“Management”

Submitted to: Prof. Mehmood-ul-Qasim

Submitted by: Muhammad Vaqas Patni
MBA 2nd SEM
(Evening Program)
 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.

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, not in response to any particular experimental manipulation. The
term was coined in 1955 by Henry A. Landsberger 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, 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. Most industrial/occupational
psychology and organizational behavior textbooks refer to the illumination studies.
Only occasionally are the rest of the studies mentioned. 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 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. 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.

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.

a) Distinguish between classical & neo classical

theory
b) Human relation theory & scientific mgmt
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 over
conformity 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 no
threatening way was sufficient by itself to increase output. Uri’s (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" (Uri’s, 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 Management:
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
µpersonal growth and development and was to be seen as ³an agent for intra and
inter group communication´. Taylors avoided µinformal 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 µthe 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 workers individual growth by exercising external control
over the workers 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 ³what 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 has 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 ³linking pins´. Employees throughout the organisation
feel responsible for achieving the organisations 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 no personal, 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.

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 that 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 is:

1. Social environment
2. Economic environment
3. International environment
4. Technological environment
5. Political environment
6. Physical environment

The trends of these environments and there relevance for future managers are:
1. Changes in social environment
Factors that shape social environment
 Population explosion
 Education level
 Leisure time
  Public opinion
2. Changes in economic environment
3. Changes in technological environment
 Automation
 Information technology
4. Changes in physical environment
5. Changes in political environment
6. Changes in International environment