Management Behavior
Many studies have been carried out in order to establish appropriate management theories and styles that organizations can adopt in order to succeed. Studies on the same from scholars with diverse backgrounds have been useful in the improvement of the previous leadership models and theories. The theories and leadership models have been advancing or evolving constantly. This study offers a succinct comparison of various leadership theories and styles whilst elucidating the basic facets that characterize them (Mahadevan, 2009, p.26).
Various management theories have been postulated in the twentieth century defining the perspective we have on management regarding the current business environment. Managers have been able to implement and appreciate new ways of managing people and organizations, new thinking patterns through the help of emerging theories. In the years that have passed, the emerging theories have been responsible for assisting the study trends that have undergone in the field of management (Cole, 2008, p.21). The key management viewpoints (contingency approaches, behavioral approaches, and classical approaches) have played a major role in the development of the contemporary management techniques and theories in the 21st century. Although significant varieties of these approaches exist, they tend to support a common effort of improving the efficiency of an organization based on proper management of human resources. Additionally, the observable differences in these approaches arise because organizations change constantly. The environment demands that new management techniques and practices to be applied for organization’s efficiency to be sustained (Mahadevan, 2009, p.78).
The classical theory of management was the outcome of a struggle of developing a management body: the theorists who took part in the effort are regarded as pioneers of the study of the management. The classical viewpoint stresses work and organization management efficiency in order to increase the production output. This approach may be classified into three fields: bureaucratic, administrative, and scientific management (Mahadevan, 2009, p.37). In early 1900s, the outline of an ideal organization. Max Webber’s theory was based on divisions separated in impersonal relations, regulations/rules, hierarchy and labor and authority in an organization. He made it clear that this will guarantee the maintenance of accountability, promote the employees based on merit and not anything superficial, and create a consistent model. The theory by Webber still holds its ground today as a primary managing structure. At the place of work, there are various authority levels, governing rules and regulations, and a certain mode of handling different situations. These company factors promote consistent result, and no mistake accountability room is left (Sapru, 2008, p.89).
Some years later, there emerged a frontier in labor management. It was inclusive of the incentive system that Henry Gant introduced and Fredrick Taylor’s scientific management. The system of incentive was inclusive of persistent repercussion to implement a certain character. A good is example is bonus provision for all the tasks completed in due time or where more points are substituted to punishment. This idea was very ingenious and still it is being used currently for promoting great customer service, quality, or quick production. Provided a prize desired for an employee exists, they will always work towards achieving those material things they desire. Nevertheless, scientific management, was the act of separating a large task into smaller tasks to see off the efficiency of production, time savvy and easily (Cole, 2008, p.73).
Credit may be given to Ford for having had the first assembly line, but others believe that it was Taylor Fredrick who gave the comment on this idea and outlined its attributes, which were positive. In the years that followed, there emerged another factor of scientific management from Frank and Lillian Gilbreth. They undertook the study of body motion for working individuals. They gained the knowledge that they could lower their motion amount in a given task process to reduce the waste of time and energy. This may not be a popular training aspect currently. Many individuals think that workers come up with their style of performing tasks and discover ways of shortening the time taken on a given process as they become more comfortable with them (Yeatts, & Hyten, 2010, p.72).
In the mid-twenties, behavioral approaches are inclusive of social and psychological interaction was made use of to and promote productivity. From the studies of Hawthorne on anything apart from the physical conditions of working, in-group influences may have an impact on the behavior of an individual and the job performance. It also has it that the attitude of an employee was directly translated in the level of production for the subject individual. After the release of this information, Mary Parker was the first researcher to discover that an organization could be observed from an employee’s perspective or group’s perspective. She noted that organizations should put more focus on the autonomy and participation of employees, and the managers had the responsibility of coordinating group efforts. It is very noticeable for one to observe large companies in terms of for the input of employees and participation incentives. This is a significant factor of interpersonal relations because many employees do not view the company as an avenue of synchronizing their paycheck and their job. Nevertheless, by stressing that the productivity of everyone constitutes to the final success of the organization, which later on it amounts more revenue (Talluri, & Van, 2009, p.44).
Although the push was currently for communication in an organization, Likert Rensis categorized communication into three branches like participative group systems, consultative, and benevolent-authoritative. The last of the three comprised of the responsibilities of the highest motivation and level of threat. The second system (the consultative system) is all about not entrusting the subordinates, workers with higher level have the feeling of being responsible and motivated with minor involvement. The system of participation proves to be the most successful with no doubt, confidence existing between the subordinates and superiors, each of them have the feeling of being responsible for contributing to complete the goals and the rewards are on the basis of what everyone chooses as a goal. With this system, communication and involvement are very active. Success in my opinion is measured in terms of customer service, product quality, monetary gains, and interpersonal satisfaction that the company values or considers worthy. The success of a company may come in the form of monetary gain but still lack employee happiness that could be limiting future success (Talluri, & Van, 2009, p.52).
When participative systems are used sometimes excessively, a consultative factor arises. An organization may have a manager who does not believe in the ability of his or her group, thereby creating weak points in the infrastructure and constraints communication or productivity. The workloads may even become distributed unevenly thereby crediting some of employees with more contribution to the achievement of success than the others. A way of gaining possession of participative systems is getting to hire natural leaders. Hiring people who have knowledge in extroversion and communication ability of enforcing while making the subordinates feel important will guarantee success in all fields of the organization. The 1930s trait theory declared that various features of a leader who has been proposed revolved within five main traits of personality, emotional and extroversion intelligence being the most significant (Cole, 2008, p.27).
References
Cole, G.A. (2008). Management theory and practice. London: Thomson Learning.
Mahadevan, B. (2009). Operations management: Theory and practice. New Delhi: Published by Dorling Kindersley (India), licensees of Pearson Education in South Asia.
Sapru, R.K. (2008). Administrative theories and management thought. New Delhi: PHI Learning.
Talluri, K.T., & Van, R.G.J. (2009). The theory and practice of revenue management. New York, NY: Springer.
Yeatts, D.E., & Hyten, C. (2010). High-performing self-managed work teams: A comparison of theory to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
