Approaches to Organisation and Management, Study notes of Organization Theory and Design

Download Approaches to Organisation and Management and more Study notes Organization Theory and Design in PDF only on Docsity! Organisational behaviour is a discursive subject and much has been written about it. The study of organisations and management has therefore to proceed on a broad front. It is the comparative study of the different approaches that will yield benefits to the manager. The study of organisations, their structure and management is important for the manager. Identification of major trends in management and organisational behaviour, and the work of leading writers, provide a perspective on concepts and ideas discussed in more detail in other chapters. Learning outcomes After completing this chapter you should be able to: ■ identify major trends in the development of organisational behaviour and management thinking; ■ contrast main features of different approaches to organisation and management; ■ evaluate the relevance of these different approaches to the present-day management of organisations; ■ explain the relationships between management theory and practice; ■ assess the value of the study of different approaches to organisation and management; ■ recognise the relationship between the development of theory, behaviour in organisations and management practice; ■ establish a basis for consideration of aspects of organisational behaviour discussed in subsequent chapters. APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT Critical reflection 2 ‘It is often claimed that what leading writers say is an important part of the study of management and organisational behaviour. Others say that all these different ideas are little more than short-term fads and have little practical value.’ What do you think? What role does management theory have in helping us solve problems we face in our organisational lives today? PART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING 42 THE THEORY OF MANAGEMENT A central part of the study of organisation and management is the development of manage- ment thinking and what might be termed management theory. The application of theory brings about change in actual behaviour. Managers reading the work of leading writers on the subject might see in their ideas and conclusions a message about how they should behave. This will influence their attitudes towards management practice. The study of management theory is important for the following reasons: ■ It helps to view the interrelationships between the development of theory, behaviour in organisations and management practice. ■ An understanding of the development of management thinking helps in understanding principles underlying the process of management. ■ Knowledge of the history helps in understanding the nature of management and organ- isational behaviour and reasons for the attention given to main topic areas. ■ Many of the earlier ideas are of continuing importance to the manager and later ideas on management tend to incorporate earlier ideas and conclusions. ■ Management theories are interpretive and evolve in line with changes in the organis- ational environment. As McGregor puts it: Every managerial act rests on assumptions, generalizations, and hypotheses – that is to say, on theory. Our assumptions are frequently implicit, sometimes quite unconscious, often conflicting; nevertheless, they determine our predictions that if we do a, b will occur. Theory and practice are inseparable.1 Miner makes the point that the more that is known about organisations and their methods of operation, the better the chances of dealing effectively with them. Understanding may be more advanced than prediction, but both provide the opportunity to influence or to manage the future. Theory provides a sound basis for action.2 However, if action is to be effective, the theory must be adequate and appropriate to the task and to improved organ- isational performance. It must be a ‘good’ theory. DEVELOPMENTS IN MANAGEMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR It is helpful, therefore, to trace major developments in management and organisational behaviour and what has led to the concentration of attention on such topics as motivation, groups, leadership, structure, and organisation development.3 Writing on organisation and management, in some form or another, can be traced back thousands of years.4 Also, Shafritz makes an interesting observation about the contribution of William Shakespeare (1564–1616): While William Shakespeare’s contribution to literature and the development of the English language have long been acknowledged and thoroughly documented, his contribution to the theory of manage- ment and administration have been all but ignored. This is a surprising oversight when you consider that many of his plays deal with issues of personnel management and organizational behavior.5 However, the systematic development of management thinking is viewed, generally, as dating from the end of the nineteenth century with the emergence of large industrial organ- isations and the ensuing problems associated with their structure and management.6 In order to help identify main trends in the development of organisational behaviour and management theory, it is usual to categorise the work of writers into various ‘approaches’, based on their views of organisations, their structure and management. Although a rather simplistic process, it does provide a framework in which to help direct study and focus atten- tion on the progression of ideas concerned with improving organisational performance. CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT 45 ■ the particular situational variables of each individual organisation; and ■ the psychological and social factors relating to members of the organisation. Major sub-groupings Two major ‘sub-groupings’ of the classical approach are: 1 scientific management, and 2 bureaucracy. SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT Many of the classical writers were concerned with the improvement of management as a means of increasing productivity. At this time, emphasis was on the problem of obtaining increased productivity from individual workers through the technical structuring of the work organisation and the provision of monetary incentives as the motivator for higher levels of output. A major contributor to this approach was F. W. Taylor (1856–1917), the ‘father’ of scientific management.14 Taylor believed that in the same way that there is a best machine for each job, so there is a best working method by which people should undertake their jobs. He considered that all work processes could be analysed into discrete tasks and that by scien- tific method it was possible to find the ‘one best way’ to perform each task. Each job was broken down into component parts, each part timed and the parts rearranged into the most efficient method of working. Principles to guide management Taylor was a believer in the rational–economic needs concept of motivation. He believed that if management acted on his ideas, work would become more satisfying and profitable for all concerned. Workers would be motivated by obtaining the highest possible wages through working in the most efficient and productive way. Taylor was concerned with finding more efficient methods and procedures for co-ordination and control of work. He set out a number of principles to guide management. These principles are usually summarised as: ■ the development of a true science for each person’s work; ■ the scientific selection, training and development of the workers; ■ co-operation with the workers to ensure work is carried out in the prescribed way; ■ the division of work and responsibility between management and the workers. In his famous studies at the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Taylor, who was appointed as a management consultant, applied his ideas on scientific management to the handling of pig iron. A group of 75 men were loading an average of 121/2 tons per man per day. Taylor selected a Dutch labourer, called Schmidt, whom he reported to be a ‘high-priced’ man with a reputation for placing a high value on money, and a man of limited mental ability. By following detailed instructions on when to pick up the pig iron and walk, and when to sit and rest, and with no back talk, Schmidt increased his output to 471/2 tons per day. He maintained this level of output throughout the three years of the study. In return Schmidt received a 60 per cent increase in wages compared with what was paid to the other men. One by one other men were selected and trained to handle pig iron at the rate of 471/2 tons per day and in return they received 60 per cent more wages. Taylor drew attention to the need for the scientific selection of the workers. When the other labourers in the group were trained in the same method, only one in eight was physically capable of the effort of loading 471/2 tons per day, although there was a noticeable increase in their level of output. PART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING 46 Reactions against scientific management There were strong criticisms of, and reaction against, scientific management methods from the workers who found the work boring and requiring little skill. Despite these criticisms Taylor attempted to expand the implementation of his ideas in the Bethlehem Steel Cor- poration. However, fears of mass redundancies persuaded the management to request Taylor to moderate his activities. Yet Taylor’s belief in his methods was so strong that he would not accept management’s interference and eventually they dispensed with his services. Scientific management was applied for a time in other countries with similar criticisms and hostile reactions. The ideas of scientific management were also adopted in the American Watertown Arsenal despite the lingering doubts of the controller. He was not convinced about the benefits of paying bonuses based on methods which reduced time taken to com- plete a job; also the workers reacted unfavourably to time and motion studies and he was fearful of a strike. The controller eventually gave way, however, and the scientific manage- ment approach was adopted – to be followed almost immediately by a strike of moulding workers. The strike at Watertown Arsenal led to an investigation of Taylor’s methods by a House of Representatives Committee which reported in 1912. The conclusion of the committee was that scientific management did provide some useful techniques and offered valuable organisational suggestions, but gave production managers a dangerously high level of uncontrolled power. The studies at Watertown Arsenal were resumed but the unions retained an underlying hostility towards scientific manage- ment. A subsequent attitude survey among the workers revealed a broad level of resentment and hostility, by both union and non-union members, to scientific management methods. As a result of this report the Senate banned Taylor’s methods of time study in defence establishments. Taylorism as management control There has also been considerable interest in ‘Taylorism’ as representing a system of manage- ment control over workers. Taylor placed emphasis on the content of a ‘fair day’s work’ and on optimising the level of workers’ productivity. A major obstacle to this objective was ‘systematic soldiering’ and what Taylor saw as the deliberate attempt by workers to promote their best interests and to keep employers ignorant of how fast work, especially piece-rate work, could be carried out. According to Braverman, scientific management starts from the capitalist point of view and method of production, and the adaptation of labour to the needs of capital. Taylor’s work was more concerned with the organisation of labour than with the development of tech- nology. A distinctive feature of Taylor’s thought was the concept of management control.15 Braverman suggests Taylor’s conclusion was that workers should be controlled not only by the giving of orders and maintenance of discipline, but also by removing from them any decisions about the manner in which their work was to be carried out. By division of labour, and by dictating precise stages and methods for every aspect of work performance, man- agement could gain control of the actual process of work. The rationalisation of production processes and division of labour tends to result in the de-skilling of work and this may be a main strategy of the employer.16 Cloke and Goldsmith also suggest that Taylor was the leading promoter of the idea that managers should design and control the work process scientifically in order to guarantee maximum efficiency. He believed in multiple layers of management to supervise the work process and in rigid, detailed control of the workforce. Taylor’s theories justified managerial control over the production process and removed decision making from employees and from owners as well. The increasingly authoritative operational role of manage- ment diminished the direct involvement of owners in day-to-day decision making. Managers saw this as an opportunity to solidify their power and adopted Taylor’s ideas wholesale. In the process, they affirmed efficiency over collaboration, quantity over quality, and cost controls over customer service.17 CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT 47 Critical reflection ‘Despite the strong criticisms of scientic management, in the right circumstances the underlying principles still have relevance and much to offer business organisations today. It is just that many commentators appear reluctant to openly admit that this is the case.’ What are your views? Where could scientific management be applied for the best overall effect? RELEVANCE OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT While Taylor’s work is often criticised today it should be remembered that he was writing at a time of industrial reorganisation and the emergence of large, complex organisations with new forms of technology. Taylor’s main concern was with the efficiency of both workers and management. He believed his methods of scientific management would lead to improved management–labour relations and contribute to improved industrial efficiency and prosperity. Taylor adopted an instrumental view of human behaviour together with the application of standard procedures of work. Workers were regarded as rational, economic beings moti- vated directly by monetary incentives linked to the level of work output. Workers were viewed as isolated individuals and more as units of production to be handled almost in the same way as machines. Hence, scientific management is often referred to as a machine theory model. Taylor’s work continues to evoke much comment and extreme points of view. For example, Rose suggests: It is difficult to discuss the ‘contribution’ of F. W. Taylor to the systematic study of industrial behaviour in an even-tempered way. The sheer silliness from a modern perspective of many of his ideas, and barbarities they led to when applied in industry, encourage ridicule and denunciation.18 The theme of inefficiency Rose argues that Taylor’s diagnosis of the industrial situation was based on the simple theme of inefficiency. Among his criticisms are that Taylor selected the best workers for his experi- ments and assumed that workers who were not good at one particular task would be best at some other task. There is, however, no certainty of this in practice. Taylor regarded workers from an engineering viewpoint and as machines, but the one best way of performing a task is not always the best method for every worker. The reduction of physical movement to find the one best way is not always beneficial and some ‘wasteful’ movements are essential to the overall rhythm of work. Rose also argues that the concept of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work is not purely a technical matter. It is also a notion of social equity and not in keeping with a scientific approach. Drucker, however, claims: Frederick Winslow Taylor may prove a more useful prophet for our times than we yet recognize . . . Taylor’s greatest impact may still be ahead . . . the under-developed and developing countries are now reaching the stage where they need Taylor and ‘scientific management’ . . . But the need to study Taylor anew and apply him may be the greatest in the developed countries.19 According to Drucker, the central theme of Taylor’s work was not inefficiency but the need to substitute industrial warfare by industrial harmony. Taylor sought to do this through: PART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING 50 and the organisation of work. The ideas and principles of the classical writers were derived mainly from practical experience. Writers on bureaucracy, however, tend to take a more theoretical view. Weber, a German sociologist, showed particular concern for what he called ‘bureaucratic structures’, although his work in this area came almost as a side issue to his main study on power and authority.25 He suggested that ‘the decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic organization has always been its purely technical superiority over any other form of organ- ization’. Weber pointed out that the definition of tasks and responsibilities within the structure of management gave rise to a permanent administration and standardisation of work procedures notwithstanding changes in the actual holders of office. The term ‘bureaucracy’ has common connotations with criticism of red tape and rigidity, though in the study of organisations and management it is important that the term is seen not necessarily in a deprecative sense, but as applying to certain structural features of formal organisations. Weber analysed bureaucracies not empirically but as an ‘ideal type’ derived from the most characteristic bureaucratic features of all known organisations. He saw the development of bureaucracies as a means of introducing order and rationality into social life. Main characteristics of bureaucracies Weber did not actually define bureaucracy, but did attempt to identify the main character- istics of this type of organisation. He emphasised the importance of administration based on expertise (rules of experts) and administration based on discipline (rules of officials). ■ The tasks of the organisation are allocated as official duties among the various positions. ■ There is an implied clear-cut division of labour and a high level of specialisation. ■ A hierarchical authority applies to the organisation of offices and positions. ■ Uniformity of decisions and actions is achieved through formally established systems of rules and regulations. Together with a structure of authority, this enables the co- ordination of various activities within the organisation. ■ An impersonal orientation is expected from officials in their dealings with clients and other officials. This is designed to result in rational judgements by officials in the perform- ance of their duties. ■ Employment by the organisation is based on technical qualifications and constitutes a lifelong career for the officials.26 The four main features of bureaucracy are summarised by Stewart as specialisation, hierarchy of authority, system of rules and impersonality. ■ Specialisation applies more to the job than to the person undertaking the job. This makes for continuity because the job usually continues if the present job-holder leaves. ■ Hierarchy of authority makes for a sharp distinction between administrators and the administered or between management and workers. Within the management ranks there are clearly defined levels of authority. This detailed and precise stratification is particularly marked in the armed forces and in the civil service. ■ System of rules aims to provide for an efficient and impersonal operation. The system of rules is generally stable, although some rules may be changed or modified with time. Knowledge of the rules is a requisite of holding a job in a bureaucracy. ■ Impersonality means that allocation of privileges and the exercise of authority should not be arbitrary, but in accordance with the laid-down system of rules. In more highly developed bureaucracies there tend to be carefully defined procedures for appealing against certain types of decisions. Stewart sees the characteristic of impersonality as the feature of bureaucracy which most distinguishes it from other types of organisations. A bureaucracy should not only be impersonal but be seen to be impersonal.27 CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT 51 CRITICISMS OF BUREAUCRACY Weber’s concept of bureaucracy has a number of disadvantages and has been subject to severe criticism. ■ The over-emphasis on rules and procedures, record keeping and paperwork may become more important in its own right than as a means to an end. ■ Officials may develop a dependence upon bureaucratic status, symbols and rules. ■ Initiative may be stifled and when a situation is not covered by a complete set of rules or procedures there may be a lack of flexibility or adaptation to changing circumstances. ■ Position and responsibilities in the organisation can lead to officious bureaucratic behaviour. There may also be a tendency to conceal administrative procedures from outsiders. ■ Impersonal relations can lead to stereotyped behaviour and a lack of responsiveness to individual incidents or problems. Restriction of psychological growth One of the strongest critics of bureaucratic organisation, and the demands it makes on the worker, is Argyris.28 He claims that bureaucracies restrict the psychological growth of the individual and cause feelings of failure, frustration and conflict. Argyris suggests that the organisational environment should provide a significant degree of individual responsibility and self-control; commitment to the goals of the organisation; productiveness and work; and an opportunity for individuals to apply their full abilities. When these ideas are related to the main features of bureaucracy discussed above, such as specialisation, hierarchy of authority, system of rules and impersonality, it is perhaps easy to see the basis of Argyris’ criticism. A similar criticism is made by Caulkin who refers to the impersonal structure of bureauc- racy as constructed round the post rather than the person and the ease with which it can be swung behind unsocial or even pathological ends. The overemphasis on process rather than purpose, fragmented responsibilities and hierarchical control means that it’s all too easy for individuals to neglect the larger purposes to which their small effort is being put.29 EVALUATION OF BUREAUCRACY The growth of bureaucracy has come about through the increasing size and complexity of organisations and the associated demand for effective administration. The work of the classical writers has given emphasis to the careful design and planning of organisation structure and the definition of individual duties and responsibilities. Effective organisation is based on structure and delegation through different layers of the hierarchy. Greater special- isation and the application of expertise and technical knowledge have highlighted the need for laid-down procedures. Bureaucracy is founded on a formal, clearly defined and hierarchical structure. However, with rapid changes in the external environment, de-layering of organisations, empower- ment and greater attention to meeting the needs of customers, there is an increasing need to organise for flexibility. Peters and Waterman found that excellent American companies achieved quick action just because their organisations were fluid and had intensive networks of informal and open communications.30 By contrast, the crisis IBM experienced in the 1980s/1990s over the market for personal computers is explained at least in part by its top-heavy corporate structure, cumbersome organisation and dinosaur-like bureaucracy.31 PART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING 52 Organisational solutions As organisations face increasing global competitiveness and complex demands of the infor- mation and technological age, the need arises for alternative forms of corporate structure and systems. Ridderstrale points out that in the past century the hallmark of a large company was hierarchy, which rests on principles at odds with the new strategic requirements. ‘Bureaucracies allowed people with knowledge to control ignorant workers. Now, new structures are needed as knowledge spreads.’ Ridderstrale suggests four specific ways in which high-performing organisations have responded to increasingly complex knowledge systems by developing organisational solutions which depart from the traditional bureau- cratic model: ■ more decentralised and flatter structures in order that quick decisions can be taken near to where the critical knowledge resides. Flatter structures can be achieved by increasing the span of control and reducing layers from the top or removing layers of middle management; ■ the use of more than a single structure in order that knowledge may be assembled across the boundaries of a traditional organisation chart. If people have less permanent places in the hierarchy they are more readily able to move across functional and geographical borders; ■ converting companies into learning organisations and giving every employee the same level of familiarity with personnel and capabilities. Successful companies develop a detailed inventory of core competencies. In order fully to exploit current knowledge, managers need to know what the company knows; ■ the broader sharing of expertise and knowledge, which may be located in the periphery where little formal authority resides. Managers need to share principles to ensure co- ordination and to encourage ‘lowest common denominators’ and the development of ‘tribal’ qualities through shared ownership and rewards, common norms, culture and values.33 Public sector organisations In the case of public sector organisations, in particular, there is a demand for uniformity of treatment, regularity of procedures and public accountability for their operations. This leads to adherence to specified rules and procedures and to the keeping of detailed records. In their actual dealings with public sector organisations, people often call for what amounts to increased bureaucracy, even though they may not use that term. The demands for equal treatment, for a standard set of regulations that apply to everyone, and that decisions should not be left to the discretion of individual managers are in effect demands for bureaucracy. According to Cloke and Goldsmith, management and bureaucracy can be thought of as flip sides of the same coin. The elements of bureaucracy generate organisational hierarchy and management, while managers generate a need for bureaucracy. Bureaucracies provide a safe haven where managers can hide from responsibility and avoid being held accountable for errors of judgement or problems they created or failed to solve. In return, managers are able to use bureaucratic rules to stifle self-management and compel employees to follow their direction . . . Yet bureaucratic systems can be broken down and trans- formed into human-scale interactions. We have seen countless managers recreate themselves as leaders and facilitators, employees reinvent themselves as responsible self-managing team members, and bureaucracies transform into responsive, human-scale organizations. Alternatives to organizational hierarchy are both practical and possible.32 CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT 55 wanted to talk about issues other than just supervision and immediate working conditions. As a result, the style of interviewing was changed to become more non-directive and open- ended. There was no set list of questions and the workers were free to talk about any aspect of their work. The interviewers set out to be friendly and sympathetic. They adopted an impartial, non-judgemental approach and concentrated on listening. Using this approach, the interviewers found out far more about the workers’ true feelings and attitudes. They gained information not just about supervision and working conditions but also about the company itself, management, work group relations and matters outside of work such as family life and views on society in general. Many workers appeared to welcome the opportunity to have someone to talk to about their feelings and problems and to be able to ‘let off steam’ in a friendly atmosphere. The interviewing programme was significant in giving an impetus to present-day human resource management and the use of counselling interviews, and highlighting the need for management to listen to workers’ feel- ings and problems. Being a good listener is arguably even more important for managers in today’s work organisations and it is a skill which needs to be encouraged and developed.43 The bank wiring observation room Another experiment involved the observation of a group of 14 men working in the bank wiring room. It was noted that the men formed their own informal organisation with sub- groups or cliques, and with natural leaders emerging with the consent of the members. The group developed its own pattern of informal social relations and ‘norms’ of what constituted ‘proper’ behaviour. Despite a financial incentive scheme where the workers could receive more money the more work produced, the group decided on a level of output well below the level they were capable of producing. Group pressures on individual workers were stronger than financial incentives offered by management. The group believed that if they increased their output, management would raise the standard level of piece rates. The importance of group ‘norms’ and informal social relations are discussed in Chapter 6. EVALUATION OF THE HUMAN RELATIONS APPROACH The human relations approach has been subjected to severe criticism. The Hawthorne experi- ments have been criticised, for example, on methodology and on failure of the investigators to take sufficient account of environmental factors – although much of this criticism is with the value of hindsight. The human relations writers have been criticised generally for the adoption of a management perspective, their ‘unitary frame of reference’ and their over- simplified theories.44 Other criticisms of the human relations approach are that it is insufficiently scientific and that it takes too narrow a view. It ignores the role of the organisation itself in how society operates. Sex power differential There are a number of interpretations of the results of the Hawthorne experiments, includ- ing the possible implications of the ‘sex power differential’ between the two groups. In the relay assembly room where output increased, the group was all female, while in the bank wiring room where output was restricted, the group was all male. The workers in the relay assembly test room were all young unmarried women. All except one were living at home with traditional families of immigrant background. In the work environment of the factory the women had been subjected to frequent contact with male supervisors and therefore ‘the sex power hierarchies in the home and in the factory were congruent’. It is suggested, therefore, that it was only to be expected that the women agreed readily to participate with management in the relay assembly test room experiment.45 PART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING 56 Importance of the Hawthorne experiments Whatever the interpretation of the results of the Hawthorne experiments, they did generate new ideas concerning the importance of work groups and leadership, communications, output restrictions, motivation and job design. They placed emphasis on the importance of personnel management and gave impetus to the work of the human relations writers. The Hawthorne experiments undoubtedly marked a significant step forward in providing further insight into human behaviour at work and the development of management thinking. The Hawthorne experiments are regarded as one of the most important of all social science inves- tigations and are recognised as probably the single most important foundation of the human relations approach to management and the development of organisational behaviour. In a review of humane approaches to management, Crainer asserts: ‘The Hawthorne Studies were important because they showed that views of how managers behaved were a vital aspect of motivation and improved performance. Also, the research revealed the importance of informal work groups.’46 Humanisation of the work organisation Whereas supporters of the classical approach sought to increase production by rationalisation of the work organisation, the human relations movement has led to ideas on increasing production by humanising the work organisation. The classical approach adopted more of a managerial perspective, while the human relations approach strove for a greater under- standing of people’s psychological and social needs at work as well as improving the process of management. It is usually regarded as the first major approach to organisation and man- agement to show concern for industrial sociology. The human relations approach recognised the importance of the informal organisation, which will always be present within the formal structure. This informal organisation will influence the motivation of employees, who will view the organisation for which they work through the values and attitudes of their colleagues. Their view of the organisation deter- mines their approach to work and the extent of their motivation to work well or otherwise. Human relations writers demonstrated that people go to work to satisfy a complexity of needs and not simply for monetary reward. They emphasised the importance of the wider social needs of individuals and gave recognition to the work organisation as a social organ- isation and the importance of the group, and group values and norms, in influencing indi- vidual behaviour at work. It has been commented that the classical school was concerned about ‘organisations without people’ and the human relations school about ‘people without organisations’. Critical reflection ‘The human relations approach to organisations and management makes all the right sounds with an emphasis on humane behaviour, considerate management and recognition of the informal organisation. However, it is more about what people would like to believe and lacks credibility and substance.’ To what extent do the criticisms and shortcomings of the human relations approach detract from its potential benefits? NEO-HUMAN RELATIONS Certainly there were shortcomings in the human relations approach and assumptions which evolved from such studies as the Hawthorne experiments were not necessarily supported by empirical evidence. For example, the contention that a satisfied worker is a productive CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT 57 worker was not always found to be valid. However, the results of the Hawthorne experiments and the subsequent attention given to the social organisation and to theories of individual motivation gave rise to the work of those writers in the 1950s and 1960s who adopted a more psychological orientation. New ideas on management theory arose and a major focus of concern was the personal adjustment of the individual within the work organisation and the effects of group relationships and leadership styles. This group of writers is often (and more correctly) categorised separately under the heading of ‘neo-human relations’. The works of these writers are also examined in Chapter 5 and Chapter 8 but are summarised broadly here. The work of Maslow A major impetus for the neo-human relations approach was the work of Maslow who, in 1943, put forward a theoretical framework of individual personality development and moti- vation based on a hierarchy of human needs.47 The hierarchy ranges through five levels from, at the lowest level, physiological needs, through safety needs, love needs and esteem needs, to the need for self-actualisation at the highest level. Individuals advance up the hierarchy only as each lower-level need is satisfied. Although Maslow did not originally intend this need hierarchy to be applied necessarily to the work situation it has, nevertheless, had a significant impact on management approaches to motivation and the design of work organ- isation to meet individual needs. The work of Maslow provides a link with the earlier human relations approach. Some leading contributors Among the best-known contributors to the neo-human relations approach are Herzberg and McGregor. Herzberg isolated two different sets of factors affecting motivation and satisfac- tion at work. One set of factors comprises those which, if absent, cause dissatisfaction. These are ‘hygiene’ or ‘maintenance’ factors which are concerned basically with job environment. However, to motivate workers to give of their best, proper attention must be given to a different set of factors, the ‘motivators’ or ‘growth’ factors. These are concerned with job content.48 McGregor argued that the style of management adopted is a function of the manager’s attitudes towards human nature and behaviour at work. He put forward two suppositions called Theory X and Theory Y which are based on popular assumptions about work and people.49 Other major contributors to the neo-human relations approach are Likert, whose work includes research into different systems of management;50 McClelland, with ideas on achieve- ment motivation;51 and Argyris, who considered the effects of the formal organisation on the individual and psychological growth in the process of self-actualisation.52 Argyris’ major contributions include his work on organisational learning and on effective leadership.53 The neo-human relations approach has generated a large amount of writing and research not only from original propounders, but also from others seeking to establish the validity, or otherwise, of their ideas. This has led to continuing attention being given to such matters as organisation structuring, group dynamics, job satisfaction, communication and partici- pation, leadership styles and motivation. It has also led to greater attention to the importance of interpersonal interactions, the causes of conflict and recognition of ‘employee relations’ problems. THE SYSTEMS APPROACH More recently, attention has been focused on the analysis of organisations as ‘systems’ with a number of interrelated sub-systems. The classical approach emphasised the technical requirements of the organisation and its needs – ‘organisations without people’; the human PART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING 60 Fi gu re 2 .3 C on ce pt m ap o f m an ag em en t th eo ry S ou rc e: C op yr ig ht © 2 00 8 Th e V irt ua l L ea rn in g M at er ia ls W or ks ho p . R ep ro d uc ed w ith p er m is si on . CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT 61 OTHER APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF ORGANISATIONS The four-fold framework of classical, human relations, systems and contingency approaches provides a helpful, although rather simplistic, categorisation. The study of organisations, their structure and management is a broad field of inquiry. Depending on the views and preferences of the writer, other possible main approaches include decision-making and social action. THE DECISION-MAKING APPROACH The systems approach involves the isolation of those functions most directly concerned with the achievement of objectives and the identification of main decision areas or sub-systems. Viewing the organisation as a system emphasises the need for good information and chan- nels of communication in order to assist effective decision-making in the organisation. Recognition of the need for decision-making and the attainment of goals draws attention to a sub-division of the systems approach, or a separate category, that of the decision-making (decision theory) approach. Here the focus of attention is on managerial decision-making and how organisations process and use information in making decisions. Successful management lies in responding to internal and external change. This involves the clarification of objectives, the specification of problems and the search for and imple- mentation of solutions. The organisation is seen as an information-processing network with numerous decision points. An understanding of how decisions are made helps in understanding behaviour in the organisation. Decision-making writers seek to explain the mechanisms by which conflict is resolved and choices are made. Some leading writers Leading writers on the decision-making approach include Barnard, Simon and Cyert and March. The scope of the decision-making approach, however, is wide and it is possible to identify contributions from engineers, mathematicians and operational research specialists in ad- dition to the work of economists, psychologists and writers on management and organisation. Barnard stressed the need for co-operative action in organisations. He believed that people’s ability to communicate, and their commitment and contribution to the achieve- ment of a common purpose, were necessary for the existence of a co-operative system.62 These ideas were developed further by Simon. He sees management as meaning decision- making and his concern is with how decisions are made and how decision-making can be improved. Simon is critical of the implication of man as completely rational and pro- poses a model of ‘administrative man’ who, unlike ‘economic man’, ‘satisfices’ rather than maximises. Administrative decision-making is the achievement of satisfactory rather than optimal results in solving problems.63 Economic models of decision-making, based on the assumption of rational behaviour in choosing from known alternatives in order to maximise objectives, can be contrasted with behavioural models based not so much on maximisation of objectives as on short- term expediency where a choice is made to avoid conflict and to stay within limiting constraints. Managers are more concerned with avoiding uncertainties than with the predic- tion of uncertainties.64 SOCIAL ACTION Social action represents a contribution from sociologists to the study of organisations. Social action writers attempt to view the organisation from the standpoint of individual members (actors), who will each have their own goals and interpretation of their work PART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING 62 situation in terms of the satisfaction sought and the meaning that work has for them. The goals of the individual, and the means selected and actions taken to achieve these goals, are affected by the individual’s perception of the situation. Social action looks to the indi- vidual’s own definition of the situation as a basis for explaining behaviour. Conflict of interests is seen as normal behaviour and part of organisational life. According to Silverman, ‘The action approach . . . does not, in itself, provide a theory of organisations. It is instead best understood as a method of analysing social relations within organisations.’65 Criticisms of earlier approaches A main thrust of social action is the criticism of earlier approaches to organisation and management and of what is claimed to be their failure to provide a satisfactory basis for the explanation or prediction of individual behaviour. For example, criticism is directed at approaches which focused on the goals and needs of the organisation rather than on con- siderations of the effectiveness of an organisation in meeting the needs of its individual members. The human relations approaches have been criticised because of their focus on gener- alised theories of good management, group psychology and the suggestion of needs common to all individuals at work. The technology approach has been criticised for attributing feel- ings of alienation to the nature of technology and the status of work groups rather than an analysis which focused on concern for the individual’s expectations of, and reactions to, work. The systems approach has been criticised for failure to examine the orientation of indi- vidual members to the organisation, the different expectations people have of their work or ways in which the environment influences expectations of work. Unitary or pluralistic view Important contributors to a social action approach include Goldthorpe (industrial attitudes and behaviour patterns of manual workers)66 and Fox. In a research paper written for the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations (the Donovan Report), Fox suggests two major ways of perceiving an industrial organisation – a ‘unitary’ approach and a ‘pluralistic’ approach.67 With the unitary approach the organisation is viewed as a team with a common source of loyalty, one focus of effort and one accepted leader. The pluralistic approach views the organisation as made up of competing sub-groups with their own loyalties, goals and leaders. These competing sub-groups are almost certain to come into conflict. Action theory A theory of human behaviour from an ‘action approach’ is presented by Bowey.68 She sug- gests that action theory, systems theory and contingency theory are not necessarily incom- patible approaches to the understanding of behaviour in organisations. It would be possible to take the best parts of the different approaches and combine them into a theory that would model empirical behaviour and also facilitate the analysis of large numbers of people in organisations. Bowey goes on to present such a theory as a particular form of an action theory approach. According to Bowey, action theory is not capable of dealing with the analysis of the behaviour of a large number of people in organisations. Her theory is based, therefore, on three essential principles of action theory, augmented by four additional concepts taken from systems theory. The three essential principles of action theory can be summarised as below: ■ Sociology is concerned not just with behaviour but with ‘meaningful action’. ■ Particular meanings persist through reaffirmation in actions. ■ Actions can also lead to changes in meanings. CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT 65 By contrast, postmodernism places greater attention on the use of language and attempts to portray a particular set of assumptions or versions of the ‘truth’. Watson defines post- modernism as: A way of looking at the world that rejects attempts to build systematic (or ‘foundationalist’) explanations of history and society and which, instead, concentrates on the ways in which human beings ‘invent’ their words, especially through the use of language or ‘discourse’.72 A generalised sociological concept The idea of postmodernism is, however, not easy to explain fully in clear and simple terms. It is arguably more of a generalised sociological concept rather than a specific approach to organisation and management. There is even some discussion of two connotations, and theories or philosophies of the concept depending on whether the term is hyphenated or not.73 Perhaps understandably, therefore, the concept of postmodernism appears to have little interest or appeal to the practical manager. Indeed Watson, for example, questions the value of labelling more flexible forms of bureaucratic structure and culture as postmodern or post-bureaucratic and differentiating these from the modernist bureaucratic organisation. There is no postmodern or post-bureaucratic organisational form available to us that is essentially dif- ferent from the modernist bureaucratic organisation. We are indeed seeing different mixes of direct and indirect management control attempts as the world changes. But the world was always changing. Probably from the very beginning of industrialisation there has been a mixing of direct and indirect controls with emphases in one direction and then the other being made at different times.74 Nevertheless, postmodernist organisation can arguably be seen as a healthy challenge to more traditional approaches. It puts forward alternative interpretations of rationality, credibility and ambiguity, and a thoughtful critical perspective on disorders in work organisations, and reminds us of the complexities in our understanding of management and organisational behaviour. Critical reflection ‘The idea of postmodernist organisation can be likened to the “Emperor’s new clothes”. In reality it is too theoretical and too vague, and lacks any real adaptive value for the practical manager.’ How would you attempt to challenge this assertion? What is your own opinion of postmodernism? RELEVANCE TO MANAGEMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR The different possible categorisations are not necessarily a bad thing; they illustrate the dis- cursive and complex nature of management. The possible sub-divisions and cross-groupings help illustrate the many factors relevant to the study and practice of management and organ- isational behaviour. Discussion on the various categorisations of approaches and the identification of individual writers within a particular approach can provide a useful insight into the subject. Positive advantages Whatever form of categorisation is adopted, the division of writers on organisation and man- agement into various approaches offers a number of positive advantages. PART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING 66 ■ It is helpful to students in the arrangement and study of their material. ■ It provides a setting in which to view the field of management and to consider the contribution of individual writers. ■ It traces the major lines of argument developed by writers seeking to advise practising managers on how they might improve performance. ■ It provides a framework in which the principles enunciated can be set and against which comparisons with management practice can be made. ■ It helps in organisational analysis and in the identification of problem areas. For example, is the problem one of structure, of human relations or of the socio-technical process? ■ It enables the manager to take from the different approaches those ideas which best suit the particular requirements of the job. For example, in dealing with a problem of structure, the ideas of the classical writers or of contingency theory might be adopted. When there is a problem relating to human resource management, ideas from the human relations movement might be of most value. If the problem is one of environmental influence, insights from the systems approach might prove most helpful. For problems of a more quantitative nature, ideas from the decision-making approach or from manage- ment science might be applicable. Caveats to be noted There are, however, a number of important caveats that should be noted. ■ The various approaches represent a progression of ideas, each building on from the other and adding to it. Together they provide a pattern of complementary studies into the development of management thinking. The different approaches are not in competition with each other and no one approach should be viewed as if it were the only approach, replacing or superseding earlier contributions. Many ideas of earlier writers are still of relevance today and of continuing importance in modern management practice. ■ Any categorisation of individual writers into specific approaches is inevitably somewhat arbitrary and not all writers can be neatly arranged in this manner. This is only to be expected. Such writers are expounding their current thoughts and ideas in keeping with the continual development of management theory and changes in management practice. The comment made about some management writers that they are saying different things at different times might therefore be taken more as a compliment than as a criticism. ■ Even when there is agreement on the nature of the contribution from different writers, the actual division into varying approaches may take a number of forms. In other words, while there might be acceptance of the need for a framework, there is no agreement on its shape. Different authors have adopted different formats in which to set out the develop- ments in management thinking. ■ Some of the literature categorises management thinkers into divisions called ‘schools’. The use of this term suggests a clarity of distinction between each division and a uni- formity of beliefs within each division. This is perhaps an exaggeration. The distinction between these so-called schools is not clear-cut and there is not necessarily a consistency of thinking among the various contributors in each division. The term ‘approaches’ to management is more indicative of the obscure lines between the different categorisations and, paradoxically, it is the suggestion of vagueness that, arguably, makes it a more appro- priate term to use. Of course, management theories have often been the subject of discourse and criticism. Some critics see organisational philosophies as management fads that will be replaced by new ones as other theories are proposed. That may well be the case, but it is good for management theories to evolve, because organisations change, the environment changes, and as a result, management practices and techniques change . . . Theories provide us with valuable insights CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT 67 into how we can be more understanding, influential and ultimately more successful in managing organisations and the turbulent dynamic environments in which they operate . . . you of course, may have a different view! Jacqueline McLean75 The importance of cultural contexts A major criticism of the attempt to define generalised models of management theory is the assumption of national culture. In a review of management theory and practice, Heller con- trasts British and American thinking with methods employed by the Japanese. In the 1960s, Western managements showed a total lack of curiosity about competition from Japan; British and European managers were still obsessed by the American example. The Japanese built hugely on what they had borrowed from the USA. However, the Japanese also practised and perfected what management scientists often only preached.76 Although British management has failed to live up to Japanese standards, professional standards among managers in Britain have improved greatly over the past 25 years. The potential of a widening Europe and the Japanese penchant for locating more plants in Britain provide the best reasons for brighter prospects. Schneider and Barsoux draw attention to how the different theories on how to organise all reflect societal concerns of the times as well as the cultural backgrounds of the individuals. Different approaches reflect different cultural assumptions regarding, for example, human nature and the importance of task and relationships.77 Cheng et al. also question the universality of theories of management and organisational behaviour on the grounds that they have not adequately addressed the factor of culture. ‘Traditionally, the greatest aspiration of researchers is to discover objective, universalistic principles of behaviour. The tacit assumption behind this is that these principles may be discovered without reference to cultural contexts.’ They conclude that while there may be some universality to organisation structures, for example the need for some form of hierarchy whatever its shape may be, different national cultures frequently give those struc- tures different meanings.78 TOWARDS A SCIENTIFIC VALUE APPROACH? It might arguably be that the study of organisations, their structure and management is moving towards a more scientific approach. Management science can assist managers in the analysis of complex problems that are subject to quantitative constraints and in the optimis- ation of decisions in such problems. It may also assist in the establishment of broad theory. It is obvious from even a cursory glance at the history of management science that science and technology are considered to be key instruments in solving workplace problems and in controlling work- places . . . While Taylorist scientific management may have its academic critics, management science is thriving. It is itself a large business, providing employment for management consultants whose sole concern is solving workplace problems of other corporations.79 Balance between philosophy and science Miner, however, suggests that although the degree of commitment to the scientific value system is increasing, as yet there is insufficient research to move the field entirely into science, completely divorced from philosophy. At present management theory is clearly in the ‘schools’ phase. As discussed earlier, it is possible to argue over the use of the term ‘schools’. However, whatever terminology is used, and whatever the state of our knowledge, the message from Miner is clear: PART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING 70 1 Assess critically the relevance of scientific management to present-day organisations. Illustrate your answer with reference to your own organisation. 2 To what extent is there anything positive to be said for bureaucratic structures? Select a large-scale organisation of your choice and suggest ways in which it displays characteristics of a bureaucracy. 3 What are the main conclusions that can be drawn from the Hawthorne experiments? Discuss critically the relevance of these experiments for management and organisational behaviour today. 4 Summarise the main features of the neo-human relations approach to organisation and management. How does it differ from other approaches? 5 Evaluate the application of the systems approach to the analysis of work organisations. Suggest an example of a work situation in which the systems approach might be appropriate. 6 Contrast approaches to improving organisational performance based on attention to technical and structural requirements with those based on concern for psychological and social factors. 7 Explain what is meant by a social action approach. Assess critically the practical relevance of ‘action theory’. 8 Identify, and outline briefly, major trends in management theory since the beginning of this century. Debate critically the extent to which the ideas of management gurus have any practical relevance or benefits for managers. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS The story of the middleman Stefan Stern FT MANAGEMENT IN THE NEWS Reports of the death of middle management were not merely exaggerated, they were wrong. Yes, organisations have de-layered. Yes, the current ‘white-collar’ recession is having a big impact on the middle tier of professionals within businesses. But middle managers have not been abolished. They are still here, hard at work. That is one reason that the book The Truth About Middle Managers by Paul Osterman is welcome. It attempts to take a serious look at the reality of middle management. The author has made a sincere attempt to shed more light on this under-analysed cadre of managers. Sincere but also, regrettably, flawed. The author defines his terms clearly enough. ‘Senior management makes the decisions that set the organisation’s course, whereas middle management interprets and executes those decisions,’ he writes. Based on his research, Osterman tests some of the common assumptions made about middle managers. It is not true, he argues, that middle managers are sinking into a pit of despair as their numbers fall and job insecurity rises. In fact, in the US at any rate, there are more managers than ever. They are ‘less secure, but more in demand’. Nor is it true, Osterman asserts, that middle managers are alienated from their work and have little commitment to what they do. ‘Middle managers are the glue that holds organisations together,’ he writes. Middle managers very much enjoy what they do and have what I term a strong craft commitment to their work. But it is also true they have lost their loyalty to their firm. As organisations have divested themselves of managerial levels, core managerial responsibilities have been pushed down to middle management. Middle managers are now the negotiators between different interests and are making key decisions about trade-offs. That is certainly true, as is his other observation, In the past the nature of the firm was stable, whereas today it is constantly being reshaped. The continuous organisational turmoil that ensues creates an environment that seems chaotic and out of control from the perspective of middle management. So why has he come up with some relatively sunny conclusions? CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT 71 A key part of the research for this book involved in-depth interviews with 50 middle managers from two separate organisations, a bank and a high-tech company. But these interviews were conducted in 2004 and 2005. How were your prospects back then? A lot better than today, we can assume. Second, who were these managers? Osterman explains: ‘The middle managers were chosen randomly from a list provided by the human resources staff in each organisation.’ Did HR allow any malcontents, whingers and otherwise less-than-upbeat people to be interviewed? It seems unlikely. So we must be sceptical – insecurity is real, not imagined, and disillusionment is widespread. As one of his witnesses said, even then, ‘I think if you asked people if they had a choice today whether they’d take a job or take the [redundancy] package, you’d get a fair number of people whose hands would be raised for the package – mine included.’ Source: Stern, S. ‘The Story of the Middleman’, Financial Times, 25 February 2009. Copyright © 2009 The Financial Times Limited, reproduced with permission. Discussion questions 1 This article describes some research into management and organisational behaviour. Explain which of the approaches to organisational behaviour outlined in the chapter you think Osterman takes, and why. 2 What does the article tell us about the problems associated with researching organisational behaviour? How can such problems be minimised or avoided? a Answer each question ‘mostly agree’ or ‘mostly disagree’. Assume that you are trying to learn something about yourself. Do not assume that your answer will be shown to a prospective employer. Mostly agree Mostly disagree 1 I value stability in my job. 2 I like a predictable organisation. 3 The best job for me would be one in which the future is uncertain. 4 The army would be a nice place to work. 5 Rules, policies and procedures tend to frustrate me. 6 I would enjoy working for a company that employed 85,000 people worldwide. 7 Being self-employed would involve more risk than I’m willing to take. 8 Before accepting a job, I would like to see an exact job description. 9 I would prefer a job as a freelance house painter to one as a clerk for the Department of Motor Vehicles. 10 Seniority should be as important as performance in determining pay increases and promotion. 11 It would give me a feeling of pride to work for the largest and most successful company in its field. 12 Given a choice, I would prefer to make £30,000 per year as a vice-president in a small company to £40,000 as a staff specialist in a large company. 13 I would regard wearing an employee badge with a number on it as a degrading experience. 14 Parking spaces in a company lot should be assigned on the basis of job level. 15 If an accountant works for a large organisation, he or she cannot be a true professional. ASSIGNMENT ➔ PART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING 72 16 Before accepting a job (given a choice), I would want to make sure that the company had a very fine programme of employee benefits. 17 A company will probably not be successful unless it establishes a clear set of rules and procedures. 18 Regular working hours and holidays are more important to me than finding thrills on the job. 19 You should respect people according to their rank. 20 Rules are meant to be broken. Source: Adapted from DuBrin, A. J. Human Relations: A Job-Oriented Approach, Reston Publishing/Prentice Hall (1978), pp. 296–7. Copyright © 1978. Reproduced with permission from Pearson Education Inc. b You should then consider and discuss the further information supplied by your tutor. Dell Computers: the world at your fingertips CASE STUDY Breaking the Mould The growth of the home personal computer (PC) market is one of the most remarkable success stories of the last quarter century. If you own a home PC or an electronic notebook and you live in the United States, then there is a one in three possibility that it is a Dell. Whilst Dell has a smaller proportion of the pc market outside the USA, there remains a strong possibility that your new PC was assembled in Limerick, Penang or Xiamen. Any of these is a very long way from the campus dormitory at the University of Texas at Austin where Michael Dell began to build and sell computers directly to customers in 1984. Then, the majority of domestic customers bought ready-made products from retailers. The distribution channel for the industry usually contained five components; Supplier (of components, chips, software etc.), Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and Customer. Michael Dell’s idea was to sell direct, and at the same time allow customers to have a PC partly tailored to their personal requirements by choosing options from a list of components and specifications which he would then assemble to order.90 The opportunity to develop this new approach into a successful business was made possible by better and faster software which enabled the phone-based ordering system to run effectively. Whilst Dell supplied both business and individual customers, it was in the home PC market that the approach had particular success. Each computer was assembled to order, with components purchased from suppliers as they were required, so Dell was able to identify and respond to customer preferences and industry trends very quickly. While this approach to the manufacture of consumer goods is by no means unique (the ‘lean manufacturing’ approach is widely used in the car industry for example), Dell was able to make it work more successfully than its competitors. The basic business model transferred readily to the internet, where the process of ‘mass customisation’ can be managed even more effectively on-line.91 Dell’s growth at the turn of the century took it worldwide, and it was placed first in a ranking of the ‘Most Admired Companies’ by Fortune magazine in February 2005.92 Michael Dell transformed a business run from his bedroom at university to one of the leading companies in the IT market. S ou rc e: R ex F ea tu re s Assignment – continued CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT 75 49 McGregor, D. The Human Side of Enterprise, Penguin (1987). 50 Likert, R. New Patterns of Management, McGraw-Hill (1961). See also Likert, R. The Human Organization, McGraw-Hill (1967); Likert, R. and Likert, J. G. New Ways of Managing Conflict, McGraw-Hill (1976). 51 McClelland, D. C. Human Motivation, Cambridge University Press (1988). 52 Argyris, C. Understanding Organizational Behavior, Tavistock Publications (1960) and Integrating the Individual and the Organization, Wiley (1964). 53 See, for example, Caulkin, S. ‘Chris Argyris’, Management Today, October 1997, pp. 58–9. 54 Bertalanffy, L. von ‘Problems of General Systems Theory: A New Approach to the Unity of Science’, Human Biology, vol. 23, no. 4, December 1951, pp. 302–12. 55 Miller, E. J. and Rice, A. K. Systems of Organization, Tavistock Publications (1967). 56 Boulding, K. ‘General Systems Theory – The Skeleton of Science’, Management Science, vol. 2, no. 3, April 1956, pp. 197–208. 57 Trist, E. L., Higgin, G. W., Murray, H. and Pollock, A. B. Organizational Choice, Tavistock Publications (1963). 58 Lane, T., Snow, D.. and Labrow, P. ‘Learning to Succeed with ICT’, British Journal of Administrative Management, May/June 2000, pp. 14–15. 59 Walker, C. R. and Guest, R. H. The Man on the Assembly Line, Harvard University Press (1952). See also Walker, C. R., Guest, R. H. and Turner, A. N. The Foreman on the Assembly Line, Harvard University Press (1956). 60 Sayles, L. R. Behaviour of Industrial Work Groups, Wiley (1958). 61 Blauner, R. Alienation and Freedom, University of Chicago Press (1964). 62 Barnard, C. The Functions of the Executive, Oxford University Press (1938). 63 Simon, H. A. The New Science of Management Decision, revised edition, Prentice Hall (1977). 64 Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, second edition, Blackwell (1992). 65 Silverman, D. The Theory of Organisations, Heinemann (1970), p. 147. 66 Goldthorpe, J. H., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F. and Platt, J. The Affluent Worker, Cambridge University Press (1968). 67 Fox, A. Industrial Sociology and Industrial Relations, HMSO (1966). 68 Bowey, A. M. The Sociology of Organisations, Hodder & Stoughton (1976). 69 For further information see Crainer, S. Key Management Ideas: Thinkers That Changed the Management World, third edition, Financial Times Prentice Hall (1998). 70 Clegg, S. R. Modern Organizations: Organization Studies in the Postmodern World, Sage (1990). 71 Watson, T. J. Organising and Managing Work, Financial Times Prentice Hall (2002), p. 51. 72 Ibid., p. 50. 73 See, for example, Legge, K. Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities, Macmillan Business (1995). 74 Watson, T. J. Organising and Managing Work, Financial Times Prentice Hall (2002), p. 254. 75 McLean, J. ‘Management Techniques and Theories’, Manager, The British Journal of Administrative Management, August/September 2005, p. 17. 76 Heller, R. ‘The Change Managers’, Management Today: 25th Anniversary Issue, 1991, pp. 12–16. 77 Schneider, S. C. and Barsoux, J. Managing Across Cultures, second edition, Financial Times Prentice Hall (2003). 78 Cheng, T., Sculli, D. and Chan, F. ‘Relationship Dominance – Rethinking Management Theories from the Perspective of Methodological Relationalism’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 16, no. 2, 2001, pp. 97–105. 79 Bradley, H., Erickson, M., Stephenson, C. and Williams, S. Myths at Work, Polity Press (2000), pp. 96–7. 80 Miner, J. B. Management Theory, Macmillan (1971), p. 145. See also Miner, J. B. Theories of Organizational Behaviour, Holt, Rinehart & Winston (1980), ch. 1. 81 Handy, C. Myself and Other More Important Matters, William Heinemann (2006), p. 61. 82 Crainer, S. Key Management Ideas: Thinkers That Changed the Management World, third edition, Financial Times Prentice Hall (1998), p. xi. 83 Crainer, S. ‘The Rise of Guru Scepticism’, Management Today, March 1997, pp. 48–52. 84 Flores, G. N. and Utley, D. R. ‘Management Concepts in Use – a 12-year Perspective’, Engineering Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 3, September 2000, pp. 11–17. 85 Stern, S. ‘Guru Guide’, Management Today, October 2001, p. 87. 86 Billen, A. ‘Goodbye to Glib Gurus and Their Gobbledegook’, The Times, 9 March 2009. 87 Ghoshal, S., Barlett, C. A. and Moran, P. ‘Value Creation: The New Millennium Management Manifesto’, in Chowdhury, S. (ed.) Management 21C, Financial Times Prentice Hall (2000), p. 122. 88 See, for example, Klein, S. M. and Ritti, R. R. Understanding Organizational Behavior, second edition, Kent Publishing (1984), ch. 1. 89 Stern, S. ‘The Next Big Thing’, Management Today, April 2007, p. 50. 90 Kraemer, K. Dedrick, J. and Yamashiro, S. 2000 ‘Refining and Extending the Business Model with Information Technology: Dell Computer Corporation’ in The Information Society vol. 16 pp. 5–21. 91 Visit any of the Dell direct order websites to see how this operates; in the UK the address is www.dell.co.uk. The corporate address with wider company information is at www.dell.com. 92 Fortune Magazine, 22 February 2005. 93 Lee, L. 2006 ‘Dell: Facing up to Past Mistakes’ Business Week On-line, 19 June 2006 www.businesweek.com, accessed 28 July 2009. 94 Jeff Jarvis’ blog is at www.buzzmachine.com. 95 Now called Direct2Dell and accessible via http://en.community.dell.com/. 96 ‘The Soul of Dell’ can be found at the Dell website, accessed 28 July 2009. 97 Dell’s ‘Code of Conduct’ also at the Dell website, accessed 28 July 2009. 98 ‘Tell Dell’ is described in the recruitment pages of the Dell website, accessed 28 July 2009. PART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING 76 INTEGRATIVE CASE STUDY FOR PART 1 The Sunday Times 100 (Section 2) So, what were the best British places to work according to the Sunday Times Survey, and what made them special? Top of the ‘Best 100’ list came a social inclusion charity called ‘P3’ (people, potential, possibilities) which operates in the Midlands and London. It aims to help vulnerable and disadvantaged people, some with mental health problems, get back into jobs, housing or education. It provides direct services, such as schools and hostels for the homeless, but unlike many charities, P3 has a policy of actively recruiting people who have been its clients or who have used similar services in the past. In the view of the Chief Executive, this helps to keep the organisation client-focused and able to offer a better quality of support. The scores given by the 260+ staff for pride in the organisation, leadership and team spirit were all above 87 per cent; those for wellbeing, managerial relationships and personal growth were also in the upper 80s. Although it receives much of its income from government grants, trusts and donations, it clearly views itself as a social enterprise: a business which aims to trade for the benefit of people and the planet. Nando’s Restaurants won the Best 25 Big Companies category, with scores of over 70 per cent against all the criteria except one, that for ‘Fair Deal’ where they scored 61 per cent. The company has over 200 restaurants in the UK and employs more than 6,300 people, with plans to expand. It won the category at its first entry to the survey, beating professional service companies like Goldman Sachs, PricewaterhouseCoopers and American Express. Nando’s main strength seems to be in the closeness of the restaurant teams, the highly supportive and friendly managerial relationships and the flexibility offered to staff. The HR Director also believes that a strong level of investment in training and development (an average of £425 per person per year) reinforces the company’s relationship with its staff as well as enhancing skills. The best public sector organisation was the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Criminal Records Office in Hampshire. It is described as a relatively youthful and entrepreneurial organisation, despite the fact that its work is essentially to do with record keeping and the exchange of relevant information (including fingerprint and DNA data) between police forces and other agencies within the UK. It also supplies police certificates to people who need them for residency applications to other countries such as Australia, Canada and America. If the work itself sounds bureaucratic, the staff seem to love the inspirational leadership of its boss, a Detective Superintendent, and are positive about the future of the organisation; it had the highest score in the public sector category for staff sense of wellbeing. The final category was small/medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and top of this list was an IT solutions company called Softcat. It is less than 10 years old, employs about 200 people (average age 29) and has a very unconventional approach to working life. The founder’s passion for staff happiness filters down through the ranks, giving Softcat managers a staggering 92 per cent score. New recruits get to choose which team they join rather than being directed to a specific job, and there is a democratic ethos which gives staff a vote on a number of company-wide decisions. The team ethos is strong, and spills over into social life, all with a strong emphasis on fun. Questions 1 The four organisations described are very different in nature. Which of the theoretical approaches to organisational behaviour described in the chapter seems most appropriate to the study of each of the four? Explain your reasoning. 2 In which of the four organisations would you prefer to be a manager, and in which would you least like to manage? Explain the factors behind your choice.