13.2. Figure 1.The Tannenbaum-Schmidt model (based on Internet 1). 83
13.3. Table 2: The classification of managerial styles by the direction of managerial attention (based on Berde-Láczay(2005)). 84
13.4. Figure 2. The managerial grid (based on Internet 2). 85
13.5. Table 3: The contingency styles (based on Internet 3). 85
13.6. Figure 3: The managerial transition(based on Williams(2011)). 86
14.1. Figure 1: CSR system (based on Porter - Kramer, 2006). Above, see a diagram of the intended roles of CSR within businesses. 93
15.1. Figure 1: The change of managerial functions (based on Véry(2009)). 96
15.2. Table 1: The advantages of using each types of consultants-internal or external (based on McLean(2006)). 96
15.3. Figure 2: The organizational development medical like model (based on Kinicki-Williams (2011)) by adapting the work of French-Bell(1978) and Huse-Cumming(1985)). 97
1. fejezet - 1. Concepts of Management
Groups of human beings have been involved in great building projects for millennia. As one example, formal organization was required in the construction of the Great Pyramids. Organization of the labor needed to complete these fantastic projects included the position of at least one overseer (a kind of ancient manager) and groups of workers requiring motivation, organization, direction, critique and assignment.
Yet, despite the passing of countless years during which humans have been involved in such working relationships with one another, the actual development of any concept and/or principles of management is relatively a modern phenomenon. The relative modernity of management as, for instance, a topic of study does not mean that formal management is something very recent. As humans have managed groups, communities and organizations even during such activities as prehistoric hunting and gathering, there was always a necessity to follow a leader or a group of decision makers responsible for the survival and welfare of the group as a whole.
A modern company is not all that different from their ice age predecessors. Without responsible organization and management, a company would quickly begin to starve of sustenance (i.e. capital) and soon perish, leaving its employees without a means of daily survival (i.e. wages or salaries). The centuries old evolution of societies from simple to complex has also witnessed the emergence of specialized organizations and departments of governing authorities. Whether one considers the city states of ancient Greece, the kingdoms of the Middle Ages or modern republics, the need for and roles of managers have increased as human organizational structures have become greater in size and more complex in structure. There is of course ample historical evidence in this regard. Consider only the attributes required of Alexander the Greatover 2,300 years ago, to be able to conquer most of the then known world and to set up a government to rule his newly won Empire. The Persian Empire lasted over 2,000 years, spanning Babylon, Egypt, Central-Southern Asia, Asia Minor and parts of Northwestern India; the Roman Empire was a complexly administered series of interwoven hierarchies and administrative bodies, ruled by an Emperor, who granted power to regional rulers over vast territories, such as Gaul or Pannonia. For the almost fifteen centuries preceding World War One, kings and their ministers and/or Archbishops and their feudal bureaucracies ruled over most of Europe, slowly giving way to the rise of the merchant guilds,whose highly profitable trading activities required theorganization and management of individual and networked workshops and, of course, the artisans and apprentices these employed.
Yet, it was largely the emergence of the Industrial Revolution, especially in Great Britain and the United States, which necessitated a systematicapproach to management. The development and application of new technology,the as yet unseen increase in the size of the work force, the sheer scale of mass production and distribution – all these elementswould have been impossible without the parallel development of effective coordination and oversight.Still, management was not recognized as a "technology". Between the end of the 19th century and the mid-20th century, FredericW. Taylor and several others formulated a management approach, which is described as theScientific Management Theory. (Compare Witzel, 2003)
The four basic principles of Taylor's theory were:
the development of true science of management, in order that the best method for performing each task assigned to a worker could be determined,
the scientific selection of workers, so that each worker would be given responsibility forthe task for which he or she was best suited,
the scientific education and development of the worker, and
close, friendly cooperation between management and labor.
Taylor advocated that a complete mental revolution on the part of management and workerswas required for the success of these principles. In fact, Scientific Management was concernedwith increasing the productivity of both, the shop as well as the individual worker. Soon theregrew another theory, i.e. the Classical Organizations Theory.
Henri Fayol (1841-1925), the founder of the Classical Management School,took the view thatscientific forecasting and a proper method of management made satisfactory results inevitable. Fayolemphasized that management was not a personal talent, but a skill, similar to any other. The general belief up to Fayol’s time had been that ‘managers were born, not made’.In other words, practice andexperience would be helpful only to those who already had the innate qualities of a manager.This was a rather aristocratic view of who could be a leader; leaders were born into families, which somehow passed the necessary management skills and talents down from generation to generation of first-born male descendents. Despite to significant pressures to maintain this thinking and social practice, Fayol defended the opinion that management could indeed be taught - once its underlyingprinciples were understood and a general theory of management was formulated.
In order to develop a science of management, Fayol divided business operations into sixactivities:
Furthermore, Fayol defined management in terms of functions, such as:Planning, Organizing, Coordinating and Controlling.
At the end of World War II, at least in the West, an era of never-before seen demand led to a boom in production activity which especially grew the American economy like no other before. Simply put, the rate of production meant that more of practically everything was required. Quantity backed by efficiency became the guiding principle: an era of optimization was born, driven by suppliers’ choice, rather than customers’ wants. Japan restarted its devastated economy with a different orientation: Quality. The key was to develop and ensure a true economy of all resources, with the customer as the focal point. The Japanese at that time did not have the luxury of a surplus funded, hungry market and so it sought to pursue an export-driven market – as it still does today. By the late 1960s, demand tended to slow down and the growing competition gave customers greater choice. ‘Quality,’ as an important buying criterion, emerged. The OPEC crisis in the mid-1970s changed everything: Energy, the prime mover of the industrial world, suddenly became very expensive. The demand boom faded – with customers demanding quality and lower prices and better service.
This new situation meant that management had to change how it planned and assigned tasks. The division of labour seen before World War II meant that work could be organized/grouped into a set of specific, related tasks.These tasks were repetitive in nature, with employees trained to perform ONLY this set of tasks, so that the efficiency of task performance was maximized. When extended throughout an organization, this took the form of specialization - organizations benefitted from maximum use of specialist skills. Economically and under supply-shortage conditions, this worked well.Much of this was an extension of trade/craft skill-groups organization (guilds), which was the hallmark of pre-industrial ‘production’.
Mintzberg developed concepts in answer to the challenges put to management, brought about through the rapidly changing economy. He envisions three central managerial roles within an organization:
The first is the Interpersonal role. In this role, the manager may act as a figurehead. This kind of manager is a symbolic head of an organization and this individual is required to show his/her ‘face’ in social and legal situations. Their role may be largely ceremonial. Steve Jobs often played this role when launching Apple’s newest products in highly choreographed media events.There is also within this interpersonal role the role of the organizational leader, motivating & directing subordinates in e.g., the planning and realization of a project.Additionally, there is the liaison aspect of this kind of role, involving networking activities with those outside one’s own organization, in order to gather valuable – even vital – information. This role requires presence, experience and respect within one’s own industry.
The second role is the Informational role. The manager in this role may function as a kind of monitor. This manager acts as a kind of central nervous system for the organization, interpreting and acting on impulses throughout the organization and the related industry. This manager creates and issues reports, in order to guarantee certainty and continuity in the organization. There is also the related element of the manager as a disseminator, who networks within the organization, holding meetings to ensure informational flow and exchange, to correct misunderstandings and to assess, define, redefine and assure compliance and achievement down through the hierarchy of those below him/her. Moreover, this role includes the tasks of company spokesperson. This managerial role means that one must, at times, transmit an organization’s intent to outsiders.In times of crisis or misunderstanding, such a role may be vital to fend off possible legal threats or losses of customers.Mintzberg also tells us that there is also the Decisional role itself; this role perhaps being the most traditional management role. This is the role of the manager as Entrepreneur, searching for new opportunities, finding these and reacting to them, by e.g. developing a new strategy plan. This role may also see the manager as a Troubleshooter, handling unexpected disturbances in ongoing projects or in inter-employee relations. There is also the Contingency managerial element. This managerial role focuses on resource allocation, initiating and/or approving changes in policy or budgeting.Finally, there is the managerial role as a negotiator, fighting to get the best deal for one’s organization and winning new contracts to ensure business and success.Katz, among others, recognized three main grouping s of skills managers needed to hone, in order to be effective in this new economic situation:
Technical skills, meaning the application of specialized knowledge or expertise acquired though formal training and its use.
Human skills or the ability to work with people, to understand and to motivate groups and individuals.
Conceptual skills, which include the mental ability to recognize, analyze, diagnose and think through complex situations. (Compare Derek - Hicjson, 2007)
Still, it is not possible to give any onesimple definition of management. All existing definitions keep changing because of thechanges in the environment of organizations. Without going into the complexities of theproblem, let us take a definition which has been more acceptable, i.e.: Management is theprocess of planning, organizing, leading and controlling the efforts of organization membersand of using all other organizational resources to achieve stated organizational goals. Any process is a systematic way of doing things; therefore, management is a process, too, because the interrelated activities of planning, leading,organizing and controlling are part of a manager's engagement.Managers use all the organizational resources (e.g., finances, equipment, information,technology and people) to achieve stated goals.Each organization has its own stated goals and management, as a process, helps inenhancing the attainment of these goals.
Planning involves several steps, the most basic evident below:
1.1. ábra - Figure 1: Planning: The foundation of management (own graph)
However, once past this most basic stage, planning becomes more complex, as evident in the second diagram: