External Environment Model Essay

Management

Part 1- System Approach

Systems theory is regarded as being one among the highly well-known concepts in management today. Systems theory considers company like a system. A system could be either open or closed, however the majority of approaches consider company like an open system (Daft and Armstrong, 2009). Firstly, an open system communicates with its surroundings through means of inputs, outputs and throughputs. The systems approach incorporates the synthetic and analytic approach, comprising of both reductionism and holism (Fry, 2014).

Efficiency vs. Effectiveness

Corporations frequently discuss about staff efficiency and effectiveness at the time when brainstorming means of improving business (Perrow, 1991). Although, they appear alike, effectiveness implies towards something completely different from efficiency. Additionally, an effective staff member carries out procedures at a high level, whereas an efficient staff member produces intelligently and quickly (Daft and Armstrong, 2009). Through combining efficiency and effectiveness, an organization produces superior products speedily and with lesser resources. Efficiency implies towards carrying out tasks in a correct way. Scientifically, it’s described as the ratio of output to input and lays focus upon generating the maximum outcome with minimum resources (Daft and Armstrong, 2009). While effectiveness in contrary, implies towards carrying out the correct things. It continually computes if the actual outcome meets the required outcome. Due to the fact that efficiency revolves around focusing upon the procedure, significance is laid on the manner of performing tasks whereas effectiveness lays focus upon accomplishing the ultimate objective (Fry, 2014).

Effectiveness

Effectiveness refers to the degree of outcomes from the managers and employees acts (Perrow, 1991). Managers and employees who show effectiveness within the workplace aid in producing superior-quality outcomes. For example, taking the case of a staff member who operates in the sales department. If he is effective, he would make sales constantly. Corporations evaluate effectiveness frequently through carrying out performance reviews. The workforce effectiveness holds a high affect on the quality of product or service offered by the company that frequently dictates an organization’s standing and consumer satisfaction (Rainey, 2014).

Efficiency

Efficiency within the workplace is basically the total time it involves for doing something. Efficient staff members and supervisors complete procedures in the least possible time with minimum resources doable through using particular time-saving approaches (Daft and Armstrong, 2009). Inefficient managers and staff members take on the long path. As a result, it can be stated that effectiveness and efficiency are mutually exclusive. An employee or manager who is efficient is not at all times effective and vice versa. Further, efficiency perks up productivity and saves upon both money as well as time (Rainey, 2014).

Classical Approach and Behavioral Approach

Behavioral Approach
Behaviourists outline behaviour with respect to the stimuli which bring it out and the events, which caused the individuals to learn responding to stimulus in that manner. Behaviourists make use of two procedures for explaining the way individuals learn i.e. operant conditioning and classical conditioning (Daft and Armstrong, 2009). Firstly, in classical conditioning, individuals learn associating two stimuli at the time when they take place jointly, such that the reaction formerly elicited through one stimulus is transmitted to other. The individual learns producing a present reaction towards a new stimulus. Secondly, in operant conditioning, individuals learn performing new behaviours by the outcomes of the acts they perform. The behavioral approach is deterministic i.e. the behaviour of people is supposed to be completely controlled through their surroundings and their previous learning, so they don’t perform any role in selecting their own acts (Daft and Armstrong, 2009). The behavioral approach undertakes the nurture face of the nurture- nature discussion, believing that aside from some instinctive reflexes and the ability of learning, all multifaceted behaviour are attained from the surroundings (Perrow, 1991).

Classical Approach

The classical perspective stemmed from the Industrial Revolution and lays high focus upon the productivity, efficiency and outcome of staff members along with the company in general (Perrow, 1991). It usually doesn’t concentrate upon human or behavioral aspects or variation amongst staff members. The classical viewpoint of management is frequently criticized for overlooking the human needs and desires within the workplace and doesn’t consider the human fault in task performance. The classical standpoint holds strong impacts on modern practices and procedure enhancement. Moving ahead, as at the closing stages of the 19th century, at the time when factory fabrication turned out to be all-encompassing and large scale companies raised, individuals have been searching for means of motivating staff members and improving outcome (Daft and Armstrong, 2009). A requirement for management ideas emerged that directed to classical experts like Frederick Taylor, Max and Henri Fayol developing management concepts like Scientific Management by Taylor, Administrative Management of Fayol and Bureaucratic management of Weber (Daft and Armstrong, 2009).

Part 2- Classical Approach to Understanding Organizations

Weber
Ideal Types
Weber was a chief supporter of methodological anti-positivism, supporting social action study by way of interpretive (instead of entirely empiricist) means, grounded upon comprehending the purpose as well as meaning which people link with their own acts (Weber, 1994). The main intellectual concern of Weber understood the procedures of rationalisation, disenchantment and secularization, which he linked with the progress of modernity and capitalism and that he viewed as the outcome of a new means of thinking regarding the globe (Rainey, 2014).

Rationalization and donation process and characteristics

In the system of rational organization system, there exist two important fractions i.e. Specificity of Goals as well as Formalization (Svedberg, 1998). Goal specification offers guidelines for particular acts to be finished together with a synchronized manner for resources that need to be allotted. Formalization is a manner of standardizing organizational behavior (Rainey, 2014). Thus, there would be stable expectations that build the rational system of organization.
Scientific Management: Taylor evaluated the way of maximizing the level of outcome with minimum input. This was an attempt of Taylor for rationalizing the individual staff member (Rainey, 2014). This includes:

Dividing task between workers and managers

Providing incentive system (grounded upon performance)
Scientifically competent staff members
Creating a science for every individual’s accountabilities
Making sure that the task is completely on time/resourcefully (Rainey, 2014)
Bureaucracy
Weber's ideals of bureaucracy include (Svedberg, 1998):
Official Jurisdiction on every area are arranged by laws or rules already executed.
There prevails an office chain of command; a system subordination wherein there is administration of lower divisions through higher ones.
The modern office management is grounded on written rules that are preserved within actual form.
Office management needs training or speciality.
At the time when the office is established/developed it needs the complete working ability of people.
Regulations are constant and could be learned. Knowledge about such regulations could be seen as proficiency in the bureaucracy (these enable society management).

Critics

Weber’s theories were intended towards setting a platform for other companies to tag along, and the features are so idyllic that they might not be possible for any actual company to be successful. Weber wanted to develop guidelines which would support effectiveness and, most significantly, conditions which would make the staff members’ highest precedence (Svedberg, 1998). However, it was general for previous theorists to deform Weber’s standpoints, and in the present day individuals even now make the same error like they did at the time when Weber’s views came into play for the first time (Svedberg, 1998). Weber has at all times been critiqued for the ideas branches which do not function in actuality, nevertheless the basis of his approach was not in fact creating an organization, but creating an idyllic framework for other companies to tag along (Rainey, 2014).

Taylor

Time and Motion Studies
Taylor believed that by examining task, the "One Most Suitable Way" of doing it would be discovered. He is highly remembered for devising the study of stopwatch time that united with motion study methods of Frank Gilbreth afterward became the sphere of time and motion study (Bobby, 2002). As per the study Taylor split a task into its component fractions and measured every to the hundredth of a minute. One among his highly known studies engaged shovels. Taylor observed that employees employed the same shovel for every material (Rainey, 2014).

Principles of Scientific Management

Taylor's principles of scientific management include:
Replacing rule-of-thumb task techniques with techniques grounded upon a scientific study of the operations.
Scientifically choose, train, and build every staff member instead of inactively leaving them to develop and train them.
Providing thorough instructions and supervision of all workers.
Dividing task nearly equally among workers and managers, so that the supervisors use the principles of scientific management for planning task and the employees actually carry out the tasks (Rainey, 2014).

Critics

Henry Mintzberg is greatly critical about Taylor’s techniques. Mintzberg asserts that a fascination with effectiveness enables measureable advantages to outshine less experimental social advantages completely, and social beliefs get behind (Bobby, 2002). Taylor's beliefs have also been challenged through socialist intellectuals. This argument asserted associates with defanging of employees within the company and the succeeding work degradation as management, powered through capital, makes use of Taylor's techniques for rendering task repeatable, precise still monotonous and skill-decreasing (Bobby, 2002). It is argued that Taylor's approaches of transferring control over fabrication from employees to management, along with the division of workers into easy tasks, augmented the disaffection of employees, which had started with the factory system of manufacturing around the period of 1870–1890 (Rainey, 2014).

Administration and Management School.

Principles of Management:
Fayol devised 14 principles of management for helping managers carry out their procedures more efficiently (Fry, 2014). These include:
Division of work
Authority delegation 
Discipline
Commands chain
Congenial workplace
Interrelation among individual interests as well as common organizational objectives
Compensation package
Centralization
Scalar chains
Order
Equity
Job guarantee
Initiatives
Team spirit
Part 3- Redirections Insight a Human Relations
Elton Mayo
Hawthorn studies
The Hawthorne effect study is a kind of reactivity wherein people enhance a facet of their conduct in reaction to their alertness of being watched. The actual "Hawthorne effect" study implied that the originality of being research areas and the augmented focus from these could result in temporary increments in productivity of workers (Jones, 1992).
Critics
Contributions of Mayo towards management approach were criticized by Daniel Bell. Bell criticized Mayo along with other social experts for "adjusting males to machines," instead of increasing human freedom or human capacity. Several including Reinhard Bendix and Lloyd Fisher criticized Mayo for generalizing his outcomes of Hawthorne studies (Jones, 1992). It has been observed that research of Mayo concerned isolated and small groups, and it was not apparent that the supervision and conditions he attained could have been imitated within large groups as well as factory environment.

Follett Group Process

Conflict
Follett asserts that conflict, being an inevitable and natural fraction of life, doesn’t essentially require resulting in deleterious results. Instead, in case if managed with the correct imaginative and analytical techniques a conflict could put forward a chance for constructive or positive development (Manktelow, 2000). Follet’s meaning of conflict being a disparity is bit very prudent – disparity, doesn’t result in a conflict – however this is not important since it does not detract from her chief perspectives. Follet states that there are three means of responding to conflict i.e. Compromise, Dominance and Integration (Manktelow, 2000). 

Integration

According to Follett integration implies towards imaginatively incorporating the groups’ chief interests/desires into the solution (Fry, 2014).
Key Concepts
Follett is highly recognized within the sphere of management theory for humanistic as well as socially appropriate standpoint about management models and conflict solving in companies. Follett developed classical management principles for laying the basis for present management theory concepts in application today (Manktelow, 2000). Follett is also acknowledged as being one amongst feminist organizational theory forerunners that advocated describing management and organizational conceptions through women's means of understanding and directing the social sphere.

Simon Decision Making

Science of Administration
Administrative Behavior, from the year 1947, was grounded upon Simon’s doctoral dissertation. It was regarded as being the basis of his life's work (Simon, 1983). The chief subject is the cognitive a nd behavioral procedures of forming reasonable human choices and decisions.

Individual decision making

The decisions which an individual forms being a part of a company are very different from his/her personal judgments (Simon, 1983). Personal choices might be decided whether a person joins a specific company, and persists to be formed in his/her extra–organizational personal life. 

Satisficing

Simon formed terms satisficing and bounded rationality and was the foremost for analyzing the complexity architecture and proposing a preferential attachment means for explaining power law allocation (Krosnick, 1991). Satisficing is basically a decision-forming approach or cognitive heuristic, which involves searching from the available options till a suitability threshold is achieved (Fry, 2014). This is compared with optimal decision forming, an approach which particularly tries finding the most appropriate option available. 

Bounded Rationality

Simon decides that the internal organization of companies as well as the external business judgments thereof failed to match the Neo-classical concepts of “rational” decision-forming (Krosnick, 1991). Simon wrote several articles on this particular subject chiefly concentrating upon the subject of decision-forming in the behavior of what he proposed as bounded rationality. Rational behavior implies that people maximize their usefulness function under the obstacles they experience (like budget constraint, restricted options or others) in line with their self-interest (Krosnick, 1991). The concept of bounded rationality is utilized for designating rational option that considers the cognitive restrictions of both cognitive capacity and knowledge.

Organizational Decision Making

The decisions which an individual forms being a part of a company are very different from his/her personal judgments (Simon, 1983). Personal choices might be decided whether a person joins a specific company, and persists to be formed in his/her extra–organizational personal life.  Being a part of a company, nevertheless, individual forms decisions not with respect to personal wants and outcomes; however in an impersonal way like fraction of the organizational desire, effect and purpose (Manktelow, 2000). The accuracy of organizational decisions is computed by two chief criteria i.e. sufficiency of accomplishing the required objective and the effectiveness with which the outcome was attained.
Critics
The American philosopher namely; Hubert Dreyfus has criticized Simon for asserting that present day’s computer programs already show intelligent conduct. Also, Simon was criticized by Dreyfus for his optimism of the ultimate success of AI on account of a psychological concept of heuristics (Manktelow, 2000).

McGregor Theory X and Y

Theory X and Y proposed by McGregor are not diverse points of the same scale, but instead two diverse continua in themselves (McGregor, 1960). He recognized individuals on the basis of two theories i.e. Theory X, or Theory Y. As per McGregor, a supposition which underlies Theory X is fact that such people have an aversion towards their careers. Due to this, Theory X assumes that for staff members to be effective, they need supervision. Defiantly, an underlying supposition of Theory Y is the fact that people not just like their careers, however are also ready for taking on some level of professional accountability (Sachin, 2012). Due to this, Theory Y assumes that individuals do not require supervision for effectively performing their task. McGregor's theory is basically a salutary as well as simple reminder of the actual regulations for administering individuals that under the pressure of everyday operations are very easily overlooked. Ideas of McGregor propose that there exist two essential approaches for managing individuals (Fry, 2014). Several managers are inclined towards theory X, and normally obtain poor outcomes. Additionally, enlightened supervisors make use of theory Y that results in superior performance and outcomes, and enables individuals to develop and grow. The ideas of McGregor considerably associate with modern knowledge about the Psychological (McGregor, 1960). Contract that puts forward several means for appreciating the uncooperative character of X-Theory leadership, along with the advantageous character of Y-Theory leaders

Contingency Approach

Contingency approach is basically a conception within management asserting that there exists no one commonly valid set of management policies or rules for managing companies (Hickson and McMillan, 1981). Companies are independently diverse, experience diverse conditions (contingency variables), and need different means of managing. Moreover, the contingency approach continues to be less common as compared to the change management concepts. Contingency approach emerged during the period of 1960s (Rainey, 2014). Additionally, management theory along with research started adopting a fresh approach, one which embodied a straightforward conception and made possible considerable progress in the study of management and companies, now called the contingency approach (Hickson and McMillan, 1981). It focused upon the significance of situational impacts on the management of companies and brought under question the presence of one, most effective manner of managing or organising (Rainey, 2014). In the present day, the contingency approach leads research and theory within management sphere.

References:

Boddy, David . Management: An Introduction (2nd ed.). (New York: Pearson Education , 2002). 
Daft, R. L. and Armstrong, A. Organization Theory and Design. (Toronto: Nelson, 2009). 
Fry, B.R. Mastering Public Administration: From Max Weber to Dwight Waldo (3rd Edition) (CQ Press, 2014)
Hickson, D. J. and McMillan, C. J. Organization and Nation. (Westmead – Farnborough, 1981).
Jones, S. R. G. “Was there a Hawthorne effect?” American Journal of Sociology, 98, No. 3 (1992): 451–468.
Krosnick, J. “Response Strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys”. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5, No. 3 (1991): 213–236.
McGregor, D. The Human Side of Enterprise. (New York, McGrawHill, 1960).
Manktelow, K. Reasoning and Thinking. (Hove: Psychology Press, 2000). 
Simon, H. A. Reason in Human Affairs. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1983).  
Perrow, C. “A Society of Organizations”. Theory and Society 6, No. 20(1991): 725–762
Rainey, H.G., Understanding and managing public organizations (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2014)
Sahin, F. “The mediating effect of leader-member exchange on the relationship between Theory X and Y management styles and effective commitment: A multilevel analysis”. Journal of Management and Organization, 18, No. 2 (2012): 159–174.
Svedberg, R. Max Weber and the Idea of Economic Sociology. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998). 
Weber, M. Political Writings. (Cambridge University Press, 1994).