Management as a Basis of Fire and Rescue ServicesDifferent countries in the world are very strict on their fire protection measures. It is always their top priority to keep safety of their people. Arson is actually one of the gravest crimes one could possibly commit; and it is growing fast (Barking-Dagenham. com. uk, 2006) all over the globe because of there are some cases that were proven that was done for the purpose of getting the money out of the insurance companies, meaning planned, because the insurance companies do pay a lot into the victims of arson.
This paper aims to discuss effective management strategies of fire and rescue services in the United Arab Emirates comparing them to the internationally applied ones in the United Kingdom. This aims to know which technique implementation is more effective by acquiring knowledge of their organizational background and other necessary aspects to meet good comparison. Discussing the following shall be relevant in evaluating these national and international fire rescue and operations agencies differences. Section 1Classical management theories, being classical or old are still applicable nowadays as their formulation never dies to be on almost all management sorts.
Three of the most common are Frederick Taylor, Henry Grant and Frank Gilbreth (Cliffs. com, 2008 c. ). The theory predicts the behavior of the organization as it is an effective tool to predicting how each component, the workers; behave individually to contribute to a certain output. These theories were developed during the industrial revolution when problems regarding efficient productions in factories began to arise regarding how to make workers more productive and the formulation of effective way on how to train them.
UK was equipped by competitive managers, with established background who echo that there must be good relationship with the workers to achieve what has been achieved and to gain much better perspectives. Human resource management or staffing must exist hand-in-hand with human relation approach in order to maintain good working relationship in the office between managers and their working force and to reach the goal of the organization and at the same time developing the skills of the workers (Cliffs. com, 2008 c. ).Strengthening the human relations within the workplace could be a good step in planning for contingencies.
Contingency is a term describing an event that could happen, but is actually or generally not expected. In an ever changing world, no one is sure about the possible events that might be encountered, especially in the business world, where there is competition. Imagination of the manager and for example a developer should be rich, so that when the organization can at least prevent a significant downfall. It is merely important the sense of preparedness; possible criticisms can be heard once a contingency plan is not prepared.
Big time organizations must have contingency because under them are smaller companies who are dependent to them might be dragged down. The system must have the following ingredient to affectively catch the taste of the customers: a manager, motivational atmosphere, a lead staff, and proper delegation of tasks to the workers. He must be responsible enough to plan necessary team building, because the workplace, no matter how someone enjoys his task, is toxic. McGregor wrote Theory X and Theory Y to explain human behaviors at work.
Theory X describes authoritarianism inside the office. He mentions that this is a negative management style because the workers’ motivation will just be fear: will just try to do things because of the consequences, one of which is punishment (McGregor, 2008). On the positive sense is Theory Y, the work force moves for the good of everyone. They are motivated to do their work and they do not find it just a routine. With this the term group effort is equated to achievement, but they do not dwell much on the word responsibility because they would like to do those things because of willingness to participate in the growth of the organization.
The only flaw in this is that the full potential of an individual is not recognized that much, because team effort is implemented. But then it is good that each worker of the organization works for a homogenous reason (Chapman, 1995).