The Recuperative Trend in Hawthorne Studies, Essay Example

Theories of leadership and management are widely diverse and can be traced back to the times of the ancient Greeks and Romans.  The management paradigms demonstrated historically has been integrated into modern business constructs under different managerial theories and principles.  These management theories are categorized under four primary schools of thought known as behavioral, scientific management, classical organization, and management science schools (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).  This paper will discuss the theoretical frameworks that these schools of management are based on as well as how they have individually and collectively been integrated into contemporary business designs.

Defining Management Theories

Management theories are extracted according to the leadership values displayed throughout history that have facilitated the rise and fall of civilizations.  Although classical organization, scientific management, behavioral, and management science are all managerial theories developed through historical sequence, the basic tenets of each school of thought has not been replaced by new paradigms (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).  As the field of managerial science has grown over the decades, the new theories did not replace earlier ones, but were constructed to complement previous ones based on the well?established, pre-existing tenets for approaches to management developed later (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).

Classical organizational management theory is credited to Henri Fayol although numerous other theorists contributed to the development of this field, such as Max Weber, Mary Parker Follett, and Chester Barnard (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).  The classical management theory is based on a formal set of organizational rules and regulations that include an organizational hierarchy marked by the impersonal treatment of employees (Cummings & Bridgman, 2011). There is a strict division of labor associated with the hierarchical authority structure and this managerial model is negatively associated with bureaucracy and “red tape” procedures that are usually insensitive to human needs contingent upon the changing environment (Cummings & Bridgman, 2011).  The classical organizational management theory is based on a universal view of structure common to the Theory X assumptions where the hierarchical structure of authority dictates that higher ranks issue orders and lower ranks carry them out (Cummings & Bridgman, 2011).  Fayol’s classical organizational management theory was based on 14 principles, which are division of labor, unity of command, unity of direction, authority, discipline, subordination of individual interest to the common good, remuneration, order, equity, centralization, hierarchy, espirit de corps, staff stability, and initiative (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).

Development of the theory of scientific management is credited to Frederick W. Taylor, Henry L. Gantt, and Frank and Lillian Gilbreth (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).  Scientific management theories stem from a need to increase productivity, which fostered the development of a process in which employees were selected for specific jobs according to the strength of their capabilities (Oghojafor, et al., 2012).  This strategy allowed companies to significantly improve their productivity because jobs were broken down to their basic components to assist in speedy production (Cummings & Bridgman, 2011). Additionally, workers that were more productive were paid higher wages and the new method allowed employers to keep better track of how materials were being used in the production process (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).  Opposition to scientific management theoretical principles arose due to fears from workers and unions that working harder or faster would lead to numerous layoffs when the available workload was completed (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).

Management based on the behavioral school addresses the need to focus on the human capital aspect of an organization (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).  The behavioral theory focuses on what an effective leader does, and contends that individuals are not born with leadership.  The best noted example of how behavioral studies have influenced organizational designs and functions would be the Hawthorne study, which has promoted the incorporation of social interactions as a key element of the organizational structure (Baack, 2012).  The study has encouraged the inclusion of individual employee attitudes as a means of inspiring collective morale amongst managers or business owners because these attitudes are significant determinants of productivity levels (Baack, 2012).  Reports regarding analysis of the study results suggested company managers should consider human interactions and emotions to promote improved levels of success (Baack, 2012).  The Hawthorne study focused interest on the socio-cultural organizational climate and the importance of creating a positive business atmosphere as a means of maintaining high productivity (Bresky, 2011).  The study introduced the possibility of subverting the systematization of culturally assigned gender roles that embodies the restrictive cultural atmosphere in favor of new possibilities that expand the opportunities available to all employees (Bresky, 2011).

Management science is derived from the findings of operational research conducted by teams of mathematicians, physicists, and other scientists following World War II due to the numerous industrial problems that resulted from the war (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).  This new approach took advantage of the invention of computers to create complex models that helped managers find solutions to unconventional problems and examine the ramifications of hypothetical situations without expending resources (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).  The criticisms of this management strategy is that management science tends to ignore organizational relationships and only focuses on organizational aspects that can be numerically quantified, which excludes the relationships between people (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).

Managerial Leadership

The last 50 years have brought about many leadership theories’ and various leadership styles since they are not one size fits’ all and no single theory works for all leaders (Jacques, 2006).  Although a leader must also be a manager, a manager is not necessarily a leader.  The difference is that a leader focuses on establishing a common vision, inspiring others to collaborate to achieve this vision, and smoothing the wrinkles caused by the change to create a seamless transition while a manager tends to concentrate more on creating plans to diminish organizational complexity, establishing goals, monitoring work progress, and distributing resources (Youssef & Noon, 2012).  The communication style used by a leader has a large effect on the efficacy of the individual because it has a strong bearing on how the message is received.  In order to inspire the most effective performance, a leader has to possess very strong communication skills so that they will do well at getting their message across.

The leadership theories from the 1950’s to present day include the great man, trait, behavioral (previously discussed), contingency, transactional, and transformational (Clark & Rowlinson, 2004).  The great man theory is that people are born into leadership, such as royalty, high-ranking military officers, and industry heads (Clark & Rowlinson, 2004).  The trait theory suggests the characteristics or the personality of a person is what makes them an effective leader (Hill, et al., 2014).  The contingency theory is a more progressive approach to leadership and matches a leadership style to a particular situation using two associated theories, which are the path-goal and situational theory (Vecchio, et al., 2008).  The path-goal theory suggests that effective leaders help followers reach their goals, and Situational theory suggests that different styles of leadership for different situations (Dixon & Hart, 2010).  The transactional theory requires the leader and follower to agree on a contract so the follower is rewarded for completing tasks and following orders (Vecchio, et al., 2008).  The transformational theory requires the leader to engage others, build trust, and this increases motivation as well as morality in the leader and follower (Vecchio, et al., 2008).

The role of a manager differs in that their goal is to concentrate on creating a professional environment that diminishes organizational complexity, establish goals, monitor work progress, and distribute the resources necessary for employees to perform their job duties (Naquin & Holton III, 2006).  Another facet that differentiates a leader from a manager is the communication style used by the leader because this element strongly dictates the overall efficacy of the individual since this relates to how the message is received (Clemmer, 2014).  In order to inspire the most effective performance from their followers, a leader has to possess very strong communication skills so that they can succinctly convey objectives (Northouse, 2013).  A third and very relevant aspect that differentiates a manager from a leader is that managers organize people while leaders help institute widespread organizational change (Kotter, 2001).

Importance of Management to Organizational Change

The degree of urgency and organizational readiness are two major driving factors that determine whether change initiatives are successful (Büchel & Moss, 2007).  When restructuring an organization, the change management approach integrates a multistep model depicting each stage necessary to achieve large-scale, transformational change (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2009).  The contingency approach is based on the assumption that the scale of transformation depends on the receptivity of organizational members to engage the challenge presented by the change (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2009).

When using the contingency approach, “…the style of change (collaborative, consultative, directive, or coercive), as well as the scale of the change (fine-tuning, incremental adjustment, modular transformation, or corporate transformation) has to be matched to the needs of the organization” (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2009, p. 242).  The change management method has a specific step-by-step process that is supposed to facilitate change while the contingency approach is premised around adapting the managerial style according to the needs of the organization (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012).

The contingency or situational approach to leadership encompasses understanding that the style used to construct the management paradigm must be augmented according to the task as well as the team members charged with completing the task (Hersey & Blanchard, 2009).  The various situations or contingency variables require leaders to adjust their leadership style according to the employees they are directing, with the best approaches being directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2009).  The different situations facing organizations stress the importance of the leader’s ability to change their style based on the needs of the project as well as their team members and is a significant element of the situational leadership dimensions (Hersey & Blanchard, 2009).   This presents situational or contingency leadership as a process of inspiring others to improve their individual strengths in order to progress the future of the organization.

Change management uses the contingency or situational theoretical model in corporate structural analysis because they examine the relationship between the corporate structure and the anticipated environment. The corporate environment is of great concern when the aim is to create a culture of knowledge sharing or knowledge management and necessitates the conscientious use of emotional intelligence (Ahmad & Daghfous, 2010).  Strategic leadership uses the focus of the business objective to align the activities of the organization, ensuring the company has a clear vision, maintains a culture aligned with the established set of values that correlates with the vision, and asserts strategic imperatives or necessary initiatives that must be accomplished by the organization (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2009).

It is beneficial for employees at all levels to be aware of the multicultural differences that may affect the interpretation of language, including jargon, slang, and other specific vernacular elements (Hybels & Weaver, 2008).  The ability of an individual to communicate is a skill that the majority of companies are stressing as a necessity in their new hires and existing employees, so recruiters have to ensure that the applicant possesses the required aptitude (Brown & Starkey, 1994).  According to various communication principles, the best way to avoid having a message misinterpreted is to be as precise and brief as possible while remaining professional in communications (Hybels & Weaver, 2008).

Conclusion

Summarily, there are numerous management theories that can be applied to any professional situation according to the needs of the organization (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).  The organizational needs are best met by considering the dynamics of the employees as well as the internal and external environment (Donaldson, et al., 2013).  Managers need to have strong leadership abilities and not just managerial savvy in order to cope with the complex dynamics of modern organizations.

Works Cited

Ahmad, N. & Daghfous, A., 2010. Knowledge Sharing Through Inter-organizational Knowledge Networks: Challenges and Opportunities in the United Arab Emirates. European Business Review, 22(2), pp. 153-174.

Baack, D., 2012. Organizational behavior. San Diego(CA): Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Battilana, J. & Casciaro, T., 2012. Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, April, 55(2), pp. 381-398.

Bresky, L., 2011. American studies in review: The recuperative trend in Hawthorne Studies: New or improved?. Canadian Review of American Studies/Revue Canadienne D’etudes Américaines, 41(2), pp. 263-276.

Brown, A. D. & Starkey, K., 1994. The effect of organizational culture on communication and information. Journal of Management Studies, 31(6), pp. 807- 828.

Büchel, B. & Moss, I., 2007. Using facilitation to drive change: The change leader’s guide. Perspectives for Managers, July, Issue 150, pp. 1-4.

Clark, P. & Rowlinson, M., 2004. The Treatment of History in Organisation Studies: Towards an ‘Historic Turn’?. Business History, 46(3), pp. 331-352.

Clemmer, J., 2014. Leadership competency models: Why many fall short and how to make them flourish. Leadership Excellence, February, 31(2), pp. 28-29.

Cummings, S. & Bridgman, T., 2011. The Relevant Past: Why the History of Management Should Be Critical for Our Future. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(1), pp. 77-93.

Dixon, M. L. & Hart, L. K., 2010. The impact of path-goal leadership styles on work group effectiveness and turnover intention. Journal of Managerial Issues, Spring, XXII(1), pp. 52-69.

Donaldson, L., Qiu, J. & Luo, B. N., 2013. For Rigour in Organizational Management Theory Research. Journal of Management Studies, January, 50(1), pp. 153-172.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K., 2009. Situational leadership and situational leadership II: Commonalities and differences. Escondido, CA: Center for Leadership Studies.

Hill, C., Jones, G. & Schilling, M., 2014. Strategic Management: Theory: An Integrated Approach. 10th ed. Stamford CT: Cengage Learning.

Hybels, S. & Weaver, R. L., 2008. Communicating effectively. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jacques, R. S., 2006. History, historiography and organization studies: The challenge and the potential. Management & Organizational History, 1(1), pp. 31-49.

Kotter, J. P., 2001. What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), pp. 85-96.

Naquin, S. S. & Holton III, E. F., 2006. Leadership and managerial competency models: A simplified process and resulting model. Advances in Developing Human Resources, May.pp. 144-165.

Northouse, P. G., 2013. Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks(CA): Sage Publications.

Oghojafor, B. E. A., Idowu, A. & George, O. J., 2012. Application of Management Theories and Philosophies in Nigeria and their Associated Problems. International Journal of Business and Social Science, November, 3(21), pp. 72-81.

Palmer, I., Dunford, R. & Akin, G., 2009. Managing organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach. 2nd ed. New York(NY): McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E. & Pearce, C. L., 2008. The utility of transactional and transformational leadership for predicting performance and satisfaction with a path-goal theory framework. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(1), pp. 71-82.

Wren, D. A. & Bedeian, A. G., 2009. The Evolution of Management Thought. 6th ed. Hoboken(NJ): John Wiley & Sons.