Ideally, everyone in the corporate world tends to have a staunch opinion of what managers should do or conduct themselves. Although some of the sentiments are misguided and misinformed, some models form the backbone of what has been documented as acceptable practices in management. Unfortunately, managers become so much immersed in management models they deem effective to the extent they become adamant to appreciate other management models they may be familiar with. To this end, this critical analysis paper seeks to extensively discuss why and how the management by objective model is a more superior approach as compared to other business models (Kaźmierczyk, Kaźmierczyk, & Aptacy, 2016).
Management by objective is a paradigm geared towards improving the overall performance of the organization and enhancing productivity by clearly establishing the targets set and agreed upon by all shareholders and the entity’s staff. The model is anchored on the fact that allowing employees to participate in the decision-making process and allowing them to have a say on the goals of the organization improves the commitment of the workforce to the company. Peter Drucker set forth operational principles that underpin the aspects of the management by objective paradigm. The objectives put forward as the cornerstone of the MBO entails the making of goals with the help of employees in all levels of management. It must be emphasized that the decision-making process is not exclusively reserved for the top-level management.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
To be precise, management by objectives is an all-encompassing management system anchored in participative and measurable objectives. The model has become renowned and popular in the corporate spheres because it emphasizes the objectives of the establishment. Therefore, all decisions made by the firm are informed by both the long-term and short-term goals of the business entity. Ultimately, the advantage of opting for MBO over other management systems stems from a number of factors. First, the model ensures every employee has a clear understanding of his or her objective. In addition, it allows workers across the management spectrum to participate in the organization’s decision-making. It also ensures prompt feedback is given to the staff to enable them to work on their weaknesses. Also, the model is advantageous because employees are informed about the period or limit that particular objectives should be achieved. In this regard, it spurs employee productivity.
Unlike the open system model which is focused on propagating a firm’s competitive advantage, the emphasis of the MBO is on the internal environment of the organization. For instance, decisions on the open model are made quickly by top managers. Conversely, decisions made by firms using the MBO approach tend to embody the input of all employees, thus, allowing staff members to feel appreciated and valued by the establishment. Also, the open system model is a precursor of burnout and fatigue that may impede the general productivity of the employees. Ultimately, the open system model is counterproductive in comparison to the MBO paradigm.
Also, MBO is superior to the human relations model which emphasizes cohesion, commitment, and morale. Although the decision-making process in the human relations model involves deep involvement by other members of staff, the approach fails to focus on the attainment of agreed objectives. Also, the deep employee involvement in decision-making may paralyze the stewardship of the manager, hence, crippling the operations of the company since managers are expected to pay attention to the opinions of all employees empathetically. Also, the human relations model is difficult to practice, and the implementation of the paradigm may appear as an authoritarian benevolence. Furthermore, MBO is superior to an internal process model that often creates stratifications between employees in different levels of management.
The Dilemma
The presented dilemma does little to provide information about each of the candidate's proficiency that may render one worker eligible for employment more than the other. The case seeks to explore a manager’s stance on the importance of abiding by regulations that forbid discrimination on the basis of gender and pregnancy. In this regard, as a manager, I will hire Mrs. Jones rather than Mr. Smith. Since both applicants are equally competent for the job, overlooking Mrs. Jones for the position because employing her will cause an increase in the cost of operations -the company will be compelled to hire her replacement on a part-time basis when she is on leave, and expected to pay for her vacation- will be discriminatory.
Pregnancy discrimination encompasses treatment of women unfavorably as a result of childbirth, pregnancy, or medical conditions pertaining to childbirth (Palley, 2017). In the United States setup, the pregnancy discrimination act (PDA) criminalizes any act of discrimination based on the fact that the victim is pregnant. The law posits that refusing to hire an individual because she is expectant, firing an employee, reducing pay, laying off an employee, and denying an individual promotion because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition is punishable by law. Since both Mrs. Jones and Mr. Smith are equally qualified for the job, refusing to hire Mrs. Smith will appear as if I am trying to escape incurring extra operational costs that will be incurred in financing her vacation and hiring a part-time replacement. This constitutes breaching of the provisions of the pregnancy discrimination act.
References
Kaźmierczyk, J., Kaźmierczyk, J., & Aptacy, M. (2016). The management by objectives in banks: the Polish case. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues , 4 (2), 146-158.
Palley, E. (2017). Pregnancy Discrimination and the Law: Implications for Social Work. Affilia , 32 (2), 188-201.
