assignment of management concept and practices

Submitted to: prof. shaifali Tripathi

Submitted by: Saurabh Kumar Agrawal

Mba 1st SEM

Section: A

Q.1-: Explain of the principle contribution F W Taylor to the development of management thought?

Ans: Frederick Winslow Taylor (March 20, 1856–March 21, 1915), widely known as F. W.

Taylor, was an American mechanical engineer who sought to improve industrial efficiency. He

is regarded as the father of scientific management, and was one of the first management

consultants.

Taylor was one of the intellectual leaders of the Efficiency Movement and his ideas, broadly

conceived, were highly influential in the Progressive Era.

Taylor believed that the industrial management of his day was amateurish, that management

could be formulated as an academic discipline, and that the best results would come from the

partnership between a trained and qualified management and a cooperative and innovative

workforce. Each side needed the other, and there was no need for trade unions.

Scientific Management and Frederick Winslow Taylor

By far the most influential person of the time and someone who has had an impact on management service practice as well as on management thought up to the present day, was F. W. Taylor. Taylor formalized the principles of scientific management, and the fact-finding approach put forward and largely adopted was a replacement for what had been the old rule of thumb.

He also developed a theory of organizations which altered the personalized autocracy which had only been tempered by varying degrees of benevolence, such as in the Quaker family businesses of Cadbury's and Clark's.

Taylor was not the originator of many of his ideas, but was a pragmatist with the ability to synthesize the work of others and promote them effectively to a ready and eager audience of industrial managers who were striving to find new or improved ways to increase performance.

At the time of Taylor's work, a typical manager would have very little contact with the activities of the factory. Generally, a foreman would be given the total responsibility for producing goods demanded by the salesman. Under these conditions, workmen used what tools they had or could get and adopted methods that suited their own style of work.

Taylor's scientific management consisted of four principles:

1. Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the

tasks.

2. Scientifically select, train, and develop each employee rather than passively leaving

them to train themselves.

3. Provide "Detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance of that

worker's discrete task" (Montgomery 1997: 250).

4. Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply

scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers actually perform

the tasks.

F.W. Taylor's contributions to scientific management

By 1881 Taylor had published a paper that turned the cutting of metal into a science. Later he turned his attention to shoveling coal. By experimenting with different designs of shovel for use with different material, (from 'rice' coal to ore,) he was able to design shovels that would permit the worker to shovel for the whole day.

In so doing, he reduced the number of people shoveling at the Bethlehem Steel Works from 500 to 140. This work, and his studies on the handling of pig iron, greatly contributed to the analysis of work design and gave rise to method study.

To follow, in 1895, were papers on incentive schemes. A piece rate system on production management in shop management, and later, in 1909, he published the book for which he is best known, Principles of Scientific Management.

A feature of Taylor's work was stop-watch timing as the basis of observations. However, unlike the early activities of Perronet and others, he started to break the timings down into elements and it was he who coined the term 'time study'.

Taylor's uncompromising attitude in developing and installing his ideas caused him much criticism. Scientific method, he advocated, could be applied to all problems and applied just as much to managers as workers. In his own words he explained:

"The old fashioned dictator does not exist under Scientific Management. The man at the head of the business under Scientific Management is governed by rules and laws which have been developed through hundreds of experiments just as much as the workman is, and the standards developed are equitable."

Objectives of Scientific Management

The four objectives of management under scientific management were as follows:

The development of a science for each element of a man's work to replace the old rule-of-thumb methods.

The scientific selection, training and development of workers instead of allowing them to choose their own tasks and train themselves as best they could.

The development of a spirit of hearty cooperation between workers and management to ensure that work would be carried out in accordance with scientifically devised procedures.

The division of work between workers and the management in almost equal shares, each group

taking over the work for which it is best fitted instead of the former condition in which

responsibility largely rested with the workers. Self-evident in this philosophy are organizations

arranged in a hierarchy, systems of abstract rules and impersonal relationships between staff.

Q.2-: What are the major findings of Hawthorne experiment? Examine their significance for the practice managers?

Ans: Elton Mayo's Hawthorne Experiments Findings

The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve an aspect of their behavior being experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that they are being studied,[1][2] not in response to any particular experimental manipulation.

The term was coined in 1955 by Henry A. Landsberger[3] when analyzing older experiments from 1924-1932 at the Hawthorne Works (a Western Electric manufacturing facility outside Chicago). Hawthorne Works had commissioned a study to see if its workers would become more productive in higher or lower levels of light. The workers' productivity seemed to improve when changes were made and slumped when the study was concluded. It was suggested that the productivity gain was due to the motivational effect of the interest being shown in them. Although illumination research of workplace lighting formed the basis of the Hawthorne effect, other changes such as maintaining clean work stations, clearing floors of obstacles, and even relocating workstations resulted in increased productivity for short periods of time. Thus the term is used to identify any type of short-lived increase in productivity

History

The term gets its name from a factory called the Hawthorne Works,[6] where a series of experiments on factory workers were carried out between 1924 and 1932.

This effect was observed for minute increases in illumination.Evaluation of the Hawthorne effect continues in the modern era.[7][8][9]Most industrial/occupational psychology and organizational behavior textbooks refer to the illumination studies. Only occasionally are the rest of the studies mentioned.[10] In the lighting studies, light intensity was altered to examine its effect on worker productivity.

Relay assembly experiments

In one of the studies, experimenters chose two women as test subjects and asked them to choose four other workers to join the test group. Together the women worked in a separate room over the course of five years (1927-1932) assembling telephone relays.

Output was measured mechanically by counting how many finished relays each dropped down a chute. This measuring began in secret two weeks before moving the women to an experiment room and continued throughout the study. In the experiment room, they had a supervisor who discussed changes with them and at times used their suggestions. Then the researchers spent five years measuring how different variables impacted the group's and individuals' productivity. Some of the variables were:

changing the pay rules so that the group was paid for overall group production, not individual production

giving two 5-minute breaks (after a discussion with them on the best length of time), and then changing to two 10-minute breaks (not their preference). Productivity increased, but when they received six 5-minute rests, they disliked it and reduced output.

providing food during the breaks

shortening the day by 30 minutes (output went up); shortening it more (output per hour went up, but overall output decreased); returning to the first condition (where output peaked).

Changing a variable usually increased productivity, even if the variable was just a change back to the original condition. However it is said that this is the natural process of the human being to adapt to the environment without knowing the objective of the experiment occurring. Researchers concluded that the workers worked harder because they thought that they were being monitored individually.

Researchers hypothesized that choosing one's own coworkers, working as a group, being treated as special (as evidenced by working in a separate room), and having a sympathetic supervisor were the real reasons for the productivity increase. One interpretation, mainly due to Elton Mayo,[citation needed] was that "the six individuals became a team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly and spontaneously to cooperation in the experiment." (There was a second relay assembly test room study whose results were not as significant as the first experiment.)

Interviewing Program

The workers were interviewed in attempt to validate the Hawthorne Studies. The participants were asked about supervisory practices and employee morale. The results proved that upward

communication in an organization creates a positive attitude in the work environment. The workers feel pleased that their ideas are being heard.

Bank wiring room experiments

The purpose of the next study was to find out how payment incentives would affect group productivity. The surprising result was that productivity actually decreased. Workers apparently had become suspicious that their productivity may have been boosted to justify firing some of the workers later on.[11] The study was conducted by Mayo and W. Lloyd Warner between 1931 and 1932 on a group of fourteen men who put together telephone switching equipment. The researchers found that although the workers were paid according to individual productivity, productivity decreased because the men were afraid that the company would lower the base rate. Detailed observation between the men revealed the existence of informal groups or "cliques" within the formal groups. These cliques developed informal rules of behavior as well as mechanisms to enforce them. The cliques served to control group members and to manage bosses; when bosses asked questions, clique members gave the same responses, even if they were untrue. These results show that workers were more responsive to the social force of their peer groups than to the control and incentives of management.

Q.3-: List the Fayol’s principle of management?

Ans: Fayol (1841-1925) Functions and Principles of Management

Henri Fayol, a French engineer and director of mines, was little unknown outside France until the late 40s when Constance Storrs published her translation of Fayol's 1916 “Administration Industrielle et Generale ".

Fayol's career began as a mining engineer. He then moved into research geology and in 1888 joined, Comambault as Director. Comambault was in difficulty but Fayol turned the operation round. On retirement he published his work - a comprehensive theory of administration - described and classified administrative management roles and processes then became recognized and referenced by others in the growing discourse about management. He is frequently seen as a key, early contributor to a classical or administrative management school of thought (even though he himself would never have recognized such a "school").

His theorizing about administration was built on personal observation and experience of what worked well in terms of organization. His aspiration for an "administrative science" sought a consistent set of principles that all organizations must apply in order to run properly.

Fayol was a key figure in the turn-of-the-century Classical School of management theory. He saw a manager's job as:

planning organizing

commanding

coordinating activities

controlling performance

Notice that most of these activities are very task-oriented, rather than people-oriented. This is very like.

Fayol laid down the following principles of organization (he called them principles of management):

1. Specialization/Division of Work. A principle of work allocation and specialization in order to concentrate activities to enable specialization of skills and understandings,

more work focus and efficiency. Specialization allows the individual to build up experience, and to continuously improve his skills. Thereby he can be more productive.

2. Authority. The right to issue commands, along with which must go the balanced responsibility for its function. A manager should never be given authority without responsibility--and also should never be given responsibility without the associated

authority to get the work done.3. Discipline. Employees must obey, but this is two-sided: employees will only obey

orders if management play their part by providing good leadership. The generalization about discipline is that discipline is essential for the smooth running of a business and without it - standards, consistency of action, adherence to rules and values - no enterprise could prosper.

4. Unity of Command. Each worker should have only one boss with no other conflicting lines of command. The idea is that an employee should receive instructions from one superior only. This generalization still holds - even where we are involved with team and matrix structures which involve reporting to more than one boss - or being accountable to several clients. The basic concern is that tensions and dilemmas

arise where we report to two or more bosses. One boss may want X, the other Y and the subordinate is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

5. Unity of Direction. People engaged in the same kind of activities must have the same objectives in a single plan. This is essential to ensure unity and coordination in the enterprise. Unity of command does not exist without unity of direction but does not necessarily flows from it. The unity of command idea of having one head (chief executive, cabinet consensus with agree purposes and objectives and one plan for a

group of activities) is clear.6. Subordination of individual interest to the general interest: Management must see that the goals of the firms are always paramount. Fayol's line was that one employee's interests or those of one group should not prevail over the organization as a whole. This would spark a lively debate about who decides that the interests of the

organization as a whole are. Ethical dilemmas and matters of corporate risk and the behavior of individual "chancres" are involved here. Fayol's work - assumes a shared set of values by people in the organization - a unitary where the reasons for organizational activities and decisions are in some way neutral and reasonable.

7. Remuneration. Payment is an important motivator although by analyzing a number of possibilities, Fayol points out that there is no such thing as a perfect system.

The general principle is that levels of compensation should be "fair" and as far as possible afford satisfaction both to the staff and the firm (in terms of its cost structures and desire for profitability/surplus).

8. Centralization (or Decentralization). This is a matter of degree depending on the condition of the business and the quality of its personnel. Centralization for Fayol is

essential to the organization and a natural consequence of organizing. This issue does not go away even where flatter, devolved organizations occur. Decentralization - is frequently centralized-decentralization!!! The modes of control over the actions and results of devolved organizations are still matters requiring considerable attention.

9. Scalar chain (Line of Authority). A hierarchy is necessary for unity of direction. But lateral communication is also fundamental, as long as superiors know that such communication is taking place. Scalar chain refers to the number of levels in the hierarchy from the ultimate authority to the lowest level in the organization. It should not be over-stretched and consist of too-many levels. The scalar chain of command of

reporting relationships from top executive to the ordinary shop operative or driver needs to be sensible, clear and understood.10. Order. Both material order and social order are necessary. The former minimizes lost time and useless handling of materials. The latter is achieved through organization and selection. The level of generalization becomes difficult with this principle. Basically

an organization "should" provide an orderly place for each individual member - who needs to see how their role fits into the organization and be confident, able to predict the organizations behavior towards them. Thus policies, rules, instructions and actions should be understandable and understood. Orderliness implies steady evolutionary movement rather than wild, anxiety provoking, unpredictable movement.

11. Equity. In running a business a ‘combination of kindliness and justice’ is needed. Treating employees well is important to achieve equity. Equity, fairness and a sense of justice "should” pervade the organization - in principle and practice.12. Stability of Tenure of Personnel. Employees work better if job security and career progress are assured to them. An insecure tenure and a high rate of employee

turnover will affect the organization adversely. Time is needed for the employee to adapt to his/her work and perform it effectively. Stability of tenure promotes loyalty to the organization, its purposes and values.13. Initiative. Allowing all personnel to show their initiative in some way is a source

of strength for the organization. Even though it may well involve a sacrifice of ‘personal vanity’ on the part of many managers. At all levels of the organizational structure, zeal;

enthusiasm and energy are enabled by people having the scope for personal initiative.14. Esprit de Corps. Management must foster the morale of its employees. He further suggests that: “real talent is needed to coordinate effort, encourage keenness,

use each person’s abilities, and reward each one’s merit without arousing possible jealousies and disturbing harmonious relations”. Here Fayol emphasizes the need for

building and maintaining of harmony among the work force, team work and sound interpersonal relationships.

Q.4-: a) Distinguish between classical & neo classical theory?

b) Human relation theory & scientific mgmt?

ans: a) Classical Organization Theory

Classical organization theory evolved during the first half of this century. It represents the merger of scientific management, bureaucratic theory, and administrative theory.

Frederick Taylor (1917) developed scientific management theory (often called "Taylorism") at the beginning of this century. His theory had four basic principles: 1) find the one "best way" to perform each task, 2) carefully match each worker to each task, 3) closely supervise workers, and use reward and punishment as motivators, and 4) the task of management is planning and control.

Initially, Taylor was very successful at improving production. His methods involved getting the best equipment and people, and then carefully scrutinizing each component of the production process. By analyzing each task individually, Taylor was able to find the right combinations of factors that yielded large increases in production.

While Taylor's scientific management theory proved successful in the simple industrialized companies at the turn of the century, it has not faired well in modern companies. The philosophy of "production first, people second" has left a legacy of declining production and quality, dissatisfaction with work, loss of pride in workmanship, and a near complete loss of organizational pride.

Max Weber (1947) expanded on Taylor's theories, and stressed the need to reduce diversity and ambiguity in organizations. The focus was on establishing clear lines of authority and control. Weber's bureaucratic theory emphasized the need for a hierarchical structure of power. It recognized the importance of division of labor and specialization. A formal set of rules was bound into the hierarchy structure to insure stability and uniformity. Weber also put forth the notion that organizational behavior is a network of human interactions, where all behavior could be understood by looking at cause and effect.

Administrative theory (i.e., principles of management) was formalized in the 1930's by Mooney and Reiley (1931). The emphasis was on establishing a universal set of management principles that could be applied to all organizations.

Classical management theory was rigid and mechanistic. The shortcomings of classical organization theory quickly became apparent. Its major deficiency was that it attempted to explain peoples' motivation to work strictly as a function of economic reward.

Neoclassical Organization Theory

The human relations movement evolved as a reaction to the tough, authoritarian structure of classical theory. It addressed many of the problems inherent in classical theory. The most serious objections to classical theory are that it created overconformity and rigidity, thus squelching creativity, individual growth, and motivation. Neoclassical theory displayed genuine concern for human needs.

One of the first experiments that challenged the classical view was conducted by Mayo and Roethlisberger in the late 1920's at the Western Electric plant in Hawthorne, Illinois (Mayo, 1933). While manipulating conditions in the work environment (e.g., intensity of lighting), they found that any change had a positive impact on productivity. The act of paying attention to employees in a friendly and

nonthreatening way was sufficient by itself to increase output. Uris (1986) referred to this as the "wart" theory of productivity. Nearly any treatment can make a wart go away--nearly anything will improve productivity. "The implication is plain: intelligent action often delivers results" (Uris, 1986, p. 225).

The Hawthorne experiment is quite disturbing because it cast doubts on our ability to evaluate the efficacy of new management theories. An organization might continually involve itself in the latest management fads to produce a continuous string of Hawthorne effects. "The result is usually a lot of wheel spinning and cynicism" (Pascale, 1990, p. 103). Pascale believes that the Hawthorne effect is often misinterpreted. It is a "parable about researchers (and managers) manipulating and 'playing tricks' on employees." (p. 103) Erroneous conclusions are drawn because it represents a controlling and manipulative attitude toward workers.

Writing in 1939, Barnard (1968) proposed one of the first modern theories of organization by defining organization as a system of consciously coordinated activities. He stressed in role of the executive in creating an atmosphere where there is coherence of values and purpose. Organizational success was linked to the ability of a leader to create a cohesive environment. He proposed that a manager's authority is derived from subordinates' acceptance, instead of the hierarchical power structure of the organization. Barnard's theory contains elements of both classical and neoclassical approaches. Since there is no consensus among scholars, it might be most appropriate to think of Barnard as a transition theorist.

Simon (1945) made an important contribution to the study of organizations when he proposed a model of "limited rationality" to explain the Hawthorne experiments. The theory stated that workers could respond unpredictably to managerial attention. The most important aspect of Simon's work was the rigorous application of the scientific method. Reductionism, quantification, and deductive logic were legitimized as the methods of studying organizations.

Taylor, Weber, Barnard, Mayo, Roethlisberger, and Simon shared the belief that the goal of management was to maintain equilibrium. The emphasis was on being able to control and manipulate workers and their environment.

b) Scientific mgmt

The scientific management movement emphasized a concern for task (output) i.e. it considered the individual worker to be the basic unit of Organization. While the Human Relations Movement stressed a concern for Relationships (people) i.e. the informal group was now the basis of organization. The function of the leader under

scientific management was to set work criteria and enforce them on the workers and was to be seen as the figure of high authority. While under the human relations movement, the function of the leader was to facilitate cooperation and coordination among the employees while providing assistance and opportunities for their ‘personal growth and development’ and was to be seen as “an agent for intra and inter group communication”. Taylor’s avoided ‘informal groups’, but the human relations movement supported their existence. The reason was that scientific management portrayed the worker as mechanical, passive and a being that worked only for monetary rewards and ‘the one best way’ to achieve organizational goals was to maintain as much rationality as possible. But the human relations movement believed that the existence of such informal groups would facilitate the communication and cooperation among members and would help achieve organizational goals. Scientific management aimed at the growth of the organization but paid little attention to the worker’s individual growth by exercising external control over the worker’s performance.

Human relation theory

While the human relations movement aimed at organizational growth, yet maintaining the dedication to the individual growth of the worker. According to Taylor, the sole motivator for a worker was ‘monetary incentive’. Therefore, the worker under scientific management was an ‘economic man’. According to Mayo, satisfaction of social wants of the workers like communication and the sense of acceptance was the driving force of the organization. Therefore, the worker under the human relations movement was a ‘social man’. Scientific management treated the worker as a ‘human machine’ and used the differential system’ for motivation. While, the human relations movement held that the satisfaction of the worker was its main objective. According to the human relations movement, “satisfied workers are motivated workers and therefore effective workers”.

Q.5-: Outline the major contributions of Rensis Likert, Chesrer Bernard, and Max Weber?

Ans: Rensis Likert (pronounced 'Lick-urt') (1903–1981) was an American educator and

organizational psychologist best known for his research on management styles. He developed his eponymous Likert Scale and the linking pin model. In the 1960s Likert developed four systems of management which described the relationship, involvement, and roles between management and subordinates in industrial settings. The four systems is a result of the study that he has done with the highly productive supervisors and their team members of an American Insurance Company. Later on, he and Jane G. Likert revised the systems to apply to educational settings. Their revision was initial intended to spell out the roles of principals, students, and teachers; eventually other individuals in the academic realm were included such as superintendents, administrators, and parents.

Exploitive authoritative system (I)

In this type of management system the job of employees/subordinates is to abide by the

decisions made by managers and those with a higher status than them in the organisation. The

subordinates do not participate in the decision making. The organisation is concerned simply

about completing the work. The organisation will use fear and threats to make sure employees

complete the work set. There is no teamwork involved.

'Benevolent authoritative system (II)'

Just as in an exploitive authoritative system, decisions are made by those at the top of the

organisation and management. However employees are motivated through rewards (for their

contribution) rather than fear and threats. Information may flow from subordinates to managers

but it is restricted to “what management want to hear”.

Consultative system (III)

In this type of management system, subordinates are motivated by rewards and a degree of

involvement in the decision making process. Management will constructively use their

subordinates ideas and opinions. However involvement is incomplete and major decisions are

still made by senior management. There is a greater flow of information (than in a benevolent

authoritative system) from subordinates to management. Although the information from

subordinate to manager is incomplete and euphemistic.

Participative (group) system (IV)

Management have complete confidence in their subordinates/employees. There is lots of

communication and subordinates are fully involved in the decision making process.

Subordinates comfortably express opinions and there is lots of teamwork. Teams are linked

together by people, who are members of more than one team. Likert calls people in more than

one group “linking pins”. Employees throughout the organisation feel responsible for achieving

the organisation’s objectives. This responsibility is motivational especially as subordinates are

offered economic rewards for achieving organisational goals which they have participated in

setting.

2.Chester Barnard, who was president of New Jersey Bell Telephone Company,

introduced the idea of the informal organization — cliques (exclusive groups of people)

that naturally form within a company. He felt that these informal organizations provided

necessary and vital communication functions for the overall organization and that they could

help the organization accomplish its goals.

Barnard felt that it was particularly important for managers to develop a sense of

common purpose where a willingness to cooperate is strongly encouraged. He is

credited with developing the acceptance theory of management, which

emphasizes the willingness of employees to accept that managers have legitimate

authority to act. Barnard felt that four factors affected the willingness of

employees to accept authority:

The employees must understand the communication.

The employees accept the communication as being consistent with the organization's

purposes.

The employees feel that their actions will be consistent with the needs and desires of

the other employees.

The employees feel that they are mentally and physically able to carry out the order.

Barnard's sympathy for and understanding of employee needs positioned him as a bridge to

the behavioral school of management, the next school of thought to emerge.

3. Max Weber

In the late 1800s, Max Weber disliked that many European organizations were

managed on a “personal” family-like basis and that employees were loyal to

individual supervisors rather than to the organization. He believed that

organizations should be managed impersonally and that a formal organizational

structure, where specific rules were followed, was important. In other words, he

didn't think that authority should be based on a person's personality. He thought

authority should be something that was part of a person's job and passed from

individual to individual as one person left and another took over. This

nonpersonal, objective form of organization was called a bureaucracy.

Weber believed that all bureaucracies have the following characteristics:

A well-defined hierarchy. All positions within a bureaucracy are structured in a way

that permits the higher positions to supervise and control the lower positions. This

clear chain of command facilitates control and order throughout the organization.

Division of labor and specialization. All responsibilities in an organization are

specialized so that each employee has the necessary expertise to do a particular task.

Rules and regulations. Standard operating procedures govern all organizational

activities to provide certainty and facilitate coordination.

Impersonal relationships between managers and employees. Managers should

maintain an impersonal relationship with employees so that favoritism and personal

prejudice do not influence decisions.

Competence. Competence, not “who you know,” should be the basis for all

decisions made in hiring, job assignments, and promotions in order to foster ability

and merit as the primary characteristics of a bureaucratic organization.

Records. A bureaucracy needs to maintain complete files regarding all its activities.

 

Classical organization theory is the “B” in bureaucracy. Weber defined the organization elements

which comprised the “ideal bureaucracy.” These included: 

A clearly defined (and documented) set of rules and procedures. This is the

company handbook, and other written instruments of company policy

Division of labor according to functional expertise. This is the notion of

individual departments (sales, purchasing, accounting, etc.)

A clear chain of command. There is a hierarchy based on management rank.

Weber also stipulated that authority in an organizational setting should be based

on the office itself—not on the individual. (Consider a political analogy: Neither

Gerald Ford nor Jimmy Carter would be empowered to declare war or veto a bill

today. Their past executive powers were based on the office they held—not on

their individual persons.)   

Individual advancement based on merit. Promotions should go to those who

deserve who perform well on the job.

Professional managers. The person (or other entity) who owns the company

doesn’t necessarily possess the expertise needed to keep it running smoothly on a

day-to-day basis.

As you can see, many aspects of Weber’s “ideal bureaucracy” are simply measures that ensure

fairness and objectivity. But critics of classical organization theory charged that it placed too

much faith in the infallibility of rules and procedures, while ignoring important aspects of

individual motivation.

Que. 6: Management environment in future is going to be more challenging requiring high degree of professionalization from management?

Ans: Management is that organ of the society which is given the responsibility of making the productive use of resources for the betterment of the society. Modern manager have the responsibility to denise the management practices to meet the new challenges & make use of the opportunities for growth of the organization.

FUTUR CHALLENGES OF MANAGEMAENT: during the last 2 decades there has been a phenomenal growth in size and complexity of an organization in every field be it government, religions, educational, medical, military or business.

There are ten fundamental premises that will determine your overall management success. Before we get to the five biggest challenges facing managers I thought I would give you the ten since thet are closely related.

1. When you have an issue, problem, failure, dysfunction or whatever – any - where in the organization – look up the ladder for the cause and down the ladder for the solution.

2. Everything that happens in an organization is the direct or indirect result of that organization’s culture, philosophy and core beliefs.

3.You get the behavior you reward.

4. Effective management is not about the latest fad or philosophy. It is about a fundament trust and respect for people and treating them accordingly.

5. Growing a business is not hard and it should be fun for everyone.

6. Integrity and ethics must be the foundation for all of your decisions and actions.

7. If you want effective and productive employees you must see employee development as an investment and not a cost

8. What employees want to be motivated and performance driven is appreciation, recognition, validation and to feel important and to feel like they belong.

9. The job of management is not to motivate employees but to create a positive motivational climate where employees take responsibility for their own motivation and performance.

10. You are responsible to your employees and not for them.

Here are the five biggest challenges today. They are;

·Corporate culture. Corporate, organization and department culture all flows from the top down. The written and unwritten rules, policies and philosophy of a manager or the organization all eventually find their way into the attitudes and performance of almost everyone in the organization. One of the critical things to remember when dealing with people is: you get the behavior you reward. If the culture directly or indirectly rewards a certain type of attitude or behavior, you are, by your actions or inactions, probably reaffirming that these are acceptable. If you want to change behavior, you must first evaluate the culture that is in place that may be rewarding the type of behavior you are getting but don’t necessarily want.

·Communication style. Rumors, hearsay, memos, emails, meetings, individual counseling sessions and bulletin boards all have one thing in common – they communicate information – some more effectively and timely than others. If communication in an organization is all top-down, you can be assured that you are not in touch with the realities of your organization, the marketplace, your customers or suppliers.

·Organization direction. One of the biggest challenges managers face today is effectively communicating corporate direction with clarity and consistency to all employees who have a right and need to know. Most organizations do a poor job of this at best. One way to find out what your people believe is to conduct an anonymous survey of attitudes, perceptions and opinions.

·Decision making. Many managers make decisions that other employees will either have to implement or that will affect them. If these decisions are made without bottom-up feedback, you can guarantee that the outcome of the decisions will be less than desired or expected.

·Feedback mechanisms. Employees want to know how they are doing – whether poorly or well. Failure to give them the feedback they need is to keep them in the dark regarding the assessment of their performance and how and where they need to improve.

Important area which would create challenges for management are:

1. Social environment2. Economic environment3. International environment4. Technological environment5. Political environment6. Physical environment

The trends of these environments and there relevance for future managers are:

1. Changes in social environmentFactors that shape social environment Population explosion Education level Leisure time Public opinion

2. Changes in economic environment3. Changes in technological environment

Automation Information technology

4. Changes in physical environment5. Changes in political environment6. Changes in International environment