The Role of Management in organization

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The role of management
Management role by other writers
Analysis
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The main role of management is categorized into four functions, i.e. Controlling, Leading, Organizing and planning. Many textbooks depict these functions as the simple, clear and unchanging guidelines to perfect management. However, the role of management is more than just following simple rules of procedure.

These functions looks very ideal to work with and they lay out a god framework through which managers should work with, but they do not represent the day-to-day challenges that face a manager. This essay analyses various textbooks and how each of them depict the role of management.

The role of management

Role of management as depicted by the study book

The text book paints the role of management as a rational and technical function. F.W. Taylor, for example, believed that “the way to create the most efficient division of labor could best be determined by scientific management techniques rather than intuitive of informal rule-of-thumb knowledge,” (Waddell et al 2007, P. 43).

He further four principles of management as “developing a for each job element, scientifically selecting an training workers, formulating science principles to be followed and equal division of work and responsibilities between workers and management,” (Waddell et al 2007, P.44). This may be conclusively said to be his idea of management’s role of planning, leading, organizing, and controlling.

The Gilbreth’s too, in “their goal to achieve maximum efficiency, undertook to develop efficiency principle of management to be applied in all areas,” (Waddell et al 2007, P. 47). To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the administrative function, Max Weber developed “formalized rules, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and norms,” (Waddell et al 2007, P. 49), popularly known as principles of bureaucracy.

To him bureaucracy was the gateway to achieving organizational goals by enabling effective directing and control of workers. Henri Fayol too believed that the only way “to achieve efficiency of management is by the use of some standard principles which he came up with, to be used by managers in their management role which he identified as planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling” (Waddell et al 2007, P. 52), which equate to the modern management functions as POLC.

This stand was challenged by Parker Follet who disagreed with flow of authority from top to bottom and viewed that workers too should be included in the decision making, but Fayol’s principles have stood the test of time and are still very applicable to date.

Management role by other writers

Jackall maintains that scientific principles of management are crucial to management process when it comes to middle-managers. Well formulated principles outlines what a manager needs to do when and thus removes the constant fear that such managers feel of “being found not measuring up to the expectations in their social world,” (Jackall, 1988, P. 79).

Tasks are broken into smaller portions and also knowledge conferred and required by each piece. However, he admits that scientific principles will not be helpful to a senior manager who need to make, what he calls, ‘gut decisions’ which are complex and involve large amounts of capital outlay.

According to him, “numeric measures and other seemingly sophisticated analytical tools can only be “guideposts” in making such decisions,” (Jackall 1988, P.81). But Parker was of the opinion that management cannot be a rational and technical role. He states that management must conform to industrial changes and social progress. In his own words, “it would make no sense to disentangle…‘management’ from the everyday skills through which life was lived,” (Parker 2002, P. 5).

He views management, though, as an art that once learnt becomes universally applicable to all situations. Roberts views scientific methods of management as essential sources of techniques that managers can use to effectively manage their entities. On the other hand, “such techniques are inadequate to the task that is set for them and, only by acknowledging the moral character of their practice, will managers be able to become truly effective,” (Roberts 1984 P. 288).

Thus, managers are morally neutral characters in their ways of controlling others. Others like Knight and Roberts believe that management power does not only rest with the managers but also the subordinates, (Knight & Roberts, 1928). Managers draw their power from the people they manage and therefore this cannot be rational and technical as in scientific management.

Terkel, in his narration of his job in the executive says that, he can’t tell “of any situation in the corporate world where an executive is completely free and sure of his job from moment to moment,” (Terkel 1974, 335). This is because they are constantly under pressure from both within, e.g., shareholders and outside the organization. Thus, management role cannot be rational and technical.

Analysis

The study book by Waddell et al, 2007, holds a rigid position on the role of management. Most of the theories of management discussed hold that from management to be effective, managers must follow some preset standards and procedures. According to them, failure to adhere to such principles would lead to total failure of the management.

Their principles have been applied over a long stretch of time and even now some of their principles have trickled down to modern management. Some writers still believe that scientific methods help managers to reduce uncertainty found in management and makes performance of tasks relatively easy since they are well broken down and defined, (Jackall, 1988).

But modern writers have realized that management is more than being technical and rational. It involves the ability to cope with the industrial developments and social progress, (Parker 2002). Others believe that both methods are intertwined and it is hard to separate the two from each other. Simply put, none can survive without the other.

Conclusion

The most logical line of argument is that the two methods are paramount to success of an organization since as much as management is about dealing with day to day life, lack of clear guidelines to indicate what is to be done, when and by who may result to a state of chaos and conflicts. On the other hand religious adherence to some rational and technical guidelines will be a hindrance to creativity and innovation and it may take long adapting to change.

This in effect will lead to slow development of the entire organization. Therefore managers should adopt methods of management that are a combination of both methods. The laid down policies and procedures should not be too rigid as to make it hard to adapt to new circumstances. On the other hand, they should be such as to enable one to know his authority and scope of duty.

References

Jackall, R. (1988) Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. Chapter 4, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Knights, D & Roberts, J. (1928) The Power of Organization or the Organization of Power? Department of Management Science, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester, England.

Parker, M. (2002) Against Management: Management and its Discontents, Cambridge, Polity

Roberts, J. (1948) The Moral Character of Management Practice. Journal of Management Studies, 21, 3. Department of Accounting and Business Finance, University of Manchester

Terkel, S. (1974) Working. Middlesex. ND Penguin.

Waddell, et al. (2007) Contemporary management. McGraw Hill: Australia pty limited.

Click Here To Order Now!