Organizational Value's Influence on Management

Management is the organization and coordination of an organization's activities in accordance with policies and achievement of defined objectives (Business Dictionary, 2010). Managers are also defined to have responsibility and the power to make decisions. They coordinate people, create plans and set objectives that are in accordance with the company's initiatives (2010). It is clear through the definition of management that actions are a major component. Depending upon the type of business, the personality of the manager and subordinate behaviors, the approach to management will vary. Management approach can be on a scale from very reflective and low action to high action and little reflection. The key to effective management is balancing the human factor which is their inclination toward one side.

A common thought is that organizations are constant and operate as " machines. " No one wants a robot working for them. Being an effective manager is to be able to reflect and analyze situations and adapt future response and behaviors appropriately. A mechanical response is repetitive and unquestioning of why they are performing the issue. Process improvement is a crucial part of an organizations progression. If one never questions process it will never be improved upon, developed or replaced by a better method. A manager that operates the same no matter the condition is demonstrating a mechanistic form of management. This form of management is ok for stable conditions but stable conditions are rare and thus utilizing a mechanistic approach is almost always insufficient (Burns & Stalker, 1961).

A more practical approach which accounts for instability is the organic form of management. There are four main observations to be made from the study of organic management. In organic management, decisions are not always made by the person of highest seniority, as is in mechanistic management, but rather by the person who is most qualified to make the decision.

Secondly, individuals feel like more of an asset to the organization rather than just a segment of production as in the mechanistic approach of factory work.

Organic management substitutes formal structure for a shared commitment to one vision. Beliefs and value are demonstrated by acting in a professional educated manner to reach a common goal.

Finally, the last observation is that the two forms of management behavior are not mutually exclusive. They can be used together at different times or by different segments of an organization. A manager may decide that a more structured approach would work best for a certain segment of the operation.

Johnathan Gosling and Henry Mintzberg discuss the different mind sets that people have in the scope of management. These differing managerial mind-sets represent the 'human factor' within organizations. One must learn to make their personality differences work for them. First one must understand how they manage and how they should be managing to reach the desirable results.

There are four main mindsets involved in managing. The four perspectives are: managing self (reflective), managing organizations (analytical), managing relationships (collaborative), and managing change (action). An effective manager learns to use all four but usually are stronger in one than the others. The human factor is the individual and their mindset is the result of their personality and managing behavior (Mintzberg & Gosling, 2003). The mindset is the chosen focus. A manager that finds relevance in history will probably choose a reflective management style. They see the importance of how comparable organizations dealt with similar issues in the past. "Action without reflection is thoughtless; reflection without action is passive" (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2003, p56).

Most managers stray away from reflection and focus on actions that drive results. They are constantly using action and expect immediate results. This is called managing action which can be done directly or indirectly through people (Mintzberg & Gosling, 2003) .

Managers that choose a collaborative mind set are more apt to seek other's opinions. They manage by being involved and manage throughout. "Leaders don't do most of the things that their organizations get done; they do not even make them get done. Rather, they help to establish the structures, conditions, and attitudes through which things get done. And that requires a collaborative mind-set" (Mintzberg & Gosling, p.60). There is comparison of self based Heroic management and management based on Collaboration called engaging management. Heroic managers drive results by producing actions, while collaborative management produces results by developing , directing and leading others to do produce the results. Managers who make all the grand gestures and big moves usually have people behind them implementing plans and holding up the basic infrastructure. Heroic managers will present themselves as the major component in a successful plan and usually reward goes to only them (Mintzberg & Gosling, p.60).

Being of a worldly mind-set also lends itself to foster collaboration among others. Having a worldly mind-set means that one can see themselves and the organization from a distance and puts the reflective one into context (Mintzberg & Gosling, 2003).

The key to effective management is learning to use all the mind-sets together and learning how to harness your personal management style.

The 'human factor' presents itself again in the competing values module or type of organizing called human relations model which has an internal focus and emphasizes flexibility. It is in extreme contrast to rational goal model. Rational goal model is more structured and focuses on the external.

Values present themselves in organizations these values manifest themselves in organizational culture. Robert Quinn discusses organizational effectiveness criteria in a competing values framework. The framework of competing values has four quadrants. The vertical axes display dimensions ranging from chaos to rigidity. On the horizontal axes, the dimensions range from apathy to hostility (Quinn, 1988).

The quadrant with high apathy and high chaos is called the irresponsible country club. In this quadrant the focus is on human relations to the result of extreme dysfunction. Too much focus on participation, permissiveness and commitment causes laxity in performing tasks. Innovation, adaptation and responsiveness fall to the wayside (Quinn, 1988).

The upper right quadrant represents tumultuous anarchy. This quadrant is characterized by over responsiveness to the point of ignoring the actual control over workflow. Opportunity is sought in acquisitions for competitive advantage with no support for the actual advantage the acquisition would have to the organization. This quadrant also emphasizes innovation resulting in premature reactions (Quinn, 1988).

The lower right quadrant called the oppressive sweatshop is characterized by a emphasis on productivity and profit to the exhaustion of human efforts. The lower left quadrant is the frozen bureaucracy which places an emphasis on internal processes such as documentation and reporting measurements to the detriment of the company's progress. The organization then becomes stuck behind red tape and is never able to adapt, innovate and stay ahead of the competition. This quadrant is an extreme example of how failing to create, improve, and question process negatively impacts the organization's development. As a whole, the quadrants represent overlapping sets of values that determine effectiveness (Quinn, 1988). It's the organization's responsibility to balance these values.

Managers should not focus on just one set of criteria. That would result in an inverse reaction where strengths become weaknesses. To avoid this, companies need to rely heavily on reflection and analysis. Robert Quinn states that one cannot rely on previous notions of change and action. "Theory X is not inherently better than theory Y. Change is not inherently better than the status quo. Productivity is not inherently better than cohesion and morale." (Quinn, 1988, p.87) Managers need to take what they learn and mold it to their own personality. A method that works for one person will not necessarily work for the other.
References

Mintzberg, H., & Gosling, J. (2003). The five minds of a manager. Harvard Business Review, 81(11), 54-64.

Quinn, R.E (1988). Mastering Competing Values. In Osland, J.S., Kolb, D.A., & Rubin, I.M.

(2006). The organizational behavior reader (8th ed.)(pp.64-77). Prentice Hall.

The definition of Management retrieved from the business dictionary at:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/management.html\