1
Ashley White
U3137815
Essay on Management Theory
Word Count: 2223
2
‘Modern management is situational in orientation and denies the ‘one best way’
approach’ - To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Justify your
answer by looking into the various management theories.
3
Through research of many different theorists, theories, and cases studies, the
thesis of this paper is as follows; modern management is situational in orientation, and
denies a best one-way approach to managing businesses. This paper will prove this thesis
through analyzing some of the past classical theorists, and the theory known as the
contingency theory, the theory that supports one size does not fit all, in regards to
management. Modern management is a complex and difficult line of work, one that
cannot be defined through a number of required principles, tasks, and procedures it has
given managers today a very difficult task, not one that they can just scientifically break
down the issue that occurred, but a task that involves many different aspects. “The
managerial task involves analyzing the organization and its context, and identifying
opportunities, constraints, and options” (Stoner, Yetton, Craig, Johnston, 1994).
Classical management theories have been used for many years in the past, and in
some cases, they are still used to manage companies today. The many classical theorists
include Max Weber, Frederick Taylor, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, Mary Parker Follet,
and Henry Fayol. These theorists have created countless different styles of management
that, for years, were each individually used effectively, if applied to the right company
and time frame. I have chosen a couple of these many theorists to outline their
approaches to management and their difference between modern approaches to
management.
Max Weber, one of the earliest classical theorists created the bureaucratic
approach to management. A bureaucracy is characterized by a clear division of labor, a
clear hierarchy of authority, formal rules and procedures, impersonality, and careers
based on merit (Schermerhorn, J., Davidson, P., Poole, D., Woods, P., Simon, A., &
4
McBarron, E., 2014). Weber believed that this approach was the best way for
management and efficiency to be achieved, here is an excerpt of a quote found in
Historical Foundations of Management by Max Weber himself,
The purely bureaucratic type of administrative organization…is, from a purely
technical point of view, capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency…It is
superior to any other form in precision, in stability, in the stringency of its
discipline, and in its reliability. It thus makes possible a particularly high degree
of calculability of results for the heads of the organization and for those acting in
relation to it. It is finally superior both in intensive efficiency and in the scope of
its operations and is formally capable of application to all kinds of administrative
tasks (Schermerhorn, et al., 2014).
Also, found in an article titled Management Theory, Weber was quoted to have said that a
bureaucracy is the, “most capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency and the
most rationally known means of exercising authority over human beings” (Weymes,
2004). Weber, is just one of many examples of people creating and believing that their
approach to management is the best way.
Frederick Taylor and Frank and Lillian Gilbreth developed the scientific approach
to management. This is the use of scientific analysis to specify jobs and work methods to
increase their efficiency (Weymes, 2004). Scientific management can also be
characterized by a few principles including; develop for every job a science that includes
rules of motion, standardized work processes and proper working conditions, carefully
select workers with the right abilities for the hob, carefully train workers to do the job
and give them the proper incentives to cooperate with the job science, and support
5
workers to do the job and give them the proper incentives to cooperate with the job
(Schermerhorn, et al., 2014).
Both Weber and Taylor’s approaches to management could easily be defined with
a few leading principles and characteristics, both including specific procedures and
specific actions that need to be taken in certain circumstances, something that cannot be
applied to the ever changing modern management world today. Today’s work
environment has changed from an assembly line industrialized work environment to an
environment based on individual achievement, capabilities, and actions. With each
individual worker, their comes many different things that will motivate the worker or not.
With this difference in the work place, there shows a difference in management styles,
from one company to the next, management techniques greatly vary. This difference in
styles for each situation, manager, and work place, can be explained in the contingency
theory. Contingency theory “emphasizes that the appropriate pattern of organization is
contingent on the nature of the work to be done and on the particular needs of the people
involved” (Patz & Rowe, 1977).
Douglas McGregor then challenged the scientific, impersonal approach to
management in his book The Human Side of Enterprise (Weymes, 2004). He believed
that workers must be driven by rewards and punishment, that they must be motivated by
interesting work and entrusted to manage and direct their own behavior, they don’t need
this “command and control” ideology Weber and Taylor had created (Weymes, 2004). In
the 1980’s the Western nations were falling short of the Asian countries in production
efficiency, and profit of their organisations (Weymes, 2004). Total Quality Management
was then created, a people focused management philosophy, focused on the employees
6
and a system of rewards, incentives, and even punishments to motivate the worker.
(Weymes, 2004).
There are many different factors that go into modern management today, factors
that include culture, countries, continents, workers, amount of workers, size of
organization, size of industry, number of management positions, technology used in the
organization, and so on. Management technique variations can be seen from country to
country, according to an article Cultural Constraints in Management Theories, how
management is run and used and coined in the United States, is highly different from
other countries across the globe (Hofstede, 1993). Modern approaches to management
“…recognise that no one model or theory applies universally in all situations or to the
exclusion of the others” (Schermerhorn et al., 2014). This is the very essence of the
theories known as the contingency theory and the situational theory.
There are countless theorists who have researched and created different
approaches to the situational theory and the contingency theory, these include; Joan
Woodward, Tom Burns, G.M. Stalker, James Thompson, Derek Pugh, Paul Lawrence,
Jay Lorsch, John Child, Henry Mintzberg, Raymond Miles, Charles Snow, Andrew Van
de Ven, Fred Fiedler, Victor Vroom, Ohillip Yetton, Robert House and Lex Donaldson. I
will not go into detail of each of these theories; but will speak specifically about
contingency theory. Contingency theory, developed by Fiedler, essentially, is the answer
to my thesis. This theory states that there is no one best way approach to management,
each situation is different, each manager is different, and each organization is different.
You essentially, must find the right manager for the right situation.
7
In organisations today, each situation must be handled differently. “For example,
organizational tasks that are simple and repetitive, with little interdependence with other
units, are better managed with mechanistic, bureaucratic structures, which impose close
supervision or strict rule and procedures to enforce standardization. On the other hand,
tasks involving high uncertainty and interdependence, which necessitate greater
information processing and coordination, are best managed by a more flexible, organic
structure, which maximizes employee interaction and discretion” (Stoner, et. al.).
There are different people, different knowledge workers, different resources, and
different amounts of knowledge in each organization. According to Weymes, in his
journal article, Management Theory, “organisations now buy brains not brawn” (Weymes
2004). This simple statement clearly identifies the difference between the organisations
that were able to be run by one management approach and the organisations of today’s
society. The individual is highly emphasized in organizations today; the amount of
knowledge, talent, and skill each worker brings to each organization is one of the highest
priorities of each company. “Contingency theory of management and organization
suggests that control decisions should be based upon the nature of the task and on the
particular needs of the individuals involved. The most important of these needs is that an
individual has to master the world around him and develop a sense of competence” (Patz
& Rowe, 1977).
When looking at strategic management, there are many factors behind a
companies strategy, these factors include positioning an organization for competitive
advantage, making choices about which markets to participate in, what products and
services to offer, how to allocate corporate resources, create long-term value for
8
shareholders and other stakeholders and providing customer value, the result of choices
executives make about what to offer, where to play and how to win, to maximize longterm value (Kluyver and Pearce, 2015). In Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated
Approach, they speak about the concept of competitive advantage, a simple concept,
meaning your profitability is greater than that of your competitors (Hill, Jones, Schilling,
2013). This simple concept can very easily back up the fact that there is no best one way
approach to managing businesses, all businesses contain their own competitive
advantage. The reason that a company maintains their competitive advantage is because
they maintain something that makes them unique or different from all of their rivals. In
order to gain a unique advantage over your competitors, a company must be flexible in
figuring out what works best for them.
All organisations strive to become a high performance organisation in today’s
economy. Flexibility is one of the most important keys in the high performance
organisations management structures of today. “A flexible work place should be the goal
of every organisation for a higher performance. But the absence of strict, rigid rules does
not mean that everyone can do whatever they want. In high performance organizations,
there are discipline guidelines, but managers also have flexibility in the implementation
of these guidelines,” (Akdemir, Erdem, Polat, 2010). “The ideal or perfect structure of a
high performance organization depends on the organization’s context and focus, goals
and priorities, skills and experience levels, and culture.” (Akdemir, Erdem, Polat, 2010).
These high performance organisations are going to focus on the knowledge and the
humans involved in the organisation, rather than the rigid rules and applications of the
rules. A high performance organization (HPO) is defined by Development Dimensions
9
International in Pittsburgh as “one in which the culture provides employees with the
accountability and responsibility necessary to meet customer needs in a timely manner to
ensure business success” (Akdemir, Erdem, Polat, 2010). These organizations turn out to
be very situational in their management practices, this situational use of management
approaches adds to the success of the HPO’s.
Managers today have obtained a difficult task, a task of having to appeal to
individuals and their talents, rather than just working with individuals as machines.
Employees are no longer seen scientifically for their efficiency, in most organisations, but
managers must allocate please these employees, in order for them to do their job to their
highest potential. Through meticulous research of theories, case studies, and textbooks in
regards to modern management style, one can conclude that there is not any one best way
approach to management. “In modern management approach, there is no expectation that
you can or should find the one best way to manage in all circumstances” (Schermerhorn,
et al., 2014). Modern management, has evolved for many years now, and will always
evolve, due to the fast paced environment it was developed in. Classical theorists created
the grounds for management theories, that some companies still use as a basis for
managing today, but there is not one common technique, each company runs differently,
each company has different resources and advantages. Contingency theorists grow each
and every year, helping discover that with each situation, requires a certain style of
management, and each situation can not be handled the same as the last.
10
Works Cited
1. Akdemir, B., Erdem, O., & Polat, S. (2010). CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH
PERFORMANCE ORGANIZATIONS. Suleyman Demirel University Journal Of
Faculty Of Economics & Administrative Sciences, 15(1), 155-174.
2. BAER, M. (2012). PUTTING CREATIVITY TO WORK: THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF CREATIVE IDEAS IN ORGANIZATIONS. Academy Of Management
Journal, 55(5), 1102-1119. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.0470
3. Chester Barnard. (n.d.). Retrieved April 2, 2015, from
http://www.mbsportal.bl.uk/taster/subjareas/busmanhist/mgmtthinkers/barnard.as
px
4. Hill, C., & Jones, G. (2015). Strategic management: An integrated approach (11th
ed.). Stamford, Connecticut: South-Western, Cengage Learning.
5. Hirokawa, R., & Poole, M. (1996). <i>Communication and Group Decision
Making</i> (Second ed.). New Delhi: Sage.
6. Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Executive
(19389779), 7(1).
7. Kaplan, R.S., and D.P. Norton (1992) ‘The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive
Performance’, Harvard Business Review, January/February 1992: 71-79
8. Kluyver, C., & Pearce, J. (2015). Strategic Management An Executive Perspective.
(pp. 1-8). New York: Business Expert Press.
9. Patz, A., & Rowe, A. (1977). Beyond Theory Y. In <i>Management control and
decision systems: Text, cases, and readings</i> (p. 215). Santa Barbara [Calif.:
Wiley.
11
10. Schermerhorn, J., Davidson, P., Poole, D., Woods, P., Simon, A., & McBarron, E.
(2014). Historical Foundations of Management. (5th Asia-Pacific ed., pp. 37-52).
Queensland: John Wiley & Sons Australia.
11. Stoner, J., Yetton, P., Craig, J., & Johnston, K. (1994). <i>Management</i> (2nd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
12. Weymes, E. (2004). Management Theory. Journal Of Corporate Citizenship, (16), 8598.