Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Basic management theory
Basic management theory
Basic management theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In different industries, there are companies that operate for a purpose, but the bottom line is the management style between supervisors and subordinate can break or make an organization. Organizations and businesses have to run their management a certain way in order to motivate their employees. The main type of organization management is the Classical Theory which contains Theory X. There are five key employee conflict management styles. Building relationships between employees and managers is crucial for an organization to function and execute their purpose whether it is to provide a service or product. Both theories and conflict strategies were present in the film “Office Space” to demonstrate the negatives of corrupt management and ongoing conflicts which were not resolved that led to destruction.
An organization’s structure can affect its efficiency and productivity. The two main management theories are the Classic Theory and Theory X. Classical theory is defined as a management theory of a large organization in which management is led by intuition to motivate and control employees (Hamilton, 2008 p. 41). The Classic Theory can be divided into two large subgroups, scientific managers and bureaucratic theorists. Scientific manager’s focus is on reducing production costs while bureaucratic theorists focus is on administrative efficiency (Hamilton, 2008 p. 43). Although Theory X is not a large subgroup of the Classical Theory, it is under the classical theory and its crucial point is that workers are assumed lazy; therefore managers punish them to motivate them. Managers of Theory X believe that the average person; will avoid work because they do not like work, will not strive to achieve objectives, will avoid responsibilit...
... middle of paper ...
...
Curtis , R. A. (2012, April 11). The Relationship between Motivation and Productivity! | Create Efficiency In Your Life. Retrieved April 8, 2014, from http://efficiencyinlife.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/the-relationship-between-motivation-and-productivity/
Employee Retention – How to Retain Employees - Small Business - WSJ.com. (n.d.). Retrieved April 8, 2014, from http://guides.wsj.com/small-business/hiring-and-managing-employees/how-to-retain-employees/
Hamilton, C. (2008). Communicating for results: A guide for business and the professions(8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Herrick, J., & Sondra, C. (n.d.). How to Resolve a Conflict at Work: 12 Steps (with Pictures). Retrieved April 8, 2014, from http://www.wikihow.com/Resolve-a-Conflict-at-Work
Judge, M. (Director). (1999). Office Space [Motion picture]. U. S.: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.
Taylorism is a system that was designed in the late 19th century, not only to maximise managerial control, but to also expand the levels of efficiency throughout workplaces. With this being said, productivity levels increased and fair wage distribution was the main result. However, with other, more recent theories and systems, such as Maslow and Herzburg’s theories, these helped to focus on the satisfaction and motivation of the workers rather than the concern of managerial control and empowerment. Fredrick W. Taylor ended up developing 4 main principles to help increase the work efficiency and productivity in workplaces; these will be discussed later on. Other theories relating to this include, Fayol, Follett, Management Science Theory as well as Organisational-Environmental Theory. All theories listed have an influence on the way businesses work effectively and put their skills to action. This essay will highlight how Taylorism was designed to maximise managerial control and increase productivity, furthermore, showing how more recent theories were developed to focus on empowering employees and to extend the use of organisational resources.
In several occasions, conflict occurs in the communication of one or two people. Several people have thought of conflict as cases involving pouring of furious anger in a communication process. Nonetheless, conflict is the misinterpretation of an individual’s words or values (Huan & YAzdanifard, 2012). Conflict can also be due to limited resources in an organization (Riaz & Junaid, 2010). Conflict may as well arise due to poor communication or the use of inappropriate communication channel of transmission of information between the involved parties. Management of conflict has various conflict management styles that include avoidance style, forcing style, passive-aggressive style, accommodating style, collaborating style and compromising style. Workplace conflict comes in two different kinds: task involving conflict, which focuses on the approaches used in resolving the problem and blaming conflict that has the aspects of blame and never brings element of resolving problems between the conflicting parties. In the perception of several individuals, relationship conflict is negative.
The classical approach can be understood easily if we compare the organization to a machine. This concept, formulated during the industrial period, was the subject of study for people who thought science could solve every issue and tried to apply it to different types of organizations. Researchers such as Weber, Taylor and Fayol wanted to determine if there is a way to make workers operate in a scientific manner in order to maximize profits. The assumption is that an employee is part of a machine, which can perform a specialized job when properly trained, conscious of the fact that every “part” of the machine can be replaced. Taylor studied different workplaces and under what circumstances workers are more or less productive. He also believed that there was only one way on how to perform a job and one way to explain it. Taylor’s key points of scientific management can be divided into three core concepts:
“Management is a process of planning, organisation, command, coordination, and control” (Morgan 2006, p.18). Rational organisation design is a bureaucratic method of management which emphasizes efficiency to achieve the end goal and the management of multiple companies have taken upon this system. Figures such as Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford have both shown and laid a path way for Rational Organisation which has become known as Taylorism and Fordism. The design has received criticism and both Taylor and Ford have been portrayed as villains with Taylor being called “enemy of the working man” (Morgan 2006, p.23) as the system dehumanised workers by taking all of the thought and skill from them and giving it to the managers this is because the tasks given were simple and repetitive. As staff needed little training they became an easily replaceable asset and thus more machine than human.
However, in the real world, (real work environment) there are no two contrasting categories of employees who extremely fit theory X or theory Y and McGregor theory X and Theory Y has no empirical data that validated the theory. Moreover, since each human being is unique, which make us have our individual differences; there are numerous factors that can motivate employees. Using one or two factors as instruments of motivation may turn off some segment of employees. For example, Theory Y style managers’ may likely focus on measures of productivity rather than measures of employee well-being; or in other words, engage in an inducing form of management rather than employees' concerns, thereby patronizing only idea of inducing increased productivity from employees; and also, theory X managers may end-up being autocratic
Although there is a plethora of possible sources of conflict in any workplace, the ones in this case are rather explicit. These include personal differences, Informal deficiencies’, role incompatibility, environment stress, perceptions, and expectations. Personal differences could be related to personal values, physiognomies, family bonds or ties, and material belongings.
Since the end of the 19th century, when factory manufacturing became widespread and the size of organisations increased, people have been looking for ways to motivate employees and improve productivity. A need for management ideas arise which lead to classical contributors such as Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol generating management theories such as Taylor’ Scientific Management and Fayol’s Administrative Management. In the late 1920’s and early 1930’s the Hawthorne studies were conducted where Elton Mayo was the predominate figure and contributed to the Behavioural viewpoint. This brought about a Human Relations Movement which included Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y approach. Similarities and differences can be found between the theories due to the relevant time period they were implemented, the motives or goal of the theory and how they view organisations. However the use of contingency theory can help negate the dissimilarities which occur as it allows the relevant elements from each theory to be applied to specific situations.
The classical approach to management was the result of an effort to develop a body of management thinking, and the management theorists who participated in this effort are considered the pioneers of management study. The classical viewpoint emphasises efficiency in managing work and organisations in order to increase production (S. C. Certo & S. T. Certo, 2006).... ... middle of paper ... ...
Many people enjoy working or participating in a group or team, but when a group of people work together chances are that conflicts will occur. Hazleton describes conflict as the discrepancy between what is the perceived reality and what is seen as ideal (2007). “We enter into conflicts reluctantly, cautiously, angrily, nervously, confidently- and emerge from them battered, exhausted, sad, satisfied, triumphant. And still many of us underestimate or overlook the merits of conflict- the opportunity conflict offers every time it occurs” (Schilling, nd.). Conflict does not have to lead to a hostile environment or to broken relationships. Conflict if resolved effectively can lead to a positive experience for everyone involved. First, there must be an understanding of the reasons why conflicts occur. The conflict must be approached with an open mind. Using specific strategies can lead to a successful resolution for all parties involved. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument states “there are five general approaches to dealing with conflict. The five approaches are avoidance, accommodation, competition, compromise, and collaboration. Conflict resolution is situational and no one approach provides the best or right approach for all circumstances” (Thomas, 2000).
There are several theories that examine an organization and it’s approach to managing work in an effort to develop efficiency and increase production. Two classical approaches to management are Taylor’s scientific management theory and Weber's bureaucratic management theory. Both men are considered pioneers of in the study of management.
Gross and Guerrero (2000) supported Rahim’s conflict management styles and identified that these styles are associated with organizational climate and culture, job satisfaction. Their research on 50 employees uncovered some facts include employees who were involved in unmanaged conflict end up in job dissatisfaction and subsequently their performance deters (p. 208). The competence-based model developed by Canary, Cupach and Serpe (2001) contrast with Rahim’s theory, where the effectiveness of conflict management styles is based on the situation and understanding of individuals (p. 81). They tried to find a resolution for the conflict instead of implementing the strategy to reduce tension by applying conflict management styles, resulting in inconsistent outcomes (p. 531).
The main aim of the article was to gain an understanding of what causes conflict between the employees and their immediate supervisors. This article found four main causes of conflicts between employees and their supervisors. At the end, the article also revealed the roles of styles of conflict management as well as the structural approach when it comes to conflict management. The first cause of conflict between employees and supervisors is performance evaluation.
Employee motivation has always been a central problem in the workplace, and, as an individual in a supervisory position, it becomes one’s duty to understand and institute systems that ensure the proper motivation of your subordinates. Proper motivation of employees can ensure high productivity and successful workflow, while low worker motivation can result in absenteeism, decreased productivity rates, and turnover. A large body of research has been produced regarding motivation, and much of this research is applicable to the workplace. Due to the nature of man, motivation varies from individual to individual, and, because of this, there is no one system that is the best for ensuring worker motivation in every organizational situation, and, as a product, many theories have been created to outline what drives people to satisfactorily complete their work tasks. Throughout the course of this document, the three main types of these motivational theories will be outlined and examples of each, as well as how these theories can be used to further strengthen and sustain worker motivation....
Managers and associates continually face conflict in the workplace. Using the five conflict resolution styles and knowing when to use them makes resolving differences easier.
The evolution of management though the decades can be divided into two major sections. One of the sections is the classical approach. Under the classical approach efficiency and productivity became a critical concern of the managers at the turn of the 20th century. One of the approaches from the classical time period were systematic management which placed more emphasis on internal operations because managers were concerned with meeting the growth in demand brought on by the Industrial revolution. As a result managers became more concerned with physical things than towards the people therefore systematic management failed to lead to production efficiency. This became apparent to an engineer named Frederick Taylor who was the father of Scientific Management. Scientific Management was identified by four principles for which management should develop the best way to do a job, determine the optimum work pace, train people to do the job properly, and reward successful performance by using an incentive pay system. Scientifi...