the management to appeal to the employees social and emotional needs rather than the financial needs. On the contrary, Chester’s theory was inclined to the consideration and fulfilment of the different employee. In addition, Elton developed a new perception on the role of employee groups and team in organisational management (Schuler, 2008, p.172). As such, while as Chester had emphasized on the need for incentives and persuasion of individual employees, Elton emphasised on the need for the management to function and work in respective groups. Conclusion In summary, the essay offers a critical analysis of the Chester Bernard Natural systems theory. In this case, the essay establish that the formulation of the theory was influenced by both individual factors affecting Chester as an executive management and other external economic factors impacting on USA and global markets. In addition, the essay compared Chester’s theory with the organisational theory developed by Mary Follet. As such, it established similarity on focusing on HR as a critical management element. However, while as Follet focused purely on HR development, Chester focused on integrating all the systems both internal and external for management success. Finally, a comparison with Elton’s Hawthorne studies theory established similarities in the arguments for employee role in management, but differed on the perception of teams by Elton and incentives by Chester respectively. Thus, the essay concludes that while developing on Mary Follett’s arguments, Chester’s perception has been reviewed and improved by Elton arguments. References Barnard, C. I. 1968, The functions of the executive (Vol. 11). Harvard university press, New York.. Cole, G. A. 2004, Management theory and practice, Thomson Learning, London. Crowther, D., & Green, M. 2004, Organisational theory, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Follett, M. P. 2013, Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett, Martino Publishing, Mansfield Centre, CT Gautam, V., & Batra, S. K. 2007, Organisation development systems: A study in organisation behaviour and organisation management, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi Gitlow, A. L. 2004, Being the boss: The importance of leadership and power, Beard Books, Washington, DC Graham, P., Kanter, R. M., & Drucker, P. F. 2003, Mary Parker Follett. Washington: Beard Books. Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. 2012, Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press, Oxford. Hefner, R. L., & Seifert, E. H. 1980, Studies in administrative theory. American Press Boston, Mass:. Jaffe, E. D. 2006, Globalization and development, Chelsea House, Philadelphia Montana, P. J., & Charnov, B. H. 2008, Management. Barron's Educational Series, Hauppauge, NY Mullins, L. J., Christy, G., & Pearson. 2013, Management & organisational behaviour, Pearson, Harlow. Nohria, N., Khurana, R., & Anand, B. 2010, Handbook of leadership theory and practice: An HBS centennial colloquium on advancing leadership, Harvard Business Press, Boston, Mass Schuler, J. 2008, Organizational theory: Just the facts, LuLu Enterprises, Morrisville, NC Scott, W. G. 1992, Chester I. Barnard and the guardians of the managerial state, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. Sheldrake, J. 2003, Management theory. Thomson, Australia Thompson, J. D. 2011, Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory (Vol. 1). Transaction publishers. Tonn, J. C. 2003, Mary P. Follett: Creating democracy, transforming management, Yale University Press, New Haven. Trahair, R. C., & Trahair, R. C.2005, Elton Mayo: The humanist temper, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ: Witzel, M., & Warner, M. 2013, The Oxford handbook of management theorists. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More