Management and Sustainability Essay

Introduction

The main aim of management in any organization, either commercial or non commercial is to ensure that employees maintain the best composure to carry out their duties effectively (Likert 1967, 33).

Managers are usually held responsible for the performance of all subordinates who fall under their span of control and therefore when failure occurs managers are often required to give explanations. Hence this is the reason why managers are always looking for the best techniques to lead subordinates towards giving out their best (Brayden, Teppo, & Whetten 2010, 1-20).

Management scholars such as Fredrick Taylor noticed natural differences in the level of output of workers on the factory floor of Midvale Steel while working their as a supervisor. Taylor further noticed that among the various causes of this differences were individual talent, intelligence and different levels of motivations between employees and therefore he suggested he need to standardize of process and steps in order to harmonize the performance of all employees (Jones, 2010 32-41).

The same sentiments were also echoed by Douglas McGregor at the MIT Sloan School of Management who through the theory x and y insisted that that processes and procedures are managerially-driven concepts and that leaders dismiss such features in favor of integration, participation and people operating within talent-driven boundaries.

McGregor suggests and insists that employees are naturally lazy and will therefore intend to avoid work and responsibility if they get the chance to do so and thus consequently managers insist that workers should be monitored closely and supervised in order for them to perform their duties diligently and maximize the quality and quantity of output (Bellcross 2005, 32-34).

Procedures and processes vs. integration, participation and talent

Current day managers have rejected previously suggested management models such as McGregor’s x & y theory and theories of other scholars such as the ‘Hawthorne effect’ although processes and procedures still exist. It is believed that for organizations to achieve organizational goals it is appropriate for managers to adopt more friendly, democratic and collaborative techniques to maximize output of employees (Fiedler 1967, 76-81).

Consequently, the excessive use of threats and coercion is no longer favored because managers are now favoring integration, participation and people operating within talent-driven boundaries. Classical and old methods of management are more likely to be met with resistance in this current age because employees are more aware of their rights and capabilities and most likely desire the chance to be given some degree of autonomy in order to carry out their responsibilities.

Autonomy and freedom has therefore become a key source of motivation within the workforce and employees who are given such freedom are more likely to go out their way to give their best (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2007, 66). The strict use of processes and procedures may often make work routine and lead to dissatisfaction and once employees are dissatisfied then their motivational levels will plummet and output will hence be affected.

When managers allow employees to work by ensuring that there is coordination and integration, participation and respect of talent, it becomes easier to arrange for training and exchange of ideas between the workforce and employees.

Employees who are better of can assist those employees who appear to be weak to increase the quality of their performance processes and procedures usually not by centralizing power and authority within an organization but by integration and collaboration which allows employees and managers to share power for the greater good of the organization and at the same time yield more commitment and loyalty amongst the employees/subordinates (Fiedler 1967, 76-81).

This method of management relies on referent power that is not coercive and good for nurturing people to people skills thus encouraging teamwork which in effect is synergetic for the organization (House & Mitchell 1974, 84-91).

On the other hand, process and procedures are stiff and bureaucratic and uses coercion to influence employee behavior. The use of integration and participation enables organizational departments and divisions depend upon each other in order to carry out tasks and functions and if one department finds it hard to perform certain tasks the other department can chip in and hence offer their expertise in order to perform the task to the best off their capability (Drath 2001, 65-71).

Because departments simply integrate their functions and coordinate activities, it makes it possible for information systems to allow for feedback to be set up within the organization. The use of processes and procedures is bureaucratic and consequently may limit the flow of information by only releasing information in a hierarchical manner.

Additionally when managers insist on the use of talent, integration and participation is good for modifying and enhancing the overall organizations culture. The technique usually takes a bottom up approach allowing each member of the organization to take part and therefore altering their culture (Bass 1985, 21-30).

A culture of superior performance is good for the organization; this is because such a technique is scientifically proven to improve organizational performance in the long run. Additionally if every employee is involved, then it becomes possible to sustain such managerial approach within organizations in the long run (Murphy & Cleveland 1995, 16-20).

Conclusion

Integration, participation, and considering talent-driven boundaries of organizational employees is a better management orientation and highly sustainable in the long run especially when it takes a holistic approach. It is thus good for contemporary managers to adopt this technique so that they can increase the performance and output amongst their employees.

References

Bass, B. M., 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bellcross, W. T., 2005. Measuring the implementation of Dr. Wm E. Deming’s management principles in public K-12 schools. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Brayden, K. G., Teppo, F. & Whetten D. A., 2010. “Perspective—Finding the Organization in Organizational Theory: A Meta-Theory of the Organization as a Social Actor.” Journal of organization science, volume 21 issue 1, 1-20.

Drath, W. H., 2001. The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fiedler, F. E., 1967. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H. and Johnson, D. E., 2000. Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

House, R. J. and Mitchell, T. R., 1974. “Path-goal theory of leadership.” Contemporary Business, 3, 81-98.

Jones, G. 2010. Organizational theory, design, and change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Likert, R., 1967. The human organization: Its management and value. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Murphy, K. R. & Cleveland, J., 1995. Understanding performance appraisal: social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. New York, NY: SAGE.