Management Practice and Management Theory - Example

Management Practice and Management Theory Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecturer Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 10th April, 2012. Introduction “Sadly, for me, Ghoshal (2005) comes from another planet. While I can glimpse something that might interest those ivory tower types, I fail to see the practical relevance of what he’s on about – it’s certainly not about what shareholders expect of management today”. This statement forms the bone of contention of the paper in debating and critiquing whether management theory and practice are either congruent or incongruent. The paper will therefore illuminate on whether theories in management are used as a guide to management practice. The critique of theory or practice will be useful in reflecting the nature of management practice and the role that theory plays, if it plays any role in management practice and the challenges, debates and the complexities surrounding management theory and actual relevance of management theory in practice today. It is however crucial to note that the term “ivory tower types” used is to refer to the intellectuals in the management field who pursue theories that are disintegrated from the practice of management in the modern world. Management as a paramount activity in the day to day lives of people, it is an activity that is indispensable to people and more so to organizations. It is only through proper management and application of the relevant theories in an organization that objectives, aims and strategic plans of an organization among others can be achieved (Nyberg 2010, P. 1030). Therefore, the inquisitiveness approach that is going to be taken by the paper is justified into finding out whether management theory is applied to management practice. The world is moving at a faster pace than organizations are able to catch up with and different theories of management continue to emerge day in day out. For instance, during the times of Henri Fayol, the father of management, he put forth the principles of management which were widely acknowledged by management professionals. However, times have changed and this brings us to the question of whether the principles of management in the context of Henri Fayol need to be improved to capture the overarching ever changing world of corporate(s) (Yang & Konrad 2011, P. 30). For instance, when Henri Fayol talked about staffing as one of the management principle, he did not consider that in a few years time the world was to become a global village and the recruitment of staff could happen all over the world enabled by the accessibility of the internet and hence a diverse workforce. With this as an example of how times have changed, so does the strategies of corporation(s), then the question of whether the ever changing theories in management can clearly be put in practice emerges in modern day organizations (Wei & Lau 2010, P. 1500). From an objective perspective, management theories whether good or bad have the power to influence the actions and behaviors of managers. However, this also intrigues in our mind the question of what happens to the good theories which are applied to management practice? Do they yield good results in terms of successful organizations? (Bahuguna, Kumari & Srivastava 2009, P.570)As the debate centers on the role of management theories in the application of management practice, I think we need to also broaden our understanding that some other factors for instance, harsh economic times in the world, lack of motivation for managers among other factors may also be contributing towards managers applying management theories but in the wrong way and thus contributing to corporate scandals for instance, Enron, Tyco, WorldCom just but a mention of a few scandals in the United States of America. Aims of the paper; To assess the role management theory plays in management practice To reflect on complexities, debates and challenges existing between management theory and practice and that hinder or enable the application of management theory to management practice To critically review the way people theorize management and organizations in such a way that they either see congruency or the incongruence of management theory into management practice. Review of the Literature The notion that the art of management is a science discipline has worked towards further making management theory and practice digress more from one another. Management is a social science and hence the theories in social sciences works towards self fulfilling for instance a successful manager of an organization will tend to be self fulfilled than a manager is who is not successful. Success of a manager is measured through the achievement of organization’s objectives, aims, management of employees and proper recruitment procedures among other indicators of successful managers. Social sciences theories emphasize on morality, ethics and are therefore inseparable from people and hence theory and practice in management has to correlate in order for organizations to be run effectively (Mintzberg & Gosling 2002, P. 70). The approach of the literature review for this paper takes most of the major management theories and analyzes them in the context of the role that the theory plays in the practice of management and this is done with an aim of not over generalizing the literature and also ensuring that relevant literature that will supports the inquisitiveness of whether management theories are applied to management practice and the role that theories play in management practice makes a good argument (Drucker 1993,P. 100). Scientific Management School The theory of scientific management is proposed by Frederick Taylor. Scientific management proposed to have the rule of thumb in an organization removed to be replaced by best practices. In regard to Taylor, there was need to train workers to become proficient in a field of best practice that is that practice that a worker is best suited in, specialization. Taylor also advocated for the sharing out of workload among workers with the management taking the supervisory and instructional role in the organization. In reference to the role played by management theory in management practice, Fredrick Taylor suggestion on the training of workers in the practice that there are best in, division of the workload in the organization among employees and the management of the organization in supervising and performing instructional roles when put in the context of the modern day organization appears to be out of context. Managers as well as junior employees have to collectively work towards the attainment of the objectives and the aims of the organization and therefore managers need to be part of the working team of the organization. Therefore, in as much as the managers are to play the roles of supervising and giving instructions to employees, their utmost presence as part of the team work of the organization serves as motivation to the junior employees (Cole 2003, P. 87). Modern day organizations therefore cannot afford to have managers who are just supervisors and this shows that management theories have great improvements to make. In addition, the economies of the world have changed and employees no longer specialize in a particular skill for if the skill is replaced by a more modern skill, employee’s skills may become outdated. To give an example, what happens to employees who specialized as typists with the introduction of the computer and the computer being taught to even children in such a way that almost everyone in all the organization can type their own minutes in a meeting, notes among others? In addition, people are getting employed in various areas of specialization in order to meet their daily needs and hence such employees if following Fredrick Taylor principles of specialization have become obsolete over time. Classical Organizations Theory School Contains theories by Max Weber (proponent of bureaucratic theory) and Henri Fayol (administrative theory), whereby Weber postulates that the civilization has changed to technocratic and hence moved away from value orientation, affective or emotions derived actions and also traditional thinking. Though the theory of bureaucracy promised attainment of the organizational goals in an effective manner, through hierarchy of rule in the organization, following written record of management, following of rules in management and specialized employee training and prioritization of activities in the organization, the theory when applied can dehumanize people. In application, Max Weber’s theory would create an atmosphere in the organization whereby there would be little interactions between the employees and create irrational feelings in employees in such a way that their only duty in the organization is the performance of tasks (Pitariu & Ployhart 2010, P.410). This theory illuminates the tunnel between the actual theory of management and the implication of the theory when applied in practice. I feel that modern organizations have long realized that on top of being consumer centric instead of product centric, the employee is the channel through which the organization has to pass in order to meet the consumer at the other hand. Hence, consideration to the employee by management practitioners is yet to be seen when managers apply Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy. While Fayol’s principles are still relevant to a larger extent in today’s management, the principles of “unity in command” and “unity in direction” are disregarded in matrix management organizations whereby an employee may be serving different posts for instance being an accountant and also a manager. Behaviorism theory The proponent is Elton Mayo who through experiments proposed that performance of employees in the organization is based on working conditions. Hence, aspects like proper communication to employees, encouragement and good working conditions are the right ingredients to enable employees become productive in the attainment of organizations, goals and objectives (Koontz 1980, P. 99). While this theory advocates for group dynamics in the organization, when viewed in light of modern day organizations which have no regard to employees and only inclined towards maximizing the profits that they get, the application of such a theory remains wanting (Koontz 1962, P. 78). Due to various world advancements, population increase, teleworking, organizations recruiting through the internet, organizations outsourcing to developed countries for cheaper labor, the employees are the ones who are left in fix for if they do not take what the organization is offering, there are plenty of options available for the organization and hence the application of behaviorism theory in organizations is hard owing to the fact that an organization can source for manpower elsewhere and which is readily available (Drucker 1974,P. 50). Implications of the Literature Why are our educations systems training in management theories that they are sure will not be used in management practice? What happens to the management field if management intellectuals are sure that some the theories taught in management will become absolute and will not be applied in practice? Why would colleges and universities teach theories that they are sure will end up wasting the student’s time, money and will most likely disappoint them and disappoint the organizations in which the students become employed in? If this is not indignation, then it could be regarded as a criminal offense (Bennis 2000, P. 45). As scholars continue to search for answers to the questions, the questions of which theories can be applied in management practices continues to be debated about. However, it is undeniable that management practice without a doubt relies on theories of management but the controversies surrounding the continuation of theories (though teaching such theories in schools and colleges) which are questionable in application in management leaves practitioners in management for instance managers and organizational leaders with the application of whatever works best for them (Van Maanen, Sorensen & Mitchell 2007, P. 1150). While teaching such theories and applying them in management, I feel that the academic field is simply offering promises which are yet to be fulfilled. For instance, when employees earn peanuts from the organization in such a way that they strain to meet their basic needs, then where do we apply Abraham Maslow’s theory of motivation in such a way that the lower order needs for instance food and shelter are first meet before an individual progresses to the higher order needs of self esteem? Then again, if an organization hires employees on casual basis, it becomes plain clear to employees that in the event that the organization is to experience financial constrains, the employees on casual basis are to be sacrificed. Such employees have little to desire and motivate them towards attaining the objectives of the organization or acting morally, having a moral responsibility to the organization. Then where is the application of the so called management theories? (Whetten 1989, P. 500). In the words of Ghoshal (2005), “Bad theories are destroying good management practices”, I subjectively choose to drawn another implication of the literature review from what she discussed as “The Pretense of Knowledge”. While adopting the scientific approach of management, that is discovering laws, rules and patterns that replaces all internationalism and attempts to explain corporate performance by the laws, patterns and principles, we eliminate the probability that mangers too, have a stake in application of the theories to which cannot be applied the same way physical sciences methods of theory application can be applied for we would all be operating under the “pretense of knowledge” (Kochan 2002, P.140). Therefore, the review of the literature where most of the prominent management theories have been used to show that there is a gap between management theory and practice, the insinuation is that such theories need not be applied in the way sciences theories are applied (Weick 1989, P. 520). Practice Relevance The organization as an entity on its own without the emphasis that the organization in its own capacity cannot act on its own and hence relies on the employees, the senior management, stakeholders, the suppliers and the customers to mirror its image (Day & Peluchette 2009,P. 280). Hence the illusion that the organization is an individual on its own eliminates any sense of morality that employees can and should have when they are acting in the capacity of the organization (Koontz 1961, P. 58). For instance, when an employee is conducting fraudulent activities in the name of the organization, there is no social responsibility in the employee and no regard of the employee for the organization’s name for if the employees is conducting fraudulent activities on the customers of the organization, the customers are to complain of the “organization” as a whole and not the individual employee who has engaged in the fraudulent activities with the organization’s customers (Burt 1997, P. 57). Therefore some management theories are the ones leading to the incongruent of theories in management and practice in actual sense (Clegg & Ross-Smith 2003, P. 88). Taking another example of the way bad theories can influence management practice is McGregor theory X and Y. Not discrediting this theory but nonetheless gives an insight into the discussion in the paper. In schools, colleges and universities, students continue to learn of this management theories that are a bit dogmatic and may be out of context in modern day organizations (James, Edward & Daniel 2003). According to this theory, employees belonging to theory X category are inherently lazy and constantly require to be supervised and hence need a tough manager while employees subscribing to theory Y are go getters, requiring little or minimum supervision and hence they perform their duties with little or no supervision. Organization’s managers may approach the management of employee in an organization in regard to theory X and hence treat employees badly. While such theories continue to be taught in colleges and schools, who then are to blame, when managers treat their junior staff in a bad way? Do we blame management theories or do we blame the mangers who are putting the theories in practice? The answer to such questions needs to be given in order to revolutionalize the holistic approach of management theory and practice. If a theory is wrong or contains grounds upon which the theory can be improved to reflect the current happenings, times or events in the organization, then not unless someone has the courage to research and publish the improvements to be made to the existing theories in management, the theories that needs improvement continues to be taught just like they were initially talked or taught by their proponents (Mahsud Yuki & Prussia 2011, P. 234). For instance, if students in universities and colleges continues to be taught management theories like McGregor theory X and Y, managers will tend to behave in a hostile manner to their employees and therefore, they will be managing their employees based on the assumptions of McGregor theory X that employees are inherently lazy and needs supervision which may offend some employees who are internally motivated to perform their duties in the organization without any supervision. Hence theory X is a negative implication of human behavior in an organization. Conclusion While undisputed evidence through the review of the extant literature shows that there is a gap between management theory and management practice, the need to solve the problem lies in theories that are up to date and can also be applied in management practice (Dalton 1998, P. 270). In addition, the field of management signifies a filed whereby an individual’s actions are guided by some intentions and hence the influences of management theories in management practice (Davis, Schoorman & Donaldson 1997, P.30). The gap between theory and practice will transform into answers and the expectations of stakeholders in the management of an organization they have interest in. however, closing the gap between theory and practice requires comprehensive studies and research to develop better norms in the organization, ideas and values in management that works towards eliminating opportunistic behaviors by management and which may work towards eliminating the traditional management theories that according to Ghoshal (2005), “Bad theories are destroying good management practices” are harmful to the organization and have lead to many scandals in corporations. There is need to file the gap between theory and practice and perhaps the answer in filling the gap lies in modernizing the theories of management in such a way that whatever is taught in schools is applicable in the organization(s). This then will translate the management discipline into becoming a fast paced discipline that has to keep track with the most recent changes in the world and take into aspect globalization, technological advancements and innovations among other aspects that management discipline has to consider in fast pacing theories to be applied in practice. I feel that traditional theories should be subjected to improvements while others should only be used as foundations into the discovery of new and better theories that are would be a reflect of today’s world dynamic changes. For sure, we cannot rely on traditional theories that were developed way before Generation Y which is today’s leaders in organizations, accountants and marketers were born and expect them to still hold relevance in such a way that they can be applied in management. As far as I am concerned and from the debate of the application of management theories in management practice, there is a lot to be done in management in bridging the gap between theory and practice in the application of theory to practice into increasing organization productivity than using the fire brigade approach of trial and error method. References Bahuguna, P., Kumari, P. & Srivastava, S. 2009, Changing Face of Human Resource Management: A Strategic Partner in Business. Management and Labor Studies, 34: 563-581. Bennis, W. 2000, Managing the dream: Reflections on leadership and change. New York: Perseus. Burt, R. 1997, The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 340. Clegg, S. R. & Ross-Smith, A. 2003, Revising the boundaries: Management education and learning in a postpositivist world. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(1): 85–98 Cole, G. 2003, Management theory and practice. United States: Cengage learning EMEA. Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. 1998, Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 269–290. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. 1997, Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22: 20–47. Day, N. & Peluchette, J. 2009, Do We Practice What We Preach? An Exploratory Study About How Business Schools Manage Their Human Resources. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 15: 275-286. Drucker, P. 1993, The practice of Management. New York: Collins. Drucker, P. F. 1974, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, practices, Butterworth-Heineman, Woburn MA. Ghoshal, S. 2005, ‘Bad management theories are destroying good management practices,’ Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 75–91. James, S., Edward, F. & Daniel, R. 2003, Management. New Delhi: Prentice – Hall of India. Kochan, T. A. 2002, Addressing the crisis in confidence in corporations: Root causes, victims and strategies for reform. Academy of Management Executive, 16: 139–141. Koontz H. 1961, “The Management Theory Jungle”, in Journal of the Academy of Management, December. Koontz H. 1962, “Making Sense of Management Theory”, in Harvard Business Review, July-August. Koontz H. 1980, “The Management Theory Revisited”, in Academy of Management review, April. Mahsud, R., Yuki, G. & Prussia, G. 2011, Human Capital, Efficiency, and Innovative Adaptation as Strategic Determinants of Firm Performance. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18: 229-246. Mintzberg, H., & Gosling, J. 2002, Educating managers beyond borders. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1): 64–76. Nyberg, A.J., Fulmer, I.S., Gerhart, B, and Carpenter, M.A. 2010, Agency theory revisited: CEO return and shareholder interest alignment, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1029-1049. Pitariu, A. & Ployhart, R. 2010, Explaining Change: Theorizing and Testing Dynamic Meditated Longitudinal. Journal of Management, 36: 405-429. Van Maanen, J. V, Sorensen, J.B, and Mitchell, T. R. 2007, ‘The interplay between theory and method’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1145-1154. Wei, L. & Lau, C. 2010, High Performance Work Systems and Performance: The Role of Adaptive Capability. Human Relations 63: 1487-1511. Weick, K. E. 1989, ‘Theory construction as disciplined imagination’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 516-531. Whetten, D. A. 1989, ‘What constitute a theoretical contribution?’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 490-495. Yang, Y. & Konrad, A. 2011, Understanding Diversity Management Practices: Implications of Institutional Theory and Resource – Based Theory. Group & Organization Management 36: 6-38. Read More