Question:

Essay Details and Criteria

Assignment 1: Critical Review Essay: From Theory to Practice?

Length: 3000 words

Essay Question: Is it simply naive to believe that becoming a scholar of management and organisations would be a central part of good management practice?

You must demonstrate (i) your own critical view of the literature relating to your selected topic – as discussed in classes and tutorials and (ii) present an academically structured (persuasive) argument (again, as discussed in your tutorials, and illustrated in Booth, et al). The absence of either a “critical” (assumption oriented approach), a personal view of that critical analysis or presentation of a report-­like account (as opposed to a structured academic argument) will result in failure. These then are the minimum requirements for a pass. Failure to pay attention to reader-­ friendly headings, proofreading, editing, presentation, and accurate referencing

The aim of this assignment is to encourage you to critically reflect on the nature of management practice and the role theory plays, if at all, on management practice.  The assignment is designed to have you reflect on the complexities, debates and challenges faced between academic theory and practice relevance. 

 

To successfully complete this paper you must read at the very least 15 relevant journal articles published in top tier journals (not including those set for the specific topic in this subject).  To avoid information overload, focus on the following journals and start your research early:

 

• Academy of Management Review
• Academy of Management Journal
• Organization Science
• Organization Studies
• Administrative Science Quarterly
• Human Relations
• Management Learning
• Strategic Management Journal
• Strategic Organizations
• Academy of Management Learning and Education
• Journal of Business Ethics
  • These papers are to reflect the current “state of the art” in the area with both academic and professional (practical) orientations. The paper should review the ideas underpinning how people theorise management and organisations. The paper should be organised into the following areas:
  • Introduction: The purpose and argument of the paper must be clear. You need to explain clearly what your aim is, your thesis and how you will go about arguing your point. Be clear about your concepts, relevant theory and provide practical examples to reinforce your arguments.  You MUST have an argument, and set the course and tone of your paper early. You will be writing in the first person, making clear YOUR assessments of the literature and how you justify the use of them – through the literature.
  • Your critical view of the literature: Organise the literature into logical streams of thought related to question. Summarise what the literature has to say, ask yourself: what is being said, why is it being said, where and when did they say it (under what contexts and period in time), how is it being said (pure theory, through research?).  Be critical and indicate in your discussion the main assumption inherent and explicit in the literature you have chosen to focus on.  Also ask yourself, whose voice is ignored here?  For example, is it only about manager’s interests and workers having no voice? Is it only about workers interests and managers having no voice in the paper? Are women, migrants, or even men missing in the narrative? Or whoever and whatever you deem important and necessary but missing a voice in the paper. Draw on the examples of ‘critique’ discussed in class but be sure to recognise the need for your personal view of that literature – the very opposite of a description or a report of the literature. Many students fail to understand the importance of this requirement and are dismayed when a failure is recorded. Please address the recommendations of your tutor in developing this area.
  • Implications of the literature: Draw implications from the literature in a manner that logically builds the case for your conclusions later in the paper. For each of your implications reference the literature related to that implication.  Indicate whether the implications have already been made in the literature or if they are original to you. 
  • Practice Relevance: You should then build a powerful argument for and against the practice impact and relevance of you paper. Are the articles you review to address your chosen question theory stuck in “Ivory Tower” thinking, that is, good “in theory” but not “in practice”? How might theory be more relevant or meaningful to practice, or is the problem with practice being uninformed by good theory?  Whatever you argue, build your argument up thoughtfully, and in a scholarly way, in an academically credible, well researched and supported way. 
  • Conclusions: This is where you tie all the pieces together. Make sure your conclusions are organised in a logical order that states what you have concluded relative to the purpose of your paper.  Be sure that these conclusions are justified.  For example, conclusions based upon empirical fact have more weight than those based upon opinion.  Opinions shared by many in the literature have more weight than those of only one author.
  • Format:
• Papers are to be double spaced or 1 1/2, typewritten and referenced.
• Papers will be assessed on the content of the paper, the professional appearance of the paper and its adherence to the guidelines given. Please see feedback sheet. 
• Assignment is to be between no less than 3,000 words and no more than 3,500 words.

Answer:

Management: Is it simply naive to believe that becoming a scholar of management and organisations would be a central part of good management practice?

Summary

This essay explores the importance of becoming a scholar of management and organizations as a central part of ‘good management practice. The core argument in the paper is that it is not naïve to believe that there is a relationship between these scholarly aspects and good management practice. Towards this end, emphasis is put on how management is understood from a scholarly perspective, how scholars of management have contributed to good management practice, and how management theory fits in with good management practice. Management-related scholarly work is also viewed as highly relevant for managers and policymakers in different organizational settings.

However, it is clear that relying too much on scholarly perspectives at the expense of practical realities may lead to gross inefficiencies. Ideally, scholarly perspectives are merely sources of insights and frameworks on different phenomena. Beyond that, managers have to use their wisdom to deal with real-life problems, especially considering the nature of their work, where many complex, sometimes instinctual, decisions have to be made all the time.

Introduction

Management is always essential in all operations that people carry out to achieve set goals. As society continues to rely on group effort and as many organized groups continue to become larger, the managerial task has been increasing in complexity and importance.   Management is about the control and organization of a business or organization. A manager controls resources in planning for incomes and expenditures. The manager performs the task of controlling and organizing the work of an organization. For a manager to engage in good management practice he should ideally know a thing or two about what management scholarship is all about. This is because the concept of good management practice involves many activities including planning, organizing, coordinating, staffing, motivating, communication, controlling and directing, all of which are best understood from a scholarly perspective.

This paper contends that it is not naïve to believe that becoming a scholar of management and organizations would be a central part of good management practice. Towards the achievement of this goal, the paper examines management from both the theoretical and practical perspective. The theoretical aspect of management is depicted to be the managerial knowledge and skills that managers acquire through learning, particularly as part of their academic coursework. On the other hand, the practical aspect refers to the ability to apply the acquired knowledge in a business or in an organization in such a manner that the set objectives are achieved.

Understanding management from a scholarly perspective

Management is the art or science of achieving set goals through people. Owing to the fact that the manager is required to supervise, management can thus be said to mean literally ‘to look over the activities of a group of people’. From a scholarly perspective, managers are said to be the guarantors of greater productivity and continuous improvement. Generally, management is the process of designing and properly maintaining an environment in which a group of individuals work together efficiently to accomplish selected goals (Koontz and Weihrich 1990, p. 4).

Scholars also define management as the development of bureaucracy whose importance is derived from the need for strategic planning, directing, co-ordination and proper controlling of complex and large decision making processes. Basically, management entails the acquisition of managerial effectiveness and competence in key areas such as administration, problem solving, organizational leadership and human resource management. (Bogan, and English, 1994, pp.34)

Scholars of Management theories and their relevance to good management practice

Some of the key early contributors to the contemporary understanding of management theory are social scientists while others are practicing managers. Some notable social scientists include McGregor and Mayo, while examples of famous practicing managers include Fayol and Taylor. Practicing managers usually theorize about, and reflect more upon their personal approaches to management with an aim of formulating rational principles of management which can be used universally to achieve more efficiency in an organization.  For these practicing managers, the outcomes theories of management were basically concerned with structuring of work, control and organizations instead of emphasizing more on organization culture or even human motivation. These theorists are in some cases referred to as ‘classical theorists’ and in other cases, ‘scientific managers’. Their ways of approach was generally prescriptive; they lay out what managers are supposed to do in order to fully carry out their leadership function in their organization (Hooper, 1995, p.136).

On the other hand, Social scientists were dominantly academics.  Their core activity was to carry out research on human behavior in the workplace. Initially much of their work was concerned with the organization’s efficiency together with the effects of physical working conditions on workers within the organization. Subsequent theorists were even more interested in employees as a human factor at work, and thus focused their attention on issues like employee motivation, leadership style and interpersonal communication. They concentrated their attention as much on efficient use of resources as individual satisfaction.  These theorists have been labeled as “human Relations theorists” since they were basically concerned with individual behavior and social relationships at work (Broadmeadow & Nisbet 2004, p186).

Some scholars, whose work was based on the idea of organizations as wholesome social systems, came up with a more comprehensive focus of behavior of people at work depending on interaction of a number of variables. These variables include task, technology, structure, and environment. This school of theorists was later regarded as consisting of ‘contingency theorists’ mainly because their ideas were grounded on what was most appropriate within specific circumstances.

In recent times, the theoretical work of scholars such as Porter, Peters, Mintzberg and Moss Kanter has become popular even in practical realms of management and organizations. Although these latter-day scholars have taken a different perspective that involves a number of key organizational factors, they have all touched on the crucial practical issue of good management practice. Additionally, they have embraced factors like vision, culture and values, organization mission, leadership, organization culture, customer satisfaction, and the external environment. It is also not surprising that these scholars adopt a comprehensive perspective of organizations and in some ways may be referred to as modern exponents of contingency theory. The concern of the proponents of this theory has been to predict the conditions likely to make organization be capable of meeting demands of various stakeholders (Gitau, Gburek, & Jarrett, 2005, p.56).

The classical approach to management was basically concerned with the formal organizational structure and activities. The theory focuses more on issues like the division of work, the span of control, the establishment of hierarchy of authorities is presumed to have the utmost importance required to achieve an effective organization. All these issues have a bearing on both the practical aspects of management and organizations as well as good management practices. In this regard, the two greatest exponents are Henry Fayol (1841-1925) and F.W Taylor (1856-1915). Other scholars include L.F.Urwick and Brech (Nash & Ehrenfeld, 1997, p. 487).

Max Weber (1864-1924) developed a theory of authority structures in which he came up with an organizational form to which he named ‘bureaucracy’. To this day, bureaucratic systems are found in virtually every corporate setting, especially in public sectors. The unique features of the bureaucracy theory were definition of roles within hierarchy where employees were appointed on merit. Employees were also subject to rules and regulations and were expected to behave accordingly. These issues touch on crucial matters of good management practice at the organizational level.

The fundamental idea of human relations and contingency schools is that the needs of people are the major decisive factor in achieving the effectiveness of an organization. Yet people are the most crucial resources in any organization, such that no practical undertaking can go on without the human hand. Elton Mayo, one of the leading exponents of human relations, is associated with the ‘Hawthorne Studies’, which focus a lot on the human factor at work (Watson 2001, p. 391). Similarly, Abraham Maslow’s work on motivation was mainly based on a certain hierarchy of human needs, one of the aspects of which is self fulfillment.

The systems and contingency approach emerged in 1960s as a group of some scholars tried to challenge the dominance of human relations and psychology. These theories viewed organizations as a very complex system of task, people and technology. The scholars of this paradigm recognized that there was interaction between organizations and the larger environment. In particular, they held the view that organizations were affected as much by economic and technical factors as by social ones. These scholars had the idea of an open social system which broadly refers to a social system that interacts with the environment, for example, commercial enterprises. Although this theory focuses more on interaction between organization and the environment, theorists recognize that no one theory can purely guarantee effectiveness and success of an organization without some practical, common-sense tactics being thrown into the mix (Macmillan, Huddleston, Woolley, & Fothergill 2003, p. 96).

Much emphasis in management theorizing over the last few decades has largely been on organizational effectiveness with much focus being put on strategic issues. This emphasis signifies that efficiency that is mostly concerned with doing things right. Effectiveness is basically a question of doing the right things which is presumed to involve more than efficient performance. The most commonly occurring practical concerns of  modern theorists has been aspects such as implanting  organizational values and developing strategic mission as well as on promoting total quality management, managing change, facilitating total personal empowerment, achieving  organizational excellence and optimizing  stakeholder relationships (Tranfield 1998, p. 352).

Importance of management theory in good management practice

Theories are actually perspectives with which individuals make sense of their world experiences (Stoner et. al. 1995, p. 31). A theory is basically a systematic grouping of principles and concepts which are interdependent that creates a framework of a significant area of knowledge. However, there are varieties of approaches to management analysis and a number of differing views that have resulted to a lot of confusion as to what management theory really is. Some scholars have even referred to this as the management theory jungle (Koontz 1990, p. 16)

Principles in management are considered to be fundamental truths that put across the relationships between dependent and independent variables (Van de Ven 1986, p. 601). Managers have no option but to apply theory in their management work, although they also have to blend principles with realities. Once the manager is well conversant with the theory, he will have enough capacity to fix future practical problems that may occur in the organization (Starkey 2001, p. 11).

It is very important to distinguish management techniques and management theory. Contrary to the theory, techniques are basically ways of doing things and can also be termed as methods of working out to achieve a given result. In field of management, the role of theory is actually to provide a means of categorizing pertinent and significant management knowledge like in the area of designing an effective and efficient organizational structure. In this regard, there are some principles that are interrelated and have significant value for managers.

Broadmeadow & Nisbet (2004, p. 228) explained three main reasons why managers should study management theory. To begin with, theories provide a definite focus for understanding our experiences. Secondly, they also provide criteria for what is relevant and what is not. Theories make communication to be more efficient and thus facilitate people into getting into a complex relationship with other people. Thirdly, theories challenge managers to keep on learning about their world (Broadmeadow, and Nisbet 2004, p 286).

Importance of management-related scholarly work on organizational practice

Scholarly work on management contributes to the managers’ understanding of very important aspects of management, including synthesis, rationality, analysis, logic, work ethic, empiricism, standardization of the best practices, efficiency and elimination of waste, and mass production (Edwards 2003, p. 53). Theory also explains all about the preservation of organizational tradition so as to protect a social status of a particular worker who may have a particular skill set, knowledge, and operational tools.

Fredrick Taylor (1856-1915) made significant contributions to the fundamentals of processes and documentation. Although Taylor’s theory became obsolete during the late 1930s, most of its basics are still important aspects of industrial engineering and management today. A scholar of Taylor’s school of thought is likely to succeed in modern industrial enterprise owing to Taylor’s significant theoretical contributions on mechanization and automation (Koontz 1980, p. 77). Taylor viewed workers as complex and having obtuse and insightful elements. He further argued that anyone who manages a big team of works perceives things from experience and that some workers cannot be relied upon for intelligence or talents. In modern world enterprises, one easily finds out that in practical terms, talent is a scarce resource.  Taylor was of the view that technology continually keeps evolving. Indeed, this has been the rationale for modern management practices whereby entrepreneurs keep on trying new and untested ways of management.

Standardization is another aspect brought forward by scholars, one of them being Taylor. This notion remains valid and is widely applied in practice even today. In modern management ISO (International Standardization Organization) certification has been an international license for standardization of organization management. It is embedded as much on scholarly theory and input as much as it is anchored on good management practice. Most of the organizations in today’s world have already acquired this threshold, with globalization being one of the contributing factors. Standardization is one the best practices are used in maintenance of quality as an option to compulsory legislated standard and is largely based on the bench-marking or on self-assessment.

Where management scholarship meets practice

Many managers have embarked on critiques of work of scholars of management in various ways. Such managers have been quick to point out the incompleteness and inapplicability of some theories in practical problem solving situations. Brannan, Mostaghimi, McClellan, & Inamdar (2000, p. 82) views the classical principles of official organization as appropriate for the employee since it provides descriptions of the ideal working environment in various ways which include workers having minimal control over their lives, subordination, interdependence between bosses and employees, and self esteem issues. However, workers in an organization whose management is guided by classical theorists get induced to perform things perfectly at the expense of using their abilities optimally.  It is wrong to people like small children who should be guided on everything they do. In this way, manager-scholars who use this approach fail to appreciate the competent nature of human beings as well as the reality ‘on the ground’.

In modern management thinking, the applicability of certain aspects classical management theory is very outdated especially when a lot of emphasis is made on issues like team-work, empowerment and motivation in performance.  The scholars of classical organization theory take assumption that all organizations are somehow alike and can be guided by same principles centrally. However, upon blending these principles with some elements of wisdom, practicality and reality, modern management endeavors become easy to achieve. Koontz (1961, p. 183) argues that the distinctive nature of control, management and other social relations in organizations is due to regard of their profit-seeking nature (Koontz 1961, p. 184).

Management as practices

Managing, like other practices is an art; it is know-how; it can also be said to be carrying out things guided by the realities of the situation. Managers are believed to work better using the organized knowledge about organization management. The same knowledge is what constitutes science. However the science that underlies managing is fairly inexact and crude. This becomes true due to the fact that variables that managers deal with are very complex. Managers who carry out their managerial tasks without management science should put their trust to intuition, luck, or even what they did in past (Stoner et al. 2003, p.126). In managing, like in any other field, unless practitioners get to learn by trial and error, there are no places they can seek for guidance a part from the accumulated knowledge which underlies their practice. This accumulated knowledge, also called theory, is best quantified through scholarly works.

For practical purposes, all managers must develop several sets of skills, which include technical, conceptual and human and skills for facilitating managers to develop good relationships between factors which other employees may not see. Managers who have well-built conceptual skills are in many cases able to correctly apply different management theories to the same situation. A manager should act professionally for him to be technical. Professionalism implies that manager performs his duties within the laid procedures, rules and regulations (Gitau, Gburek, and Jarrett 2005, p.10). Moreover, the competent manager is supposed to see members of the organization as fellow human beings who have needs, emotions, and psychological feelings.

Good management practice and the central role of scholarly work

Best management practices are informally-standardized techniques which are generally accepted as processes or methods that have proven themselves over a long time to accomplish certain tasks. Best practices are often not based on management theories; instead they are grounded upon common sense and are mostly used either where there no relevant formal methodology in place or the existing methodology does not adequately address the issue.

One of the initial steps in the management process is planning. Planning should be the first step, which later on becomes a continuous activity that involves revising of organizational goal and objectives as the organization progresses (Dean 1994, p. 412). Planning also includes the development of clear performance measurement systems to assess its progress. The development of strategic goals, objectives and plans should be the bases for the organization’s performance measurement efforts. Planning is always a continuous process in an organization, which involves making changes as managers strive to achieve the organization’s goals and objectives. A scholar of management may thus likely to be good planner since he is likely to emphasize on some factors based on his school of thought. For example scholars of classical theory would consider structure and activities of a formal organization such as span of control, division of work and hierarchy of authority to be the key factors in management. However, although some of these factors are relevant and very important, they are usually not wholly depended in planning (Gitau, Gburek, and Jarrett, 2005, p.10).

A management scholar may have a lot of theoretical insights on strategic planning, although, in retrospect, he may lack the ability to apply the same knowledge in a problem-solving situation in an organization. The practical aspect of strategic planning entails the formulation of short-term and long-term goals and refining them as required. This aspect is supposed to be a specific and quantifiable plan of action based on the organization’s objectives.  In this case, a strategic plan keeps on changing and requires to be regularly updated. This indicates that the expertise gained through physical involvement in managerial activities is always very important just in the same way scholarly knowledge is. In modern managerial operations theorists have modified approaches by taking account of environmental and social as well as technical factors in the work place (Hooper, 1995, p.46).

Documenting, communication and charting procedures and practices are time-consuming and complicated processes that are often skipped by companies, even if they have the ability to practice the required processes consistently.  Some firms have emerged as consulting firms whose functions are specialized and offer pre-made templates based on academic guidelines, used to standardize business process documentation.

Due to complex integration among organizations, much of the early scholarly works have been overshadowed by modern management practices. A key strategic talent needed when applying best management practices to organizations is actually the ability to balance the unique qualities of a particular organization and general scholarly guidelines on management. In this case, a scholar of management and organizations has to play a key role in performing a good management task using a realistic, logic and conscious approach. Such a manager is normally viewed as multi-talented manager and a valuable asset for organizational success (Measham, Kelly, & Smith (2007, p. 262).

Conclusion

In summary, the links between good management practice and scholarly work on management and organizations indicate that there is no naivety in some managers’ tendency to become management and organization scholars.  Over the past eight decades, the development of coherent theories to put across the organizational performances have greatly contributed to efforts towards improving management practices, with the most glaring examples being bureaucracy, total quality management, good management practice, and ISO standards.

Modern practical approaches which analyze managerial and organizational effectiveness do not basically rule out the idea scholarly approaches as propounded by classical and neo-classical theorists. Instead, wise managers always appreciate the need to evaluate management and organizational theories to determine their relevance and applicability in an organization’s need for flexibility to respond to change in its internal and external environments as well as in satisfying competing demands of all stakeholders.  Indeed, management theories  forms a very important fundamental of organizational management particularly in the modern era of dynamism in the global corporate scene.

References

Bogan, C, & English, M, 1994, Benchmarking for best practices: winning through innovative adaptation, McGraw-Hill, New York

Brannan, K, Mostaghimi, S, McClellan, P, & Inamdar, S, 2000, ‘Animal waste BMP impacts on sediment and nutrient losses in runoff from the Owl Run Watershed’ Transactions of the ASAE Vol. 43, No. 7, pp. 1155-1166.

Broadmeadow, S, & Nisbet, T, 2004, ‘The effects of riparian forest management on the freshwater environment: a literature review of best management practice,’ Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 220-305.

Dean, J, 1994, ‘Management Theory and Total Quality: Improving Research and Practice through Theory Development’ The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 392-418.

Edwards, J, 2003, ‘Knowledge management research & practice: visions and directions’, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 49-60.

Fleet, D, & Peterson, T, 1994, Contemporary Management (Third Edition), Mifflin Company, Houghton.

Gitau, M, Gburek, W, & Jarrett, A, 2005, ‘A tool for estimating best management practice effectiveness for phosphorus pollution control’ Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 1-10.

Hooper, B, 1995, Adoption of best management practices for dry land salinity: the need for an integrated environmental management approach, Report prepared for the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Centre for Water Policy Research University of New England, Armidale.

Koontz, H, & Weihrich, H, 1990, Essentials of Management, (Fifth Edition), McGraw-Hill, New York.

Koontz, H, 1961, ‘The Management Theory Jungle’, Journal of the Academy of Management, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 39-46.

Koontz, H, 1962, ‘Making Sense of Management Theory’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 28-92.

Koontz, H, 1980, ‘The Management Theory Revisited’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 72-78.

Macmillan, J, Huddleston, T, Woolley, M, & Fothergill, K, 2003, ‘Best management practice development to minimize environmental impact from large flow-through trout farms,’ Aquaculture, Vol. 226, No. 3, pp. 91-99.

Measham, T, Kelly, G, & Smith F, 2007, ‘Best Management Practice for complex problems: a case study of defining BMP for Dryland Salinity,’ Geographical Research, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 262-272.

Nash, J, & Ehrenfeld, J, 1997, ‘Codes of environmental management practice: assessing their potential as a tool for change’ Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 487-535.

Starkey, K, 2001, ‘Bridging the Relevance Gap: Aligning Stakeholders in the Future of Management Research’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 3–26.

Stoner, J, Freeman, R, Edward, K, Gilbert, J, & Daniel, R, 2003, Management (Sixth Edition), Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi.

Tranfield, D, 1998, ‘The Nature, Social Organization and Promotion of Management Research: Towards Policy’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 341–353.

Van de Ven, A, 1986, ‘Central Problems in the Management of Innovation’, Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 590-607.

Watson, T, 2001, ‘Beyond Managism: Negotiated Narratives and Critical Management Education in Practice’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 385–396.