Introduction
The concept of management is one of the most complex and controversial issues in management practice involving directing and controlling, managing, and evaluating processes. Thus, different theorists and scientists propose diverse theories of management and its role in organizations. In the book Against Management, Martin Parker proposes a unique approach to management and its impact on the organization. He rejects many theories and practices used by other researchers and claims that there are no clear and detailed theories of management today. Parker underlines that all theories of management mix up the concept of organization and management, and use these terms as synonyms. Thus, this approach limits understanding of management and its role in the modern organization (Clegg et al 87). By way of review, management aims at a comprehensive and constructive examination of an organization’s management and its assigned tasks. Overall, the management is concerned with the appraisal of management actions in accomplishing organizational objectives. Its primary objective is to highlight weaknesses and deficiencies of the organization for possible improvements.
Parker’s Vision of Management
Parker underlines that “management can be seen as a generalized technology of control to everything – horses, humans and hospitals” (Parker 11). More specifically, Parker includes a review of how well or badly the managerial functions of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling are being performed. In addition, it evaluates how effective the decision-making process is in accomplishing stated organizational objectives. Within this framework, the questionnaire provides a means for evaluating an organization’s ongoing operations by examining its major functional areas. Parker underlines that “many people believe that management is a precondition for an organized society, for social progress and economic growth” (Parker 2). The early theory of management tended to be “normative.” In effect, practitioners and observers of management discipline reflected upon the managerial practices that they had used and observed in various organizations and synthesized this experience into management principles, that is, management theory. Because these observations were personal, the principles tended to be subjective. More recent theory has grown out of controlled experimentation. Using the methodology of the behavioral scientists, researchers carefully studied, and continue to study, the world of the manager. The results, within the boundaries of the experimentation, tend to be more objective. However, we are still dealing with management theory. Parker states that “management is both civilizing process and religion” (Parker.2). Whether personal observation or controlled experimentation is the source, any principle tends to focus on the managerial process and ignore the environmental considerations involved. Thus, a principle, being a fundamental truth, transcends the specific and moves to the universal. Herein lies the problem. Every manager must deal with a specific situation when involved in managerial problem-solving. Hence, the questions that are asked within the various sections of the management practices are designed to aid the manager to sort out those factors, forces, and effects that are relevant to the situation being studied. From this viewpoint, the questionnaire is designed to evaluate management practices. Parker persuades readers that “senses of management are both limiting and dangerous, and that managerialism is ultimately a form of thought and activity which is being used to justify considerable cruelty and inequality (Parker 9), In contrast to other theorists (Daft 43; Thompson and Martin 61; Teece 87), parker states that the principal reason for undertaking management is the need for detecting and overcoming current managerial deficiencies (and resulting operational problems) in ongoing operations. Unlike the annual review by outside accountants, which focuses on the financial results of the past year and thus is backward-looking, management represents a more positive, forward-looking approach that evaluates how well management accomplishes its stated organization objectives; how effective management is in planning, organizing, directing, and controlling the organization’s activities; and how appropriate management’s decisions are for reaching stated organizational objectives.
Analysis and Understating of Management
Management Practice
Parker underlines that management practice should be seen as a core of organizational performance thus it is not synonymous with the concept of the organization itself. This evaluation of managerial performance is achieved with the aid of management practices. Whether management evaluation through the use of the questionnaire is performed by an outside controlling or consulting firm, the consulting staff within the organization or selected members of the organization is immaterial. The important point is that some group is charged with the responsibility to undertake this evaluation process periodically. In contrast to Schuler (12), parker claims that one benefit of the management, then, is that managerial problems and related operational difficulties can be spotted before the fact rather than after the fact as with financial control. This forward-looking approach is analogous to the preventive maintenance concept found in production; that is, periodic management controls can pinpoint problems as they are developing from a small scale. In comparison, detecting the same problems at a later time, when they have generally increased in scope, results in higher costs to the organization. A second important benefit of management practices is that it represents another management tool to assist the organization in accomplishing desired objectives (Schien 43). The capability of the management practices to pinpoint important problem areas that are related to managing an organization is a real plus factor for its use. “The dominant conception of organizing nowadays rests on the application of three forms of management as a generalized technology of control” (Parker 184).
Because a manager must be advised about pertinent deficiencies, management practices should be performed regularly so that managerial (and operational) problems can be caught before they become overwhelming. Likewise, the costs of undertaking such controls should be budgeted like other organizational expenses so that they are always under control. Going beyond the time and cost factors, the most important problem of management control is that it might negatively affect a manager’s morale, which could adversely affect the productivity of his or her area of responsibility and accountability. In contrast to Senior (42), Parker underlines that the consultant or reviewing manager–or the management control will cause dysfunctional effects on those reviewed.
Cultural Management
The main problem with cultural management and diversity is a misunderstanding of these concepts and their role in a modern corporation. Parker writes:” I suggest that Ritzer’s liberalism combined with his cultural elitism means that his analysis of capitalism and managerialism is essentially nostalgic” (Parker 12). Advocates of cultural diversity often have very little idea of what culture is, going so far at times as to expect people simultaneously to inhabit incompatible cultures Men and women need a shared conceptual and normative framework, including a sense of the limits on what victorious opponents are likely to do if they are to deliberate about common problems without killing each other. Even the most enthusiastic democrat cannot be expected to tolerate a party whose program implies genocide, at least if he is among its intended victims. The threat of genocidal “solutions” is never far from the surface of contemporary cultural controversy. “Action-oriented notions of popular culture are deployed to stress the role of agency in cultural production and consumption” (Parker 34).
The need for common standards does not, of itself, produce them: in fact, cultural confusion seems now to be the order of the day all over the world. The culture is above all interested in protecting an inherited way of life from erosion; it identifies Truth and in particular the truth about human nature, with those opinions authoritative within the relevant community (or authoritative there until some recent disruption). Pettigrew et al (43) suppose that the cultural Center is interested in discarding what is bad in our culture while preserving and extending what is good. It allows a space between official opinion and Truth, and between our conception of human nature and the correct one–though it affirms that our tradition is at least heading in the right direction. Many people have an emotional commitment to defining themselves as men and women of the Left, and to rejecting at least traditional forms of religion. At one time such people were Marxists and especially adopted Marx’s belief in-laws of history capable of vindicating one political program as “progressive” and condemning another as “reactionary.” They believed in a common human nature, though one concealed under capitalism, which would enable human beings to thrive in mutually supportive ways, once socially entrenched obstacles to its realization were removed. Guided by these premises, they undertook to expose the ideological defenses of the status quo and to support the working class as privileged agents of social change (Robbins and Coulter 830.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Social responsibility can serve a vital purpose by providing an objective, impartial, and competent appraisal of managerial activities as well as a means for continuously redirecting the firm’s efforts toward constantly changing plans and objectives. “Corporate governance and social responsibility might articulate a sustained evaluation of the means and ends of management” (Parker 14). Thus, modern corporations take it for granted trying to join personal gains and social interests. Robbins (29) underlines that a well-managed company of today will make every effort to meet its obligations to society. Parker states that to help them with this, some companies have written objectives and policies in this area. Despite this, social objectives and goals exist in an area that is not always easy to assess and objectively appraise. Just because it is not easy is no excuse for not trying to do something constructive about it. To gain some semblance of control in this area and to make certain that social objectives are being met, more companies have started using social control to measure, monitor, and evaluate the contributions that the company is making to society. The company must determine the best medium for disclosing the information to the public. The disclosure medium, whether a specific section of an annual report or a separate document, must be devoted to social responsibility activities to show in a meaningful and effective manner the interrelationship of company resources and company commitments. A well-presented report system will reinforce the corporate social conscience and demonstrate the balance between the corporate objective of profitability and the company’s obligation to society. The literature describes numerous approaches that show how to appraise and evaluate social control and determine the company’s true involvement in the social responsibility arena. The major contributions in this area will be combined and condensed into four representative approaches. The first three approaches emphasize the use of quantitative methods, whereas the fourth approach simply lists what the company has done in this area. Values in the areas of government, business, education, religion, workforce, and society have been changing with time. If these changes are in undesirable directions to modern managers and organizations, then they still have an opportunity to help change them in the direction they wish to see them go. Society’s demands on industry have been extensive and industry has tried in most instances to respond favorably to this initiative. In some instances, these demands have caused the stakeholders new problems, for which they blame the industry. One instance is the case of home fast food preparation and the extensive use of plastic containers. On the one hand, it has helped working people to have good meals on short notice but has caused trash and garbage landfill problems as a result. As in all other situations, it is again emphasized that all parties involved must cooperate and work together to solve the problems – not just yell at each other (Drejer 73).
Parker and Drucker
Peter Drucker is one of the most well-known theorists in organizational; management. In his book, The Practice of Management he explains the main concepts and frameworks of modern management and its relation to modem organization. In contrast to parker, he underlines that organization cannot be considered in isolation from management, culture, and social responsibility seen as a part of organizational theory. Management evaluates the plans, the organization structure, and the directions that management gives in the form of strategies, programs, policies, procedures, and standards. Fundamentally, a management control through the use of the management control provides a means for evaluating the quality of management in terms of its ability to manage and accomplish desired organization objectives; to perform the planning, organizing, directing, and controlling functions; and to reach effective decisions in accomplishing stated organizational objectives.
Parker and Drucker agree that management must be carefully planned. Questions such as what specific approach should be used and who will be responsible for performing it must be resolved. As indicated previously, management can be comprehensive or it can encompass part of an organization. Most management control groups from within or outside an organization can handle engagements of any size provided they have enough qualified personnel. Likewise, they can perform management (and operational) evaluations in almost any functional area of the organization is allowed to do so. When focusing on one functional area, the management can center specifically on corporate planning, accounting, finance, marketing, research & development, engineering, manufacturing, or personnel. Similarly, it can focus on the work environment and the human element plus a complete evaluation of the information system. Within the foregoing classification, specialized areas may be explored, including sales, market research, advertising, physical distribution, production planning, production, inventory, purchasing, manpower planning, industrial relations, the work environment, or the informal environment structure. Controls relating to computer center operations, input, programs, output, interaction, or security can also be evaluated. The main difference between Drucker and Parker is that their vision of the role and functions of management within organization. Dricker underlines that management is an integral part of organizational behavior theories and should be analyzed in terms of culture, ethics and organizational structure.
Evaluation of Against Management: Organization in the Age of Managerialism
Parker proposes a unique approach to management and underlines that management can be seen in isolation from culture, ethical issues and organizational structure. Overall, the question of the scope of management practices should be viewed from the standpoint of a cost/benefit analysis. If the benefits far outweigh their costs, there is no question that the management practices should be undertaken. If the reverse is true, there is no need for such a control. To increase the potential benefits from management practices, it is suggested that the scope of the investigation be broadened (Bateman and Snell 54). The rationale is that solutions as well as their resulting benefits tend to be larger in scope when the scope of the management practices is enlarged. During the course of a management, various difficulties will commonly arise. One big difficulty is the reluctance of managers to make the changes that were accepted during the oral presentation. Usually, the main reason is that organization personnel under them like the status quo and thus resist change. What may have been quite logical to management at the time of the oral presentation may still be, except that management is having second thoughts about implementing the recommendations because of the people problem (Daniels 54). To overcome resistance at the implementation stage may prove to be a trying experience for any executive. This unfortunate situation can be avoided by taking a positive approach to management. This means getting the various people involved in the management practices who will be implementing the final recommendations. By making their ideas an integral part of the managers’ recommendations, the resistance to change is substantially reduced. Thus, it behooves management to get certain organization personnel involved from the start in the management. Still another approach to management is to limit the evaluation to a certain level of management–lower, middle, or top management. This may be appropriate when problems are being experienced at these levels. For example, if the company is losing its market share to more progressive firms, this may indicate that top management is not taking the initiative to stay with the times. On the other hand, day-to-day operational problems may be indicative of inefficient managers at the lower levels of an organization (Dobson et al 79). This approach leaves out the fact that cultures are constituted, at least in part, by differing beliefs, including differing conceptions of the sort of life appropriate for human beings; and that questions of truth and error are therefore involved in cultural encounters. Overall, the three approaches – comprehensive/objective, selective/objective, and selective/subjective–to management practices may prove to start a new revolution in managerial performance. Management is capable of raising the level of efficiency and economy of organizational operations, with the end result that organization objectives will be more fully realized.
Works Cited
Bateman T.S, Snell S. A. Management: the New Competitive landscape. 6th edn., McGaw Hill Irwin, 2004.
Clegg, s., Kornberger,M., Pitsis.T. Managing and Organisations: an introduction to theory and practice, Sage, London, 2005.
Daft, R. L. Organizational Theory and Design. 9th Edition. South-Western College Pub; 8 edition, 2003.
Daniels, J., Radebaugh, L., Sullivan, D. International Business: Environments and Operations. Prentice Hall, 2006.
Dobson, P., Starkey, K. The Strategic Management: Issues and Cases. Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
Drejer, A. Strategic Management and Core Competencies: Theory and Application. Quorum Books, 2002.
Drucker, P. The Practice of Management. Collins Business, 2006.
Parker, M. Against Management: Organization in the Age of Managerialism. Polity, 2002.
Robbins, S. Organizational Behavior. Pearson Higher, 2002.
Robbins, S., Coulter, M. Management, Pearson Prentice Hall. Prentice Hall; 7th edition, 2001.
Pittengrew, A. M., Thomas, H. Whittington, R. Handbook of Strategy and Management. Sage Publications, 2006.
Senior, Barbara. Organizational Change, Capstone Publishing, 2001.
Schien, E. H. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, 2006
Schuler, R. Managing Human Resources. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing, 1998.
Teece, David J. Managing Intellectual Capital: Organizational, Strategic and Policy Dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Thompson, J. L., Martin, F. Strategic Management: Awareness, Analysis and Change. Thomson Learning, 2005.