Management is both an art and a science. While it is not possible to reduce human behavior into formulas, human beings can benefit greatly from learning and execute the best practices that are tried and tested to guarantee performance in the workplace. It is here that the management theories come in. Management theories have been proven to not only facilitate organizational productivity but also promote service quality. This paper provides a general overview of the management theories and then goes into detail about the chaos theory. Management models and theories are mainly classified into four categories, which include the classical management theories, human relations theory, Neo-human relations theory, and the systems theory. Let us analyze each of these in detail.
Classical Management Theories
The classical theory is the oldest management theory, and it is also called the traditional theory of management. The classical viewpoint aims at providing effective management of business organizations and also the creation of a systematic means of management in the overly complex management sector. The theories include some of the early works in the field of management as a foundation to the modern management theory. The goal is to come up with methods that will boost the productivity of workers. According to these theories, employees have some crucial economic needs that need financial incentives for them to be fully satisfied. The classical school of thought brings about three main theories:
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Taylor’s Scientific Management Theory
Taylor, the father of scientific management, introduced this theory at a time when industrial innovation was on the decline and hence productivity. Taylor felt that there was too much wastage of both human and non-human resources due to lack of proper planning. He came up with the scientific management theory which required managers to develop a scientific means of solving every problem at the workplace while the workers were to avoid wastage of time as much as possible for maximum output.
Henri Fayol’s Classical Organization Theory
Unlike Taylor who focused on productivity at the surface level, Fayol insisted on the overall performance of the organization as a whole. Fayol did not just focus on individual tasks but the entire organization. He was the first person to bring about a systemic system of operations in the management process. Fayol was against the notion that managers are born not made, and this can be achieved by training the fundamental principles of management. Fayol came up with fourteen principles of management that focused on re-inventing the entire system of management to form a streamlined organization. These principles by Fayol include:
Division of work,
Authority,
Discipline,
Unity of command,
Unity of direction,
Subordination of individual interests to the general interest,
Remuneration,
Centralization,
Scalar Chain,
Order,
Equity,
Stability of tenure/personnel,
Initiative, and
Esprit de Corps.
Fayol described a formal structure of the organization, where all the roles of managers were defined. However, this theory is not suitable for use in the modern business setting where the environment is continually changing. The theory is also too insistent on the formal business structure, and it ignores the informal needs of the workers.
Weber’s Bureaucracy Theory
Weber saw the need for a more rational system of management and introduced the rational-legal system of authority other than the previously used charismatic and traditional authority. The system was rational because it was focused on the achievement of pre-determined goals. Weber came up with a set of characteristics that would help large organizations in their rational business operations while fostering discipline, unity, objectivity, and efficiency among others. This system of management introduced by Weber focused on a hierarchical management system.
Human Relations Theory
While the classical theorists mainly focused on the mechanics and structure of organizations, the human relations theorists were concerned on human factors. Human relations theories were mainly focused on leadership, motivation, and group motivation. The process of motivation aims at the selection of alternative forms of action with the aim of achieving a certain end goal. This theory holds that human beings cannot operate in isolation, but they need to be integrated to function within group members.
Neo-Human Relations Theory
There are five theorists under the neo-human relations theory: Maslow, McGregor (Theory X and Theory Y), Herzberg, Likert, and Argyris.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow proposed a hierarchy of human needs, which range from physiological needs, food, shelter, safety, love, self-esteem, to self-actualization. According to Maslow, every individual needs to satisfy their needs systematically, starting from the most basic.
McGregor (Theory X and Theory Y)
According to McGregor, managers make two very different sets of broad assumptions regarding their employees as indicated below:
| Theory X | Theory Y |
| Is Lazy | Loves working |
| Avoids responsibility | Seeks/Accepts Responsibility |
| Needs coercion/control | Needs space to develop ingenuity/imagination |
| Rational economic man | Self-actualizing man |
When a manager can categorize their employees, then it will be easier for them to figure out how to keep them motivated.
Herzberg’s Theory
Herzberg sought to understand what causes motivation and demotivation among employees. He discovered that the primary motivators included achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, and advancement. Issues that could lower employee motivation if not properly looked into include salary, supervision, and the working conditions.
Likert Theory
Likert discussed the new patterns of management that are dependent on the manager’s behavior. He came up with four main patterns:
Exploitative – authoritative pattern where there are minimal teamwork and poor communication. Direction and power come from the top down, and there is mediocre productivity.
Benevolent – authoritative which allows some upward functionalities for delegation and consulting. There is fair productivity but some considerable staff turnover and absenteeism.
A consultative pattern where there is both upward and downward communication in a fair measure.
Participative, which is the ideal system because it encourages wholesome employee participation. There is maximum motivation in this trend.
Argyris Theory
Argyris studied the need of both the organization and the people, and he came up with the theory that it is important to understand the needs of the people to effectively integrate them into the needs of the organization.
System Theory
All the theories discussed so far focus on a single aspect of the organization say the people, decision-making, or the task. Each of the theories comes with its set of assumptions. The system theory seeks to unify all these aspects to come up with a whole and purposeful entity.
In this case, parts of the organization are not analyzed independently, but as a whole. This theory holds the assumption that every segment of an organization bears some relationship with every other segment. This theory wholly considers the organization, putting into consideration both the internal and external environment. All these work in co-relation so that no segment of the organization is left out.
The Chaos Theory
The chaos theory is among the most recent theories of management, and it seeks to understand the fact that systems tend to get unpredictable at some point. This theory is very useful when it comes to guiding the behavior of individuals in an organization that is dependent on project-based operations. The chaos theory holds that small initial conditions could pose a major impact on the outcome of a project, but the outcome itself is unpredictable. Chaos is essential occurrences in the process of renewing and revitalizing.
The chaos theory can be implemented in an organic approach and system f project management to show that it is possible to achieve more harmonious and better project outcomes. By observing the patterns posted in human behavior through the chaos theory, then it is possible to come up with a ‘green’ environment that will facilitate project success.
Through the chaos theory, managers learn how to operate within the limits of a ‘bounded instability’ and identify up-front practices that will set a stage for both virtual and coordinated project teams. Instead of viewing chaos as an unwanted and undesirable scenario, project managers should seek to harness all the available resources within the organization to reap the best from the situation.
This theory encourages some positive practices within an organization:
The development of diverse relationships.
Embracing a vision even in an invisible field.
Working together for a common purpose
Establishment of a similar sense of purpose.
Seek to gain as much knowledge as possible.
References
Applying chaos theory in a project-based organization . (2018). Pmi.org . Retrieved 24 February 2018, from https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/applying-chaos-theory-project-based-organization-6849
Chaos Theory - strategy, organization, system, examples, manager, model, type, company, business . (2018). Referenceforbusiness.com . Retrieved 24 February 2018, from http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Bun-Comp/Chaos-Theory.html
Levy, D. (1994). Chaos theory and strategy: Theory, application, and managerial implications. Strategic management journal , 15 (S2), 167-178.
Partington, D. (2000). Building grounded theories of management action. British Journal of management , 11 (2), 91-102.
Ribeiro, J. A., & Scapens, R. W. (2006). Institutional theories in management accounting change: contributions, issues, and paths for development. Qualitative research in accounting & management , 3 (2), 94-111.
Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor's comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. The Academy of Management Review , 346-357.
Wilding, R. D. (1998). Chaos theory: implications for supply chain management. The International Journal of Logistics Management , 9 (1), 43-56.
