Thursday, January 13, 2011

Management – A Science or Art

Management – A Science or Art:
Generally, a controversy arises whether the mgmt is a science of an art. It is said the mgmt is the oldest of art & the youngest of science. This explains the changing nature of mgmt. But to have an exact answer to the question it is necessary to understand the meaning of the terms ‘Science & art’.
Management as a science: before trying to examine whether the mgmt is a science or not, we have to understand the nature of science. Science may be a described as a systematized body of knowledge pertaining to an act of study & contains some general truths explaining past events or phenomena. It is systematized in the sense underlying principal discovered. Three important characteristics of science are; 1.it is a systematized body of knowledge & uses scientific methods for observation; 2. Its principles are evolved on the basis of continued observation & experiment; and 3. Its principles are exact & have universal applicability without any limitations further, science may be classified into two groups, a) positive science – which deals with ‘what ought to be’ aspect. Examples of scientific principles are that two atoms of hydrogen & one atom of oxygen form one molecule of water’ anything is thrown towards the sky, according to the law of gravitation, it will come down to the earth; if water is boiled, it turns into vapour & so on. Mgmt as an Art: Art refers to the ‘know-how to accomplish a desired result. The focus is one way of doing things as the saying goes ‘practice makes a man perfect’, constant practice of the theoretical concepts contributes for the formation of skills. The skills can be acquired through practice. In a way the attributes of science & art are the like require skills on the part of the practitioners & can only be acquired through practice. Mgmt is no exception. As an university gold medalist in surgery may not necessarily turn out to be a good surgeon, similarly a mgmt graduate from the best of the institute may not be very effective in practices. In both the case the application of knowledge acquired through formal education, required ingenuity, correct understanding of the variables in the situation, pragmatism & creativity in finding solutions to problems. Effective practice of any art requires a thorough understanding of the science underlying it. Thus science & art are not mutually exclusive, but are complementary. Executive who attempt to manage without the conceptual understanding of the mgmt principles & the necessary skill to use such knowledge, they have a better chance to succeed. Therefore, it may be concluded that mgmt is both a science & an art.

Contribution by Peter F. Drucker – MBO

Contribution by Peter F. Drucker – MBO: Drucker is highly respected mgmt thinker. He is a prolific writer & has published several books & articles on the mgmt practices. His views on mgmt may be summarised as follows:1.Nature of mgmt: peter Drucker is against bureaucratic mgmt & has emphasised mgmt with creative & innovative characteristics. The basic objective of mgmt is to lead towards innovation. The concept of innovation is quite broad. It may include development of new ideas, combining of old & new ideas, adaptation of ideas from other fields or even to act as a catalyst & encouraging other to carry out innovation. He has treated mgmt as a discipline as well as a profession.2.Mgmt functions: Peter Drucker opined that the, mgmt is the organ of its institution. It has no functions in itself, & no existence in itself. He sees mgmt through its tasks. Accordingly, there are three basic functions of a manager which he must perform to enable the institution to make its contributions for a) the specific purpose & mission of the institution, whether business, hospital or university.3.Organization Structure: Peter Drucker has described bureaucratic structure because of its to many dysfunctional effect. Hence, it should be replaced. He has emphasised three basic features of an effective organisation structure. These are a) enterprise should be organized for performance b) it should contain the least possible number of managerial level and c) it must make possible the training & testing of tomorrow’s top mangers – giving responsibility to a manager while still he is young. 4. Federalism: the concept of federalism has been advocate by Peter Drucker. Federalism refers to centralised control in decentralised structure. De centralised structure goes far beyond the delegation of authority. It creates a new constitution, & new ordering principle.5.Mgmt by Objective: P.Drucker most important contributions to the discipline of mgmt is mgmt by objective (MBO). He introduce this concept in a 1952. MBO has further between modified by schleh which has been termed as ‘mgmt by results’. MBO includes method of planning setting standards performance appraisals, & motivation. According to Drucker, MBO is not only a technique of mgmt but it is philosophy of managing.6.Organisational Changes: P Drucker has visualizes rapid changes in the society because of rapid technological development. Though he is not resident to change, he feels concerned for the rapid changes & their impact on human life. Normally, some changes can be absorbed by the organisation but not the rapid changes. Since rapid changes are occurring in the society, human beings should develop philosophy to face the changes & take them as challenges of making the society better.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Similarities-Difference F.Taylor-Henry Fayol

Similarities in the works F Taylor – Henry Fayol
1.Both are Pioneers:Taylor & Fayol are the two Pioneers in the evolution of management thought.2.Both pointed out problems of personnel: Taylor & Fayol both pointed out that the problem of personnel and its management at all levels is the ‘master-key’ to industrial productivity and progress.3.Both implied scientific approach: Both implied scientific approach and scientific method to solve the managerial problems.4. Success depends upon proper utilization of human resources: both had realized that success of a business enterprise depends largely on proper utilization of human resources.5.Stress on the technical and professional aspect: Both stressed on the technical or professional aspect of the management.6.Both are responsible for managerial revolution: Both are responsible for managerial revolution which took place after 1940. 7. Successful managers by profession: Both of them were initially successful managers by profession. They, therefore, approached this new science of management from a practical point of view. 8. Criticism for neglecting human psychology: Both approaches are criticized on the ground of neglecting human psychology. Behavior of the employees under different conditions is not studied in either of these theories. 9. Both wanted to secure maximum: both wanted to secure maximum from available resources.10. Both developed principle of division of work: Both of them developed the principle of division of work. Taylor introduced the principle of unity of command which was later developed by Fayol.11. Both opined that competent mgmt is necessary for success of business: both agreed that neither success nor failure is the result of the workers, contribution, competent mgmt is responsible for the success of the business and the failure of the business is the result of incompetent mgmt.12. Both used experience: Both applied the lessons of experience to the needs of the future & the result was a philosophy of mgmt.
Difference in the work of Taylor & Fayol: 1. Place of origin: Taylor belonged to the United States of America. Fayol was Frenchman. 2. Working process: Taylor worked primarily on the operative level from the bottom of the organization hierarchy upwards. Fayol started his theory from the top level to the lower level.3. Importance given by them: Taylor laid emphasis on the work study & time study of the workers. Fayol gave importance to the activities of the top mgmt like planning & controlling.4.Recognition of Approach: Taylors approach to theory of mgmt is recognized as an engineer’s approach. Fayol’s approach was towards the general function of mgmt.5.Difference in approach: Taylor laid stress on the importance of the efficiency. Thus, Taylor confined to production mgmt. Fayol gave importance to the principle of University of the mgmt. Thus, Fayol confined to overall mgmt job.6.Their contribution: Taylor give a scientific base to mgmt. on the other hand, Fayol went one step ahead, along with he scientific base, he insisted the need for mgmt training.7.System of wage payment: Taylor advocated a system of wage payments. Fayol did not mention anything about wage payments.8. Faith: Taylor had faith in scientific mgmt. Fayol had faith in principles of mgmt.

Henry Fayol administrative mgmt:

Henry Fayol & his administrative mgmt: He has been considered as the real father of modern mgmt. He was a French industrialist & graduated as a mining engineer in 1860. Fayol contributed his famous ‘Functional approach’ to the mgmt literature. Fayols writing were first published in 1908 in French but unfortunately, upto 1918, it was not translated into English. His ideas were accepted after his death in 1925. As an industrial executive, he found that all activities of industrial undertaking could be divided into six groups as follows:1. Technical (Production), 2.Commercial (buying, selling & exchange),3.Financial (optimum use of capital),4. Security (Protection of property),5.Accounting (including statistics),6.Management (planning, organizing, commanding, co-ordinating & controlling). According to Fayol, following are the basic principle of mgmt: 1.Division of work: this is the principle of specialization which is so well expressed by economists as being necessary to efficiency in the utilization of labour. Fayol goes beyond shop labour to apply the principles to all kinds of work, managerial as well as technical.2.Delegation of authority & responsibility: in this principle Fayol finds authority & responsibility to be related with the latter, the corollary of the former & arising from the latter. He conceives authority as combination of official authority deriving from a manger’s official position, and personnel authority, “compounded of intelligence, experience, moral worth, past services etc”.3.Discipline: Holding that discipline is “respect for agreements which are directed as achieving obedience, application, energy & the outward marks of respect”, Fayol declares that discipline requires good superiors at all levels, clear & fair agreements & judicious application of penalties.4.Material & social order: Fayol thinks of it as the simple edge of a place for everything, & everything in its place. This is essentially a principle of organization in the arrangement of things & persons.5.Unity of direction: Unity of direction is the principle that each group of activities having the same objective must have one hand & one plan. As distinguished from the principle of unity of command, Fayol perceives unity of direction as related to the functioning of personnel.6.Centralisation of authority: although Fayol does not use the term ‘Centralization of Authority’ his principle definitely refers to the extent to which authority is concentrated or dispersed in an enterprise. Individual circumstances will determine the degree of centralization that will give the best over all yield.7.Unit of command: This is the principle that an employee should receive orders from one superior only.8.Stability & tenure of personnel: finding that such instability Is both the cause & effect of bad mgmt, Fayol points out the dangers & costs of unnecessary turnover.9.Scalar chain: Fayol thinks of the scalar chain as a line of authority, ‘chain of superiors’ from the highest to the lowest ranks & held that, while it is an error of subordinate to depart ‘needlessly’ from lines of authority, the chain should be short-circuited when scrupulous following of it would detrimental.10.Remuneration of personnel: Fayol perceives that remuneration & methods of payment should be fair & afford the maximum satisfaction to employee & employer.11.Subordination of individual interest to general interest: In any group the interest of the group should supersede that of the individual; when these are around to differ, it is the function of management to reconcile them.12.Equity: Fayol perceives this principle as one of eliciting loyalty and devotion from personnel by a combination of kindliness and justice in manager dealing with subordinates.13.Initiative: is conceived as the thinking out and execution of plan. Since it is one of the “Keenest satisfactions for an intelligent man to experience”, Fayol exhorts managers to “sacrifice personal vanity” in order to permit subordinates to exercise it.14. Esprit de corps: this is the principle that ‘union is strength’ an extension of the principle of unity of command. Fayol here emphasizes the need for team-work & the importance of communication in obtaining it. Fayol also stressed that managers should possess physical, mental, moral, educational & technical qualities to conduct multifarious operations of a business enterprise. Physical qualities: Health, vigour etc. Mental Qualities: Ability to understand & learn, judgement mental vigour, adaptability. Moral qualities: Energy, firmness, willingness to accept responsibility, initiative, loyality, tact, dignity. Educational qualities: General acquaintance with matters not belonging exclusively to the functions performed. Technical qualities: Peculiar to the function & experience arising from the work proper.

Contribution F.W. Taylor Scientific Mgmt

Contribution by F.W. Taylor – Scientific Mgmt:
Frederic Winslow Taylor gave up going & started his career shopfloor as a machinist in 1875. He studied engineering in a evening college & rose to the position of chief engineer in his organisation. Taylor is called “the father of scientific mgmt”. His experience from the bottom-most level in the organisation gave him an opportunity to know at first problems of the worker. F.W. Taylor’s Principles: “scientific mgmt is not any efficiency device, not a device of any kind for securing efficiency; nor is it may bunch or group of efficiency devices. It is not a new system of figuring costs; it is not a not premium system; it is no scheme for paying men; it is not holding a stop watch on a man & writing things down about him; it is not time study; it is not motion study, not an analysis of the movements of men; it is not be printing & loading & unloading of a ton or two of blanks on a set men & saying “Here’s your system; go & use it”. It is not divided foremanship of functional foremanship; it is not any of the devices which the average man calls to mind when scientific mgmt is spoken of…” Scientific mgmt involves a complete mental revolution of the part of the working man engaged in any particular establishment of industry a complete mental revolution on the as to their duties toward their work, toward their fellowmen, & toward their employees & is managements side – the foreman, the superintendent, the owner of the business, the board of directors – a complete mental revolution on their part as to their duties towards their fellow workers in the mgmt, toward their workmen & toward all of their daily problems. The great mental revolution that takes place in the mental attitude of the two parties under scientific mgmt is that both sides take their eyes off the division of the surplus as the important matter, and together turn their attention toward increasing the size of the surplus which becomes so large that it is unnecessary to quarrel over how it should be divided. They came to see that when they stop pulling against one another, and instead both turn & push shoulder to shoulder in the same direction, the size of the surplus created by their joint efforts is truly appreciable. They both realize that when they substitute friendly co-operation & mutual helpfulness of antagonism & strife they are together able is ample room for a large increase in wages for the workmen & an equally great increase in profits for the manufacturer”.
The main criticism against the scientific approach of Taylor can be classified as follows: 1.It was a de-humanisation of the abilities of workers. His philosophy was too im-personal & it lacked a psychological approach to mobilization & motivation of personnel. 2. Taylor & his followers gave undue emphasis on production mgmt problems. It was not realized that the problems of mgmt in general are more important. He, therefore, could not provide the principles of mgmt as such. 3. Another grievance against Taylorism is that workers are speeded up without fundamental improvements in factory layout, production methods, tool design, training, etc. 4. Further, it has been alleged that worker’s wages would not be increased in direct proportion to the additional productivity exhibited by the workers. Thus, benefit proved to be larger one-sided. 5. There may also be a tendency to give such close attention to details that the broader aspects & larger factors in industry are overlooked. Due to the criticism outlined above, scientific mgmt is as almost discredited philosophy of mgmt. Some of its elements like work study, establishment of personnel department, standardization, have been adopted by business firms with profits, but the basic approach of Taylor’s system is considered outdated.