DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT

If you look up the dictionary definition of management, among many examples you
will find clues as to the real definition of management. This article simply takes an
assortment of definitions and looks at what they say and what they imply about
management.

“Management” (from Old French ménagement “the art of conducting, directing”, from
Latin manu agere “to lead by the hand”) characterises the process of leading and
directing all or part of an organization, often a business, through the deployment and
manipulation of resources (human, financial, material, intellectual or intangible). …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management

This definition is interesting because it traces the root meaning back to the Latin phrase
meaning “to lead by the hand”. Leading by the hand implies giving direction that is
stronger than just a passing suggestion yet still fairly gentle in approach. Leading by the
hand also implies that the person doing the leading is first going where the follower is
being lead. The leader is not asking the follower to do something he is not willing to do
himself.

The guidance and control of action required to execute a program. Also, the individuals
charged with the responsibility of conducting a program.
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/evaluation/glossary/glossary_m.htm

This definition of management refers to a “program”. This implies that, for

management to be effective, there needs to be some type of defined approach or system
in place. This system becomes the plan and management is guiding others in following
that plan. This is often the downfall of managers. They have no plan or system. As a
result their actions seem random to the people they are managing and this leads to
confusion and disappointment. This is why it is so important for business managers to
have an employee manual. Without the employee manual providing direction,
managers will struggle to be fair and balanced in their dealings with employees.

is the organizational process that includes strategic planning, setting; objectives,

managing resources, deploying the human and financial assets needed to achieve
objectives, and measuring results. Management also includes recording and storing
facts and information for later use or for others within the organization. Management
functions are not limited to managers and supervisors. Every member of the
organization has some management and reporting functions as part of their job.
home.earthlink.net/~ddstuhlman/defin1.htm

This definition is more in depth and tailored toward business management. Notice that
it consists of three primary activities. First, management establishes a plan. This plan
becomes the road map for what work is going to be done. Second, management
allocates resources to implement the plan. Third, management measures the results to
see how the end product compares with what was originally envisioned. Most
management failings can be attributed to insufficient effort occurring in one of these
three areas.

The definition goes on to talk about how management is responsible for measuring
details that may not be required presently, but may be useful later on. These
measurements often help determine the objectives in the planning stage.

When management is following this type of sequence, it becomes a continuing cycle.

Plan, execute, and measure. The measurements become the basis for the next planning
stage and so on.

is the activity of getting things done with the aid of people and other resources.
wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/213/218150/glossary.html

This definition of management focus on management as the process of accomplishing

work through the efforts of others. Skilled managers can accomplish much more
through others than they can through their own single efforts.

Effective utilisation and coordination of resources such as capital, plant, materials, and
labour to achieve defined objectives with maximum efficiency.
www.ecbp.org/glossary.htm

This definition of management looks at not only the people but the entire range of
resources necessary to follow a plan. Notice how it focuses on efficiency. Management
isn’t just getting from point A to point B. It is getting there by choosing the best possible
path.

1. The process of getting activities completed efficiently with and through other people;
2. The process of setting and achieving goals through the execution of five basic
management functions: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling; that
utilize human, financial, and material resources.
www.crfonline.org/orc/glossary/m.html

The first definition looks at the fact that management is getting work done through
other people. The second definition divides management up into five components.
These components are all parts of the three components (plan, execute, measure) that
we looked at above. However the more detailed definition helps show the activities that
occur in each of the three phase definition.

The process of planning, leading, organizing and controlling people within a group in
order to achieve goals; also used to mean the group of people who do this.
www.booksites.net/download/chadwickbeech/Glossary.htm
Once again, this definition of management addresses accomplishing work through
other people. This definition stresses the activities that are necessary for reaching
particular goals.

the process of achieving the objectives of the business organization by bringing together
human, physical, and financial resources in an optimum combination and making the
best decision for the organization while taking into consideration its operating
environment.

This definition talks about the different components that managers need to control in
order to achieve objectives. One differentiator of this definition is the way it considers
the operating environment as part of what a manager must understand.

What is the importance of management education in management functions for any

organisation?

The answer to this question is simply that supervisors and managers must not only
have vocational, technical knowledge about their specialised field of operation in the
organisation, but also knowledge about management functions and principles. The
work component of any job rests on two pillars, namely technical work and
management work.

The importance of management education, management development and

management training cannot be over emphasised. Whether the knowledge about
management principles is obtained through formal study programs at Universities or
internally through on the job training or through external seminars or programs, it is of
the utmost importance for any person in any job in life; even for the self-employed,
entrepreneurs, Kings, Presidents of Countries, the richest people in life and even the
lowest level of jobs.

Essential work environment elements to be managed:

The things or elements, which any person has to manage are:
1. Operations (actions)
2. Finance (money and resources)
3. People (human relations)
4. Information (needed information for wise decisions)
5. Time (your own and that of others)

Each of these five elements, which must be managed by any person, has its own set of
principles and guidelines to follow. For instance, when it comes to managing people,
the teachings of Industrial Psychology become pertinent. For operations, the teachings
of Operations Management as a subject, become important. So, in analysing these five
elements, it also becomes evident that the teachings of Financial Management,
Information Management and Time Management, are also important for the other three
elements.

For the lower level jobs, the principles of Supervision can become a starting point for
teaching or studying the principles of management. A person in one of the lowest level
jobs found at employers must also plan, organise and control work, even if it is just to
clean an office or do some washing.

Any information management course must also include the principles of performance
management, as performance management is about measuring all five the elements in
different ways, which are to be managed. In order to manage those five elements,
detailed information will be needed to plan, organise, control, lead and to take
corrective actions in the workplace.

Top Management members must be able to plan, organise, control and lead the
organisation and departments with a focus on understanding and influencing the
environment, setting the strategy and gaining commitment, planning, implementing
and monitoring strategies and evaluating and improving performance. They must
therefore have high capabilities with regard to human relations inwards and outwards,
strategic planning, team building, leadership, negotiation and performance
management.

Middle Management members must be able to plan, organise, control and lead
departments and sections with a focus on assistance upwards for application of
scientific methods and assistance downwards for application of scientific methods.
They must have the same capabilities as Senior Managers as well as Supervisory
Managers and also be good at interviewing techniques, goal achievement, conflict
handling tactics and project management.

Supervisory Management members must be able to plan, organise, control and lead
sections, units and individuals with a focus on operations, finance, people, information
and time.

Definition of Planning as a management function:

Planning for all levels is about forecasting, developing objectives, programming,
scheduling, budgeting, developing policies and developing procedures. Forecasting, in
turn, is about looking ahead for needs and opportunities. Developing objectives is about
determining results to be achieved. Programming is about establishing the sequence of
work steps. Scheduling is about establishing a time sequence for work steps. Budgeting
is about allocating resources for achievement of objectives. Developing policies is about
documenting standing decisions for recurring situations. Developing procedures is
about standardisation of work, which must be done uniformly.

Definition of Organising as a management function:

Organising for all levels is about developing organisation structures, delegating and
developing relationships. Developing organisation structures, in turn, is about
grouping of work among people for effectiveness. Delegating is about downloading of
responsibility, authority and accountability to lower levels. Developing relationships is
about creating conditions for co-operative efforts of people.

Definition of Controlling as a management function:

Controlling for all levels is about setting of standards, performance measurement,
performance evaluation and performance correction. Setting of standards, in turn, is
about establishing criteria for evaluation of work results. Performance measurement is
about recording and reporting of work results obtained. Performance evaluation is
about analysing, interpreting and determining the worth of results. Correction of
performance is about rectifying and improving work results.

Definition of Leading as a management function:

Leading or directive leadership for all levels is about decision-making, communicating,
motivating, selection of people and developing of people. Decision-making, in turn, is
about reaching conclusions and judgements for action. Communicating is about
creating understanding among people. Motivating is about inspiring, encouraging and
impelling people for action. Selection of people is about choosing people for positions
and advancement. Developing of people is about improving knowledge, attitudes and
skills.

Continuous education:
No single degree or program can give you all the management knowledge you may
need. It is a question of never-ending continuous education, whereby you constantly
take stock of your present knowledge base and compare it to what is needed in order to
identify the shortcomings. You must then try to attend those courses, which can fill the
gap in your knowledge base.

Lack of management skills:

A general lack of management skills in employees can be detrimental to any
organisation. Lack of management skills can lead to poor decisions, disheartening of
employees, lower productivity, lower profits and in the end also be responsible for
increase in poverty and increase in the unemployment rate. Good examples of the
results of too little management skills can be seen in the poor performance of the new
South African Government Departments and Semi-Government Organisations, where
mismanagement and corruption are rife.

Earning your license as Professional Manager:

You can earn your license as Professional Manager by learning all the management
skills and applying it to augment your knowledge base through practical experience.
Principles of Management
From Wikiversity

Jump to: navigation, search

The Principles of Management are the essential, underlying factors that form the
foundations of successful management. According to Henri Fayol (1841-1925) in his
book General and Industrial Management (1916), there are fourteen 'principles of
management'.

The Principles of management [edit]

Management principles are statements of fundamental truth. These principles serve as

guidelines for decisions and actions of managers. They are derived through observation
and analysis of events which managers have to face in practice.

Henri Fayo137.216.208.99 19:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)ls 14 Principles of

management

1. Division of Work -

The specialization of the workforce according to the skills a person , creating specific
personal and professional development within the labour force and therefore increasing
productivity; leads to specialization which increases the efficiency of labour. By
separating a small part of work, the workers speed and accuracy in its performance
increases. This principle is applicable to both technical as well as managerial work.

2. Authority and Responsibility-

The issue of commands followed by responsibility for their consequences. Authority

means the right of a superior to give order to his subordinates; responsibility means
obligation for performance. This principle suggests that there must be parity between
authority and responsibility.. They are co-existent and go together, and are two sides of
the same coin.

3. Discipline-

Discipline refers to obedience, proper conduct in relation to others, respect of authority,

etc. It is essential for the smooth functioning of all organizations.
4. Unity of Command -

This principle states that every subordinate should receive orders and be accountable to
one and only one superior. If an employee receives orders from more than one superior,
it is likely to create confusion and conflict.

Unity of Command also makes it easier to fix responsibility for mistakes.

5. Unity of Direction -

All those working in the same line of activity must understand and pursue the same
objectives. All related activities should be put under one group, there should be one
plan of action for them, and they should be under the control of one manager.

It seeks to ensure unity of action, focusing of efforts and coordination of strength.

6. Subordination of Individual Interest

The management must put aside personal considerations and put company objectives
first. Therefore the interests of goals of the organization must prevail over the personal
interests of individuals.

7. Remuneration -

Workers must be paid sufficiently as this is a chief motivation of employees and

therefore greatly influences productivity. The quantum and methods of remuneration
payable should be fair, reasonable and rewarding of effort.

8. The Degree of Centralization -

The amount of power wielded with the central management depends on company size.
Centralization implies the concentration of decision making authority at the top
management. Sharing of authority with lower levels is called decentralization. The
organization should strive to achieve a proper balance.

9. Scalar Chain -

Scalar Chain refers to the chain of superiors ranging from top management to the
lowest rank. The principle suggests that there should be a clear line of authority from
top to bottom linking all managers at all levels. It is considered a chain of command. It
involves a concept called a "gang plank" using which a subordinate may contact a
superior or his superior in case of an emergency,defying the hierarchy of
control.However the immediate superiors must be informed about the matter

10. Order -
Social order ensures the fluid operation of a company through authoritative procedure.
Material order ensures safety and efficiency in the workplace.

11. Equity -

Employees must be treated kindly, and justice must be enacted to ensure a just
workplace. Managers should be fair and impartial when dealing with employees.

12. Stability of Tenure of Personnel -

The period of service should not be too short and employees should not be moved from
positions frequently. An employee cannot render useful service if he is removed before
he becomes accustomed to the work assigned to him.

13. Initiative -

Using the initiative of employees can add strength and new ideas to an organization.
Initiative on the part of employees is a source of strength for the organization because it
provides new and better ideas. Employees are likely to take greater interest in the
functioning of the organization.

14. Esprit de Corps -

This refers to the need of managers to ensure and develop morale in the workplace;
individually and communally. Team spirit helps develop an atmosphere of mutual trust
and understanding.

These can be used to initiate and aid the processes of change, organization, decision
making, skill management and the overall view of the management function.

Fayol also divided the management function into five key roles:

 To organise
 To plan and forecast (Prevoyance)
 To command
 To control
 To coordinate

One of the enduring questions in the field of management is whether it is an art or a

science. Webster's College Dictionary defines an art as "skill in conducting any human
activity" and science as "any skill or technique that reflects a precise application of facts
or a principle." Reflected in the differences in these definitions is the use of precision in
science, in that there is a particular, prescribed way in which a manager should act.
Thus, management as a science would indicate that in practice, managers use a specific
body of information and facts to guide their behaviors, but that management as an art
requires no specific body of knowledge, only skill. Conversely, those who believe
management is an art are likely to believe that there is no specific way to teach or
understand management, and that it is a skill borne of personality and ability. Those
who believe in management as an art are likely to believe that certain people are more
predisposed to be effective managers than are others, and that some people cannot be
taught to be effective managers. That is, even with an understanding of management
research and an education in management, some people will not be capable of being
effective practicing managers.

FOUNDATIONS OF THE MANAGEMENT AS A SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

Practicing managers who believe in management as a science are likely to believe that
there are ideal managerial practices for certain situations. That is, when faced with a
managerial dilemma, the manager who believes in the scientific foundation of his or her
craft will expect that there is a rational and objective way to determine the correct
course of action. This manager is likely to follow general principles and theories and
also by creating and testing hypotheses. For instance, if a manager has a problem with
an employee's poor work performance, the manager will look to specific means of
performance improvement, expecting that certain principles will work in most
situations. He or she may rely on concepts learned in business school or through a
company training program when determining a course of action, perhaps paying less
attention to political and social factors involved in the situation.

Many early management researchers subscribed to the vision of managers as scientists.

The scientific management movement was the primary driver of this perspective.
Scientific management, pioneered by Frederick W. Taylor, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth,
and others, attempted to discover "the one best way" to perform jobs. They used
scientific processes to evaluate and organize work so that it became more efficient and
effective. Scientific management's emphasis on both reducing inefficiencies and on
understanding the psychology of workers changed manager and employee attitudes
towards the practice of management. See Exhibit 1 for a summary of the principles of
scientific management.

FOUNDATIONS OF THE MANAGEMENT AS AN ART PERSPECTIVE

Practicing managers who believe in management as an art are unlikely to believe that
scientific principles and theories will be able to implemented in actual managerial
situations. Instead, these managers are likely to rely on the social and political
environment surrounding the managerial issue, using their own knowledge of a
situation, rather than generic rules, to determine a course of action. For example, as a
contrast to the example given previously, a manager who has a problem with an
employee's poor work performance is likely to rely on his or her own experiences and
judgment when addressing this issue. Rather than having a standard response to such a
problem, this manager is likely to consider a broad range of social and political factors,
and is likely to take different actions depending on the context of the problem.

Henry Mintzberg is probably the most well-known and prominent advocate of the
school of thought that management is an art. Mintzberg is an academic researcher
whose work capturing the actual daily tasks of real managers was ground breaking
research for its time. Mintzberg, through his observation of actual managers in their
daily work, determined that managers did not sit at their desks, thinking, evaluating,
and deciding all day long, working for long, uninterrupted time periods. Rather,
Mintzberg determined that mangers engaged in very fragmented work, with constant
interruptions and rare opportunities to quietly consider managerial issues. Thus,
Mintzberg revolutionized thinking about managers at the time that his work was
published, challenging the prior notion that managers behaved rationally and
methodically. This was in line with the perspective of management as an art, because it
indicated that managers did not necessarily have routine behaviors throughout their
days, but instead used their own social and political skills to solve problems that arose
throughout the course of work.

Another scholar that promoted the notion of management as an art was David E.
Lilienthal, who in 1967 had his series of lectures titled Management: A Humanist Art
published. In this set of published lectures, Lilienthal argues that management requires
more than a mastery of techniques and skills; instead, it also requires that managers
understand individuals and their motivations and help them achieve their goals.
Lilienthal believed that combining management and leadership into practice, by not
only getting work done but understanding the meaning behind the work, as effective
managerial behavior. Thus, he promoted the idea of the manager as a motivator and
facilitator of others. This manager as an artist was likely to respond differently to each
employee and situation, rather than use a prescribed set of responses dictated by set of
known guidelines.

Another proponent of the management as art school of thought is Peter Drucker, famed
management scholar who is best known for developing ideas related to total quality
management. Drucker terms management "a liberal art," claiming that it is such because
it deals with the fundamentals of knowledge, wisdom, and leadership, but because it is
also concerned with practice and application. Drucker argues that the discipline (i.e.,
the science) of management attempts to create a paradigm for managers, in which facts
are established, and exceptions to these facts are ignored as anomalies. He is critical of
the assumptions that make up the management paradigm, because these assumptions
change over time as society and the business environment change. Thus, management
is more of an art, because scientific "facts" do not remain stable over time.

Exhibit 1 Frederick W. Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management

1. Managers must study the way that workers perform their tasks and understand the job knowledge (formal and
informal) that workers have, then find ways to improve how tasks are performed.
 2. Managers must codify new methods of performing tasks into written work rules and standard operating
procedures.
3. Managers should hire workers who have skills and abilities needed for the tasks to be completed, and should
train them to perform the tasks according to the established procedures.
4. Managers must establish a level of performance for the task that is acceptable and fair and should link tit to a
pay system that reward workers who perform above the acceptable level.

ART AND SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

Noted researcher Thomas Kuhn, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
addresses issues associated with the state of current scientific research and the
opportunities for scientific discovery. Kuhn, in his previous editions of this text, drew
distinctions between mature and immature fields of study. In mature fields of study,
many of the central questions of that field have been answered, and strong consensus
exists among researchers regarding the fundamental assumptions of that field.
Conversely, in immature fields of study, there is still a great deal of debate on major
questions in the field, and gains in knowledge come sporadically. In many ways,
management is an immature science. While its foundations in psychology, sociology,
and other related areas give it a long and rich history, the nature of the areas of study
renders it immature. That is, due to the difficulties of studying human behavior in a
number of disparate settings, the study of management is still very young when
compared to other fields of research (e.g., in the physical sciences). In fact, many
scholars have argued that the social sciences (e.g., management research) suffer from
envy of the physical sciences, in which "truths" are able to be determined through
research. As such, social sciences researchers may strive to create a more "scientific"
approach to their fields in order to grant them more legitimacy.

Despite its relative immaturity, some consistent answers have been developed in the
field of management. In many ways this is due to the increased sophistication of
management research. However, there are still a number of research gaps in
management; despite our increased knowledge in some areas, there is still a great deal
of disagreement and confusion in other areas. In these circumstances, the practice of
management is likely to be dictated by the perspective of management as an art.
Because there are no hard and fast rules in certain circumstances, individual managers'
experiences and skills must guide them.

Today, much of the management research conducted in academic institutions blends

the notion of management as an art and as a science. Some of these trends in
management research that have pushed the field in either direction—namely increased
statistical sophistication and the emphasis on contextual influences—are described
below.

INCREASED STATISTICAL SOPHISTICATION.

As computer technology continues to improve, the ability of management researchers

to conduct sophisticated statistical analyses has also been enhanced. Powerful statistical
computing packages are now readily available for desktop computers, allowing for
high-speed analysis of complex statistical models. Additionally, new statistical
modeling techniques, such as structural equations modeling, have gained footing in
management research. Thus, management researchers are now better able to
empirically test more complex research hypotheses, and management as a science is
perpetuated.

The improvement in researchers' ability to analyze statistics more quickly has resulted
in an increase in information about theories of management. Practicing managers may
now know of certain relationships that have received strong support through decades
of empirical research. Such "truths" may become guiding principles that practicing
managers see as ideal solutions to a variety of situations. For instance, numerous
empirical studies over several recent decades have supported the relationship between
appropriate goal setting and higher work performance. This relationship has been
tested in a variety of situations, with a number of contextual influences present, yet the
statistical relationship holds in nearly all of them. Thus, a practicing manager may see
this body of empirical research and, in a work situation, see the benefits of goal setting
on performance as a scientific ideal. He or she may then implement goal setting in a
number of practical situations, bolstered by the confidence afforded by decades of
research supporting such actions.

Meta-analysis, in particular, is a methodological procedure that has contributed

significantly to the study of management. Meta-analysis is a statistical technique that
allows a researcher to combine findings from multiple studies, correct for errors in
study design, and determine an "average" statistical relationship among variables.
Meta-analysis first gained a foothold in management research in studies of the validity
of selection techniques for different jobs in different organizations. Before the
application of meta-analysis to research on the validity of different selection techniques,
there was a belief in the situational specificity of these selection methods. That is,
studies of the accuracy of selection techniques in predicting subsequent job
performance had such disparate results that academics concluded that validity of a
standardized test, for example, would differ dramatically in each selection situation
(e.g., with different job applicants, in different organizations, in different geographic
regions). This myth was dispelled, however, with the application of meta-analysis to the
results of the collected body of research on the validity of selection methods. The use of
meta-analysis established that the differences in findings were due primarily to
limitations of research design, such as small sample size, unreliability of measures, and
other correctable problems. When meta-analysis was applied to this group of studies,
they were combined to determine that validates of selection techniques were general
across jobs and organizations. Thus, the use of meta-analysis helped to establish that
cognitive ability tests and structured interviews were highly valid selection methods in
nearly every job.
Meta-analysis has now been applied to many different areas of management research,
including training, recruitment, fairness, and many other topics. Additionally, there
have been a number of refinements to the statistical corrections used in meta-analysis.
This increased acceptance of and use of meta-analysis in management research supports
the notion of management as a science. Meta-analysis provides for "truths" in
management—relationships between variables that hold strong regardless of the people
or situation involved. For instance, one consistent finding is that structured selection
interviews, ones in which applicants are asked the same set of predetermined questions,
and in which responses are evaluated using the same criteria, are a more valid predictor
of future job performance than are unstructured interviews, in which applicants are
asked different questions and responses are evaluated using different criteria. Meta-
analysis has been used to establish this finding, and thus a practicing manager may use
this information as a scientific "fact" when conducting selection interviews.

CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES.

While improvements in management researchers' ability to conduct statistical analysis

in their studies has promoted the notion of management as a science, in some ways it
has also promoted management as an art. Because of the capability to statistically
analyze and interpret larger, more complex models of behavior, researchers are now
testing models with this increased complexity. In particular, there is an increased
emphasis on contextual influences. That is, rather than focusing solely on how
behaviors are linked to outcomes, many researchers now include individual, social, and
political variables in research models to have a richer understanding of behavior. Thus,
there are more complex recommendations that can be made from recent research, rather
than basic "truths."

For example, one of the most prominent areas of contextual research in recent years is in
person-organization fit. Person-organization fit is a part of the attraction-selection-
attrition model that suggests that certain types of individuals are attracted to particular
organizations, selected by those organizations, and either adapt to become an effective
part of the organization, or leave if they do not fit with the organization. Person-
organization fit (p-o fit) is the notion that the particular skills, attitudes, values, and
preferences of an individual employee should fit with those of the organization in order
for that employee to have high job satisfaction and performance. The p-o fit model
indicates that this fit is likely to be as important as an assessment of applicants' abilities
when hiring. Previous models of selection emphasized a strict interpretation of
applicant skills, with the use of valid selection tests as most important. However, the p-
o fit model indicates that, even if skills and abilities have been appropriately measured,
that hiring the applicant with the best skills is not always the best course of action, but
that hiring an individual who fits into the culture of the organization could be more
advantageous.
This move towards including contextual influences in management research models
promotes the notion of management as an art. Rather than indicating that there are
specific principles and guidelines that can guide management practice, it suggests that
managerial behavior should change based on the social and political context of the
situation.

ART AND SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND

DEVELOPMENT

Management education and development, which attempt to prepare today's managers

for organizational challenges, are guided by both the notion of management as an art
and as a science. The approach to management education and development is likely to
differ dramatically depending on the belief one has as to the nature of the practice of
management. The perspective of management as an art assumes to some extent that a
manager has a disposition or experiences that guide him or her in managerial decisions
and activities. Thus, with this perspective, many managers may be successful without
any formal education or training in management. The perspective of management as a
science, however, would indicate that management skills can be taught through an
understanding of theory and principles of management. Many of today's educational
institutions and workplaces blend the notion of management as a science and an art in
their approach to preparing employees for management.

Primarily, formal management education for practicing managers, such as with

bachelors and masters degrees, emphasizes the science of management. Management
education in today's universities primarily emphasizes management as a science.
Textbooks are used in management courses for bachelors' degrees, and these texts
emphasize many of the consistent findings of many decades of management research.
And, as these degrees increase in popularity, it is likely that more practicing managers
will have a set of established management ideals with which they operate.

While formal management education may promote management as a science, many

development efforts support the notion of management as an art. To cultivate
management talent, organizations offer mentoring, overseas experiences, and job
rotation. These activities allow managers to gain greater social and political insight and
thus rely on their own judgment and abilities to improve their management style. Much
of mentoring involves behavior modeling, in which a protégé may learn nuances of
managerial behavior rather than a set of specific guidelines for managing. Overseas
experiences are likely to involve a great deal of manager adaptation, and the general
rules by which a manager might operate in one culture are likely to change when
managing workers in other countries. Finally, job rotation is a technique that requires a
manager to work in a variety of settings. Again, this encourages a manager to be flexible
and adaptive, and likely rely more on his or her personal skill in managing.
The foundations of management as an art and management as a science are evident in
today's educational institutions and work organizations. Management as a science was
primarily influenced by researchers in the area of scientific management, such as
Frederick Taylor, and continues today in much of the empirical research on
management issues. Management as an art has been influenced by scholars such as
Henry Mintzberg and Peter Drucker, and is often evident in complex theories of
management. Many scholars and practitioners blend art and science to more effectively
cultivate managerial talent. This is evident in recent theories of management, research
in workplaces, and education and development of managers.

Introduction
Perhaps one of the best ways to get a sense about the practices of management is to examine key terms
in management. These key terms are defined below. Definitions in this document are quite basic and
general in nature.

Board of Directors
A board is a group of people who are legally charged to govern an organization (usually a corporation).
The board is responsible for setting strategic direction, establishing broad policies and objectives, and
hiring and evaluating the chief executive officer. The chief executive officer reports to the board and is
responsible for carrying out the board's strategic policies. The nature of a board can vary widely in
nature. Some boards act like "governing boards", that is, they take a strong policy-making role, and
expect the chief executive to operate the organization according to those policies. Some boards, despite
their being legally responsible for the activities of the corporation, follow all of the directions and
guidance of the chief executive (in this case, board members arguably are not meeting their
responsibilities as a board). Still, other boards take a strong "working board", or hands-on role, including
micro-managing the chief executive and organization. For more information, see Boards of Directors.

Management

Traditional Interpretation

There are a variety of views about this term. Traditionally, the term "management" refers to the
activities (and often the group of people) involved in the four general functions listed below. (Note that
the four functions recur throughout the organization and are highly integrated):

1) Planning,
including identifying goals, objectives, methods, resources needed to carry out methods,
responsibilities and dates for completion of tasks. Examples of planning are strategic planning,
business planning, project planning, staffing planning, advertising and promotions planning, etc.
(See Planning (many kinds).)
2) Organizing resources
to achieve the goals in an optimum fashion. Examples are organizing new departments, human
resources, office and file systems, re-organizing businesses, etc. (See Organizing (many kinds).)

3) Leading,
including to set direction for the organization, groups and individuals and also influence people
to follow that direction. Examples are establishing strategic direction (vision, values, mission and
/ or goals) and championing methods of organizational performance management to pursue that
direction. (See Leadership (Introduction).)

4) Controlling, or coordinating,
the organization's systems, processes and structures to reach effectively and efficiently reach
goals and objectives. This includes ongoing collection of feedback, and monitoring and
adjustment of systems, processes and structures accordingly. Examples include use of financial
controls, policies and procedures, performance management processes, measures to avoid risks
etc. (See Coordinating Activities.)

Another common view is that "management" is getting things done through others. Yet another
view, quite apart from the traditional view, asserts that the job of management is to support
employee's efforts to be fully productive members of the organizations and citizens of the
community.

To most employees, the term "management" probably means the group of people (executives and
other managers) who are primarily responsible for making decisions in the organization. In a
nonprofit, the term "management" might refer to all or any of the activities of the board,
executive director and/or program directors.

Read the rest of the overall topic Management (Introduction) to understand more about
management.

Another Interpretation

Some writers, teachers and practitioners assert that the above view is rather outmoded and that
management needs to focus more on leadership skills, e.g., establishing vision and goals, communicating
the vision and goals, and guiding others to accomplish them. They also assert that leadership must be
more facilitative, participative and empowering in how visions and goals are established and carried out.
Some people assert that this really isn't a change in the management functions, rather it's re-
emphasizing certain aspects of management. For more information, see New Paradigm in Management.

Executives
Usually, this term generally applies to those people or specific positions in top levels of management,
e.g., chief executive officers, chief operating officers, chief financial officers, vice presidents, general
managers of large organizations, etc. In large organizations, executives often have different forms of
compensation or pay, e.g., they receive portions of the company's stock, receive executive-level "perks,
etc. Chief executives usually pay strong attention to strategic plans and organizational performance,
whether measured financially or from impact of services to a community. Many people think of the
Chief Executive Officer as heading up large, for-profit corporations. This is not entirely true. The majority
of businesses in the United States are small businesses, whether for-profit or nonprofit. Their top
executives could be called Chief Executive Officers. For more information, see Chief Executive Role.

"Leading versus Managing"?

(Whatever the title, the person in the top-level position in the organization is (or at least should be)
responsible for setting (or, in the case of corporations, pursuing) the overall direction for the
organization. Consequently (and unfortunately?), this "executive" level of management is often referred
to as the "leadership" of the organization.)

With recent focus on the need for transformational leadership to guide organizations through
successful change, the term "leadership" has also been used to refer to those who embrace
change and lead the change of organizations for the betterment of all stakeholders. Some people
believe that leadership occurs only at the top levels of organizations and managing occurs in the
levels farther down the organization. Some people believe that leadership occurs (or should
occur) throughout the organization, but still use the term "leadership" mostly to refer to the top
positions in the organization. Others believe that managing and leading occur at many levels of
the organization. For more information, see
Is Leading Different than Managing? (pros and cons of this debate)

Managers
A classic definition is that “Leaders do the right thing and managers do things right.” A more standard
definition is usually something like “managers work toward the organization’s goals using its resources
in an effective and efficient manner.” In a traditional sense, large organizations may have different levels
of managers, including top managers, middle managers and first-line managers. Top (or executive)
managers are responsible for overseeing the whole organization and typically engage in more strategic
and conceptual matters, with less attention to day-to-day detail. Top managers have middle managers
working for them and who are in charge of a major function or department. Middle managers may have
first-line managers working for them and who are responsible to manage the day-to-day activities of a
group of workers.

Note that you can also have different types of managers across the same levels in the
organization. A project manager is in charge of developing a certain project, e.g., development
of a new building. (See Project Planning.) A functional manager is in charge of a major
function, such as a department in the organization, e.g., marketing, sales, engineering, finance,
etc. (For example, see Program Planning) A product manager is in charge of a product or
service. Similarly, a product line manager is in charge of a group of closely related products.
(See Product/Service Management.) General managers are in charge of numerous functions
within an organization or department.
Supervisors
(This is a widely misunderstood term. Many people believe it applies only to people who oversee the
productivity and development of entry-level workers. That's not true.) The term "supervisor" typically
refers to one’s immediate superior in the workplace, that is, the person whom you report directly to in
the organization. For example, a middle manager’s supervisor typically would be a top manager. A first-
line manager’s supervisor would be a middle manager. A worker’s supervisor typically would be a first-
line manager.

Supervisors typically are responsible for their direct reports' progress and productivity in the
organization. Supervision often includes conducting basic management skills (decision making,
problem solving, planning, delegation and meeting management), organizing teams, noticing the
need for and designing new job roles in the group, hiring new employees, training new
employees, employee performance management (setting goals, observing and giving feedback,
addressing performance issues, firing employees, etc.) and ensuring conformance to personnel
policies and other internal regulations.

Supervisors typically have strong working knowledge of the activities in their group, e.g., how to
develop their product, carry out their service, etc. Many also use the term "supervisor" to
designate the managerial position that is responsible for a major function in the organization, for
example, Supervisor of Customer Service. For more information, see Basic Overview of
Supervision.

Work Directors
Work directors directly oversee the work of their subordinates. They carry out their oversight role by
specifically assigning work and then closely monitoring to ensure the work is carried out according to
their wishes. Often, people work their way up through management levels by starting out as work
directors. Over time, they develop skills in delegation, which frees them up from having to closely
monitor the work of their subordinates and, instead, to attend to more high-level managerial activities.
Work directors are not always at lower levels of the organization. For example, a middle- or upper-level
manager who has poorly developed delegation skills might still be interpreted as work directing her or
his subordinates.

Individual Contributors
This term is often used to refer to entry-level and/or first-line employees who do not have employees
reporting to them.

Leaders
Very simply put, a leader is interpreted as someone who sets direction in an effort and influences people
to follow that direction. They set direction by developing a clear vision and mission, and conducting
planning that determines the goals needed to achieve the vision and mission. They motivate by using a
variety of methods, including facilitation, coaching, mentoring, directing, delegating, etc. As noted
above, one of the four key functions of management is leading (along with planning, organizing and
controlling). Leaders carry out their roles in a wide variety of styles, e.g., autocratic, democratic,
participatory, laissez-faire (hands off), etc. Often, the leadership style depends on the situation,
including the life cycle of the organization. There are many views about what characteristics and traits
that leaders should have. There are also numerous theories about leadership, or about carrying out the
role of leader, e.g., servant leader, democratic leader, principle-centered leader, group-man theory,
great-man theory, traits theory, visionary leader, total leader, situational leader, etc.

As note above, many people assert that leading is different than managing. See
Is Leading Different than Managing? (pros and cons of this debate)

(This term is commonly misapplied when people use the term mostly to refer to the top levels in
an organization. The term has -- and should have -- much broader usage. Anyone at any level in
an organization can show leadership; thus, almost anyone can be a leader in the organization)

Boards of Directors / Governance Development

Board / Governance development refers to the activities involved in enhancing skills of the corporation's
board members to effectively fill their role in governing the corporation. Board development typically
includes helping board members to understand their role of boards, build skills in recruiting and training
board members, carry out effective board meetings, make policy decisions about strategic goals and
finances, evaluate the board and chief executive officer, etc. For more information, see Boards of
Directors.

Management Development
Usually, this term refers to the activities involved in enhancing leaders', managers' and supervisor's
abilities to plan, organize, lead and control the organization and its members. Consequently, many view
the term "management development" to include executive development (developing executives),
leadership development (developing leaders), managerial development (developing managers) and
supervisoral development (developing supervisors). For more information, see Management
Development.

As mentioned above, there are people who assert a strong difference between "leading" and
"managing". These people often refer to leadership development (developing skills in leadership)
as apart from management (and managerial) development (developing skills in planning,
organizing and controlling). See "Leading" Versus "Managing".

Executive Development
(Today's organizations are changing dramatically. Successful change requires strong leadership from top
positions in the organizations. Therefore, writers often interchange use of the phrases "leadership
development" with "executive development". They are not the same. As noted above, this is handy, but
it can cause substantial confusion.)

Executive development refers to the activities involved in enhancing one's ability to carry out
top-level roles in the organization. Some key skills for executives to have include understanding
the external environment of the organization, leadership, strategic planning, financial forecasting
and analysis, organizing, program planning and human resource management, etc. For more
information, see Chief Executive Role.

Managerial Development
This term is not frequently used. When it is, it is usually used meant in the same regard as management
development.

Supervisoral Development
Supervisoral development refers to the activities involved in enhancing one's ability to oversee, guide
and evaluate activities of immediate subordinates in the organization. Supervisor development often
includes learning basic skills in employee performance management, managing meetings, project
management, etc. Good supervisory development should also include developing skills in time and
stress management -- the role of supervisor is often quite stressful to those who are first getting used to
the hectic activities of management. For more information, see Supervisoral Development.

Leadership Development
Leadership development refers to the activities involved in enhancing one's ability to establish vision
and goals, and motivate and guide others to achieve the vision and goals. Leadership development is
critical at almost any level in the organization -- not just the executive level.
PRE INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT THOUGHT

In its broadest possible usage the idea of "management" is as old as human society, certainly "governance" or "rule"
of people in ancient tribes, kingdoms, and empires engages the notion of "managing". In ancient Egypt the rise of
the state and its bureaucracy to create pyramids and canals rested on a state monopoly of wealth and power
administered through delegated authorities. State planning that included predictions in the rise of the Nile waters,
forecasts of crops, and forecasts of state income tax revenues illustrate what are modern management techniques.
Similarly, in China the emergence of the state governed by a large civil service administering uniform and formal
policies over remote territories established "managerial" practices characteristic of today's global companies. The
later rise of the Roman Empire and the rule of Roman order and law backed by a state hierarchy established
principles for the management of modern constitutional governments. Nicollo Machiavelli's The Prince written near
the turn of the 16th century as a treatise on governance of Italian principalities by the Medici family is today a
recommended reading for every student of management, as it vividly portrays a managerial style in which the "ends
justifies the means."

Moreover, warfare and the role of the general in the management and strategies of troops and armies convey
many of the concepts adapted to modern use in the management of a corporation. Students of management
strategy today often study the Art of War by Sun Tsu, the 13th century Chinese military genus, or On War by Carl
Von Clausewitz, the Prussian general and military strategist of the ninetieth century

However insightful pre-industrial history and literature is about "management", we do not trace the founding of
modern management to these sources. Modern management is business management, and pre-industrial state craft
and war strategy simply provide a narrow view of the management function as something worthy of kings, princes,
and emperors or, in the case of war, generals. This viewpoint is in part due to the low value that pre-industrial
society placed on commerce and business. There were, of course, trading establishments, merchants, and even
bankers before the Industrial Revolution - these, however, were not significant aspects of societies to merit much
attention and, in the main, represented distrusted elements of society. Perhaps this distrust was rooted in the notion
that even early business competed with the wealth and power of the state; more likely, early civilizations simply
valued aristocratic wealth based on land and inheritance.

The early Greeks disdained trade and commerce. Manual workers and merchants were excluded from citizenship
and were often foreigners or slaves. This attitude towards commerce was adopted by the Romans who developed
small factories to produce armaments and pottery, but as in Greece these trades were dominated by foreigners,
Greeks and Oriental freedmen. The Romans did establish state joint stock companies ( state corporations ) to raise
money for state projects by selling stocks, but expressed prohibited joint stock companies for private enterprise. The
early Church also prohibited usury, or interest on borrowed money. So, as the Roman Empire gave way to the
domination of the Roman Church in the West, the avenues for raising capital, either through selling stocks or
through borrowing, were simply not available to create large private or public companies. For most of our history,
across all continents, mankind has lived in societies more dependent upon agricultural production than upon
manufactured goods. As land has been owned by an aristocratic and chieftain class who governed in traditional
fashion the notion of "business" management simply did not emerge as an important concept

The Renaissance and Reformation-Rise of Nation-State and Mercantilism

The Middle Ages in Europe were marked by continuance of an anti-commerce attitude and a preoccupation with
local markets. As vile as they were, the Crusades of the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries brought important changes in
Western society. The Crusades brought feudal Europe into contact with the East: contact led to a rediscovery of the
classics that had been preserved by Islamic writers, influencing the arts, literature, science, and philosophy, and
contact opened new markets. Trade with Arabic cultures also influenced European economic thinking and
introduced the earliest form of capitalism, mercantilism. Mercantilism is the distribution of goods in order to realize
a profit -- simply, buy low from one place and sell high at another place. While this form of enterprise had
developed previously and characterized much of the commerce in the Roman Empire, throughout most of Europe
the Middle Ages de-emphasized trade relations. Located on, and dependent upon, the trade routes between the
empires of Egypt, Persia, and later Byzantium, Arabic cultures enjoyed a long and sustained history of mercantilism,
spreading the trade system with Islam across Northern Africa, Spain, the Middle East and Asia. European contact
with Islam introduced the rewards of global trade, illustrated by the infusion of Arabic economic words, such as
"tariff", and introducing "arabic" numbers, a counting system with the unique number "zero" which had been
adopted by Arabs from India as a secret code for maintaining trade accounts.

Marco Polo's travels near the end of the 13th century reflected mercantile ambitions and the early rise of Italian city-
states in the East-West trade routes which would later be challenged in the 15th century by Portuguese and Spanish
sea captains -- notably, after the defeat of the Arab Empire in Europe-- and even later by France, England, and the
rest of Europe. The Renaissance or "rebirth" began with this trade in Italy and created the first method of industrial
organization: the "putting out" (or domestic production) system in which a merchant would obtain raw materials -
such as silk from the East - and farm these out to individual workers or families who, using their own equipment,
would complete the product and then deliver it to the employers for a wage. From this the need for commercial
accounting developed. Luca Paciolo, a Venetian mathematician, in 1494 wrote the first book to popularize double
entry bookkeeping.

Also in Italy, the Peruzzi and Medici families began banking to loan funds and provide a clearinghouse for the
transfers of funds against accounts. But, laws favoring businesses were not pervasive. In Germany Guttenberg, who
had brought together for the first time all the ingredients for printing, was one of the notable business failures.
Undercapitalized and sued by his backer for a loan, Guttenberg did not own the Bible he printed when it was sold.
By the end of the 14th century laws against interest on loans began to be repealed or were un-enforced by the
Church.

Mercantilism was capitalism for the state, not for the individual. As mercantilism developed into a formal
economic theory, such as in the work of Jean Baptiste Colbert, chief minister of the French king from 1661 to 1683,
it took on the the following characteristics:

(1) Bullionism - The economic well-being of a nation is measured by possession of precious metals, especially gold
or silver. The rise of a money economy, the stimulation produced by the influx of bullion from America, the fact that
taxes were collected in money, all seemed to support the view that hard money was the source of prosperity,
prestige, and strength.

(2) Favorable balance of trade - For a nation to have more bullion, it must export more than it imports. Imports are
an outflow of wealth. Exports are an inflow of wealth.

(3) Economic self-sufficiency - To reduce the outflow of wealth, the state should encourage domestic industrial
development and discourage imports.

(4) Agriculture is the basis of national wealth. Because most consumption is food, domestic agriculture should be
encouraged. This limits dependence of foreigners and increases the local tax base.

(5) Tariffs - To reduce dependence of foreign materials, tariffs should be high on imported manufactured goods, but
low on imported raw materials.

(6) National Power - Great nations are Sea powers with colonies. Colonies provide captive markets for
manufactured goods and sources of raw material. For many European nations, colonies are the direct source of gold
and silver, national wealth.

(7) Economic development is a government function: to enforce economic and trade policies, protect and accrue
national wealth.

Large scale enterprise in the form of state monopolies was an instrument of state economy. In the East and in the
Americas, joint stock companies were developed by the state to finance adventures, such as colonial enterprises.
Under the aegis of the state, private investors would finance expeditions with each expedition managed as a separate
speculation. When the ship or ships returned with their cargo, the profits would be spilt with the investors. This
corporation was not an "on-going venture". However, in 1600 the East India Company was formed to exploit
commerce and colonial adventures in the Asia subcontinent. Unlike previous ventures, this undertaking was
prolonged. By 1613 stocks were being subscribed for four year periods, providing continuity, permanence, and
transferability of capital invested in a state enterprise - and providing a model for future capitalizing of business
enterprises.

The evolution of state capitalism of mercantilism into the individual capitalism of laissez faire economics requires a
fundamental redirection of values in which governments can understand that national wealth is, in fact, not the
wealth of the sovereign, but the wealth of people. Max Weber, the German sociologist, in his The Protestant Ethic
and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) theorized that this change in values was a result of the Reformation and these
religious developments were pivotal in the emergence of modern capitalism.

When Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, in 1517 posted his ninety-five theses protesting Papal authority, he
launched direct confrontation of nationalistic tendencies in Germany against Rome. Lutheranism also quickly
became a doctrine supporting peasant uprisings against traditional civil authorities throughout Germany, although
Luther personally believed that rebellious peasants should be killed. Other religious reformists, Zeingli and John
Calvin in Switzerland incited nationalist fervor with religious zeal, rejecting the intermediaries of the Roman Church
for personal salvation - a fervor that would spread across the rest of Europe But it was King Henry VIII who, almost
by accident, severed the traditional Roman authority by declaring himself Head of the Church in England.
Throughout Europe there followed a period of civil warfare framed around religion and a period of terrible European
conflict, the Thirty Years War. In England, the monarch would survive with a Parliament and Protestantism in place.
In France the reliance of the Calvinist Huguenots on the monarchy would result in their exile, entrenchment of the
monarchy, and eventual revolution and the establishment of successive republics. In Spain, steadfast Catholic during
the Reformation, the monarchy would remain absolute, but squandered much of its colonial booty on war with
Protestant Europe. Mainly, the Reformation set into motion a new social order. It undermined traditional authority of
the Church on Rome with national governments; it undermined traditional authority of the Church on individuals;
and, it unleashed a new set of values focused on the individual as authority.

Weber's Protestant Ethic is both an attitude towards personal wealth and a work ethic. Unlike traditional Catholicism
that emphasized the authority of the Church and the obligation of believers to fulfill religious duties, Protestantism
placed emphasis on the individual (not the Church), promulgated moral asceticism (emphasizing work), and,
especially, Calvinism emphasized that good works could not guarantee salvation. Later Calvinists and, especially,
the Puritans (Church of England Calvinists) would infer that legally accumulated wealth might be evidence of being
a member of the elite who are saved. In Weber's interpretation of the Protestant theologies, the Protestant proved his
faith in self-discipline and his salvation through wealth. This was not wealth for the sake of wealth, it was rather the
need for each person to engage in a life of continuous physical and mental labor, in which the individual would be
self-directed and self-controlled. For the Protestant, each man has a "calling" which required him to do his best. By
not seeking luxury, each person created a surplus or profit from his labors. This wealth should not be consumed
beyond one's basic needs, but it is to be reinvested. This duty to work, use wealth wisely, depend upon one's own
internal moral compass, and live a self-denying life is the "Protestant Ethic". These are values necessary for the
emergence of capitalism.

CLASSICAL THEORIES

Classical theories and the principles derived from them continue to be popular today with some modifications. Many
criticisms have been directed at the classicists. Several major ones are discussed here.

Reliance on experience

Many of the writers in the classical school of management developed their ideas on the basis of their experiences as
managers or consultants with only certain types of organizations. For instance, Taylor's and Fayol's work came
primarily from their experiences with large manufacturing firms that were experiencing stable environments. It may be
unwise to generalize from those situations to others—especially to young, high-technology firms of today that are
confronted daily with changes in their competitors' products.
Untested assumptions

Many of the assumptions made by classical writers were based not on scientific tests but on value judgments that
expressed what they believed to be proper life-styles, moral codes, and attitudes toward success. For instance, the
classical approaches seem to view the life of a worker as beginning and ending at the plant door. Their basic
assumption is that workers are primarily motivated by money and that they work only for more money. They also
assume that productivity is the best measure of how well a firm is performing. These assumptions fail to recognize
that employees may have wants and needs unrelated to the workplace or may view their jobs only as a necessary
evil.

Failure ot consider the informal organization

In their stress on formal relationships in the organization, classical approaches tend to ignore informal relations as
characterized by social interchange among workers, the emergence of group leaders apart from those specified by
the formal organization, and so forth. When such things are not considered, it is likely that many important factors
affecting satisfaction and performance, such as letting employees participate in decision making and task planning,
will never be explored or tried.

Unintended consequences

Classical approaches aim at achieving high productivity, at making behaviors predictable, and at achieving fairness
among workers and between managers and workers; yet they fail to recognize that several unintended
consequences can occur in practice. For instance, a heavy emphasis on rules and regulations may cause people to
obey rules blindly without remembering their original intent. Oftentimes, since rules establish a minimum level of
performance expected of employees, a minimum level is all they achieve. Perhaps much more could be achieved if
the rules were not so explicit.

Human machinery

Classical theories leave the impression that the organization is a machine and that workers are simply parts to be
fitted into the machine to make it run efficiently. Thus, many of the principles are concerned first with making the
organization efficient, with the assumption that workers will conform to the work setting if the financial incentives are
agreeable.

Static conditions

Organizations are influenced by external conditions that often fluctuate over time, yet classical management, theory
presents an image of an organization that is not shaped by external influences.
Since many of these criticisms of the classical school are harsh, several points need to be made in defense of writers
during this period. First, the work force was not highly educated or trained to perform many of the jobs that existed at
the time. It was not common for workers to think in terms of what "career" they were going to pursue. Rather, for
many, the opportunity to obtain a secure job and a level of wages to provide for their families was all they demanded
from the work setting.
Second, much of the writing took place when technology was undergoing a rapid transformation, particularly in the
area of manufacturing. Indeed, for many writers, technology was the driving force behind organizational and social
change. Thus, their focus was on finding ways to increase efficiency. It was assumed that all humankind could do
was to adapt to the rapidly changing conditions.
Finally, very little had been done previously in terms of generating a coherent and useful body of management theory.
Many of the classical theorists were writing from scratch, obliged for the most part to rely on their own experience and
observations. Thus their focus is understandably narrow.

MANAGEMENT THOUGHT AND PATRIARCHY:

THE MYTHOLOGICAL CONNECTION1

Robert W. Boozer, Stetson University

 E. Nick Maddox, Stetson University

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the proposition that modern management thought contains images and themes from
ancient patriarchal mythology. Given this foundation, management thought is defined as a vital illusion or
symbolic immortality system in the service of patriarchal consciousness’ quest for immortality.
Implications are discussed.
INTRODUCTION

Feminist readings of organization thought explicitly address the patriarchal dimensions

of organizational life and the knowledge structures which produce and reproduce patriarchal
organizational forms (Mumby & Putnam, 1992). These readings question the validity of
patriarchal assumptions about the about the superiority of such values and mental models as
rationality, hierarchy, competition, gender identity, specialization of labor, and other aspects of
the machine model of organizing (Morgan, 1986). The aim of the readings—in keeping with the
growing post-modern, interpretive approaches to organization life—is to deconstruct the
linguistic consciousness that constitutes patriarchal knowledge structures so as to reclaim the
“marginalized” and “lost” dimensions of human experience (Rosenau, 1992). In feminist studies
the aim is “…to reclaim the lost dimensions of the feminine experience” (Mumby & Putnam,
1992:468).

But, what is this linguistic consciousness that constitutes patriarchal knowledge structures? What is its
phenomenology? Moreover, what are its constitutive historical roots? The mythological basis of
patriarchal consciousness is well documented in the social sciences (Campbell, 1964; Eisler, 1987;
Whitmont, 1982; Wilber, 1986); yet, for the most part, feminist readings in the organizational sciences
continue to ignore this mythological basis and its potential existential function in modern management
theorizing. This tendency is somewhat ironic in that feminist readings purport to reclaim lost dimensions
of experience yet do not address the question of just when these dimensions got lost.
Thus, the purpose of this paper is to deconstruct selected topics in management thought in order to
demonstrate the phenomenology of these topics involves patriarchal myth and that these topics, or
language games, serve an existential function as symbolic immortality systems (Becker, 1973; Wilber,
1986). The importance of appreciating this perspective will be discussed in later sections.

METHODOLOGY
The methodology used here derives, in part, from post-modern perspectives on organization life
(Smircich, Calas & Morgan, 1992). The perspective assumes history (including management history) has
a narrative and fictional nature that serves as a validating illusion for a particular way of being in the world
(Voegelin, 1952). In particular, this post-modern view seeks to deconstruct the modern values of
progress and overcoming values which are key themes in patriarchal myths and modern management
thought (Knights, 1992; Nasr, 1981). Management thought thus can be examined as a form of discourse
or language game that serves as a validating illusion for perpetuating its own value system.
The specific method involves examining the binary linguistic oppositions that underlie selected
management topics. As Smircich, et al. (1992) note, most of the articles in a recent special issue of the
Academy of Management Review explored such binary oppositions as white/black, mind/body,
male/female, management/worker and so on. We offer two extensions to this method. First, we suggest
that modern patriarchal consciousness can be expressed as a dialectic between two value systems
expressed as follows: management=male=white=mind and worker=female=black=body. Second, we
suggest that additions to these equations help to see the mythological nature of the two value systems.
With these additions we obtain: (1) archetypal masculine=consciousness=solar
hero=light=heaven=up=mind=management=order=good=immortality and (2) archetypal
feminine=unconscious=lunar hero=dark=hell=down=body=worker=chaos=evil=death (Lakoff & Johnson,
1980; Wilber, 1986).
Five comments on these equations help understand their interpretive utility. First, the equations should be
read as psychic equations symbolizing key values derived from patriarchal mythology (Wilber, 1986).
Thus, the equal signs are better interpreted as epistemic correlations of varying magnitudes. Second,
each term represents a semantic network. For example, the term mind also may be read as reason,
thinking and cognition. Its paired oppositional term body may be read as emotion, feeling and affect
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Third, the equations symbolize a dialectical relationship between two value
systems that have characterized the development of patriarchal consciousness. For example, this value
dialectic can be found in the orthodoxy-heresy dialectic in the Catholic Church (Berman, 1989). Fourth,
the equations represent an archetypal dialectic in that the themes involved characterize the mythologies
of various societies in different times and places. For example, the myths of Apollo slaying the Python,
St. George slaying the dragon, and so on reflect the modern themes of progress and overcoming in that
the masculine solar hero (=light=mind=good) slays the feminine lunar hero (=dark=body=evil) symbolized
by the serpent or dragon (Rushing, 1989). Finally, because of the archetypal nature of the equations it is
not appropriate to conclude that, in modernity, male consciousness is defined by the first equation and
female consciousness by the second equation. Rather, in modernity, both largely are structured by the
dialectic of the two equations.

In summary, we are suggesting that the Janus nature of modern consciousness (Habermas, 1987),
including modern management thought as a cultural artifact, has its roots in patriarchal mythology. Thus,
we should find mythological themes in modern management topics. Moreover, following the suggestions
of various writers (Becker, 1973; Schwartz, 1985; Wilber, 1986), we are suggesting that management
discourse, as a cultural product, serves an existential function as a symbolic immortality system. If so,
then any significant change in the modern managerial mind is likely to evoke existential anxiety and
significant change thus is likely to be much more difficult than generally acknowledged.

To explore the validity of these ideas we will examine three topics in modern management thought—the
machine model, transformational leadership, and job enrichment.

IMAGES OF THE MYTHICAL PATRIARCHY

Scientific Management and Classical Organization Theory

The clearest symbolic expression of patriarchal consciousness is found in schools of management
thought structured by the machine metaphor such as scientific management and classical organization
theory (Morgan, 1986). These schools represent patriarchal consciousness’ most extreme expression
where archetypal masculine=solar hero=light=heaven=up=mind=immortality=good=order.

Symbolically, the “machine” manager is our solar hero. His consciousness is the mental ego which
promises the myth of modernity—a new heaven on earth—manifest in the potentials of industrial society.
This promise arises largely out of the age of Enlightenment and its shining sun which is science, the
embodiment of the light of Reason. The setting for this first age of the heroic mental manager is the
bureaucratic organization epitomizing patriarchal consciousness’ discriminating rationality (mind),
hierarchical order (up toward Heaven), and enlightened practices of planning, organizing, and controlling
(achieving order).

The complement to this patriarchal thesis on how to manage is symbolized by the second equation:
unconscious=anti-hero=dark=hell=down=body=mortality=evil=chaos=archetypal feminine. The anti-
heroes of scientific management largely are the immigrant (or descendants) and women laborers whose
ego is emotional, temperamental, and irrational (at least from a patriarchal perspective). These anti-
heroes work, not in the light of managerial work up in hierarchy, but in the dark and dirty hell that is the
early production floor. Moreover, they are likely to strike, rebel, and manifest all manner of chaos that
requires control or co-optation. When good, they are to be treated benevolently by the patriarchal
manager as evidenced by Henry Ford’s benevolent autocracy.

Management thought, of course, has evolved somewhat from its original form as found in the mechanistic
management schools. Some might argue that more modern perspectives are antithetical to machine
management. Clearly, this seems possible if topics such as the management of diversity (Cox & Blake,
1991) are seen symbolically as attempts to integrate into patriarchal consciousness those formerly
“marginalized” or “lost” antihero aspects of the psyche (blacks, women).

However, as theorists have noted (Berman, 1989; Rushing, 1989), patriarchal consciousness resists
radical change by co-opting the insights of alternative perspectives. Thus, we might expect that “new”
perspectives in management thought continue to reflect patriarchal mythology. Let’s examine a few more
examples.

Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership theory seems to offer a modification of patriarchal consciousness in that the
transformational leader seeks to raise the consciousness of followers (Bass, 1985). A closer look at the
etymology of the theory’s language, however, helps reveal the implicit patriarchal symbolism. For
example, the following statement reflects the theoretical relationship between the transformational leader
and the follower: “In a personal relationship, the leader inspires the follower, who becomes enthusiastic
and pursues self-actualization.” The key terms are “inspires” and “enthusiastic.” The term inspires
involves inspiration which, in the Latin, literally means “to breath into.” The term enthusiasm comes from
the Greek “en-theos” meaning essentially to be possessed by a god. With these insights we can begin to
see that the language of transformational theory has its roots in more ancient language where some
being (leader) breathes into (inspires) some other being (follower) who becomes possessed by a god
(enthusiastic). Moreover, this other being seeks to “self-actualize.”

The ancient imagery behind the term self-actualization is a little more difficult to determine. For
discussion purposes, let’s simply note that Jung (1953) modeled, in part, his concept of the actualization
of the self out of the unconscious on the story of Christ’s incarnation out of God. With these images in
mind we can begin to see the transformational leadership theory involves patriarchal mythology.

Figure 1 helps clarify this point. As can be seen, Figure 1 suggests that the language of transformational
leadership theory is based on the patriarchal myth of creation and rebirth. For example, the Biblical story
of Adam’s creation tells of a Spiritual Being (God) literally breathing into a Natural Being (Adam) who
becomes animated or spiritually awakened. Moreover, Adam becomes a Transcendent Being in that he
transcends his prior existence as nature (dirt). Made in God’s image, the earth (as Adam) has now
actualized more of its Self. Figure 1 also suggests the cultural diversity of this imagery.

Figure 1
A Comparison Of Transformational Leadership Theory
And Its Patriarchal Imagery

Transformational Leadership

Leader Self

Inspires Actualizes

Follower

Enthusiastic

Patriarchal Imagery

Transcendent Being
Spiritual Being
(Osiris/Ra, man-Adam,
(Neph, Elohim, Yahweh,
Prophet Moses, Buddha-
Buddha- Dharmakaya, God,
Svabhavikakaya, Jesus Christ,
Allah, etc.)
Prophet Mohammed, etc.)

(
Divine Inspiration Ka-mutef, God’s/Allah’s
breath, burning bush, Buddha-Sambhogakaya,
archangel Gabriel, etc.)
 Natural Being
(Osiris, dust-Adam, Moses,
Buddha-Nirmanakaya, Jesus
of
Nazareth, the merchant
Spiritual Animation
Mohammed, etc.)

Notes: Each model emphasizes three entities: Leader, Follower, and Self, or Spiritual, Natural, and Transcendent Being. The
lines between each entity represent a logical chain of key affects and effects from entity to entity. A linguistic version of the
Transformational Leadership model would be “The transformational leader inspires the follower who becomes enthusiastic and
seeks to actualize his or her self.” A linguistic version of the Spiritual model would be “And God breathed into Adam’s nostrils,
and Adam was animated and transformed, being created in God’s image—both mortal and immortal—or god-like.”

The directions of the arrows in intentional and reflects the referential metaphor “up/down” that plays such a large role in both
spiritual and organizational consciousness. For example, both leaders and supernatural beings tend to reside “up there,” either in
heaven or on the top floor; and tend to “come down” to influence followers and natural entities. Conversely, transformation and
actualization generally are framed within the growth metaphor, which is predominantly upward in tone (i.e., physically grow-up
Maslow’s hierarchy, or spiritually ascend into heaven.

There are a number of clues to the patriarchal nature of the myths reflected in Figure 1. First, key players
are male. Second, the key symbols of patriarchal inspiration (breath=wind, burning bush=fire) are
archetypally masculine whereas the symbols of what is transcended (e.g.,
dirt=earth=matter=mater=”mother”) are archetypally feminine (June, 1953). Third, the direction of
transformation is upward (e.g., Christ ascends to Heaven) reflecting the patriarchal emphasis on up being
good (=Heaven=immortality).

Transformational leadership theory thus reflects the patriarchal promise: hero=up=higher

consciousness=immortality. All the follower has to do is transcend his or her basic nature=down=lower
level needs=etc. Again we see the symbolism of the solar hero who must conquer the dragon or serpent
(i.e., transcend lower-level needs). Thus does the language game that is transformational leadership
serve its function as a symbolic immortality system or validating illusion: the transformational leader
symbolizes a rebirth for the organization, a chaotic situation is overcome and a new future (immortality) is
promised in the leader’s articulated vision (=light).

Job Enrichment
Another example should help reinforce our argument. Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) Job Characteristics
Model (JCM) suggests that jobs characterized by autonomy, skill variety, feedback, and task significance
provide the potential for workers with strong growth needs to feel they are knowledgeable about the work,
that they are responsible for the work, and that the work is meaningful. Further, these psychological
experiences are hypothesized to translate into desirable outcomes for the organization.

On the surface, the model’s language is vintage patriarchal science: logical, analytical, and offered for
purposes of prediction and control. Underlying the model again, however is patriarchal mythology.

For example, as related in the first chapter of Genesis, God’s creative work is enriched. He makes all the
decisions (autonomy). In creating, naming, and evaluating everything, He employs a number of skills
(skill variety). Each day represents a complete piece of work (task identity). He evaluates His own work
(feedback). Certainly His work has task significance (impacts people) given that God creates Adam and
Eve.
Whether God experienced the psychological states proposed by the JCM is impossible to state.
However, it is interesting to note these key psychological experiences also are key themes in patriarchal
creation myths. That is, as a result of their action, Adam and Eve gain knowledge of good and evil, the
grounds for experiencing responsibility. And, with the expulsion from Eden comes the beginning of the
search for a meaningful existence.

What the JCM offers is the patriarchal myth that the ego can experience god-like work (=solar
hero=up=good=managerial=immortal). This is the promise of the enriched work of the entrepreneur and
intrapreneur—that he or she too can create the world (job, organization) in his or her own image. With
luck, the incumbent of an enriched job may create something that lives on beyond his or her mortal life.
Thus the promise of symbolic immortality inherent in job-enrichment theory.

How can one equate such topics as job enrichment and transformational leadership with scientific
management and classical organization theory? Don’t job enrichment and transformational leadership
have their theoretical roots in the human relations school—that romantic antithesis to the post-
Renaissance scientism that was machine management? Again, we must emphasize patriarchal
consciousness’ co-optive nature (Berman, 1989). Though job enrichment theory and transformational
leadership theory may draw psychic energy from the romantic archetypal feminine, patriarchy does not
integrate this influence but, rather, co-opts it.. In the case of job enrichment theory, the solar heroes up in
the hierarchy simply co-opt the “marginalized” by promising, “You too can do work like us. Join us!” All
the “marginalized” have to do is sacrifice their knowledge of reality and believe in this illusion (Schwartz,
1990).

SUMMARY DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The foregoing discussion makes four points. First, modern management thought is grounded in
patriarchal mythology. Second, this mythology expresses a dialectic between two value systems wherein
archetypally masculine values are seen as overcoming archetypally feminine values which thus are
marginalized, denied, lost. Third, the mythological basis of management thought suggests management
thought serves an existential need. Thus, management thought is a language game that serves as a
validating illusion or symbolic immortality system. Fourth, as a self-validating illusion, management
thought resists radical change that symbolizes the “death” of the modern management mind. Though
there are a number of implications of these propositions, two will be discussed here. First, the foregoing
propositions help make clear that management researchers today are encumbered by the pervasive
legacy of management thought’s patriarchal nature. However, the archetypal feminine (=down=evil, etc.),
which formerly has been “lost”, is beginning to emerge in the literature, or as the post-modern and
feminists readings would say—be reclaimed. For example, researchers on the management of diversity
(e.g., Cox & Blake, 1991) are trying to integrate the formerly repressed dark and feminine aspects of the
psyche. Schwartz (1985) has shown that management practices rest upon a foundation of death denial.
Research on the rational mind is making way for the study of intuition (Agor, 1984), that formerly
distrusted feminine trait. And, stress research has shown that Descartes’ patriarchal mind-body
dichotomy is illusion. Thus the tragedy of the Type A manager, who in his modern mental search to
overcome, ironically finds his heart exploding. No wonder the search for excellence is giving way to the
search for organizational spirituality (Mitroff, 1983; Vail, 1989), especially when one considers that
“excellence” derives from the Latin for running faster (Whitmont, 1982).

These efforts to integrate into management consciousness what formerly was denied or “lost” provide
some g round for optimism. Unfortunately, as has been noted, patriarchy more often co-opts these
insights for its own self-validating illusions. As Calas and Smircich note, the new discourse “pretends to
be offering alternatives, but doesn’t. It is also a discourse that reinscribes the same values under a
rhetoric of change and, in doing so, ends up closing off possibilities for change” (1990:698). But what,
then, are these possibilities for change? This question brings us to our second implication.
Many of the authors quoted in this paper suggest in their own way that one possibility for change is
learning to live paradoxically within the value dialectic expressed in the two equations. How this is to be
done seldom is made clear but at least two themes emerge, both of which symbolize the paired
oppositional values of conquest/surrender. First, there is the theme that what is symbolized by patriarchy
must surrender or “die” in order to be “reborn”. Here we have the theme of sacrifice—the sacrifice of the
modern management mind, not the sacrifice of some external scapegoat. Second, and related, is the
theme that his death involves a descent into, or surrender to, the unconscious and its archetypal feminine
energy. Though this may be what Peter’s (1987) has in mind when he writes of Thriving on Chaos, we
suspect that something more is involved. Whitmont (1982), for example writes of the need for new rituals
that allow the expression of the destructive and chaotic aspects of the archetypal feminine. Psychodrama
is one method he explores. Should psychodrama become a part of presentations at management
conferences? Would anyone be willing to play Freud analyzing Frederick Taylor concerning the
possibility that Taylor’s patriarchal scientific management philosophy is nothing more than a product of his
sublimated anal-compulsiveness (Kakar, 1970; Morgan, 1986)? Who would play Taylor?

In the meantime, we suggest that management theorists surrender to the fact that the archetypal feminine
energy is a part of management thought’s history, albeit as a devalued portion of the dialectic. Such an
endeavor might help management scholars to better recognize and appreciate the role of this value
system in the development of management thought. For example, consider the Hawthorne studies where
researchers went in search of the effect of illumination (light=solar hero) on worker productivity. The
research is a classic example of patriarchy, in the form of scientific management, attempting to overcome
the archetypal dark and ensure more progress through the patriarchal symbol of light. Why is it, then, that
what we best remember is that productivity was strangely effected when the lights were turned down
almost to the level of moonlight (=lunar her=archetypal feminine)? And what did Mayo’s (1923) interest in
the “night mind” have to do with all of this?