R3a ppt


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

R3a ppt

  1. 1. The Management Theory Jungle Revisited授課老師:李元德 教授報 告 人:博一研究生高 秉 毅管理經典名著選讀1
  2. 2. Harold Koontz• Harold Koontz (1909-1984), was aconsultant for USs largest businessorganizations.• He co-authored the book Principles ofManagement with Cyril J.• He died at the age of 75 on Feb 11 1984,after suffering from arthritis.• Mr. Koontz, was a professor of businessmanagement at University of California,Los Angeles.• He started as a cost analyst in 1936, hereceived his doctorate from YaleUniversity. His approach to managementwas "human relations".2
  3. 3. Abstrac• The various schools of or approaches to managementtheory that I identified nearly two decades ago, andcalled "the management theory jungle," arereconsidered.• What is found now are eleven distinct approaches,compared to the original six, implying that the"jungle"may be getting more dense and impenetrable.• However, certain developments are occurring whichindicate that we may be moving more than peoplethink toward a unified and practical theory ofmanagement.3
  4. 4. The Original ManagementTheory Jungle• What I found nearly two decades ago was that well-meaning researchers and writers, mostly fromacademic halls, were attempting to explain the natureand knowledge of managing from six different pointsof view then referred to as "schools.“• These were: (1) the management process school, (2)the empirical or "case" approach, (3) the humanbehavior school, (4) the social system school, (5) thedecision theory school, and (6) the mathematicsschool.4
  5. 5. • These varying schools, or approaches (as they arebetter called), led to a jungle of confusing thought,theory,and advice to practicingm anagers.• The major sources of entanglement in the junglewere often due to varying meanings given commonwords like "organization,"to differences in definingmanagement as a body of knowledge, to widespreadcasting aside of the findings of early practicingmanagers as being "armchair“ rather than what theywere the distilled experience and thought ofperceptive men and women, to misunderstanding thenature and role of principles and theory, and to aninability or unwillingness of many "experts" tounderstand each other. 5
  6. 6. • The jungle has perhaps been made more impenetrable bythe infiltration in our colleges and universities of manyhighly, but narrowly, trained instructors who areintelligent but know too little about the actual task ofmanaging and the realities practicing managers face.• In looking around the faculties of our business,management, and public administration schools, bothundergraduate and graduate, practicing executives areimpressed with the number of bright but inexperiencedfaculty members who are teaching management or someaspect of it.• It seems to some like having professors in medicalschools teaching surgery without ever having operatedon a patient. As a result, many practicing managers arelosing confidence in our colleges and universities andthe kind of management taught.6
  7. 7. • What caused this? Basically two things.• In the first place, the famous Ford Foundation (Gordonand Howell) and Carnegie Foundation (Pearson) reportsin 1959 on our business school programs in Americancolleges and universities, authored and researched byscholars who were not trained in management, indictedthe quality of business education in the United Statesand urged schools, including those that were alreadydoing everything the researchers recommended, to adopta broader and more social science approach to theircurricula and faculty.• As a result, many deans and other administrators wentwith great speed and vigor to recruit specialists in suchfields as economics, mathematics, psychology,sociology, social psychology, and anthropology.7
  8. 8. • A second reason for the large number of facultymembers trained in special fields, rather than in basicmanagement theory and policy, is the fact that therapid expansion of business and management schoolsoccurred since 1960, during a period when there wasan acute shortage of faculty candidates trained inmanagement and with some managerial experience.• This shortage was consequently filled by anincreasing number of PhDs in the specialized fieldsnoted above.8
  9. 9. The Continuing Jungle• That the theory and science of management are farfrom being mature is apparent in the continuation ofthe management theory jungle. What has happened inthe intervening years since 1961 ?• The jungle still exists, and, in fact, there are nearlydouble the approaches to management thatwereidentified nearly two decades ago.• At the present time, a total of eleven approaches tothe study of management science and theory may beidentified.9
  10. 10. • These are: (1) the empirical or case approach,(2) the interpersonal behavior approach, (3)the group behavior approach, (4) thecooperative social system approach, (5) thesociotechnical systems approach, (6) thedecision theory approach, (7) the systemsapproach, (8) the mathematical or"management science" approach, (9) thecontingency or situational approach, (10) themanagerial roles approach, and (11) theoperational theory approach. 10
  11. 11. 1. Differences Between the Originaland Present Jungle• What has caused this almost doubling of approachesto management theory and science?• In the first place, one of the approaches found nearlytwo decades ago has been split into two. The original"human behavior school" has, in my judgment,divided itself into the interpersonal behavior approach(psychology) and the group behavior approach(sociology and cultural anthropology).• The original social systems approach is essentially thesame, but because its proponents seem to rest moreheavily on the theories of Chester Barnard, it nowseems more accurate to refer to it as the cooperativesocial systems approach. 11
  12. 12. • Remaining essentially the same since my originalarticle are (1) the empirical or case approach, (2) thedecision theory approach, and (3) the mathematical or"management science" approach. Likewise,w hat wasoriginallyt ermedt he "manage-ment process school"is now referred to more ac-curately as the operationaltheory approach.12
  13. 13. • Many writers who have apparently not read the so-called classicists in management carefully have comeup with the inaccurate shibboleth that classicalwriters were prescribing the "one best way.“• It is true that Gilbreth in his study of bricklaying wassearching for the one best way, but that wasbricklaying and not managing.• Fayol recognized this clearly when he said"principles are flexible and capable of adaptation toevery need; it is a matter of knowing how to make useof them, which is a difficult art requiring intelligence,experience, decision, and proportion"[1 949, p. 19].13
  14. 14. 2. The CurrentA pproachest oManagement Theory and Science• I hope the reader will realize that, inoutlining the eleven approaches, I mustnecessarily be terse.• Such conciseness may upset someadherents to the various approaches andsome may even consider the treatmentsuperficial, but space limitations make itnecessary that most approaches beidentified and commented on briefly.14
  15. 15. 1. The empirical or case approach2. The interpersonal behavior approach3. The group behavior approach4. The cooperative social system approach5. The sociotechnical systems approach6. The decision theory approach7. The systems approach8. The mathematical or "management science"approach9. The contingency or situational approach10.The managerial roles approach15
  16. 16. 11. The operational approach• The nature of the operational approach can perhapsbest be appreciated by reference to Figure 1.• As this diagram shows, the operational managementschool of thought includes a central core of scienceand theory unique to management plus knowledgeeclectically drawn from various other schools andapproaches.• As the circle is intended to show, the operationalapproach is not interested in all the importantknowledge in these various fields, but only thatwhich is deemed to be most useful and relevant tomanaging.16
  17. 17. Figure 117
  18. 18. • Organizing knowledge pertinent to managing is anindispensable first step in developing a useful theoryand science of management.• It makes possible the separation of science andtechniques used in managing and those used in suchnonmanagerial activities as marketing, accounting,manufacturing, and engineering.• It permits us to look at the basic aspects ofmanagement that have a high degree of universalityamong different enterprises and different cultures.• By using the functions of managers as a first step, alogical and useful start can be made in setting uppigeonholes for classifying management knowledge.18
  19. 19. The Management Theory Jungle:Promising Tendencies Toward Convergence of Theories• As can be seen from the brief discussions above ofthe schools and approaches to management theoryand science, there is evidence that the managementtheory jungle continues to flourish and perhaps getsmore dense, with nearly twice as many schools orapproaches as were found nearly two decades ago.• The varying approaches, each with its own gurus,each with its own semantics, and each with a fiercepride to protect the concepts and techniques of theapproach from attack or change, make the theory andscience of management extremely difficult for theintelligent practitioner to understand and utilize.19
  20. 20. • If the continuing jungle were only evidence of com-peting academic thought and research, it would notmuch matter.• But when it retards the development of a usefultheory and science and confuses practicing managers,the problem becomes serious.• Effective managing at all levels and in all kinds ofenterprises is too important to any society to allow itto fail through lack of available and understandableknowledge.20
  21. 21. • Although the convergence is by no means yetcomplete, there is reason to hope that, as scholars andwriters become more familiar with what managers doand the situations in which they act, more and moreof these schools or approaches will adopt, and evenexpand, the basic thinking and concepts of theoperational school of management.• While acknowledging that these are only indicationsand signs along the road to a more unified andpractical operational theory of management, and thatthere is much more of this road to travel, let us brieflyexamine some of these tendencies towardconvergence.21
  22. 22. 1. Greater Emphasis on Distillation of Basicswithin the Empirical Approach2. Recognizing that Systems Theory Is Not aSeparate Approach3. Recognizing that the Contingency ApproachIs Not a New or Separate Approach22
  23. 23. 4. Finding that Organization Theory Is TooBroad an Approach1) The New Understanding of Motivation2) The melding of motivation and leadership theory3) The New Managerially Oriented "OrganizationDevelopment"4) The Impact of Technology: Researching an OldProblem5) Defections Among "Management Scientists"6) Clarifying Semantics: Some Signs of Hope23
  24. 24. The Need for More Effort InDisentangling the Jungle• Despite some signs of hope, the fact is that themanagement theory jungle is still with us.• Although some slight progress appears to beoccurring, in the interest of a far better societythrough improved managerial practice it is to behoped that some means can be found to acceleratethis progress.• Perhaps the most effective way would be for leadingmanagers to take a more active role in narrowing thewidening gap that seems to exist betweenprofessional practice and our college and universitybusiness, management, and public administrationschools.24
  25. 25. • They could be far more vocal and helpful in makingcertain that our colleges and universities do more thanthey have been in developing and teaching a theoryand science of management useful to practicingmanagers.• This is not to advocate making these schoolsvocational schools, especially since basic operationalmanagement theory and research are among the mostdemanding areas of knowledge in our society.Moreover, these schools are professional schools andtheir task must be to serve the professions for whichthey exist.25